|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 08 2018 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole dreamer situation is very interesting. I really just don't know what the right move is for Democrats. Unless there is a shift in the moderate Republicans, I don’t think they have a move. They can’t do this themselves. yeah, this is kinda where I'm ending up. It truly looks like Democrats' best move is to say "What will you guys be willing to give up in exchange for us just totally dropping this whole Dreamer thing?" To me, the issue is that I don't see a path to victory here for Democrats. It's not that I don't think the idea of deporting dreamers is utterly fucked up. It's that there is no mechanism for saving them. Democrats just don't have enough seats. We can't really demand dreamers stay.
meh, tbh it looks like a pretty easy win for Republicans to me. The Democrats only have power in the house right now and while I totally believe that they can get something going there I still don't see how anything could possibly end up getting into and out of the senate that looks even remotely like something Democrats want. Never mind Trump actually singing something.
If Democrats had the power to push through both senate and the house maybe, but with how much "shocking" news there are about Trump every 2nd day, Dreamers will be forgotten soon and Dems won't be getting anything out of it imo. Neither will it hurt Republicans to deny their every demands because with how much "shocking" news there are about Trump every 2nd day, Dreamers will be forgotten soon
I don't see this ending well for Democrats and while I wouldn't exactly say it helps Republicans but I really do not see it hurting them either.
|
On February 08 2018 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole dreamer situation is very interesting. I really just don't know what the right move is for Democrats. Unless there is a shift in the moderate Republicans, I don’t think they have a move. They can’t do this themselves. yeah, this is kinda where I'm ending up. It truly looks like Democrats' best move is to say "What will you guys be willing to give up in exchange for us just totally dropping this whole Dreamer thing?" To me, the issue is that I don't see a path to victory here for Democrats. It's not that I don't think the idea of deporting dreamers is utterly fucked up. It's that there is no mechanism for saving them. Democrats just don't have enough seats. We can't really demand dreamers stay.
This is backwards. whoever is telling you that "republicans" want to deport dreamers is on something strong. Pretty much every Republican will at least give some sort of legal status (which they know will become citizenship). They want something in return. All Trump asked for was a wall and an end to future chain migration after the current wait list ends. Democrats dumped that in 2 seconds. Which party is willing to compromise? the gop. Democrats want amnesty without giving up a thing. 2 billion for a border wall or a slight change in the lottery portion is nothing. the current situation benefits the Dems and they will use it as a rallying cry. why on earth would they fix the problem?
ask yourself, what have the Democrats offered for dreamers? then ask yourself, is it small and can be defunded in the next appropriations bill? does what they offer make sure no more minors are brought across the border?
|
On February 08 2018 08:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 08 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole dreamer situation is very interesting. I really just don't know what the right move is for Democrats. Unless there is a shift in the moderate Republicans, I don’t think they have a move. They can’t do this themselves. yeah, this is kinda where I'm ending up. It truly looks like Democrats' best move is to say "What will you guys be willing to give up in exchange for us just totally dropping this whole Dreamer thing?" To me, the issue is that I don't see a path to victory here for Democrats. It's not that I don't think the idea of deporting dreamers is utterly fucked up. It's that there is no mechanism for saving them. Democrats just don't have enough seats. We can't really demand dreamers stay. This is backwards. whoever is telling you that "republicans" want to deport dreamers is on something strong. Pretty much every Republican will at least give some sort of legal status (which they know will become citizenship). They want something in return. All Trump asked for was a wall and an end to future chain migration after the current wait list ends. Democrats dumped that in 2 seconds. Which party is willing to compromise? the gop. Democrats want amnesty without giving up a thing. 2 billion for a border wall or a slight change in the lottery portion is nothing. the current situation benefits the Dems and they will use it as a rallying cry. why on earth would they fix the problem? ask yourself, what have the Democrats offered for dreamers? then ask yourself, is it small and can be defunded in the next appropriations bill? does what they offer make sure no more minors are brought across the border?
Why in the world do people need something in return? Doesn't protecting dreamers just kinda seem like an ethical thing to do? Are you saying you don't feel an internal motivation to protect dreamers?
|
Politics is about horse trading and trying to do the right thing. The problem with the conservatives is they want things that democrats, moderate Republicans and the boarder states don’t want.
|
On February 08 2018 09:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 08:59 Introvert wrote:On February 08 2018 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 08 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole dreamer situation is very interesting. I really just don't know what the right move is for Democrats. Unless there is a shift in the moderate Republicans, I don’t think they have a move. They can’t do this themselves. yeah, this is kinda where I'm ending up. It truly looks like Democrats' best move is to say "What will you guys be willing to give up in exchange for us just totally dropping this whole Dreamer thing?" To me, the issue is that I don't see a path to victory here for Democrats. It's not that I don't think the idea of deporting dreamers is utterly fucked up. It's that there is no mechanism for saving them. Democrats just don't have enough seats. We can't really demand dreamers stay. This is backwards. whoever is telling you that "republicans" want to deport dreamers is on something strong. Pretty much every Republican will at least give some sort of legal status (which they know will become citizenship). They want something in return. All Trump asked for was a wall and an end to future chain migration after the current wait list ends. Democrats dumped that in 2 seconds. Which party is willing to compromise? the gop. Democrats want amnesty without giving up a thing. 2 billion for a border wall or a slight change in the lottery portion is nothing. the current situation benefits the Dems and they will use it as a rallying cry. why on earth would they fix the problem? ask yourself, what have the Democrats offered for dreamers? then ask yourself, is it small and can be defunded in the next appropriations bill? does what they offer make sure no more minors are brought across the border? Why in the world do people need something in return? Doesn't protecting dreamers just kinda seem like an ethical thing to do? Are you saying you don't feel an internal motivation to protect dreamers?
This also gets back to the often repeated point. It's not a compromise if both sides want the thing.
The "compromise" being offered is Republicans will do thing they want to, but only if they get to do a bunch of other things they want to do as well.
You can argue it's what they get to do controlling both House and Senate, but that doesn't make it any more of a compromise.
|
On February 08 2018 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole dreamer situation is very interesting. I really just don't know what the right move is for Democrats. Unless there is a shift in the moderate Republicans, I don’t think they have a move. They can’t do this themselves. yeah, this is kinda where I'm ending up. It truly looks like Democrats' best move is to say "What will you guys be willing to give up in exchange for us just totally dropping this whole Dreamer thing?" To me, the issue is that I don't see a path to victory here for Democrats. It's not that I don't think the idea of deporting dreamers is utterly fucked up. It's that there is no mechanism for saving them. Democrats just don't have enough seats. We can't really demand dreamers stay.
a holdover/stall deal that prevents anything happening until later? then they can aim to get enough in the midterms that they can block a lot of stuff; and implement a fix in 2021 if they do well.
just a possible strategy.
|
On February 08 2018 08:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 08 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole dreamer situation is very interesting. I really just don't know what the right move is for Democrats. Unless there is a shift in the moderate Republicans, I don’t think they have a move. They can’t do this themselves. yeah, this is kinda where I'm ending up. It truly looks like Democrats' best move is to say "What will you guys be willing to give up in exchange for us just totally dropping this whole Dreamer thing?" To me, the issue is that I don't see a path to victory here for Democrats. It's not that I don't think the idea of deporting dreamers is utterly fucked up. It's that there is no mechanism for saving them. Democrats just don't have enough seats. We can't really demand dreamers stay. This is backwards. whoever is telling you that "republicans" want to deport dreamers is on something strong. Pretty much every Republican will at least give some sort of legal status (which they know will become citizenship). They want something in return. All Trump asked for was a wall and an end to future chain migration after the current wait list ends. Democrats dumped that in 2 seconds. Which party is willing to compromise? the gop. Democrats want amnesty without giving up a thing. 2 billion for a border wall or a slight change in the lottery portion is nothing. the current situation benefits the Dems and they will use it as a rallying cry. why on earth would they fix the problem? ask yourself, what have the Democrats offered for dreamers? then ask yourself, is it small and can be defunded in the next appropriations bill? does what they offer make sure no more minors are brought across the border? The doublethink is strong with this one. The republicans don't want to deport dreamers, yet want something in return. At the same time. At what point does the cognitive dissonance becomes too uncomfortable for you?
|
On February 08 2018 09:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 08:59 Introvert wrote:On February 08 2018 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 08 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole dreamer situation is very interesting. I really just don't know what the right move is for Democrats. Unless there is a shift in the moderate Republicans, I don’t think they have a move. They can’t do this themselves. yeah, this is kinda where I'm ending up. It truly looks like Democrats' best move is to say "What will you guys be willing to give up in exchange for us just totally dropping this whole Dreamer thing?" To me, the issue is that I don't see a path to victory here for Democrats. It's not that I don't think the idea of deporting dreamers is utterly fucked up. It's that there is no mechanism for saving them. Democrats just don't have enough seats. We can't really demand dreamers stay. This is backwards. whoever is telling you that "republicans" want to deport dreamers is on something strong. Pretty much every Republican will at least give some sort of legal status (which they know will become citizenship). They want something in return. All Trump asked for was a wall and an end to future chain migration after the current wait list ends. Democrats dumped that in 2 seconds. Which party is willing to compromise? the gop. Democrats want amnesty without giving up a thing. 2 billion for a border wall or a slight change in the lottery portion is nothing. the current situation benefits the Dems and they will use it as a rallying cry. why on earth would they fix the problem? ask yourself, what have the Democrats offered for dreamers? then ask yourself, is it small and can be defunded in the next appropriations bill? does what they offer make sure no more minors are brought across the border? Why in the world do people need something in return? Doesn't protecting dreamers just kinda seem like an ethical thing to do? Are you saying you don't feel an internal motivation to protect dreamers?
Not particularly, any more than I feel it is the government's duty to do a whole lot. I mean they'd have it by now if one side wasn't being so stubborn. Immigration is not an issue to be decided by the immigrants themselves.
But let's not get away from my hypotheticals. Say "protecting the dreamers" is a moral thing. Well, Trump offered up a big whopper of a helping of morality. What happened? Pelosi threw it away while Durbin said chain migration was a no go and that the 1.8 million number was "a good start" or something like that. Surely you can see how the Democrats are not motivated by altruism here? If they do this and leave all the incentives for parents to bring more kids across while they run the very real risk of assault and abuse as they cross, is that moral? If this issue is to be driven by morality then surely border security and internal enforcement is moral.
So again, what will the Democrats give? A wall? No. An (eventual) end to chain migration? No. Other security? "Not needed." E-Verify? No. What did Graham-Durbin offer? A pittance for part of the wall and a change the visa lottery. They won't even end chain migration for a dreamer's law-breaking parents (isn't that one reason we are supposed to care about how innocent they are?)
Republicans have been burned by the Democrats multiple times on this issue. One party doesn't want the mass movement to end, so they block all attempts at ending it. The offer many in the GOP and Trump himself have made is very generous to dreamers with no catches. Remember, you thought Trump's deal was great when you first saw it! It was even better than it looked and yet it got tossed.
On February 08 2018 09:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 08:59 Introvert wrote:On February 08 2018 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 08 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole dreamer situation is very interesting. I really just don't know what the right move is for Democrats. Unless there is a shift in the moderate Republicans, I don’t think they have a move. They can’t do this themselves. yeah, this is kinda where I'm ending up. It truly looks like Democrats' best move is to say "What will you guys be willing to give up in exchange for us just totally dropping this whole Dreamer thing?" To me, the issue is that I don't see a path to victory here for Democrats. It's not that I don't think the idea of deporting dreamers is utterly fucked up. It's that there is no mechanism for saving them. Democrats just don't have enough seats. We can't really demand dreamers stay. This is backwards. whoever is telling you that "republicans" want to deport dreamers is on something strong. Pretty much every Republican will at least give some sort of legal status (which they know will become citizenship). They want something in return. All Trump asked for was a wall and an end to future chain migration after the current wait list ends. Democrats dumped that in 2 seconds. Which party is willing to compromise? the gop. Democrats want amnesty without giving up a thing. 2 billion for a border wall or a slight change in the lottery portion is nothing. the current situation benefits the Dems and they will use it as a rallying cry. why on earth would they fix the problem? ask yourself, what have the Democrats offered for dreamers? then ask yourself, is it small and can be defunded in the next appropriations bill? does what they offer make sure no more minors are brought across the border? The doublethink is strong with this one. The republicans don't want to deport dreamers, yet want something in return. At the same time. At what point does the cognitive dissonance becomes too uncomfortable for you?
If you think about it more maybe you'll see why, espeically in the realm of politics, not to mention just logic, this isn't the case. Let me know if you need help.
|
its' no tlike the republicans actually want to do any kind of thoughtful reasonable immigration reform though. if they did it'd be a whole other story.
I also strongly doubt your claim of the republicans having made an actual good offer (that they kept to, rather than reneging on). so i'd require a cite to believe it.
|
Trumps offers were overturned by his own staff.
|
|
|
On February 08 2018 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 07:12 Seuss wrote:Russians penetrated multiple states' voter registration rolls in the 2016 presidential election, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security told NBC News on Wednesday.
Of the 21 states targeted by Russians in the election, several were successfully penetrated, said Jeanette Manfra, in an exclusive interview with NBC.
U.S. officials have said there is no evidence that any states' voter registration rolls were tampered with or at all altered by the foreign intrusions.
Manfra, whose role is to protect American elections from hacking, did not specify which states had been successfully penetrated, saying she could not publicly disclose classified information.
"We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated," Manfra told NBC. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/russians-penetrated-us-voter-systems-nbc-citing-top-us-official.htmlTo be clear, this is "just" voter rolls, not voting machines/counts. That's still rather scary. Yeah its important to be clear that this is information gathering, not manipulation. But remember, its totally fine and we don't need to sanction them at all.
Best to leave the improper manipulation of voter rolls to the politicians/officials
The New York City Board of Elections has agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged it violated federal law by removing more than 117,000 voters
@Introvert: Why is it you think Democrats want more immigrants (the one's a wall would impact) in the country? Both the politicians and the people, though I suspect you imagine different motivations for each?
Why is there only 4?
Also kinda blows my mind the Military keeps a list of stuff it can't "afford" but wants despite it's insanely gigantic budget.
|
On February 08 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 08 2018 07:12 Seuss wrote:Russians penetrated multiple states' voter registration rolls in the 2016 presidential election, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security told NBC News on Wednesday.
Of the 21 states targeted by Russians in the election, several were successfully penetrated, said Jeanette Manfra, in an exclusive interview with NBC.
U.S. officials have said there is no evidence that any states' voter registration rolls were tampered with or at all altered by the foreign intrusions.
Manfra, whose role is to protect American elections from hacking, did not specify which states had been successfully penetrated, saying she could not publicly disclose classified information.
"We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated," Manfra told NBC. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/russians-penetrated-us-voter-systems-nbc-citing-top-us-official.htmlTo be clear, this is "just" voter rolls, not voting machines/counts. That's still rather scary. Yeah its important to be clear that this is information gathering, not manipulation. But remember, its totally fine and we don't need to sanction them at all. Best to leave the improper manipulation of voter rolls to the politicians/officialsShow nested quote +The New York City Board of Elections has agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged it violated federal law by removing more than 117,000 voters @Introvert: Why is it you think Democrats want more immigrants (the one's a wall would impact) in the country? Both the politicians and the people, though I suspect you imagine different motivations for each? Why is there only 4?
I don't have a secret theory, it's about votes. Democrats (including in this thread) have been very excited for years about the demographic trends and what it means for their party. They still see unbeatable majorities in their future. Clearly I think the average registered Democrat feels this too. But maybe moreso, there is this mythos that "diversity is our strength," a meaningless phrase when not explained. I think that many on the farther left view immigration as a good in and of itself. Or that it is right to allow mass immigration because these immigrants are fleeing their, shall we say, craphole countries. All sorts of reasons. But the politicians in DC? It's obvious.
+ Show Spoiler +I do acknowledge that not all Democrats are as radical as their representatives, or at least they weren't.
|
In other words they hoped to bury the story with their own.
|
On February 08 2018 10:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2018 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 08 2018 07:12 Seuss wrote:Russians penetrated multiple states' voter registration rolls in the 2016 presidential election, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security told NBC News on Wednesday.
Of the 21 states targeted by Russians in the election, several were successfully penetrated, said Jeanette Manfra, in an exclusive interview with NBC.
U.S. officials have said there is no evidence that any states' voter registration rolls were tampered with or at all altered by the foreign intrusions.
Manfra, whose role is to protect American elections from hacking, did not specify which states had been successfully penetrated, saying she could not publicly disclose classified information.
"We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated," Manfra told NBC. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/russians-penetrated-us-voter-systems-nbc-citing-top-us-official.htmlTo be clear, this is "just" voter rolls, not voting machines/counts. That's still rather scary. Yeah its important to be clear that this is information gathering, not manipulation. But remember, its totally fine and we don't need to sanction them at all. Best to leave the improper manipulation of voter rolls to the politicians/officialsThe New York City Board of Elections has agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged it violated federal law by removing more than 117,000 voters @Introvert: Why is it you think Democrats want more immigrants (the one's a wall would impact) in the country? Both the politicians and the people, though I suspect you imagine different motivations for each? Why is there only 4? I don't have a secret theory, it's about votes. Democrats (including in this thread) have been very excited for years about the demographic trends and what it means for their party. They still see unbeatable majorities in their future. Clearly I think the average registered Democrat feels this too. But maybe moreso, there is this mythos that "diversity is our strength," a meaningless phrase when not explained. I think that many on the farther left view immigration as a good in and of itself. Or that it is right to allow mass immigration because these immigrants are fleeing their, shall we say, craphole countries. All sorts of reasons. But the politicians in DC? It's obvious. + Show Spoiler +I do acknowledge that not all Democrats are as radical as their representatives, or at least they weren't.
I guess rather than beat around it I'll just ask. When you say for "votes" then mention demographics it makes me think you are talking about the immigrants themselves, but then you go on about the people thinking it's a naturally good thing or however you want to call it making me think your talking about current voters.
Putting them both there with the distinction makes me think you mean to say both the votes of people who support a more open immigration policy and said immigrants.
I get the policy part (although I think Democrats want to exploit immigrants as well, even centrists/liberals see this in the tech field), but I don't get the actual immigrant part.
I feel like other than the whole letting them become citizens a large swath (a majority) of them more closely align with conservative values, but for the outright bigotry and racism from many in the right, and being the only party seen as willing to grant them citizenship being Democrats they should be voters your side can win.
I think the political part is ancillary and both sides of the aisle prefer to exploit immigrants in a way that benefits their economic interests first and political second. I don't think right leaning billionaires "hate" immigrants (though they probably see them as 'lesser than') any more than left leaning billionaires "love" them., I imagine them being largely indifferent outside of their impact on their economic interests. As such policy is more dictated by the economic motivations behind immigration than the political rabble rousing around it.
It appears what's gumming up the works at the moment is that the usually ancillary socio-political charge from the right (and left to some degree) is overshadowing the economically incentivized politicians. Essentially the kabuki has taken on a life of it's own.
|
On February 08 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 10:35 Introvert wrote:On February 08 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2018 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 08 2018 07:12 Seuss wrote:Russians penetrated multiple states' voter registration rolls in the 2016 presidential election, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security told NBC News on Wednesday.
Of the 21 states targeted by Russians in the election, several were successfully penetrated, said Jeanette Manfra, in an exclusive interview with NBC.
U.S. officials have said there is no evidence that any states' voter registration rolls were tampered with or at all altered by the foreign intrusions.
Manfra, whose role is to protect American elections from hacking, did not specify which states had been successfully penetrated, saying she could not publicly disclose classified information.
"We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated," Manfra told NBC. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/russians-penetrated-us-voter-systems-nbc-citing-top-us-official.htmlTo be clear, this is "just" voter rolls, not voting machines/counts. That's still rather scary. Yeah its important to be clear that this is information gathering, not manipulation. But remember, its totally fine and we don't need to sanction them at all. Best to leave the improper manipulation of voter rolls to the politicians/officialsThe New York City Board of Elections has agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged it violated federal law by removing more than 117,000 voters @Introvert: Why is it you think Democrats want more immigrants (the one's a wall would impact) in the country? Both the politicians and the people, though I suspect you imagine different motivations for each? Why is there only 4? I don't have a secret theory, it's about votes. Democrats (including in this thread) have been very excited for years about the demographic trends and what it means for their party. They still see unbeatable majorities in their future. Clearly I think the average registered Democrat feels this too. But maybe moreso, there is this mythos that "diversity is our strength," a meaningless phrase when not explained. I think that many on the farther left view immigration as a good in and of itself. Or that it is right to allow mass immigration because these immigrants are fleeing their, shall we say, craphole countries. All sorts of reasons. But the politicians in DC? It's obvious. + Show Spoiler +I do acknowledge that not all Democrats are as radical as their representatives, or at least they weren't. I guess rather than beat around it I'll just ask. When you say for "votes" then mention demographics it makes me think you are talking about the immigrants themselves, but then you go on about the people thinking it's a naturally good thing or however you want to call it making me think your talking about current voters. Putting them both there with the distinction makes me think you mean to say both the votes of people who support a more open immigration policy and said immigrants. I get the policy part (although I think Democrats want to exploit immigrants as well, even centrists/liberals see this in the tech field), but I don't get the actual immigrant part. I feel like other than the whole letting them become citizens a large swath (a majority) of them more closely align with conservative values, but for the outright bigotry and racism from many in the right, and being the only party seen as willing to grant them citizenship being Democrats they should be voters your side can win. I think the political part is ancillary and both sides of the aisle prefer to exploit immigrants in a way that benefits their economic interests first and political second. I don't think right leaning billionaires "hate" immigrants (though they probably see them as 'lesser than') any more than left leaning billionaires "love" them., I imagine them being largely indifferent outside of their impact on their economic interests. As such policy is more dictated by the economic motivations behind immigration than the political rabble rousing around it. It appears what's gumming up the works at the moment is that the usually ancillary socio-political charge from the right (and left to some degree) is overshadowing the economically incentivized politicians. Essentially the kabuki has taken on a life of it's own.
Well look at the question you asked. "Why do Democrats want more immigrants?" I think many Democrats, but espeically the polticians, are looking purely at the numbers. "In the next 4 years there will be x number of Mexican immigrants becoming citizens, and if 65% of them vote Democrat, that's y number more Democrat voters." It really is that crass. The rank and file Democrats prob have better motives than that at least present in their minds, even if they won't deny that the idea of winning more excites them. Until recently the Democrat party was not a radical party on this issue, so I think it's more about the voters they would get that are foreign born than appealing to natural born citizens.
If you look at the countries they come from I think it makes sense why they would vote for Democrats. Again maybe this is a dying breed, but there used to be "conservative Democrats" who might adopt the Catholic Church's pro-life stance, for instance. I am curious if the galloping to the left on social issues will move some to the GOP, and maybe that's why Trump didn't do that much worse with Latinos. But that's something that is to be determined.
I can't speak for the economic motivations from the left except to say that I'm sure both left and right wing billionaires are fond of cheap labor. I suppose whether or not it's secondary or primary doesn't matter too much. The GOP's stance on immigration is, from what I can tell and what I can read, driven entirely by the grassroots. Those evil Koch brothers love open borders. (To Bernie's credit he's not a fan, right? Or at least he wasn't. That economic nationalism has to have some upside).
|
So we're planning a military parade I hear. I hope that Trump has the foresight to take at least one carrier group out of service and have them grace that parade with their presence. Without a sufficiently impressive naval demonstration it'll just be a waste of effort.
|
having not heard a response to my query for cites, and factoring in what else he's said; i'm just gonna assume intro was horribly misinformed about what actually occurred on the immigration issue and disregard his claims as the usual republican claptrap, and thus not particularly connected to reality.
|
On February 08 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2018 10:35 Introvert wrote:On February 08 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 08 2018 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 08 2018 07:12 Seuss wrote:Russians penetrated multiple states' voter registration rolls in the 2016 presidential election, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security told NBC News on Wednesday.
Of the 21 states targeted by Russians in the election, several were successfully penetrated, said Jeanette Manfra, in an exclusive interview with NBC.
U.S. officials have said there is no evidence that any states' voter registration rolls were tampered with or at all altered by the foreign intrusions.
Manfra, whose role is to protect American elections from hacking, did not specify which states had been successfully penetrated, saying she could not publicly disclose classified information.
"We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated," Manfra told NBC. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/russians-penetrated-us-voter-systems-nbc-citing-top-us-official.htmlTo be clear, this is "just" voter rolls, not voting machines/counts. That's still rather scary. Yeah its important to be clear that this is information gathering, not manipulation. But remember, its totally fine and we don't need to sanction them at all. Best to leave the improper manipulation of voter rolls to the politicians/officialsThe New York City Board of Elections has agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged it violated federal law by removing more than 117,000 voters @Introvert: Why is it you think Democrats want more immigrants (the one's a wall would impact) in the country? Both the politicians and the people, though I suspect you imagine different motivations for each? Why is there only 4? I don't have a secret theory, it's about votes. Democrats (including in this thread) have been very excited for years about the demographic trends and what it means for their party. They still see unbeatable majorities in their future. Clearly I think the average registered Democrat feels this too. But maybe moreso, there is this mythos that "diversity is our strength," a meaningless phrase when not explained. I think that many on the farther left view immigration as a good in and of itself. Or that it is right to allow mass immigration because these immigrants are fleeing their, shall we say, craphole countries. All sorts of reasons. But the politicians in DC? It's obvious. + Show Spoiler +I do acknowledge that not all Democrats are as radical as their representatives, or at least they weren't. I guess rather than beat around it I'll just ask. When you say for "votes" then mention demographics it makes me think you are talking about the immigrants themselves, but then you go on about the people thinking it's a naturally good thing or however you want to call it making me think your talking about current voters. Putting them both there with the distinction makes me think you mean to say both the votes of people who support a more open immigration policy and said immigrants. I get the policy part (although I think Democrats want to exploit immigrants as well, even centrists/liberals see this in the tech field), but I don't get the actual immigrant part. I feel like other than the whole letting them become citizens a large swath (a majority) of them more closely align with conservative values, but for the outright bigotry and racism from many in the right, and being the only party seen as willing to grant them citizenship being Democrats they should be voters your side can win. I think the political part is ancillary and both sides of the aisle prefer to exploit immigrants in a way that benefits their economic interests first and political second. I don't think right leaning billionaires "hate" immigrants (though they probably see them as 'lesser than') any more than left leaning billionaires "love" them., I imagine them being largely indifferent outside of their impact on their economic interests. As such policy is more dictated by the economic motivations behind immigration than the political rabble rousing around it. It appears what's gumming up the works at the moment is that the usually ancillary socio-political charge from the right (and left to some degree) is overshadowing the economically incentivized politicians. Essentially the kabuki has taken on a life of it's own. Well look at the question you asked. "Why do Democrats want more immigrants?" I think many Democrats, but espeically the polticians, are looking purely at the numbers. "In the next 4 years there will be x number of Mexican immigrants becoming citizens, and if 65% of them vote Democrat, that's y number more Democrat voters." It really is that crass. The rank and file Democrats prob have better motives than that at least present in their minds, even if they won't deny that the idea of winning more excites them. Until recently the Democrat party was not a radical party on this issue, so I think it's more about the voters they would get that are foreign born than appealing to natural born citizens. If you look at the countries they come from I think it makes sense why they would vote for Democrats. Again maybe this is a dying breed, but there used to be "conservative Democrats" who might adopt the Catholic Church's pro-life stance, for instance. I am curious if the galloping to the left on social issues will move some to the GOP, and maybe that's why Trump didn't do that much worse with Latinos. But that's something that is to be determined. I can't speak for the economic motivations from the left except to say that I'm sure both left and right wing billionaires are fond of cheap labor. I suppose whether or not it's secondary or primary doesn't matter too much. The GOP's stance on immigration is, from what I can tell and what I can read, driven entirely by the grassroots. Those evil Koch brothers love open borders. (To Bernie's credit he's not a fan, right? Or at least he wasn't. That economic nationalism has to have some upside).
It's a good thing the Republican party isn't radical on this issue. But don't worry Trump is working hard on the issue. If only Congress would let him be a dealmaker.
|
There was this plan in the Republican Party to court Hispanic voters. But that disappeared and now it’s “they will all vote democrat”. The anti immigration wing of the GOP doesn’t talk about why they want to reduce immigration, only that immigrants vote democrat. The entire argument is beautiful because it justifies itself and they never need to explain why immigrants are bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
