Political Roundtable Part VIII

[DCZards]

while the anti-immigrant types are predictably quick to demonize all immigration, most americans such as urself understand that legal immigrants are an important component to the lifeblood of this country. most legal immigrants come here prepared to work hard and become beneficial to society.

So true...and that includes so-called low-skilled immigrants. This notion that we should only welcome high-skill immigrants gives me the creeps. It's a little too elitist for my liking.

[popper]

I'm surprised nobody in this thread is talking about Virginia's Attorney General's decision on Concealed Carry with an out of state permit. Can anyone tell me how this wasn't a political move to pander to Bloomberg and the anti-gun nuts that got him into office? Where is evidence that suggests out of staters (with a CCP) are entering Virgina and causing gun-violence problems? People with permits have proven not to be the problem.

You mean this article where the NRA basically blows a gasket that Virginia is trying to enforce the regulations they have?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-attorney-general-mark-herring-delivers-blow-to-gun-rights-advocates/2015/12/21/d72ce3d0-a821-11e5-9b92-dea7cd4b1a4d_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_vaguns-605am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Or, alternatively, the NRA nazis are trying to undermine Virginia's gun control laws so that psychopaths and felons can have all the guns they want, because THAT'S HOW WE MAKE THIS NATION SAFER, MORE GUNS AND MORE BLOOD AND MORE CHILDREN DYING.

We live in a nation of morons. We can take some simple actions to make everyone safer but no goddammit gotta have our toys.

We regulate cars. You have to take a test to get a permit to drive one. If you break too many laws we take that right away. You arguably have more right to own a car (pursuit of liberty of happiness) than you do to own a handgun. We regulate drugs. We regulate everything except guns, not because we need guns to keep ourselves safe (utter bs) nor as some necessary part of our livelihood but because people like playing with them, even though they know they are specifically designed to kill people.

How anyone could argue against the complete ban of guns is completely incomprehensible to me. Guns are evil. They are deadly. They are only toys, not even strictly necessary for anything. And yet not only is a ban out of the question, but even completely ineffectual regulation is somehow impossible to discuss. How stupid are we?

I've killed many hundreds of dove, geese, ducks etc., and a few deer and turkey as well, and have thoroughly enjoyed every ounce of the delicious protein. I never thought of the gun I used as evil. Do you consider a bolt gun or electric stick used to kill the beef we eat evil? Do you consider the car the women used in Las Vegas to run over 32 people evil? Do you consider the fertilizer or diesel fuel used in domestic bombings evil?

Evil people can use just about any tool to commit murder or cause the death of innocents. With two gallons of gasoline an evil person could murder thousands if that's their intent. The chlorine used to sterilize swimming pools can kill hundreds. Powerful pipe bombs can be made of match heads, and napom from a simple mixture of gasoline and Styrofoam. Explosive gunpowder can be made from coal powder, salt peter and sulfur. Guns are not our problem, it's the morality of those that use them for evil intent.

[WashWiz54]

I'm surprised nobody in this thread is talking about Virginia's Attorney General's decision on Concealed Carry with an out of state permit. Can anyone tell me how this wasn't a political move to pander to Bloomberg and the anti-gun nuts that got him into office? Where is evidence that suggests out of staters (with a CCP) are entering Virgina and causing gun-violence problems? People with permits have proven not to be the problem.

You mean this article where the NRA basically blows a gasket that Virginia is trying to enforce the regulations they have?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-attorney-general-mark-herring-delivers-blow-to-gun-rights-advocates/2015/12/21/d72ce3d0-a821-11e5-9b92-dea7cd4b1a4d_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_vaguns-605am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Or, alternatively, the NRA nazis are trying to undermine Virginia's gun control laws so that psychopaths and felons can have all the guns they want, because THAT'S HOW WE MAKE THIS NATION SAFER, MORE GUNS AND MORE BLOOD AND MORE CHILDREN DYING.

We live in a nation of morons. We can take some simple actions to make everyone safer but no goddammit gotta have our toys.

We regulate cars. You have to take a test to get a permit to drive one. If you break too many laws we take that right away. You arguably have more right to own a car (pursuit of liberty of happiness) than you do to own a handgun. We regulate drugs. We regulate everything except guns, not because we need guns to keep ourselves safe (utter bs) nor as some necessary part of our livelihood but because people like playing with them, even though they know they are specifically designed to kill people.

How anyone could argue against the complete ban of guns is completely incomprehensible to me. Guns are evil. They are deadly. They are only toys, not even strictly necessary for anything. And yet not only is a ban out of the question, but even completely ineffectual regulation is somehow impossible to discuss. How stupid are we?

You didn't rebuke any point that I was trying to make. I asked how many people came into Virginia with an out of state CCP and got charged with a violent (gun related) crime? Why did we as a state need to set this precedent when there was no reason for it? We didn't. It is was clearly a politically motivated move that was put in place as a "thank you" to Bloomberg and his cronies.

My dad's life was saved due to a gun, my sister's life was lost due to a gun. You don't need to try to moralize the debate on guns to me... I get it. At the end of the day, I would prefer more law abiding citizens (CCP holders) to own guns. Herring proved he has no care of the Commonwealth and its law abiding citizens. He is willing to politicize any subject for his political career and is a bought man.

Your assertion that we need a complete ban on guns is incomprehensible to me. How is the ban on drugs going? Right... the criminals control the drugs just like they'd control the guns if a ban was enforced. Guns are not evil, people are evil. People are deadly. People will kill if they want to kill regardless of how they do it. Your proposal to ban guns (especially in a nation with so many) will do little and only put criminals in more power.

[nate33]

I'm surprised nobody in this thread is talking about Virginia's Attorney General's decision on Concealed Carry with an out of state permit. Can anyone tell me how this wasn't a political move to pander to Bloomberg and the anti-gun nuts that got him into office? Where is evidence that suggests out of staters (with a CCP) are entering Virgina and causing gun-violence problems? People with permits have proven not to be the problem.

You mean this article where the NRA basically blows a gasket that Virginia is trying to enforce the regulations they have?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-attorney-general-mark-herring-delivers-blow-to-gun-rights-advocates/2015/12/21/d72ce3d0-a821-11e5-9b92-dea7cd4b1a4d_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_vaguns-605am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Or, alternatively, the NRA nazis are trying to undermine Virginia's gun control laws so that psychopaths and felons can have all the guns they want, because THAT'S HOW WE MAKE THIS NATION SAFER, MORE GUNS AND MORE BLOOD AND MORE CHILDREN DYING.

FWIW, I agree with you on this.

I'm in favor of the right to conceal carry, but I also am in favor of states imposing rigorous standards to ensure that crazy and dangerous people don't wander around with guns. I really think this is the area where the most gains can be made in terms of saving lives. It's perfectly legitimate for states to establish standards to prevent former felons, people under psychiatric care, and other potentially dangerous people from obtaining and carrying guns.

If Virginia doesn't have confidence in the vetting standards of Kentucky, then there's no reason that Virginia should let Kentucky concealed carry holders wander around their state armed without first insisting that they meet Virginia's standards.

[dobrojim]

I think it's going to snow!

Good for you Nate. I also fail to see what obligation VA has to allow people from out of the Commonwealth to
come in and buy guns when it may be unclear that they could do those transactions on their home turf.

[nate33]

And you say my numbers are way off base...

These numbers, sir, came directly from your butt.

And the study you cite is a crock. We discussed this last time. No estimate of the "costs" of illegal immigration is legitimate if all it does is take a snapshot of the costs at one given moment, rather than properly taking into account the immigrants' increasing tax contribution over time and over generations as their education and earnings rise. Lifetime earnings potential is elementary economics taught in introductory macro classes. Nowadays they probably teach this in high school.

My hypothesis is that incumbent Americans are lazy idjits and the incoming immigrants are actually more innately talented, on average, than us. Bringing their families in injects talent into an otherwise decaying stock of human capital and makes us better off in the long run (over a generation or so).

I've already posted numbers on multiple occasions that show that even the 2nd and 3rd generation of low skill immigrants are not positive contributors to the tax base (meaning they cost more than they pay). The first generation is generally a bit better than the original immigrants, but still a net drain. The second generation regresses from there.

You constantly dispute my facts, but never ever post any links or data.

I am constantly disputing your facts and you simply ignore the inconvenient arguments. I assure you if you go back and read through this thread you'll see that I've disputed this particular argument fully and completely, with facts and links and logic.

It is not my fault you do not remember any of this.

I am not going to repeat myself over and over and over when you can't be courteous enough to read and process what I say.

You keep saying you're repeating yourself, but YOU HAVE NEVER POSTED ANY DATA SOURCES. I challenge you to find any of your old posts that have data showing that low-skill immigration is a financial benefit to the U.S.

[dckingsfan]

And the good news with a fence... it would never be completed during the term of the person who proposed it... and then you have the even longer northern border.

But if we do it, we are going to have to take money from somewhere. Taking money from roads, bridges and infrastructure would work.

A much better way would be to really work with businesses to make sure that they don't employ illegal immigrants. Change the laws so that illegals can not receive benefits. Change the law so that you need more that to simply be born in the country to be a citizen. Without these, the fence doesn't really work.

And we have one more little "thing" - we are currently have a net negative immigration with Mexico.

[nate33]

And the good news with a fence... it would never be completed during the term of the person who proposed it... and then you have the even longer northern border.

But if we do it, we are going to have to take money from somewhere. Taking money from roads, bridges and infrastructure would work.

A much better way would be to really work with businesses to make sure that they don't employ illegal immigrants. Change the laws so that illegals can not receive benefits. Change the law so that you need more that to simply be born in the country to be a citizen. Without these, the fence doesn't really work.

And we have one more little "thing" - we are currently have a net negative immigration with Mexico.

Illegal immigration is costing us over $100 billion a year in welfare, law enforcement, incarceration, and education costs. The wall will more than pay for itself.

[crackhed]

And the good news with a fence... it would never be completed during the term of the person who proposed it... and then you have the even longer northern border.

But if we do it, we are going to have to take money from somewhere. Taking money from roads, bridges and infrastructure would work.

A much better way would be to really work with businesses to make sure that they don't employ illegal immigrants. Change the laws so that illegals can not receive benefits. Change the law so that you need more that to simply be born in the country to be a citizen. Without these, the fence doesn't really work.

And we have one more little "thing" - we are currently have a net negative immigration with Mexico.

Illegal immigration is costing us over $100 billion a year in welfare, law enforcement, incarceration, and education costs. The wall will more than pay for itself.

besides, it'll be a beautiful wall, and it'll have a magnificent gate.

[dckingsfan]

I doubt that any wall (and I think you would need two) would pay for itself. And it won't be effective unless our overall immigration problems are addressed. Plus, our net immigration is negative. So, we are solving a problem that isn't with a solution that only addresses part of the problem. And there would be a near-term trade-off of $$s spent vs. long-term gain (if any). I don't see it happening.

[nate33]

I can't believe we are even discussing the cost of the wall as if it is a significant part of the budget. The wall will cost $6 billion. Maybe $10 billion. We spend $3,500 billion every freaking year. Tell you what, we can just cut the $596B we spend every year in defense to $594B, and we'll pay for the wall in 3 years.

[dckingsfan]

I can't believe we are even discussing the cost of the wall as if it is a significant part of the budget. The wall will cost $6 billion. Maybe $10 billion. We spend $3,500 billion every freaking year. Tell you what, we can just cut the $596B we spend every year in defense to $594B, and we'll pay for the wall in 3 years.

1st - it will take several years just to get the wall approved
2nd - design of the wall will take longer
3rd - the environmental impact will take longer than 1&2
4th - the construction won't be fast - I was just on the border last week - that isn't easy terrain

I don't understand why we are talking about this as a short-term remedy. Especially if it isn't coupled with the other immigration reforms that are necessary.

[pineappleheadindc]

.
One thing I hate about politics is the way pronouncements are often pulled to the absolute extreme. ("If Obamacare passes, it will be the end of our nation", etc).

Enter George Will - a guy I try to always read even though we're on opposite ends of the political spectrum. He's out with a whopper of a column today that is just frustrating to read. It's about the future of the Republican party -- and I'm not even a Republican.

If Trump wins the nomination, prepare for the end of the conservative party

If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.

[...]

In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would also mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible — a conservative party as a constant presence in U.S. politics.

It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this:

One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-conservative-party-jeopardized-by-trump/2015/12/23/3335339c-a8e2-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Dear George Will:

Just stop already. Just. Stop.

Look, even as an outsider, I get that you feel frustrated that the Republican electorate are straying from the formerly traditional establishment power centers (including its traditional pundits). But honestly, I think it's only because rank-and-file conservative voters feel both uncomfortable and distressed.

Republicans hold both houses of Congress. Yet policy priorities of the average conservative voter have gone unaddressed by the GOP Congress. The recently-passed omnibus "funded Planned Parenthood" (Pine's note, I had to put that in quotes to maintain my personal sanity...I'm just repeating conservative complaints). It funded foreign aid. Did not fund Nate's wall (peace, Nate. Just trying to make a point). In short, mainstream Republican politicians seem to be no different than Democrats to the conservative voter. And the mainstream Republican pundit, funder, and supporter -- well, they're all part of the problem now, aren't they?

Look, Donald Trump will win the nomination or he won't. The Republican party is not going anywhere, we have a two-party system here in America. Whether you are along for the ride is yet to be seen. But don't consider the electorate taking the party in a new direction to be the death of the party.

Yours -- (and I admit, I may be 100% wrong here as an outsider, a liberal democrat),

Pine

[nate33]

Thank you, Pine. You echoed my thoughts exactly.

George Will's conservative party hasn't really done much conservative except oppose gay marriage (an issue I consider to be rather unimportant as long as gays have the legal right to a civil union) and support gun rights. Their idea of conservative spending is to spend just slightly less than Democrats on domestic issues, while spending a great deal more on foreign wars. They've done nothing as the middle class has been hollowed out by offshoring of American jobs and immigration has driven down wages and driven up the cost of housing and education. There are more Republicans in Congress than there has been in 150 years yet they couldn't stop Obamacare or the omnibus, and it took a mutiny from the rank and file to stop amnesty.

If George Will is the standard bearer for "conservative", then I think I'd prefer Door Number 3.

[Zonkerbl]

http://jezebel.com/i-dont-know-what-to-do-with-good-white-people-1671201391?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

"I don't think Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo set out to kill Black men. I'm sure the cops who arrested my father meant well. But what good are your good intentions if they kill us?"

[penbeast0]

I can't believe we are even discussing the cost of the wall as if it is a significant part of the budget. The wall will cost $6 billion. Maybe $10 billion. We spend $3,500 billion every freaking year. Tell you what, we can just cut the $596B we spend every year in defense to $594B, and we'll pay for the wall in 3 years.

You know what they say, "A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money." That ridiculous amount of money you are talking about is the result of a lot of "small" programs that never come in on budget and are practically impossible to kill once implemented as while there are only a few people that benefit financially, for them it's life or death while everyone else is minimally impacted by that particular program.

Let's bring back Ron Paul (the father, not the son) and put him in charge of the federal budget then just pick the President who will do the best job with foreign policy which is the main part of the President's job.

[nate33]

Saudi Arabia Court Sentences Poet to Death for Renouncing Islam

A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a poet to death for apostasy, the abandonment of Islam.

Ashraf Fayadh, 35, received his sentence without any legal representation. He has 30 days to appeal. Human Rights Watch Middle East researcher Adam Coogle examined the court documents.

Is this an example of moderate Islam or radical Islam? And how can I tell the difference?

[nuposse04]

Saudi Arabia Court Sentences Poet to Death for Renouncing Islam

A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a poet to death for apostasy, the abandonment of Islam.

Ashraf Fayadh, 35, received his sentence without any legal representation. He has 30 days to appeal. Human Rights Watch Middle East researcher Adam Coogle examined the court documents.

Is this an example of moderate Islam or radical Islam? And how can I tell the difference?

Saudi Arabia is damn birthplace of most radical wahhabis. If you want to cut off the supply of radical preachers in the muslim world, start with Saudi Arabia.

Unfortunately we are aligned with their corrupt government which doesn't do nearly enough to curtail their barbaric behavior.

[Zonkerbl]

Saudi Arabia Court Sentences Poet to Death for Renouncing Islam

A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a poet to death for apostasy, the abandonment of Islam.

Ashraf Fayadh, 35, received his sentence without any legal representation. He has 30 days to appeal. Human Rights Watch Middle East researcher Adam Coogle examined the court documents.

Is this an example of moderate Islam or radical Islam? And how can I tell the difference?

I want more facts than a breitbart article... Not even going to engage on something reported by professional liars.

[Zonkerbl]

Lets discuss this link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashraf_Fayadh