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

[Gray Lensman]

His supporters already think that though, so what's the harm in putting forth a public spectacle that will only further highlight his incompetence and immaturity? It'd be fine if the House Democrats were slow playing the impeachment because they had some ace up their sleeve that they're waiting for a critical moment to play, but I as far as I can tell that isn't the case at all. Instead they just want us to just wait it out and see what happens in 2020 with this uninspiring group of candidates, and that just isn't looking very favorable right now.

I would prefer what you describe myself - slowly tighten the vise on him and let him show just how sad of a person he is during the election - preferably in some way that makes him look weak to his base, at least enough to undercut his ability to play legal games in the period between the election and the inauguration.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

His supporters already think that though, so what's the harm in putting forth a public spectacle that will only further highlight his incompetence and immaturity? It'd be fine if the House Democrats were slow playing the impeachment because they had some ace up their sleeve that they're waiting for a critical moment to play, but I as far as I can tell that isn't the case at all. Instead they just want us to just wait it out and see what happens in 2020 with this uninspiring group of candidates, and that just isn't looking very favorable right now.

There is no ace up the sleeves of Democrats. It’s as I’ve said, they fear backlash that would favor Trump in next year’s election if the impeachment card is played, hell, Pelosi all but said as much. The irony is that Republicans would’ve been damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead if positions were reversed, they damn sure don’t lack for chutzpah.

[JCAll]

This. If Trump is impeached, but the Senate votes to acquit before the 2020 election, Trump supporters will use that as an excuse to vote for him. "Yeah, they showed a lot of evidence, but he beat the rap, so it's all fake news!"

I mean, yeah, people will say that. But really, is there anyone actually on the fence about Trump at this point? It really seems like you're either in or you're out by now. It's just one more thing for jerks on Twitter to crow about, and they're gonna do that anyway.

[numberthirty]

I mean, yeah, people will say that. But really, is there anyone actually on the fence about Trump at this point? It really seems like you're either in or you're out by now. It's just one more thing for jerks on Twitter to crow about, and they're gonna do that anyway.

I guess that might depend on how it plays out.

The idea that folks near "The Fence" will stay in a static position no matter how things play out is a gamble. Let's say Dems take a run at investigation/Impeachment, and they don't really wind up with anything solid. While I don't think it would be a huge number, some of those folks near "The Fence" might wind up giving Trump the benefit of the doubt if there doesn't wind up being anything like a smoking gun.

[PwrdOn]

I would prefer what you describe myself - slowly tighten the vise on him and let him show just how sad of a person he is during the election - preferably in some way that makes him look weak to his base, at least enough to undercut his ability to play legal games in the period between the election and the inauguration.

The Democrat's best hope right now is that Trump's mismanagement of the economy finally tanks it, then you will finally start to see his supporters deserting him. And this is looking increasingly likely, especially now that Trump has decided to start yet another trade war with India of all places, which up until now I had thought was the country we were supposed to be building up to try and counteract Chinese power in Asia, so much for that.

[heretic]

Its about abortion.

If you believe abortion is murder than this is likely your top issue and also likely FAR more important than any issue. So you are going to support the candidate warts and all that that will pass laws and appoint judges who will limit abortion rather than a candidate that supports baby killing.

Because the left doesn't view the unborn as life I think a lot of the left have trouble grasping just how important this topic is over everything else to much of the right. I'm sure the majority of right wingers would rather have a pro lifer like Pence as president since he isn't going to be acting like a petulant child all the time but they'll continue supporting Trump so long as he flies the anti abortion flag.

*sigh*

The depressing part is how many are actually sincere about backing stances which do little to prevent unwanted pregnancies, less to ease the financial burden of carrying a pregnancy to term, and zilch about the kid once they are actually out of the womb... all in the name of being pro-life (never mind the spikes in pre-natal complications, "pre-natal complications" and for the well heeled "vacations" that would fallow such bans in any case).

[heretic]

It's really just about the babies and not at all about control and terrorizing women.

https://www.boredpanda.com/man-photo...mpaign=organic

Aside from the (massive) creepiness, I wonder how much of this 'awareness' this fellow gets from project veritas, lifesite, etc.

[heretic]

It would help, but I can't imagine it happening. Like with any cult, they aren't thinking clearly. Republicans in Congress act like Suicide Bombers or Kamikaze Pilots who willing throw their lives away for a 'higher purpose', though instead of lives it's their careers. They believe that they will be rewarded, and ignore the fact that many of those associated with Trump have been convicted of crimes and sent to prison.

In other words, the only way to break the cult is to take down the cult leader, Trump. If Democrats want to win and win big, those in Congress need to make sure that every American knows the truth, knows all the facts. Otherwise, they will continue to vote blindly as they usually do.

This is the strongest argument for impeachment even if it never can get past the Senate.

It is also the strongest argument for holding off until sometime next year.

[heretic]

We've yet to establish that the deaths of migrant children are the result of US policy.

"Kids we are locking up because their families turn themselves in to Immigration are dying!"

"Are you sure they were not sick to begin with?"

You ask what is dismissed. This is at the top of the list.

I've explained the difference between one commentator and a political party. I'll note that Shapiro has explicitly advocated against white supremacism and gives concrete details on what should happen (IE- he believes it is a good thing that the South Carolina church shooter is in jail) whereas Democrats do not typically give concrete answers on one of the most important policy questions: What should be the limiting principle to legal immigration?

This... is telling.

You equate mentioning that "Yes, mass-murderers should be jailed" with "Whoever will not present a hard defined limit on how many outlanders can be permitted upon our sacred soil must be plotting to flood the country for Some Purpose."

This says something about priorities. Nothing complimentary I am afraid.

[JCAll]

I guess that might depend on how it plays out.

The idea that folks near "The Fence" will stay in a static position no matter how things play out is a gamble. Let's say Dems take a run at investigation/Impeachment, and they don't really wind up with anything solid. While I don't think it would be a huge number, some of those folks near "The Fence" might wind up giving Trump the benefit of the doubt if there doesn't wind up being anything like a smoking gun.

Yeah, but I would argue that the time to stop was a long time ago. Trump is already using "No collusion, angry Democrats!" as a rallying cry to get his numbers up. This game started when the Investigation started, stopping now isn't playing it safe it's a forfeit, and we'll forfeit 202 along with it. Love it, hate it, it doesn't matter; the decisions were already made and we have no choice now but to see it though to the end.

I love every chance I get to make this reference, there ain't no getting off of this train we're on until we get to the end of the line.

[Mister Mets]

"Kids we are locking up because their families turn themselves in to Immigration are dying!"

"Are you sure they were not sick to begin with?"

You ask what is dismissed. This is at the top of the list.

This... is telling.

You equate mentioning that "Yes, mass-murderers should be jailed" with "Whoever will not present a hard defined limit on how many outlanders can be permitted upon our sacred soil must be plotting to flood the country for Some Purpose."

This says something about priorities. Nothing complimentary I am afraid.

I think it's a bad comparison, but when Aja_Christopher brought it up, so my response is in that context.

As for the first point, what list are you referring to?

Is that really the only thing you see that might possibly be wrong with that whole scenario?

Still looking for "plausible deniability" -- even in this situation?

Yeah, we're done here -- you can try to talk around your party's actions -- separating children from their families -- but you're not fooling anyone.

The deaths of children would be something very wrong. That's probably why you brought it up.

But I'm curious as to what you advocate for. Should people who make asylum claims that are more likely than not to be rejected be released into the US? What do you think the consequences of that will be?

While we're coming at this from different angles, we both want the best outcome. I am legitimately concerned that more people will be seriously harmed if create more incentives for families to make these dangerous journeys.

Automation doesn't really affect the jobs that illegal immigrants do, because it's not the kind of work that can be easily automated. If you can think of a way to build a fruit picking machine that doesn't squash half of the fruits in the process, I'd love to know.

Also your point about the minimum wage makes no sense, if we set a high minimum wage and strictly enforced it, then we wouldn't have to worry about immigration driving down wages, unless you think that immigrants would give up the chance to come in legally just so they could go work under the table for $2 an hour. And if some immigrants can't find good paying jobs, they will have less incentive to come in the first place, I thought that this is what you wanted.

And once again, what's so scary about a large number of immigrants coming in? It's worth remembering that as an American, borders are practically all open to you and you have opportunities to live and work wherever you want, often with much better pay than what locals can get, even doing very basic work like teaching English or something. If any of these countries suddenly decided to start deporting all Americans and banning further entry, you'd be justifiably pissed. But this is the reality that the majority of the world's population has to deal with, for no good reason really, so why continue doing it this way?

My point on minimum wage is that illegal immigrants shouldn't be used to circumvent the law. If the minimum wage is $11 an hour in Arizona, anyone who does that work should be paid that amount of money. Raising the minimum wage could exacerbate the problem, by giving companies more incentives to hire people who aren't in a position to claim to authorities about labor law violations.

There is the assumption that people will not find below-minimum wage work in the US preferable to the situation they were leaving. That's not necessarily true.

Other countries tend to have stricter immigration rules than the US, so that comparison doesn't quite work. The US also has a pretty low number of emigrants.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...countries.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ide-migration/

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Here's the reason the smart person (Pelosi doesn't want to impeach).

1. The Senate will vote and give him an acquittal.
2. You aren't impeaching for conspiracy, you are impeaching for obstruction.

So the end result will be that Trump will have an acquittal he can hold onto and the narrative they will push is "the Demrocats spent two years screaming collusion, the President was cleared of collusion, so they tried to get him out by charging him of obstruction of an investigation of a crime that the special counsel said their was no evidence of (collusion) and then the President was vindicated of partisan attack via his Senate acquittal".

That will be redmeat for the Republican base as perceived unfair treatment and a victory. They'll be fired up. And even if it isn't effective with Democrats and Independents, the net result is that after all this time the Democrats are left with nothing to show for the Mueller investigation as the final outcome was an acquittal by the Senate. Which will most likely leave a bad taste in their mouths and leave them holding an L.

It's political horrendous. You don't engage in a battle where your opponent gets to decide who wins in the end. You don't let let the bad guys finish the story for you.

The smart manuevre is to slop drip all the dirt from the Mueller report for the next year and a half and have it be an albatross on him.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

*sigh*

The depressing part is how many are actually sincere about backing stances which do little to prevent unwanted pregnancies, less to ease the financial burden of carrying a pregnancy to term, and zilch about the kid once they are actually out of the womb... all in the name of being pro-life (never mind the spikes in pre-natal complications, "pre-natal complications" and for the well heeled "vacations" that would fallow such bans in any case).

It doesn't matter because one side legitimately thinks there isn't a difference between going up to a hospital ward and killing an infant and having an aborition. Once you understand that is the stance, you understand that everything you say in response won't trump (for lack of a better word) the fact that they think it's murder. A financial burden of pregnancy won't trump child murder to them, unwanted pregnancy prevention doesn't compare to child murder to them.

TriggerWarning is right, because you don't view it in the those terms you don't get how insignificant everything you said compares to what they actually believe is murder.

[PwrdOn]

My point on minimum wage is that illegal immigrants shouldn't be used to circumvent the law. If the minimum wage is $11 an hour in Arizona, anyone who does that work should be paid that amount of money. Raising the minimum wage could exacerbate the problem, by giving companies more incentives to hire people who aren't in a position to claim to authorities about labor law violations.

There is the assumption that people will not find below-minimum wage work in the US preferable to the situation they were leaving. That's not necessarily true.

Other countries tend to have stricter immigration rules than the US, so that comparison doesn't quite work. The US also has a pretty low number of emigrants.

So you have now come to the conclusion that's been obvious to most people for a long time, that our immigration system is specifically set up to create a large population of illegal immigrants that employers can then use to circumvent labor laws, and that our entire economy has become so dependent on this source of cheap labor that it makes our immigration laws a complete joke. If we simply allowed most of these people to enter the country legally, then this pool would not exist and employers would be forced to pay living wages to someone, unless you really think that someone who was free to enter the US legally would still choose to remain undocumented just for the privilege of being able to work a below minimum wage job.

There is also the issue that in many cases, it was the destabilizing influence of American intervention that is driving most of these people to emigrate in the first place. You can point to a country like Japan having much stricter immigration laws than the US, but the Japanese military is not all over the globe toppling governments and Japanese corporations are not strip mining countries of resources on a massive scale. America is unique in that our policies impact the lives of people across the globe whether they want it or not, so it's only right that our immigration policy acknowledges that we have a responsibility to take care of these people in a way that other countries don't.

[Iron Maiden]

I have been coming to the same conclusion myself that impeachment is a dangerous path to take. Unless Trump does something so beyond the pale, there is practically zero chance that there will be enough GOP senators to flip on an impeachment vote. Even then I'm not sure we'd get the 2/3 vote in the Senate. We only have the one lone congressman from Michigan who will vote for impeachment. No GOP senators have come out to agree with his stand. Romney might, he's been awfully quiet on that front. But as far as I know he hasn't built a secret anti-Trump caucus. He did praise Congressmen Amash for being courageous to call for Trump's impeachment but that is as far as he will go for now. He's not advocating for impeachment but was "troubled" by what he read in the Mueller report. I can't recall hearing a peep from any other GOP senators. They are all in the cult.