|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 23 2018 13:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one have a long list of laws I think should be ignored, and view many of the laws themselves as an affront to justice. Ignoring them is the righteous thing to do imo.
Also I'm nbever sure if people who make the "but the law" argument are sincere or using it rhetorically. I mean laws get ignored all day every day countless times. It's the reason the freeways aren't just lines of people waiting for tickets.
On the "more Dem voters" that only makes sense in people's heads. First you have to abandon any hope that these traditionally conservative people can be won by the conservative party, After that the numbers just don't add up.
If Democrats imagine their immigration policy as any way a ploy to turn "illegal immigrants" into Dem voters they are failing miserably at both getting immigrants into the country and getting their votes and they always have been.
I honestly don't get how after about 30 seconds people don't realize how foolish the "Dems do it for more illegal immigrant voters" argument is? There's a lot here, but don't forget that an illegal alien who had a kid gives birth to a citizen. That alone increases the numbers. You do agree that immigration is part of Democratic national strategy?
With less illegal immigrants and lower birthrates, we're on a decline of these voters over a decade. I mean they are failing so miserably at it being a remotely productive vote source you may be right that it is part of the Democratic national strategy. It's just a horribly ineffective strategy if it were working and it's not even working.
Plus the whole conservatives abandoning any hope at winning those kids you describe as if it's not because conservative politics are garbo rather than the kid being part of an elaborate multi-generational vote getting conspiracy.
The whole thing sounds completely ridiculous to me after any thinking about it.
|
Also I find it interesting that it's somehow a foregone conclusion that any and all immigrants end up voting Democrat. Yet another one of those lies that keeps on lying. Keep going back to that well.
|
On June 23 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 13:18 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2018 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one have a long list of laws I think should be ignored, and view many of the laws themselves as an affront to justice. Ignoring them is the righteous thing to do imo.
Also I'm nbever sure if people who make the "but the law" argument are sincere or using it rhetorically. I mean laws get ignored all day every day countless times. It's the reason the freeways aren't just lines of people waiting for tickets.
On the "more Dem voters" that only makes sense in people's heads. First you have to abandon any hope that these traditionally conservative people can be won by the conservative party, After that the numbers just don't add up.
If Democrats imagine their immigration policy as any way a ploy to turn "illegal immigrants" into Dem voters they are failing miserably at both getting immigrants into the country and getting their votes and they always have been.
I honestly don't get how after about 30 seconds people don't realize how foolish the "Dems do it for more illegal immigrant voters" argument is? There's a lot here, but don't forget that an illegal alien who had a kid gives birth to a citizen. That alone increases the numbers. You do agree that immigration is part of Democratic national strategy? With less illegal immigrants and lower birthrates, we're on a decline of these voters over a decade. I mean they are failing so miserably at it being a remotely productive vote source you may be right that it is part of the Democratic national strategy. It's just a horribly ineffective strategy if it were working and it's not even working. Plus the whole conservatives abandoning any hope at winning those kids you describe as if it's not because conservative politics are garbo rather than the kid being part of an elaborate multi-generational vote getting conspiracy. The whole thing sounds completely ridiculous to me after any thinking about it.
That's true. The Democrats spend so much time going door-to-door selling tickets to undecided voters to try to get people to come to political rallies & such that the DEMOCRATS seem a little DESPERATE at times. Republicans mostly cater to their base all the time, maybe to too great of a degree, but, it does work as a campaign strategy, so, I guess I don't know what I'm supposed to think about that topic.
I think that the main thing on the minds of Democrats AND Republicans these days is jobs & relationships, as it usually is, not, for example, the success of the oil & energy industries. On that topic, with this new raise that just came through, there is not too much personal interest in switching venues at this point in time. International non-domestic politics certainly has an important impact on the daily lives of average individuals, for sure, though, and in the long term, governance definitely is the #1 thing on people's minds, & I was right to mention that in an earlier post I made. Much of modern political theory seems to be based on the writings of Sun Tzu in that well-regarded military treatise, "The Art of War." Relationships aren't war, and grubbing for contracts isn't a battle, but it sure does feel that way sometimes!
On a different topic, there is a tragic issue going on that needs attention here in America. I guess there is a military drinking water crisis going on right now. Youths are the people who are going to need to do something, anything, about that, as doing nothing is not an option that works & makes sense in every situation. People don't want to hear "just so stories" & hear that trade lanes continue to be open as they always have been & that "trade wars" don't have that much economic impact on mid-size to large countries, they need REAL activity & they need it now.
https://newrepublic.com/article/149280/military-drinking-water-crisis-white-house-tried-hide
Sad to see what people in government will stoop to these days to cover up failures! I try to do what the governor of Texas does and think about these things from time to time and contribute my "best thoughts" on that matter every now & then. Trying to trim the trade deficit is an admirable goal but all I have to say about that is, "GOOD LUCK!" It is a little optimistic to hope that real progress will happen on that thorny, intractable issue.
There is also a drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, so, things could be worse than they are now, I guess.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/us/flint-water-crisis-fast-facts/index.html
Water policies are a boring topic to think about but it is important for folks' long term well-being.
|
On June 23 2018 13:34 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2018 13:18 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2018 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one have a long list of laws I think should be ignored, and view many of the laws themselves as an affront to justice. Ignoring them is the righteous thing to do imo.
Also I'm nbever sure if people who make the "but the law" argument are sincere or using it rhetorically. I mean laws get ignored all day every day countless times. It's the reason the freeways aren't just lines of people waiting for tickets.
On the "more Dem voters" that only makes sense in people's heads. First you have to abandon any hope that these traditionally conservative people can be won by the conservative party, After that the numbers just don't add up.
If Democrats imagine their immigration policy as any way a ploy to turn "illegal immigrants" into Dem voters they are failing miserably at both getting immigrants into the country and getting their votes and they always have been.
I honestly don't get how after about 30 seconds people don't realize how foolish the "Dems do it for more illegal immigrant voters" argument is? There's a lot here, but don't forget that an illegal alien who had a kid gives birth to a citizen. That alone increases the numbers. You do agree that immigration is part of Democratic national strategy? With less illegal immigrants and lower birthrates, we're on a decline of these voters over a decade. I mean they are failing so miserably at it being a remotely productive vote source you may be right that it is part of the Democratic national strategy. It's just a horribly ineffective strategy if it were working and it's not even working. Plus the whole conservatives abandoning any hope at winning those kids you describe as if it's not because conservative politics are garbo rather than the kid being part of an elaborate multi-generational vote getting conspiracy. The whole thing sounds completely ridiculous to me after any thinking about it. That's true. I think that the main thing on the minds of democrats AND republicans these days is jobs. That said, politics certainly has an important impact on the daily lives of average individuals as well, to be sure. I guess there is a military drinking water crisis that is going on right now. https://newrepublic.com/article/149280/military-drinking-water-crisis-white-house-tried-hideSad to see what people will stoop to these days to cover up failures!
I knew veterans that died fighting for care for Agent Orange poisoning from Vietnam the US/corps didn't cop to until 2011. Covering up maltreatment of the military is one of those things like abusing immigrants that apparently people are finding out now have always been a part of this country.
|
On June 23 2018 06:49 Plansix wrote:But that doesn’t mean much, Trump run back to the warm arms of the racism he used to appeal to the worst aspects of America. And lets not forget the GOP endorsed canidate below: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/kfile-seth-grossman/index.html"In one April 2015 Facebook post, Grossman shared a news article about Muslim migrants throwing Christians overboard from a refugee raft in the Mediterranean and added: "This is where 'multi-culturalism' and 'diversity' has taken us."
Muslims throw Christians from boat. Therefore, GOP is racist. Amazing.
In December 2015, Grossman wrote that Kwanzaa was "a phony holiday invented in 1960's by black racists to weaken and divide Americans during a Christmas season of joy and good will."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_Karenga
Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga,[2][3][4] previously known as Ron Karenga, (born July 14, 1941) is an African-American professor of Africana studies, activist and author, best known as the creator of the pan-African and African-American holiday of Kwanzaa. Karenga was active in the Black Power movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and co-founded with Hakim Jamal the black nationalism and social change organization US.
In 1971, Karenga was sentenced to one to ten years in prison on counts of felonious assault and false imprisonment.[14] One of the victims gave testimony of how Karenga and other men tortured her and another woman. The woman described having been stripped and beaten with an electrical cord. Karenga's estranged wife, Brenda Lorraine Karenga, testified that she sat on the other woman’s stomach while another man forced water into her mouth through a hose.
A May 14, 1971, article in the Los Angeles Times described the testimony of one of the women:
Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis' mouth and placed against Miss Davis' face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said. They also were hit on the heads with toasters.[15]
Karenga cited Malcolm X's Afro-American Unity program as an influence on the US organization's work:
Malcolm was the major African American thinker that influenced me in terms of nationalism and Pan-Africanism. As you know, towards the end, when Malcolm is expanding his concept of Islam, and of nationalism, he stresses Pan-Africanism in a particular way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X
Advocacy and teachings while with Nation
From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he broke with it in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings. These included the beliefs:
that black people are the original people of the world[87]
that white people are "devils"[88]
that blacks are superior to whites, and
that the demise of the white race is imminent.[89]
Karenga delivered a eulogy at the 2001 funeral service of New Black Panther Party leader Khalid Abdul Muhammad, praising him for his organizing activities and commitment to black empowerment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Abdul_Muhammad
In 1993, Muhammad gave a speech at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, in which Muhammad referred to Jews as "bloodsuckers", labeled the Pope a "no-good cracker", and advocated the murder of any and all white South Africans who would not leave the nation subsequent to a warning period of 24 hours.
....
Karenga is the Chair of the Africana Studies Department at California State University, Long Beach.[citation needed]
|
On June 23 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 13:18 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2018 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one have a long list of laws I think should be ignored, and view many of the laws themselves as an affront to justice. Ignoring them is the righteous thing to do imo.
Also I'm nbever sure if people who make the "but the law" argument are sincere or using it rhetorically. I mean laws get ignored all day every day countless times. It's the reason the freeways aren't just lines of people waiting for tickets.
On the "more Dem voters" that only makes sense in people's heads. First you have to abandon any hope that these traditionally conservative people can be won by the conservative party, After that the numbers just don't add up.
If Democrats imagine their immigration policy as any way a ploy to turn "illegal immigrants" into Dem voters they are failing miserably at both getting immigrants into the country and getting their votes and they always have been.
I honestly don't get how after about 30 seconds people don't realize how foolish the "Dems do it for more illegal immigrant voters" argument is? There's a lot here, but don't forget that an illegal alien who had a kid gives birth to a citizen. That alone increases the numbers. You do agree that immigration is part of Democratic national strategy? With less illegal immigrants and lower birthrates, we're on a decline of these voters over a decade. I mean they are failing so miserably at it being a remotely productive vote source you may be right that it is part of the Democratic national strategy. It's just a horribly ineffective strategy if it were working and it's not even working. Plus the whole conservatives abandoning any hope at winning those kids you describe as if it's not because conservative politics are garbo rather than the kid being part of an elaborate multi-generational vote getting conspiracy. The whole thing sounds completely ridiculous to me after any thinking about it.
Every time this comes up I feel like I should just sense that there's gas-lighting going on and just leave it. It's talked about endlessly: things like "when will Texas/NC/Georgia/CO/etc. turn blue?" Whole papers are written would and will happen given demographic changes in the next election cycle and beyond.
I don't generally bookmark things in this thread, but we've had people talk gleefully about how the GOP can't win for much longer, etc.
The in-house discussion on immigration between conservatives is... complex to say the least. For the purpose of this thread we don't have to get that far, we can stick the outrageous position of Democrats on things like Trump's super generous DACA offer that was rejected as bigoted by people like Nancy Pelosi, or how apparently Congress doesn't have to step in to stop Nazism.
I'm supposed to play dumb. "babies can't vote!" No, but the WILL be able to, and if the Democrats succeed in mass amnesty, they'll take that 60-40 split every time. 60% of 12 million is a lot better than 60% of 0.
I mean for someone who seems in tune with Democrat strategy (and highly critical) I'm surprised you don't see this. Plansix's absurd retort is less newsworthy. I mean, wasn't Sanders less keen on immigration (being the kinda left-wing nationalist he is), but had to back down?
Unless I'm supposed to believe that all this talk of immigration and how it hurts the GOP and helps the Democrats is some sort of weird, friendly banter? And of course, we finally have the (in)action of Congressional democrats. Massive amnesty, with as little enforcement as possible. To think that the Democratic party doesn't want sustained immigration because of votes is naive to the point of absurdity.
|
Introvert, can you clarify whether you are claiming "immigration" or "illegal immigration" is a factor in Democrat strategy? I'm sensing some confusion between the two.
|
On June 23 2018 13:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2018 13:18 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2018 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one have a long list of laws I think should be ignored, and view many of the laws themselves as an affront to justice. Ignoring them is the righteous thing to do imo.
Also I'm nbever sure if people who make the "but the law" argument are sincere or using it rhetorically. I mean laws get ignored all day every day countless times. It's the reason the freeways aren't just lines of people waiting for tickets.
On the "more Dem voters" that only makes sense in people's heads. First you have to abandon any hope that these traditionally conservative people can be won by the conservative party, After that the numbers just don't add up.
If Democrats imagine their immigration policy as any way a ploy to turn "illegal immigrants" into Dem voters they are failing miserably at both getting immigrants into the country and getting their votes and they always have been.
I honestly don't get how after about 30 seconds people don't realize how foolish the "Dems do it for more illegal immigrant voters" argument is? There's a lot here, but don't forget that an illegal alien who had a kid gives birth to a citizen. That alone increases the numbers. You do agree that immigration is part of Democratic national strategy? With less illegal immigrants and lower birthrates, we're on a decline of these voters over a decade. I mean they are failing so miserably at it being a remotely productive vote source you may be right that it is part of the Democratic national strategy. It's just a horribly ineffective strategy if it were working and it's not even working. Plus the whole conservatives abandoning any hope at winning those kids you describe as if it's not because conservative politics are garbo rather than the kid being part of an elaborate multi-generational vote getting conspiracy. The whole thing sounds completely ridiculous to me after any thinking about it. Every time this comes up I feel like I should just sense that there's gas-lighting going on and just leave it. It's talked about endlessly: things like "when will Texas/NC/Georgia/CO/etc. turn blue?" Whole papers are written would and will happen given demographic changes in the next election cycle and beyond. I don't generally bookmark things in this thread, but we've had people talk gleefully about how the GOP can't win for much longer, etc. The in-house discussion on immigration between conservatives is... complex to say the least. For the purpose of this thread we don't have to get that far, we can stick the outrageous position of Democrats on things like Trump's super generous DACA offer that was rejected as bigoted by people like Nancy Pelosi, or how apparently Congress doesn't have to step in to stop Nazism. I'm supposed to play dumb. "babies can't vote!" No, but the WILL be able to, and if the Democrats succeed in mass amnesty, they'll take that 60-40 split every time. 60% of 12 million is a lot better than 60% of 0. I mean for someone who seems in tune with Democrat strategy (and highly critical) I'm surprised you don't see this. Plansix's absurd retort is less newsworthy. I mean, wasn't Sanders less keen on immigration (being the kinda left-wing nationalist he is), but had to back down? Unless I'm supposed to believe that all this talk of immigration and how it hurts the GOP and helps the Democrats is some sort of weird, friendly banter? And of course, we finally have the (in)action of Congressional democrats. Massive amnesty, with as little enforcement as possible. To think that the Democratic party doesn't want sustained immigration because of votes is naive to the point of absurdity.
Democrats say and do a lot of stupid things. Thinking Demographics are going to carry them to victory is one of them. I mean the GOP is an increasingly white party, but it turns out white women sided with Republicans despite Trump being the most openly appalling person (specifically his behavior toward women) they've ever been asked to vote for. Given the choice between the most politically established white woman to ever run and the most disgusting, lying, piece of talking hot garbage and white women picked the pile of hot garbage.
If Democrats think Republicans treating a group like trash is enough to make them vote Democrat they've got another thing coming.
Additionally, legal immigrants tend to poll in favor of more strict enforcement. So you have half of Democrats already on your side, legal immigrants, and Republicans. But 20 years from now Democrats may get a majority of the kids of the illegal immigrants if they even vote.
This whole thing sounds absolutely absurd and foolish on top of just not even working. I mean turning away all those potential "anchor babies" wasn't very helpful of Obama (who's notably left of his party [see the fights with Hillary]) to this conspiracy for votes.
Finally I don't believe for a second in the "mass amnesty" boogieman. Democrats (the politicians) don't actually want that and wouldn't use political capital on it even if they did. They much more prefer the looming threat of peril to motivate the people who can already vote.
Democrats go just as far out of their way sometimes to prevent people from voting. They've even dramatically reduced voter registration drives on college campuses out of fear the people they're registering are to their left and would vote Sanders or not at all.
Democrats love this fight, and all they have to do to keep it going is be slightly less inhumane than Republicans and then they can wait for the votes to roll in to stave off the more horrific future offered by Republicans. That's how you have half of Democrats wanting to lock up what are essentially refugees.
|
On June 23 2018 14:06 Aquanim wrote:
Introvert, can you clarify whether you are claiming "immigration" or "illegal immigration" is a factor in Democrat strategy? I'm sensing some confusion between the two.
When they all get amnesty it won't matter.
On June 23 2018 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 13:48 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2018 13:18 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2018 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one have a long list of laws I think should be ignored, and view many of the laws themselves as an affront to justice. Ignoring them is the righteous thing to do imo.
Also I'm nbever sure if people who make the "but the law" argument are sincere or using it rhetorically. I mean laws get ignored all day every day countless times. It's the reason the freeways aren't just lines of people waiting for tickets.
On the "more Dem voters" that only makes sense in people's heads. First you have to abandon any hope that these traditionally conservative people can be won by the conservative party, After that the numbers just don't add up.
If Democrats imagine their immigration policy as any way a ploy to turn "illegal immigrants" into Dem voters they are failing miserably at both getting immigrants into the country and getting their votes and they always have been.
I honestly don't get how after about 30 seconds people don't realize how foolish the "Dems do it for more illegal immigrant voters" argument is? There's a lot here, but don't forget that an illegal alien who had a kid gives birth to a citizen. That alone increases the numbers. You do agree that immigration is part of Democratic national strategy? With less illegal immigrants and lower birthrates, we're on a decline of these voters over a decade. I mean they are failing so miserably at it being a remotely productive vote source you may be right that it is part of the Democratic national strategy. It's just a horribly ineffective strategy if it were working and it's not even working. Plus the whole conservatives abandoning any hope at winning those kids you describe as if it's not because conservative politics are garbo rather than the kid being part of an elaborate multi-generational vote getting conspiracy. The whole thing sounds completely ridiculous to me after any thinking about it. Every time this comes up I feel like I should just sense that there's gas-lighting going on and just leave it. It's talked about endlessly: things like "when will Texas/NC/Georgia/CO/etc. turn blue?" Whole papers are written would and will happen given demographic changes in the next election cycle and beyond. I don't generally bookmark things in this thread, but we've had people talk gleefully about how the GOP can't win for much longer, etc. The in-house discussion on immigration between conservatives is... complex to say the least. For the purpose of this thread we don't have to get that far, we can stick the outrageous position of Democrats on things like Trump's super generous DACA offer that was rejected as bigoted by people like Nancy Pelosi, or how apparently Congress doesn't have to step in to stop Nazism. I'm supposed to play dumb. "babies can't vote!" No, but the WILL be able to, and if the Democrats succeed in mass amnesty, they'll take that 60-40 split every time. 60% of 12 million is a lot better than 60% of 0. I mean for someone who seems in tune with Democrat strategy (and highly critical) I'm surprised you don't see this. Plansix's absurd retort is less newsworthy. I mean, wasn't Sanders less keen on immigration (being the kinda left-wing nationalist he is), but had to back down? Unless I'm supposed to believe that all this talk of immigration and how it hurts the GOP and helps the Democrats is some sort of weird, friendly banter? And of course, we finally have the (in)action of Congressional democrats. Massive amnesty, with as little enforcement as possible. To think that the Democratic party doesn't want sustained immigration because of votes is naive to the point of absurdity. Democrats say and do a lot of stupid things. Thinking Demographics are going to carry them to victory is one of them. I mean the GOP is an increasingly white party, but it turns out white women sided with Republicans despite Trump being the most openly appalling person (specifically his behavior toward women) they've ever been asked to vote for. Given the choice between the most politically established white woman to ever run and the most disgusting, lying, piece of talking hot garbage and white women picked the pile of hot garbage. If Democrats think Republicans treating a group like trash is enough to make them vote Democrat they've got another thing coming. Additionally, legal immigrants tend to poll in favor of more strict enforcement. So you have half of Democrats already on your side, legal immigrants, and Republicans. But 20 years from now Democrats may get a majority of the kids of the illegal immigrants if they even vote. This whole thing sounds absolutely absurd and foolish on top of just not even working. I mean turning away all those potential "anchor babies" wasn't very helpful of Obama (who's notably left of his party [see the fights with Hillary]) to this conspiracy for votes. Finally I don't believe for a second in the "mass amnesty" boogieman. Democrats (the politicians) don't actually want that and wouldn't use political capital on it even if they did. They much more prefer the looming threat of peril to motivate the people who can already vote. Democrats go just as far out of their way sometimes to prevent people from voting. They've even dramatically reduced voter registration drives on college campuses out of fear the people they're registering are to their left and would vote Sanders or not at all. Democrats love this fight, and all they have to do to keep it going is be slightly less inhumane than Republicans and then they can wait for the votes to roll in to stave off the more horrific future offered by Republicans. That's how you have half of Democrats wanting to lock up what are essentially refugees.
Ok, now I see your perspective a little better. Listen, the debate about immigrants and that they aren't all far left bernie-bros or whatever is one of those in-house discussions I was talking about. There are all sorts of things to be said for future immigrants becoming wealthy and more assimilated (thus trending GOP) or having such large and sustained waves of immigration that assimilation and integration are slow and/or incomplete (prob indicating continued Democrat voter trends). But in either case it's clear that the strategy of the Democrat party is one of importing more voters.
I think the Democrat party isn't as scared of losing leverage, the leverage they would gain from millions more voters is enormous. I think what stopped them when they had all those votes in 2009 (and what stopped amnesty when Bush tried it) is that amnesty without security is unpopular. it's unpopular among native born, and, as you mentioned, among foreign born citizens it doesn't fare as well as one might assume. The simple fact is that the immediate electoral backlash to their ideas would be devastating. It's also why they didn't pass any gun control in 2009-2010. They need enough cover. And they can afford to wait because they think it will work out (they still think and write this way). The American people, as I said, are simply not in favor of amnesty without security.
Also, moving towards nationalized healthcare has been THE left-wing dream for decades. That's what they wanted to do with their new found power. They got punished for that, too.
I'm not sure if my view is more or less cynical than yours, but it's certainly true that, even as the status quo goes on today, they see themselves as benefiting from it, even if they can only use the immigrants as props (think "concentration camps").
Edit: and so we are this point today, where the progressive activists are louder and louder about immigration, and how illegal immigrants should get all sorts of perks, that border control is bad, etc, etc. The upper floors of the party must decide what is worse... refusing the acknowledge the activists in their own party, or moving too far to the left on this issue? I think that many of the correctly see that moving too far on this issue puts Trump closer to the "average American" (a phrase I hate) than they are. However, it would appear that the future 2020 contenders already know what they think, for the most part.
|
|
|
Needs to switch to a different "other" to stoke nationalism about. The public have told Trump to find a different slant after the immigration summer camps.
|
On June 23 2018 14:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 14:06 Aquanim wrote:
Introvert, can you clarify whether you are claiming "immigration" or "illegal immigration" is a factor in Democrat strategy? I'm sensing some confusion between the two. When they all get amnesty it won't matter. Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2018 13:48 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2018 13:18 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2018 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one have a long list of laws I think should be ignored, and view many of the laws themselves as an affront to justice. Ignoring them is the righteous thing to do imo.
Also I'm nbever sure if people who make the "but the law" argument are sincere or using it rhetorically. I mean laws get ignored all day every day countless times. It's the reason the freeways aren't just lines of people waiting for tickets.
On the "more Dem voters" that only makes sense in people's heads. First you have to abandon any hope that these traditionally conservative people can be won by the conservative party, After that the numbers just don't add up.
If Democrats imagine their immigration policy as any way a ploy to turn "illegal immigrants" into Dem voters they are failing miserably at both getting immigrants into the country and getting their votes and they always have been.
I honestly don't get how after about 30 seconds people don't realize how foolish the "Dems do it for more illegal immigrant voters" argument is? There's a lot here, but don't forget that an illegal alien who had a kid gives birth to a citizen. That alone increases the numbers. You do agree that immigration is part of Democratic national strategy? With less illegal immigrants and lower birthrates, we're on a decline of these voters over a decade. I mean they are failing so miserably at it being a remotely productive vote source you may be right that it is part of the Democratic national strategy. It's just a horribly ineffective strategy if it were working and it's not even working. Plus the whole conservatives abandoning any hope at winning those kids you describe as if it's not because conservative politics are garbo rather than the kid being part of an elaborate multi-generational vote getting conspiracy. The whole thing sounds completely ridiculous to me after any thinking about it. Every time this comes up I feel like I should just sense that there's gas-lighting going on and just leave it. It's talked about endlessly: things like "when will Texas/NC/Georgia/CO/etc. turn blue?" Whole papers are written would and will happen given demographic changes in the next election cycle and beyond. I don't generally bookmark things in this thread, but we've had people talk gleefully about how the GOP can't win for much longer, etc. The in-house discussion on immigration between conservatives is... complex to say the least. For the purpose of this thread we don't have to get that far, we can stick the outrageous position of Democrats on things like Trump's super generous DACA offer that was rejected as bigoted by people like Nancy Pelosi, or how apparently Congress doesn't have to step in to stop Nazism. I'm supposed to play dumb. "babies can't vote!" No, but the WILL be able to, and if the Democrats succeed in mass amnesty, they'll take that 60-40 split every time. 60% of 12 million is a lot better than 60% of 0. I mean for someone who seems in tune with Democrat strategy (and highly critical) I'm surprised you don't see this. Plansix's absurd retort is less newsworthy. I mean, wasn't Sanders less keen on immigration (being the kinda left-wing nationalist he is), but had to back down? Unless I'm supposed to believe that all this talk of immigration and how it hurts the GOP and helps the Democrats is some sort of weird, friendly banter? And of course, we finally have the (in)action of Congressional democrats. Massive amnesty, with as little enforcement as possible. To think that the Democratic party doesn't want sustained immigration because of votes is naive to the point of absurdity. Democrats say and do a lot of stupid things. Thinking Demographics are going to carry them to victory is one of them. I mean the GOP is an increasingly white party, but it turns out white women sided with Republicans despite Trump being the most openly appalling person (specifically his behavior toward women) they've ever been asked to vote for. Given the choice between the most politically established white woman to ever run and the most disgusting, lying, piece of talking hot garbage and white women picked the pile of hot garbage. If Democrats think Republicans treating a group like trash is enough to make them vote Democrat they've got another thing coming. Additionally, legal immigrants tend to poll in favor of more strict enforcement. So you have half of Democrats already on your side, legal immigrants, and Republicans. But 20 years from now Democrats may get a majority of the kids of the illegal immigrants if they even vote. This whole thing sounds absolutely absurd and foolish on top of just not even working. I mean turning away all those potential "anchor babies" wasn't very helpful of Obama (who's notably left of his party [see the fights with Hillary]) to this conspiracy for votes. Finally I don't believe for a second in the "mass amnesty" boogieman. Democrats (the politicians) don't actually want that and wouldn't use political capital on it even if they did. They much more prefer the looming threat of peril to motivate the people who can already vote. Democrats go just as far out of their way sometimes to prevent people from voting. They've even dramatically reduced voter registration drives on college campuses out of fear the people they're registering are to their left and would vote Sanders or not at all. Democrats love this fight, and all they have to do to keep it going is be slightly less inhumane than Republicans and then they can wait for the votes to roll in to stave off the more horrific future offered by Republicans. That's how you have half of Democrats wanting to lock up what are essentially refugees. Ok, now I see your perspective a little better. Listen, the debate about immigrants and that they aren't all far left bernie-bros or whatever is one of those in-house discussions I was talking about. There are all sorts of things to be said for future immigrants becoming wealthy and more assimilated (thus trending GOP) or having such large and sustained waves of immigration that assimilation and integration are slow and/or incomplete (prob indicating continued Democrat voter trends). But in either case it's clear that the strategy of the Democrat party is one of importing more voters. I think the Democrat party isn't as scared of losing leverage, the leverage they would gain from millions more voters is enormous. I think what stopped them when they had all those votes in 2009 (and what stopped amnesty when Bush tried it) is that amnesty without security is unpopular. it's unpopular among native born, and, as you mentioned, among foreign born citizens it doesn't fare as well as one might assume. The simple fact is that the immediate electoral backlash to their ideas would be devastating. It's also why they didn't pass any gun control in 2009-2010. They need enough cover. And they can afford to wait because they think it will work out (they still think and write this way). The American people, as I said, are simply not in favor of amnesty without security. Also, moving towards nationalized healthcare has been THE left-wing dream for decades. That's what they wanted to do with their new found power. They got punished for that, too. I'm not sure if my view is more or less cynical than yours, but it's certainly true that, even as the status quo goes on today, they see themselves as benefiting from it, even if they can only use the immigrants as props (think "concentration camps"). Edit: and so we are this point today, where the progressive activists are louder and louder about immigration, and how illegal immigrants should get all sorts of perks, that border control is bad, etc, etc. The upper floors of the party must decide what is worse... refusing the acknowledge the activists in their own party, or moving too far to the left on this issue? I think that many of the correctly see that moving too far on this issue puts Trump closer to the "average American" (a phrase I hate) than they are. However, it would appear that the future 2020 contenders already know what they think, for the most part.
I would hope that the Democrats simply want to import more people from other countries to increase our population and keep our country younger (in terms of average age) and more productive to concentrate and solidify the economic power of the United States when its most competitive rival's population dwarfs its own. Surely, some of them must know that immigrants are a net benefit to the people in this country in the long run.
However, the levels of ineptitude and obliviousness that the Democratic establishment has shown leads me to believe that they may actually view immigrants as essentially guaranteed Democratic party voters. As much as I dislike the Republican party, it's very difficult to not see the Democratic establishment as willing to take the side of immigrants for some nebulous political power play.
However, introvert, you seem to have skipped over GH's point that the Democrats will do the minimum in securing the votes of immigrants because they believe that the immigrants are likely to vote for them anyway. It's just like why they throw some empty platitudes towards African-Americans, without actually letting them speak up through traditional routes. They can do that because the Republican party's view on race is so atrocious that all the blacks can do in the short term is to vote Democrat, which hurts a bit less. They vote 90% Dem or some ridiculous number because they're forced to by your party's positions.
In other words, I agree with your conclusion, but the idea that they want amnesty is misguided due to your observation of Democrats pandering to immigrants. I think that they only care about immigrants enough to do what they are doing now, and amnesty is more than they feel obligated to give to immigrants for becoming their voters through the elimination of the Republican party as a safe voting option for them. TL,DR: they don't actually care enough about the immigrants to want amnesty for real.
Edit: the Dem establishment never ceases to provide me with new disappointing choices that they make.
|
Norway28601 Posts
On June 23 2018 13:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one have a long list of laws I think should be ignored, and view many of the laws themselves as an affront to justice. Ignoring them is the righteous thing to do imo.
Also I'm nbever sure if people who make the "but the law" argument are sincere or using it rhetorically. I mean laws get ignored all day every day countless times. It's the reason the freeways aren't just lines of people waiting for tickets.
On the "more Dem voters" that only makes sense in people's heads. First you have to abandon any hope that these traditionally conservative people can be won by the conservative party, After that the numbers just don't add up.
If Democrats imagine their immigration policy as any way a ploy to turn "illegal immigrants" into Dem voters they are failing miserably at both getting immigrants into the country and getting their votes and they always have been.
I honestly don't get how after about 30 seconds people don't realize how foolish the "Dems do it for more illegal immigrant voters" argument is? There's a lot here, but don't forget that an illegal alien who had a kid gives birth to a citizen. That alone increases the numbers. You do agree that immigration is part of Democratic national strategy?
Yeah sorry, I think you're normally perfectly reasonable (even though I disagree with your opinions) but to me this is 'kinda deranged conspiracy' theory. Democrats do not want more immigrants because of political gains 20 years from now, the reasoning is 100% grounded in the combination of the belief that accepting immigrants/asylum seekers is the morally right thing to do coupled with the experience that their lives are not affected in any significantly detrimental way.
I think the anti-elitist anti-immigration argument has some validity to it. (Basically, elites live in areas where they are exposed to cultural (and even economic) benefits of immigration without being negatively influenced by locally increased crime rates/ghettofication, poorer people see their neighborhood rapidly change in a way that is not entirely positive. At least in Europe this seems to be the case for most countries with significant immigration). But the 'importing voters' argument isn't grounded in reality. I've had a lot of political contact with a lot of leftists, including more 'clandestine' topics, like how to 'frame the message', 'which opinions we should voice in public' (people who consider themselves communists not being willing to state that publicly, for example). Never, not once, ever, has anyone been even remotely close to arguing that we should accept more immigrants because it's politically beneficial on a long term scale. (And immigrants vote for leftist parties in Norway, too, even if it's less polarized than in the US). It's 100% an invented motivation.
I've seen you make this argument several times before and really wish you'd realize that you're just wrong here. People saying that 'states are gonna turn blue' aren't saying 'this is why we support immigration', they're simply attempting to predict future voting results based on demographic changes. It's a piece of political analysis, not a political argument.
|
On June 23 2018 13:41 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 06:49 Plansix wrote:But that doesn’t mean much, Trump run back to the warm arms of the racism he used to appeal to the worst aspects of America. And lets not forget the GOP endorsed canidate below: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/kfile-seth-grossman/index.html"In one April 2015 Facebook post, Grossman shared a news article about Muslim migrants throwing Christians overboard from a refugee raft in the Mediterranean and added: "This is where 'multi-culturalism' and 'diversity' has taken us." Muslims throw Christians from boat. Therefore, GOP is racist. Amazing. Show nested quote +In December 2015, Grossman wrote that Kwanzaa was "a phony holiday invented in 1960's by black racists to weaken and divide Americans during a Christmas season of joy and good will." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_KarengaMaulana Ndabezitha Karenga,[2][3][4] previously known as Ron Karenga, (born July 14, 1941) is an African-American professor of Africana studies, activist and author, best known as the creator of the pan-African and African-American holiday of Kwanzaa. Karenga was active in the Black Power movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and co-founded with Hakim Jamal the black nationalism and social change organization US. In 1971, Karenga was sentenced to one to ten years in prison on counts of felonious assault and false imprisonment.[14] One of the victims gave testimony of how Karenga and other men tortured her and another woman. The woman described having been stripped and beaten with an electrical cord. Karenga's estranged wife, Brenda Lorraine Karenga, testified that she sat on the other woman’s stomach while another man forced water into her mouth through a hose. A May 14, 1971, article in the Los Angeles Times described the testimony of one of the women: Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis' mouth and placed against Miss Davis' face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said. They also were hit on the heads with toasters.[15] Karenga cited Malcolm X's Afro-American Unity program as an influence on the US organization's work:
Malcolm was the major African American thinker that influenced me in terms of nationalism and Pan-Africanism. As you know, towards the end, when Malcolm is expanding his concept of Islam, and of nationalism, he stresses Pan-Africanism in a particular wayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_XAdvocacy and teachings while with Nation From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he broke with it in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings. These included the beliefs: that black people are the original people of the world[87]
that white people are "devils"[88]
that blacks are superior to whites, and
that the demise of the white race is imminent.[89]Karenga delivered a eulogy at the 2001 funeral service of New Black Panther Party leader Khalid Abdul Muhammad, praising him for his organizing activities and commitment to black empowerment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Abdul_MuhammadIn 1993, Muhammad gave a speech at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, in which Muhammad referred to Jews as "bloodsuckers", labeled the Pope a "no-good cracker", and advocated the murder of any and all white South Africans who would not leave the nation subsequent to a warning period of 24 hours..... Karenga is the Chair of the Africana Studies Department at California State University, Long Beach.[citation needed]
What does this have to do with the racist GOP candidate and his GOP endorsement?
|
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Unless they're actually running away from tyranny. Then they can fuck off and get shot by Mexican drug cartels and/or ISIS. Can't have them coming here and thinking we'll help them out. Goddamn criminals is what they are, with their running away from people trying to murder them.
|
On June 23 2018 21:09 iamthedave wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Unless they're actually running away from tyranny. Then they can fuck off and get shot by Mexican drug cartels and/or ISIS. Can't have them coming here and thinking we'll help them out. Goddamn criminals is what they are, with their running away from people trying to murder them.
I think we need to start doing the reddit thing and put /s behind sarcastic posts like these, as people have previously written stuff eerily close to this with zero intended sarcasm.
|
On June 23 2018 21:09 iamthedave wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Unless they're actually running away from tyranny. Then they can fuck off and get shot by Mexican drug cartels and/or ISIS. Can't have them coming here and thinking we'll help them out. Goddamn criminals is what they are, with their running away from people trying to murder them.
Makes sense. The gangs and ISIS are the power in their lands and they should respect the law of the land and stop resisting.
|
Found out yesterday that 187 of 187,000 immigrants apprehended were MS13 members. So we're locking up babies based on .001%. Wow.
Also, did you know MS13 was created in Los Angeles and then took root in Mexico after those gang members were deported? I didn't. Very interesting.
|
On June 23 2018 23:06 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Found out yesterday that 187 of 187,000 immigrants apprehended were MS13 members. So we're locking up babies based on .001%. Wow.
Also, did you know MS13 was created in Los Angeles and then took root in Mexico after those gang members were deported? I didn't. Very interesting.
Do you have a source for those claims?
|
On June 23 2018 23:06 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Found out yesterday that 187 of 187,000 immigrants apprehended were MS13 members. So we're locking up babies based on .001%. Wow.
Also, did you know MS13 was created in Los Angeles and then took root in Mexico after those gang members were deported? I didn't. Very interesting.
187 out of 187,000 would be 0.1%. But I feel I'm missing something here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
