And that's the frustrating thing. Like, you'd think they would be okay with themselves being able to vote easier, but nope; gotta make sure them "illegals" don't tamper the votes, ignoring the virtually nonexistent cases that it has legitimately happened and that any other times it has happened was purely "he said/she said" talk.
Bottom line is, Republicans are willing to put up with anything to vote for Republicans, because they don't know better or willingly believe whatever nonsense about "voter fraud", but if you're Democratic or vote moderately, you're more likely to face adversity on the election process since you're required to head to a polling place, show multiple forms of ID, wait in line, and deal with a process that can more likely to be tampered with than a freaking letter.
With the GOP stacking the courts in their favor and the craziness of the Tea Party spilling all over conservative America, I feel like things in the US are about to take a downward turn.
As I've said before, I support Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee. I have done so for several years and have been open about it on this forum.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...en#post3986608
Unlike most of the people here, I dislike Trump so much that I'm going to vote for a different party than I usually do. So I'm not going to fondly remember anything about Trump's campaign.
Most of the conservative proposals call for some immigration, so this isn't really an accurate criticism of the GOP.
The point on limiting principles came from left-wing discussions. I first heard it on the Ezra Klein show.
Do I go after you guys personally? My comments are about the argument, and not the person making it. I don't think I've ever done anything similar to accusing anyone here of narcissism.
As for the benchmark that people consistently point out flaws in arguments, that's not how it often goes. Sometimes the response is just a non-sequitur or a response to a different argument. To use your metaphor, I'll make a point about a tree, and the response will be to pretend as if I was talking about some different tree, or the forest.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
I disagree with the contention that "What is a more important question on immigration than what the limiting principle should be?" is in any way a loaded question.
There's no controversial assumption to disagree with.
One can answer if they think there is a more important question, if they want less immigration, if they want the same level of immigration, if they want significantly more immigration, etc.
I can also appreciate the argument that there should be no limiting principle. We do call that one open borders, although the argument is that this isn't what Democrats want.
I don't think there are a lot of white nationalists (IE- people who believe that Ben Carson and Elaine Chao's race makes them poor fits for cabinet, that Jeb Bush, Clarence Thomas and Mitch McConnell are wrong to be in interracial marriages, that segregation in schools should be mandated by law, etc) in the White House staff.
I get that some people have a more expansive definition of white nationalism, but that may be an example of category creep, extending the definition of something extreme so far that it no longer means the same thing, while trying to stick with the exact same negative associations of the earlier meaning.
This is addressing a different question.
It's also more of a mechanism for compromise, rather than any sort of explanation about what Democrats would do if they didn't have to worry about a Republican President or a Republican Senate.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
It's pretty obvious that most Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, most of them probably have similar views on it as the GOP, but just want to put a friendlier face on it so as to not scare off Latino voters. I wish the party were secretly hiding some radical left agenda that they'll finally reveal after they get into power, but unfortunately that's not really in the cards with the current bunch.
Besides, open borders isn't some scary bogeyman, it is really the only morally defensible position. Nobody who has ever actually gone through the immigration system would ever argue that it's a fair or just system worth preserving.
I'm betting on placebo. Can you imagine the shitstorm of
trouble the attending Physician would get if Trump were to die due to side effects of that stuff?
Losing his license would be the very least of it.
They could charge him for possible treason, murder. You'd have to be some kind of fanatic or a moron to deliberately mis-perscribe a sitting president like that.
I suspect Trump isn't taking hydroxy***********. He's probably making that up. It is irresponsible for him to take it or pretend to take it, given the limited evidence that it wards off COVID-19, and the fact that this kind of speculation can create shortages of a medicine used by people with chronic health conditions.
However, it would be a stretch to charge a doctor for treason and murder for prescribing a medicine that is legally available for off-label use. The studies about the side effects are a bit exaggerated, since the evidence we have is from sick people with a medical condition that does sometimes have fatal outcomes (it's also potentially skewed by the ways the population of COVID-19 patients prescribed a particular drug may be sicker than average.)
This wouldn't be Conrad Murray level prescription drug abuse.
What's an assumption in the question "What is a more important question on immigration than what the limiting principle should be?" that a person being questioned might disagree with?
I understand the argument for open borders.
However, it is really unpopular as a position.
As of 2018, over half of Democratic voters were opposed to any increase in legal immigration.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties
https://www.people-press.org/2018/06...-into-the-u-s/
So it seems unlikely Democratic officeholders are secretly moderate, and worried about conveying to voters that they hold popular positions on a contentious issue.
Regarding Hispanic voters, it's worth noting that strong majorities favor tightening security at U.S. borders, requiring business owners to check the immigration status of workers they hire, and think that it is essential for immigrants to learn English.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
Last edited by Mister Mets; 05-20-2020 at 06:21 PM.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets