Page 11 of 667 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314152161111511 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 10005
  1. #151
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    He's working with Bryan Caplan, whose work on Open Borders I've linked to.
    Very cool.

  2. #152
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    I think it is a little irresponsible to use the term “open borders” to describe a policy that already has a limiting mechanism. I mean, we could provide a principle but that seems counterproductive to our value system. If the effect is not so different from a policy with a principle as it is without it, it ends up being a difference without a distinction. When people think of “open borders”, they see a policy without any limit, either mechanical or otherwise. To say that a policy that simply doesn’t put down quotas is equal to the policy that has no limit seems to be irresponsible framing of the debate.
    When I'm referring to "open borders" I'm describing a policy in which pretty much anyone who wants to get in to the United States can be allowed in, with the potential exception of confirmed criminals/ members of terrorist organizations.

    As I've said before, My impression has been that the left generally wants open borders, so that anyone who wants to be in the United States should be able to come in, with the caveat that there will be a slight delay for background checks, to make sure new arrivals aren't members of criminal or terrorist organizations. That resolves the moral question of whether people who came into the country illegally years ago will be rewarded with citizenship by also granting it to anyone who wants to come in and has been following the appropriate steps in the legal process.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    But, according to Mets’ definition, those actions aren’t principles. It isn’t enough to have immigration be limited through border security and lawful process. Unless you have racist quotas, there isn’t a limiting principle. Which is precisely what I was saying—there is no need for such a principle. These actions are limits unto themselves. The process of immigration takes time and needs no principle to extend how long it takes to reach a certain number of immigrants.
    "Border patrol" and "lawful process" are insufficient as methods that reveal the Democratic party's position on immigration limits because the party's agreed upon position is that the legal immigration system is broken and needs to be changed. Suggested changes include hiring more processors and immigration judges.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    That's what I mean. He'll never admit he's wrong about this, so I might as well do what I'm being accused of.
    I'll gladly reevaluate my position on what the Democratic party wants when I get the answers: Have 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 so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  3. #153
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    What I "realize" is that you're quick to hypocritically call out everyone but your "pet" candidates -- like Sanders -- for their faults and it does nothing positive for the party as a whole when you try to sabotage the leadership of the party.

    I remember you calling out Hillary for not supporting BLM and when I posted the link of the mothers speaking on behalf of her campaign, you disappeared from sight and didn't even have the common decency to admit that you were wrong.

    Same goes for people like you not voting "against" Trump -- which is one of the main reasons we are where we are today.

    Having a preferred candidate is one thing but trying to sabotage the Democratic party is another -- maybe when you start addressing Sanders' lack of "leadership" on key issues as adamantly as everyone else's I'll be able to take you seriously as anything other than someone who will attack the Democratic party unless he gets his way on how the party is run.

    It's telling that you said you liked Carter -- I like Carter too, but despite his best intentions, his politics were not successful on the national stage, especially in comparison to both Clinton and Obama.

    Sanders couldn't even get that far without running as "Democrat" and still lost by millions of votes in the primary.

    Stop trying to force a losing strategy on the rest of the Democratic party.
    Pointing out(as Rashida Tlaib and Marc Lamont Hill did) that deciding not to even use Rep. Omar's name when you are making some lousy attempt at addressing this is not "Sabotage".

    It's pointing out the reality of that "Leadership" is not happening.

    Even more so when Sanders and Warren are having to call this out while Pelosi won't even use Omar's name.

    You want leadership on a key issue?

    Sanders just did it.

  4. #154
    Astonishing Member jetengine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post

    The British system has not killed 100,000 people.
    I apologise, it was right wing austerity tactics that killed 120,000. The Disability groups are within that number however which is where my confusion from my initial sources came from.

    https://fullfact.org/health/austerit...essary-deaths/

    Fact checker suggests its plausable frankly, or as plausable as you can get with this kind of data where you can't actually pinpoint the death on the factor in question. Ie : You could brush off higher black american mortality as merely inner city violence but that ignores WHY the ghetto and inner city violence occurs in the first place.

  5. #155
    Mighty Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    If #ACAB isn't meant to be understood as a statement that All Cops Are Bastards, this does suggest a communication problem when statements aren’t meant to be taken literally.
    I...have to ask this. IT’s been rattling in my brain for a while now, and I haven’t felt it appropriate to ask. But...look, Mets...are you on the spectrum? I don’t mean any offense, honestly and truly, but in the time I have been on these threads, I have noticed that, like my nephew who IS on the spectrum, you have a real difficulty with rhetorical flourishes and subtext. If you ARE, I will work harder at being more precise. If you are NOT, then you need to stop policing semantics and recognize that people are poetic and emotional and that seeps into our speech.

    As for #ACAB, as I have explained before, that is a rhetorical device called ‘metonymy’. It is essentially shorthand, and a cousin to metaphor and synonym. It is when you use a quick, brief word or phrase to mean something more detailed.

    Examples:

    - ‘the crown’ referring to the role of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership in the phrase ‘heavy is the crown’.
    - ‘suit’ referring to a businessman or government spook, or otherwise rigid, stuffed-shirt type with no sense of humor.
    - ACAB referring to the undeniably corrupt system inherent in the police force, regardless of individual ‘good ones’’

    It’s shorthand, man. It’s how people talk...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I understand the distinction between recent assassinations, and the history of it. My point is that this isn’t a one-sided thing where the only victims are those fighting for left-wing causes shot for trying to make the world a better place. It’s worth noting JFK was killed by a communist, Harvey Milk was killed by a former Democratic colleague, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian (Christian) upset at his support for Israel, etc. This doesn’t mean we should take assassination lightly. We all have to accept that people who hold different views should not be victims of violence, even if we think their views will contribute to people dying/ failing to reach their potential.
    Again, my list was about numbers, and it is telling that most would-be assassins of progressives are angry at them for trying to move forward, and assassination attempts on conservatives come from people angry at what those politicians have done to actually hurt people. JFK was killed because he wasn’t giving Russia what it wanted. Bobby was killed by a bigoted Christian (thanks for proving THAT point for me...). Harvey Milk’s assassin was a Christian as well, Democrat or no. The point is, progressives get targeted for trying to make people’s lives better, and conservatives get targeted for actually making people’s lives worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    1. The timeline of the law matters, since the argument started before the Supreme Court recognized gay marriage as a national right.
    No. The timeline does not matter, because we do not live in 1980s world. We live in 2019, and right now, RIGHT NOW, the law is very plain. And these bakers are breaking the law NOW. Stop trying to change the subject to something unrelated and unimportant to the discussion we are having NOW. Should businesses who denied service to gay people in the past have done better. Absolutely. Morally, and ethically, yes. But there weren't laws then – or inclusion in the laws that did exist - to FORCE businesses to not be shitty bigots if they want to make money off of the public. Your question about whether or not businesses in the 80’s should be held to today's standards has as much relevance as my question about slave owners. Shitty bigots are shitty bigots, no matter the time frame or legality of that bigotry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.
    My response to this is gonna take up room, so…I’ll address it separately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    3. I’m not arguing about treating people differently, but about efforts to get equal outcomes.
    You seriously think progressives want equal outcomes…? No. That's just…no. We want equal OPPORTUNITY. Which, no matter what rich, white, Christian men say to the contrary, is not what we have in America. Poor people are not on a level playing field with rich people. People of color do not start on the same line as white people. Gay people are not on par with straight people. And so on. One very specific subsection of humanity has the vast majority of resources, power, and cache, and the rest of us are well behind, in the race. No one is pushing for everyone to cross the same finish line at the same time, but allowing everyone the opportunity to start the race at the same line, on a level playing field would sure be nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    4. I get the argument against nuclear power, but it does seem that the left’s main opposition is to cheap energy. We can discuss what type of "hit to the wallet" is acceptable.
    As others have pointed out, nuclear is not cheap. The long term risks are greater, and thus, more costly in the long run, the short term benefits do not outweigh those risks, and the costs are anything but cheap. So…yeah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    5. If you’re concerned about rape and abortion, you can make sure the grand compromise includes exceptions for rape, as well as incest and situations in which the mother’s life is in danger/ the baby would have severe health problems.
    I am concerned about you trying to use women's health as a bargaining chip. Period. Abortion is not murder, women's health is not a commodity, and if your party would rather see the world burn than see women free to make choices about their own bodies, well, that says quite a bit, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I know your position on immigration. My interest is in why you think elected Democrats aren’t openly discussing theirs.
    As others have pointed out, what YOU claim is Democratic policy has never once been pushed by any Democrat, outside of that VERY IMPORTANT T-SHIRT THAT ONE GUY WORE THAT ONE TIME.

    Looking at ACTUAL policy, Democrats believe inBorders, and work to uphold them. They just don't put kids in cages, or RIP babies from their mothers to sell on the black market. Sorry, to 'adopt out to white couples looking for exotic babies', the way we used to do to the Native Americans when we 'settled' America and took it for Jesus from the savage heathen hordes...

  6. #156
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I'll notice that you're evading the questions. Have 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 so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?
    I'm not evading anything Mets -- I've already told you pointblank I'm not answering an inherently dishonest and misleading question.

    For the sake of clarity though, I don't "infer" anything from their silence because actions speak louder than words, regardless: the Democrats have proposed reasonable immigration reform in the past while the Republican party has proposed and enacted separating families en masse at the border -- Trump has even suggested "getting rough" and mentioned "machine guns" in dealing with said immigrants.

    What should we infer from that Mets, and the silence of the Republicans like yourself who let this man stoke racism and xenophobia amongst the American people while denying us the right to see whether he is compromised by foreign influence? Should we infer that you support his racist and anti-democratic agenda since you cover for him and echo his words?

    The Democrats are not for "open borders" no matter how you try to frame this argument -- you're trying to make this a matter of opinion, and in the process avoid the fact that your party is separating families at the border to incite the racists in the Republican base while simultaneously trying to hide the Mueller report from both Congress and the public.

    So peddle your opinion to others with dishonest arguments as you will -- I'll stick with the facts, which you like to avoid for obvious reasons.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 04:49 PM.

  7. #157
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    You want leadership on a key issue?
    Yeah, I already mentioned three of them (racial issues, gender equality, tax form releases) and Sanders failed in "leadership" on every single one of them.

    Just like he failed to win the nomination by millions of votes last election.

    And how you failed to give Hillary credit for inviting BLM to speak at her campaign after you lied and claimed she didn't.

    And how people like you failed to vote against Trump so here we are.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 04:56 PM.

  8. #158
    Mighty Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.
    Okay. First, 'stoned to death' is a rhetorical flourish that MOST people understand to refer to 'Biblical death sentences' that 'Christians' like to call for their enemies to suffer.

    Second, only the most foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics openly call for death today. Most, like Scott Lively, see more profit in exporting their Christian hatred to places like Africa, where they help craft laws in nations where Christianity IS the law of the land, and we get 'death penalty for homosexuality' laws. Those who don't take active roles in subjugating third world homosexuals in the name of Jesus and prefer to stay here in the States? They instead focus on Leviticus and Romans. Particularly Leviticus 20:13: "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    Oh, they SAY they love us and don't LITERALLY want us dead, but...then why keep bringing up the verse that calls for our deaths, and blames us for being murdered? Could it be...subtext barely hiding beneath actual text?

    As to Mike Pence and his opinions on gay people, let's dive right in.

    Here is timeline of Mike Pence's statements and actions taken against us: https://www.indems.org/a-timeline-of...gbt-community/

    Here's another listing: http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-g...gious-freedom/

    It is well known fact that Mike Pence supports conversion therapy and thinks taxpayer money should supplement bigoted private donations. Conversion therapy includes or has included such 'loving' practices as electroshock, aversion, non-consensual sex with the supposedly straight 'therapists' and beating up pillows while screaming about hating your father. It is a laughingstock among actual, reputable therapists and mental health professionals. Well, a laughingstock and torture, so...y'know...he just thinks we deserve to be tortured and berated into hating ourselves, not actually 'killed', I guess.

    In addition, Mike Pence has spoken at Family Research Council events. The FRC has a long history of demonizing, dehumanizing, and outright denying the existence of LGBT+ people. They are a SPLC qualified hate group for their penchant for spreading lies and distortions about us for DECADES, all in the name of Jesus. Their leader, Tony Perkins, has called for jailing LGBT+ people for the crime of...not being straight? They have lobbied the government to not condemn Uganda's kill the gays bill, which their friend Scott Lively had a major hand in crafting. They are prime proponents of anti-trans and anti-gay measures, resolutions, and laws, and major opponents of any attempt at treating LGBT+ people with dignity, compassion and humanity on a national and even international scale. But that doesn't count as wanting us dead, I suppose, right?

    Here, we see Christian pastors cheering the Pulse massacre and praising the shooter: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/u...g-outrage.html. But I guess that doesn't count as 'wanting us dead', huh?

    Then there's Kevin Swanson, who has spoken at various 'Christian' events and was a big Ted Cruz and Roy Moore booster, who openly called for death for gays. http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/jeff-...ys-conference/

    Again, Mike Pence may not have said the exact words 'I want gay people dead', but people he surrounds himself with, people who support him and his peers, people who he has praised as 'good' HAVE called for our deaths, and he has remained silent on the matter. Frankly, if he DIDN'T agree with them, he would have said so by now. Instead, he takes the cowards way out and hides behind weak 'religious liberty' arguments so he doesn't HAVE to admit that he hates us and wants us as dead as his friends do...
    Last edited by zinderel; 04-14-2019 at 04:57 PM.

  9. #159
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,620

    Default

    It is so weird when these people don't mind doing the hating. But they get all indignant when you call them what they are. Mike Pence clearly hates gays. His policies and who he surround himself with undeniably show that. But, he and his wife and supporters get all in their feelings about it when called out.

    If you are right just own it and be the out and proud homophobe you are.

    Same with people who are clearly racist, say and do racist things in this administration. But, you call them a racist and oh no its playing the "race card". You know you can't stand brown people and make policies targeting them. Just own it. You aren't fooling anyone

  10. #160
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    I'm not evading anything Mets -- I've already told you pointblank I'm not answering an inherently dishonest and misleading question.

    For the sake of clarity though, I don't "infer" anything from their silence because actions speak louder than words, regardless: the Democrats have proposed reasonable immigration reform in the past while the Republican party has proposed and enacted separating families en masse at the border -- Trump has even suggested "getting rough" and mentioned "machine guns" in dealing with said immigrants.

    What should we infer from that Mets, and the silence of the Republicans like yourself who let this man stoke racism and xenophobia amongst the American people while denying us the right to see whether he is compromised by foreign influence? Should we infer that you support his racist and anti-democratic agenda since you cover for him and echo his words?

    The Democrats are not for "open borders" no matter how you try to frame this argument -- you're trying to make this a matter of opinion, and in the process avoid the fact that your party is separating families at the border to incite the racists in the Republican base while simultaneously trying to hide the Mueller report from both Congress and the public.

    So peddle your opinion to others with dishonest arguments as you will -- I'll stick with the facts, which you like to avoid for obvious reasons.
    How are my questions misleading or dishonest? These aren't questions predicated on a false assumption, since it does allow for multiple possibilities depending on what the facts are.

    With the questions you ask, I have to agree with multiple premises (IE- that Trump is stoking racism and xenophobia, and the American people are denied the chance to see that he's free of foreign influence, and that I'm echoing his words; my main arguments from open borders come from listening to Ezra Klein podcast discussions.)
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  11. #161
    Ultimate Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    12,154

    Default

    Let's get something straight here, once and for all. Not setting a limit on how many immigrants can enter the country DOES NOT equal "open borders." But if we help out those nations where immigrants are coming from, they'll have less reason to leave and less incentive to come here. And yes, by help out, I mean giving them money.

  12. #162
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Okay. First, 'stoned to death' is a rhetorical flourish that MOST people understand to refer to 'Biblical death sentences' that 'Christians' like to call for their enemies to suffer.

    Second, only the most foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics openly call for death today. Most, like Scott Lively, see more profit in exporting their Christian hatred to places like Africa, where they help craft laws in nations where Christianity IS the law of the land, and we get 'death penalty for homosexuality' laws. Those who don't take active roles in subjugating third world homosexuals in the name of Jesus and prefer to stay here in the States? They instead focus on Leviticus and Romans. Particularly Leviticus 20:13: "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    Oh, they SAY they love us and don't LITERALLY want us dead, but...then why keep bringing up the verse that calls for our deaths, and blames us for being murdered? Could it be...subtext barely hiding beneath actual text?

    As to Mike Pence and his opinions on gay people, let's dive right in.

    Here is timeline of Mike Pence's statements and actions taken against us: https://www.indems.org/a-timeline-of...gbt-community/

    Here's another listing: http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-g...gious-freedom/

    It is well known fact that Mike Pence supports conversion therapy and thinks taxpayer money should supplement bigoted private donations. Conversion therapy includes or has included such 'loving' practices as electroshock, aversion, non-consensual sex with the supposedly straight 'therapists' and beating up pillows while screaming about hating your father. It is a laughingstock among actual, reputable therapists and mental health professionals. Well, a laughingstock and torture, so...y'know...he just thinks we deserve to be tortured and berated into hating ourselves, not actually 'killed', I guess.

    In addition, Mike Pence has spoken at Family Research Council events. The FRC has a long history of demonizing, dehumanizing, and outright denying the existence of LGBT+ people. They are a SPLC qualified hate group for their penchant for spreading lies and distortions about us for DECADES, all in the name of Jesus. Their leader, Tony Perkins, has called for jailing LGBT+ people for the crime of...not being straight? They have lobbied the government to not condemn Uganda's kill the gays bill, which their friend Scott Lively had a major hand in crafting. They are prime proponents of anti-trans and anti-gay measures, resolutions, and laws, and major opponents of any attempt at treating LGBT+ people with dignity, compassion and humanity on a national and even international scale. But that doesn't count as wanting us dead, I suppose, right?

    Here, we see Christian pastors cheering the Pulse massacre and praising the shooter: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/u...g-outrage.html. But I guess that doesn't count as 'wanting us dead', huh?

    Then there's Kevin Swanson, who has spoken at various 'Christian' events and was a big Ted Cruz and Roy Moore booster, who openly called for death for gays. http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/jeff-...ys-conference/

    Again, Mike Pence may not have said the exact words 'I want gay people dead', but people he surrounds himself with, people who support him and his peers, people who he has praised as 'good' HAVE called for our deaths, and he has remained silent on the matter. Frankly, if he DIDN'T agree with them, he would have said so by now. Instead, he takes the cowards way out and hides behind weak 'religious liberty' arguments so he doesn't HAVE to admit that he hates us and wants us as dead as his friends do...
    The public has moved on wider acceptance on gay rights. When Mike Pence co-sponsored a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, that was eight years before a Democratic candidate for President would be willing to publicly be in favor of same-sex marriage. We've developed a better understanding of the problems of conversion therapy now than in 2000.

    It's disgusting that Christian pastors praised the shooter in the Pulse massacre. But I am unaware of him supporting them in this afterwards, or any of them being his religious mentors.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  13. #163
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    Let's get something straight here, once and for all. Not setting a limit on how many immigrants can enter the country DOES NOT equal "open borders." But if we help out those nations where immigrants are coming from, they'll have less reason to leave and less incentive to come here. And yes, by help out, I mean giving them money.
    This is what the "Build a wall" crowd will never understand. The wall has always been a useless symbol.

    The real solution to immigrants seeking asylum is diplomatic and economic incentives and restoration of their home countries. If you don't get to the root cause of them leaving or needing to leave it will never stop. People will ALWAYS want to protect their families and escape poverty, crime if they can. Nothing you call them, no wall you build will stop the attempts.

    We have to work with the countries some other way help stimulate their economies. Give the governments reason, or incentive to target the corruption, gangs, etc. No one wants a war or us taking over or overthrowing anything. But you have to target the source or you will forever be chasing the symptoms.

  14. #164
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    How are my questions misleading or dishonest? These aren't questions predicated on a false assumption, since it does allow for multiple possibilities depending on what the facts are.
    And the facts are -- as I demonstrated via link -- that the Democrats are not for open borders or abolishing ICE, so it's misleading to try to infer that from their "silence" and dishonest repeatedly project that as a prominent Democratic platform or policy.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/

    Anyway, you have my answer -- I don't "infer" anything from their "silence" because I judge them (and the Republicans) by their actions.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 05:47 PM.

  15. #165
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've asked these questions for months and haven't gotten an answer: Have 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 so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?
    I asked someone I know and they said this.
    No they have not. The thing to infer from that is that they don't want any upper limit on immigration. The reason to infer that is that since the 90s their normal members have stopped seeing immigrants as a problem and started seeing them as a benefit. Also, the main interest group in the Democratic party that opposed immigration was the trade unions. And the leaders of the major trade unions stopped seeing immigrants as a drag on wages and started seeing them as potential constituents.
    https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69480...nged-the-party
    https://democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •