|
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. |
And lose that sweet, sweet new slavery money in the form of Private Prisons?
|
On September 06 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote: [quote] You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't. Can we also agree that Kate's Law is a really dumb idea if you want to keep immigrants who repeatedly cross the border out of the country? On September 06 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote: EDIT: @P6 please don't equate Hillary profiting off of blaming everyone but herself for losing to THE WORST MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE IN MODERN HISTORY (though I guess losing makes her the worst), and doing/saying practically nothing to "keep fighting", with Bernie going to red and blue districts around the country and actually trying to sway hearts and minds. Can’t help you there. People gotta bury the hatchet if they want to win over moderates. I know a lot of moderate and older democrats and it is their number one complaint. But you can, I'm not referring to burying the hatchet (a somewhat culturally insensitive phrase, but not nearly as bad as "Off the reservation"), which I agree with, but with your specific comparison. Also ironic to call for a burying of hatchets when she literally is out promoting a book blaming Bernie more than herself, while Bernie is looking forward. The only reason it's an issue is she and many of her supporters refuse to take responsibility for their errors and want to act as if they weren't errors at all, it's not personal, it's practical to point out how/why they still don't get it. How does it hurt? It demands that we keep them in the United States as their punishment for immigrating illegally. Yeah, I'm not a fan of imprisoning illegal immigrants in general. I'd rather just Fedex them out of the country.
Why do you think Republicans and many Democrats think locking them up in our country is something we should make law, as opposed to deporting them (or trying to make being a contributing member of society the smart logistical/economic choice for the immigrant)?
BTW this aspect of Kate's Law is something I brought up at it's inception and is part of what gets it bipartisan support.
|
On September 06 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote: [quote]
Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't. Can we also agree that Kate's Law is a really dumb idea if you want to keep immigrants who repeatedly cross the border out of the country? On September 06 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote: EDIT: @P6 please don't equate Hillary profiting off of blaming everyone but herself for losing to THE WORST MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE IN MODERN HISTORY (though I guess losing makes her the worst), and doing/saying practically nothing to "keep fighting", with Bernie going to red and blue districts around the country and actually trying to sway hearts and minds. Can’t help you there. People gotta bury the hatchet if they want to win over moderates. I know a lot of moderate and older democrats and it is their number one complaint. But you can, I'm not referring to burying the hatchet (a somewhat culturally insensitive phrase, but not nearly as bad as "Off the reservation"), which I agree with, but with your specific comparison. Also ironic to call for a burying of hatchets when she literally is out promoting a book blaming Bernie more than herself, while Bernie is looking forward. The only reason it's an issue is she and many of her supporters refuse to take responsibility for their errors and want to act as if they weren't errors at all, it's not personal, it's practical to point out how/why they still don't get it. How does it hurt? It demands that we keep them in the United States as their punishment for immigrating illegally. Yeah, I'm not a fan of imprisoning illegal immigrants in general. I'd rather just Fedex them out of the country. Why do you think Republicans and many Democrats think locking them up in our country is something we should make law, as opposed to deporting them (or trying to make being a contributing member of society the smart logistical/economic choice for the immigrant)? BTW this aspect of Kate's Law is something I brought up at it's inception and is part of what gets it bipartisan support. Because, for the sake of political expedience, politicians would rather jerk off into a ceiling fan than tackle the real underlying issues. It's the same basic reason why neither party really wants to fix our immigration system.
|
United States41991 Posts
On September 06 2017 06:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote: [quote]
xDaunt
Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration.
You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest.
You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no.
You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers.
You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants.
You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer.
This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't. Can we also agree that Kate's Law is a really dumb idea if you want to keep immigrants who repeatedly cross the border out of the country? On September 06 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote: EDIT: @P6 please don't equate Hillary profiting off of blaming everyone but herself for losing to THE WORST MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE IN MODERN HISTORY (though I guess losing makes her the worst), and doing/saying practically nothing to "keep fighting", with Bernie going to red and blue districts around the country and actually trying to sway hearts and minds. Can’t help you there. People gotta bury the hatchet if they want to win over moderates. I know a lot of moderate and older democrats and it is their number one complaint. But you can, I'm not referring to burying the hatchet (a somewhat culturally insensitive phrase, but not nearly as bad as "Off the reservation"), which I agree with, but with your specific comparison. Also ironic to call for a burying of hatchets when she literally is out promoting a book blaming Bernie more than herself, while Bernie is looking forward. The only reason it's an issue is she and many of her supporters refuse to take responsibility for their errors and want to act as if they weren't errors at all, it's not personal, it's practical to point out how/why they still don't get it. How does it hurt? It demands that we keep them in the United States as their punishment for immigrating illegally. Yeah, I'm not a fan of imprisoning illegal immigrants in general. I'd rather just Fedex them out of the country. Why do you think Republicans and many Democrats think locking them up in our country is something we should make law, as opposed to deporting them (or trying to make being a contributing member of society the smart logistical/economic choice for the immigrant)? BTW this aspect of Kate's Law is something I brought up at it's inception and is part of what gets it bipartisan support. Because, for the sake of political expedience, politicians would rather jerk off into a ceiling fan than tackle the real underlying issues. It's the same basic reason why neither party really wants to fix our immigration system. I thought you supported the wall?
|
On September 06 2017 06:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote: [quote]
xDaunt
Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration.
You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest.
You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no.
You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers.
You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants.
You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer.
This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't. Can we also agree that Kate's Law is a really dumb idea if you want to keep immigrants who repeatedly cross the border out of the country? On September 06 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote: EDIT: @P6 please don't equate Hillary profiting off of blaming everyone but herself for losing to THE WORST MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE IN MODERN HISTORY (though I guess losing makes her the worst), and doing/saying practically nothing to "keep fighting", with Bernie going to red and blue districts around the country and actually trying to sway hearts and minds. Can’t help you there. People gotta bury the hatchet if they want to win over moderates. I know a lot of moderate and older democrats and it is their number one complaint. But you can, I'm not referring to burying the hatchet (a somewhat culturally insensitive phrase, but not nearly as bad as "Off the reservation"), which I agree with, but with your specific comparison. Also ironic to call for a burying of hatchets when she literally is out promoting a book blaming Bernie more than herself, while Bernie is looking forward. The only reason it's an issue is she and many of her supporters refuse to take responsibility for their errors and want to act as if they weren't errors at all, it's not personal, it's practical to point out how/why they still don't get it. How does it hurt? It demands that we keep them in the United States as their punishment for immigrating illegally. Yeah, I'm not a fan of imprisoning illegal immigrants in general. I'd rather just Fedex them out of the country. Why do you think Republicans and many Democrats think locking them up in our country is something we should make law, as opposed to deporting them (or trying to make being a contributing member of society the smart logistical/economic choice for the immigrant)? BTW this aspect of Kate's Law is something I brought up at it's inception and is part of what gets it bipartisan support. Because, for the sake of political expedience, politicians would rather jerk off into a ceiling fan than tackle the real underlying issues. It's the same basic reason why neither party really wants to fix our immigration system.
I'm not sure I follow? What about advocating locking up immigrants in our country is politically expedient? Who is it that thinks that's a good idea (besides the politicians) making it politically advantageous to advocate for? Why would anyone support doing such in your opinion?
|
|
Why'd they remove "Environmental Issues" from the priority list on the poll? Supposedly this climate change thing is a big deal.
They went through the trouble of asking people who they think would handle the environment as an issue better, but left it off the ranking system. I wonder why.
|
On September 06 2017 06:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:13 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:09 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:43 kollin wrote: [quote] We're winning so we can't be wrong! If I'm not misremembering it's you that harps on about the failures of a two party system to give viable voting options, could that not be the case here? Seriously, re-read. The poster described the right as not "having a bunch of coherent arguments" and the country has decided to "redefine the right so absurdly." How could the Democrats mess it up? Why does the party of the right enjoy such great majorities in governorships and state houses? It matters that people still see their interests represented in this supposed bankrupt position that huge majorities go this way. If it were just low amounts of viable voting options, the Dems ought to win that easily. Lesser of two evils with such a bad opposition how could you lose? Still waiting, kollin. You posit your questions as evidence that my opinion is wrong when there are actual answers to your questions that make logical sense and when a cursory glance at the world demonstrates that my opinion is factually substantiated. If only you could communicate the actual answers to your questions that make logical sense. Wait a second ... let's see if I have it down: If you actually told them, you'd then realize that the real answers totally contradict your points and make them all fundamentally unsound, to the extent to which even a short read would make you realize how stupid it would be to hold them. You clearly don't have it down. Haven't you learned from the last few times we had an interaction and you immediately disengaged when the threat of an actual conversation emerged? Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument. It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time. On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin. Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal. 1) Your parties are absurdly rightwing. You have already agreed to that. There are a bunch of facts that caused that to happen, I imagine some really historical facts like the Republicans moving to the right of the Democrats to execute the Southern Strategy or the fact that if you were even slightly left you could be a COMMUNIST during the Cold War did not help, but my guess is the biggest factors are closer to us, with Reagan worshipping and the Tea Party on your side, and the espousal of neoliberalism on the other. We can go into details if you want. 2) This doesn't say much about the actual people within the United States. A country that is that rightwing wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as their most liked politician, and wouldn't have all of the (actual) leftwing talking points at over 50% approval (no matter how much weight you put in those polls, it just wouldn't happen). You also wouldn't get Trump parroting a whole bunch of leftwing talking points to win if the people of the US were actually that rightwing, that would be a moronic strategy and that wouldn't have resulted in him winning some democratic states. 3) The democratic party IS a joke for losing to you guys. Like, not in that I personally think it's a joke (I do), but in that it is treated as such everywhere, even in your own entertainment media. Their losing can be explained strategically though. Their strategy on the state level was incredibly poor. It doesn't help that they're actually mostly playing by the rules, while you gerrymander and "anti voting fraud" your way into a more favourable electorate. They are also much more threatened by losing to their left than they are by losing to their right. If you want to see a strong democratic party, look no further than how they deal with us, and look as far away as you can from how they deal with you. 4) It's telling that you go to these circumstancial notions to defend that your party has sense and substance. Normally you would go to the issues and demonstrate that your party's positions make sense, rather than this convoluted copout. I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt agreeing that the republican party was intellectually bankrupt not long ago. 4. I responded in context with how you described the situation between the parties. That's the circumstances of the response. I'll defend the sense on an issue-by-issue basis, since the actual positions of the Republican party do not frequently align with my conservative beliefs. But in your framing, absolutely there's the possibility that its beliefs aren't as unpalatable as you make out. And I'm content just to point out that your post paints the Democrat party in a very bad light, or like Kollin said, paints the electorate in a very bad light. That's probably as far as we'll get. The US is a bit overdue to have a collapse with some Berniebro in charge. The Sanders support from the youth makes a lot of sense without a modern example of the unintentional consequences. Trump played off that Sanders support for sure. He's about as much a loser on the populist/socialist front as him.
And yet last time we talked about that you absolutely did not engage me on the issues, like not even remotely.
I'm not entirely sure why you point out that what I say puts the democratic party in a bad light. Do you think it's news to me? Or to Americans fwiw, since the Democratic party polls about as well as Trump?
Can't wait till you get a Berniebro in charge and will be eager to listen to your excuse when they don't destroy your country.
|
Literature on the impact of low wage migration on wages suggests a neutral effect. We've already settled here the issue regarding crime rates. Since most migrants get in at working age, pay taxes and don't get benefits there is no drain on govt rss. Economically, the net effect of illegal immigrants in the US is, at worst, neutral. Meanwhile, net migration seems top have stalled from some years now. If illegal migration in the U.S. is bad then it is the kind of bad that doesn't have negativeconsequences.
|
On September 06 2017 07:31 warding wrote: Literature on the impact of low wage migration on wages suggests a neutral effect. We've already settled here the issue regarding crime rates. Since most migrants get in at working age, pay taxes and don't get benefits there is no drain on govt rss. Economically, the net effect of illegal immigrants in the US is, at worst, neutral. Meanwhile, net migration seems top have stalled from some years now. If illegal migration in the U.S. is bad then it is the kind of bad that doesn't have negativeconsequences.
But did here that the objections are about ILLEGAL immigration? Shouldn't that be the end of the argument right there? Who cares about consequences, facts, and actual legal standards. ILLEGAL means ILLEGAL, amirite?
|
|
On September 06 2017 05:40 Nevuk wrote:Barack Obama on DACA Show nested quote + Immigration can be a controversial topic. We all want safe, secure borders and a dynamic economy, and people of goodwill can have legitimate disagreements about how to fix our immigration system so that everybody plays by the rules. But that’s not what the action that the White House took today is about. This is about young people who grew up in America – kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours. They may not even know a language besides English. They often have no idea they’re undocumented until they apply for a job, or college, or a driver’s license. Over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young people – our young people – that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here a certain number of years, and if you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you’ll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. And for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill. That bill never came. And because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people from the only country they know solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people, so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and our country. We did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. Deportations of criminals went up. Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result. But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak? Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us. They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages. It is precisely because this action is contrary to our spirit, and to common sense, that business leaders, faith leaders, economists, and Americans of all political stripes called on the administration not to do what it did today. And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future. I’m heartened by those who’ve suggested that they should. And I join my voice with the majority of Americans who hope they step up and do it with a sense of moral urgency that matches the urgency these young people feel. Ultimately, this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people – and who we want to be. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like, or where our names come from, or the way we pray. What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals – that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation. That’s how America has traveled this far. That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.
https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155227588436749
So beautifully written, and so true too. I miss having a president who cared about other people and cared about speaking in complete sentences.
|
On September 06 2017 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 06:36 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:13 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:09 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote: [quote] Seriously, re-read. The poster described the right as not "having a bunch of coherent arguments" and the country has decided to "redefine the right so absurdly." How could the Democrats mess it up? Why does the party of the right enjoy such great majorities in governorships and state houses? It matters that people still see their interests represented in this supposed bankrupt position that huge majorities go this way. If it were just low amounts of viable voting options, the Dems ought to win that easily. Lesser of two evils with such a bad opposition how could you lose? Still waiting, kollin. You posit your questions as evidence that my opinion is wrong when there are actual answers to your questions that make logical sense and when a cursory glance at the world demonstrates that my opinion is factually substantiated. If only you could communicate the actual answers to your questions that make logical sense. Wait a second ... let's see if I have it down: If you actually told them, you'd then realize that the real answers totally contradict your points and make them all fundamentally unsound, to the extent to which even a short read would make you realize how stupid it would be to hold them. You clearly don't have it down. Haven't you learned from the last few times we had an interaction and you immediately disengaged when the threat of an actual conversation emerged? Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument. It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time. On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin. Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal. 1) Your parties are absurdly rightwing. You have already agreed to that. There are a bunch of facts that caused that to happen, I imagine some really historical facts like the Republicans moving to the right of the Democrats to execute the Southern Strategy or the fact that if you were even slightly left you could be a COMMUNIST during the Cold War did not help, but my guess is the biggest factors are closer to us, with Reagan worshipping and the Tea Party on your side, and the espousal of neoliberalism on the other. We can go into details if you want. 2) This doesn't say much about the actual people within the United States. A country that is that rightwing wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as their most liked politician, and wouldn't have all of the (actual) leftwing talking points at over 50% approval (no matter how much weight you put in those polls, it just wouldn't happen). You also wouldn't get Trump parroting a whole bunch of leftwing talking points to win if the people of the US were actually that rightwing, that would be a moronic strategy and that wouldn't have resulted in him winning some democratic states. 3) The democratic party IS a joke for losing to you guys. Like, not in that I personally think it's a joke (I do), but in that it is treated as such everywhere, even in your own entertainment media. Their losing can be explained strategically though. Their strategy on the state level was incredibly poor. It doesn't help that they're actually mostly playing by the rules, while you gerrymander and "anti voting fraud" your way into a more favourable electorate. They are also much more threatened by losing to their left than they are by losing to their right. If you want to see a strong democratic party, look no further than how they deal with us, and look as far away as you can from how they deal with you. 4) It's telling that you go to these circumstancial notions to defend that your party has sense and substance. Normally you would go to the issues and demonstrate that your party's positions make sense, rather than this convoluted copout. I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt agreeing that the republican party was intellectually bankrupt not long ago. 4. I responded in context with how you described the situation between the parties. That's the circumstances of the response. I'll defend the sense on an issue-by-issue basis, since the actual positions of the Republican party do not frequently align with my conservative beliefs. But in your framing, absolutely there's the possibility that its beliefs aren't as unpalatable as you make out. And I'm content just to point out that your post paints the Democrat party in a very bad light, or like Kollin said, paints the electorate in a very bad light. That's probably as far as we'll get. The US is a bit overdue to have a collapse with some Berniebro in charge. The Sanders support from the youth makes a lot of sense without a modern example of the unintentional consequences. Trump played off that Sanders support for sure. He's about as much a loser on the populist/socialist front as him. And yet last time we talked about that you absolutely did not engage me on the issues, like not even remotely. I'm not entirely sure why you point out that what I say puts the democratic party in a bad light. Do you think it's news to me? Or to Americans fwiw, since the Democratic party polls about as well as Trump? Can't wait till you get a Berniebro in charge and will be eager to listen to your excuse when they don't destroy your country. Trump's doing a pretty bad job. You might get your shot. Flight 93 election, revisited.
I'm of the opinion that both major parties have huge issues representing their bases and future political viability. Identity politics and social issue extremism comes to mind for the Dems, only pretending to want to repeal Obamacare for 7 years and illegal immigration come to mind for the GOP. So, when you trash the Republicans in absolute form, I seek to make sure you understand it means the Dems still have been doing fucking horrible to still lose in what you think would be an easy fight. People like GH I know to have a poor opinion of that party. This was how I discover what your opinion of the Democrat party is. Not everyone thinks they're that bad. This forum is a bit dour compared to my SoCal lib friends. Usually they make excuses for D-party performance (see: They're all racists, traditionalists ... or it's about gerrymandering and voter intimidation). So now I know that about you. It's whatever.
|
I am really not ok with them losing cabinet members. Some of those people have really important jobs and they can't just go on the lam for a weekend.
|
On September 06 2017 07:52 Plansix wrote:I am really not ok with them losing cabinet members. Some of those people have really important jobs and they can't just go on the lam for a weekend. if it's the state dept; woulnd't they periodicalyl be going off to do secret negotiations anyways? I'd kind of expect that, for certain sensitive negotiations. or at least wouldn't be that surprised by it.
|
President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign has canceled a series of fundraisers it had planned to hold in Texas this fall in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, according to three Republicans familiar with the decision.
Trump had been scheduled to host a Dallas fundraising dinner in late September, while Vice President Mike Pence had been slated to headline a dinner in San Antonio followed by a lunch in Houston, both to take place in early October. All three events, which had been part of a national Trump reelection campaign fundraising swing, have been removed from the schedule as the Lone Star State recovers from the storm.
According to an early schedule provided by the three Republicans, Trump still plans to headline events in Greensboro, North Carolina, and Las Vegas, both of which will be held in October. Later on, he is slated to host a pair of events in New York City.
Pence, meanwhile, is scheduled to attend fall events in Milwaukee and Washington, D.C.
The events are to benefit Trump Victory, a joint Trump reelection-Republican National Committee campaign account. They come as the president has begun to take steps to prepare for a 2020 campaign.
Source
|
On September 06 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 07:52 Plansix wrote:I am really not ok with them losing cabinet members. Some of those people have really important jobs and they can't just go on the lam for a weekend. if it's the state dept; woulnd't they periodicalyl be going off to do secret negotiations anyways? I'd kind of expect that, for certain sensitive negotiations. or at least wouldn't be that surprised by it. If you do things in secret, have an alibi. Otherwise it's pretty easy to figure out you are doing something and not telling anyone. Because you didn't tell anyone.
|
|
Don't worry; Trump would never let Jose into America.
|
On September 06 2017 07:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 06:36 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:13 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:09 Nebuchad wrote: [quote]
You posit your questions as evidence that my opinion is wrong when there are actual answers to your questions that make logical sense and when a cursory glance at the world demonstrates that my opinion is factually substantiated. If only you could communicate the actual answers to your questions that make logical sense. Wait a second ... let's see if I have it down: If you actually told them, you'd then realize that the real answers totally contradict your points and make them all fundamentally unsound, to the extent to which even a short read would make you realize how stupid it would be to hold them. You clearly don't have it down. Haven't you learned from the last few times we had an interaction and you immediately disengaged when the threat of an actual conversation emerged? Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument. It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time. On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin. Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal. 1) Your parties are absurdly rightwing. You have already agreed to that. There are a bunch of facts that caused that to happen, I imagine some really historical facts like the Republicans moving to the right of the Democrats to execute the Southern Strategy or the fact that if you were even slightly left you could be a COMMUNIST during the Cold War did not help, but my guess is the biggest factors are closer to us, with Reagan worshipping and the Tea Party on your side, and the espousal of neoliberalism on the other. We can go into details if you want. 2) This doesn't say much about the actual people within the United States. A country that is that rightwing wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as their most liked politician, and wouldn't have all of the (actual) leftwing talking points at over 50% approval (no matter how much weight you put in those polls, it just wouldn't happen). You also wouldn't get Trump parroting a whole bunch of leftwing talking points to win if the people of the US were actually that rightwing, that would be a moronic strategy and that wouldn't have resulted in him winning some democratic states. 3) The democratic party IS a joke for losing to you guys. Like, not in that I personally think it's a joke (I do), but in that it is treated as such everywhere, even in your own entertainment media. Their losing can be explained strategically though. Their strategy on the state level was incredibly poor. It doesn't help that they're actually mostly playing by the rules, while you gerrymander and "anti voting fraud" your way into a more favourable electorate. They are also much more threatened by losing to their left than they are by losing to their right. If you want to see a strong democratic party, look no further than how they deal with us, and look as far away as you can from how they deal with you. 4) It's telling that you go to these circumstancial notions to defend that your party has sense and substance. Normally you would go to the issues and demonstrate that your party's positions make sense, rather than this convoluted copout. I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt agreeing that the republican party was intellectually bankrupt not long ago. 4. I responded in context with how you described the situation between the parties. That's the circumstances of the response. I'll defend the sense on an issue-by-issue basis, since the actual positions of the Republican party do not frequently align with my conservative beliefs. But in your framing, absolutely there's the possibility that its beliefs aren't as unpalatable as you make out. And I'm content just to point out that your post paints the Democrat party in a very bad light, or like Kollin said, paints the electorate in a very bad light. That's probably as far as we'll get. The US is a bit overdue to have a collapse with some Berniebro in charge. The Sanders support from the youth makes a lot of sense without a modern example of the unintentional consequences. Trump played off that Sanders support for sure. He's about as much a loser on the populist/socialist front as him. And yet last time we talked about that you absolutely did not engage me on the issues, like not even remotely. I'm not entirely sure why you point out that what I say puts the democratic party in a bad light. Do you think it's news to me? Or to Americans fwiw, since the Democratic party polls about as well as Trump? Can't wait till you get a Berniebro in charge and will be eager to listen to your excuse when they don't destroy your country. Trump's doing a pretty bad job. You might get your shot. Flight 93 election, revisited. I'm of the opinion that both major parties have huge issues representing their bases and future political viability. Identity politics and social issue extremism comes to mind for the Dems, only pretending to want to repeal Obamacare for 7 years and illegal immigration come to mind for the GOP. So, when you trash the Republicans in absolute form, I seek to make sure you understand it means the Dems still have been doing fucking horrible to still lose in what you think would be an easy fight. People like GH I know to have a poor opinion of that party. This was how I discover what your opinion of the Democrat party is. Not everyone thinks they're that bad. This forum is a bit dour compared to my SoCal lib friends. Usually they make excuses for D-party performance (see: They're all racists, traditionalists ... or it's about gerrymandering and voter intimidation). So now I know that about you. It's whatever.
Glad I moved away from the absurd pile then.
Identity politics doesn't mean much anymore (kind of like racism except this time it's true), and there really isn't such a thing as "too not racist". The Dem's problems lie elsewhere.
As for the GOP, they suck on healthcare, economy, guns, climate change, science, education, higher education, taxes, racism... Just about everything actually, I can't think of a subject they don't suck on, ideologically speaking. The overarching issue is that they believe most of what they believe not out of ideology, but because there's a financial interest behind what they support that asked them to believe it. Do you have any favourite subjects for elaboration?
|
|
|
|