The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[BugI02]

Yeah. There's quite a bit of evidence that Trump does believe in many of the things he wants to do. As I said, it's not because he's a conservative. But I do think his heart is in it with the border issue. Also with trade. He's been preaching all that stuff for years before he decided to actually run.

And actually, I think the only logical argument against the wall IS the cost issue. I agree that the politicians who were once on record approving border barriers who now are using the cost issue, are probably just being political. They don't want Trump to have a victory.

But about the cost, it's expensive beyond the proof that it will be worth the money. It seems to come down exactly across political lines which side you're on there. Which makes it largely deterministic. I don't know if it would be worth the cost. I suspect it could be. There's a fair argument either way, but since the current opinions appear to be deterministic, I can't say I trust either.

Oh, please. If we're allowed to fail to allocate funding for anything that government wants to do for which there's no proof it will be worth the money, I can balance the budget in a year

And I'm waiting for the long list of modern examples where walls have not performed as advertised

 

[jamil]

This is the familiar mind-reader problem. I can't unequivocally refute your opinion because I can't know Trump's true feelings on this (or any other issue) without being a mind reader. Neither can you. I can respond with a counter-opinion of "Taint so" if you wish

You will note that I have given just as much evidence to support my opinion as you have yours, that to me the facts of the matter appear to lead to a certain conclusion that is at variance with yours

As for your assertion that the political value of the contribution that Trump makes outweighs its monetary value to him because he's rich, I simply point out that Pelosi - also rich - must not need any good publicity or she would do the same. i would expect you to spot the obvious fallacy, to whit that Pelosi actually needs all the good publicity she can get, and thus perhaps question your assumptions in forming your opinion about Trump's motive

A guy can hope, you know

I don't have to be a mindreader to say I'm unimpressed with a rich guy donating a pittance to charity out loud. Regardless of the motivation, it's good that he's doing it. But it's also apparent that he gets far more than the value of the money in positive publicity. That's objective my friend. I'm not trying to prove that I can read his mind. I'm presenting a counterpoint to the claim that he's all that charitable. Real charity from the heart is done in secrecy, and it usually hurts.

Pelosi isn't part of this conservation. What she does or doesn't do, how rich or poor, has no bearing on what Trump did or didn't do. They're two different people who valuate things differently. You can't logically say that because Trump may find value in signaling his charity, that Pelosi must do the same thing for it to be valid. That does not follow. For example, they're playing to different audiences with different values. Perhaps you didn't know this, but progressives aren't all that charitable. They do charity collectively with other pepoe's money. Here's one way of putting it. Pelosi would get far more virtue currency if she advocated to create government programs to replace the charitable programs Trump donates to. Donating money to charity is a tax loophole which prevents people from paying their fair share.

That you think it was a fallacy, I'll forgive the error.

 

[jamil]

Oh, please. If we're allowed to fail to allocate funding for anything that government wants to do for which there's no proof it will be worth the money, I can balance the budget in a year

And I'm waiting for the long list of modern examples where walls have not performed as advertised

I think walls could be effective. I don't know that they would be enough to offset the cost of the wall. I dont' have the dollars and sense. And if you don't, then it seems like your advocacy is based more on belief than something tangible.

So what's the value of a wall? What's the ROI? I can be convinced.

 

[nonobaddog]

Trump isn't a conservative. He's keeping campaign promises, which is good. And refreshing that a candidate actually appears to think about the promises he made. But, he made the promise because he's playing to conservatives. If he'd have run as a democrat it's likely his list-o-judges would have come from a much different advocacy group.

So, all he does is keep promises. Kind of like Cris Carter - all he does is catch touchdowns.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think walls could be effective. I don't know that they would be enough to offset the cost of the wall. I dont' have the dollars and sense. And if you don't, then it seems like your advocacy is based more on belief than something tangible.

So what's the value of a wall? What's the ROI? I can be convinced.

I've seen figures as high as 150B per year as far as the cost of illegal immigrants on the economy go (I don't have a link to back that up).
So let's assume it's half of that... 75B. Let's say the wall reduces that amount by 10% (conservatively). That's 7.5 billion in one year. Pretty good ROI in my opinion.

 

[BugI02]

I think walls could be effective. I don't know that they would be enough to offset the cost of the wall. I dont' have the dollars and sense. And if you don't, then it seems like your advocacy is based more on belief than something tangible.

So what's the value of a wall? What's the ROI? I can be convinced.

Back of the napkin calculation

FAIR estimate of annual cost of illegals within the US $116 billion

Estimates of illegals within the US 11 to 13 milliuon

USCBP apprehensions last year 361993

Exemplar of border wall effectiveness (El Paso, wall completed 2010) Pre-wall apprehensions 122261 apprehensions last year 25153

That works out to a range of $8923 to $10545 per illegal

Using the El Paso numbers, the wall could be expected to stop around 80% of illegal immigration, thus preventing 289594 illegal entries and saving between $2.58 billion and $3.05 billion per year, so ROI would be 1 yr 10 mo and 2 yrs to break even. That's quite attractive in my book

 

[nonobaddog]

Value of not having millions of illegal aliens voting in socialism - priceless.

 

[jamil]

So, all he does is keep promises. Kind of like Cris Carter - all he does is catch touchdowns.

He seems to try. As I said, he gets some credit for that. It's a good characteristic to say what you're going to do, then do it. But that is a matter of a character element and not an indicator of conservative or liberal.

 

[mmpsteve]

He seems to try. As I said, he gets some credit for that. It's a good characteristic to say what you're going to do, then do it. But that is a matter of a character element and not an indicator of conservative or liberal.

If you say you're going to do conservative things, and then you do conservative things, it might be an indication beyond just a character element. I agree he's not a classical conservative, but he seems to want to MAGA

And I'm good with that, as opposed to the alternatives we had, and are facing in the future.

 

[jamil]

I've seen figures as high as 150B per year as far as the cost of illegal immigrants on the economy go (I don't have a link to back that up).
So let's assume it's half of that... 75B. Let's say the wall reduces that amount by 10% (conservatively). That's 7.5 billion in one year. Pretty good ROI in my opinion.

Well, if those are solid numbers, then fine. But solid numbers aren't guesses conservative or not. This is the real conversation that should be happening in the public discourse. I'd like to see the best of both arguments for and against, financially, practically, even morally. But the public conversation we're having is mostly making straw men of the other side...well, admittedly the stated position of the bat-**** crazy far left progressives is for open borders, so that's nonsense from the start. But I'm talking about the reasonable people who disagree.

 

[jamil]

Back of the napkin calculation

FAIR estimate of annual cost of illegals within the US $116 billion

Estimates of illegals within the US 11 to 13 milliuon

USCBP apprehensions last year 361993

Exemplar of border wall effectiveness (El Paso, wall completed 2010) Pre-wall apprehensions 122261 apprehensions last year 25153

That works out to a range of $8923 to $10545 per illegal

Using the El Paso numbers, the wall could be expected to stop around 80% of illegal immigration, thus preventing 289594 illegal entries and saving between $2.58 billion and $3.05 billion per year, so ROI would be 1 yr 10 mo and 2 yrs to break even. That's quite attractive in my book

I'd be happy to change my position given real numbers on real paper derived from the best experts on both sides.

 

[jamil]

If you say you're going to do conservative things, and then you do conservative things, it might be an indication beyond just a character element. I agree he's not a classical conservative, but he seems to want to MAGA

And I'm good with that, as opposed to the alternatives we had, and are facing in the future.

He made promises to conservative people who make up the base of his support. It's not really any different from "conservative" congress critters who pay homage to the NRA because they need the rating to stave off competitors, but privately support gun laws.

 

[BugI02]

You can fact check all the numbers I used quite easily

"Best experts on both sides" certainly could wind up being subjective, though

Balls in your court, I answered your original quibble

 

[jamil]

You can fact check all the numbers I used quite easily

"Best experts on both sides" certainly could wind up being subjective, though

Balls in your court, I answered your original quibble

We're not playing a game. At least I'm not.

"Best experts" means the reasonable people on both sides who are in the know, making intellectually honest arguments.

 

[mmpsteve]

He made promises to conservative people who make up the base of his support. It's not really any different from "conservative" congress critters who pay homage to the NRA because they need the rating to stave off competitors, but privately support gun laws.

Perhaps you read my post too fast. I did say "and then you do conservative things". That's very different from congress critters paying homage, and then work against what they claimed to be for.

 

[jamil]

Perhaps you read my post too fast. I did say "and then you do conservative things". That's very different from congress critters paying homage, and then work against what they claimed to be for.

I didn't miss it. They still vote right for the most part. They have to maintain their A rating after all. It's called pandering to the base. And you're misunderstanding some things about the supposed "conservative" things. Most conservatives think that free and open trade is a good thing. Trump's trade policies aren't "conservative" per se. That's just one example. So on some things he panders, but you can tell what he's actually passionate about.

 

[actaeon277]

Pelosi's estimated net worth $58million to 72million when she assumed the speaker position again. Care to guess how much of her salary she is donating to charity?

She must not need any good publicity

Why would she need to have good publicity? She has the mainstream media in her pocket.

 

[actaeon277]

I also like how people in "public service" can make themselves millionaires... then complain about "income inequality".

 

[jamil]

I also like how people in "public service" can make themselves millionaires... then complain about "income inequality".

Well, her husband is kinda rich too, so...

Seriously though, their salaries aren't high enough to become all that rich from that. They're getting the dough from somewhere.

 

[BugI02]

We're not playing a game. At least I'm not.

"Best experts" means the reasonable people on both sides who are in the know, making intellectually honest arguments.

Dude, I don't know how to get there if we're not there. I used FAIR's (Federation for American Immigration Reform) estimate of the cost of illegals already in country. Their methodology looks sound, they use data from Pew but everybody on the left hates them and says their numbers are cooked ( but it couldn't be that those people have an interest in shading the numbers to look as minimal as possible, eh?)

I used a range for the numbers of illegals that encompassed several source's estimates, but none from what I would consider left wing orgs

I used USCBP's (US Customs and Border Patrol) numbers on action at the border

And I used USCBP numbers combined with El Paso PD numbers for changes in border jumping wrought by El Paso's wall (Crime reported down 39% after the wall up in ELP, by the way)

I really don't know who you think are the reasonable people on both sides and I'm not even sure if there are reasonable people left on the left. I prefer people who keep and/or use actual hard data, although some things have to be estimated or extrapolated. And don't be pedantic about games. "The ball is in your court" is a common turn of phrase meaning it's your turn to respond/reply - it obviously doesn't mean we're playing a game involving a ball because we are not even in the same state

If you need time to try to find some way out of the corner you painted yourself into, just take it - 'cause it sure seems like you are playing games or playing for time