Political Roundtable Part XXXI

[payitforward]

No, it's not what I think....

I am really glad to read this.

& of course I agree w/ this:

...a legal immigration system is an important benefit to our country and our economy (or at least it should be if designed and implemented wisely.) I think the same can be said for a well crafted guest worker program....

For sure -- on both counts! The problem politically is that, overall, those who pose the current situation as a "crisis" may also regard the crisis as being located in the base fact of "lots" of hispanic people entering the country. Period.

Historically, it needn't be "hispanic", obviously. It can be Irish, Jews, Italians, Poles, etc. If you haven't already done so, you might read about the Immigration Act of 1924 to get a sense of how this has worked in our national political history.

...Alternatively, a system that encourages illegal immigration results in a host of detrimental side effects which are documented and well known to anyone who cares to study the matter.

Inevitably. Just the way outlawing alcohol made the alcohol problem worse, & outlawing marijuana results in a terrific stimulus to a criminal industry! While, of course, neither of these laws actually eliminated use of either substance.

That said, it remains an open question which is worse -- closing the borders effectively (somehow) so that no one gets in vs. people getting into the country illegally. One does not have to be for illegal immigration to regard it as preferable to no immigration.

Going back to my original point about the actual number of, in this case, Mexicans living in the US illegally, I am guessing that most people who speak in the framework of a "crisis" do imagine that we have an increasing tide, even a flood, of illegal Mexicans in the US. Do you think I'm off base in that?

Not to mention people who imagine somehow that increasing our Hispanic population is some kind of negative force towards "changing the national character." Again, do you think I'm over-estimating that? Or even imagining it?

As far as I'm concerned, and with some common sense limits, the more legal migrants we receive from Mexico the better. They're generally a wonderful and hard working people that are a net plus to our economy and culture. Regarding the numbers, I'm not sure and wouldn't trust them even if published by the government. You're probably aware that the Census Bureau totally screwed up the latest national count. We're choking on government incompetence.

If I'm not mistaken, illegal immigration/border security is a top 3 or 4 concern of Americans, right up there with the economy and inflation. Isn't that a major reason we ended up with the last president (because our political leaders ignored those concerns?) I'd rather avoid a replay if possible.

I'm slow in responding because -- if you want to blow your mind -- this is where I am:
https://archaeology-travel.com/france/les-eyzies-the-world-capital-of-prehistory/

Ok... back to immigration (btw, not "migrants" but "immigrants" if they're coming in -- "emigrants" if leaving).

To me, "illegal immigration" is a fear issue, period. &, these days, isn't it pretty much a fear issue specifically about "hispanics?" & maybe also a metaphorical issue representing a fear of "loss of control."

America was built on open borders. & every law restricting immigration that I know of has its goal to prevent people of particular ethnicities, national origins, or religions from coming into the country. That was certainly the point of the 1924 legislation.

What would happen if we had open borders now, do you think?

[pancakes3]

Popper, what everyone's driving at is:

You keep saying "illegal immigration" is a problem, and then casually allude to "border security" but what does that mean? It's not just ambiguous; it seems to allow for diametrically opposite opinions.

1) You're advocating for more immigration so that less people are classified as "illegal"
2) You're advocating for stronger border security so the US can keep the rape and death on the Southern side of the border.

Based on your Republican voting history and your claim that Dems are bad on the issue, which is what made Trump so attractive as a candidate, it suggests that you believe in the latter, but based on your empathy for immigrants, it suggests the former, and that is why everyone is asking for a straight answer out of you, because the follow-up question is - how can you still vote Republican, if the immigration issue is a top 3-4 concern for you, and you're sitting squarely on the Dem side of the issue?

Similarly, re: you citing Barbara Jordan, I don't really know what your specific stance is because the report advocates one thing, but was falsely cited by the previous administration to say another.

https://cmsny.org/publications/martin-barbara-jordan/

More legal immigration makes sense to me assuming we target specific demands for labor in those enterprises that can't otherwise source it domestically. I also believe that minimizing illegal immigration is in our best interest. I don't see any disconnect in logic there.

lol, ok, i should have known better. you're a piece of crap.

[doclinkin]

Popper, what everyone's driving at is:

You keep saying "illegal immigration" is a problem, and then casually allude to "border security" but what does that mean? It's not just ambiguous; it seems to allow for diametrically opposite opinions.

1) You're advocating for more immigration so that less people are classified as "illegal"
2) You're advocating for stronger border security so the US can keep the rape and death on the Southern side of the border.

Based on your Republican voting history and your claim that Dems are bad on the issue, which is what made Trump so attractive as a candidate, it suggests that you believe in the latter, but based on your empathy for immigrants, it suggests the former, and that is why everyone is asking for a straight answer out of you, because the follow-up question is - how can you still vote Republican, if the immigration issue is a top 3-4 concern for you, and you're sitting squarely on the Dem side of the issue?

Similarly, re: you citing Barbara Jordan, I don't really know what your specific stance is because the report advocates one thing, but was falsely cited by the previous administration to say another.

https://cmsny.org/publications/martin-barbara-jordan/

More legal immigration makes sense to me assuming we target specific demands for labor in those enterprises that can't otherwise source it domestically. I also believe that minimizing illegal immigration is in our best interest. I don't see any disconnect in logic there.

lol, ok, i should have known better. you're a piece of crap.

Don't we already expedite immigration and work visas for skilled workers? Seems to me if more funds are poured into INS to add more case workers etc then we can speed up the process of legal immigration for all categories. Asylum seekers, family of US natives, labor, people seeking a better life, whomever. If we are talking about pouring more $$ for caseworkers in INS, then it suggests voting Democrat. Since the R side of the issue solely wants to pour $ into building a wall and militarizing one border. I don't think it really helps convince people to see the issue in a more stark light by dismissing them as a piece of crap if they simply haven't thought deeply about an issue and the implications of their vote so far. Seems to me you have popper engaging in a conversation about it and being persuaded that there is some hypocrisy in the position of people on the side he has voted for. He also admits he hadn't really researched it, etc. (beyond overhearing some slanted talking points). Sounds to me like he is open to hearing the argument, and at that point you can appeal to people with logic. Which frankly is rare nowadays. Otherwise we just fall back into our particular clan, where any of us can say whomever doesn't believe as I do is a human waste product.

I'd say the people who are writing these policies, cynically and with sociopathic knowledge of the results of their laws, yeah, they are a septic waste of misspent DNA. But people who have been swayed by their powerful propaganda machine do not have to be. Can learn and change. If of course they hear better arguments than: You Equals Turd.

[dckingsfan]

More legal immigration makes sense to me assuming we target specific demands for labor in those enterprises that can't otherwise source it domestically. I also believe that minimizing illegal immigration is in our best interest. I don't see any disconnect in logic there.

lol, ok, i should have known better. you're a piece of crap.

Don't we already expedite immigration and work visas for skilled workers? Seems to me if more funds are poured into INS to add more case workers etc then we can speed up the process of legal immigration for all categories. Asylum seekers, family of US natives, labor, people seeking a better life, whomever. If we are talking about pouring more $$ for caseworkers in INS, then it suggests voting Democrat. Since the R side of the issue solely wants to pour $ into building a wall and militarizing one border. I don't think it really helps convince people to see the issue in a more stark light by dismissing them as a piece of crap if they simply haven't thought deeply about an issue and the implications of their vote so far. Seems to me you have popper engaging in a conversation about it and being persuaded that there is some hypocrisy in the position of people on the side he has voted for. He also admits he hadn't really researched it, etc. (beyond overhearing some slanted talking points). Sounds to me like he is open to hearing the argument, and at that point you can appeal to people with logic. Which frankly is rare nowadays. Otherwise we just fall back into our particular clan, where any of us can say whomever doesn't believe as I do is a human waste product.

I'd say the people who are writing these policies, cynically and with sociopathic knowledge of the results of their laws, yeah, they are a septic waste of misspent DNA. But people who have been swayed by their powerful propaganda machine do not have to be. Can learn and change. If of course they hear better arguments than: You Equals Turd.

Add frustration meets Cognitive dissonance meets willful ignorance meets complexity horizons.

The cognitive dissonance arises when on realizes that their tribe is on the wrong side of the equation to what they actually believe.

The willful ignorance comes when one has no idea how the tribe they are voting for actually is voting.

And the complexity horizon comes into play when one can't understand how a policy effects other systems. In this case, how it affects the economy and systematic racism.

You can see pancakes frustration as well. It is like trying to explain that there was no voter fraud only to be met with a visceral emotional - "yes there was" - with no proof.

[popper]

Popper, what everyone's driving at is:

You keep saying "illegal immigration" is a problem, and then casually allude to "border security" but what does that mean? It's not just ambiguous; it seems to allow for diametrically opposite opinions.

1) You're advocating for more immigration so that less people are classified as "illegal"
2) You're advocating for stronger border security so the US can keep the rape and death on the Southern side of the border.

Based on your Republican voting history and your claim that Dems are bad on the issue, which is what made Trump so attractive as a candidate, it suggests that you believe in the latter, but based on your empathy for immigrants, it suggests the former, and that is why everyone is asking for a straight answer out of you, because the follow-up question is - how can you still vote Republican, if the immigration issue is a top 3-4 concern for you, and you're sitting squarely on the Dem side of the issue?

Similarly, re: you citing Barbara Jordan, I don't really know what your specific stance is because the report advocates one thing, but was falsely cited by the previous administration to say another.

https://cmsny.org/publications/martin-barbara-jordan/

More legal immigration makes sense to me assuming we target specific demands for labor in those enterprises that can't otherwise source it domestically. I also believe that minimizing illegal immigration is in our best interest. I don't see any disconnect in logic there.

lol, ok, i should have known better. you're a piece of crap.

Wow. Okay Pancakes. I don't need to continue posting here if it causes such severe consternation. I'll return to read-only mode. I wish you the best.

[dckingsfan]

Wow. Okay Pancakes. I don't need to continue posting here if it causes such severe consternation. I'll return to read-only mode. I wish you the best.

Before you go...

Have you thought about researching the positions on immigration of the politicians you vote for?

Possibly research the pros/cons of immigration on the economy?

Possibly research the impact of US policies on migration away from Central America? Did you research the position of the last R POTUS with respect to ANY immigration?

Did you know that Republicans are not only less likely to support increasing legal immigration but also more likely to support reducing legal immigration. Almost half of Republicans (47 percent and now it has fallen in the low 40s) said legal immigration should be decreased, compared with just 16 percent of Democrats. Can you see how this is in conflict with what you have posted?

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/report_republicans-democrats-different-worlds-on-immigration_20191008.pdf

[pancakes3]

Don't we already expedite immigration and work visas for skilled workers? Seems to me if more funds are poured into INS to add more case workers etc then we can speed up the process of legal immigration for all categories. Asylum seekers, family of US natives, labor, people seeking a better life, whomever. If we are talking about pouring more $$ for caseworkers in INS, then it suggests voting Democrat. Since the R side of the issue solely wants to pour $ into building a wall and militarizing one border. I don't think it really helps convince people to see the issue in a more stark light by dismissing them as a piece of crap if they simply haven't thought deeply about an issue and the implications of their vote so far. Seems to me you have popper engaging in a conversation about it and being persuaded that there is some hypocrisy in the position of people on the side he has voted for. He also admits he hadn't really researched it, etc. (beyond overhearing some slanted talking points). Sounds to me like he is open to hearing the argument, and at that point you can appeal to people with logic. Which frankly is rare nowadays. Otherwise we just fall back into our particular clan, where any of us can say whomever doesn't believe as I do is a human waste product.

I'd say the people who are writing these policies, cynically and with sociopathic knowledge of the results of their laws, yeah, they are a septic waste of misspent DNA. But people who have been swayed by their powerful propaganda machine do not have to be. Can learn and change. If of course they hear better arguments than: You Equals Turd.

Popper's a grown man who self-professed that he's done a lot of research into the topic, and snippily told Dobro to do his own research upthread.

It's also not my job or yours to educate Popper, and truthfully it doesn't really matter if he sees the light or not.

Plus he was already spoonfed the issues and he still came back to a really crappy conclusion. He started out with a compassionate stance where he wanted to limit deaths and rapes (human suffering) in the immigration process and ended in a fascist-y place where his policy goals were to exploit cheap human labor from the South in targeted industries where labor can't be sourced domestically while minimizing "illegal" immigration. It's already been shoved in his face by multiple posters that the two stances are opposite, and to clarify what he means, and he made it clear that he's on the faschy, humans-are-commodities, keep-the-rest-out position, which spits in the face of the crocodile tears he was shedding earlier about the exploited.

He has not addressed any of the issues that other people have brought up, re: open borders, re: the need for documentation, re: the Republican stance on immigration and how he reconciles his beliefs with those policies, or even with his own cited study by Barbara Jordan.

He's a piece of crap. I feel like that's a pretty mild insult for a message board. If he doesn't like it, he can (metaphorically) fight me, present his arguments as to why he's not a piece of crap, or alternatively call me a piece of crap because I believe that the immigration policy should actually prevent deaths, rapes, and human suffering.

I find it tiring to treat Popper and other conservatives on this board with kid gloves out of some hope to bringinging them to the light. They don't want to. They're willfully ignorant. Even when they say the right thing - like how caravan deaths and human trafficking is a travesty and should be stopped, they still end up saying "well, at the end of the day, illegal immigration is bad"

It's the same conversation that's been had a million times between a million conversations between liberals and conservatives:

R: Being in this country without proper documentation is bad.
D: Yeah? I guess, by the letter of the law it is. But if the problem is documentation, why not give those people documentation? Then they won't be without documentation, and won't be illegal.
R: Well now... can't just give out documentation to everyone - how about just to those who won't TAKE OUR JOBS?

Ok, so it was xenophobia all along. Cool. Piece. Of. Crap.

Clutching your pearls because I called someone a turd for saying turdy things is tone policing and missing the point of the substance of what has been argued.

This is not a political/partisan opinion. Believing that other people don't deserve to live in America is a horrific, xenophobic opinion, and deserves to be called out as such. Couching it as "minimizing illegal immigration" is cowardly, and intellectually dishonest - ESPECIALLY after pretending to be pious re: the deaths and rapes of those who attempt to immigrate.

Again, he's a grown adult, who votes, and allegedly has read multiple whitepapers on the subject. If he still boomerangs back to tissue-thin talking points about how we need to secure the border against illegals, then he is human waste product - at least metaphorically.

[payitforward]

Popper, what everyone's driving at is:

You keep saying "illegal immigration" is a problem, and then casually allude to "border security" but what does that mean? It's not just ambiguous; it seems to allow for diametrically opposite opinions.

1) You're advocating for more immigration so that less people are classified as "illegal"
2) You're advocating for stronger border security so the US can keep the rape and death on the Southern side of the border.

Based on your Republican voting history and your claim that Dems are bad on the issue, which is what made Trump so attractive as a candidate, it suggests that you believe in the latter, but based on your empathy for immigrants, it suggests the former, and that is why everyone is asking for a straight answer out of you, because the follow-up question is - how can you still vote Republican, if the immigration issue is a top 3-4 concern for you, and you're sitting squarely on the Dem side of the issue?

Similarly, re: you citing Barbara Jordan, I don't really know what your specific stance is because the report advocates one thing, but was falsely cited by the previous administration to say another.

https://cmsny.org/publications/martin-barbara-jordan/

More legal immigration makes sense to me assuming we target specific demands for labor in those enterprises that can't otherwise source it domestically. I also believe that minimizing illegal immigration is in our best interest. I don't see any disconnect in logic there.

Well... I don't want to get too demanding in reviewing a sentence in an online post, which may not have been thought through w/ a lot of care, but...

"Immigration" is not about meeting "specific demands for labor" that one "can't... source... domestically." That's bad social policy, & it's bad economics too. In fact, you want a quick trip to the bottom of the pack? Restrict immigration, & you've got an outstanding start.

Maybe you should consider how many new companies -- & new industries too, for that matter -- have been founded by immigrants. Who, for example, do you think founded Intel?

As I pointed out earlier -- ALL restrictions on immigration are actually attempts to restrict increases in particular ethnic groups, national origins, religions, etc. That is ALL without exception -- feel free to try to find one (by any country at any point in time) that isn't exactly that. In particular, look at the history of immigration policy in this country.

& motivating every one of those attempts to restrict is prejudice or xenophobia or the like -- human failings that do nothing positive economically or socially.

All human beings are subject to prejudice; all of us carry around prejudices of many kinds. But those who erect edifices of theory based on them (e.g. the construction of racism as a theory in the 19th century -- it didn't exist before then) are a particularly low sort of human being on my view (I'm prejudiced against them).

Don't get me wrong, popper -- I'm not accusing you personally of anything along these lines. I don't know you. But, the positions you take on this issue make me suspect that you might be believing some baseless ideological stuff of this kind. I'd be happy to be wrong in that thought!

[popper]

Life is too short and I don't want to live what's left of mine in anger. I don't want to offend anyone on this thread with opinions that may be anathema to Pancakes or Wizardspride or others. I appreciate the mature and measured responses from Doc and PIF. Carry on gentlemen and I'll continue to enjoy reading your posts.

[montestewart]

Don't we already expedite immigration and work visas for skilled workers? Seems to me if more funds are poured into INS to add more case workers etc then we can speed up the process of legal immigration for all categories. Asylum seekers, family of US natives, labor, people seeking a better life, whomever. If we are talking about pouring more $$ for caseworkers in INS, then it suggests voting Democrat. Since the R side of the issue solely wants to pour $ into building a wall and militarizing one border. I don't think it really helps convince people to see the issue in a more stark light by dismissing them as a piece of crap if they simply haven't thought deeply about an issue and the implications of their vote so far. Seems to me you have popper engaging in a conversation about it and being persuaded that there is some hypocrisy in the position of people on the side he has voted for. He also admits he hadn't really researched it, etc. (beyond overhearing some slanted talking points). Sounds to me like he is open to hearing the argument, and at that point you can appeal to people with logic. Which frankly is rare nowadays. Otherwise we just fall back into our particular clan, where any of us can say whomever doesn't believe as I do is a human waste product.

I'd say the people who are writing these policies, cynically and with sociopathic knowledge of the results of their laws, yeah, they are a septic waste of misspent DNA. But people who have been swayed by their powerful propaganda machine do not have to be. Can learn and change. If of course they hear better arguments than: You Equals Turd.

Popper's a grown man who self-professed that he's done a lot of research into the topic, and snippily told Dobro to do his own research upthread.

It's also not my job or yours to educate Popper, and truthfully it doesn't really matter if he sees the light or not.

Plus he was already spoonfed the issues and he still came back to a really crappy conclusion. He started out with a compassionate stance where he wanted to limit deaths and rapes (human suffering) in the immigration process and ended in a fascist-y place where his policy goals were to exploit cheap human labor from the South in targeted industries where labor can't be sourced domestically while minimizing "illegal" immigration. It's already been shoved in his face by multiple posters that the two stances are opposite, and to clarify what he means, and he made it clear that he's on the faschy, humans-are-commodities, keep-the-rest-out position, which spits in the face of the crocodile tears he was shedding earlier about the exploited.

He has not addressed any of the issues that other people have brought up, re: open borders, re: the need for documentation, re: the Republican stance on immigration and how he reconciles his beliefs with those policies, or even with his own cited study by Barbara Jordan.

He's a piece of crap. I feel like that's a pretty mild insult for a message board. If he doesn't like it, he can (metaphorically) fight me, present his arguments as to why he's not a piece of crap, or alternatively call me a piece of crap because I believe that the immigration policy should actually prevent deaths, rapes, and human suffering.

I find it tiring to treat Popper and other conservatives on this board with kid gloves out of some hope to bringinging them to the light. They don't want to. They're willfully ignorant. Even when they say the right thing - like how caravan deaths and human trafficking is a travesty and should be stopped, they still end up saying "well, at the end of the day, illegal immigration is bad"

It's the same conversation that's been had a million times between a million conversations between liberals and conservatives:

R: Being in this country without proper documentation is bad.
D: Yeah? I guess, by the letter of the law it is. But if the problem is documentation, why not give those people documentation? Then they won't be without documentation, and won't be illegal.
R: Well now... can't just give out documentation to everyone - how about just to those who won't TAKE OUR JOBS?

Ok, so it was xenophobia all along. Cool. Piece. Of. Crap.

Clutching your pearls because I called someone a turd for saying turdy things is tone policing and missing the point of the substance of what has been argued.

This is not a political/partisan opinion. Believing that other people don't deserve to live in America is a horrific, xenophobic opinion, and deserves to be called out as such. Couching it as "minimizing illegal immigration" is cowardly, and intellectually dishonest - ESPECIALLY after pretending to be pious re: the deaths and rapes of those who attempt to immigrate.

Again, he's a grown adult, who votes, and allegedly has read multiple whitepapers on the subject. If he still boomerangs back to tissue-thin talking points about how we need to secure the border against illegals, then he is human waste product - at least metaphorically.

Stop calling Popper (or anyone here) a piece of crap. Look at doc and PIF, they don’t need that, and neither do you.

Popper, I see multiple very specific, well stated, and well supported points from multiple posters regarding immigration policy. Name calling is frowned upon here, but I can relate to the frustration, as you seem to dance around these points with a vague variation of “compassionare conservatism” which allows you to support policies crafted as red meat bullets for the right wing base, while wearing a look of caring.

It’s not easy to jump ship, Popper. Maybe it’s not where you thought you’d end up, but Trump drastically moved the bar and appears to dragging you with him. I know lots of moderate Republicans. Some of them became Never Trumpers. Some allowed Trumpism to seduce them far to the right of their former views. Then there is a third group of people that appear as before except they dance around conflicts between their own personal views and those of Trump’s party.

I suspect, Popper, that you are in this third group, not ready to leave the party and uncomfortably making do, because it seems closer to your American ideal than what the Democratic Party offers. Until you either completely embrace Trumpism (racism, xenophobia, stolen election, windmills, etc.) or reject the party because of Trumpism, you will continue to be confronted over contradictions within the middle ground you are trying to occupy.

[Pointgod]

Policy-wise, no question. Electability....

Demmings ought to have a shot to knock off Little Marco. Not holding my breath though.

I’d look at electability with a heavy dose of skepticism. Marco Rubio is a hypocrite and sniveling coward that’s done nothing for the majority of people in Florida. In fact he’s voted and blocked legislation that’s widely popular with Florida. He’s the embodiment of everything people hate about politicians. He only won his race by 600,000 votes in 2016. How many young people have been eligible to vote since then? How many are organizing for Demmings and Democratic candidates.

Democrats run people normal people who happen to be competent. Republicans run lunatics like Gym Jordan who are only electable because of Gerrymandering and low voter turnout. Just look at this idiot below. You can’t tell me he’s electable. Side note I love the reaction of the guys face when he goes from laughing to realizing this dude is a complete muppet.

Do you think a more liberal, and to my way of think, better candidate than Biden, would
have won the 2020 presidential race? Personally I have my doubts.

We have to win elections in the country we have, not the country we wish we had
to paraphrase Rumsfeld.

I’m convinced more than ever that 2020 was a turn out election against Trump vs turning out for Joe Biden. There was record voter participation and turn out which with all due respect to Biden wasn’t simply for him. Where I do think Biden helped was on the margins as to not completely repel some more right leaning voters and also convincing some to vote for him. I’m not entirely convinced that Mayor Pete who is to the left of Biden couldn’t have won. I think it’s harder to make the case for Bernie and Elizabeth Warren who are much further left than Mayor Pete but I wouldn’t entirely rule them out either.

Donald Trump was not electable, but 100,000 dipshits in 3 states either decided to vote for Trump, despite previously voting for a Democrat, vote for the Green Party or just not bother to turnup. Take your pick, plenty of blame to go around for that ****. The Democratic Party needs to focus on their brand instead of individual candidates. I think 2020 is an encouraging sign that if Democrats consistently vote they’ll win and eventually get their policies implemented.

[popper]

Well thanks for the opportunity for one last post Monte. I engaged in this border security/immigration conversation without ever once bringing up politics or party affiliation. It's not relevant yet almost everyone else did. Wise public policy is not a monopoly of R or D. It should be argued on merit alone. I don't live and breath politics. I've never been a Trump supporter (although I did vote for him having been forced into a choice between bad or worse). I've mentioned here before that I would have voted for Democrat Jim Webb over Trump.

Having reached the ripe old age of 66 I have learned that so much of our world is filled with nuance and context. A poster here can jot down a few paragraphs of opinion and then others mistakenly believe that they can discern the essence of the argument. It's simply not possible. We would better understand one another over a long dinner that stretches late into the evening. Then much of the nuance and context would be better understood.

I understand that I may be an outlier here in my religious beliefs but one biblical quote has always checked my perceptions and judgements of other peoples' motivations and the world in which we live and struggle.

God said,

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts (Isaiah 55 v 8 & 9).

This quote humbles any certainty I may reach for with my own personal beliefs, opinions and judgements (on my best days at least).

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Republicans flipping the US House and Democrats keeping the US Senate seems to becoming more and more likely

These numbers are actually a lot worse for Republicans than they appear. Remember the blue wave in 2018? It came in a year that was beneficial for Democrats and they led the generic ballot by 8-10 points heading intro be midterm.

Republicans by contrast should be running away with this thing and they’re tied with Democrats on the generic ballot. If they fall behind Democrats might slightly expand their numbers in the House. McConnell has all but given up the Senate.

[dobrojim]

I’d look at electability with a heavy dose of skepticism. Marco Rubio is a hypocrite and sniveling coward that’s done nothing for the majority of people in Florida. In fact he’s voted and blocked legislation that’s widely popular with Florida. He’s the embodiment of everything people hate about politicians. He only won his race by 600,000 votes in 2016. How many young people have been eligible to vote since then? How many are organizing for Demmings and Democratic candidates.

Democrats run people normal people who happen to be competent. Republicans run lunatics like Gym Jordan who are only electable because of Gerrymandering and low voter turnout. Just look at this idiot below. You can’t tell me he’s electable. Side note I love the reaction of the guys face when he goes from laughing to realizing this dude is a complete muppet.

Do you think a more liberal, and to my way of think, better candidate than Biden, would
have won the 2020 presidential race? Personally I have my doubts.

We have to win elections in the country we have, not the country we wish we had
to paraphrase Rumsfeld.

I’m convinced more than ever that 2020 was a turn out election against Trump vs turning out for Joe Biden. There was record voter participation and turn out which with all due respect to Biden wasn’t simply for him. Where I do think Biden helped was on the margins as to not completely repel some more right leaning voters and also convincing some to vote for him. I’m not entirely convinced that Mayor Pete who is to the left of Biden couldn’t have won. I think it’s harder to make the case for Bernie and Elizabeth Warren who are much further left than Mayor Pete but I wouldn’t entirely rule them out either.

Donald Trump was not electable, but 100,000 dipshits in 3 states either decided to vote for Trump, despite previously voting for a Democrat, vote for the Green Party or just not bother to turnup. Take your pick, plenty of blame to go around for that ****. The Democratic Party needs to focus on their brand instead of individual candidates. I think 2020 is an encouraging sign that if Democrats consistently vote they’ll win and eventually get their policies implemented.

Given how close 2020 actually was, it's not clear to me that a candidate other than Biden
would have beaten Trump. Perhaps I have that view because of a few people I know
who say things like they wouldn't have voted for Bernie.

I agree/believe many voters, actually on both sides myself included, cast their votes more against one side
than for the other. That said, a whole heckuva lot of Trump voters do cast their votes FOR Trump.
He speaks what they believe to be the truth and a truth other pols had not previously
been willing to speak. The fact that it's drunk uncle truth doesn't deter them.
They love their uncle and think he's a smart/cool/courageous guy.

For better or worse (arguably worse), I beleieve Biden was as liberal a candidate as could
have been elected POTUS given razor thin margins in the swing states. Trump barely lost
AZ, GA and WI. Enough people felt safe to cast for Biden that saved the country,
for now, from outright fascism.

If so much were not at stake, it would be an interesting experiment to see if a
true or more progressive candidate such as Warren would actually get the turnout
needed to win ie to get 270 EC votes.

I don't think Mayor Pete would have done it. Too much homophobia although one
might have believed there was too much racism to elect BHO. There clearly has been
a racist backlash to Obama which is what gave us Trump.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=5snYKd3aw205Krn3nqsGzA&s=19

[dobrojim]

Just now seeing that cakes had a similar take on this conservation as I had

I don't know the answer to your first question. I haven't researched it and the answer wouldn't influence my opinion on the border situation. Why would it?

Agree with your statement about top concerns being influenced by political affiliation.

Given what I know and how the political landscape has changed dramatically in the last 20 years
regarding immigration, I strongly suspect the answer to the question of which republicans would
support a maximally increased level of immigration is NONE. You have stated the border situation
is in crisis and that this is important to you. You have previously hinted if not outright
stated your political leanings are conservative. I'm suffering cognitive dissonance with
this combination of observations.

You think immigration is a very important issue.
You think the levels of legal immigration should be dramatically increased.
You are a fairly staunch republican.
No prominent republicans agree with your immigration position.

What did I get wrong?

1. Yes
2. Legal immigration should be modulated (increased or reduced) based upon job specific employer needs. Currently there seems to be a number of specific job categories that could use an influx. I did read recently however that a large percentage of companies intend to start laying off employees. Not sure how that will play out.
3. I am a registered Independent in FL that almost always votes R. I consider myself a conservative if that means conserving those institutions and policies that IMO benefit my family, myself and the country.
4. You may or may not be right. I simply don't know the preferred policy positions on this subject from hundreds of R's serving in congress. I hesitate to define any of them as prominent.

Prominent - in leadership roles - start with McConnell and McCarthy

Let me suggest that since you've indicated the importance of immigration to you,
maybe you ought to investigate whether the actual votes cast on legislation, as opposed to policy
statements some might issue, actually are what you support. You've admitted you have
no idea how the pols you have supported vote(d) on what you feel is important.

The same scrutiny might ought to be applied more generally as to whether the institutions
and the policies actually produce results that are to the benefit of you, your family or the country.
We should all do that.

Thank you.

[payitforward]

Life is too short and I don't want to live what's left of mine in anger. I don't want to offend anyone on this thread with opinions that may be anathema to Pancakes or Wizardspride or others. I appreciate the mature and measured responses from Doc and PIF. Carry on gentlemen and I'll continue to enjoy reading your posts.

Fair enough -- but, you haven't responded to any of the points i raised in those "mature and measured responses." Nor are those points simply "opinions." You're not required to, of course. But, if you are unwilling to, then I do wish to question whether you are a "conservative" in the sense of wishing to maintain policies which have, overall, proved positive in their impact.

OTOH, I'd like to put aside your desire to eliminate human disaster at the Southern border, which I don't doubt but which is not related to the question of our national immigration policies/laws.

On the latter front, you've said one thing: you think we should let in people who are able to fill specific jobs in specific industries where those jobs in those industries cannot be filled by people already in the country.

Do I have that right? Is that the full extent of your proposed "immigration policy?"

Don't you feel that there's more to it than that -- or ought to be?
Are you aware that in fact the debate about immigration -- now or at any time, in this or any country -- is always a debate about much more than that?
Have you looked into your own country's immigration policy over time? E.g. do you know what the major laws & changes of law have been?

In particular, b/c of its scale & the significance of its effects, are you aware of the Immigration act of 1924 & what it contained & effected? How about the Immigration acts of 1952, 1955, 1965 & 1990?

Asking these questions is, I know, eo ipso a challenge. But, I don't think it's an unreasonable one. It asks no more of you than to support your point of view on the basis of knowledge. &, because I view you as a rational & ethical human being, it represents my conviction that once you try to that, you'll find that you can't.

I might not be right, of course. But, if I am right, then you'll have put yourself in a position where you have to rethink your POV on immigration. Where you have to think it through, all the way through, & that is my interest in this debate, that & only that: to see what happens to your position on this subject once you think it through. Or, if you are already familiar with the history of US immigration policy, I'd like to hear from you how it affects your position.

[popper]

Life is too short and I don't want to live what's left of mine in anger. I don't want to offend anyone on this thread with opinions that may be anathema to Pancakes or Wizardspride or others. I appreciate the mature and measured responses from Doc and PIF. Carry on gentlemen and I'll continue to enjoy reading your posts.

Fair enough -- but, you haven't responded to any of the points i raised in those "mature and measured responses." Nor are those points simply "opinions." You're not required to, of course. But, if you are unwilling to, then I do wish to question whether you are a "conservative" in the sense of wishing to maintain policies which have, overall, proved positive in their impact.

OTOH, I'd like to put aside your desire to eliminate human disaster at the Southern border, which I don't doubt but which is not related to the question of our national immigration policies/laws.

On the latter front, you've said one thing: you think we should let in people who are able to fill specific jobs in specific industries where those jobs in those industries cannot be filled by people already in the country.

Do I have that right? Is that the full extent of your proposed "immigration policy?"

Don't you feel that there's more to it than that -- or ought to be?
Are you aware that in fact the debate about immigration -- now or at any time, in this or any country -- is always a debate about much more than that?
Have you looked into your own country's immigration policy over time? E.g. do you know what the major laws & changes of law have been?

In particular, b/c of its scale & the significance of its effects, are you aware of the Immigration act of 1924 & what it contained & effected? How about the Immigration acts of 1952, 1955, 1965 & 1990?

Asking these questions is, I know, eo ipso a challenge. But, I don't think it's an unreasonable one. It asks no more of you than to support your point of view on the basis of knowledge. &, because I view you as a rational & ethical human being, it represents my conviction that once you try to that, you'll find that you can't.

I might not be right, of course. But, if I am right, then you'll have put yourself in a position where you have to rethink your POV on immigration. Where you have to think it through, all the way through, & that is my interest in this debate, that & only that: to see what happens to your position on this subject once you think it through. Or, if you are already familiar with the history of US immigration policy, I'd like to hear from you how it affects your position.

I'm trying to extricate myself from the thread PIF. I unintentionally but severely offended some with my opinions and became human excrement in the process . If you asked me to write an immigration plan that is coherent and defensible and asked how long that might take, my quick answer would be approximately 4 months. Two months of research, one week of outline, three weeks of murder board, two weeks to write and two weeks for lawyers to clean up my grammar and convert to proper legalise. That's just a guess. Maybe you or others here could do it much faster. If so, good for you.

So no, I didn't scratch the surface of what a Popper immigration plan might look like. And I certainly don't pretend to know what anybody else's plan would look like even though they've scribbled a few paragraphs of generalized thoughts on the subject. In any event, I appreciate your interest and I do look forward to reading your thoughts here. Keep posting.

PS - I'm doing a transatlantic cruise this spring ending up in Barcelona. I was planning a few extra weeks in Spain and Portugal but I was fascinated with your link to the valley in France and will try to add that to my itinerary.

[Pointgod]

Like I was saying before this should be the warning signs for Republicans. I think the House is still in play for Republicans but there’s a definite momentum shift.

This was huge. All the polls had the Republican winning by 8-10 points. That’s a 10-12 point swing in a year favourable to Republicans.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Boom!

Read on Twitter

Republicans and TGW must be heartbroken right now.

[payitforward]

Life is too short and I don't want to live what's left of mine in anger. I don't want to offend anyone on this thread with opinions that may be anathema to Pancakes or Wizardspride or others. I appreciate the mature and measured responses from Doc and PIF. Carry on gentlemen and I'll continue to enjoy reading your posts.

Fair enough -- but, you haven't responded to any of the points i raised in those "mature and measured responses." Nor are those points simply "opinions." You're not required to, of course. But, if you are unwilling to, then I do wish to question whether you are a "conservative" in the sense of wishing to maintain policies which have, overall, proved positive in their impact.

OTOH, I'd like to put aside your desire to eliminate human disaster at the Southern border, which I don't doubt but which is not related to the question of our national immigration policies/laws.

On the latter front, you've said one thing: you think we should let in people who are able to fill specific jobs in specific industries where those jobs in those industries cannot be filled by people already in the country.

Do I have that right? Is that the full extent of your proposed "immigration policy?"

Don't you feel that there's more to it than that -- or ought to be?
Are you aware that in fact the debate about immigration -- now or at any time, in this or any country -- is always a debate about much more than that?
Have you looked into your own country's immigration policy over time? E.g. do you know what the major laws & changes of law have been?

In particular, b/c of its scale & the significance of its effects, are you aware of the Immigration act of 1924 & what it contained & effected? How about the Immigration acts of 1952, 1955, 1965 & 1990?

Asking these questions is, I know, eo ipso a challenge. But, I don't think it's an unreasonable one. It asks no more of you than to support your point of view on the basis of knowledge. &, because I view you as a rational & ethical human being, it represents my conviction that once you try to that, you'll find that you can't.

I might not be right, of course. But, if I am right, then you'll have put yourself in a position where you have to rethink your POV on immigration. Where you have to think it through, all the way through, & that is my interest in this debate, that & only that: to see what happens to your position on this subject once you think it through. Or, if you are already familiar with the history of US immigration policy, I'd like to hear from you how it affects your position.

I'm trying to extricate myself from the thread PIF. I unintentionally but severely offended some with my opinions and became human excrement in the process . If you asked me to write an immigration plan that is coherent and defensible and asked how long that might take, my quick answer would be approximately 4 months. Two months of research, one week of outline, three weeks of murder board, two weeks to write and two weeks for lawyers to clean up my grammar and convert to proper legalise. That's just a guess. Maybe you or others here could do it much faster. If so, good for you.

So no, I didn't scratch the surface of what a Popper immigration plan might look like. And I certainly don't pretend to know what anybody else's plan would look like even though they've scribbled a few paragraphs of generalized thoughts on the subject. In any event, I appreciate your interest and I do look forward to reading your thoughts here. Keep posting.

PS - I'm doing a transatlantic cruise this spring ending up in Barcelona. I was planning a few extra weeks in Spain and Portugal but I was fascinated with your link to the valley in France and will try to add that to my itinerary.

1. Ok... consider yourself extricated! But, I still think you should try to gain an understanding of how deep the influence is of jingoism & prejudice on immigration policy.

2. The Perigord is beautiful, to be sure. Above all the presence here of so much that comes from prehistory -- from 35,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago -- is utterly amazing. Meanwhile, alas, I'm missing 3 caves today (& who knows what else in the next week) b/c I tested positive for Covid this morning!

3. Do read the Martin Walker mystery novels about Bruno Chief of Police -- set in a tiny town (invented) around here. They're in the library, & they're terrific.

4. OTOH, don't eliminate Portugal! A wonderful place -- in fact, we were all set to fly to Lisbon tomorrow! We have good friends there & were going to drive down to the Algarve for a week on the beach. Not happening now...

5. Barcelona is a great, great city. & the province of Andalucia in the South is also wonderful: Granada, Cordoba, Seville, Malaga, Cadiz.

Can't go wrong, really... you'll have an amazing experience.