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

[Farealmer]

If the Vice Chairman of the RNC wore a shirt saying "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" "At least I'm not Jewish" or "Cool Story Babe, Now Make Me a Sandwich" and suffered no repercussions, would you argue that it's outrageous to think it means anything?

Mets, I am going to ask you outright, how do you feel about open borders? Because you are comparing homophobia, anti-Semitism, and misogyny to open borders as far as the seriousness of elected officials unofficially advocating them. You mentioned before open borders have moral arguments in their favor, do you believe homophobia, anti Semitism, and misogyny do to? If not why compare them?

[aja_christopher]

I'll note a difference between how I ask questions and how you ask questions. My questions are neutrally phrased. I don't require you to address any other points, or make any unrelated potshots.

And I'll note that you don't answer questions and dodge facts when you're being dishonest and someone calls you out for it.

It isn't a "potshot" to use factchecks to note that you're making a false argument in accusing the Democrats of wanting "open borders" and to "abolish ICE" nor is it a "potshot" to ask why a "moral" person would support a Republican party -- and openly echo a Republican president -- that routinely traffics in lies, corruption, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, warmongering, and fiscal irresponsibility.

[numberthirty]

This sort of nonsense is out there, and folks are pointing at Sanders' supporters and calling them "Divisive". It's laughable...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/u...-sanders-.html

The Rematch: Bernie Sanders vs. a Clinton Loyalist

Last year, the center got $1 million from the family foundation of Jonathan Lavine, a managing partner at Bain Capital, and at least $1 million from the tech industry’s Silicon Valley Community Foundation. It also received $225,000 from the private foundation of a Walmart heir, Sam Walton.

Ms. Tanden, whose salary was $397,000 in 2018, was an unpaid adviser to Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign while running the think tank, and was considered a candidate for a top White House job had Mrs. Clinton won the presidency. Ms. Tanden says she has founded six new policy-intensive groups as the center’s president and increased its annual budget by 25 percent.

“That’s what she does — she shows up at rich people’s places because she needs funds from them,” Ms. Tanden’s mother said. “That place runs on Neera Tanden.”

From 2016 through last year, the center accepted nearly $2.5 million from the United Arab Emirates to fund its National Security and International Policy initiative, according to previously unreported internal budget documents. From the start, the decision to solicit money from the United Arab Emirates, an ally of Saudi Arabia with a problematic human rights record, fanned internal dissent. A Center for American Progress spokeswoman said on Monday night that it had decided in December to stop taking money from the country.

[Tami]

Man Dies From Gunshot Wound In Chuck E Cheese's Parking Lot

VESTAVIA HILLS, AL - A man who was shot in the chest while changing a diaper in his car outside the Chuck E Cheese's restaurant in Vestavia Hills has died. The Jefferson County Coroner's Office on Tuesday identified the victim as Timothy Roshun Smith Jr. He was 22 and lived in eastern Birmingham.

The incident occurred on the afternoon of April 13. Vestavia police said the shooting appeared to be accidental. The man was reportedly changing his daughter's diaper in a car when his gun discharged, hitting him in the chest and his daughter in the leg.

Both were taken to area hospitals, and the young girl sustained minor injuries. Smith, however, was pronounced dead at UAB Hospital at 2:10 p.m. Monday.


The gun was reportedly in Smith's diaper bag when it discharged.

[Kirby101]

This is the GOP today.

Poll: Roy Moore leading Alabama GOP field

[Dalak]

This is the GOP today.

Poll: Roy Moore leading Alabama GOP field

Oh yeah, the kiddy diddler we can't call a pedophile because certain posters complained it wasn't accurate.

[Tendrin]

Ah, yes. The evil Neera Tanden. *eyeroll*

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Man Dies From Gunshot Wound In Chuck E Cheese's Parking Lot

What the flying **** was that nimrod doing with a goddamn gun in a diaper bag? Morons like him are proof that the gene pool is in serious need of cleaning.

[numberthirty]

Ah, yes. The evil Neera Tanden. *eyeroll*

Luckily, your post is the only time I have seen anyone characterize her as "Evil".

That said, "Divisive" is not exactly a stretch.

[numberthirty]

What the flying **** was that nimrod doing with a goddamn gun in a diaper bag? Morons like him are proof that the gene pool is in serious need of cleaning.

Well, that is an entirely separate discussion.

That a gun can very easily go off and kill someone is one issue.

The specifics in this instance is another.

[Tendrin]

Luckily, your post is the only time I have seen anyone characterize her as "Evil".

That said, "Divisive" is not exactly a stretch.

You don't spend enough time on twitter but hey I won't go hunting to find all the stuff thrown at her on there just to have you shift goalposts again. <3

[numberthirty]

You don't spend enough time on twitter but hey I won't go hunting to find all the stuff thrown at her on there just to have you shift goalposts again. <3

Which would have absolutely nothing to do with if her trying to lump Sanders in with wealthy folks who actually are the problem is divisive or not.

Edit:

Never mind having the nerve to talk about hypocrisy when you get your cash in the places said outfit does.

[Mister Mets]

Mets, I am going to ask you outright, how do you feel about open borders? Because you are comparing homophobia, anti-Semitism, and misogyny to open borders as far as the seriousness of elected officials unofficially advocating them. You mentioned before open borders have moral arguments in their favor, do you believe homophobia, anti Semitism, and misogyny do to? If not why compare them?

I believe open borders would be a terrible policy.

It comes from people who mean well, but that's irrelevant.

I compare open borders to homophobia, anti Semitism and misogyny because for the most part those are policies Democrats reject, and rightly so. The claim is that Democrats reject open borders, so I'm interrogating that.

And I'll note that you don't answer questions and dodge facts when you're being dishonest and someone calls you out for it.

It isn't a "potshot" to use factchecks to note that you're making a false argument in accusing the Democrats of wanting "open borders" and to "abolish ICE" nor is it a "potshot" to ask why a "moral" person would support a Republican party -- and openly echo a Republican president -- that routinely traffics in lies, corruption, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, warmongering, and fiscal irresponsibility.

Democrats are able to at any point disavow anyone who supports abolishing ICE, or open borders, with the vigor they reserve for anyone who dressed in blackface in the 1980s and would be replaced by someone who hasn't been accused of sexual assault. They don't quite do that.

I'll answer politely worded questions, but not intellectually dishonest questions. For example, you seem to assume I'm echoing Trump, that I came across a point of his, and made a conscious point to repeat it. My points on open borders aren't made because of anything Trump (a guy I didn't vote for last time, and don't intend to vote for next time) said, but because of arguments I've come across elsewhere (the main source being Ezra Klein's podcast interviews). I suspect a reason Trump brings up open borders is that he recognizes this is a topic that makes Democrats uncomfortable, because they are unwilling to define clear preferred limits on legal immigration.

[Mister Mets]

Oh yeah, the kiddy diddler we can't call a pedophile because certain posters complained it wasn't accurate.

Do you disagree with any point made earlier?

Elected politicians make policies and laws. Candidates make ideas, proposals, opinions, and promises.

Promises often become policies.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...heir-promises/

I see Mets still wants to push the Republican line that immigration is the most important issue we face and it is a major conflict betweeen the parties.
Of course before Trump, it was a solvable bi-partisan issue. But I guess he likes where his Party and it's leader is on this issue.

Immigration is one of the most important issues, and a major conflict between parties. If it was a solvable issue, it would have been addressed.

[TheDarman]

Democrats are able to at any point disavow anyone who supports abolishing ICE, or open borders, with the vigor they reserve for anyone who dressed in blackface in the 1980s and would be replaced by someone who hasn't been accused of sexual assault. They don't quite do that.

I'll answer politely worded questions, but not intellectually dishonest questions. For example, you seem to assume I'm echoing Trump, that I came across a point of his, and made a conscious point to repeat it. My points on open borders aren't made because of anything Trump (a guy I didn't vote for last time, and don't intend to vote for next time) said, but because of arguments I've come across elsewhere (the main source being Ezra Klein's podcast interviews). I suspect a reason Trump brings up open borders is that he recognizes this is a topic that makes Democrats uncomfortable, because they are unwilling to define clear preferred limits on legal immigration.

Again, it isn't something that needs a definite limit--especially if that definite limit is a racist and antiquated system of quotas that were designed to keep brown and black people out (because we can accept more from predominantly white countries). The amount that we should see should vary from year to year. The question is if you have clearly defined rules for what are qualifiers for getting into the country legally, have a nationwide e-Verify system that would ensure that no employer, across the country, would be able to employ undocumented immigrants, allow the undocumented immigrants already here an opportunity to stay through a particular avenue, secure the border in a way that yields superior results to a wall because of its technological posterity, why do you actually need to have a clear defined limit on immigration?

I mean, if an individual meets the qualifications for entry, why should we expect that they should be kept out for years on end? Now, there are limits to the kinds of Visas that are approved. I've seen no Democrat, particularly in the presidential race, argue that Visas should be handed out without regard for what the economy actually needs. There are good reasons to indicate that we should raise the amount of Visas in particular service jobs, such as agriculture, but certainly not to the point of excess of what the economy actually requires. Thus, an immigration reform package would be one that would communicate with industry leaders about how many they actually need and adjust the Visa limit appropriately and allow for all qualified candidates to be processed as fast as they can. Especially as native-born Americans move towards higher level private sector jobs, and have fewer kids, there needs to be new individuals to fill service level jobs that do require full time positions (regardless of what many Republicans say about service sector jobs being for high school kids--just remember that the next time you stop at Target to shop or McDonald's for lunch during the week days).

There has also been plenty of evidence that approximately half of the year-over-year increase in GDP growth since the Industrial Revolution has been a result of the larger numbers of people entering the work force. However, our population growth has slowed to replacement level in the United States. A substantial population that had ballooned the size of the labor market (baby boomers) are reaching retirement age without a larger generation entering the labor pool. This will result in a contraction of the labor market and can slow down GDP growth even further. Indeed, it is a big part of the reason why we've seen the slow down, even post-recession, in GDP growth. The situation gets even more dire as the baby boomers die off, because they are the most socioeconomically well off age-wise demographic group. They went to school in a time when a minimum wage job could provide a year's tuition to our nation's best schools if you only worked full time in the summers. Now, children are faced with crushing debt. People are having fewer kids because of the financial strain that is placed on them. As a result, financial strain and fewer children, businesses will see their domestic consumer base start to shrink. They can push their products internationally to maintain growth but the Republican Party has also become an anti-trade party as well.

The truth is that a xenophobic and an anti-trade party is bad for the economy, especially if that party doesn't do anything to address the issue of the cost of living increasing at a much faster rate than the earnings of graduates, be they from high school or college. Saying there needs to be reforms done to the systems in place for immigration to make it easier to legally immigrate are not just moral moves, but, ultimately, the necessary moves to make. We need to make sure our legal process moves quicker. But we can't put down clear, defined limits on all kinds of limitations at all times. That's not only unrealistic and immoral, it's dangerous thinking. It isn't an open borders policy to state that we will have to evaluate the situation, year by year, and then decide on that years limit for which kind of Visas get increased or decreased based on economic needs. From there, it is just a matter of ensuring that we process applications faster and do our part to make it less of a multi-year process to enter the country. But Democrats aren't saying that there need not be any kind of legal process for entry. I just think they are making the point that it needs to be modernized and remove the antiquated parts about our immigration system that 1) are ineffective and 2) cost a lot of money to be that way.