Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[MJW (ya that one)]

Those filthy immigrants you detest subsidize you.

If I remember correctly this is only because an unusually high % are prime age workers who pay into the system. There hasn't been enough time for them to get old (most of them came over during the 90's boom). So you are advocating for a Ponzi Scheme to keep this true.

Having said that the cost drain is negligible to the amount of hype immigration gets (there must be a real reason they hate fifthly immigrants) so if you got into a real discussion this issue would fall to the wayside.

[Bobchillingworth]

Where's the common ground with people who think it's the white man's burden to subsidize moving Mexico's population over here? Or that the Nordic model can be copied word for word over to the States despite all evidence pointing to the contrary? 

There isn't a single politician on the left who wants to "subsidize moving Mexico's population" or literally replace our constitution with Sweden's or whatever; those are gross perversions of legitimate arguments for immigration reform and universal healthcare. Conversely, plenty of high-profile Republicans have claimed that gay marriage is ruinous for society, or that all Muslims should be barred from immigrating to the United States for fear that they could become terrorists. This tired "both sides do it" rhetoric obscures the reality of American politics, where whatever extremists exist on the Left in no way wield comparable power or influence in the Democratic party as the far right does in the Republican.

[Brian Shanahan]

A democratic system would not only see Trump lose, but have him and the Republitraitor leadership facing a long time in the chokey.

Nothing is more democratic than imprisoning the party leaders on the losing side, after all!  Four out of five Democratic People's Republics agree!  

Anyway, it's interesting how the Democrat Party members of the Michigan Board of Canvassers are actually secret Republicans.

1) It was the republitraitor state ag who took the decision not to count the discarded votes. My guess his staff counted them privately and went "oh shit, even after treasonously disenfranchising half a million citizens, we still lost". It's Florida 2000 and Florida, Arizona, Ohio &c. 2004 all over again.

2) In a civilised country anybody who removes the vote from a single citizen for no valid reason (and no "they vote the other pary" is not a valid reason) is a traitor to their country. Given the whole republican party has been engaging in such a campaign since the 2000 election (intrestingly enough they started just after the Supreme Court decided that election plans in republican held states no longer needed to be pre-vetted, setting aside an important plank of Civil Rights legislation) they are all traitors.

Even under the metric the US itself uses to decide if it can consider foreign elections free and fair (variation between exit polls and final announced result), every sinle one of the swing states that "voted" Trump were massively over the limit.

[Brian Shanahan]

is not an argument. It's completely empty.

If that's the case it should be easy to engage and win them back.  Why dismiss out of hand their viewpoint without bothering to analyze the underlying forces causing the behavior?  I expect Democrats to be data driven, looking for fundamental drivers to address.  This superficial dismissal of any viewpoint as unworthy of engagement....

Darrell

It's engaging with people like the man T-Hawk quoted that killed the Weimar Republic. When a group of people are that far from what is moral decent human behaviour engagement is the first step to capitulation.

[Mardoc]

My guess his staff counted them privately and went "oh shit, even after treasonously disenfranchising half a million citizens, we still lost". It's Florida 2000 and Florida, Arizona, Ohio &c. 2004 all over again

That is not possible.  There are no votes that are able to be 'privately counted'; these things have an elaborate chain of custody.  Every single level of the election apparatus in every state is staffed by a mixture of Democrats and Republicans.  Most of whom are volunteers and would have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by taking this to the press, if it were real.

When I googled that Crosscheck thing you initially brought up, the only facts I found was that one crank got some spreadsheet emailed to him by a Virginia state employee, and this spreadsheet had some rows of 'duplicates' that weren't actually identical duplicates.  There was no evidence of any of the following:
- This spreadsheet is actually from the process they use
- This spreadsheet is a final list, rather than a intermediate stage of investigation
- This spreadsheet contains more than the two errors he screenshotted (or that they existed *before* he got his hands on the file)
- Those errors are real (maybe the same person really did register with two different names; I know someone who goes by a name that isn't her official name)
- That Michigan and Virginia's process are the same
- That any single actual person lost their right to vote.  He didn't go find the person he showed in the screenshot, and ask him, for the most trivial piece of verification he could have done.  Neither did any of the people repeating the story.
- That no one on the list was actually double voting and deserved to be stopped.  

Given that half of the electoral commissions in all the states are operated by Democrats, who most definitely have the right to *see* everything even when they don't get to make the final choice, it's rather hard to believe in half a million disenfranchised people per state, yet the only evidence that escaped was this one Virginia spreadsheet. That's the entire point of setting up the commissions in a bipartisan way!  Next you'll be telling me that the English Monarchy is really Lizardpeople.  I bet you can find more evidence for that on the internet than one screenshot from one spreadsheet.  I hear there's this documentary called 'Doctor Who' which explores the subject...

[ipecac]

I'm not sure where the discussion goes from here . 

Those on the wrong side of history will complain as nationalism continues to sweep the west.

There is a (IMO legitimate) belief that they are not listened to, but lectured at.  Consistent, respectful engagement can win them over; as a South Park Democrat I'm sure of it.  I'm also sure its not going to happen 

People who don't want to understand or be understood will most certainly get their wish.

[darrelljs]

Look, I don't want to be rude, at least not to you

Thanks man...genuinely touched  .  I get what you are saying, I really do, and I agree with it in general, but...

It's engaging with people like the man T-Hawk quoted that killed the Weimar Republic. When a group of people are that far from what is moral decent human behaviour engagement is the first step to capitulation.

I'm not talking about engaging neo-nazi extremists, I agree they are so far gone that gloves off fighting is the One True Path.  I'm naive, but not that naive .  I maintain, and maybe this is not a universally held belief, that the *vast* majority of people that voted for Trump against their own self interest did so because they felt ignored and marginalized, and that they *can* be reasoned with.  And won over.

Mardoc, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm using you as an example .

It seems you support Trump, and at least partially support Trump due to his pledge to build a wall.  I'm guessing being called a racist did not make you rethink your stance?  So I'm curious, what about the wall resonated with you?  Is it your concern over lost jobs to undocumented workers?  Economic impact of supporting them with our entitlement programs?  The belief that illegal Mexican immigrants have resulted in a large increase in crime?  General principle that the laws we have should be properly enforced?  Worry about eroding of "traditional" American values from a large influx of people from a different culture?  Hate tacos?

What's the story ?

Darrell

[Mardoc]

Mardoc, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm using you as an example .

I do admit, I'm curious about some of your positions as well.  However, this particular example contains some incorrect assumptions.

So I'm curious, what about the wall resonated with you?

The fact that it's a big flashy symbol that can absorb a lot of Washington's time and effort, without requiring very much cash or causing much harm to the rest of the country.  That is, by Federal standards. I admit the absolute magnitudes of cash and harm are still probably large.  Still, probably no lives will be lost, only property, which is an improvement over 95% of policies.

What's the story ?

I voted for Trump on the hope that he would cause enough gridlock to buy time for the private sector to fix problems.  Maybe he will also do enough damage to the Imperial Presidency's reputation that some people will be convinced to rein in executive power, but that's a long shot at best. So far, I've been pleasantly surprised by Trump himself: we're not in any new wars and I haven't heard of any actual crimes in office. That's better than any president in my lifetime!

[Dreylin]

Now I'm curious which problems you are expecting the private sector to fix? 'Cause that's not really their job.

[Mardoc]

On some of your specific points.

II'm guessing being called a racist did not make you rethink your stance?  

I've noticed that anymore, 'Racist!' is a synonym for 'Shut Up!'

Is it your concern over lost jobs to undocumented workers?

There probably aren't any net lost jobs, since they bring both supply and demand.  That's macroeconomics, though, and therefore unprovable.

 Economic impact of supporting them with our entitlement programs?

Probably this is real, but it could easily be outweighed by small cuts to the programs, if anyone wanted to.  Also by documenting them so that they pay more taxes.

The belief that illegal Mexican immigrants have resulted in a large increase in crime?  General principle that the laws we have should be properly enforced?

Most of the damage has been done by people who view deportation as a cruel and unusual punishment, but I suspect if they weren't focused on being Sanctuary Cities they would find some other way to encourage criminality.  It's not like there has been any shortage of shortsighted criminal justice reforms before illegal immigration got big.

I do think laws should be enforced...but if I had my way 95% of the discrepancies would be dealt with by abolishing the law in question, not by refusing to enforce it.

 Worry about eroding of "traditional" American values from a large influx of people from a different culture?

If they would speak English and vote Republican, I would have more in common with them than I do with many American citizens.  Fortunately, time seems to be giving me my wish here, despite all the governmental efforts to prevent it.

Now I'm curious which problems you are expecting the private sector to fix?

Well, for example, the economy is growing now, which will solve a good bit of poverty (at least real poverty, not statistical relative poverty).  New medical treatments are invented all the time, and keep getting cheaper as people learn better ways to produce them, so a lot of suffering and death is being averted.  People are learning English and intermarrying with their neighbors and working with and talking to each other, which ought to help deal with racism and political bile.  People are learning ways to be productive despite regulations, minimizing the harm done by attempted central planning.  People are rebuilding Houston and South Florida.

People are even inventing new games to make my weekends less boring .

'Cause that's not really their job.

It's the job of every human being, no matter your role.  'Not my job' is the cause of tons of human suffering.