|
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. |
Apparently there are numerous reports of ICE going door to door in south Texas asking for people papers and detaining people who can't produce them.
Why is it always Friday? Is that Trumps "shit on brown people" day?
|
I wonder if some of my classmates will get caught. I'd laugh so hard at how unreal this reality is becoming.
|
First they came for the Mexicans, something something...
|
On February 11 2017 12:09 Plansix wrote:www.washingtonpost.comAnd we are off to the races. Show nested quote +U.S. immigration authorities arrested hundreds of undocumented immigrants in at least a half-dozen states this week in a series of raids that marked the first large-scale enforcement of President Trump’s Jan. 26 order to crack down on the estimated 11 million immigrants living here illegally.
The raids, which officials said targeted known criminals, also netted some immigrants who did not have criminal records, an apparent departure from similar enforcement waves during the Obama administration that aimed to just corral and deport those who had committed crimes.
Trump has pledged to deport up to 3 million undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Last month he also made a change to the Obama administration’s policy of prioritizing deportation for convicted criminals, substantially broadening the scope of who the Department of Homeland Security can target to include those with minor offenses or no convictions at all.
Immigration officials confirmed that agents this week raided homes and workplaces in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, the Los Angeles area, North Carolina and South Carolina, netting hundreds of people. But Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said they were part of “routine” immigration enforcement actions. ICE dislikes the term “raids,” and prefers to say authorities are conducting “targeted enforcement actions.”
Christensen said the raids, which began Monday and ended Friday at noon, found undocumented immigrants from a dozen Latin American countries. “We’re talking about people who are threats to public safety or a threat to the integrity of the immigration system,” she said, noting that the majority of those detained were serious criminals, including some who had been convicted of murder and domestic violence.
[For years, immigration authorities gave this Arizona mother a pass. Now she has been deported.]
Immigration activists said the crackdown went beyond the six states DHS identified, and said they had also documented ICE raids of unusual intensity during the past two days in Florida, Kansas, Texas and Northern Virginia.
That undocumented immigrants with no criminal records were arrested and could potentially be deported sent a shock through immigrant communities nationwide amid concerns that the U.S. government could start going after law-abiding people.
“This is clearly the first wave of attacks under the Trump administration, and we know this isn’t going to be the only one,” Cristina Jimenez, executive director of United We Dream, an immigrant youth organization, said Friday during a conference call with immigration advocates.
ICE agents in the Los Angeles area Thursday swept a number of individuals into custody over the course of an hour, seizing them from their homes and on their way to work in daytime operations, activists said.
David Marin, ICE’s field director in the Los Angeles area, said in a conference call with reporters Friday that 75 percent of the approximately 160 people detained in the operation this week had felony convictions; the rest had misdemeanors or were in the United States illegally. Officials said Friday night that 37 of those detained in Los Angeles has been deported to Mexico.
“Dangerous criminals who should be deported are being released into our communities,” Marin said.
A video that circulated on social media Friday appeared to show ICE agents detaining people in an Austin shopping center parking lot. Immigration advocates also reported roadway checkpoints, where ICE appeared to be targeting immigrants for random ID checks, in North Carolina and in Austin. ICE officials denied that authorities used checkpoints during the operations.
[The ‘sanctuary city’ on the front line of the fight over Trump’s immigration policy]
“I’m getting lots of reports from my constituents about seeing ICE on the streets. Teachers in my district have contacted me — certain students didn’t come to school today because they’re afraid,” said Greg Casar, an Austin city council member. “I talked to a constituent, a single mother, who had her door knocked on this morning by ICE.”
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) said he confirmed with ICE’s San Antonio office that the agency “has launched a targeted operation in South and Central Texas as part of Operation Cross Check.”
“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state,” Castro said in a statement Friday night.
Hiba Ghalib, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta, said the ICE detentions were causing “mass confusion” in the immigrant community. She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers.
“People are panicking,” Ghalib said. “People are really, really scared.”
Immigration officials acknowledged that authorities had cast a wider net than they would have last year, as the result of Trump’s executive order.
The Trump administration is facing a series of legal challenges to that order, and on Thursday lost a court battle over a separate executive order to temporarily ban entry into the United States by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries, as well as by refugees. The administration said Friday that it is considering raising the case to the Supreme Court.
[Federal appeals court rules 3 to 0 against Trump on travel ban]
Some activists in Austin and Los Angeles suggested that the raids might be retaliation for those cities’ “sanctuary city” policies. A government aide familiar with the raids said it is possible that the predominantly daytime operations — a departure from the Obama administration’s night raids — meant to “send a message to the community that the Trump deportation force is in effect.”
Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigrant advocacy group, said that the wave of detentions harks back to the George W. Bush administration, when workplace raids to sweep up all undocumented workers were common.
The Obama administration conducted a spate of raids and also pursued a more aggressive deportation policy than any previous president, sending more than 400,000 people back to their birth countries at the height of his deportations in 2012. The public outcry over the lengthy detentions and deportations of women, children and people with minor offenses led Obama in his second term to prioritize convicted criminals for deportation.
A DHS official confirmed that while immigration agents were targeting criminals, given the broader range defined by Trump’s executive order they also were sweeping up non-criminals in the vicinity who were found to be lacking documentation. It was unclear how many of the people detained would have been excluded under Obama’s policy.
Federal immigration officials, as well as activists, said that the majority of those detained were adult men, and that no children were taken into custody.
“Big cities tend to have a lot of illegal immigrants,” said one immigration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly due to the sensitive nature of the operation. “They’re going to a target-rich environment.”
Immigrant rights groups said that they were planning protests in response to the raids, including one Friday evening in Federal Plaza in New York City and a vigil in Los Angeles.
“We cannot understate the level of panic and terror that is running through many immigrant communities,” said Walter Barrientos of Make the Road New York in New York City, who spoke on a conference call with immigration advocates.
“We’re trying to make sure that families who have been impacted are getting legal services as quickly as possible. We’re trying to do some legal triage,” said Bob Libal, the executive director of Grassroots Leadership, which provides assistance and advocacy work to immigrants in Austin. “It’s chaotic,” he said. The organization’s hotline, he said, had been overwhelmed with calls.
Jeanette Vizguerra, 35, a Mexican house cleaner whose permit to stay in the country expired this week, said Friday during the conference call that she was newly apprehensive about her scheduled meeting with ICE next week.
Fearing deportation, Vizguerra, a Denver mother of four — including three who are U.S. citizens — said through an interpreter that she had called on activists and supporters to accompany her to the meeting.
“I know I need to mobilize my community, but I know my freedom is at risk here,” Vizguerra said. But remember, he wasn't really going to try to deport 11 million people. Nope. No way they would snatch parents picking up their American citizen children. That wouldn't happen. If people thought a couple of starbucks being smashed was bad, just wait till this gets rolling. It is going to get very nasty, very quickly.
This is going to be bad, but I think DAPL is where shit is going to go insane. Dollars to donuts people die there. The veterans are going back and they're not going to back down. So the question becomes will Trump authorize the murder of veterans? If he does fucking look out, shits going to get wild.
|
On February 11 2017 12:23 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 12:09 Plansix wrote:www.washingtonpost.comAnd we are off to the races. U.S. immigration authorities arrested hundreds of undocumented immigrants in at least a half-dozen states this week in a series of raids that marked the first large-scale enforcement of President Trump’s Jan. 26 order to crack down on the estimated 11 million immigrants living here illegally.
The raids, which officials said targeted known criminals, also netted some immigrants who did not have criminal records, an apparent departure from similar enforcement waves during the Obama administration that aimed to just corral and deport those who had committed crimes.
Trump has pledged to deport up to 3 million undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Last month he also made a change to the Obama administration’s policy of prioritizing deportation for convicted criminals, substantially broadening the scope of who the Department of Homeland Security can target to include those with minor offenses or no convictions at all.
Immigration officials confirmed that agents this week raided homes and workplaces in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, the Los Angeles area, North Carolina and South Carolina, netting hundreds of people. But Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said they were part of “routine” immigration enforcement actions. ICE dislikes the term “raids,” and prefers to say authorities are conducting “targeted enforcement actions.”
Christensen said the raids, which began Monday and ended Friday at noon, found undocumented immigrants from a dozen Latin American countries. “We’re talking about people who are threats to public safety or a threat to the integrity of the immigration system,” she said, noting that the majority of those detained were serious criminals, including some who had been convicted of murder and domestic violence.
[For years, immigration authorities gave this Arizona mother a pass. Now she has been deported.]
Immigration activists said the crackdown went beyond the six states DHS identified, and said they had also documented ICE raids of unusual intensity during the past two days in Florida, Kansas, Texas and Northern Virginia.
That undocumented immigrants with no criminal records were arrested and could potentially be deported sent a shock through immigrant communities nationwide amid concerns that the U.S. government could start going after law-abiding people.
“This is clearly the first wave of attacks under the Trump administration, and we know this isn’t going to be the only one,” Cristina Jimenez, executive director of United We Dream, an immigrant youth organization, said Friday during a conference call with immigration advocates.
ICE agents in the Los Angeles area Thursday swept a number of individuals into custody over the course of an hour, seizing them from their homes and on their way to work in daytime operations, activists said.
David Marin, ICE’s field director in the Los Angeles area, said in a conference call with reporters Friday that 75 percent of the approximately 160 people detained in the operation this week had felony convictions; the rest had misdemeanors or were in the United States illegally. Officials said Friday night that 37 of those detained in Los Angeles has been deported to Mexico.
“Dangerous criminals who should be deported are being released into our communities,” Marin said.
A video that circulated on social media Friday appeared to show ICE agents detaining people in an Austin shopping center parking lot. Immigration advocates also reported roadway checkpoints, where ICE appeared to be targeting immigrants for random ID checks, in North Carolina and in Austin. ICE officials denied that authorities used checkpoints during the operations.
[The ‘sanctuary city’ on the front line of the fight over Trump’s immigration policy]
“I’m getting lots of reports from my constituents about seeing ICE on the streets. Teachers in my district have contacted me — certain students didn’t come to school today because they’re afraid,” said Greg Casar, an Austin city council member. “I talked to a constituent, a single mother, who had her door knocked on this morning by ICE.”
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) said he confirmed with ICE’s San Antonio office that the agency “has launched a targeted operation in South and Central Texas as part of Operation Cross Check.”
“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state,” Castro said in a statement Friday night.
Hiba Ghalib, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta, said the ICE detentions were causing “mass confusion” in the immigrant community. She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers.
“People are panicking,” Ghalib said. “People are really, really scared.”
Immigration officials acknowledged that authorities had cast a wider net than they would have last year, as the result of Trump’s executive order.
The Trump administration is facing a series of legal challenges to that order, and on Thursday lost a court battle over a separate executive order to temporarily ban entry into the United States by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries, as well as by refugees. The administration said Friday that it is considering raising the case to the Supreme Court.
[Federal appeals court rules 3 to 0 against Trump on travel ban]
Some activists in Austin and Los Angeles suggested that the raids might be retaliation for those cities’ “sanctuary city” policies. A government aide familiar with the raids said it is possible that the predominantly daytime operations — a departure from the Obama administration’s night raids — meant to “send a message to the community that the Trump deportation force is in effect.”
Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigrant advocacy group, said that the wave of detentions harks back to the George W. Bush administration, when workplace raids to sweep up all undocumented workers were common.
The Obama administration conducted a spate of raids and also pursued a more aggressive deportation policy than any previous president, sending more than 400,000 people back to their birth countries at the height of his deportations in 2012. The public outcry over the lengthy detentions and deportations of women, children and people with minor offenses led Obama in his second term to prioritize convicted criminals for deportation.
A DHS official confirmed that while immigration agents were targeting criminals, given the broader range defined by Trump’s executive order they also were sweeping up non-criminals in the vicinity who were found to be lacking documentation. It was unclear how many of the people detained would have been excluded under Obama’s policy.
Federal immigration officials, as well as activists, said that the majority of those detained were adult men, and that no children were taken into custody.
“Big cities tend to have a lot of illegal immigrants,” said one immigration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly due to the sensitive nature of the operation. “They’re going to a target-rich environment.”
Immigrant rights groups said that they were planning protests in response to the raids, including one Friday evening in Federal Plaza in New York City and a vigil in Los Angeles.
“We cannot understate the level of panic and terror that is running through many immigrant communities,” said Walter Barrientos of Make the Road New York in New York City, who spoke on a conference call with immigration advocates.
“We’re trying to make sure that families who have been impacted are getting legal services as quickly as possible. We’re trying to do some legal triage,” said Bob Libal, the executive director of Grassroots Leadership, which provides assistance and advocacy work to immigrants in Austin. “It’s chaotic,” he said. The organization’s hotline, he said, had been overwhelmed with calls.
Jeanette Vizguerra, 35, a Mexican house cleaner whose permit to stay in the country expired this week, said Friday during the conference call that she was newly apprehensive about her scheduled meeting with ICE next week.
Fearing deportation, Vizguerra, a Denver mother of four — including three who are U.S. citizens — said through an interpreter that she had called on activists and supporters to accompany her to the meeting.
“I know I need to mobilize my community, but I know my freedom is at risk here,” Vizguerra said. But remember, he wasn't really going to try to deport 11 million people. Nope. No way they would snatch parents picking up their American citizen children. That wouldn't happen. If people thought a couple of starbucks being smashed was bad, just wait till this gets rolling. It is going to get very nasty, very quickly. This is going to be bad, but I think DAPL is where shit is going to go insane. Dollars to donuts people die there. The veterans are going back and they're not going to back down. So the question becomes will Trump authorize the murder of veterans? If he does fucking look out, shits going to get wild.
Have no doubt. Someone is going to say "Obama wouldn't have authorized them to use force to remove them (veterans)" and then shit is going to get real. We elected a tough guy bully as a president, so now we get to touch the stove.
|
On February 11 2017 11:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 11:16 Sermokala wrote:On February 11 2017 11:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 11 2017 10:39 biology]major wrote:On February 11 2017 10:37 zlefin wrote:On February 11 2017 10:30 biology]major wrote:On February 11 2017 10:22 LegalLord wrote:
If I have to be honest, the past three weeks make me think that Trump is every bit as dangerous as his critics suggest. Not much more to say, he is becoming more and more delusional and it's only been three weeks. I don't think it is good for his mental health, he might not be able to handle the bureaucracy. When you work as a business man for 45-50 years and your employees are working with you for a single purpose, and then transitioning to the deceit and dogma infested politics of the capitol, with no experience in the 'game', it might not end well. I think he can make it work because in real life he seems like a really likeable dude, but he is also easily taken advantage of so only time will tell. It's not an exaggeration when I say this the result of HRC being shit, and the dems not having anyone else reasonable to replace her with, so they just were forced to rally behind her. There was no one else in the mainstream mold, besides Joe Biden. I hope he does well though and can keep sane for next 4 years. HRC isn't shit. that's just an inaccuracy endlessly propagated, or more precisely, a result of poor estimation. the dems weren't forced to rally behind her, most of them were pretty happy with her. a few aren't, but most are. the hillary hate is mostly from republicans. it's not an exaggeration so much as an inaccuracy. How is losing 3 blue states that were supposed to be a dem fortress, to a dude who grabs people by the pussy, while spending twice the amount of money, an indication of anything other than her being absolute shit? Keep in mind she lost a lot of Obama voters.. How is losing 3 blue states that were supposed to be a dem fortress, to a dude who grabs people by the pussy, while spending twice the amount of money, an indication of anything other than a very small number of people's preference for sexual assault and being an asshole over actually treating people with respect? Keep in mind she won the popular vote.. Winning the popular vote means nothing in the us stop bringing it up like it matters. It means you do not have the support of the majority of the people in the country. In this case the states with the largest economies and population did not vote for the winner and are actively opposed to his policies. This is why we had a protest that was 1% of the US population the day after he was sworn it. And now all those people are giving the reps in their states living hell and telling them to grind government to a haul. The popular vote matters long after you win the election. Winning is easy, governing is harder.
It means nothing beacuse it's not how we elect the president. It means nothing beacuse it's not a majority of the people only a majority of the voters in the country. Getting Less then 1 Percent Of the population more to vote for you means nothing. It means nothing when the part of the wining president is also in control of both legislative houses.
Stop peddling low level media storyline stories. We both think you're smarter then that.
Trump won't authorize killing vets at the dapl and even if he did good luck finding construction workers or security people willing to do it.
Random twitter accounts who knows who created? We're still on this shit?
|
Trump is a nut, and his voters are to blame for taking on this risk for our country.
|
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump.
|
On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump.
well, if we switched to systems which produced better nominees that would help; or systems that favored selecting centrists.
there's ofc a very large amount of overlap in those %'s you cite.
wouldn't it make more sense to blame the nomination of trump than of hillary 
the very notion of "blame" of course is very complicated in itself.
|
United States42772 Posts
On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump.
?????
She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. She wasn't more popular than Trump with the right people and because it was a constituency plurality contest rather than simple plurality she lost. But that's different from being less popular.
|
On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump.
Obama was at 52% in the same poll. Hillary had a very hard ceiling. I'm not claiming she was less popular than Trump, just that she was possibly the worst nominee they could have chosen to actually win the election.
On February 11 2017 13:20 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. well, if we switched to systems which produced better nominees that would help; or systems that favored selecting centrists. there's ofc a very large amount of overlap in those %'s you cite. wouldn't it make more sense to blame the nomination of trump than of hillary the very notion of "blame" of course is very complicated in itself.
Right, that's why I mentioned the GOP establishment being spineless. I guess I left out incompetent and incapable of hiring oppo research. The whole GOP primary was a shitshow of everyone choosing to further their own minuscule odds of succeeding rather than acting for the good of the party/country.
Edit here's poll
[PPP's new national poll finds that Donald Trump's popularity as President has declined precipitously just over the last two weeks. On our first poll of his Presidency voters were evenly divided on Trump, with 44% approving of him and 44% also disapproving. Now his approval rating is 43%, while his disapproval has gone all the way up to 53%. If voters could choose they'd rather have both Barack Obama (52/44) or Hillary Clinton (49/45) instead of Trump.
Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed. Support for impeaching Trump has crept up from 35% 2 weeks ago, to 40% last week, to its 46% standing this week. While Clinton voters initially only supported Trump's impeachment 65/14, after seeing him in office over the last few weeks that's gone up already to 83/6.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/02/americans-now-evenly-divided-on-impeaching-trump.html
|
On February 11 2017 12:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 11:26 Plansix wrote:On February 11 2017 11:16 Sermokala wrote:On February 11 2017 11:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 11 2017 10:39 biology]major wrote:On February 11 2017 10:37 zlefin wrote:On February 11 2017 10:30 biology]major wrote:On February 11 2017 10:22 LegalLord wrote:
If I have to be honest, the past three weeks make me think that Trump is every bit as dangerous as his critics suggest. Not much more to say, he is becoming more and more delusional and it's only been three weeks. I don't think it is good for his mental health, he might not be able to handle the bureaucracy. When you work as a business man for 45-50 years and your employees are working with you for a single purpose, and then transitioning to the deceit and dogma infested politics of the capitol, with no experience in the 'game', it might not end well. I think he can make it work because in real life he seems like a really likeable dude, but he is also easily taken advantage of so only time will tell. It's not an exaggeration when I say this the result of HRC being shit, and the dems not having anyone else reasonable to replace her with, so they just were forced to rally behind her. There was no one else in the mainstream mold, besides Joe Biden. I hope he does well though and can keep sane for next 4 years. HRC isn't shit. that's just an inaccuracy endlessly propagated, or more precisely, a result of poor estimation. the dems weren't forced to rally behind her, most of them were pretty happy with her. a few aren't, but most are. the hillary hate is mostly from republicans. it's not an exaggeration so much as an inaccuracy. How is losing 3 blue states that were supposed to be a dem fortress, to a dude who grabs people by the pussy, while spending twice the amount of money, an indication of anything other than her being absolute shit? Keep in mind she lost a lot of Obama voters.. How is losing 3 blue states that were supposed to be a dem fortress, to a dude who grabs people by the pussy, while spending twice the amount of money, an indication of anything other than a very small number of people's preference for sexual assault and being an asshole over actually treating people with respect? Keep in mind she won the popular vote.. Winning the popular vote means nothing in the us stop bringing it up like it matters. It means you do not have the support of the majority of the people in the country. In this case the states with the largest economies and population did not vote for the winner and are actively opposed to his policies. This is why we had a protest that was 1% of the US population the day after he was sworn it. And now all those people are giving the reps in their states living hell and telling them to grind government to a haul. The popular vote matters long after you win the election. Winning is easy, governing is harder. It means nothing beacuse it's not how we elect the president. It means nothing beacuse it's not a majority of the people only a majority of the voters in the country. Getting Less then 1 Percent Of the population more to vote for you means nothing. It means nothing when the part of the wining president is also in control of both legislative houses. Stop peddling low level media storyline stories. We both think you're smarter then that. Trump won't authorize killing vets at the dapl and even if he did good luck finding construction workers or security people willing to do it. Random twitter accounts who knows who created? We're still on this shit?
Well why don't we just wait and who's right and how smart we really are. I like my odds.
PS: I didn't say killing vets, I said authorizing the use of force to remove them. We both know you are smart enough to know the difference.
|
nevuk -> it would indeed be nice if more acted for the good of the country, but then if people were like that we wouldn't have most of these problems to being with.
and of course some people get so caught up in fighting the "other" side they think it's too terrible an option to allow.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 11:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 11:23 biology]major wrote:
To your question kwark: absolutely the factory worker will benefit. Automation and globalism will eventually eradicate their occupation, but for now he will provide some relief. Ford, Carrier, GM, Chrysler is just the start. Those jobs disappearing has been a snowballing process that has been going on a while and is continuing. Trump publishes a few high profile stories about how he has saved a hundred jobs here and there and apparently you're buying the propaganda. So let's ask it another way. Do you think he will be able to reverse the trend? Do you think the number of menial, unskilled labour, factory jobs in the United States is going to increase under Trump? Will those who lost their jobs to automation regain them or are you saying that those who are already fucked will stay fucked and many of those not already fucked will get fucked but that the number of new people who get fucked will be lower? Hillary offered a solution to the actual problem. Trump insisted that the problem was completely different to what it actually was and is now ignoring it.
She didn't offer a solution. She offered a wishy-washy "TPP is not the deal I wanted for our workers" that literally no one buys (not her supporters, not her opponents) and made a campaign that focused mostly on identity politics issues and how bad Trump is. Further, she made a big deal of "why MAGA when America is already great" a message which does not resonate with the people whose lives are taking a downward spiral.
Was/is Trump worse? Yes, he offered delusion instead of an honest nothing. But Hillary definitely didn't offer a solution.
|
I doubt the despicable #lockherup chants helped her image either (not to mention the ridiculous shit I saw being shared on facebook painting a fairly standard establishment candidate as the devil incarnate). I still can't believe Trump got away with the shit he talked to Hillary, threatening to jail a political opponent during a national debate...
Hillary's team's primary problem was that I think they overestimated the critical thinking of the average voter, relied too much on Trump's fuck-ups and didn't simplify their own policy messages nearly enough to offer a clear alternative. I can't remember one Hillary catch phrase, but Trump had "MAGA", "Drain the Swamp" "Lock her up" "Build the wall" "_______ is a disaster" etc. His message was delivered clearly in repetitive rhetoric elementary school kids could understand, whilst at the same time he shamelessly dragged Hillary's image through the mud at every opportunity.
|
On February 11 2017 13:28 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. Obama was at 52% in the same poll. Hillary had a very hard ceiling. I'm not claiming she was less popular than Trump, just that she was possibly the worst nominee they could have chosen to actually win the election.
She won the Democratic primary too, meaning that there were at least a few other candidates (Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, Lessig) who were, by definition, worse picks because they were even less popular. Maybe there could have hypothetically been other Democratic candidates who could have beaten Hillary in the primary, but we'll never know because it didn't happen in 2016. At best, one could say that maybe another candidate- one who didn't run- may have fared better than Hillary, but she clearly couldn't have been the worst. That's pretty intense hyperbole, unless you're prepared to give reasons as to why someone like Webb or Lessig would have won the electoral college. Maybe Sanders, and that's generous, but that puts Hillary at #2, not dead last out of dozens of potential candidates.
|
On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump.
The whole popular vote thing is very misleading. A significant portion of the vote difference came out of California.
There's an analysis out there somewhere, but if you look at the last elections going back to Kerry v Bush it shows that Trump lost ~400,000 votes just compared to Romney, ~ 600,000 if you look at McCain, and over 1,000,000 votes if you compare him to Bush's reelection vote count in California.
Think about how much people didn't like Bush in California, then think about how awful Trump had to be in order to get 1,000,000 less people (~7%) to vote for him.
Then Hillary got ~1,000,000 (~7%) more votes than 2012 Obama in California, but only a 1.5% larger share of the vote.
Finally, there was a massive push for LatinX voters that was primarily motivated by (what we know now to be) a very serious threat. So without really digging in I think it's fair to say a significant share of those Hillary voters in California weren't voting for her so much as against Trump.
This "She won the popular vote!" stuff I get from people who don't understand elections or numbers, but I know the people touting it here are mostly too intelligent to not know why it's useless and how ridiculous the "oh it was just these few votes in these states" like she wasn't intimately aware (far more than Trump or anyone on his team) of how much more important 10k votes in one of those states was compared to an extra 100k in California.
On February 11 2017 13:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:28 Nevuk wrote:On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. Obama was at 52% in the same poll. Hillary had a very hard ceiling. I'm not claiming she was less popular than Trump, just that she was possibly the worst nominee they could have chosen to actually win the election. She won the Democratic primary too, meaning that there were at least a few other candidates (Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, Lessig) who were, by definition, worse picks because they were even less popular. Maybe there could have hypothetically been other Democratic candidates who could have beaten Hillary in the primary, but we'll never know because it didn't happen in 2016. At best, one could say that maybe another candidate- one who didn't run- may have fared better than Hillary, but she clearly couldn't have been the worst. That's pretty intense hyperbole, unless you're prepared to give reasons as to why someone like Webb or Lessig would have won the electoral college. Maybe Sanders, and that's generous, but that puts Hillary at #2, not dead last out of dozens of potential candidates.
This one is something that takes a willing blindness to how Bernie fared as soon as you didn't restrict it to only Democrats (particularly when they didn't have same day registration). Bernie was unquestionably more popular outside of the Democratic party, and without Hillary and her supporters demanding loyalty and stubbornly trying to push him out of the race Democrats easily could have rallied behind him using the same logic they were using on Bernie supporters regarding Trump.
|
On February 11 2017 13:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:28 Nevuk wrote:On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. Obama was at 52% in the same poll. Hillary had a very hard ceiling. I'm not claiming she was less popular than Trump, just that she was possibly the worst nominee they could have chosen to actually win the election. She won the Democratic primary too, meaning that there were at least a few other candidates (Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, Lessig) who were, by definition, worse picks because they were even less popular. Maybe there could have hypothetically been other Democratic candidates who could have beaten Hillary in the primary, but we'll never know because it didn't happen in 2016. At best, one could say that maybe another candidate- one who didn't run- may have fared better than Hillary, but she clearly couldn't have been the worst. That's pretty intense hyperbole, unless you're prepared to give reasons as to why someone like Webb or Lessig would have won the electoral college. Maybe Sanders, and that's generous, but that puts Hillary at #2, not dead last out of dozens of potential candidates.
i'm not sure that makes them worse picks "by definition", certainly less popular amongst democrats. mostly I'm disagreeing over the "by definition" part.
it's also the case of course that someone might not do well in the dem primary for being a bit too far right for the dems (while being fairly center overall) and would do well in the general as a result.
or if we just ran approval voting they'd all run and we'd know for sure which ones would've done better/worse than hillary.
|
United States42772 Posts
On February 11 2017 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. The whole popular vote thing is very misleading. A significant portion of the vote difference came out of California. There's an analysis out there somewhere, but if you look at the last elections going back to Kerry v Bush it shows that Trump lost ~400,000 votes just compared to Romney, ~ 600,000 if you look at McCain, and over 1,000,000 votes if you compare him to Bush's reelection vote count in California. Think about how much people didn't like Bush in California, then think about how awful Trump had to be in order to get 1,000,000 less people (~7%) to vote for him. Then Hillary got ~1,000,000 (~7%) more votes than 2012 Obama in California, but only a 1.5% larger share of the vote. This "She won the popular vote!" stuff I get from people who don't understand elections or numbers, but I know the people touting it here are mostly too intelligent to not know why it's useless and how ridiculous the "oh it was just these few votes in these states" like she wasn't intimately aware (far more than Trump or anyone on his team) of how much more important 10k votes in one of those states was compared to an extra 100k in California.
I brought up the popular vote because the subject under discussion was voter preference, ie raw popularity. It is the only relevant measure of that. Obviously everyone understands that extra votes in Florida count more than votes in Texas or California for the electoral college. But for overall popularity, a vote is a vote.
As for Bernie, he probably would have done better. We know he can't have done worse as Hillary lost. At the very least if he'd run he'd have been running as an old white dude which, like it or not, really does help in close races. But if he'd lost a narrow race too we'd probably all be going "why the fuck did we run a guy who could be portrayed as a fan of the Soviet Union over Clinton?". Clinton was definitely a loser, but we can't conclude she lost where others wouldn't.
|
On February 11 2017 13:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. The whole popular vote thing is very misleading. A significant portion of the vote difference came out of California. There's an analysis out there somewhere, but if you look at the last elections going back to Kerry v Bush it shows that Trump lost ~400,000 votes just compared to Romney, ~ 600,000 if you look at McCain, and over 1,000,000 votes if you compare him to Bush's reelection vote count in California. Think about how much people didn't like Bush in California, then think about how awful Trump had to be in order to get 1,000,000 less people (~7%) to vote for him. Then Hillary got ~1,000,000 (~7%) more votes than 2012 Obama in California, but only a 1.5% larger share of the vote. This "She won the popular vote!" stuff I get from people who don't understand elections or numbers, but I know the people touting it here are mostly too intelligent to not know why it's useless and how ridiculous the "oh it was just these few votes in these states" like she wasn't intimately aware (far more than Trump or anyone on his team) of how much more important 10k votes in one of those states was compared to an extra 100k in California. I brought up the popular vote because the subject under discussion was voter preference, ie raw popularity. It is the only relevant measure of that. Obviously everyone understands that extra votes in Florida count more than votes in Texas or California for the electoral college. But for overall popularity, a vote is a vote. As for Bernie, he probably would have done better. We know he can't have done worse as Hillary lost. At the very least if he'd run he'd have been running as an old white dude which, like it or not, really does help in close races. But if he'd lost a narrow race too we'd probably all be going "why the fuck did we run a guy who could be portrayed as a fan of the Soviet Union over Clinton?". Clinton was definitely a loser, but we can't conclude she lost where others wouldn't.
That's why I think it's important to note why there was such a disparity. At least 1,000,000 of it can be immediately attributed to how unbearably bad Trump was to California, and if someone really wanted to crunch the numbers you could probably attribute more than that.
Essentially the idea suggested that Trump motivated both his base and his opponents has more weight than it was getting credit for, as opposed to the idea that as a whole the country obviously preferred Hillary.
It's more that California dramatically preferred Hillary over Donald and that has a lot less to do with how the other 49 states felt about the situation.
EDIT: On the Bernie thing, I'm not speaking to the outcome, just that analysis that suggests he would have done worse in the general because he lost the Primary ignores that he outperformed Clinton by miles outside of longtime registered Democrats. Normally if 2 candidates were close in popular support, but one was absolutely loathed by the other party, and record breakingly unpopular among everyone else, and the other had 30+ point advantage in favorability it would be a no brainer which one you run in the general. But Hillary had to be the one, for what from a party perspective was being her turn, not because she was the strongest candidate to beat Trump, which has turned out to be pretty important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
