I don't recall mentioning Cameron or comparing him to Bernie Sanders. You must start drinking early in the morning.

In which Raphael Edward Cruz doubles down

https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-an...ld-step-aside/

Standing on repealing Obamacare? I think I can list at least 6 million people who right now will vote against you.

It's good to see a couple of new faces in this discussion. Maybe we can have a meaningful dialogue now. Oakvillian raises an intriguing thought (if one ignores the libel contained in the final sentence, which chills an otherwise interesting discussion. Consider it ignored).

If one considers the human material currently migrating unchecked across our southern borders, what policy positions should the Republican Party formulate that would address the fact that the new arrivals consist largely of young, unskilled and poorly educated people into a country that already has 50% unemployment amongst its own young, unskilled and poorly educated people; and in a country that in the 21st century does not need vast new numbers of unskilled people?

Secondly, what policies could it formulate that would not lower the standard of living of the middle class in this country and would avoid an authoritarian socialist solution? Keep in mind that the Republican Party is essentially grounded on a mixed capitalist economic model as suggested by Hayek.

How could it do that and distinguish itself from our current centre-left Democratic Party?

Does America have the same sovereign right to control its immigration as is claimed by every other country in the world, except members of the EU, who have loaned that right to Brussels - for now, anyway.

If it does, is it hawkish, zenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant and just plain evil to limit immigration... as does Canada, Australia, Japan, Mexico and virtually every other country...to those who can contribute to the economy and won't disrupt or unalterably change the existing culture in ways that the people of that country don't support? Example: if immigrants want to move here, impose their way of life and install Sharia Law as the new law of the land, must Americans (or Brits) embrace the death of their own culture to accommodate those immigrants? If so, why?????

He really wants to win...his next job as a talk show host on FOX News.

Well, now Bernie's in the game. I mentioned both him and our current PM. Is he to the left or right of Cameron in your opinion? And where does Hillary sit on that political spectrum? Again, in your opinion that I do value highly and find instructive. Is she moving, maybe ever so slightly, to Cam's left...or not there yet?

BTW, I limit my drinking in the morning to black coffee and orange juice. You don't limit yours to bile, do you? A good cup of Ethiopian or Kenyan Reserve is much better. Even Colombian is pretty acceptable. Tea is too insipid for me.

Only if you put the milk in first

I've said it before, the UK spectrum and the US spectrum are not really the same. There is little to no benefit to trying to shoehorn a comparison. In fact I would go as far as saying trying to put any politician on a spectrum is as pointless as looking at the letter after their name to decide how to vote.

Guatemalan is the best.

If you can't attribute your inability to form a good argument to booze, then you have bigger problems than I had thought.

It makes no difference how Bernie Sanders aligns with David Cameron. I'm not indulging your lame line of argument.

Bernie Sanders is one of two senators who is representing a small state with about 600,000 people in a country with about 310 million. He is one of the only independents in US national politics, and his odds of being president in 2016 aren't much better than yours.

Your fixation on Sanders only supports my position that there is no bona fide left wing in the US. The Democrats are a coalition of the center, center-left and "blue dog" conservatives, not a left wing party.

If you want to have a serious discussion, then you need to improve your game. Demonstrating a grasp of basic facts and avoiding the hyperbole that plays to know-nothings on the right would be a good start.

Excellent choice.

Do you contend that the Republican base is none of those things? A claim cannot be libellous if it is demonstrably true; it would not be hard to show that the archetype of a Republican voter is considerably more anti-immigrant, significantly more hawkish in attitudes towards foreign policy and foreigners in general, than the average; and it would be fairly trivial to point to not-very-thinly-veiled racism in the attitudes of large numbers of GOP supporters towards black and Hispanic people. Which is not to say that all Republicans share all those values, of course. But there's a reason that to an outsider like me the stereotypical Republican is white, middle aged, and anti-intellectual.

"Human material" - really? Couldn't you find a more dismissive term to use?

There's no denying that the US has significant labour problems. Sure, youth unemployment is disastrously high among some demographics (young, poor, black men, principally). Perhaps if the GOP were to come up with some ideas to help those folks (like, oh I dunno, affordable healthcare? Properly managed and funded public education? A social welfare system that does not perpetuate poverty? But no, those are all "socialist" ideals...) then these lost-cause elements of society could actually contribute to a growing economy, and provide further incentive for people to aspire to improve their lot.
authoritarian socialist solution? It's a bit limiting to restrict anything outside the narrow ideology of libertarian free-market capitalism in that way, isn't it? Most of western Europe seems to manage quite nicely with centre-left governments that don't descend into one-party Maoist or Stalinist messes. Perhaps you've found your own answer. For heaven's sake, even good old Reaganomics operated a supply-side ideal that manages to be more socially responsible than a lot of the drivel on the economic platforms I've bothered to look at this time around. It's not, really not, rocket science.
er... by occupying the centre-right, rather than the hard right imposed on the moderate wing by hardliners of the religious fundamentalist and Tea Party persuasion?
Yes, yes it does. But it's not exactly doing a very good job of that right now, is it? Marginally better than the mess in Europe, but that's really not a very high bar.
Oh, come on, that's pretty poor. So in your view the options on immigration are either (a) shutter the borders, allow no route to legitimacy for those already in the country and contributing to the economy, disenfranchise the poor and insignificant, or (b) go directly to Sharia, do not pass go, do not collect $200?

Once again, as so often in this and recent previous US political "debate," the false dichotomy is present and correct and skewing the picture for rational discourse. How about adopting sensible border controls, closing loopholes in immigration systems, providing a path to legitimacy for illegals currently in the country and working, and - shock, horror - paying for some of that by imposing a fairer tax burden on the super-rich.

As I said earlier, I don't have a dog in this fight, being a Brit resident in Canada. But I'm genuinely shocked at the schoolyard level of discourse across the board in US politics. For sure, the pre-Primary season for the non-incumbent party is always a bit of a bloodbath, but the current crop of Republican candidates seems to be in large part a grab for the lowest common denominator. There are a couple of relatively sensible options, but they have to pander to the fundies so much in the primary that they either have to be extraordinarily capable of an about-face between then and the general election in order to appeal to the swing voters, or they won't ever get to head the ticket in the first place.

Chris Christie to announce his presidential bid today.

Finally the Republicans have a heavyweight candidate.

Right, gastric bypass surgery appears to have been a failure.

1. Libel: No, I don't contend that there aren't people, just as you have described them within the base of the Republican Party. To be fair, millions of union members make up a significant proportion of the base of the Democratic Party and you will find just as high a proportion, and perhaps significantly higher, who check off all the same boxes. As an expert on US politics, do you deny that a significant proportion of the base of the Democratic Party is just as racist, zenophobic, etc. etc. as in the R-Party? We're talking about human nature, after all.

2. "Human material" is a clinical term. "Flotsom" is dismissive. I'll FIFY and refer to the people coming unchecked across our southern border as "people" to move the discussion. 3. Solutions.

(a) This just in, according to the Supreme Court we already have an "Affordable Health Care" system, so that's one box checked. The GOP doesn't need to do anything to satisfy that issue.

(b) Education: we already spend more money per pupil than most or all the other countries in the world for K-12 for damn little return, so well-funded, poorly managed. That's a work in progress and something that both D and R Presidents have tried to fix, with no solution in sight.

(c) Welfare without perpetuating poverty - unfortunately, the welfare rules destroy the family, which perpetuates the poverty. Last attempt to fix that was during Clinton's presidency, and it has failed miserably. Any further attempts to fix it runs immediately into the welfare rights organizations who charge anyone suggesting such a fix as "racist." Can't go there, wouldn't be prudent.