Sibdane Posted January 26, 2019 Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 3 hours ago, StevO said: Donald is fair game, but keep Ivanka out of it!! Funny thing, I think Melania might be the only one that actually has her head on straight... besides the whole marrying Donald thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46976547 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 "When I was in college, a fair number of my fellow students liked to describe themselves as “socially liberal and economically conservative.” This was the 1990s, when Bill Clinton’s “third way” was thriving, and I was attending a college — Yale — where the student body was predominantly affluent. When members of the national media — whose incomes also tend to be above average — describe the prototypical centrist voter, this is the same image they often have in mind: socially liberal and economically conservative. But it’s a big myth. In reality, the American public is closer to being “socially conservative and economically liberal” than the reverse." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/howard-schultz-president.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fdavid-leonhardt&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 On 25/01/2019 at 08:43, Chach said: Hope they're saving the best for last. At the very least I'd like to see Donald Jnr getting perp walked into court. That's the day the president will pardon the lot of them. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibdane Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 10 hours ago, Chach said: "When I was in college, a fair number of my fellow students liked to describe themselves as “socially liberal and economically conservative.” This was the 1990s, when Bill Clinton’s “third way” was thriving, and I was attending a college — Yale — where the student body was predominantly affluent. When members of the national media — whose incomes also tend to be above average — describe the prototypical centrist voter, this is the same image they often have in mind: socially liberal and economically conservative. But it’s a big myth. In reality, the American public is closer to being “socially conservative and economically liberal” than the reverse." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/howard-schultz-president.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fdavid-leonhardt&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection This is an interesting quote. I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I don't give a damn what a person does in their own home, as long as it doesn't hurt another person; that's being a social liberal. Opposing spending tax-payer's money on a wall that won't make a difference? That's being fiscally conservative. "In reality," the writer of the article is making a broad assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 hour ago, sibdane said: This is an interesting quote. I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I don't give a damn what a person does in their own home, as long as it doesn't hurt another person; that's being a social liberal. Opposing spending tax-payer's money on a wall that won't make a difference? That's being fiscally conservative. "In reality," the writer of the article is making a broad assumption. There should be ellipsis in my post to be fair to the writer, thats not a direct quote in context. Mea culpa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyblue23 Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 hours ago, sibdane said: This is an interesting quote. I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I don't give a damn what a person does in their own home, as long as it doesn't hurt another person; that's being a social liberal. Opposing spending tax-payer's money on a wall that won't make a difference? That's being fiscally conservative. "In reality," the writer of the article is making a broad assumption. I think that latter part is being fiscally responsible... not necessarily fiscally conservative. Fiscally conservative means you want to cut social services like Medicaid and Social Security, want health care to be a free market, oppose infrastructure and education spending, etc. Not believing in spending money on the wall is just having a brain. MikeO and Palfy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibdane Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 hour ago, nyblue23 said: I think that latter part is being fiscally responsible... not necessarily fiscally conservative. Fiscally conservative means you want to cut social services like Medicaid and Social Security, want health care to be a free market, oppose infrastructure and education spending, etc. Not believing in spending money on the wall is just having a brain. That is a good point. There is definitely a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 59 minutes ago, nyblue23 said: I think that latter part is being fiscally responsible... not necessarily fiscally conservative. Fiscally conservative means you want to cut social services like Medicaid and Social Security, want health care to be a free market, oppose infrastructure and education spending, etc. Not believing in spending money on the wall is just having a brain. Don’t worry Mexico are paying for the wall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 12 hours ago, nyblue23 said: I think that latter part is being fiscally responsible... not necessarily fiscally conservative. Fiscally conservative means you want to cut social services like Medicaid and Social Security, want health care to be a free market, oppose infrastructure and education spending, etc. Not believing in spending money on the wall is just having a brain. There's also an argument that some people don't want the wall because it will work. Devil's avocado: He won the election, he has a mandate for the wall. Trump wants $22b, Democrats say worst case scenario could be $70b either is a drop in the ocean in the US budget added to a debt that the US is never likely to worry about repaying and it's essentially an infrastructure project that will create jobs, likely many for Mexicans. Given the election is now less than two years away, is this really the hill that the Dems want to risk dying on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, Chach said: There's also an argument that some people don't want the wall because it will work. Devil's avocado: He won the election, he has a mandate for the wall. Trump wants $22b, Democrats say worst case scenario could be $70b either is a drop in the ocean in the US budget added to a debt that the US is never likely to worry about repaying and it's essentially an infrastructure project that will create jobs, likely many for Mexicans. Given the election is now less than two years away, is this really the hill that the Dems want to risk dying on? His party was clobbered in the most recent election, and the heaviest defeats were in border states - namely, those states in which a wall would be built. I'd say he has no mandate at all. There are three reasons the president won the election, despite losing the popular vote: (i) millions simply voted against Clinton; (ii) millions of single-issue voters sought the appointment of conservative judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade; and (iii) frustrated lower income white men felt they'd had enough of political correctness. The more recent election, in which sentiment was strongly against a wall, reveals this wasn't a major factor the first time around. nyblue23 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Chach said: There's also an argument that some people don't want the wall because it will work. Devil's avocado: He won the election, he has a mandate for the wall. Trump wants $22b, Democrats say worst case scenario could be $70b either is a drop in the ocean in the US budget added to a debt that the US is never likely to worry about repaying and it's essentially an infrastructure project that will create jobs, likely many for Mexicans. Given the election is now less than two years away, is this really the hill that the Dems want to risk dying on? How would it work?! His initial estimate for the wall was something like $5b, now it's up to £22b. It was a tactic to distract the frustrated and should not be taken as anything more. nyblue23 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 42 minutes ago, Matt said: How would it work?! His initial estimate for the wall was something like $5b, now it's up to £22b. It was a tactic to distract the frustrated and should not be taken as anything more. the same way the wall works around your house, its a physical and symbolic deterrent that says "you're not allowed in here" Obviously if someone is really serious about getting into your house they still can, but that's not a reason to not have any walls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Cornish Steve said: His party was clobbered in the most recent election, and the heaviest defeats were in border states - namely, those states in which a wall would be built. Umm, do you think that might be because he never delivered the wall he promised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Chach said: the same way the wall works around your house, its a physical and symbolic deterrent that says "you're not allowed in here" Obviously if someone is really serious about getting into your house they still can, but that's not a reason to not have any walls. Except that the majority of illegal immigration comes through the open front door after you've accepted them into the house. It won't work any more than the existing wall/barrier already does. I agree with it being symbolic, but not as a deterrent. nyblue23 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 20 minutes ago, Matt said: Except that the majority of illegal immigration comes through the open front door after you've accepted them into the house. It won't work any more than the existing wall/barrier already does. I agree with it being symbolic, but not as a deterrent. Where are you getting your figures from on methods of entry, I can;t find anything decent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 Just now, Chach said: Where are you getting your figures from on methods of entry? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649 that was one "source" but I admit it's a bit click-bait esq. There was another research centre study with more meaningful stats showing around 65% of illegal immigration in the last 10 years was because of over-staying a visa. I'll see if I can dig it out, think it was from the CSM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Matt said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649 that was one "source" but I admit it's a bit click-bait esq. There was another research centre study with more meaningful stats showing around 65% of illegal immigration in the last 10 years was because of over-staying a visa. I'll see if I can dig it out, think it was from the CSM I'm yet to digest, this looks pretty significant though. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/ I come back to my original avocado, right or wrong a significant portion of the population are worried about illegal immigration more and more evidence points to these character traits being genetic, they can't help it and they aren't going to be won over, you must have noticed this when you are arguing with conservatives. Is this the hill the Democrats should risk dying on, why give him any more ammo? Just think about what they could negotiate with him to let him have what he wants for something in your opinion will make ZERO difference except create a load of jobs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 36 minutes ago, Chach said: I'm yet to digest, this looks pretty significant though. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/ I come back to my original avocado, right or wrong a significant portion of the population are worried about illegal immigration more and more evidence points to these character traits being genetic, they can't help it and they aren't going to be won over, you must have noticed this when you are arguing with conservatives. Is this the hill the Democrats should risk dying on, why give him any more ammo? Just think about what they could negotiate with him to let him have what he wants for something in your opinion will make ZERO difference except create a load of jobs? Completely agree, hence me saying it's more symbolic of intolerance and ignorance than a deterrent, and will only serve to reinforce those traits. That's why it needs to be challenged and worth risking a fight over. nyblue23 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 Every time I’ve gone to the states I’ve gone on a plane. What would the wall do in Mexicans flew over it? im joking obviously, I know they would get picked up in the air port and flung over the wall in Trumps new catapult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibdane Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 This says it all for me: markjazzbassist, StevO and Matt 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 LOL oliver is a funny dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 17 hours ago, Chach said: Umm, do you think that might be because he never delivered the wall he promised? No. It's because those most in favor of the proposed wall wouldn't be living anywhere near it. When you total the votes for Trump versus Clinton in the presidential election of 2016, the four border states voted 12.55 million to 9.84 million for Clinton. It's even more striking when you look at how counties in (strongly Republican) Texas voted. Notice anything? nyblue23 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 8 hours ago, StevO said: Every time I’ve gone to the states I’ve gone on a plane. What would the wall do in Mexicans flew over it? im joking obviously, I know they would get picked up in the air port and flung over the wall in Trumps new catapult. It's not joking at all. Most illegal immigrants living in the US flew here, which I believe the report linked above points out. Matt and nyblue23 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 18 hours ago, Matt said: Completely agree, hence me saying it's more symbolic of intolerance and ignorance than a deterrent, and will only serve to reinforce those traits. That's why it needs to be challenged and worth risking a fight over. Then there's a good chance you fall in the group of people who would "rather be right than effective", I think the politicization of immigration and immigrants is completely toxic to any democracy and have seen two many centre left parties go to the wall because they wouldn't make a good show on border security. As long as we keep lumping anyone who wants an orderly immigration system in with the "ignorant and intolerant" lot then we will just keep empowering the right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 4 hours ago, Cornish Steve said: No. It's because those most in favor of the proposed wall wouldn't be living anywhere near it. When you total the votes for Trump versus Clinton in the presidential election of 2016, the four border states voted 12.55 million to 9.84 million for Clinton. It's even more striking when you look at how counties in (strongly Republican) Texas voted. Notice anything? Yeah, Texas is still Republican and so is Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyblue23 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 29 minutes ago, Chach said: Then there's a good chance you fall in the group of people who would "rather be right than effective", I think the politicization of immigration and immigrants is completely toxic to any democracy and have seen two many centre left parties go to the wall because they wouldn't make a good show on border security. As long as we keep lumping anyone who wants an orderly immigration system in with the "ignorant and intolerant" lot then we will just keep empowering the right. You misunderstand so much about American politics that it’s hard to give any perspective. I honestly don’t mean this to sound dickish, but maybe you should experience living in a country that actually has a physical border that is not an ocean before you start talking about the effectiveness of one. You've also just been given quite a bit of research into the effectiveness of a wall, and given that I live here and this has been an issue for a while, I can point to the fact that not only is physical border crossing not the biggest means of immigration in the U.S., but border walls have rarely worked anywhere in the world, and yet they continue to be used as a rhetorical tool in countries around the world. You can have an orderly immigration system without enforcing a physical barrier. The left in America understands this, as do the vast majority of people who live along the Mexican border (I did for a few years). The wall is a rhetorical tactic driven by fear mongering and xenophobia, and if you lived in this country, you would probably understand that. Also, if $70 billion doesn’t matter to you, I’ve got a lot to ask you for. That could literally be the difference in funding for universal health care and the broken system we have now. It does fucking matter. markjazzbassist and Sibdane 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 30 minutes ago, nyblue23 said: You misunderstand so much about American politics that it’s hard to give any perspective. I honestly don’t mean this to sound dickish, but maybe you should experience living in a country that actually has a physical border that is not an ocean before you start talking about the effectiveness of one. You've also just been given quite a bit of research into the effectiveness of a wall, and given that I live here and this has been an issue for a while, I can point to the fact that not only is physical border crossing not the biggest means of immigration in the U.S., but border walls have rarely worked anywhere in the world, and yet they continue to be used as a rhetorical tool in countries around the world. You can have an orderly immigration system without enforcing a physical barrier. The left in America understands this, as do the vast majority of people who live along the Mexican border (I did for a few years). The wall is a rhetorical tactic driven by fear mongering and xenophobia, and if you lived in this country, you would probably understand that. Also, if $70 billion doesn’t matter to you, I’ve got a lot to ask you for. That could literally be the difference in funding for universal health care and the broken system we have now. It does fucking matter. I don't mean to sound dickish but I suggest googling devils advocate, I don't think the wall is a good idea but 40% of your population do and that is what you must contend with. I live in a country where we raced to the absolute bottom of the barrel over the minuscule amount of boat arrivals we received (like 3000 out of like 250k legal + over stayers) that resulted in not only a draconian border security policy but empowered the conservative right wing of a centre right liberal party to enact all sorts of environmental and economic wrecking activity. As long as you are right about the wall not being effective though hey ,who gives shit about all the other unintended consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyblue23 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 44 minutes ago, Chach said: I don't mean to sound dickish but I suggest googling devils advocate, I don't think the wall is a good idea but 40% of your population do and that is what you must contend with. I live in a country where we raced to the absolute bottom of the barrel over the minuscule amount of boat arrivals we received (like 3000 out of like 250k legal + over stayers) that resulted in not only a draconian border security policy but empowered the conservative right wing of a centre right liberal party to enact all sorts of environmental and economic wrecking activity. As long as you are right about the wall not being effective though hey ,who gives shit about all the other unintended consequences. To be fair, you said devils avocado and I had no idea what the fuck that could mean. Forty percent is not a majority for one (nor is the U.S. a country where majority matters in most situations anyway), and comments that accuse someone of wanting to be “right rather than effective” are both a bit haughty given your proximity to the situation, and also lend a little to the idea that you think a wall is a pragmatic compromise. People who actually live here are telling you that it is anything but a pragmatic compromise, and the reasons for the rise of populism very likely differ in nearly every way from those of a country with a completely different legacy of immigration than this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 27 minutes ago, nyblue23 said: To be fair, you said devils avocado and I had no idea what the fuck that could mean. Forty percent is not a majority for one (nor is the U.S. a country where majority matters in most situations anyway), and comments that accuse someone of wanting to be “right rather than effective” are both a bit haughty given your proximity to the situation, and also lend a little to the idea that you think a wall is a pragmatic compromise. People who actually live here are telling you that it is anything but a pragmatic compromise, and the reasons for the rise of populism very likely differ in nearly every way from those of a country with a completely different legacy of immigration than this one. Sorry mate but even if you googled devils avocado you'd get the same definition and the fact you are located in America hasn't made your arguments to someone who actually aligns with your political bias any more convincing. Especially when you just strawman and cherry picking the bits of arguments you want to refute (Trump hasn't even asked for $70b, its a figure plucked out of the Dems arse) I might be in Australia but you're in New York virtue signalling into your progressive echo chamber, that won't beat Trump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.