Who should be Trump's VP choice and why?

[hollodero]

(06-11-2024, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not sure of the number or if they claim illegally.  If they claimed legally under those circumstances then their application should be considered.

OK, so no total freeze, asylum claims still can take place. Just to be sure what exactly you suggest.

(06-11-2024, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't make the rules, that's what they are.  In order to claim asylum you must apply in the first safe country you reach.  You don't get to shop for the one you'd prefer, which would make you just a migrant.   As for Mexico taking them all, we could certainly assist, but it should be entirely voluntary.  Again, the rules are what they are.  If they aren't followed the application should be rejected.

Not sure I really follow, especially when it comes to the voluntary part. Yeah sure, voluntary, and who would force you anyway. And it's not just about the rules, it's also about treaties with other countries or what kind of neighbour you want to be. What if Germany just says well, we do not border Ukraine, Poland does and is a safe country, let them deal with all those refugees. Barring that we have treaties prohibiting that anyway, it would not be a move I would consider fair or justified. And that's not about asylum seekers picking and choosing (which btw. does not change their status to migrants in my opinion), let them throw a dice over it if that suits the country better. But turning totally isolationist, I can't really approve of that and that's not the US I consider a shining city on a hill really.

(06-11-2024, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Minimum wage would cover anyone working in this country.  Of course companies get away with paying illegal immigrants far less than that, but that's illegal and certainly shouldn't be a justification for immigration, e.g. cheap labor.

I'm certainly not an economist, but that kind of minimum wage and no immigrants working for less imho can't really be great for export and end consumer prices, so I have a hard time seeing this combination happening. But yeah, I know too little about the whole issue. It's a hypothetical anyway.

(06-11-2024, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump isn't even cognizant of it.

Yeah, he is, I found that article and seems he talks about it. Leading to me agreeing with Donald Trump. Please don't tell anyone.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2024, 06:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, so no total freeze, asylum claims still can take place. Just to be sure what exactly you suggest.

It'd be something in my back pocket, but I'd certainly prefer not to go that route.  I do think real reform is important enough to do so if needed.

Quote:Not sure I really follow, especially when it comes to the voluntary part. Yeah sure, voluntary, and who would force you anyway. And it's not just about the rules, it's also about treaties with other countries or what kind of neighbour you want to be. What if Germany just says well, we do not border Ukraine, Poland does and is a safe country, let them deal with all those refugees. Barring that we have treaties prohibiting that anyway, it would not be a move I would consider fair or justified. And that's not about asylum seekers picking and choosing (which btw. does not change their status to migrants in my opinion), let them throw a dice over it if that suits the country better. But turning totally isolationist, I can't really approve of that and that's not the US I consider a shining city on a hill really.

Seeking asylum is different from wanting to immigrate.  Now, if asylum seekers in Mexico want to apply to immigrate here than that's totally fine.  But they should not be able to use asylum claiming rules at the Mexican border with the US unless they are Mexican.  Ukraine is a rather different kettle of fish.  It's been invaded by an aggressive neighbor.  if the Eu agrees to distribute refugees from that conflict that's certainly their prerogative.

Quote:I'm certainly not an economist, but that kind of minimum wage and no immigrants working for less imho can't really be great for export and end consumer prices, so I have a hard time seeing this combination happening. But yeah, I know too little about the whole issue. It's a hypothetical anyway.

True.  I've just always had a difficult time with the argument that the economy can't function without workers willing to work of illegally low wages.

Quote:Yeah, he is, I found that article and seems he talks about it. Leading to me agreeing with Donald Trump. Please don't tell anyone.

Haha, no worries.  It probably happens more often than you'd think.  He has some decent ideas under the sophomoric insults and bluster.  Of course, he has some really bad ones as well.  I do think one positive of his winning in November, should that occur, will be an end to the war in Ukraine.  Which is hardly a bad thing.

[hollodero]

(06-11-2024, 07:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeking asylum is different from wanting to immigrate.  Now, if asylum seekers in Mexico want to apply to immigrate here than that's totally fine.  But they should not be able to use asylum claiming rules at the Mexican border with the US unless they are Mexican.  Ukraine is a rather different kettle of fish.  It's been invaded by an aggressive neighbor.  if the Eu agrees to distribute refugees from that conflict that's certainly their prerogative.

Oh I see, so asylum seekers can get asylum in Mexico and then apply for immigration to the US. Which of course will not happen if you freeze immigration, leaving Mexico with all the burden from every real and hypothetical refugee crisis arising in the south. Putting aside how that probably will increase migration pressure, it sounds a bit selfish to see it that way, and I feel the US should just - voluntarily - be better than claiming geography frees you from any obligation to be a refuge for fleeing people. That's why I brought up Germany, more in a theoretical sense of how a rich western country imho should not behave when aspiring to stay a humanitarian nation. That also would be my main reason to oppose the idea.

(06-11-2024, 07:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Haha, no worries.  It probably happens more often than you'd think.  He has some decent ideas under the sophomoric insults and bluster.  Of course, he has some really bad ones as well.

Sure, there were some decent thoughts, like he's not wrong on demanding NATO members spend more on defense, and some others every now and then. Also, he's not bloodthirsty, that is a genuine plus imho. Then again, as an overall package my opinion of him is still, to put it vaguely, a distinctly negative one for reasons debated ad nauseum.

(06-11-2024, 07:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do think one positive of his winning in November, should that occur, will be an end to the war in Ukraine.  Which is hardly a bad thing.

Yeah we probably won't see eye to eye on that one. An end to the war means Putin winning it, and that most certainly could be a very bad thing in my book.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2024, 08:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh I see, so asylum seekers can get asylum in Mexico and then apply for immigration to the US. Which of course will not happen if you freeze immigration, leaving Mexico with all the burden from every real and hypothetical refugee crisis arising in the south. Putting aside how that probably will increase migration pressure, it sounds a bit selfish to see it that way, and I feel the US should just - voluntarily - be better than claiming geography frees you from any obligation to be a refuge for fleeing people. That's why I brought up Germany, more in a theoretical sense of how a rich western country imho should not behave when aspiring to stay a humanitarian nation. That also would be my main reason to oppose the idea.

But you're ignoring that doing so would be a last resort to force much needed changes.  Changes that we both agree on.

Quote:Sure, there were some decent thoughts, like he's not wrong on demanding NATO members spend more on defense, and some others every now and then. Also, he's not bloodthirsty, that is a genuine plus imho. Then again, as an overall package my opinion of him is still, to put it vaguely, a distinctly negative one for reasons debated ad nauseum.

All true points.

Quote:Yeah we probably won't see eye to eye on that one. An end to the war means Putin winning it, and that most certainly could be a very bad thing in my book.

How does an end automatically equate to a Putin victory?  I'm not following you here at all.

[hollodero]

(06-12-2024, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But you're ignoring that doing so would be a last resort to force much needed changes.  Changes that we both agree on.

OK, fair enough. I will still hope it never ever comes to that. Besides other things, it might result in a humanitarian crisis.

(06-12-2024, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How does an end automatically equate to a Putin victory?  I'm not following you here at all.

Ah well, I might have made a leap here. I for one do not think Trump is savvy enough to reach a diplomatic solution that ends the war for good and leaves Ukraine's souvereignty intact. Maybe you do, or maybe you have another more positive plan for an end to this war. I thought the way Trump ends the war is simply by withdrawing US support for Ukraine, at which point said end means a loss for Ukraine. Europe could not compensate all US contributions and so the country would get overrun by Russian forces.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 01:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, fair enough. I will still hope it never ever comes to that. Besides other things, it might result in a humanitarian crisis.

I agree, but sometimes you have to be willing to hold people's feet to the fire.

Quote:Ah well, I might have made a leap here. I for one do not think Trump is savvy enough to reach a diplomatic solution that ends the war for good and leaves Ukraine's souvereignty intact. Maybe you do, or maybe you have another more positive plan for an end to this war. I thought the way Trump ends the war is simply by withdrawing US support for Ukraine, at which point said end means a loss for Ukraine. Europe could not compensate all US contributions and so the country would get overrun by Russian forces.

Got it.  I think it could literally be as simple as promising not to he Ukraine join NATO.  Withdrawal to pre-war borders and that's it.  I don't think any ending that involves Russia being punished or to lose face is possible without escalating the conflict.  

[hollodero]

(06-12-2024, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Got it.  I think it could literally be as simple as promising not to he Ukraine join NATO.  Withdrawal to pre-war borders and that's it.

Man, I so hope you're right, but I also am afraid you are not. I never thought that this war had much to do with fear of NATO or a possible NATO expansion in the first place really, and I don't think Putin is in any way inclined to just withdraw on the basis of such a promise. For starters, that's a tough sell for his own people at this point, who increasingly lose loved ones in this war too, not to mention economic loss. I sure can not look inside Putin's head, but imho, he thrives for a place in the history books by expanding the Russian empire and leading it to former glory, which just includes annexing Ukraine (and then some). I don't really think he is willing to settle for less.

(06-12-2024, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think any ending that involves Russia being punished or to lose face is possible without escalating the conflict.  

Maybe not. The only 'good' solution probably would have to include Putin's fall or Putin's death. Maybe the war at some point can not be upheld economically, this hurts Russia immensely after all. Maybe some oligarchs revolt when it's clear that this war is just much ongoing suffering without victory or reward. The worse solution is to at least make his ambitions in Ukraine increasingly difficult and unrewarding, which sure puts Ukrainian people in a bad spot, but at least somewhat confines the whole conflict.