US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[nyblue23]

27 minutes ago, Chach said:

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 

I know what devil’s advocate means, my friend. If I googled devil’s avocado I would find “punching a woman’s vagina until it turns green,” which I don’t think is very helpful.

You’re not effectively playing devil’s advocate either, because your premises are this:

1. Trump wants it.

2. Forty-percent of the population wants it.

3. It would cost between $22 billion (estimates of an incompetent liar) and $70 billion in tax-payer money, which you say is a drop in the bucket (it’s not).

4. In your vastly different country with vastly different immigration problems, a right-leaning party used immigration policy to fuck over the environment and economy.

5. It may serve as a minor deterrent for some portion of those trying to immigrate without documents.

These points have been addressed.

1. & 2. Trump may want it, but legislators do not, and nor does the majority of the public. Those that do have subscribed to a xenophobic rhetoric that has been fear-mongered into them.

3. Even $22 billion is a lot of money if allocated for infrastructure, education or healthcare. It may be a drop in the hat of a budget that spends over $100 million on a single fighter jet, but most of us aren’t super keen on that either, and we’ve all known since childhood that two wrongs don’t make a right.

4. It’s not a straw-man to point out a false analogy. Australia is much different than the U.S. and faces significantly different immigration problems stemming from the differences in geography, history, race, economic opportunity, mythology, historical political intervention in neighboring countries, etc. etc. etc. A straw-man in this context would be to say “Chach, you’re a fucking Australian moron so anything you say about a wall doesn’t matter.” It’s not a straw-man to say, “Chach, Australian and American immigration are not analogous; therefore, your comparison falls short.”

5. It won’t, which has been borne out through the history of physical barriers in other countries. It’s also not a significant enough deterrent because it’s not even the largest method of illegal immigration, which has been pointed out by numerous people.

These arguments don’t even touch on the fact that there is plenty of research that would indicate undocumented immigrants are actually a net gain on the American economy and we might not be so wise to try keeping them out in the first place.

None of this is virtue signaling. It’s logic. Maybe try employing it before being so smug about your devil’s avocado.

[nyblue23]

23 minutes ago, Chach said:

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 

Also, I lived 15 miles from the border in San Diego for a couple years and in Los Angeles for 6, and my entire family lives in Texas, so get the fuck out of here with your New York “progressive echo chamber” bullshit.

[Chach]

2 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

I know what devil’s advocate means, my friend. If I googled devil’s avocado I would find “punching a woman’s vagina until it turns green,” which I don’t think is very helpful.

You’re not effectively playing devil’s advocate either, because your premises are this: 

1. Trump wants it. He does

2. Forty-percent of the population wants it. They do

3. It would cost between $22 billion (estimates of an incompetent liar) and $70 billion in tax-payer money, which you say is a drop in the bucket (it’s not). It is, your national debt is 22 trillion, you have the worlds reserve currency and the appetite for your debt is unlimited. 

4. In your vastly different country with vastly different immigration problems, a right-leaning party used immigration policy to fuck over the environment and economy. I disagree it's vastly different and immigration is at the heart of most political issues in almost all liberal democracies throughput the west, this is demonstrably true it's a global phenomenon.

5. It may serve as a minor deterrent for some portion of those trying to immigrate without documents. 

These points have been addressed.

1. & 2. Trump may want it, but legislators do not, and nor does the majority of the public. Those that do have subscribed to a xenophobic rhetoric that has been fear-mongered into them. That 40% will

3. Even $22 billion is a lot of money if allocated for infrastructure, education or healthcare. It may be a drop in the hat of a budget that spends over $100 million on a single fighter jet, but most of us aren’t super keen on that either, and we’ve all known since childhood that two wrongs don’t make a right.

4. It’s not a straw-man to point out a false analogy.  Australia is much different than the U.S. and faces significantly different immigration problems stemming from the differences in geography, history, race, economic opportunity, mythology, historical political intervention of neighboring countries, etc. etc. etc. A straw-man would be to say “Chach, you’re a fucking moron so anything you say about a wall doesn’t matter.” This would be name calling or an ad hominem attack, not a strawman It’s not a straw-man to say, “Chach, Australian and American immigration are not analogous; therefore, your comparison falls short.” No, just demonstrably wrong my comment comparing Australia was to demonstrate the unintended consequences of not engaging with the concerns of a large part of the electorate you did not engage with that argument and proceeded to use it to refute another part of a different point. Strawman.

5. It won’t, which has been borne out through the history of physical barriers in other countries. It’s also not a significant enough deterrent because it’s not even the largest method of illegal immigration, which has been pointed out by numerous people.

These arguments don’t even touch on the fact that there is plenty of research that would indicate undocumented immigrants are actually a net gain on the American economy and we might not be so wise to try keeping them out in the first place. 

None of this is virtue signaling. It’s logic. Maybe try employing it before being so smug about your devil’s avocado. 

I think you should go to bed.

[Chach]

25 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

Also, I lived 15 miles from the border in San Diego for a couple years and in Los Angeles for 6, and my entire family lives in Texas, so get the fuck out of here with your New York “progressive echo chamber” bullshit.

 

 

[nyblue23]

6 hours ago, Chach said:

I think you should go to bed.

I’d edited the example to make it an actual strawman the moment I clicked send. Regardless, you just did the same thing you accused me of by not actually refuting the majority of my last post (I.e., the majority of the population doesn’t want a wall, a wall won’t be effective, research indicates that undocumented  immigration is a net gain) and just restating your premises.

Circular reasoning on the money bit. A previous unlimited appetite for debt does not warrant a continuing appetite for debt. Twenty-two billion is still a massive sum of money that could be allocated toward that debt (what a thought!) or toward something actually useful and/or effective.

How you could disagree that the immigration problems of the U.S. and Australia are vastly different is beyond me. Immigration is central to many political issues (saying most is not at all demonstrably true), but that does not negate that our two situations are different. Trump is losing the battle right now tactically. Americans were livid about the shutdown and his approval ratings dropped as a result of his willingness to own that shutdown. Democrats are not dying on any hills as a result of the wall, and they’ve been showing a willingness lately to compromise in some ways without giving $22 billion for a border wall.

As far as the refusal to engage with the concerns of a large part of the electorate - the left in this country has been trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform for decades. It’s not a problem that has been ignored. Much of the worst damage that could be done has already been done by electing Trump and watching him dismantle all sorts of arms of government. Most of the animosity towards immigrants in the first place in this country has been driven by the right’s insistence in the xenophobic rhetoric that poor socioeconomic conditions for those in white rural America exist due to Mexicans stealing their jobs (for the most part, they’re not), and that undocumented immigrants are violent criminals (they commit crime at far lower rates than U.S. citizens). That does not get fixed by building a wall.

[Cornish Steve]

12 hours ago, Chach said:

Yeah, Texas is still Republican and so is Trump.

Except those counties in which the proposed wall would be built. They are virtually the only counties that are blue, so the reason is obvious. 

[Chach]

10 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Except those counties in which the proposed wall would be built. They are virtually the only counties that are blue, so the reason is obvious. 

Yeah, its hard to argue they want the wall lol

[Chach]

13 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

I’d edited the example to make it an actual strawman the moment I clicked send. Regardless, you just did the same thing you accused me of by not actually refuting the majority of my last post (I.e., the majority of the population doesn’t want a wall, a wall won’t be effective, research indicates that undocumented  immigration is a net gain) and just restating your premises.

Circular reasoning on the money bit. A previous unlimited appetite for debt does not warrant a continuing appetite for debt. Twenty-two billion is still a massive sum of money that could be allocated toward that debt (what a thought!) or toward something actually useful and/or effective.

How you could disagree that the immigration problems of the U.S. and Australia are vastly different is beyond me. Immigration is central to many political issues (saying most is not at all demonstrably true), but that does not negate that our two situations are different. Trump is losing the battle right now tactically. Americans were livid about the shutdown and his approval ratings dropped as a result of his willingness to own that shutdown. Democrats are not dying on any hills as a result of the wall, and they’ve been showing a willingness lately to compromise in some ways without giving $22 billion for a border wall.

As far as the refusal to engage with the concerns of a large part of the electorate - the left in this country has been trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform for decades. It’s not a problem that has been ignored. Much of the worst damage that could be done has already been done by electing Trump and watching him dismantle all sorts of arms of government. Most of the animosity towards immigrants in the first place in this country has been driven by the right’s insistence in the xenophobic rhetoric that poor socioeconomic conditions for those in white rural America exist due to Mexicans stealing their jobs (for the most part, they’re not), and that undocumented immigrants are violent criminals (they commit crime at far lower rates than U.S. citizens). That does not get fixed by building a wall.

Again, I understand that the immigration issues between western countries are not perfectly analogous but what is is its weaponisation by right wing elements and I don't think it's going away the jobs lost to automation will pale in comparison to the jobs lost to AI.

Anyway if you say the Dems are winning and Trump is losing then I'm happy to take your word on that, I didn't realise how much I appreciated US world leadership until it was gone.

 

[Matt]

On 01/02/2019 at 05:43, 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.

I’d rather do right to be effective. 

Theres already a wall in place across sections of the border. You could argue that it’s not effective because it’s incomplete. However the proposal isn’t to complete it without a break anyway so there will always be gaps in it. 

I completely agree with an orderly immigration system. So how about investing the supposed billions into services to provide a better system, like cutting applications waiting time down to something that isn’t sometimes years? That way, you make the immigration & aslyum process less intimidating, easier to understand, etc. and encourage the use of it. 

[Cornish Steve]

8 hours ago, Chach said:

Yeah, its hard to argue they want the wall lol

If there was actually a threat or crisis, you’d expect them to be the most ardent supporters. There isn’t so they aren’t. 

[Cornish Steve]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

I’d rather do right to be effective. 

Theres already a wall in place across sections of the border. You could argue that it’s not effective because it’s incomplete. However the proposal isn’t to complete it without a break anyway so there will always be gaps in it. 

I completely agree with an orderly immigration system. So how about investing the supposed billions into services to provide a better system, like cutting applications waiting time down to something that isn’t sometimes years? That way, you make the immigration & aslyum process less intimidating, easier to understand, etc. and encourage the use of it. 

Well, the answer to that is obvious: Trump supporters don’t want immigrants from that part of the world at all, legal or illegal. They want the process to be intimidating, which explains some of the recent cruel policies: They’re intended to dissuade and scare potential immigrants away. 

[Matt]

13 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Well, the answer to that is obvious: Trump supporters don’t want immigrants from that part of the world at all, legal or illegal. They want the process to be intimidating, which explains some of the recent cruel policies: They’re intended to dissuade and scare potential immigrants away. 

Oh I know, was just saying I’d rather do the right thing and be effective than the wrong thing and send a horrible message which reinforces racism. 

Not all Republicans fall under that category either from my experience 

[StevO]

If I, as and Englishman, wanted to make the move to the states, would the Trump supporters welcome me or would I be treated like a Mexican? 

[Chach]

23 hours ago, Matt said:

Oh I know, was just saying I’d rather do the right thing and be effective than the wrong thing and send a horrible message which reinforces racism. 

Not all Republicans fall under that category either from my experience 

Yeah so what you are saying is you want to impose your political ideologies regarding immigration on the other half of the population who don't share them because you think its right. Thing is the other side think they're right too and democracies are built on compromise.

This is a well studied issue, its not going away any time soon.

[markjazzbassist]

8 hours ago, StevO said:

If I, as and Englishman, wanted to make the move to the states, would the Trump supporters welcome me or would I be treated like a Mexican? 

I’m taking guesses here so apologies in advance.  I’m guessing you’re white and speak English and I know from on here you have  good job so you must have a decent CV and education so yes I think you’re the type they want coming.

[StevO]

45 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

I’m taking guesses here so apologies in advance.  I’m guessing you’re white and speak English and I know from on here you have  good job so you must have a decent CV and education so yes I think you’re the type they want coming.

I am white, speak English, good job but not university educated. 

[Matt]

1 hour ago, Chach said:

Yeah so what you are saying is you want to impose your political ideologies regarding immigration on the other half of the population who don't share them because you think its right. Thing is the other side think they're right too and democracies are built on compromise.

This is a well studied issue, its not going away any time soon.

Impose?! We’re debating you numpty! As for compromise, I shared a compromise that doesn’t involve a wall but addresses the immigration issue. I honestly don’t know if you’re just here to troll or not sometimes 

[markjazzbassist]

59 minutes ago, StevO said:

I am white, speak English, good job but not university educated. 

If you got a job to sponsor you or vouch for you in some way I think you would be a shoe in.  Or if someone in your family is well connected politically or with a lawyer or something they could probably try and push something through.

[StevO]

8 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

If you got a job to sponsor you or vouch for you in some way I think you would be a shoe in.  Or if someone in your family is well connected politically or with a lawyer or something they could probably try and push something through.

I have an uncle who worked with NASA (as a civilian only) for a long time. His son is now a consultant for law enforcement. Maybe they could have a word. A few issues over there need to be resolved before me and the missus will discuss it from a serious point of view. 

[Cornish Steve]

11 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

I’m taking guesses here so apologies in advance.  I’m guessing you’re white and speak English and I know from on here you have  good job so you must have a decent CV and education so yes I think you’re the type they want coming.

More than that, people will tell you all the time how you have a wonderful accent. Of course, if you spoke Spanish you’d be told to go home. 

[markjazzbassist]

39 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

More than that, people will tell you all the time how you have a wonderful accent. Of course, if you spoke Spanish you’d be told to go home. 

Haha, I’m laughing because it’s sad but true.  Americans love brits.  

[Chach]

10 hours ago, Matt said:

Impose?! We’re debating you numpty! As for compromise, I shared a compromise that doesn’t involve a wall but addresses the immigration issue. I honestly don’t know if you’re just here to troll or not sometimes 

Compromise?

"So how about investing the supposed billions into services to provide a better system, like cutting applications waiting time down to something that isn’t sometimes years? That way, you make the immigration & aslyum process less intimidating, easier to understand, etc. and encourage the use of it."

You think this is something that people opposed to immigration would see as a compromise, and then accuse me of trolling?

Ok, then.

[Matt]

7 hours ago, Chach said:

Compromise?

"So how about investing the supposed billions into services to provide a better system, like cutting applications waiting time down to something that isn’t sometimes years? That way, you make the immigration & aslyum process less intimidating, easier to understand, etc. and encourage the use of it."

You think this is something that people opposed to immigration would see as a compromise, and then accuse me of trolling?

Ok, then.

How does it not address the immigration control issue? It recognises the issue and concern, it would great more jobs and wouldn’t waste money on a gimmick of a solution 

troll comment was more aimed at how you post. Can never tell if you’re being dry, devils advocate or difficult 

[Chach]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

How does it not address the immigration control issue? It recognises the issue and concern, it would great more jobs and wouldn’t waste money on a gimmick of a solution 

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether) a seemingly large proportion of those people conflate normal immigration with undocumented arrivals which is why they have hard ons for things like walls and I can't imagine "a better, more efficient system" is going to placate them.

Did you watch the video I linked summarising Jonathan Haidt's work?

[Matt]

10 minutes ago, Chach said:

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether) a seemingly large proportion of those people conflate normal immigration with undocumented arrivals which is why they have hard ons for things like walls and I can't imagine "a better, more efficient system" is going to placate them.

Did you watch the video I linked summarising Jonathan Haidt's work?

Hadn’t seen the hyperlink, will check when I get home from work. 

Nearly all of my in-laws are quite right wing, often quite prejudice, republicans based mostly in Arizona. Their resounding input is “we don’t really care who comes in, provided they follow the rules to get in”. We’ve discussed what they’d prefer between a wall or better system and they prefer the better system but will take anything if it actually does something, accepting that they know the wall will do nothing more than send a message (regardless of the context)

[MikeO]

3 hours ago, Chach said:

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether)...

Always amuses me that when they're a nation made up almost entirely of immigrants, according to Wiki 0.9% of the population are Native Americans; if you'd have polled their ancestors pre 1492 you'd probably get a pretty hefty no vote. Now we have them saying, "I'm all right mate," pulling up the drawbridge and telling the, "tired, poor, huddled masses, wretched refuse and homeless" to do one.

Very neighbourly and Christian of them.

 

[Matt]

5 hours ago, Chach said:

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether) a seemingly large proportion of those people conflate normal immigration with undocumented arrivals which is why they have hard ons for things like walls and I can't imagine "a better, more efficient system" is going to placate them.

Did you watch the video I linked summarising Jonathan Haidt's work?

It’s a good video, but it’s still only dealing in absolutes / mass assumptions which is part of the problem. Well presented in 10 mins, and I agree with much of it, but it’s only a conversation starter. A good one though. 

[StevO]

30-40% is a minority. It’s a shame they shout so loud. 

[MikeO]

7 hours ago, Chach said:

Polling shows 30-40% want immigration decreased (if not stopped altogether) a seemingly large proportion of those people conflate normal immigration with undocumented arrivals which is why they have hard ons for things like walls and I can't imagine "a better, more efficient system" is going to placate them.

Did you watch the video I linked summarising Jonathan Haidt's work?

A serious issue referencing "Sex in the City" as an example (multiple times) and you expect it to be taken seriously? Not sure if that's down to Haidt himself or the video makers.

Oz not a great example of colonialism/immigration/equality either btw as I'm sure you know...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/10/australia-is-deplorably-racist-as-people-of-colour-are-reminded-when-they-speak-up

[Chach]

7 hours ago, Matt said:

It’s a good video, but it’s still only dealing in absolutes / mass assumptions which is part of the problem. Well presented in 10 mins, and I agree with much of it, but it’s only a conversation starter. A good one though. 

That really only scratches the surface of Haidt's work which I think has the potential to be revolutionary in the way we interact with each other (libs and cons, like Mike I did find some of the graphics slightly hyperbolic/problematic not Haidt's fault) 

I haven't actually read the book but this review is probably a better summation than the video of the crux of his thesis

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

I have listened to him discuss it a lot though and I think this is the best primer (it's on itunes etc), if you are a liberal and you have ever thought "OMG, WHY CAN'T CONSERVATIVES JUST LISTEN TO REASON AND SEE THE LOGIC" then I would highly recommend it. If Trump, Brexit, the rise of the alt right and authoritarianism in general doesn't tell us we need to start interacting with status quo Cons better then it's likely to get worse.

https://armchairexpertpod.com/pods/jonathan-haidt