Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[darrelljs]

I think bunnies are cute!



Darrell

[ipecac]

She is being finally reined in by her coalition partners, because large numbers of the population aren't happy about the situation. In short, she is finally being made to listen to the people.

You mean her Bavarian coalition partner with lower approval ratings in Bavaria than Merkel herself?

Why does he have such low approval ratings? Because they think he hasn't been doing enough to rein in Merkel's migrant policy.

Who is only acting tough on immigration to head off the afd in Bavarian elections?

What can we learn here about the will of the Bavarians and Merkel's position in relation to that?

[scooter]

 From what I've read, the California exodus is more conservatives fleeing the liberal madness.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/...opulation/

Or it's a thing that doesn't exist.

If anything, that site provides support some form of fleeing:

The counties that saw the biggest declines are located along the eastern border, with Lassen County seeing a decrease in population by 10.03%. Trailing behind are Plumas County, Modoc County, and Sierra County. Trinity County, located in northwestern California, also saw one of the highest declines with 5.05%.

That's quite a goalpost move. From "the California exodus" to... a couple counties had a population loss? And this is in a state where net population went up, so you'd need to establish they actually left the state rather than moved somewhere else in state. Also, the combined population from the 5 counties mentioned there is around 80k people. To ballpark it, let's say this is around 8% population loss from these 5 tiny counties. That means a whopping 6,500 people have "fled" these counties. Possibly for other parts of the state with better job prospects! Meanwhile the state as a whole added around 250k people last year.

I think most states, including the one I live in, would kill for an "exodus" like that.

[ipecac]

ipecac
If anything, that site provides support some form of fleeing:

The counties that saw the biggest declines are located along the eastern border, with Lassen County seeing a decrease in population by 10.03%. Trailing behind are Plumas County, Modoc County, and Sierra County. Trinity County, located in northwestern California, also saw one of the highest declines with 5.05%.

That's quite a goalpost move. From "the California exodus" to... a couple counties had a population loss?

I didn't mention exodus, and don't have a particular horse in this race. I'm just noting that the data from your link can support some level of departure.

And this is in a state where net population went up, so you'd need to establish they actually left the state rather than moved somewhere else in state. Also, the combined population from the 5 counties mentioned there is around 80k people. To ballpark it, let's say this is around 8% population loss from these 5 tiny counties. That means a whopping 6,500 people have "fled" these counties.

Since we're talking about net population changes, the net population loss is 8%, so the outflow can quite likely be over 8%.

As I understand that short earlier post of yours, you are arguing that because there's a net increase, there's no exodus. You need more evidence to establish that because the large influx into the state masks the numbers leaving if you're only relying on net numbers as data.

[T-hawk]

T-hawk, I'm disappointed in you.

Judge systems based on their adverse effects, sure. But don't judge people whose situations you don't know or understand. You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions about these people. They may or may not be making optimal choices for their situation. You can't tell based on the anecdote provided.

You create your own disappointment by creating your own expectation for something I never claimed to offer. I have not advocated or judged anything.  That some parents outbreed their capacity for support is an observation, not a judgment. So is that some parents self-inflict that incapacity. I don't know how many do, I'm not an expert, I don't have data. But it has to be nonzero.

What if I advocate "let the babies starve".  Do you object to that?  Then you do what you just disclaimed about focusing on that small proportion of worst cases.

It's also not clear whether you understand baby formula is a completely optional breast milk substitute and in your terms therefore qualifies as a "frivolous item".

As others have said, some women don't breast-feed, for medical and societal reasons. Another not mentioned yet is drug addiction. At any rate, the formula is metonymic and so are the babies themselves, we're talking about feeding children in general.

[Huinesoron]

I have no intention of entering a debate about the fundamentals of immigration, but as a German I just wanted to clear something up. When it comes to these planned camps it seems some people's imagination is running wild:

Thanks for this! I looked around for something other than the NYT article ipecac quoted (which says 'border camps' in the headline but refers to them as 'transit centres' later, wording which suggests they're not even residential); the BBC piece was the best I could find.

Ultimately, for me, the acceptability of this particular solution depends on the timeframe. If we're looking at 'transit centres' where you're held for a week while they check if you've already been turned away once, fine. If we're looking at 'border camps' where you're incarcerated for 18 months while they file your paperwork under ignore... less fine.

I think bunnies are cute!

Our neighbours' bunny burrowed under the fence and started nibbling on our grass. We secured our border more thoroughly after that.  

What can we learn here about the will of the Bavarians?

... that it sounds like an expansion pack to some kind of strategy game? Empires of Europe III: The Will of the Bavarians.

hS

[scooter]

Since we're talking about net population changes, the net population loss is 8%, so the outflow can quite likely be over 8%.

As I understand that short earlier post of yours, you are arguing that because there's a net increase, there's no exodus. You need more evidence to establish that because the large influx into the state masks the numbers leaving if you're only relying on net numbers as data.

I don't need any evidence to establish anything. T-Hawk did the thing he's done a bunch in this thread which is launch a Fox News talking point bomb with 0 evidence and then run, so I linked actual evidence that suggests he's wrong. His statement is provably false (or at minimum absurdly exaggerated) with the above link, full stop.

[ipecac]

We have the political will to force the state to enact that backstop (the horror of starving babies) but not to grant it the investigative power to stop abuses or the coercive power to nationalize child rearing.

Isn't the coercive power essentially granted with Child Protection Services? With its orphanages or the like, or the more decentralised foster family system.

[T-hawk]

I don't need any evidence to establish anything. T-Hawk did the thing he's done a bunch in this thread which is launch a Fox News talking point bomb with 0 evidence and then run, so I linked actual evidence that suggests he's wrong. His statement is provably false (or at minimum absurdly exaggerated) with the above link, full stop.

The easiest way to get good information on the internet is to post bad information and wait for someone to correct it.

CA's population is growing, sure, but that's not what I was talking about. There is domestic migration in and out of CA, which your link doesn't talk about. Anecdotally the cases of migration out of CA that I've heard about are conservatives getting out of the liberal madness. Feel free to disprove that (a few tiny counties of 80k pop doesn't); I merely don't care enough about the point to bother looking up anything.

[SevenSpirits]

T-hawk, I'm disappointed in you.

Judge systems based on their adverse effects, sure. But don't judge people whose situations you don't know or understand. You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions about these people. They may or may not be making optimal choices for their situation. You can't tell based on the anecdote provided.

You create your own disappointment by creating your own expectation for something I never claimed to offer.  I have not advocated or judged anything.  That some parents outbreed their capacity for support is an observation, not a judgment.  So is that some parents self-inflict that incapacity.  I don't know how many do, I'm not an expert, I don't have data.  But it has to be nonzero.

What if I advocate "let the babies starve".  Do you object to that?  Then you do what you just disclaimed about focusing on that small proportion of worst cases.

It's also not clear whether you understand baby formula is a completely optional breast milk substitute and in your terms therefore qualifies as a "frivolous item".

As others have said, some women don't breast-feed, for medical and societal reasons.  Another not mentioned yet is drug addiction.  At any rate, the formula is metonymic and so are the babies themselves, we're talking about feeding children in general.

Yes. That's what disappointment is. It is always created by oneself. I had an impression of you as a fairly reasonable person and that's on me. It's pretty obvious there's no point continuing this conversation with you.

Btw you already posted something very close to this and I responded to it. I think you may have gotten turned around.