All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[JCAll]

Meanwhile, we now have freedom gas.

Serioiusly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...=.8714808e5fd9

"Boris, what he said, you think he's already had some Goof Gas?"
"Natasha, what he said; that is Goof Gas."

[Mister Mets]

So it's not about "what they actually do" but what you assume they will do -- which is where the hypocrisy (and blatant party bias) comes in.

Meanwhile, what your party "actually does" is protect Republican candidates that obstruct justice and separate families at the border as a "deterrent".

You're taking a point about a commentator and applying it to a different sphere (actions of elected officials.) There's going to be some bending of logic there.

In the context of a commentator, when I'm referring to what he does, I do also mean to include what he writes and what he says. Politicians get to make laws, so their actions are going to be a bit different. They're going to face different restraints (IE- In the last 20+ years, there has only been one two-year period when Democrats had the White House and control of both houses of Congress.)

Even taking that into account, a consideration of the actions of elected Democrats does suggest they're usually going to act in support of undocumented immigrants and people making asylum claims that are more likely than not to be rejected.

Ben isn't making /direct/ calls to violence but violence is the inevitable end of, say, dehumanizing arabs as, what did he say again...?
Attachment 82864

But again: we have nazis openly telling us that Ben Shapiro was part of their journey to becoming Nazis. No matter how much Mets might tut at me about this being a 'vicious slander', it's exactly what it appears to be.



But I'm sure such rhetoric has no consequences, right? It's not like he wore a t-shirt or something.

The vicious slander was the idea that he intentionally guides people to white supremacism, that this is his purpose and reason he exists.

That is a proxy for whether someone's understanding of conservatism is accurate, and whether the comments should be taken seriously.

That is a dumb statement he made about Arabs nine years ago. However, that was a few years before he reached his current level of popularity, so it seems unlikely that a statement that is mainly brought up by his critics has radicalized anyone recently.

Going after one group isn't necessarily proof of white supremacism. His example is a comparison between two groups white supremacists typically dislike (Jews and Arabs) rather than why the white race is superior to all others.

It was always about keeping the seat vacant so that a hardline conservative could eventually be appointed to it. Any other justification misunderstands the essential nature of the GOP.

If the political parties involved were reversed, and the death of a liberal Supreme Court justice on the February of a presidential election year gave a Republican President the opportunity to flip the composition of the court, does anyone here really think a Democratic controlled Senate would have allowed that to happen?

[Mister Mets]

What's with your hard on for trying to limit legal immigration? You do realize that workers are coming here because the country needs them, not the other way around, and that we'd never be able to compete globally if we had to recruit from an ever shrinking base of "real Americans." If you want a white ethnostate so bad, go move to Russia or something, they'd be glad to take you.

I've expressed my views on why there should be limits on legal immigration before. I understand that good people can hold a different position.

It is a rather unpopular position within the United States, and in terms of polling, my view that legal immigration should be increased a little bit to allow more skills-based immigrants (and keep the family reunification numbers the same) is left of the typical Democratic voter.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

The context of the discussion has also been largely about what the Democratic party and its officials want to do. My main questions here are whether Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

As for whether I have a hard on for it, I didn't bring it up.

If I appear aggravated, it would come at the insinuation that my center-left views on this particular topic are treated as if it's something extreme (a desire for a white ethnostate?) and at the idea that Democratic lawmakers are clearly opposed to a major policy issue when it seems to me that they're not actually willing to answer a contentious but important policy question.

[aja_christopher]

If the political parties involved were reversed, and the death of a liberal Supreme Court justice on the February of a presidential election year gave a Republican President the opportunity to flip the composition of the court, does anyone here really think a Democratic controlled Senate would have allowed that to happen?

You specifically said it's about "what they actually do" -- what the Democrats have "actually done" is proposed stronger border security and presided over decreased illegal immigration, while you sit here and try to argue that they are for "open borders" based on your own prejudices, not what they have "actually done".

And what your party has "actually done" is block a legitimately selected Supreme Court justice from being seated -- nothing you say can change that. You can try to argue that the Democrats would do the same, but it's apparent to anyone with even half a brain at this point that the Republicans are the party that lacks integrity, not the Democrats. In fact, your "both sides are the same" arguments just further prove that you can't defend your party on it's own merits, and have to assume the worst about the ("open border") Democrats in order to justify Republican immoral and unethical behavior, even though your claim is that they should be judged by "what they actually do".

You fail to apply that logic to your own party because you know it would destroy all of your arguments -- you have to deflect to talking points like "open borders" because you know you can't truly ethically justify breaking up families as a "deterrent" and refusing to even vote on a (moderate) Supreme Court Justice.

Again, you're (repeatedly) trying to justify your -- and your party's -- hypocrisy which is clear to anyone who reads your posts.

Meanwhile, your party is separating families and protecting a criminal "president" while you try to lecture others about ethics and fair debate.

[PwrdOn]

I've expressed my views on why there should be limits on legal immigration before. I understand that good people can hold a different position.

It is a rather unpopular position within the United States, and in terms of polling, my view that legal immigration should be increased a little bit to allow more skills-based immigrants (and keep the family reunification numbers the same) is left of the typical Democratic voter.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

The context of the discussion has also been largely about what the Democratic party and its officials want to do. My main questions here are whether Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

As for whether I have a hard on for it, I didn't bring it up.

If I appear aggravated, it would come at the insinuation that my center-left views on this particular topic are treated as if it's something extreme (a desire for a white ethnostate?) and at the idea that Democratic lawmakers are clearly opposed to a major policy issue when it seems to me that they're not actually willing to answer a contentious but important policy question.

That's not as big a gotcha as you make it out to be. Most Democrats realize that more open immigration policies are the correct move in principle, but are bad politics because they are unpopular with the uneducated white voters that hold disproportionate influence in our current electoral system. But obviously what's good for the Bubba demographic isn't necessarily what's good for the country, continuing to bend over backwards to try and appeal to these voters will cripple our economy in the long term.

[aja_christopher]

That's not as big a gotcha as you make it out to be. Most Democrats realize that more open immigration policies are the correct move in principle, but are bad politics because they are unpopular with the uneducated white voters that hold disproportionate influence in our current electoral system. But obviously what's good for the Bubba demographic isn't necessarily what's good for the country, continuing to bend over backwards to try and appeal to these voters will cripple our economy in the long term.

It's a BS right-wing talking point rooted in lies, paranoia, and political manipulation -- when the question actually comes up, most Democrats have no problem stating they aren't for "open borders" and, more importantly, Democrats repeatedly have proposed legislation to strengthen the border.



It's a see-through technique meant to distract from discussing the real issues surrounding immigration -- they can't defend their own policies and behavior so they make up strawmen and attack those instead.

-----
"It may take 2 years to identify thousands of separated families, government says"

"It could take up to two years for the government to identify potentially thousands of additional immigrant families US authorities separated at the southern border, officials said in a court filing.

The government's proposed plan, detailed for the first time in documents filed late Friday night, outlines a strategy for piecing together exactly who might have been separated by combing through thousands of records using a mix of data analysis and manual review.

The court filing comes a year after a memo from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions officially created the administration's "zero tolerance" policy, which eventually led to the separation of thousands of immigrant families. While a federal court order forced the reunification of many of those families, an explosive government watchdog report in January revealed there could be thousands more who hadn't previously been acknowledged by officials. And a federal judge last month ruled that this group should be included in the class-action lawsuit over family separations.

The judge's order was a major blow for the Trump administration, which had argued finding these families would be too burdensome a task."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/06/polit...lan/index.html

[Malvolio]

You're taking a point about a commentator and applying it to a different sphere (actions of elected officials.) There's going to be some bending of logic there.

In the context of a commentator, when I'm referring to what he does, I do also mean to include what he writes and what he says. Politicians get to make laws, so their actions are going to be a bit different. They're going to face different restraints (IE- In the last 20+ years, there has only been one two-year period when Democrats had the White House and control of both houses of Congress.)

Even taking that into account, a consideration of the actions of elected Democrats does suggest they're usually going to act in support of undocumented immigrants and people making asylum claims that are more likely than not to be rejected.


The vicious slander was the idea that he intentionally guides people to white supremacism, that this is his purpose and reason he exists.

That is a proxy for whether someone's understanding of conservatism is accurate, and whether the comments should be taken seriously.

That is a dumb statement he made about Arabs nine years ago. However, that was a few years before he reached his current level of popularity, so it seems unlikely that a statement that is mainly brought up by his critics has radicalized anyone recently.

If the political parties involved were reversed, and the death of a liberal Supreme Court justice on the February of a presidential election year gave a Republican President the opportunity to flip the composition of the court, does anyone here really think a Democratic controlled Senate would have allowed that to happen?

They would have held hearings and allowed an up or down vote. McConnell was apparently afraid that some Republicans would flip and vote to confirm Garland.

[SquirrelMan]

Perhaps neonazis might have ulterior motives in blaming a prominent Jew for their actions.

Except your conspiracy theory implodes if you look at the Nazi's actual Facebook likes over the years. They really are fans of his.

[SquirrelMan]

Speaking of implosions:

During his first tour of the Granite State in March, Sanders drew a crowd of about 1,000 to Concord. Two months later, his campaign booked the 246-seat auditorium of the city’s NHTI Community College, only to find about 50 chairs empty when the candidate took the stage.

Never thought Sanders was the most deserving front runner, but even I am stunned at how quickly he is becoming irrelevant.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I'm not surprised, but I'm still surprised. It's just so pathetic.

I just heard about this. As a Navy veteran, I'm saddened and infuriated that the service I gave twenty years of my life to kowtowed to the outrageous request of the White House just to salve Trump's tender feelings. Fucking deplorable! Here's more on that story:

White House Wanted USS John McCain ‘Out Of Sight’ During Trump’s Japan Visit: Report

Then there's this:

Meghan McCain Says Trump Won’t Let John McCain Rest In Peace, Makes Grief ‘Unbearable’

“Trump is a child who will always be deeply threatened by the greatness of my dads incredible life,” the co-host of “The View” tweeted.

====================

House Leadership, 2020 Dems Split On Impeachment After Mueller Statement

“If any other American committed these acts, they would be indicted and prosecuted,” one Democratic lawmaker said. Clearly Pelosi doesn't want to play the impeachment card out of fear that could backfire on Democrats at the ballot box next year. I can grasp that. Meanwhile....

**********

More 2020 Democrats Call For Impeachment

Sen. Cory Booker, one of the latest to call for impeachment proceedings against Trump, says Congress has “a legal and moral obligation” to pursue it. Problem is, the cowardly Republicans in the Senate flushed their morals down the toilet long ago and are protecting Trump big time. Meanwhile....

**********

Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano: Mueller Believes Trump ‘Committed A Crime’

The network’s legal analyst also said the special counsel’s comments Monday were “180 degrees” from Attorney General Bill Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report. I'm surprised Trump hasn't called for Napolitano to be fired.

**********

Louisiana Lawmakers Pass 6-Week Abortion Ban

The so-called fetal heartbeat bill now goes to Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards for his signature. Another state is ready to say to women: "**** you, bitches! WE control your bodies! Get used to it!"

**********

Nancy Pelosi Torches Donald Trump’s New Immigration Plan With Melania Trump Dig

The House speaker also said the president’s proposals were really designed to “make America white again.” Yo, Nancy! You just figured that out?

[PwrdOn]

Speaking of implosions:



Never thought Sanders was the most deserving front runner, but even I am stunned at how quickly he is becoming irrelevant.

As the saying goes, Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love, and people just don't love Bernie like that anymore, not when there are so many other choices out there.

[Mister Mets]

You specifically said it's about "what they actually do" -- what the Democrats have "actually done" is proposed stronger border security and presided over decreased illegal immigration, while you sit here and try to argue that they are for "open borders" based on your own prejudices, not what they have "actually done".

And what your party has "actually done" is block a legitimately selected Supreme Court justice from being seated -- nothing you say can change that. You can try to argue that the Democrats would do the same, but it's apparent to anyone with even half a brain at this point that the Republicans are the party that lacks integrity, not the Democrats. In fact, your "both sides are the same" arguments just further prove that you can't defend your party on it's own merits, and have to assume the worst about the ("open border") Democrats in order to justify Republican immoral and unethical behavior, even though your claim is that they should be judged by "what they actually do".

You fail to apply that logic to your own party because you know it would destroy all of your arguments -- you have to deflect to talking points like "open borders" because you know you can't truly ethically justify breaking up families as a "deterrent" and refusing to even vote on a (moderate) Supreme Court Justice.

Again, you're (repeatedly) trying to justify your -- and your party's -- hypocrisy which is clear to anyone who reads your posts.

Meanwhile, your party is separating families and protecting a criminal "president" while you try to lecture others about ethics and fair debate.

As I noted before, Democrats presiding over decreased illegal immigration was largely due to improving economic circumstances in those countries.

https://cmsny.org/publications/warre...cumented-2016/

As I've noted numerous times, my comment about what someone did (and not, as you put it, "what they did") was exclusively about a commentator. I later clarified it includes what the person said and wrote.

You seem to be evading a few questions.

On the Merrick Garland question, do you personally believe that if the political parties involved were reversed, and the death of a liberal Supreme Court justice on the February of a presidential election year gave a Republican President the opportunity to flip the composition of the court, that a Democratic controlled Senate would have allowed that to happen? Would you also have been in favor of that?

We've established that Democrats as a whole are vague on their limiting principle on legal immigration. Why is that?

That's not as big a gotcha as you make it out to be. Most Democrats realize that more open immigration policies are the correct move in principle, but are bad politics because they are unpopular with the uneducated white voters that hold disproportionate influence in our current electoral system. But obviously what's good for the Bubba demographic isn't necessarily what's good for the country, continuing to bend over backwards to try and appeal to these voters will cripple our economy in the long term.

I don't think there's anything I've said that is contrary to your understanding that Democrats are in favor of more open immigration, but hiding their views because it's bad politics.

[Tendrin]

Except your conspiracy theory implodes if you look at the Nazi's actual Facebook likes over the years. They really are fans of his.

Yep. Yep, they are. He hates the right people.

[PwrdOn]

I don't think there's anything I've said that is contrary to your understanding that Democrats are in favor of more open immigration, but hiding their views because it's bad politics.

It's only bad politics because of all the uneducated voters who somehow have fully formed opinions on immigration policy despite never having met an immigrant in their lives. The Democrats might win a few swing voters by appeasing them on this issue, but in the long term it is hurting them because they aren't taking a strong stance on the issue and are leaving a potentially powerful voting bloc in the cold, namely all of the recent immigrants and their relatives who want some politicians to stand up for us for once, instead of making yet another appeal to the shrinking base of rural whites who will abandon them for a right wing demagogue the first chance they get.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Wait, wait, wait. You think I'm a Trump supporter?

It's cool. If I supported trump I'd be too ashamed to admitted to.