|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 09 2016 05:59 farvacola wrote:
Something something moving goalposts something something. GOP voters and Trump supporters are not the same thing in the non-Time op ed world.
So, here's the goal-post:
On April 09 2016 05:51 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 05:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Cruz lost NY when he did the whole New York values stunt during the debates. Not only did everyone know what it meant he tried to bury it by saying it meant something else. I know that was a gigantic gaffe, but for the US, I've become very suspicious of claims that event X influenced the race. 538 has been pretty ok at predicting the race based on demographics alone and those had Cruz at 6 delegates in NY which still looks likely. So a lot of these events, like birdie sanders as the best known one, just seem like justifications for people acting exactly as they would have otherwise. Edit: Yeah, as was said, anti-immigration policies to protect labour union workers.
And Sanders has a long history of this. Here's a Politico article about his record:
Running as a presidential hopeful in 2016, Bernie Sanders has touted his support for immigration reform and the need to find a solution to a problem that has long vexed Washington. But in 2007, Sanders was part of the charge from the left to kill an immigration overhaul bill. Story Continued Below Back then, the Vermont independent warned that the immigration bill — a product from then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — would drive down wages for lower-income workers, an argument that’s been used by hard-liner reform opponents. He paired with conservative Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a restrictive immigration amendment. And Sanders backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while voting to block the final measure in June 2007. Sanders’ history on immigration that year is complicated. But his overall record has come under renewed attention after criticism that the senator was being too quiet on the issue during his long-shot campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-and-immigration-its-complicated-119190#ixzz45Guc9zIh
Here's a Vox article where he opposes an open-borders policy:
Ezra Klein
You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...
Bernie Sanders
Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.
Ezra Klein
Really?
Bernie Sanders
Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...
Ezra Klein
But it would make ...
Bernie Sanders
Excuse me ...
Ezra Klein
It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?
Bernie Sanders
It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.
You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?
I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.
I'd say it's pretty straightforward to say that Sanders is anti-immigration when it comes to protecting US workers. And this is something that Trump and Sanders voters share. Sanders voted against the immigration bill in 2007 and he said to Vox that his against an open-borders policy. Does this mean he wants to build a wall like Trump? Of course not. But there's room for common ground which is what my original post was about: "Trump takes on a large part of the more liberal wing of the GOP, I can imagine Sanders getting their support. (Trump, ofc, will be gone by this time.) There are a number of topics they can claim as common ground...''
And as a side-note, you said that "GOP voters and Trump supporters are not the same thing in the non-Time op ed world" which is pretty silly considering that the only votes Trump has ever received are in the GOP primary... But just to rub it in, this is how NumbersUSA (the organization from the Time article) rates Trump on immigration: A-. I'd say that they are Trump supporters... Albeit they like Cruz too. Edit: and giving Sanders an F- didn't stop them from saying that there's room for working together, did it. What I posted was the relevant part.
So, I don't know what your problem is with me, Farvacola, this isn't the first random attack against my posts recently, but, please, keep it to the issues and keep it civil.
|
Just a reminder that this is what you said in the OP:
On November 21 2012 06:26 farvacola wrote:+ Show Spoiler + US Politics Mega Thread In keeping with the spirit of the now defunct US Presidential Election thread, this shall be a common ground for the discussion of issues of US political interest. From economics to political philosophy to mere current event/news interpretation, everything is fair game, given that standards of productive discourse are upheld. The guiding backbone of the thread will be current events posting, and I will do my best to keep this OP updated with information pertinent to the matters at hand. In short, this thread is very ambitious in scope and in breadth, so here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough 
The Rules 1. Show, don't tell, and listen. This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. 2. No arguments in absentia. In other words, do not argue using language that presumes conclusions that not everyone might share. If you think religion is hogwash, then intelligently and deliberately point out how you have come to this conclusion. Do not simply say “religion is garbage”, for it makes you look like a presumptuous fool and it degrades the entire conversation. If every poster attempted to be less unequivocal and more expository, the world of TL would be a better place. 3. Sources: A common sense approach. We all know that the strictures of an online text based communication platform make certain sorts of evidential back and forth rather difficult to perform correctly. In keeping with this, I would ask that everyone simply use their heads. Wikipedia, contrary to some belief, is a good source for most things, though feel free to dispute Wiki's page specific sourcing rigor if you find error. Feel free to cite both standard and non-standard news sites and op-ed journalism; be ready, though, for challenges and be prepared to put the ideas of your source material into your own words. We don't need or want Fox News or Huff Post parrots. 4. Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar. Because I just love how that was originally worded. ; + Show Spoiler +well conceived arguments that reveal the error in your opposition's ways will be.
This is all a working list and OP, so if you have ideas for additional rules, take issue with something I've said, or just wanna make the OP spiffy (my skills with the visual arts are nil), feel free to PM me. Thanks to Azera for the layout and banner!
And then you post this:
On April 09 2016 05:56 farvacola wrote:So instead of actually wrestling with the details of his platform, you'd rather cite a time story op-ed from 3 months ago that goes into just as little detail as you do? Whatever you say, parrot boy. The notion that Time has an accurate take on the average Trump voter when Time entirely discounted Trump mere months ago is again laughably stupid. But yes, go ahead and bold the part where you get exposed for the hack you are. Shame is shame
Way to talk the talk, but not to walk the walk.
|
Legislatively, a Sanders Administration would establish a whistleblower visa for workers reporting labor violations.
are there any specifics on this because if its strict, illegals will still be afraid to report activity, and if its lax, it will just result in fraud?
|
On April 09 2016 06:19 oneofthem wrote:
parrot what? understanding of basic economics views?
Which you don't. There's not one economic "solution", incarnated in Hillary in the US, for every problem. Only neoclassical economists could still believe that tale.
|
On April 09 2016 06:26 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote + Legislatively, a Sanders Administration would establish a whistleblower visa for workers reporting labor violations. are there any specifics on this because if its strict, illegals will still be afraid to report activity, and if its lax, it will just result in fraud?
Realistically, that component of his plan is pretty lacking in substance because it hinges on passing legislation and that simply won't happen any time soon. There are more than a few areas of his immigration policy that are definitely pie in the sky, but the idea behind that whistleblower concept involves an overhaul of the deportation process that'd protect whistleblowing illegals in exchange for greater punishments levied against employers.
|
On April 09 2016 04:54 oneofthem wrote:
only clueless people think hillary is a weak candidate on ability. many are clueless though.
idk who i would want instead. daron acemoglu? lol
She is a weak candidate at campaigning. Case in point: Got housed by underdog Obama despite massive disparities in financial and institutional support. Case #2: Barely beating an old socialist.
This has nothing to do with her abilities to govern. Actually, its one of the few positive indicators about her ability to govern IMO. Being a good campaigner like Obama, Bill, or Trump is a sign of being too happy about lying. She seems much more reluctant with her lies.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 09 2016 06:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 06:19 oneofthem wrote:
parrot what? understanding of basic economics views? Which you don't. There's not one economic "solution", incarnated in Hillary in the US, for every problem. Only neoclassical economists could still believe that tale.
dude we are talking about describing one aspect of sanders stance on immigration.
it is absolutely true that he wants to protect american labor, and this has led to some anti-migration stances.
i did not say he was anti-immigrant or absolutely anti-immigration. i actually agree with the general stance of giving immigrants more rights as opposed to making status an employer side thing.
|
Breaking: Court strikes down Scott Walker's Right-to-Work law as Unconstitutional.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 09 2016 06:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 04:54 oneofthem wrote:
only clueless people think hillary is a weak candidate on ability. many are clueless though.
idk who i would want instead. daron acemoglu? lol She is a weak candidate at campaigning. Case in point: Got housed by underdog Obama despite massive disparities in financial and institutional support. Case #2: Barely beating an old socialist. This has nothing to do with her abilities to govern. Actually, its one of the few positive indicators about her ability to govern IMO. Being a good campaigner like Obama, Bill, or Trump is a sign of being too happy about lying. She seems much more reluctant with her lies.
yes, she is bad at politics lol
|
On April 09 2016 06:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Breaking: Court strikes down Scott Walker's Right-to-Work law as Unconstitutional.
This is delightful news
|
On April 09 2016 06:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Breaking: Court strikes down Scott Walker's Right-to-Work law as Unconstitutional.
Circuit court of Wisconsin. Even less meaningful than the Puerto Rico District judge who upheld the same sex marriage law. These are the people who you laugh about on the news because they sentence people to hold a sign outside of Wal Mart saying, "I love rolling back prices" after they shoplift 12 ounces of ham.
|
On April 09 2016 07:05 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 06:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Breaking: Court strikes down Scott Walker's Right-to-Work law as Unconstitutional. Circuit court of Wisconsin. Even less meaningful than the Puerto Rico District judge who upheld the same sex marriage law. These are the people who you laugh about on the news because they sentence people to hold a sign outside of Wal Mart saying, "I love rolling back prices" after they shoplift 12 ounces of ham.
This perspective entirely overlooks the fact that conservative jurisprudence has had a stranglehold on Wisconsin state courts for quite some time now. Though, of course, the likelihood that the ruling gets overturned by the still extremely conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court is quite high. Still, I think it's a mistake to entirely discount the significance.
|
On April 09 2016 07:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 07:05 cLutZ wrote:On April 09 2016 06:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Breaking: Court strikes down Scott Walker's Right-to-Work law as Unconstitutional. Circuit court of Wisconsin. Even less meaningful than the Puerto Rico District judge who upheld the same sex marriage law. These are the people who you laugh about on the news because they sentence people to hold a sign outside of Wal Mart saying, "I love rolling back prices" after they shoplift 12 ounces of ham. This perspective entirely overlooks the fact that conservative jurisprudence has had a stranglehold on Wisconsin state courts for quite some time now. Though, of course, the likelihood that the ruling gets overturned by the still extremely conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court is quite high. Still, I think it's a mistake to entirely discount the significance.
This perspective entirely overlooks that in Wisconsin judges are elected and Dane county encompasses Madison, the most liberal part of the state.
|
On April 09 2016 06:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 04:54 oneofthem wrote:
only clueless people think hillary is a weak candidate on ability. many are clueless though.
idk who i would want instead. daron acemoglu? lol She is a weak candidate at campaigning. Case in point: Got housed by underdog Obama despite massive disparities in financial and institutional support. Case #2: Barely beating an old socialist. This has nothing to do with her abilities to govern. Actually, its one of the few positive indicators about her ability to govern IMO. Being a good campaigner like Obama, Bill, or Trump is a sign of being too happy about lying. She seems much more reluctant with her lies.
2008 can be attributed to Obama utilizing new technology to build an unknown, but massive ground game that swept the other contenders by surprise.
I would say 2016 is moreso a symptom of the strong antiestablishment undercurrent and years of deliberate Republican attempted character assassination, as anything else.
|
On April 09 2016 06:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 04:54 oneofthem wrote:
only clueless people think hillary is a weak candidate on ability. many are clueless though.
idk who i would want instead. daron acemoglu? lol She is a weak candidate at campaigning. Case in point: Got housed by underdog Obama despite massive disparities in financial and institutional support. Case #2: Barely beating an old socialist. This has nothing to do with her abilities to govern. Actually, its one of the few positive indicators about her ability to govern IMO. Being a good campaigner like Obama, Bill, or Trump is a sign of being too happy about lying. She seems much more reluctant with her lies.
More people voted for her versus Obama
Even MORE people have voted for her than Bernie
For the most part, the only thing that's been happening is that the people keep asking for Hilary, and they keep getting force fed someone else.
|
On April 09 2016 07:18 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 06:49 cLutZ wrote:On April 09 2016 04:54 oneofthem wrote:
only clueless people think hillary is a weak candidate on ability. many are clueless though.
idk who i would want instead. daron acemoglu? lol She is a weak candidate at campaigning. Case in point: Got housed by underdog Obama despite massive disparities in financial and institutional support. Case #2: Barely beating an old socialist. This has nothing to do with her abilities to govern. Actually, its one of the few positive indicators about her ability to govern IMO. Being a good campaigner like Obama, Bill, or Trump is a sign of being too happy about lying. She seems much more reluctant with her lies. More people voted for her versus Obama Even MORE people have voted for her than Bernie For the most part, the only thing that's been happening is that the people keep asking for Hilary, and they keep getting force fed someone else.
Yeah no I cant agree with that at all. No one is being force fed Bernie, esp with the media blackout around him at the start.
|
On April 09 2016 07:16 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 07:12 farvacola wrote:On April 09 2016 07:05 cLutZ wrote:On April 09 2016 06:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Breaking: Court strikes down Scott Walker's Right-to-Work law as Unconstitutional. Circuit court of Wisconsin. Even less meaningful than the Puerto Rico District judge who upheld the same sex marriage law. These are the people who you laugh about on the news because they sentence people to hold a sign outside of Wal Mart saying, "I love rolling back prices" after they shoplift 12 ounces of ham. This perspective entirely overlooks the fact that conservative jurisprudence has had a stranglehold on Wisconsin state courts for quite some time now. Though, of course, the likelihood that the ruling gets overturned by the still extremely conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court is quite high. Still, I think it's a mistake to entirely discount the significance. This perspective entirely overlooks that in Wisconsin judges are elected and Dane county encompasses Madison, the most liberal part of the state.
That doesn't change the fact that this ruling is literally the first time that a state judge has struck down a right-to-work law. Sure, it'll be easy enough to characterize the ruling as the work of an activist judge, but that a judge was even willing to go in this direction suggests that Wisconsin's paltry economy is beginning to inspire deviation.
|
There is a reason its the first time. If right to work is a taking, the government has to reimburse people for basically every regulation that imposes on them financial burdens. Its hilariously absurd, every municipality would be bankrupt based on zoning alone.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the legal theory on compulsory union dues is just weird. best union argument is that this is really a free rider problem, with the leverage gain from bargaining a kind of public good that would be under provisioned without a compulsory fee.
this judge is treating it as a union property right which works i guess but is also weiiiird
|
On April 09 2016 07:51 cLutZ wrote:
There is a reason its the first time. If right to work is a taking, the government has to reimburse people for basically every regulation that imposes on them financial burdens. Its hilariously absurd, every municipality would be bankrupt based on zoning alone.
The judge relied heavily on the statutory requirement that unions bargain in combination with the right-to-work law's divestment of the union's ability to perform the function they've been statutorily and judicially obligated to do. The "exclusive and fair representative" designation and duty outlined in US Supreme Court jurisprudence relative to labor unions forms the centerpiece of the judge's decision , so there's pretty ample room to differentiate the holding at issue from other regulations that impose financial burdens. In other words, the holding is firmly couched in labor law schema that renders comparison with other fee or tax based exactions highly suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://inthesetimes.com/images/articles/trump_flicker_face_yess.jpg)
