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

[PwrdOn]

Don't let cable TV fool you...in real life minorities consume all those things.

Yeah I'm sure some people do it just because they happen to like that stuff with no further implications attached, but that accounts for relatively few. You're underestimating just how much of the immigrant experience involves a conscious rejection of anything having to do with their home countries in favor of trying to fit in with their new environment. Now in America this is a particularly difficult task because the culture is shaped by layers of immigration, and so for someone who is really devoted to assimilating and embracing what is purely American, you'd have to strip away all of those layers until you're left with something truly bland and basic, and even those would ultimately have originated elsewhere. Most of the meaningful cultural assimilation in America is done by the "natives" absorbing the forms brought by newcomers, albeit in a watered down form.

[JCAll]

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

I just found out that some people have a (very real) fear of right-wing trolls derailing conversations with false affects of depression and hopelessness.
Not you, of course, I'm pretty sure you're just a doomsday cultist. But they're apparently out there.

[Tami]

It also doesn't matter if he does debates because no matter what, as long as he calls his opponent whatever nickname he has for them, his supporters will deem him victorious in that debate and that he desroyed a lib for the sake of America.

We are in mighty fine shape indeed, with a well educated electorate.

Back in 2015/2016 Trump had nothing to lose. Now the stakes are much higher. He's going to chicken out and refuse to debate anyone.

[ZombieHavoc]

I just found out that some people have a (very real) fear of right-wing trolls derailing conversations with false affects of depression and hopelessness.
Not you, of course, I'm pretty sure you're just a doomsday cultist. But they're apparently out there.

That's so weird.

This will be my last post here.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

That's so weird.

This will be my last post here.

Okey dokey. See you tomorrow.

[Mister Mets]

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.

Democrats have generally alluded to a preference to increasing limits on legal immigration. My point is that they're vague on what the new limit should be.

There would be two reasons for that. They would have reason to fear the political consequences. Right now, it's easy to bash the Trump administration and Republicans when there isn't a clear alternative. If there's a Democratic description, then it becomes an actual choice.

The second potential reason is that they don't want to have public arguments between a party establishment taking a slightly unpopular position (there should be an increase in the number of legal immigrants admitted per year by up to X%) and the advocates who want them to go further.

Polls do consistently show that even a majority of Democrats aren't in favor of increasing immigration, so this isn't just a matter of appealing to a few swing voters. There are some other issues of course, in such a polarized time. It's possible if elected Democrats took a clear stance, partisan polarization would mean more of the public moves in that direction.

No, Mets -- what you noted before is that is that it's more important to look at "what they actually do". That logic should apply to both political "commentators" and political "parties", but you want to have it both ways in this discussion, which (again) is completely hypocritical.

Now you're changing your story and trying to accuse me of "evading" things when I just posted a video of Sanders refuting the "open border" policy when directly asked, and I likewise pointed out that it's the Republicans who are behaving both immorally and unethically and not the Democrats -- including with regards to Garland -- because all Republicans know how to do these days is "gaslight, obstruct, and project".

Which you further prove with each post where you try to pretend I didn't directly address both your "questions" while likewise "evading" the fact that you aren't judging both parties by "what they actually do", which you earlier claimed (while defending Shapiro) is "more important". You can't drop the "open borders" talking point because that's all you have: Republicans can't defend their party's actions, so instead they hypocritically point fingers at others (immigration, deficits, etc) in an effort to mask their own immorality, lies, and outright criminal behavior.

That said -- there is nothing "vague" about Democratic responses when directly asked about open borders and there is likewise nothing "vague" about the fact that the Republican party is the party that lacks political integrity, not the Democrats, and trying to claim that "both sides are the same" -- whether on the issue of Garland or any other political matter -- is absolute nonsense.

Even more hypocritically, where I directly addressed both your questions (showing proof that prominent Democrats are against "open borders" and clearly stating that Democrats would not "behave the same as Republicans" because they have more integrity as a party), you keep "evading" the fact that your party supports separating families at the border as a "deterrent" and is now protecting a criminal "president" which makes them an accessory to said criminality.

-----
"Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (D-N.J.) said on Wednesday that the U.S. is “not a nation of open borders” but rather a “nation of the rule of law,” pushing back on claims from President Trump and other Republicans that Democrats are the "party of open borders."

“We are not a nation of open borders,” Van Drew told Hill.TV during an interview on "Rising."

“I believe that we are a nation of the rule of law,” he added. “While I am very pro-immigration, it has to be done in an intelligent and thoughtful way.”

Van Drew said that he believes that the U.S. needs to have “safe, intact borders,” which includes an “actual physical border.” He said this might mean adding additional vertical metal struts and fencing along certain parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.

The New Jersey Democrat also called for additional resources and technology.

“I believe we do need to have good, safe intact borders — that includes [an] actual physical border,” the lawmaker said. “It includes technology, it includes more beds, it includes more manpower, it ensures that our nation is safe whether it is from drugs, whether it is from individuals.”

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/43...e-are-a-nation

-----
"Sen. Bernie Sanders pushed back Sunday against claims that he supports an open border policy, adding that poverty across the globe would cause an influx of migrants to the border if that system were in place.

During a town hall in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Sanders was asked by an attendee about how the United States can afford to fund social services such as health care, with an open borders policy.

The attendee also claimed the Vermont senator is "an advocate for open borders."

“I’m afraid you may be getting your information wrong. That’s not my view,” Sanders said.

"What we need is comprehensive immigration reform,” he continued. "If you open the borders, my God, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point. Can't do it. So that is not my position.”

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/43...e-are-a-nation

You put the phrase "what they actually did" in quotation marks.

Every use of the phrase in this discussion has been on your end. This is relevant to my point that my comments about what one person did were about a particular commentator, so the logic doesn't work as a gotcha in the context of dragging in an argument about officeholders.

If you really want to add actions by commentators to the discussion, some Democrats and people who have supported them have still come out in favor of open borders.

Here's a guy from Vox.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/904840...s-open-borders

Here's Farhad Manjoo, writing in the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/o...migration.html

As for Congressman Van Drew, what limits does he want on legal immigration?

You quote Sanders in this case, but you don't seem to view him as a Democrat.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...rs#post3866903

Moreover, if Republicans really cared about revitalizing all those small town Americas that they claim to care about, they'd create incentives for immigrants to move there in an effort to reinvigorate their communities and economies.

They don't, of course.

What kind of incentives are you thinking about?

[PwrdOn]

Democrats have generally alluded to a preference to increasing limits on legal immigration. My point is that they're vague on what the new limit should be.

There would be two reasons for that. They would have reason to fear the political consequences. Right now, it's easy to bash the Trump administration and Republicans when there isn't a clear alternative. If there's a Democratic description, then it becomes an actual choice.

The second potential reason is that they don't want to have public arguments between a party establishment taking a slightly unpopular position (there should be an increase in the number of legal immigrants admitted per year by up to X%) and the advocates who want them to go further.

Polls do consistently show that even a majority of Democrats aren't in favor of increasing immigration, so this isn't just a matter of appealing to a few swing voters. There are some other issues of course, in such a polarized time. It's possible if elected Democrats took a clear stance, partisan polarization would mean more of the public moves in that direction.

Setting strict quotas is not good policy in any case, the numbers will rise and fall with the needs of the economy, it's not something for partisan lawmakers to bicker over. The real reform needs to be making the whole immigration system a lot more streamlined and efficient, because as anyone who has actually gone through the process will tell you, the current system is designed to be unnecessarily complex and difficult to deter people from attempting it. However, this doesn't mean that they just give up trying to come here, it just means that they are pushed to take illegal routes instead, which creates a lot more problems for everyone. As an added benefit, immigrants will be much more likely to respect American laws and customs if they believe that America is treating them with respect, which right now they obviously don't believe.

[numberthirty]

Well...

New charges for Ed Burke and R. Kelly.

[aja_christopher]

You put the phrase "what they actually did" in quotation marks.

Because that is what is relevant here to me -- facts with regards to actual actions and policy (like using family separations as a "deterrent", blocking votes on Supreme Court justices and improving election security, or obstructing justice and protecting criminality), not your blatantly biased opinion against "liberals" that focuses on select individuals and talking points rather than actual legislation and results.

It's not just Bernie Sanders -- Harris, Beto, and nearly every other prominent Democratic representative has come out against "open borders" when asked directly, something you easily could discover with just a Google search if you weren't so busy trying to prove your false talking point has actual relevance.

And you still "evaded" discussing the fact that you are trying to discredit the ethics and actions of Democrats while supporting a party of known racists, liars and criminals going all the way up to the top -- I expected as much, I just wanted to make it clear to you that you aren't fooling anyone with rhetoric that has no basis in actual legislation or practice.

I'm sure Ben Shapiro would be proud, however, if that's any consolation.



Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

[kidfresh512]

"New Memo Reveals the Census Question Was Added to Boost White Voting Power"

"If we had a fair Supreme Court not driven by partisanship in its most political cases, Thursday’s blockbuster revelation in the census case would lead the court to unanimously rule in Department of Commerce v. New York to exclude the controversial citizenship question from the decennial survey. Those newly revealed documents show that the Trump administration’s purpose in putting the citizenship question on the upcoming census was not its stated one to help Hispanic voters under the Voting Rights Act, but rather to create policy that would be “a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.”

It’s difficult to produce a greater smoking gun than explicitly saying you are hoping to help the GOP by increasing white voting power. But this revelation, coming from the hard drive of a deceased Republican political operative and made available to Common Cause by his estranged daughter, is ironically more likely to lead the Republican-appointed conservative justices on the Supreme Court to allow the administration to include the question that would help states dilute the power of Hispanic voters.

But this revelation, coming from the hard drive of a deceased Republican political operative and made available to Common Cause by his estranged daughter, is ironically more likely to lead the Republican-appointed conservative justices on the Supreme Court to allow the administration to include the question that would help states dilute the power of Hispanic voters.

The New York Times reported that the hard drive of the late Republican redistricting guru Thomas B. Hofeller contained documents indicating that the real purpose of including the citizenship question was to allow Republicans to draw new congressional, state, and local legislative districts using equal numbers of eligible voters in each district, not equal numbers of persons, a standard that would greatly reduce the power of Hispanics and Democrats in places like Texas.

According to the Times, files on Hofeller’s hard drives, subpoenaed in litigation concerning North Carolina redistricting, show that Hofeller “wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act—the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ers-alito.html

I am no lawyer but these documents seem to suggest that the only reason they wanted this question in the census was to be able to disenfranchise minorities especially Hispanics.

I mean the study was done by the guy who they admitted was the one who brought it up to the administration in the first place. By his own daughter.

It clearly outlines the inherent intent to force minority representation down despite the actual population. And strengthen GOP power even against the popular vote.

It isn't surprising but it makes you just wonder why the hell doesn't the GOP try to expand to get these voters? It is so silly. There are minorities they could reach with certain things like religious ideas, if the base wasn't so objectively transparent and hypocritical in their support of trump.

And if there wasn't that core GOP base of racists that would never allow a true integration of minorities. They will always think of them as lesser and try to demonize and keep them down. Sure they will pose with the one off couple of minorities that will stand with them. So they can say I have a friend who is black! "Look at my blacks over there" "Kanye likes me". But, it is all fake

[aja_christopher]

Setting strict quotas is not good policy in any case, the numbers will rise and fall with the needs of the economy, it's not something for partisan lawmakers to bicker over. The real reform needs to be making the whole immigration system a lot more streamlined and efficient, because as anyone who has actually gone through the process will tell you, the current system is designed to be unnecessarily complex and difficult to deter people from attempting it. However, this doesn't mean that they just give up trying to come here, it just means that they are pushed to take illegal routes instead, which creates a lot more problems for everyone. As an added benefit, immigrants will be much more likely to respect American laws and customs if they believe that America is treating them with respect, which right now they obviously don't believe.

While all of this is true, Trump and the Republicans feel they have to cater to their base by keeping as many (non-white) immigrants out as possible.

Steve Bannon has already made it clear that immigration is the key issue in that regard, and Trump is just following through on said agenda.

Everyone knows it, but like Ben Shapiro did with Steve King, they will disavow it if it's said aloud in public -- instead they use terms like "open borders" and "limiting principles" usually for the purpose of (as Mets once put it) "plausible deniability".

-----
"Bannon presided over a news empire where he, according to former staffers, ”aggressively pushed stories against immigrants, and supported linking minorities to terrorism and crime.”

"We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon said in July, using a term that is really just a rebranding of traditional white nationalism. Under Bannon, Breitbart published a call to “hoist [the Confederate flag] high and fly it with pride” only two weeks after the Charleston massacre when the country was still reeling from the horrors of the murders.

Under Bannon, Breitbart published an extremist anti-Muslim tract where the author wrote that “rape culture” is “integral” to Islam."

-----
"White nationalists advocate for policies to reverse changing demographics and the loss of an absolute, white majority. Ending non-white immigration, both legal and illegal, is an urgent priority — frequently elevated over other racist projects, such as ending multiculturalism and miscegenation — for white nationalists seeking to preserve white, racial hegemony.

White nationalists seek to return to an America that predates the implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Both landmark pieces of legislation are cited as the harbingers of white dispossession and so-called “white genocide” — the idea that whites in the United States are being systematically replaced and destroyed."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...te-nationalist

[aja_christopher]

It isn't surprising but it makes you just wonder why the hell doesn't the GOP try to expand to get these voters? It is so silly.

You might just as well ask why so many right-wing lunatics shoot up (black) churches, mosques, synagogues and abortion clinics.

Hate is not reasonable and politicians know that fear can be used as a weapon, especially during elections.

[aja_christopher]

One more economically destructive distraction -- use tariffs on Mexico to stop "illegals" but do nothing about "illegal" interference in our elections by Russia.

-----
"Trump announces tariffs on Mexico starting June 10 if it doesn't slow flow of migrants"

"President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to impose new tariffs on Mexico if the country does not step up its enforcement actions. Trump said in a White House statement that the first round of tariffs would begin on June 10 at 5% "on all goods imported from Mexico."

The statement said Trump would carry out his threat under authority from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and that he would lift tariffs only "if the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico." The statement warned further that if Mexico did not act as Trump demanded, tariffs would go up to 10% by July, 15% by August, 20% by September and reach a permanent level of 25% by October.

According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, US imports of goods from Mexico totaled $346.5 billion in 2018. That includes cars and machinery as well as agricultural products.

The President preceded the statement with a pair of tweets promising that the rising tariffs would stay in place until immigration flows are cut off."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/polit...ion/index.html

[Mister Mets]

Setting strict quotas is not good policy in any case, the numbers will rise and fall with the needs of the economy, it's not something for partisan lawmakers to bicker over. The real reform needs to be making the whole immigration system a lot more streamlined and efficient, because as anyone who has actually gone through the process will tell you, the current system is designed to be unnecessarily complex and difficult to deter people from attempting it. However, this doesn't mean that they just give up trying to come here, it just means that they are pushed to take illegal routes instead, which creates a lot more problems for everyone. As an added benefit, immigrants will be much more likely to respect American laws and customs if they believe that America is treating them with respect, which right now they obviously don't believe.

You could have a limiting principle without strict quotas. It's difficult to have a political issues not ultimately be settled by bickering partisan lawmakers.

Because that is what is relevant here to me -- facts with regards to actual actions and policy (like using family separations as a "deterrent", blocking votes on Supreme Court justices and improving election security, or obstructing justice and protecting criminality), not your blatantly biased opinion against "liberals" that focuses on select individuals and talking points rather than actual legislation and results.

It's not just Bernie Sanders -- Harris, Beto, and nearly every other prominent Democratic representative has come out against "open borders" when asked directly, something you easily could discover with just a Google search if you weren't so busy trying to prove your false talking point has actual relevance.

And you still "evaded" discussing the fact that you are trying to discredit the ethics and actions of Democrats while supporting a party of known racists, liars and criminals going all the way up to the top -- I expected as much, I just wanted to make it clear to you that you aren't fooling anyone with rhetoric that has no basis in actual legislation or practice.

I'm sure Ben Shapiro would be proud, however, if that's any consolation.



Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

I'm eager to see Bernie, Harris, and Beto explain what limiting principle they want on legal immigration. But a claim that they're against open borders is meaningless when they're not willing to say what they're for.

If the Democratic party was open about how much they want to increase legal immigration by, I could be lying by suggesting otherwise (I remain unaware of any statements by party leadership in answering this question, so if this was something that has actually been addressed, I'm simply unaware of it, despite asking about it for months on multiple forums involving people who seem to be knowledgeable about American politics.)

As for whether I've evaded anything, I'll address any question asked in good faith. If a loaded question is presented, there is likely to be an argument about the underlying premise, which is one reason I try avoiding it myself.

Trump is 66 points ahead of Weld in a Republican primary poll.

They love their guy.

This may change with the Wonder Woman endorsement.

[InformationGeek]

Yet another Republican blocks the Disaster Relief bill.

.@RepJohnRose objects to unanimous consent request for House to approve Senate-passed $19.1 disaster relief bill w/o roll call vote. "I urge the Speaker of the House, who is also not here today, to return to her post and call Congress back to Washington to do the people's work."