Political Roundtable Part XIII

[payitforward]

:lol: @ the irony of PIF calling someone a jackass.

Bye

I didn't get it done in time -- but i will. In the meantime, that is really a strong response. i'm proud of you for how clever you are. Now go eat your hay.

[tontoz]

:lol: @ the irony of PIF calling someone a jackass.

Bye

I didn't get it done in time -- but i will. In the meantime, that is really a strong response. i'm proud of you for how clever you are. Now go eat your hay.

About as strong as resorting to name calling, especially since you entered the discussion with the erroneous assumption that I was Jewish. What prompted that, o wise one?

Then you flipped out with my offhand comment about "it seems" that Muslims don't like Jews which then prompted the your patented TLDR nonsense.

[gtn130]

lol tontoz

[payitforward]

largely because of the lengthy reply I just found myself forced to make to tontoz. I'm starting to feel that it may not be possible to sustain participation.

I often feel the same way. It would be soooo much easier to just ignore... but then I won't be able to complain about the ridiculousness of the actions of an administration. And what fun would that be...

An example of why we need immigration is lost on most. And why our current immigration policy is broken. It takes time and energy to explain.

Is it worthwhile. Maybe not. But it is oft cathartic.

Take a break now and then if it's wearing you down, or just read without responding. That's what I try to do. You don't have to decisively rebut everything you disagree with

Actually, what I'm trying to do is stimulate actual substantive dialogue about issues & that's based on sharing knowledge. I.e. that's my new project -- my self-correction from my previous attempt to fix this hot mess by getting it shut down! -- but when content/substance is ignored in favor of some kind of ignorant overstatement in the service of provocation (viz. tontoz's attempts to provoke me) it's hard not to "decisively rebut" in response.

(Hmmmm, OTOH, it's fair to suggest that one needn't respond to braying -- the sound itself tells you that your response won't be understood)

[AFM]

Damn gentlemen, relax...

[Induveca]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

The issue isn't Muslim immigration, or wanting to live in freedom. That's emotion getting in way of an obvious problem. The 7 countries the President is attempting to temporarily block (except Iran, who supports the 5 of the other 6) are all in civil wars where one side is a known/active/brutal Islamic terrorist organization who all encourage the killing of civilian Westerners in their rants. Their governments are completely unstable at best, or they are or are near failed states.

Not sure why that's hard for people to admit this is not an illogical step, until the countries stabilize and aren't completely, or partially run by major terror groups the risk is far greater than the reward.

And the response of "Muslim ban" is willful ignorance.
Just go to JFK or Dulles and watch airlines from the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, India (they have a top 10 Muslim population) arrive daily.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

@nate - nice story in the WSJ written by Greg Ip - almost could swear he is on the board

Not sure if you can get behind the firewall: Trump’s Hard Line on Immigration Collides With U.S. Demographics

It's an interesting article, but not particularly persuasive. I think it's a good point that the skilled H1-B immigrants boost the economy, but then they slickly tried to give the impression that it was ALL immigrants who boosted the economy. As I said before, with the way our society is constructed, it is ONLY the skilled people who contribute more in taxation than they consume in benefits. So bringing in a bunch of relatively low skill immigrants from Latin America, even if they're good, hard working people, is likely going to cost society more in health care, welfare, education, etc. than will be gained in taxation.

Another point. They argue that birth rates are dropping and that's a justification for more immigration. But I don't think that they've considered that the drop in birth rates could be partially caused by immigration. More immigration means more population density, higher housing costs, higher education costs, and more taxpayer money going to infrastructure expansion. Also, lots of formerly "good schools" become more mediocre since immigrants of Latino descent tend to have lower test scores and a greater need for services like bilingual education. Existing Americans are then forced to pay for private school. That is cost prohibitive so the response is to have no children or fewer children.

Why not simply implement some policies that help encourage middle class people to have more kids? We could push bigger child credits and exemptions, public funding for day care, heck even some PSA's to encourage more children. That seems a much more prudent idea then importing more low skill immigrants from the third world who tend to cost more than they produce.

Again, I'm in favor of skilled immigration. Keep recruiting those college graduates. But I don't buy the argument that unskilled immigration is good for America.

[gtn130]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

If they want to live in freedom, why don't they agitate for freedom in their own country? The fact is, democracy is difficult. It takes a lot of responsibility, tolerance and trust. Muslim societies have been unable to maintain any type of stable democracy so far, anywhere. So what makes you think they will be good stewards of democracy on U.S. soil? Is there something magic about the dirt here?

Nate, you're completely ignoring the way these countries originated. After WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the region's borders were redrawn by white people with little care or concern for the level of disruption it would cause, the conflicts it would create.

The original geographic layout of the region mitigated sectarian, tribal, and ethnic differences by way of people self-segregating and living separately without conflict. The redrawing of borders eviscerated all of that:



You can look at that image alone and see why there is so much struggle in the middle east. The Arab Spring is a direct result of that map! Muslim countries are underdeveloped and undemocratic because of their geopolitical history - not their religion.

[Wizardspride]

I figured this was coming...

Read on Twitter

[Induveca]

I figured this was coming...

Read on Twitter

Are you half human/half Twitterbot?

[nate33]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

If they want to live in freedom, why don't they agitate for freedom in their own country? The fact is, democracy is difficult. It takes a lot of responsibility, tolerance and trust. Muslim societies have been unable to maintain any type of stable democracy so far, anywhere. So what makes you think they will be good stewards of democracy on U.S. soil? Is there something magic about the dirt here?

Nate, you're completely ignoring the way these countries originated. After WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the region's borders were redrawn by white people with little care or concern for the level of disruption it would cause, the conflicts it would create.

The original geographic layout of the region mitigated sectarian, tribal, and ethnic differences by way of people self-segregating and living separately without conflict. The redrawing of borders eviscerated all of that:



You can look at that image alone and see why there is so much struggle in the middle east. The Arab Spring is a direct result of that map! Muslim countries are underdeveloped and undemocratic because of their geopolitical history - not their religion.

Interesting. Are you suggesting that it's difficult to maintain a democracy if the region is inhabited by people of significantly different cultures and history?

[payitforward]

This just in...

I'm going to try to take a break from this thread for a few days. I know that is going to get a lot of people upset, make you sad, but I hope you will try to pull yourselves together and soldier on....

[gtn130]

If they want to live in freedom, why don't they agitate for freedom in their own country? The fact is, democracy is difficult. It takes a lot of responsibility, tolerance and trust. Muslim societies have been unable to maintain any type of stable democracy so far, anywhere. So what makes you think they will be good stewards of democracy on U.S. soil? Is there something magic about the dirt here?

Nate, you're completely ignoring the way these countries originated. After WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the region's borders were redrawn by white people with little care or concern for the level of disruption it would cause, the conflicts it would create.

The original geographic layout of the region mitigated sectarian, tribal, and ethnic differences by way of people self-segregating and living separately without conflict. The redrawing of borders eviscerated all of that:



You can look at that image alone and see why there is so much struggle in the middle east. The Arab Spring is a direct result of that map! Muslim countries are underdeveloped and undemocratic because of their geopolitical history - not their religion.

Interesting. Are you suggesting that it's difficult to maintain a democracy if the region is inhabited by people of significantly different cultures and history?

I figured that would be your response. I think it's pretty tough when the government and institutions are undeveloped/weak. Things seem to devolve into civil war. I don't see many parallels between modern day Syria and the US.

Anyway, you've dodged the impetus of my post, which is that the results of WWI are much bigger factors in precluding democracy and stability in the middle east than religion.

[nate33]

I figured that would be your response. I think it's pretty tough when the government and institutions are undeveloped/weak. Things seem to devolve into civil war. I don't see many parallels between modern day Syria and the US.

Anyway, you've dodged the impetus of my post, which is that the results of WWI are much bigger factors in precluding democracy and stability in the middle east than religion.

I still think it sounds like excuses to me. WWI was 100 years ago. That's 5 generations. How long can the Muslim world blame Whitey?

[FAH1223]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

The issue isn't Muslim immigration, or wanting to live in freedom. That's emotion getting in way of an obvious problem. The 7 countries the President is attempting to temporarily block (except Iran, who supports the 5 of the other 6) are all in civil wars where one side is a known/active/brutal Islamic terrorist organization who all encourage the killing of civilian Westerners in their rants. Their governments are completely unstable at best, or they are or are near failed states.

Not sure why that's hard for people to admit this is not an illogical step, until the countries stabilize and aren't completely, or partially run by major terror groups the risk is far greater than the reward.

And the response of "Muslim ban" is willful ignorance.
Just go to JFK or Dulles and watch airlines from the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, India (they have a top 10 Muslim population) arrive daily.

Read on Twitter

[FAH1223]

I figured that would be your response. I think it's pretty tough when the government and institutions are undeveloped/weak. Things seem to devolve into civil war. I don't see many parallels between modern day Syria and the US.

Anyway, you've dodged the impetus of my post, which is that the results of WWI are much bigger factors in precluding democracy and stability in the middle east than religion.

I still think it sounds like excuses to me. WWI was 100 years ago. That's 5 generations. How long can the Muslim world blame Whitey?

Indonesia has moved towards democracy from a military dictatorship

It's not perfect but it is the largest Muslim populated country on earth with substantial minority communities

The Saudi influence is always a concern and since the 1990s the extremist groups who have gone to Jakarta, Bali, etc are espousing the Saudi ideology

There's push back though

[sfam]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

The issue isn't Muslim immigration, or wanting to live in freedom. That's emotion getting in way of an obvious problem. The 7 countries the President is attempting to temporarily block (except Iran, who supports the 5 of the other 6) are all in civil wars where one side is a known/active/brutal Islamic terrorist organization who all encourage the killing of civilian Westerners in their rants. Their governments are completely unstable at best, or they are or are near failed states.

Not sure why that's hard for people to admit this is not an illogical step, until the countries stabilize and aren't completely, or partially run by major terror groups the risk is far greater than the reward.

And the response of "Muslim ban" is willful ignorance.
Just go to JFK or Dulles and watch airlines from the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, India (they have a top 10 Muslim population) arrive daily.

Well, if it was based on anything, you might be able to make an argument. But we know this approach was done with literally no input from any agency or intelligence organization. It was based on Steve Bannon's gut. Worse, they tried to sell it using Obama's credibility for unrelated actions he took earlier.

Bottom line, there was no basis for the executive order. There couldn't have been as it literally wasn't based on anything. The choice of countries was clearly random from a security standpoint. Worse it was incredibly detrimental for ongoing operations in the case of Iraq.

Just imagine if the President's policy was based on facts, with coordination from diplomats and intelligence officers, not to mention people with legal degrees?

And its great that we're off of Muslims hating freedom. That is a good change.

[sfam]

I figured that would be your response. I think it's pretty tough when the government and institutions are undeveloped/weak. Things seem to devolve into civil war. I don't see many parallels between modern day Syria and the US.

Anyway, you've dodged the impetus of my post, which is that the results of WWI are much bigger factors in precluding democracy and stability in the middle east than religion.

I still think it sounds like excuses to me. WWI was 100 years ago. That's 5 generations. How long can the Muslim world blame Whitey?

Indonesia has moved towards democracy from a military dictatorship

It's not perfect but it is the largest Muslim populated country on earth with substantial minority communities

The Saudi influence is always a concern and since the 1990s the extremist groups who have gone to Jakarta, Bali, etc are espousing the Saudi ideology

There's push back though

I missed the original post, but the issue from WWI time-frame is the random partitioning the British Empire undertook at the end of the war. That is absolutely still a key and driving factor for the hostilities of the middle east for every generation since. Just take the Kurdish peoples who were randomly divided between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The number of conflicts caused by this alone is extraordinary.

EDIT: Yes, same point.

[tontoz]

I still think it sounds like excuses to me. WWI was 100 years ago. That's 5 generations. How long can the Muslim world blame Whitey?

Indonesia has moved towards democracy from a military dictatorship

It's not perfect but it is the largest Muslim populated country on earth with substantial minority communities

The Saudi influence is always a concern and since the 1990s the extremist groups who have gone to Jakarta, Bali, etc are espousing the Saudi ideology

There's push back though

I missed the original post, but the issue from WWI time-frame is the random partitioning the British Empire undertook at the end of the war. That is absolutely still a key and driving factor for the hostilities of the middle east for every generation since. Just take the Kurdish peoples who were randomly divided between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The number of conflicts caused by this alone is extraordinary.

EDIT: Yes, same point.

You should go visit those countries and tell them that diversity and multiculturalism is a good thing. I don't think they got the memo.