|
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 February 06 2017 09:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 09:55 lastpuritan wrote:On February 06 2017 09:41 zlefin wrote:On February 06 2017 09:28 lastpuritan wrote:
Imagine a railway a train moves on. Train is the state, railway is your regime. The way you take with your train is your law. Now, who decides your destination, your route? As Trump said, who's to blame? "Court system." I bet he and his supporters think what judge did was un-democratic because judge lifted his (as a President) decision, and actually can defunction his whole government. That's probably why he's attacking the court system. Not for this case, but for the actions he has in mind.
I didn't want to say anything. However, I believe major decisions like these should be put on a public vote, referendum is always a good idea.
having trouble following your analogy, it seems to breakdown, the way you take and your destination are kinda the same thing. unless you mean something weird with that. you also seemed to start using the analogy, then stop using it before it really made sense or added anything to the explanation. i'm not sure which major decision you're tlaking about, at any rate, referendum is not always a good idea. referenda are oftne bad ideas actually. While certain major decisions should be referenda to get the necessary social buy-in, referenda aren't a good way to decide anything involving complicated questions of fact due to information limits, unless other methods are unuseable. referenda often in practice end up tools of special interests just as much as other methods of decision-making. There are multiple ways to reach a destination, is that new to you? Well, we part WAYS on referendum. 51% is always > 49% no matter what. But that's just my personal opinion, not gonna force it. well, the way you take and your route are the same thing, and you used destination in a way that seemed like you were using it to refer to the same thing as your route. mostly I don't see the analogy adding any explanatory power, mostly it seems to just add confusion.
Yeah they are the same.
You can LITERALLY choose dozens of routes to reach PARIS from London for god's sake let's move on.
All I wanted to say, Hitler wanted to reach to a point where his nation works successfully and probably wanted his people to be happy. But he took the wrong way with his judges, his government and his nazi supporters. WAS A BAD IDEA.
Today, Trump is blocked by a judge because US is always trying to reach her ideals with a democratic way. *cough* Now he's pointing the court system for the possibility of the failure of the journey.
On February 06 2017 09:41 zlefin wrote:
51% as a number is higher than 49% as a number. it does not mean 51% thinking something is the better choice means it should be that way. that's just wrong, and vastly documented to be so
Might not be always the better, but in the end it is solely the peoples will. And what's wrong or not is a matter of perspective. Brexit was wrong or not?
|
On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence.
I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth.
It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL).
And now, at long last, they’ve got President Trump to fuel the fire. Every single thing he does, every tweet, every comment, every word-salady mouth fart he makes in front of the podium gets twisted into the most extreme possible interpretation and alarm bells ring throughout the nation to keep America’s liberals in a constant state of cortisol and adrenaline-soaked fugue.
A temporary immigration ban becomes a “Muslim ban”. Mumbling some drivel about how it was a mistake not to secure Iraqi oil from ISIS becomes “OMG he’s definitely going to invade Iraq again!” A CIA-funded Washington Post shill drops an anonymous rumor that Trump plans to sign an executive order making it legal to discriminate against gays and it gets pumped all throughout social media as gospel truth despite being immediately denied by the Deputy Press Secretary. Building a wall becomes the most horrifying and monstrous thing anyone could possibly do, despite the fact that it’s a frigging wall. And of course, everyone and their grandmother is Hitler.
It’s true that the neoliberal think tanks are working overtime to pound these fearful narratives deep into America’s consciousness. It’s true that the political establishment’s media mouthpieces have every political and financial incentive to keep people afraid of the Orange One. But it’s also true that American liberals are lapping it up. These narratives are seized upon, circulated, upvoted, made viral all over the internet, over and over and over again, all by the same people who never tire of finding a new thing to be terrified of.
Why? Because they enjoy it, of course.
They do. They enjoy it immensely. There’s an orgiastic fervor to these nationwide collective fear fests these people keep partaking in day after day after day. To be frank, it has a very strong masturbatory element to it. We’re watching America’s liberals repeatedly engaging in collective orgies of fear porn.
http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone
|
sometimes what's wrong is a matter of perspective, sometimes it's more a matter of fact.
that something is the people's will is of some import, but hardly the overriding import. so what if it's the "people's will".
|
On February 06 2017 10:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence. I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth. It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL).
It's not really surprising that people criticism Bannon given that Trump seems to fall into the habit of repeating ad verbatim what he just picked up somehwere.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/media/trump-tweets-cable/
When Trump tweeted about 'the carnage' he just parroted what he had heard on the Fox news an hour earlier. I can see him just sitting in his office watching television, he hears something controversial and off to twitter he goes.
|
On February 06 2017 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 10:22 oBlade wrote:On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence. I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth. It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL). It's not really surprising that people criticism Bannon given that Trump seems to fall into the habit of repeating ad verbatim what he just picked up somehwere. http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/media/trump-tweets-cable/When Trump tweeted about the carnage he just parroted what he had heard on the Fox news an hour earlier. I can see him just sitting in his office watching television, he hears something controversial and off to twitter he goes.
Is that stuff about Chicago wrong? I notice the CNN clipping doesn't seem to address that.
|
On February 06 2017 10:24 zlefin wrote:
sometimes what's wrong is a matter of perspective, sometimes it's more a matter of fact.
that something is the people's will is of some import, but hardly the overriding import. so what if it's the "people's will".
Nah, I can justify almost anything with a stupid perspective. Nuking Japan was wrong, it was the intended murder of civilian lives. But it was done with a justified reason and hell a lotta people still believe it was the very best thing to do.
I can't get out of this conversation mate, my final post. If people want Putin to rule them, that's their ultimate choice and let them be ruled. I'm not sure if we ought to force them change their minds for the sake of some -ISM we believe in.
British public of this era wanted to leave the EU, the next generations may decide to come back and start negotiate.I always prefer the pure choice of citizens to some rich seats' y/n in the parliament.
|
On February 06 2017 10:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence. I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth. It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL). Show nested quote +And now, at long last, they’ve got President Trump to fuel the fire. Every single thing he does, every tweet, every comment, every word-salady mouth fart he makes in front of the podium gets twisted into the most extreme possible interpretation and alarm bells ring throughout the nation to keep America’s liberals in a constant state of cortisol and adrenaline-soaked fugue.
A temporary immigration ban becomes a “Muslim ban”. Mumbling some drivel about how it was a mistake not to secure Iraqi oil from ISIS becomes “OMG he’s definitely going to invade Iraq again!” A CIA-funded Washington Post shill drops an anonymous rumor that Trump plans to sign an executive order making it legal to discriminate against gays and it gets pumped all throughout social media as gospel truth despite being immediately denied by the Deputy Press Secretary. Building a wall becomes the most horrifying and monstrous thing anyone could possibly do, despite the fact that it’s a frigging wall. And of course, everyone and their grandmother is Hitler.
It’s true that the neoliberal think tanks are working overtime to pound these fearful narratives deep into America’s consciousness. It’s true that the political establishment’s media mouthpieces have every political and financial incentive to keep people afraid of the Orange One. But it’s also true that American liberals are lapping it up. These narratives are seized upon, circulated, upvoted, made viral all over the internet, over and over and over again, all by the same people who never tire of finding a new thing to be terrified of.
Why? Because they enjoy it, of course.
They do. They enjoy it immensely. There’s an orgiastic fervor to these nationwide collective fear fests these people keep partaking in day after day after day. To be frank, it has a very strong masturbatory element to it. We’re watching America’s liberals repeatedly engaging in collective orgies of fear porn. http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone
Like it or not, him saying we should have taken Iraq's oil and "maybe we'll get another chance" is a big deal. And that's just one example. Trump really does go through his days being a buffoon, and it's worthwhile to call it out each and every time.
|
On February 06 2017 10:43 lastpuritan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 10:24 zlefin wrote:
sometimes what's wrong is a matter of perspective, sometimes it's more a matter of fact.
that something is the people's will is of some import, but hardly the overriding import. so what if it's the "people's will". Nah, I can justify almost anything with a stupid perspective. Nuking Japan was wrong, it was the intended murder of civilian lives. But it was done with a justified reason and hell a lotta people still believe it was the very best thing to do. I can't get out of this conversation mate, my final post. If people want Putin to rule them, that's their ultimate choice and let them be ruled. I'm not sure if we ought to force them change their minds for the sake of some -ISM we believe in. British public of this era wanted to leave the EU, the next generations may decide to come back and start negotiate.I always prefer the pure choice of citizens to some rich seats' y/n in the parliament.
I recommend reading the book in my sig.
don't overestimate the value of the pure choice of citizens, it's raelly not that pure in practice.
also it's not true that the british public of this era wanted to leave the eu, it was a very close vote. it's more like the british public of this era is deeply divided on the question.
pure choice of citizens can easily fail horribly, and should be used carefully.
|
On February 06 2017 10:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:On February 06 2017 10:22 oBlade wrote:On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence. I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth. It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL). It's not really surprising that people criticism Bannon given that Trump seems to fall into the habit of repeating ad verbatim what he just picked up somehwere. http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/media/trump-tweets-cable/When Trump tweeted about the carnage he just parroted what he had heard on the Fox news an hour earlier. I can see him just sitting in his office watching television, he hears something controversial and off to twitter he goes. Is that stuff about Chicago wrong? I notice the CNN clipping doesn't seem to address that.
nice deflection, how is the content relevant to the accusation that Trump just parrots the stuff he picks up everywhere?
|
On February 06 2017 10:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence. I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth. It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL). Show nested quote +And now, at long last, they’ve got President Trump to fuel the fire. Every single thing he does, every tweet, every comment, every word-salady mouth fart he makes in front of the podium gets twisted into the most extreme possible interpretation and alarm bells ring throughout the nation to keep America’s liberals in a constant state of cortisol and adrenaline-soaked fugue.
A temporary immigration ban becomes a “Muslim ban”. Mumbling some drivel about how it was a mistake not to secure Iraqi oil from ISIS becomes “OMG he’s definitely going to invade Iraq again!” A CIA-funded Washington Post shill drops an anonymous rumor that Trump plans to sign an executive order making it legal to discriminate against gays and it gets pumped all throughout social media as gospel truth despite being immediately denied by the Deputy Press Secretary. Building a wall becomes the most horrifying and monstrous thing anyone could possibly do, despite the fact that it’s a frigging wall. And of course, everyone and their grandmother is Hitler.
It’s true that the neoliberal think tanks are working overtime to pound these fearful narratives deep into America’s consciousness. It’s true that the political establishment’s media mouthpieces have every political and financial incentive to keep people afraid of the Orange One. But it’s also true that American liberals are lapping it up. These narratives are seized upon, circulated, upvoted, made viral all over the internet, over and over and over again, all by the same people who never tire of finding a new thing to be terrified of.
Why? Because they enjoy it, of course.
They do. They enjoy it immensely. There’s an orgiastic fervor to these nationwide collective fear fests these people keep partaking in day after day after day. To be frank, it has a very strong masturbatory element to it. We’re watching America’s liberals repeatedly engaging in collective orgies of fear porn. http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone
There is some hyperbole in this article as well, but it would do the American left a whole lot of good to take its contents to heart. Though it's a mark of what a ridiculous figure Trump is that even beneath the mountain of shit theAmerican left is trying to bury him in, he remains every bit as dumb and scary as people are trying to paint him with their idiotic ADHD fear-mongering.
|
On February 06 2017 10:51 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 10:32 oBlade wrote:On February 06 2017 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:On February 06 2017 10:22 oBlade wrote:On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence. I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth. It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL). It's not really surprising that people criticism Bannon given that Trump seems to fall into the habit of repeating ad verbatim what he just picked up somehwere. http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/media/trump-tweets-cable/When Trump tweeted about the carnage he just parroted what he had heard on the Fox news an hour earlier. I can see him just sitting in his office watching television, he hears something controversial and off to twitter he goes. Is that stuff about Chicago wrong? I notice the CNN clipping doesn't seem to address that. nice deflection, how is the content relevant to the accusation that Trump just parrots the stuff he picks up everywhere?
Not a deflection, this is called conversation. I saw the point and believe it or not understood it.
Why would you be worried if someone is parroting correct information? And for that matter, how many times do they have to be right before it stops being parroting?
What you don't have access to is 1) the sample of things he's exposed to and doesn't end up parroting 2) his actual rate of filtering good information (which is why it's worth making a note if the first most prominent example of this behavior were something that's true) 3) the amount of wrong shit he just makes up himself instead of getting from other people.
So what this character read of Trump seems to boil down to is that he gets information from other people - like everyone. And he watches cable news. It's hardly stupefying. And twisting it into something to fling at the other team is the biggest reach since Park Jung Suk. Don't you want the POTUS to be engaged, to know what's going on? If this were a couple months ago and he had "parroted" the entire media about Russian election interference...?
What you said hit the nail on the head, that it was a Fox news segment -> Fox is on the other team -> let's pathologize this.
|
On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high.
i didnt see you answer zlefin's question earlier. do you report all thhe illegals in your apt building complex or whatever it is to ICE?
|
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work?
|
On February 06 2017 11:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 10:51 Nyxisto wrote:On February 06 2017 10:32 oBlade wrote:On February 06 2017 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:On February 06 2017 10:22 oBlade wrote:On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence. I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth. It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL). It's not really surprising that people criticism Bannon given that Trump seems to fall into the habit of repeating ad verbatim what he just picked up somehwere. http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/media/trump-tweets-cable/When Trump tweeted about the carnage he just parroted what he had heard on the Fox news an hour earlier. I can see him just sitting in his office watching television, he hears something controversial and off to twitter he goes. Is that stuff about Chicago wrong? I notice the CNN clipping doesn't seem to address that. nice deflection, how is the content relevant to the accusation that Trump just parrots the stuff he picks up everywhere? Not a deflection, this is called conversation. I saw the point and believe it or not understood it. Why would you be worried if someone is parroting correct information? And for that matter, how many times do they have to be right before it stops being parroting? What you don't have access to is 1) the sample of things he's exposed to and doesn't end up parroting 2) his actual rate of filtering good information (which is why it's worth making a note if the first most prominent example of this behavior were something that's true) 3) the amount of wrong shit he just makes up himself instead of getting from other people. So what this character read of Trump seems to boil down to is that he gets information from other people - like everyone. And he watches cable news. It's hardly stupefying. And twisting it into something to fling at the other team is the biggest reach since Park Jung Suk. Don't you want the POTUS to be engaged, to know what's going on? If this were a couple months ago and he had "parroted" the entire media about Russian election interference...? What you said hit the nail on the head, that it was a Fox news segment -> Fox is on the other team -> let's pathologize this.
there's nothing right about calling the situation of a city a 'carnage', it doesn't even mean anything, it's just a stupid buzzword which is symptomatic of Trump's weird and inaccurate language that can mean anything or nothing. And no it's not okay for the president of the united states to hear some senstationalist headline on cable news and to translate it into policy 1:1.
The man is a walking meme in the traditional sense of the word, he cannot actually process or analyse information. He hears something on the one end and some Trumpfied stuff comes out on the other. He's basically a markov chain.
|
On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country?
Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law.
On February 06 2017 06:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 05:52 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 05:28 On_Slaught wrote:
As long as Bannon is there and Trump is giving him so much power and influence, no amount of moderates will help imo. Bannon is arguably the most dangerous person to reach power in this country in recent memory. Considering his obvious contempt for the system, he gets into the group of most dangerous ever maybe. This current electoral makeup, voting American public, is the most dangerous in recent history because it sent Trump to the White House while knowing Bannon was on that campaign team. Trump arguably signaled all of this long ago with campaign promises and exaggerations and campaign missteps before assuming office. The country arguably has contempt for the system too  indeed it does, and an inability to understand the long-term effects and implications; or at least that's what it does in aggregate. contempt without a plan or understanding of how to fix it is bad 
I know if the current status remains long term it can be bad. But never forget (well for you, I expect this will be try to see the other side, if you can) that it was an "inability to understand the long-term effects" that got us to the point where Trump was the necessary reset button for a detached elite to remember the people that sent them there. I'd prefer to work through issues of globalism, immigration, terrorism, and the judiciary together, but we're at the point where only cold, hard electoral hammering gets the other side to perk up its ears. So the current reckoning is a messy, sordid affair, but so it must be to reverse a culture of pure progressive ideologue dominance.
On February 06 2017 10:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 09:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm just amused that a valid Trump defense starts with "hey look this is stupid and wrong but it's not X" as if we've reached the point where Trump is redeemed by the fact that he didn't threaten violence. I believe people who will say the tweet (that caused you to make this post) was stupid and wrong aren't fans of Trump, or defending Trump, in fact that's exactly what calling it stupid and wrong signals, that they don't like it. They just want to snap back to reality. Nobody should be attacking Trump at the expense of reality, it's not worth it. If he's as bad as you can imagine, it's not necessary to make shit up. If he isn't, then something else is going on psychologically that's making you think attacking Trump is such an obvious default that its value is competing with or even outweighs a commitment to truth. It's people needing a boogeyman. I also noticed that now that this very real presidency has started, people are trying to project the boogeyman elsewhere, namely at Bannon (or the grim reaper as played on SNL). Show nested quote +And now, at long last, they’ve got President Trump to fuel the fire. Every single thing he does, every tweet, every comment, every word-salady mouth fart he makes in front of the podium gets twisted into the most extreme possible interpretation and alarm bells ring throughout the nation to keep America’s liberals in a constant state of cortisol and adrenaline-soaked fugue.
A temporary immigration ban becomes a “Muslim ban”. Mumbling some drivel about how it was a mistake not to secure Iraqi oil from ISIS becomes “OMG he’s definitely going to invade Iraq again!” A CIA-funded Washington Post shill drops an anonymous rumor that Trump plans to sign an executive order making it legal to discriminate against gays and it gets pumped all throughout social media as gospel truth despite being immediately denied by the Deputy Press Secretary. Building a wall becomes the most horrifying and monstrous thing anyone could possibly do, despite the fact that it’s a frigging wall. And of course, everyone and their grandmother is Hitler.
It’s true that the neoliberal think tanks are working overtime to pound these fearful narratives deep into America’s consciousness. It’s true that the political establishment’s media mouthpieces have every political and financial incentive to keep people afraid of the Orange One. But it’s also true that American liberals are lapping it up. These narratives are seized upon, circulated, upvoted, made viral all over the internet, over and over and over again, all by the same people who never tire of finding a new thing to be terrified of.
Why? Because they enjoy it, of course.
They do. They enjoy it immensely. There’s an orgiastic fervor to these nationwide collective fear fests these people keep partaking in day after day after day. To be frank, it has a very strong masturbatory element to it. We’re watching America’s liberals repeatedly engaging in collective orgies of fear porn. http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone
"It has a very strong masturbatory element to it" is right. Within the bubble, acting like the bubble and its "fearful narratives" are 100% dead-on feels right. Outside the bubble, it's "What the fuck are these loonies on about now and will they ever re-examine their hypotheses?" Repeating the exact same behavior that got you Trump the first time ... will get you Trump the second time. I don't even think Trump can fuck it up provided the left wing blowhards have enough energy to keep it up another year. Three months since election, zero things learned (maybe zero things admitted, I'm sure some smarter strategists are working behind the scenes to salvage a counterinsurgency amidst the outrage machine)
|
|
|
From that same article
Mr. Priebus bristles at the perception that he occupies a diminished perch in the West Wing pecking order compared with previous chiefs. But for the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.
Is this for real? Like...seriously? Bannon sneaked something into an EO that the president didn't even read? That's how he got on the NSC?
This is too outrageous to be real life.
|
On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law.
That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all. It's not a question of legality but rather, given the hypothetical scenario where you have the choice to kick one of these two families out of the country, which do you think provides greater net benefit to the US (legal issues aside)?
The corollary question I'm sure GH was prepared to ask is, if the answer you chose does not line up with the law, is it indicative that the law is flawed and should be changed?
|
On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law.
Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US.
|
On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law. Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US.
Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge.
You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations.
The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case.
On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work?
One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
