Political Roundtable Part XXIV

[Pointgod]

This explains a lot

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/29/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-men-secretly-insecure-about-their-manhood/

We found that support for Trump in the 2016 election was higher in areas that had more searches for topics such as “erectile dysfunction.” Moreover, this relationship persisted after accounting for demographic attributes in media markets, such as education levels and racial composition, as well as searches for topics unrelated to fragile masculinity, such as “breast augmentation” and “menopause.”

In contrast, fragile masculinity was not associated with support for Mitt Romney in 2012 or support for John McCain in 2008 — suggesting that the correlation of fragile masculinity and voting in presidential elections was distinctively stronger in 2016.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Labor participation rate

This seems to be a solvable problem if one analyzes the causes and possible solutions.
Causes:
Wage growth for low income jobs has not kept up with inflation. As the buying power of wages decreases, so does the incentive to work.
With the big increases in the cost of daycare, a 2 wage lower income family, find it more beneficial for a parent to stay home.
As low income family income increases, there is eventual loss of medicaid and chip benefits, making it more beneficial to keep benefits below the eligibility threshold by not having all work.
There are jobs, but they have moved to different areas than the non workers. And the wages are not high enough to provide incentive to move given high cost of living driven by factors such as unavailability of affordable housing.
There are jobs, but the non workers are not qualified due to lack of education or training.
Loss of benefits for single people if they work. eg, a hard working friend of mine has expensive medical needs. In CT, the income threshold for a single person is 16K for medicaid eligibility. So he works, but only off the books.

Possible solutions ( not saying it's easy, but for sake of discussion )
Increase wages, such as increasing the minimum wage.
Provide affordable housing.
Provide lower cost day care options.
Provide training.
Provide less expensive education.
Provide relocation assistance.
Have a medical system so everyone has access to medical care regardless of income.
Do not have benefit eligibility thresholds which de-incentivize people to work.

Agreed that those solutions are good in general. But... it is a demographic issue. Younger workers are still working... we just are aging as a society. Notice that those age 25 to 54 are working in greater numbers.

[bsilver]

Labor participation rate

This seems to be a solvable problem if one analyzes the causes and possible solutions.
Causes:
Wage growth for low income jobs has not kept up with inflation. As the buying power of wages decreases, so does the incentive to work.
With the big increases in the cost of daycare, a 2 wage lower income family, find it more beneficial for a parent to stay home.
As low income family income increases, there is eventual loss of medicaid and chip benefits, making it more beneficial to keep benefits below the eligibility threshold by not having all work.
There are jobs, but they have moved to different areas than the non workers. And the wages are not high enough to provide incentive to move given high cost of living driven by factors such as unavailability of affordable housing.
There are jobs, but the non workers are not qualified due to lack of education or training.
Loss of benefits for single people if they work. eg, a hard working friend of mine has expensive medical needs. In CT, the income threshold for a single person is 16K for medicaid eligibility. So he works, but only off the books.

Possible solutions ( not saying it's easy, but for sake of discussion )
Increase wages, such as increasing the minimum wage.
Provide affordable housing.
Provide lower cost day care options.
Provide training.
Provide less expensive education.
Provide relocation assistance.
Have a medical system so everyone has access to medical care regardless of income.
Do not have benefit eligibility thresholds which de-incentivize people to work.

Agreed that those solutions are good in general. But... it is a demographic issue. Younger workers are still working... we just are aging as a society. Notice that those age 25 to 54 are working in greater numbers.

The first chart doesn't indicate the age group. It was my impression that work force participation rates were based on the 18-65 age group. That shows a steady decrease. If 65+ are included, then of course participation would decrease due to the aging population. But that's a different problem than people choosing not to work.
In the 25-54 group, participation is still down from 2000 and 2006. Rates have increased recently but not to earlier levels.

[pancakes3]

1) No, I am saying that our labor force is shrinking and we need more immigrants of the right type.
2) I am saying that "anchor babies" shouldn't be given automatic citizenship. And I am saying if a parent is deported, the child should go with them without citizenship.
3) False, if we target companies, if we make it clear that you will never be a citizen, if we keep deporting illegal aliens and if we have a proper process to boost our legal immigration you can substantially eliminate illegal immigration. This has been done in many other countries and it has worked.

And no, it isn't a free market argument. There are literally a billion individuals that would happily and immediately migrate to the US even if there are no jobs. They would do so because of the repressive or lawless countries they live in. It is a what is best for the US - and that would be to take in immigrants that meet our need.

Things have changed in terms of social services, transportation, demographics, etc.. Our immigration policies need to shift as well.

so why shouldn't there be birthright citizenship?
and what's stopping the billion individuals from immediately migrating to the U.S. right now?

Birthright citizenship incents individuals to come into the country illegally to have kids (don't get me wrong - it isn't like millions are coming into the country each year to do this... it just doesn't align with creating a well formed policy.

Our border controls effectively stop individuals many from coming into the country. But I guess you know that isn't the point. We don't want to create a situation where individuals are paying coyotes to move them into the country. The notion is we want to stop that behavior, right?

The notion is we want a policy that works for the immigrants AND for the US citizens, right?

We don't have that right now.

i don't understand how birthright citizenship incentivizes immigration when the babies can't sponsor their parents for status until they turn 18? with or without birthright citizenship, an illegal immigrant can be deported just the same. it seems to be a particularly xenophobic stance, to be taking issue with the fact that the kid will be able to come back to America as he/she pleases because they're citizens.

immigration, legal or otherwise, is completely driven by economic incentives. even if someone couldn't have an anchor baby, they would still move here for the work.

there are so many problems with removing birthright citizenship, but the most immediate would be the complete disenfranchisement of actual citizens but are not able to track down their parents' parentage, or prove their parents' citizenship for whatever reason, none of which has to do with their parents' actual citizenship status, or of any fault of their own.

it's inviting chaos to a legal system that would do very little to fix the problem that it's trying to address.

[pancakes3]

pancakes, you are over thinking this.

...

Please Dont forget that since 2000, on average over 1,000,000 people apply for asylum or otherwise seek citizenship to become legal immigrants in our country for work every single year!! 18 million in 18 years!!! Most enter illegally and apply for change of status once they are here.

Thats over 100,000 per month!! Do you really think we have that many jobs available?? And most of it is unskilled labor.

...

And democrats dont care about reality. Instead they want to charge up their base and make this an emotional issue where "brown people" are being stopped at the border." Or worse "locked up in cages."

thats why GOP wants a wall. so you cant get even get in to claim asylum.

...

Democrats obfuscate the real issues DCKings and I have outlined in detail to make it a stupid emotional decision all because they simply want the votes.

...

And the GOP sees right through it. Our logic is sound. Dem logic is very very weak and in fact nothing more than emotional fodder filled with lies and smoke and mirrors to motivate their base.

over saturation of any given jobs market is a REAL ISSUE.

- you're underthinking it.
- the actual numbers of asylum/refugee combined is less than 100k a year, and since 2000 the number is at about 1 million over 18 years
- scaring ppl with false numbers is not reality, nor is it grounded in logic.
- scaring ppl with false numbers is exactly the plea to emotions, lying with smoke and mirrors that you're railing against. not to mention your pathetic attempt to draw out my emotional support with your "scary" hypo that foreign lawyers are here to take my job*
- it is not a real issue.

so please, inform yourself instead of grabbing and spreading unsourced, untrue information upon which to build and reinforce your faulty world view. it doesn't cost any less than a quick trip to even wikipedia.

and that's just with respect to you underthinking your own premise that immigration is affecting the economy. we're not even discussing the fact that in addition to the labor market, there are other markets that play a role in the overall economy. immigration is not a panacea. it's not even a significant factor.

your hypothesis is that there is that but for the wall, immigrants will pour into this country and force unemployment when we have decades of data bearing out that immigration does not affect unemployment. larger macroeconomic factors at play - which you yourself even acknowledge, factors such as automation is an actual influence on employment.

there are so many more fallacies to attack. for instance, the faulty premise that unskilled labor is somehow desirable. why can't the solution to the loss of unskilled jobs be that we create skilled jobs to replace those losses?

put it this way, McDonalds has put int self-order kiosks in an effort to eliminate the low-skill job of cashier. however, it has created a high skill job in the manufacturing, coding, and maintenance of those kiosks in doing so. that job going away has nothing to do with low-skilled workers flooding the labor market, it has to do with technological advances and the obsolescence of the cashier position. these are the superseding economic factors that are "destroying" jobs such as manufacturing and certain low-skill service jobs.

and the solution isn't to bring those jobs back, but to retrain the workforce to take on new jobs.

all of this has been a talking point for 200 years - ever since the industrial revolution. it's pretty basic, and i feel silly explaining it.

*which is it, SD? are immigrants coming to take American jobs, or is unemployment increasing and decreasing with no causation, or even correlation tied to the number of immigrants coming into this country? i've already conceded that if indeed a billion people, or even 400 million, are knocking down the door, and unemployment is sky high, then there would be a discussion here. but none of those things are happening, and to act as if it is, well that's pretty much textbook fearmongering.

you make some good points of which i agree and you also make some faulty assumptions.

I believe there is a middle ground between your arguments and my arguments.

you also claim i'm fear mongering which i am not. there is also nothing false in my statements.

half of the country want to limit immigration and understands this is an issue that needs fixing.

We do have 12-18 millions dreamers here. perhaps more. thats not an issue?

employment "off the books" is not an issue?

immigrants come here and use more entitlements than existing americans, thats not an issue?

because half of america (or more thinks these are issues).

I agree with you that need immigration...it will help GDP.

I agree we need unskilled labor.

i agree automation will continue to take jobs away and create other skilled jobs.

I agree we need to educate existing american more so they can take skilled jobs.

But can you at least agree that we can NOT allow everyone into the country? There must be limits? There must be intelligent controls to immigration? Or is this just a bad faith argument of your going nowhere operating under the assumptions that any type of immigration control is just a liberal talking point?

you haven't made any arguments. your original post was an assertion that nobody is talking about the jobs report. everything that followed is either backpedaling, or weaseling into tangential arguments to make it seem like you have something to talk about.

my argument is simply pointing out that you don't have anything to say. and when your posts are shot down, you shuck and jive your way to some random tangent and hope nobody calls you out on it. the current incarnation is to distance yourself from your original assertion of "immigrants are taking jobs" and switching to "immigration policy needs changing" because you can feel yourself being pinned into a corner.

and we can continue this dance where you make underinformed assertions and i do my best to correct your babbling, but to what end? does any of this matter? are you becoming a better poster? the temperament and formatting is marginally improved, but at the substance of your posts, you're still pulling things straight out of your ass.

what about dreamers?
what about entitlement programs? do you have anything to say that goes beyond that one infographic you saw on twitter?
is this your attempt to pivot from "immigrants are taking our jobs" to "immigrants are a lazy and shiftless drain on our economy" ?

any of those topics are conversations that i do not believe you're equipped to discuss.

[stilldropin20]

- you're underthinking it.
- the actual numbers of asylum/refugee combined is less than 100k a year, and since 2000 the number is at about 1 million over 18 years
- scaring ppl with false numbers is not reality, nor is it grounded in logic.
- scaring ppl with false numbers is exactly the plea to emotions, lying with smoke and mirrors that you're railing against. not to mention your pathetic attempt to draw out my emotional support with your "scary" hypo that foreign lawyers are here to take my job*
- it is not a real issue.

so please, inform yourself instead of grabbing and spreading unsourced, untrue information upon which to build and reinforce your faulty world view. it doesn't cost any less than a quick trip to even wikipedia.

and that's just with respect to you underthinking your own premise that immigration is affecting the economy. we're not even discussing the fact that in addition to the labor market, there are other markets that play a role in the overall economy. immigration is not a panacea. it's not even a significant factor.

your hypothesis is that there is that but for the wall, immigrants will pour into this country and force unemployment when we have decades of data bearing out that immigration does not affect unemployment. larger macroeconomic factors at play - which you yourself even acknowledge, factors such as automation is an actual influence on employment.

there are so many more fallacies to attack. for instance, the faulty premise that unskilled labor is somehow desirable. why can't the solution to the loss of unskilled jobs be that we create skilled jobs to replace those losses?

put it this way, McDonalds has put int self-order kiosks in an effort to eliminate the low-skill job of cashier. however, it has created a high skill job in the manufacturing, coding, and maintenance of those kiosks in doing so. that job going away has nothing to do with low-skilled workers flooding the labor market, it has to do with technological advances and the obsolescence of the cashier position. these are the superseding economic factors that are "destroying" jobs such as manufacturing and certain low-skill service jobs.

and the solution isn't to bring those jobs back, but to retrain the workforce to take on new jobs.

all of this has been a talking point for 200 years - ever since the industrial revolution. it's pretty basic, and i feel silly explaining it.

*which is it, SD? are immigrants coming to take American jobs, or is unemployment increasing and decreasing with no causation, or even correlation tied to the number of immigrants coming into this country? i've already conceded that if indeed a billion people, or even 400 million, are knocking down the door, and unemployment is sky high, then there would be a discussion here. but none of those things are happening, and to act as if it is, well that's pretty much textbook fearmongering.

you make some good points of which i agree and you also make some faulty assumptions.

I believe there is a middle ground between your arguments and my arguments.

you also claim i'm fear mongering which i am not. there is also nothing false in my statements.

half of the country want to limit immigration and understands this is an issue that needs fixing.

We do have 12-18 millions dreamers here. perhaps more. thats not an issue?

employment "off the books" is not an issue?

immigrants come here and use more entitlements than existing americans, thats not an issue?

because half of america (or more thinks these are issues).

I agree with you that need immigration...it will help GDP.

I agree we need unskilled labor.

i agree automation will continue to take jobs away and create other skilled jobs.

I agree we need to educate existing american more so they can take skilled jobs.

But can you at least agree that we can NOT allow everyone into the country? There must be limits? There must be intelligent controls to immigration? Or is this just a bad faith argument of your going nowhere operating under the assumptions that any type of immigration control is just a liberal talking point?

you haven't made any arguments. your original post was an assertion that nobody is talking about the jobs report. everything that followed is either backpedaling, or weaseling into tangential arguments to make it seem like you have something to talk about.

my argument is simply pointing out that you don't have anything to say. and when your posts are shot down, you shuck and jive your way to some random tangent and hope nobody calls you out on it. the current incarnation is to distance yourself from your original assertion of "immigrants are taking jobs" and switching to "immigration policy needs changing" because you can feel yourself being pinned into a corner.

and we can continue this dance where you make underinformed assertions and i do my best to correct your babbling, but to what end? does any of this matter? are you becoming a better poster? the temperament and formatting is marginally improved, but at the substance of your posts, you're still pulling things straight out of your ass.

what about dreamers?
what about entitlement programs? do you have anything to say that goes beyond that one infographic you saw on twitter?
is this your attempt to pivot from "immigrants are taking our jobs" to "immigrants are a lazy and shiftless drain on our economy" ?

any of those topics are conversations that i do not believe you're equipped to discuss.

i've simply made a concerted effort to once again explore common ground.

let's try this. Since you assume to know not only my positions but the depth of my understanding of those positions why dont you take it a step further and tell me where the compromise is? And remember...its not just me you need to hook, but half the country.

Where is the compromise between your position and trump's base and how are you going to sell it to Trumps base and how are you going to sell it the left?

Give us a thoughtful immigration policy that considers the economy, the jobs market, GDP (easy), wages, and tie in trade policy where you would like.

Go!

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

so why shouldn't there be birthright citizenship?
and what's stopping the billion individuals from immediately migrating to the U.S. right now?

Birthright citizenship incents individuals to come into the country illegally to have kids (don't get me wrong - it isn't like millions are coming into the country each year to do this... it just doesn't align with creating a well formed policy.

Our border controls effectively stop individuals many from coming into the country. But I guess you know that isn't the point. We don't want to create a situation where individuals are paying coyotes to move them into the country. The notion is we want to stop that behavior, right?

The notion is we want a policy that works for the immigrants AND for the US citizens, right?

We don't have that right now.

i don't understand how birthright citizenship incentivizes immigration when the babies can't sponsor their parents for status until they turn 18? with or without birthright citizenship, an illegal immigrant can be deported just the same. it seems to be a particularly xenophobic stance, to be taking issue with the fact that the kid will be able to come back to America as he/she pleases because they're citizens.

immigration, legal or otherwise, is completely driven by economic incentives. even if someone couldn't have an anchor baby, they would still move here for the work.

there are so many problems with removing birthright citizenship, but the most immediate would be the complete disenfranchisement of actual citizens but are not able to track down their parents' parentage, or prove their parents' citizenship for whatever reason, none of which has to do with their parents' actual citizenship status, or of any fault of their own.

it's inviting chaos to a legal system that would do very little to fix the problem that it's trying to address.

So first, I am for more immigration and a balance from as many countries as we can. So, let's take the xenophobic part out of the equation. Wrong guy

Second there are those that just try to get across the boarder to have babies. That is a small number. There are others that see what happened with the dreamers and view that as a legitimate possibility. Remember parents are generally more concerned about their kids then they are about themselves.

Again, no immigration is driven by more than economic incentive. Many want/have wanted to come her for religious freedom and to escape repressive regimes as well as to escape violence in their home countries.

So, I have laid out what I would do, what would you do?

[I_Like_Dirt]

So first, I am for more immigration and a balance from as many countries as we can. So, let's take the xenophobic part out of the equation. Wrong guy

Second there are those that just try to get across the boarder to have babies. That is a small number. There are others that see what happened with the dreamers and view that as a legitimate possibility. Remember parents are generally more concerned about their kids then they are about themselves.

Again, no immigration is driven by more than economic incentive. Many want/have wanted to come her for religious freedom and to escape repressive regimes as well as to escape violence in their home countries.

So, I have laid out what I would do, what would you do?

I won't speak for pancakes but I really do think immigration is a bit of a red herring. It still needs to be addressed and I'd love to see more immigration, too, but in the end it's really an offshoot of larger issues. The biggest issue is that the costs of raising children are offloaded onto parents (and primarily mothers) almost entirely while society at large benefits from them in the long run. Having stronger incentives to have children as well as supports in place to ensure successes of those children would go a long ways.

Beyond that, trade wars are ridiculous and harmful. Reactionary policies like the war on drugs are counterintuitive. There needs to be a concerted effort to support neighbors - particularly Mexico. I've mentioned it before but if Mexico was more stable socially and economically they would peel off loads of potential immigrants the US doesn't seem to want. Of course, the same people who don't want those immigrants don't want to support Mexico, either, so it's a bit of a catch-22 but it's a huge issue.

And there are far bigger economic issues at play, too. With the costs of children being offloaded onto parents at a time when the bulk of the wealth generated by economic growth is targeted to a very small minority of people, it creates a pretty unsustainable situation, and one where the truly wealthy view themselves as not so dependent on such a large population and might even view it as a potential danger to themselves. Heck, I've started finding an increasing number of people (often younger, too) who believe that humanity is going to invent medical practices that allow for de facto immortality shortly and who are putting off children for that very reason thinking that between such advances and automation there won't be a need for so many people and they'd only be making their lives harder for no good reason - as though they're going to actually have accesses to such fantastical practices if they ever were to somehow be invented (I guess they have a better shot than if they don't have kids because they have a better chance at being wealthy, no matter how slim the odds regardless).

Really, anything immigration related is at best a short-term solution, whether it's more, less or the same. The bigger issues are the ones that really need to have more attention placed on them and yet politics has spun things backwards because politics is very much representative of the people.

[pancakes3]

Birthright citizenship incents individuals to come into the country illegally to have kids (don't get me wrong - it isn't like millions are coming into the country each year to do this... it just doesn't align with creating a well formed policy.

Our border controls effectively stop individuals many from coming into the country. But I guess you know that isn't the point. We don't want to create a situation where individuals are paying coyotes to move them into the country. The notion is we want to stop that behavior, right?

The notion is we want a policy that works for the immigrants AND for the US citizens, right?

We don't have that right now.

i don't understand how birthright citizenship incentivizes immigration when the babies can't sponsor their parents for status until they turn 18? with or without birthright citizenship, an illegal immigrant can be deported just the same. it seems to be a particularly xenophobic stance, to be taking issue with the fact that the kid will be able to come back to America as he/she pleases because they're citizens.

immigration, legal or otherwise, is completely driven by economic incentives. even if someone couldn't have an anchor baby, they would still move here for the work.

there are so many problems with removing birthright citizenship, but the most immediate would be the complete disenfranchisement of actual citizens but are not able to track down their parents' parentage, or prove their parents' citizenship for whatever reason, none of which has to do with their parents' actual citizenship status, or of any fault of their own.

it's inviting chaos to a legal system that would do very little to fix the problem that it's trying to address.

So first, I am for more immigration and a balance from as many countries as we can. So, let's take the xenophobic part out of the equation. Wrong guy

Second there are those that just try to get across the boarder to have babies. That is a small number. There are others that see what happened with the dreamers and view that as a legitimate possibility. Remember parents are generally more concerned about their kids then they are about themselves.

Again, no immigration is driven by more than economic incentive. Many want/have wanted to come her for religious freedom and to escape repressive regimes as well as to escape violence in their home countries.

So, I have laid out what I would do, what would you do?

um, i would keep birthright citizenship. because getting rid of it would be "inviting chaos to a legal system that would do very little to fix the problem that it's trying to address."

[dckingsfan]

So first, I am for more immigration and a balance from as many countries as we can. So, let's take the xenophobic part out of the equation. Wrong guy

Second there are those that just try to get across the boarder to have babies. That is a small number. There are others that see what happened with the dreamers and view that as a legitimate possibility. Remember parents are generally more concerned about their kids then they are about themselves.

Again, no immigration is driven by more than economic incentive. Many want/have wanted to come her for religious freedom and to escape repressive regimes as well as to escape violence in their home countries.

So, I have laid out what I would do, what would you do?

I won't speak for pancakes but I really do think immigration is a bit of a red herring. It still needs to be addressed and I'd love to see more immigration, too, but in the end it's really an offshoot of larger issues. The biggest issue is that the costs of raising children are offloaded onto parents (and primarily mothers) almost entirely while society at large benefits from them in the long run. Having stronger incentives to have children as well as supports in place to ensure successes of those children would go a long ways.

Beyond that, trade wars are ridiculous and harmful. Reactionary policies like the war on drugs are counterintuitive. There needs to be a concerted effort to support neighbors - particularly Mexico. I've mentioned it before but if Mexico was more stable socially and economically they would peel off loads of potential immigrants the US doesn't seem to want. Of course, the same people who don't want those immigrants don't want to support Mexico, either, so it's a bit of a catch-22 but it's a huge issue.

And there are far bigger economic issues at play, too. With the costs of children being offloaded onto parents at a time when the bulk of the wealth generated by economic growth is targeted to a very small minority of people, it creates a pretty unsustainable situation, and one where the truly wealthy view themselves as not so dependent on such a large population and might even view it as a potential danger to themselves. Heck, I've started finding an increasing number of people (often younger, too) who believe that humanity is going to invent medical practices that allow for de facto immortality shortly and who are putting off children for that very reason thinking that between such advances and automation there won't be a need for so many people and they'd only be making their lives harder for no good reason - as though they're going to actually have accesses to such fantastical practices if they ever were to somehow be invented (I guess they have a better shot than if they don't have kids because they have a better chance at being wealthy, no matter how slim the odds regardless).

Really, anything immigration related is at best a short-term solution, whether it's more, less or the same. The bigger issues are the ones that really need to have more attention placed on them and yet politics has spun things backwards because politics is very much representative of the people.

Dirt - that really was a red herring approach to answering the current questions about immigration. We continually don't deal with the issue - and that has led to the dreamers, it has led to individuals making terribly dangerous treks to get here, it has hurt business. Our lack of policy is really hurting lot's of people.

And a reminder - Mexico is becoming much less of an issue since NAFTA. There has been a net negative influx. But again, this is a red herring to the question of what should be our policy.

And I get that it is hard. But both parties literally have their collective heads in the sand on this issue. It's like they open their mouths and all they can do is scream without any words escaping.

[pancakes3]

you make some good points of which i agree and you also make some faulty assumptions.

I believe there is a middle ground between your arguments and my arguments.

you also claim i'm fear mongering which i am not. there is also nothing false in my statements.

half of the country want to limit immigration and understands this is an issue that needs fixing.

We do have 12-18 millions dreamers here. perhaps more. thats not an issue?

employment "off the books" is not an issue?

immigrants come here and use more entitlements than existing americans, thats not an issue?

because half of america (or more thinks these are issues).

I agree with you that need immigration...it will help GDP.

I agree we need unskilled labor.

i agree automation will continue to take jobs away and create other skilled jobs.

I agree we need to educate existing american more so they can take skilled jobs.

But can you at least agree that we can NOT allow everyone into the country? There must be limits? There must be intelligent controls to immigration? Or is this just a bad faith argument of your going nowhere operating under the assumptions that any type of immigration control is just a liberal talking point?

you haven't made any arguments. your original post was an assertion that nobody is talking about the jobs report. everything that followed is either backpedaling, or weaseling into tangential arguments to make it seem like you have something to talk about.

my argument is simply pointing out that you don't have anything to say. and when your posts are shot down, you shuck and jive your way to some random tangent and hope nobody calls you out on it. the current incarnation is to distance yourself from your original assertion of "immigrants are taking jobs" and switching to "immigration policy needs changing" because you can feel yourself being pinned into a corner.

and we can continue this dance where you make underinformed assertions and i do my best to correct your babbling, but to what end? does any of this matter? are you becoming a better poster? the temperament and formatting is marginally improved, but at the substance of your posts, you're still pulling things straight out of your ass.

what about dreamers?
what about entitlement programs? do you have anything to say that goes beyond that one infographic you saw on twitter?
is this your attempt to pivot from "immigrants are taking our jobs" to "immigrants are a lazy and shiftless drain on our economy" ?

any of those topics are conversations that i do not believe you're equipped to discuss.

i've simply made a concerted effort to once again explore common ground.

let's try this. Since you assume to know not only my positions but the depth of my understanding of those positions why dont you take it a step further and tell me where the compromise is? And remember...its not just me you need to hook, but half the country.

Where is the compromise between your position and trump's base and how are you going to sell it to Trumps base and how are you going to sell it the left?

Give us a thoughtful immigration policy that considers the economy, the jobs market, GDP (easy), wages, and tie in trade policy where you would like.

Go!

it's not my job to draw up thoughtful, comprehensive immigration policies that trumpers and libs can rally behind. frankly, i don't think such a policy exists, since many people's views on immigration is sharply colored by xenophobia and misplaced jingoism. when there are elements of irrationality in an argument, it's difficult to finagle a logical solution.

i do think it's pretty telling that you think i can lay out such a policy in a message board post though. and that's the difference between you and me. you think that governing a country is easy, and that you have these grand ideas that would solve everything, if someone would only give you the controls. i believe that governing is difficult, and that policies must be informed by experts who have explored the issues and given it deliberate thought, and that i know enough to know that i know nothing, and don't try to speak with authority on things that i have no authority over.

so, no, i don't have a policy in my hip pocket that solves everything while at the same time uniting the country. sorry to disappoint.

[dckingsfan]

i don't understand how birthright citizenship incentivizes immigration when the babies can't sponsor their parents for status until they turn 18? with or without birthright citizenship, an illegal immigrant can be deported just the same. it seems to be a particularly xenophobic stance, to be taking issue with the fact that the kid will be able to come back to America as he/she pleases because they're citizens.

immigration, legal or otherwise, is completely driven by economic incentives. even if someone couldn't have an anchor baby, they would still move here for the work.

there are so many problems with removing birthright citizenship, but the most immediate would be the complete disenfranchisement of actual citizens but are not able to track down their parents' parentage, or prove their parents' citizenship for whatever reason, none of which has to do with their parents' actual citizenship status, or of any fault of their own.

it's inviting chaos to a legal system that would do very little to fix the problem that it's trying to address.

So first, I am for more immigration and a balance from as many countries as we can. So, let's take the xenophobic part out of the equation. Wrong guy

Second there are those that just try to get across the boarder to have babies. That is a small number. There are others that see what happened with the dreamers and view that as a legitimate possibility. Remember parents are generally more concerned about their kids then they are about themselves.

Again, no immigration is driven by more than economic incentive. Many want/have wanted to come her for religious freedom and to escape repressive regimes as well as to escape violence in their home countries.

So, I have laid out what I would do, what would you do?

um, i would keep birthright citizenship. because getting rid of it would be "inviting chaos to a legal system that would do very little to fix the problem that it's trying to address."

Okay, I see your post above... I think I get what you are saying. Trump's policy sucks.

I guess I might add - we haven't had a good policy from either side.

I'll let it go...

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Clearly and obviously and indisputably a very smart person, Donald J Trump. He must be highly intelligence to have acquired such wealth!

[dckingsfan]

Clearly and obviously and indisputably a very smart person, Donald J Trump. He must be highly intelligence to have acquired such wealth!

I can't decide if the logic errors or the spelling is funnier...

[JWizmentality]

U.S. top court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-top-court-rebuffs-state-bids-cut-planned-144246538.html

Hey, sometimes they do get it right. Oh look, Gorsuch dissented. Shocker.

[stilldropin20]

you haven't made any arguments. your original post was an assertion that nobody is talking about the jobs report. everything that followed is either backpedaling, or weaseling into tangential arguments to make it seem like you have something to talk about.

my argument is simply pointing out that you don't have anything to say. and when your posts are shot down, you shuck and jive your way to some random tangent and hope nobody calls you out on it. the current incarnation is to distance yourself from your original assertion of "immigrants are taking jobs" and switching to "immigration policy needs changing" because you can feel yourself being pinned into a corner.

and we can continue this dance where you make underinformed assertions and i do my best to correct your babbling, but to what end? does any of this matter? are you becoming a better poster? the temperament and formatting is marginally improved, but at the substance of your posts, you're still pulling things straight out of your ass.

what about dreamers?
what about entitlement programs? do you have anything to say that goes beyond that one infographic you saw on twitter?
is this your attempt to pivot from "immigrants are taking our jobs" to "immigrants are a lazy and shiftless drain on our economy" ?

any of those topics are conversations that i do not believe you're equipped to discuss.

i've simply made a concerted effort to once again explore common ground.

let's try this. Since you assume to know not only my positions but the depth of my understanding of those positions why dont you take it a step further and tell me where the compromise is? And remember...its not just me you need to hook, but half the country.

Where is the compromise between your position and trump's base and how are you going to sell it to Trumps base and how are you going to sell it the left?

Give us a thoughtful immigration policy that considers the economy, the jobs market, GDP (easy), wages, and tie in trade policy where you would like.

Go!

it's not my job to draw up thoughtful, comprehensive immigration policies that trumpers and libs can rally behind. frankly, i don't think such a policy exists, since many people's views on immigration is sharply colored by xenophobia and misplaced jingoism. when there are elements of irrationality in an argument, it's difficult to finagle a logical solution.

i do think it's pretty telling that you think i can lay out such a policy in a message board post though. and that's the difference between you and me. you think that governing a country is easy, and that you have these grand ideas that would solve everything, if someone would only give you the controls. i believe that governing is difficult, and that policies must be informed by experts who have explored the issues and given it deliberate thought, and that i know enough to know that i know nothing, and don't try to speak with authority on things that i have no authority over.

so, no, i don't have a policy in my hip pocket that solves everything while at the same time uniting the country. sorry to disappoint.

oh we're all just doing opinion here, bro. You didn't know that? And it aint that serious.

Speaking of opinions, or positions we take...what makes yours better than mine? And if you dont have "a plan" why tear down the idea of others? And for this matter why would Obama's (community organizer), Trump's (developer), Mccain("war hero") and Flake(not sure...used car salesman?) and Durban's(career liberal politician) plans be any better than yours or mine? What makes them such special critical thinkers?

Now I personally have solved a ton of major problem in my life and various careers. When your parents are crack heads and spend mortgage money on crack you learn to become a problem solver early inlife. As i eventually became a surgeon, I ended up covering a lot of ground along the way and learned to critically think on many different levels in many different sectors often extremely detailed in scope as i found success in these many very different sectors. There was grade school and high school sports where i succeeded very much. Then my time in the US navy. Then College sports. my time working in the hotel and restaurant business, quickly becoming upper management. Then add my time as a small business owner, owning multiple dental practices, my time owning a bar, owning a real estate company. Owning a real estate development company. and all of the rental real estate i own and manage, as well as the houses I flip and tear down and build new and i actually have quite a diverse back ground. And I paid attention along the way. I failed sometimes. And I have succeeded. I have partially succeeded. And then i became significantly successful as I "learned" how to become more and more proficient.

Along the way i figured out how to problem solve. How to negotiate. I have boughten out many millionaire dentists from their practices of 30-40 years...managed to keep those millionaire dentist as employees for sometimes as long as a decade and keep their employees and their patients happy as they transition to my ownership. tens of thousands of patients( almost 50K)! I have transitioned thousands of tenants to my ownership...and even sold many of those building to new ownership. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't. Now, it works almost every time and it has become predictable because i learned how to put deals together to where everyone feels like they "wins."

I have also learned to recognize where "no deal" can be made. For example you, pancakes. It is extremely likely that nothing I write will satisfy you. Which is why i simply said, "fine, give us your ideas." To which you (predictably) chickened out. That's why i issued the challenge. Not to embarrass you for you lack of ideas or for being to scarred to state them or too lazy to do the work to learn the issues on both sides. I mean what is the point of writing and addressing other writers in a chat room if you have no ideas to share? You just want to gripe? And argue for arguments sake? What is the point of talking about the wizards or politics if you have no ideas? Just come on here and say "go wizards?" Or, "Go trump!" Or "bad Trump?" And ridicule people for being for or against any given policy?<-Is that your idea of a political message board? Fitting, I suppose. Just draw a line in the sand and throw stuff at each other is likely why you are here. And you wouldn't be alone. I came here 2 years ago to negotiate. I saw it wasn't possible. So instead I threw barbs on behalf of Nate and others because conservatives were far outnumbered.

But it never changed the fact that I came here to learn. And I came here to exhange ideas. A big part of exchanging ideas is defining positions and reasons for those positions so as to understand the position of the american people in general. Ya gotta know where you are at to know where you are going right? Once you know where you are at...and also where you want to go...the rest is quite easy, actually. Problem solving really aint that hard, bro. You just gotta know where you are at and where you want to go.


Given so many problem ive dealt with this just isn't that hard. It's not. It isnt that hard for me any more. I enjoy it. From scooby doo, to the encycopedia Brown books, to the hardy boys and nancy drew, to geometry, calculus, physics, to guest services and bartending, to practicing dentistry and medicine, to ownership and hands on management of small businesses..I problem solve every day. And I've become quite good at it. Ive become so good at it because i used to be so terrible at it. There used to be a crisis almost every hour. very stressful. Not anymore. In fact i've become so good at crisis management and negotiating through it because I've done it so much that I already know what everyone wants and I know where the middle ground is on most issues...I know where the compromises are found and i know how to lead people to those compromises...i likely know what you want in terms of immigration policy. And i know what I want...here's the thing about me though and what I want...I dont really have "a side." I dont. You think I do. But I dont. What I want is for ALL of the american people to win. If our neighbors and allies win too? Great! If not, phuck em! <--Thats my personal position. So my side of this debate wants an immigration policy where GDP to goes up. Wages to go up. Debt goes down. The population increases with easily assimilated individuals that want to become americans and stay here and as daoneandonly has stated, earns their keep along the way.

So let me help you out a bit. Start with identifying where we are at(in your opinion)...whats good about it (in your opinion) and then figure out where you think the country should go (in your opinion). Cuz you know...that's all we're doing here: Opinion.

[dobrojim]

Clearly and obviously and indisputably a very smart person, Donald J Trump. He must be highly intelligence to have acquired such wealth!

I can't decide if the logic errors or the spelling is funnier...

my most recent FB post

I suppose this isn’t really news but I’m still impressed by how thoroughly Dan Snyder has destroyed something he paid so much money to buy. If anyone still believes being rich means you must be smart, you better ignore the train wreck that is the Slurs, playing in a half empty stadium when theoretically, they’re still in playoff contention.

[pancakes3]

i've simply made a concerted effort to once again explore common ground.

let's try this. Since you assume to know not only my positions but the depth of my understanding of those positions why dont you take it a step further and tell me where the compromise is? And remember...its not just me you need to hook, but half the country.

Where is the compromise between your position and trump's base and how are you going to sell it to Trumps base and how are you going to sell it the left?

Give us a thoughtful immigration policy that considers the economy, the jobs market, GDP (easy), wages, and tie in trade policy where you would like.

Go!

it's not my job to draw up thoughtful, comprehensive immigration policies that trumpers and libs can rally behind. frankly, i don't think such a policy exists, since many people's views on immigration is sharply colored by xenophobia and misplaced jingoism. when there are elements of irrationality in an argument, it's difficult to finagle a logical solution.

i do think it's pretty telling that you think i can lay out such a policy in a message board post though. and that's the difference between you and me. you think that governing a country is easy, and that you have these grand ideas that would solve everything, if someone would only give you the controls. i believe that governing is difficult, and that policies must be informed by experts who have explored the issues and given it deliberate thought, and that i know enough to know that i know nothing, and don't try to speak with authority on things that i have no authority over.

so, no, i don't have a policy in my hip pocket that solves everything while at the same time uniting the country. sorry to disappoint.

oh we're all just doing opinion here, bro. You didn't know that? And it aint that serious.

Speaking of opinions, or positions we take...what makes yours better than mine? And if you dont have "a plan" why tear down the idea of others? And for this matter why would Obama's (community organizer), Trump's (developer), Mccain("war hero") and Flake(not sure...used car salesman?) and Durban's(career liberal politician) plans be any better than yours or mine? What makes them such special critical thinkers?

Now I personally have solved a ton of major problem in my life and various careers. When your parents are crack heads and spend mortgage money on crack you learn to become a problem solver early inlife. As i eventually became a surgeon, I ended up covering a lot of ground along the way and learned to critically think on many different levels in many different sectors often extremely detailed in scope as i found success in these many very different sectors. There was grade school and high school sports where i succeeded very much. Then my time in the US navy. Then College sports. my time working in the hotel and restaurant business, quickly becoming upper management. Then add my time as a small business owner, owning multiple dental practices, my time owning a bar, owning a real estate company. Owning a real estate development company. and all of the rental real estate i own and manage, as well as the houses I flip and tear down and build new and i actually have quite a diverse back ground. And I paid attention along the way. I failed sometimes. And I have succeeded. I have partially succeeded. And then i became significantly successful as I "learned" how to become more and more proficient.

Along the way i figured out how to problem solve. How to negotiate. I have boughten out many millionaire dentists from their practices of 30-40 years...managed to keep those millionaire dentist as employees for sometimes as long as a decade and keep their employees and their patients happy as they transition to my ownership. tens of thousands of patients( almost 50K)! I have transitioned thousands of tenants to my ownership...and even sold many of those building to new ownership. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't. Now, it works almost every time and it has become predictable because i learned how to put deals together to where everyone feels like they "wins."

I have also learned to recognize where "no deal" can be made. For example you, pancakes. It is extremely likely that nothing I write will satisfy you. Which is why i simply said, "fine, give us your ideas." To which you (predictably) chickened out. That's why i issued the challenge. Not to embarrass you for you lack of ideas or for being to scarred to state them or too lazy to do the work to learn the issues on both sides. I mean what is the point of writing and addressing other writers in a chat room if you have no ideas to share? You just want to gripe? And argue for arguments sake? What is the point of talking about the wizards or politics if you have no ideas? Just come on here and say "go wizards?" Or, "Go trump!" Or "bad Trump?" And ridicule people for being for or against any given policy?<-Is that your idea of a political message board? Fitting, I suppose. Just draw a line in the sand and throw stuff at each other is likely why you are here. And you wouldn't be alone. I came here 2 years ago to negotiate. I saw it wasn't possible. So instead I threw barbs on behalf of Nate and others because conservatives were far outnumbered.

But it never changed the fact that I came here to learn. And I came here to exhange ideas. A big part of exchanging ideas is defining positions and reasons for those positions so as to understand the position of the american people in general. Ya gotta know where you are at to know where you are going right? Once you know where you are at...and also where you want to go...the rest is quite easy, actually. Problem solving really aint that hard, bro. You just gotta know where you are at and where you want to go.


Given so many problem ive dealt with this just isn't that hard. It's not. It isnt that hard for me any more. I enjoy it. From scooby doo, to the encycopedia Brown books, to the hardy boys and nancy drew, to geometry, calculus, physics, to guest services and bartending, to practicing dentistry and medicine, to ownership and hands on management of small businesses..I problem solve every day. And I've become quite good at it. Ive become so good at it because i used to be so terrible at it. There used to be a crisis almost every hour. very stressful. Not anymore. In fact i've become so good at crisis management and negotiating through it because I've done it so much that I already know what everyone wants and I know where the middle ground is on most issues...I know where the compromises are found and i know how to lead people to those compromises...i likely know what you want in terms of immigration policy. And i know what I want...here's the thing about me though and what I want...I dont really have "a side." I dont. You think I do. But I dont. What I want is for ALL of the american people to win. If our neighbors and allies win too? Great! If not, phuck em! <--Thats my personal position. So my side of this debate wants an immigration policy where GDP to goes up. Wages to go up. Debt goes down. The population increases with easily assimilated individuals that want to become americans and stay here and as daoneandonly has stated, earns their keep along the way.

So let me help you out a bit. Start with identifying where we are at(in your opinion)...whats good about it (in your opinion) and then figure out where you think the country should go (in your opinion). Cuz you know...that's all we're doing here: Opinion.

my opinion is that you've got self esteem issues and keep putting up your life story in a sad attempt at being taken more seriously.