I'm not sure if I can support your call to import a new electorate from Cuba and Vietnam. While importing an electorate they know will vote for them is obviously Democrat strategy, I feel that doing the same isn't simply giving Democrats their just deserts. This sort of voter importation should be seen as a deep political sin in and of itself, and shouldn't be engaged in even when it's to our side's advantage, because of how deeply it undermines the principles of representativeness that the electoral process is meant to reflect.
Making E-Verify mandatory for all employers would help eliminate the economic attraction for immigrants. And the ones who stay would set up their own businesses to avoid that rule.
Returning consumer protection and labor & employment laws to the states should make your list.
Florida should have 32 electoral votes rather than 30 and Texas should have 41 votes rather than 40. Montana, Rhode Island and Colorado should each lose one electoral vote.
This is critically important because if the electoral votes are corrected it gives Republicans a way to win the presidency even if they lose all 3 of the former Blue Wall states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. If Republicans keep red states and also win Arizona and Nevada, that would put them right at 270 electoral votes. With the current non-corrected electoral vote map, winning Arizona and Nevada and no other swing states (I'm assuming Georgia and North Carolina stay red) would put Republicans at 268, an electoral college loss.
That is the weakest sounding foreign policy I have ever read. "Anti-Qatar"? Yeah, that will solve everything. Replace China was Cuba? I guess Turkey is the standing for Russia. LOL
It's a bit naive to imagine national security concerns do not exist and that hawk energy should be "redirected" to weird Cuban liberation projects. Here's a rational MAGA view.
Other than immigration, national security concerns do not exist. What's naive is believing Raytheon when it says that foreign militaries are about to invade America so we have to buy their products.
That sounds like an emotive and hyper-ideological reply, not an analysis. 1) No great power in history was ever free of national security concerns, it just doesn’t work like that; 2) Just like in algebra, put your solution in the equation to see if you are correct - let’s say America closes all foreign bases, stops all foreign support, and neglects its foreign allies. What might happen? Play it out - The ME will become dominated by Iran, which means that global energy will be completely controlled by America’s rivals. Is that good for America? We may not suffer here because we have enough energy, but Europe, Japan, Korea, and other allied counties will suffer. You may ask, “who cares?” But if our allies in Asia become dominated by China, then China controls all of East Asia’s trade. Once again you may ask, “who cares? we can make everything here!” but we will be much poorer and our rivals much richer. And then we have things we need from elsewhere - rare earths and such (do you want to go to space?), but you’re neglecting allies in Africa and Europe, so now China/Russia dominate the rare earth market.
Sadly, there is no path to Switzerland for a great power. And if you simply neglect America’s interests abroad you’ll end up poor, unsafe, unable to go to space, unable to access resources for advanced technologies, and ultimately unable to control your borders. I recommend realism.
It sounds like your definition of "emotive" and "ideological" is just anything that you disagree with. You're also wrong about basic facts. America and Canada alone produce more than one quarter of the world's oil, so no, the global energy supply would not be "completely dominated" by Iran even in the highly unlikely event that Iran somehow took over Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait.
I’m not exactly sure where to start. It’s as if you assume a utopia by which history has stopped and there are no power rivalries, empire-building, or will to power. If you Google “who consumes oil and gas from the middle east you will discover many countries that assist the US to prevent China from dominating East Asia (not to mentioned Europe having an alternative to Russian oil and gas). If America pulls out of the ME and stops supporting its sentinels there (Israel and KSA the only capable military powers), Iran will control the ME. That’s not good for America. Now, that doesn’t mean America needs to conquer the middle east of have 500 bases at random spots, but it does mean that utopian isolationism is unrealistic.
Same with trade - absolute free trade is utopian but so is absolute autarky. Sadly, Prudence and Moderation are necessary virtues, much more than “Muh! But Vivek sad on a tweet that we don’t need Taiwan!”
"Due to the ongoing colonization of America by nonwhite immigrants, the GOP will eventually become uncompetitive at the national level. Trump’s 45% vote share among Hispanics is impressive, but a 45 - 55 is a big loss. If the electorate were majority nonwhite, Trump would have lost."
It was actually 42%, and you don't see the GOP being able to continue building up on Hispanic support in the future?
There's no reason to suppose the Hispanic support will grow substantially. Bush won 40% of Hispanics in 2004. The 2024 results aren't really much of an aberration, they just indicate that it was a favorable environment for Republicans because of the bad economy.
Actually, I guess that's not quite right. I think nonwhite support for Republicans may grow (and I hope it does) but I don't think it will outweigh the demographic trend toward greater power for the Democrats.
If I had to guess, the gop “average” with Hispanics probably move from 30% to 35% or something like that. It will go up and down from there as an anchor.
The more encouraging sign is that Texas and Florida Hispanics are assimilating closer to the norms of those states. This delays the dreaded flipping of Texas blue for some time.
We’ll see how Hispanics will react to Trump’s proposed and likely planned mass deportations. If he will also try deporting the Dreamers en masse, then his support among Hispanics is likely to fall, possibly quite significantly.
The worst thing Trump could do is leave people unsure of their status. As long as you draw a bright line between “my good Hispanic fellow citizens” and “those foreigners” then they will turn in their co-ethnics.
For instance, Trump could draw a very firm line based on 2020. “Everyone that came after 2020 is obviously a foreign invader, but if you’ve been here longer it’s cool.” Combine this with tough enforcement against the employment of illegals and between direct deportation and self deportation you will cut the numbers greatly while not making some Hispanic citizen who’s been here twenty years think he’s next.
The trickiest thing will be birthright citizenship, but you gotta do what you gotta do and the USA is a real outlier on that front.
> The worst thing Trump could do is leave people unsure of their status. As long as you draw a bright line between “my good Hispanic fellow citizens” and “those foreigners” then they will turn in their co-ethnics.
There are plenty of mixed-status families in the US.
> For instance, Trump could draw a very firm line based on 2020. “Everyone that came after 2020 is obviously a foreign invader, but if you’ve been here longer it’s cool.”
That would mean that the people who came during Trump's first term, after he massively complained about illegal immigration during his 2016 campaign, are cool.
> Combine this with tough enforcement against the employment of illegals and between direct deportation and self deportation you will cut the numbers greatly while not making some Hispanic citizen who’s been here twenty years think he’s next.
In his first term, Trump also did try to pursue some denaturalizations:
> The trickiest thing will be birthright citizenship, but you gotta do what you gotta do and the USA is a real outlier on that front.
The smart move would be to offer a mass amnesty for everyone here without serious criminal records (cartoon/animated child porn and child sex dolls/robots shouldn't count for this in an ideal world, being victimless crimes) in exchange for a repeal of birthright citizenship via constitutional amendment. This can also be combined with astronomically tougher border security measures and a repeal of the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency and its replacement with a 35-year US citizenship requirement for everyone, both natural-born and naturalized. It would be an extra bonus because it would allow Trump to portray himself and his supporters as not bigoted against immigrants, either legal or illegal.
1) there are too many here already. Mere aging up and naturalization of the existing population is too much. We need some deportations, especially of the most recent arrivals. The past four years have been particularly bad.
2) without deportation, I don’t think enforcement of the border is possible. You can’t really keep people out. You can just make it more difficult. If you believe that, once you overcome that difficulty, your set and can’t be removed, then people will find ways around.
Enforcement at the border must include the credible threat that you will later be deported even if you get through.
Yeah, fair enough, I guess, though deportation becomes very politically difficult (though perhaps not insurmountable—we’ll see) once one has US-born children. And the Left would be extraordinarily hesitant to ever scrap birthright citizenship without huge concessions to them.
That “school choice” bill is confusing as heck to me.
Just give anyone not enrolled in a public school $5,000 a kid per year from the feds.
Yes. It’s not a full solution but it’s better than anything else the government could spend its money on.
I love your "eternal Kindergarten" line.
I write about a National Divorce all the time.
I'm not sure if I can support your call to import a new electorate from Cuba and Vietnam. While importing an electorate they know will vote for them is obviously Democrat strategy, I feel that doing the same isn't simply giving Democrats their just deserts. This sort of voter importation should be seen as a deep political sin in and of itself, and shouldn't be engaged in even when it's to our side's advantage, because of how deeply it undermines the principles of representativeness that the electoral process is meant to reflect.
It’s certainly not ideal. More of a stop gap measure to secure Republican power long enough to achieve a better long term solution.
Making E-Verify mandatory for all employers would help eliminate the economic attraction for immigrants. And the ones who stay would set up their own businesses to avoid that rule.
Returning consumer protection and labor & employment laws to the states should make your list.
Here's the source for the Census miscalculation. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/census-errors-will-distort-elections-funding-next-decade
Florida should have 32 electoral votes rather than 30 and Texas should have 41 votes rather than 40. Montana, Rhode Island and Colorado should each lose one electoral vote.
This is critically important because if the electoral votes are corrected it gives Republicans a way to win the presidency even if they lose all 3 of the former Blue Wall states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. If Republicans keep red states and also win Arizona and Nevada, that would put them right at 270 electoral votes. With the current non-corrected electoral vote map, winning Arizona and Nevada and no other swing states (I'm assuming Georgia and North Carolina stay red) would put Republicans at 268, an electoral college loss.
National Divorce is a RETARDED idea!
That is the weakest sounding foreign policy I have ever read. "Anti-Qatar"? Yeah, that will solve everything. Replace China was Cuba? I guess Turkey is the standing for Russia. LOL
If by weak you mean not likely to start WW3, then yes, that's the point.
It's a bit naive to imagine national security concerns do not exist and that hawk energy should be "redirected" to weird Cuban liberation projects. Here's a rational MAGA view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpCsWLuzuUc&t=7s
Other than immigration, national security concerns do not exist. What's naive is believing Raytheon when it says that foreign militaries are about to invade America so we have to buy their products.
That sounds like an emotive and hyper-ideological reply, not an analysis. 1) No great power in history was ever free of national security concerns, it just doesn’t work like that; 2) Just like in algebra, put your solution in the equation to see if you are correct - let’s say America closes all foreign bases, stops all foreign support, and neglects its foreign allies. What might happen? Play it out - The ME will become dominated by Iran, which means that global energy will be completely controlled by America’s rivals. Is that good for America? We may not suffer here because we have enough energy, but Europe, Japan, Korea, and other allied counties will suffer. You may ask, “who cares?” But if our allies in Asia become dominated by China, then China controls all of East Asia’s trade. Once again you may ask, “who cares? we can make everything here!” but we will be much poorer and our rivals much richer. And then we have things we need from elsewhere - rare earths and such (do you want to go to space?), but you’re neglecting allies in Africa and Europe, so now China/Russia dominate the rare earth market.
Sadly, there is no path to Switzerland for a great power. And if you simply neglect America’s interests abroad you’ll end up poor, unsafe, unable to go to space, unable to access resources for advanced technologies, and ultimately unable to control your borders. I recommend realism.
It sounds like your definition of "emotive" and "ideological" is just anything that you disagree with. You're also wrong about basic facts. America and Canada alone produce more than one quarter of the world's oil, so no, the global energy supply would not be "completely dominated" by Iran even in the highly unlikely event that Iran somehow took over Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait.
I’m not exactly sure where to start. It’s as if you assume a utopia by which history has stopped and there are no power rivalries, empire-building, or will to power. If you Google “who consumes oil and gas from the middle east you will discover many countries that assist the US to prevent China from dominating East Asia (not to mentioned Europe having an alternative to Russian oil and gas). If America pulls out of the ME and stops supporting its sentinels there (Israel and KSA the only capable military powers), Iran will control the ME. That’s not good for America. Now, that doesn’t mean America needs to conquer the middle east of have 500 bases at random spots, but it does mean that utopian isolationism is unrealistic.
Same with trade - absolute free trade is utopian but so is absolute autarky. Sadly, Prudence and Moderation are necessary virtues, much more than “Muh! But Vivek sad on a tweet that we don’t need Taiwan!”
National divorce is unworkable as can be seen by looking at a map and trying to actually draw a border.
I agree with most of your other proposals.
When it comes to foreign policy. I believe we should reaffirm the Monroe Doctrine for Latin America and add the Pacific to that as well.
"Due to the ongoing colonization of America by nonwhite immigrants, the GOP will eventually become uncompetitive at the national level. Trump’s 45% vote share among Hispanics is impressive, but a 45 - 55 is a big loss. If the electorate were majority nonwhite, Trump would have lost."
It was actually 42%, and you don't see the GOP being able to continue building up on Hispanic support in the future?
There's no reason to suppose the Hispanic support will grow substantially. Bush won 40% of Hispanics in 2004. The 2024 results aren't really much of an aberration, they just indicate that it was a favorable environment for Republicans because of the bad economy.
We shall see in the future, I guess?
Actually, I guess that's not quite right. I think nonwhite support for Republicans may grow (and I hope it does) but I don't think it will outweigh the demographic trend toward greater power for the Democrats.
Why would Democrats get more power if non-white support for the GOP will grow?
Because the non white share of the population is growing.
Yes, but what if they will become more and more Republican?
If I had to guess, the gop “average” with Hispanics probably move from 30% to 35% or something like that. It will go up and down from there as an anchor.
The more encouraging sign is that Texas and Florida Hispanics are assimilating closer to the norms of those states. This delays the dreaded flipping of Texas blue for some time.
We’ll see how Hispanics will react to Trump’s proposed and likely planned mass deportations. If he will also try deporting the Dreamers en masse, then his support among Hispanics is likely to fall, possibly quite significantly.
The worst thing Trump could do is leave people unsure of their status. As long as you draw a bright line between “my good Hispanic fellow citizens” and “those foreigners” then they will turn in their co-ethnics.
For instance, Trump could draw a very firm line based on 2020. “Everyone that came after 2020 is obviously a foreign invader, but if you’ve been here longer it’s cool.” Combine this with tough enforcement against the employment of illegals and between direct deportation and self deportation you will cut the numbers greatly while not making some Hispanic citizen who’s been here twenty years think he’s next.
The trickiest thing will be birthright citizenship, but you gotta do what you gotta do and the USA is a real outlier on that front.
> The worst thing Trump could do is leave people unsure of their status. As long as you draw a bright line between “my good Hispanic fellow citizens” and “those foreigners” then they will turn in their co-ethnics.
There are plenty of mixed-status families in the US.
> For instance, Trump could draw a very firm line based on 2020. “Everyone that came after 2020 is obviously a foreign invader, but if you’ve been here longer it’s cool.”
That would mean that the people who came during Trump's first term, after he massively complained about illegal immigration during his 2016 campaign, are cool.
> Combine this with tough enforcement against the employment of illegals and between direct deportation and self deportation you will cut the numbers greatly while not making some Hispanic citizen who’s been here twenty years think he’s next.
In his first term, Trump also did try to pursue some denaturalizations:
https://immpolicytracking.org/media/documents/ACLU_Fact_Sheet_on_Denaturalization.pdf
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/trump-administration-seeks-to-strip-more-people-of-citizenship/
Apparently they might continue this in a second Trump term:
https://theimmigrationhub.org/press/gop-plans-to-turbocharge-trumps-denaturalization-project-threaten-the-nations-core-values/
> The trickiest thing will be birthright citizenship, but you gotta do what you gotta do and the USA is a real outlier on that front.
The smart move would be to offer a mass amnesty for everyone here without serious criminal records (cartoon/animated child porn and child sex dolls/robots shouldn't count for this in an ideal world, being victimless crimes) in exchange for a repeal of birthright citizenship via constitutional amendment. This can also be combined with astronomically tougher border security measures and a repeal of the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency and its replacement with a 35-year US citizenship requirement for everyone, both natural-born and naturalized. It would be an extra bonus because it would allow Trump to portray himself and his supporters as not bigoted against immigrants, either legal or illegal.
1) there are too many here already. Mere aging up and naturalization of the existing population is too much. We need some deportations, especially of the most recent arrivals. The past four years have been particularly bad.
2) without deportation, I don’t think enforcement of the border is possible. You can’t really keep people out. You can just make it more difficult. If you believe that, once you overcome that difficulty, your set and can’t be removed, then people will find ways around.
Enforcement at the border must include the credible threat that you will later be deported even if you get through.
Yeah, fair enough, I guess, though deportation becomes very politically difficult (though perhaps not insurmountable—we’ll see) once one has US-born children. And the Left would be extraordinarily hesitant to ever scrap birthright citizenship without huge concessions to them.