Or put another way she'll raise it by ~10% from what it was originally for FY 2017.

While foreign aid doesn't always work as intended the crises in these central American countries are largely US created and the only real way to solve immigration issues in the long run is to help those countries. Spending 1.5 billion on aid will do far more long term than spending that same amount on enforcement locally.

Now you're just making things up to tally with right wing talking points. General health care is literally not mentioned anywhere in the entire post. The only time anything even marginally related is mentioned it is to do with care in detention facilities - surely you don't think detainees should be denied access to medical care...

The rest of your post I don't really agree with either but at least the other arguments are largely based in reality rather than a right-wing distortion of it.

You're accusing me of making things up by saying Warren would give undocumented immigrants free health care? That question was asked at the second debate, and literally every candidate raised their hand. Warren was in the first debate, but if you say you think she wouldn't raise her hand to it, you're lying. She says in her plan she'd establish free adult schools for illegals, and you don't think she'd give them health care? Since you're obviously a dishonest conversation partner, I'll ask you explicitly:

Do you believe Warren plans to grant health coverage to undocumented immigrants?

They already have free coverage, just show up in an emergency room basically. The debate question was dumb, too vague.

Cite

People migrate to the US for opportunities that do no exist in their home. Creating more opportunities in their home leads to less incentive to migrate. There is a catch to this though. You have to become a neocon to make it work. Simply spending money does not work, cause most of these places lack rule of law.

Foreign Aid somehow seems ripe for unintended consequences

Will Independent Candidate Tom Steyer Guarantee Trump's Re-Election?

I notice a new poll proclaiming "Good News" for Democrats as the top four Democratic candidates are all outpolling Trump by [at least] five percentage points. In normal circumstances, Democrats should be rejoicing. But then I see a Tom Steyer commercial where he's making a plea that might very well appeal to (mostly Democratic) voters.

There is ample evidence, (i.e. George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992), that 3rd party Presidential bids can upset the apple cart. Wallace got 13 percent of the vote in 1968 - which was enough to screw Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey out of the Presidency. (The general consensus among political scientists and pundits of the day was that - had Wallace not been in the race - Humphrey would probably have won.) We all know what happened in 1992 ... Ross Perot gave the Presidency to Bill Clinton.

In most "normal" Presidential contests the two major political parties don't have to worry about a third party challenger since: (A.) It costs a lot of money to get on the ballot in all 50 states, and (B.) Most 3rd party challengers don't have a lot of money so they're not a real threat. Mr. Steyer is different as he has a lot of money and he appears willing to spend it.

So far, I don't see any polling indicating how the race will shape up with Trump, Steyer (and whichever Democrat) vying for the prize. My suspicion is that in a three way race, Steyer will siphon off enough votes from the Democrats to guarantee Trump's re-election.
With Steyer in the race, 40 percent of the vote may be all Trump needs to get four more years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Who ? He doesn't matter, unlike Perot who had $ and personality, steyer has $ and an unlikable demeanor. It's likely Warren v Trump and it's too early to poll that accurately.

Steyer is competing for the Democratic nomination, not running as an independent candidate.

Good grief. I just checked Tom Steyer's Wikipedia page and you're right!

Steyer is doing a pretty good job of disguising the fact that he's running as a Democrat - either that or the MSM is doing a good job of ignoring him. I haven't paid that much attention, but in all of the recent Democratic polls I have seen, Steyer wasn't even listed so he must be polling at less than one percent. Plus, I didn't see him onstage at the Democratic debates in Miami a few weeks ago, so that's curious. (I may not have "seen" him as I didn't bother to watch the debates ...)

Maybe the MSM is ignoring Steyer out of fear that he may go ahead and run as a 3rd party candidate. I believe Howard Schultz, the Starbucks CEO, has also threatened to mount a 3rd party candidacy if the Democrats nominate a candidate that's too far to the left - a candidate like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

If there is a 3rd party candidate, (Schultz, Steyer, or whoever), that will have the effect of re-electing Trump.

campaign slogan should be "send him home", whoever the candidate is.

Here is a post laying out Elizabeth Warren's main policies and ideas about trade. Here are a few main features:

Here is a broad summary:
She distinguishes her view of trade from those who support free trade or Trump:
Warren believes that the current trade negotiation process is corrupt and undemocratic. Thus, she proposes opening it up by
-Requiring trade negotiators to publicly disclose drafts and provide the public with an opportunity to comment.
-Expanding labor, environmental, regional, and consumer representation in trade negotiations.

She also believes we should shift our focus in trade negotiations from lowering tariffs to requiring higher regulatory standards:
These preconditions include:
-labor rights
-human rights
-religious freedom
-compliance with Paris Agreement and other climate goals
-elimination of fossil fuel subsidies
-Ratify Convention on Combating Bribery
-compliance with tax treaties
-not be classified as meriting attention for currency practices

Finally, a few proposals to strengthen enforcement by getting rid of ISDS and more aggressively pursuing noncompliance.

I don't really have any evidence to support this belief (and haven't gone looking for any), but I've always thought the argument that trade (or economic interdependence more broadly) promotes diplomacy and reduces the likelihood of conflict pretty plausible. I realize to some extent the campaign rhetoric might be overblown but I feel like that might be a good reason to pursue trade agreements beyond narrow self-interest.

Seems like a pretty reasonable approach to reducing how much corporate interests control trade agreements.

My understanding is that the evidence here is mixed and provisional, but largely supports your claim.

Meh. Warren acknowledges that even the US doesn't meet all the criteria she would require as a precondition for a trade agreement. This is way too stringent imo and if followed would mean that the US likely wouldn't sign any significant new trade agreements under her presidency.

That's fair. I guess maybe I just mean that I think it would be alright to move the equilibrium a little bit more in that direction. The specific proposal might be too stringent, I don't know much about this at all.

If Original Position's synopsis is accurate, it shows how clueless Warren is on foreign policy, trade specifically. Religious freedom is a precondition for a trade agreement? So we're going to embargo Saudi Arabia and Indonesia and a dozen other Muslim countries? And depending on what her labor rights preconditions are, we'd embargo most of the world's population. It's this kind of Green New Deal–esque pipe dream stuff that makes her a joke. I'm not saying she can't win—Trump was an even bigger joke and he pulled it off—but so many of her hare-brained idealist policies would absolutely lay waste to this country.

With the prevalence of attitudes like that, survival of life as we know it is looking more and more like a pipe dream.

Some interesting stuff beyond the top-line numbers in this Pew Survey

dems bringing the country together one woke lie at a time





At least Warren is relateable and cool, you know the kind of lady you can have beer with in the kitchen and shoot the breeze

Confirmed pretty much in other polls I have seen. For instance Buttigieg polling at near 0% with Black voters and Biden getting strong support from Black voters.

Shocking that a Midwest mother isn't the epitome of hip and cool.

It's just a dumb criterion. She's a US Senator - I'd be honored to talk to her in my kitchen if she wanted, same as for any of the candidates. And she's running for President of US, not Friend of OrP, so it doesn't matter to me how relatable she is.

juan, you just need to stop taking Biden literally.


You need to find better criticisms or one of your fever nightmares might come true - a woman POTUS

juan valdes warren is unrelatable and uncool but she is the most popular politician you can find in battleground states.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...ng?format=750w

WHy are a lot of dems against having a public option fo rhealthcare?

think about it, what bernie and waren want will take 10-25 years to implement.

if you keep privates as is but provide a public option. that seems that over time the public option should only strengthen the longer we go.

what am I missing?

seems middle clas wins out because they can get theri own insurane. and peope making less than 20-30K can get in the public option