It’s so weird. Presumably the conservatives still want the US to be a superpower, which presumably includes high-tech capabilities like global power projection, missile defense, and persistent space operations. At the same time they seemingly want a Cultural Revolution-like decimation of intellectuals.
I don’t see how they believe they can attain both objectives at once.
You specifically have the much harder problem of explaining how you intend to maintain tech dominance with a Cultural Revolution and also without any foreigners or any of the many various groups of citizens you find personally undesirable.
Yes, you will get people who will 'qualify' for those visas, but the bar will and already is getting steadily lower.
Long-term, I suspect skilled immigration will trend down. But for positive reasons: as India and China develop, more people will make the choice to stay home rather than come to America. Same reason we see little emigration from Korea and Japan anymore. It’s a good change, just like it was a good change when our post-WWII edge was reduced after Europe rebuilt. But the attraction of American capital likely still will bring the superstars here.
I used to think that too, but it seems evident the current crop of conservatives is only interested in hurting people they don’t like and funneling money into the pockets of oligarchs. It’s pretty evident now that none of this is being done out of patriotism or a genuine desire to improve America.
> genuine desire to improve America
We think these are related, just like you do. The difference is that you assume that hurting billionaires will improve America while we assume that hurting NGOs and postmodernist academics will do so.
And that difference results from the fact that you think you can construct a new society without billionaires and industrialists that nonetheless offers the prosperity we have today, and more. By contrast, we think the way to get more prosperity is to do more of the things that made America prosperous in the past.
Oh, we're all well aware that you think hurting people is the only way to improve the country.
> The difference is that you assume that hurting billionaires will improve America while we assume that hurting NGOs and postmodernist academics will do so.
Don't you know that lying is a sin? You can't even define "postmodernist". No. I've heard this screeching noise you're making many times but it always boils down to the same truth: you don't believe in hurting "postmodernist academics", you believe in hurting people who aren't straight, white, christians.
Like not wage foreign wars?
So, like...Thomas Massie and Rand Paul?
There were only four republicans in the House and four in the Senate to vote to limit war powers, and I don't think you could claim Murkowski or Collins are isolationists.
Or did you mean this subset was "very unhappy" in like a completely impotent and meaningless way, but they'll have been 100% against it six months or 2.5 or 4.5 years from now?
That’s how I understood it, yes. So unhappy that they’ll write him in for a third term.
Why would you presume that? Isn't enough that they get rich and powerful as compared to others around them?