US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8307

On August 06 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I believe govern can be used as broadly as "people who actually pass bills".

On August 06 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I believe govern can be used as broadly as "people who actually pass bills".

On August 06 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I believe govern can be used as broadly as "people who actually pass bills".

On August 06 2017 04:36 Introvert wrote:


if that's what Plansix means in that post then he's changed from his usual definition. but to treat all this as noise and "red meat" is really dumb when immigration is an active debate right now. even the trans ban wasn't about the base it was about the budget.

On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really.

On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:


dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta).

On August 06 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:
They promise to rebuild infrastructure and cut taxes. They promise to spend money and reduce the amount they take in, all while balancing the budget. And we wonder why they can't get anything done.

Edit: where is immigration being debated? Not congress, that bill Miller floated was one that died on arrival back in February.

The trans ban was about the wall and Trump not wanting to hear lawyers argue about it. The amount transgender troops impact the budget isn't even a rounding error it's so small.

On August 06 2017 04:38 zlefin wrote:

how can it be about the budget when the cost of it is negligible? tha'ts just a canard used as a cover for bigotry and playing to the base. i'ts not about an actual thoughtful point or debate.

On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:


dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta).

On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:


dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta).

On August 06 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:

you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.
i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money.
and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues.

On August 06 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:

Bullshit. We could secure that boarder Jon Snow style with a mile high wall and the Republicans would still pitch deporting every illegal just to drum up turn out.

On August 06 2017 04:42 farvacola wrote:
the end of the war on drugs would secure the border far more effectively than literally anything the Republicans have cooked up, wall or no wall.

On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:


No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure.

This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge.

On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:


No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure.

This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge.



Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however.

On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:

Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however.

On August 06 2017 04:46 zlefin wrote:

you claim the republicans are willing to deal; but I see little reason to take your word for it; can you back up your claim that republicans are seriously willing to deal? and are actually making serious, sensible proposals to address the issue?
what are they offering to give up as part of a deal?

because things like the wall are a sign of it not at all being a serious proposal but just virtue signalling.

what standard would constitute a "secure" border? a large number of people in at present doesn't say much about the flow rates; it also says little about what's actually feasible to do and at what cost it would be.

On August 06 2017 04:48 Plansix wrote:

But illegally crossing the boarder is not how those illegal immigrates get into the country. They over stay visas. The problems we do have with the boarder can be address with more funding.


But you see, I wasn't born yesterday. I know when I see a goal post that is ripe to be moved. Securing the boarder is like the war on terror, war on drugs and being tough on crime. It is an ethereal concept with no real metric for success. A rallying cry to be broken out when elections come around.

The boarder will never be secure, so the path to citizenship will never be discussed. And it will also be the other side's fault for not helping secure the boarder. I've watched this debate my entire political life and it never changes. Republicans will not give up the turn out that comes with the fear of "immigrants coming to take your jobs".

On August 06 2017 05:09 Introvert wrote:


You don't have to take my word for it, you can look at the things I referenced. Every peice of evidence suggests that the GOP is more willing to make a deal than their opposition. Ted effing Cruz wouldn't rule out amnesty after security until like the very last days of the primary. Trump talked about people having to co out then "come back in." In all honesty only partisans don't see how many in the GOP caucus would take a path to citizenship, even without stricter enforcement. See the gang of eight or amnesty during the Bush years.



Overstays are the majority, yes. Can you agree that we should do more to kick people out who over stay their Visas?

The goalposts have only shifted in one direction. The Democrat party is more open borders now than it was in
2008. I know it's hard for you to believe this, but yes, if it was shown that the border was secure and the number of people coming in/staying here when they shouldn't was reduced to negligible levels, that would be acceptable.

Meanwhile the democrats are wholly untrustworthy because we know the moment a "path to citizenship" begins, they will immediately cut funding for enforcement. The thing you are ignoring is that there are many Republicans and Republican politicians, who want immigration. They have an interest in these things, including trying to avoid the BS racism charge. by your own logic the Democrat party is far less trustworthy on this issue, but somehow I don't take your position to be "do nothing."

But my point was not to discuss immigration again, but to criticize that intensely stupid "Analysis" article from NPR and your one liner accompanying it.