Political Roundtable Part VIII

[TGW]

On a side note....El Chapo just threatened ISIS. Somehow, ISIS destroyed one of his drug packages.

Funny stuff...

[Induveca]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. The question seems to be "Has Trump gone too far with his plan to ban all Muslims?" The responses (as presented in the photo) would seem to indicate that whites are far more likely to say "no" -- meaning they do not think Trump has gone too far.

Hispanics and Blacks are the ones who said "No". The way I read it is that Hispanics and AA's are fine with Trump's policy, while some (but not too many) whites think he has gone too far. It would appear that that wild, crazy, racist, bigoted, woman-hating, white supremacist Donald Trump understands America better than most on this board.

I won't disagree with that, most people in America are *extremely* proud of their ignorance. Into my later years now, and I've long ago stopped being shocked by comments such as:

"Why would I visit Europe when I live in the greatest country in the world!"

If there are two choices, and Trump doesn't go independent, the guy really does have an excellent chance of winning. This is the problem with having only two choices. Should be 3 at a minimum.

[TheSecretWeapon]

On a side note....El Chapo just threatened ISIS. Somehow, ISIS destroyed one of his drug packages.

Funny stuff...

Already de-bunked. A blogger says he made it up. It was a satirical story he never meant for anyone to take seriously.

[nate33]

A new poll suggests that a plurality of Americans favor a temporary ban on Muslim immigration like the one proposed by Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

The survey by conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports found that 46 percent of likely voters would favor a policy preventing Muslim immigrants from entering the country until tighter screening procedures can be implemented, while 40 percent would oppose such a measure.

Among likely Republican voters, 66 percent would support the ban, while 24 percent would oppose it.

Just 30 percent of likely Democratic voters would favor the proposed ban, while 55 percent said they would oppose it.

Those with no party affiliation said they would support the ban by a 45–39 margin.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262763-plurality-favor-trumps-muslim-ban-in-new-poll

[Zonkerbl]

I think Trump has exposed the black racist underbelly of the US.

So if you think there is no more racism in the US you are wrong.

I think what Nate is trying to ask is what is so wrong with racism anyway? We are all programmed by evolution to be loyal to our tribe so in a sense it is just human nature, and we evolved that way precisely so that we would be better at forming communities. And there's nothing wrong with that.

So let me take a stab. Let me start out by saying I'm not going to invoke the slippery slope, if we ignore racism we'll end up with another Hitler, argument. I don't think that's true anyway. So assuming we've evolved enough as a society not to have to worry about Hitler II showing up, why should we still care about eliminating racism?

Suppose you are a latino, or an african american, or a native american, or some other minority. The white majority has all the advantages, is blithely ignorant of the advantages it has, and frankly doesn't care if people outside the white tribe are suffering. They're not part of my tribe so why should I care? Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that that situation describes the United States current racial politics. Why is that a bad thing?

So one, that's bs. If you, white male Christian, think it's ok to ignore the (relative) suffering of minorities than you are a bad Christian.

Two, it's unfair to the minority, and in a certain sense we are all minorities and to support the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution we should be fair to everybody.

Three, it's in your best interests anyway. This is something that's very hard for non-economists to understand. Economic growth is not a zero sum game. If a member of a competing tribe "wins" by securing a higher income, my tribe wins to by getting an opportunity to sell stuff to the other tribe. Now if the other tribe secured its win by invading my land and stealing all my stuff from me than that's a loss. But if the other tribe secures its economic win by investing in physical capital (like a railroad) or in human capital (like education), my tribe doesn't lose anything.

If you see a certain group of the population that is not doing well as it should, that is an OPPORTUNITY to invest in that group and make everybody better off. Helping minorities overcome institutional obstacles to economic development is in our interest.

So being racist means you are a bad Christian and a bad Capitalist.

[nate33]

The issue I have with your premise, Zonker, is that you continue to conflate domestic policy with immigration policy.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that America remains slightly racist (and I think that's the case, but it's the case with ALL races within America. Every race has a bit of "tribalism" within them, it's just that whites are the only ones who are blamed for it, and they're the only ones who feel guilty about it.) This is a problem, it's a problem that must be overcome. As Americans, we need to try and find ways to work together to make sure there is fair opportunity for all. I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with that, even those that lean more toward the "racist" end of the spectrum.

But that doesn't mean we need to COMPOUND the problem by bringing in more and more people who will all feel their own sense of tribalism and make things worse. If you are in a hole, stop digging! Why is this such an evil concept?

[Zonkerbl]

The issue I have with your premise, Zonker, is that you continue to conflate domestic policy with immigration policy.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that America remains slightly racist (and I think that's the case, but it's the case with ALL races within America. Every race has a bit of "tribalism" within them, it's just that whites are the only ones who are blamed for it, and they're the only ones who feel guilty about it.) This is a problem, it's a problem that must be overcome. As Americans, we need to try and find ways to work together to make sure there is fair opportunity for all. I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with that, even those that lean more toward the "racist" end of the spectrum.

But that doesn't mean we need to COMPOUND the problem by bringing in more and more people who will all feel their own sense of tribalism and make things worse. If you are in a hole, stop digging! Why is this such an evil concept?

The only reason to feel guilty about racism is if you are aware of your own racism but continue to do nothing about it. If you are being racist and defending it then you should feel guilty. Racism is wrong.

Same logic applies to immigration - if anyone, anywhere in the world successfully invests in physical or human capital, everybody everywhere else in the world benefits. We can help people by giving them trade opportunities, by signing free trade agreements, or we can provide humanitarian aid (which doesn't work terribly well, I'm afraid) or we can let them move here and invest in themselves. As long as they aren't invading like a mongolian horde and torching and burning things as they go we will be better off for letting people move here and improve their lives.

I think the world needs a healthy, wealthy, happy US muslim population. We need Muslim eyes on what actually happens in America instead of how Osama bin Laden's disciples describe us.

[nate33]

if anyone, anywhere in the world successfully invests in physical or human capital, everybody everywhere else in the world benefits. We can help people by giving them trade opportunities, by signing free trade agreements, or we can provide humanitarian aid (which doesn't work terribly well, I'm afraid) or we can let them move here and invest in themselves. As long as they aren't invading like a mongolian horde and torching and burning things as they go we will be better off for letting people move here and improve their lives.

Your logic is flawed because all investments aren't equal. Any wise investment should be based on a reasonable rate of return. The fact is, we live in a welfare state. The vast majority of unskilled 3rd world immigrants are a net negative in economic benefit. They cost more to our welfare system then we get out of them in taxation, and this includes their next generation. The data on this is clear. And that doesn't even factor the higher crime rate, declining schools, and other clear negative impact of low skill immigrants.

Let's try this from another angle. Polls show that there are literally one billion people who, if given the chance, would immigrate to America. Nearly all of these people are from 3rd world countries. Should we let them all in immediately? If no, why not?

Or try this: We are a rich society and people in sub-Saharan Africa are poor. A dollar of profit helps us here far less than it helps them there. Why shouldn't we demand a 95% tax rate on every citizen in America and give ALL of it to the people of Africa? It would presumably hurt our happiness and well-being to a significant degree, but it help them far more. Wouldn't that result in more net happiness overall? Why aren't you screaming at your leadership to do this?

[TheSecretWeapon]

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that America remains slightly racist (and I think that's the case, but it's the case with ALL races within America. Every race has a bit of "tribalism" within them, it's just that whites are the only ones who are blamed for it, and they're the only ones who feel guilty about it.)

When a black person has about the same chance of being hired for a job as a white person with a criminal record, I'd say America's racism is more than "slight." While it's true that all peoples have a racism/tribalism problem, most of the time we talk about white racism because whites have held (and continue to hold) many positions of power. It hasn't mattered whether blacks think whites are subhuman because blacks in this country have had very little opportunity to do anything about it. And I strongly disagree with the contention that only whites feel guilty about it. It's the kind of thing a white guy who doesn't interact much with people who aren't white might believe. If more whites actually examined their behavior toward people of color, and felt remorse or empathy (I don't like the word "guilt" much here) for people affected by their racism, we'd likely have a better racial environment.

This is a problem, it's a problem that must be overcome. As Americans, we need to try and find ways to work together to make sure there is fair opportunity for all. I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with that, even those that lean more toward the "racist" end of the spectrum.

Agreed. It's going to be necessity, probably within our lifetimes, given the demographic changes that are coming.

But that doesn't mean we need to COMPOUND the problem by bringing in more and more people who will all feel their own sense of tribalism and make things worse. If you are in a hole, stop digging! Why is this such an evil concept?

For me, the issue is one of blanket discrimination of an entire group of people based on what a tiny fraction of a minority within that group has done. It doesn't make any sense to me. Identify attributes that might reliably predict who might be (or become) a terrorist and give individuals with those attributes close scrutiny. "Muslim" can't be one of those attributes because 99.9% (or something close to it) aren't terrorists and aren't going to become one.

[nate33]

But that doesn't mean we need to COMPOUND the problem by bringing in more and more people who will all feel their own sense of tribalism and make things worse. If you are in a hole, stop digging! Why is this such an evil concept?

For me, the issue is one of blanket discrimination of an entire group of people based on what a tiny fraction of a minority within that group has done. It doesn't make any sense to me. Identify attributes that might reliably predict who might be (or become) a terrorist and give individuals with those attributes close scrutiny. "Muslim" can't be one of those attributes because 99.9% (or something close to it) aren't terrorists and aren't going to become one.

I'm not specifically speaking about Trump's Muslim immigration hiatus because that is a security issue, not an assimilation issue. I'm talking more in general about allowing significantly different cultures to immigrate here at a rate faster than we are able to assimilate them. Do you think there should be no limits whatsoever to immigration? Can we allow 10 million immigrants a year? 20 million? 100 million?

[dckingsfan]

Trump is benefiting from a void of leadership on the issue. Simple as that...

[nate33]

Trump is benefiting from a void of leadership on the issue. Simple as that...

Yes. Because nobody else from either party has a solution. Obama's solution is more of the same (which has included a steady increase in terror attacks on U.S. soil as well as the establishment and growth of ISIS). The rest of the Republicans' solution is to carpet bomb the Middle East. Somehow that is viewed as more palatable than a temporary halt in immigration. Trump is a fascist Hitler. The rest of those guys are humanitarians.

[dckingsfan]

Trump is benefiting from a void of leadership on the issue. Simple as that...

Yes. Because nobody else from either party has a solution. Obama's solution is more of the same (which has included a steady increase in terror attacks on U.S. soil as well as the establishment and growth of ISIS). The rest of the Republicans' solution is to carpet bomb the Middle East. Somehow that is viewed as more palatable than a temporary halt in immigration. Trump is a fascist Hitler. The rest of those guys are humanitarians.

Violent agreement with you. My point is that there was/is a lack of leadership from both parties. I find it interesting that Trump's comments drive those that haven't provided the leadership them "most crazy".

I think it is healthy to be having the conversation - it happens to be coming from the R primary and R debates. But it needs to happen.

[DCZards]

Trump’s “ban all Muslims” proclamation aids and abets ISIS and other terrorist groups that want to paint America and Americans as Satan.

Trump’s rants are not void-filling leadership. It's dangerous buffoonery...and it's putting even more American lives at risk.

[crackhed]

Trump is benefiting from a void of leadership on the issue. Simple as that...

Yes. Because nobody else from either party has a solution. Obama's solution is more of the same (which has included a steady increase in terror attacks on U.S. soil as well as the establishment and growth of ISIS). The rest of the Republicans' solution is to carpet bomb the Middle East. Somehow that is viewed as more palatable than a temporary halt in immigration. Trump is a fascist Hitler. The rest of those guys are humanitarians.

correction... trump is playing a fascist hitler. big difference. he was a democrat in 2012

[nate33]

Trump’s “ban all Muslims” proclamation aids and abets ISIS and other terrorist groups that want to paint America and Americans as Satan.

Again, I reject this premise. I reject the notion that everyone everywhere has an unfettered RIGHT to immigrate to America and Americans should have no say in the matter.

Australia severely limits Americans from immigrating there unless they provide a very specific skill that they can't find in Australia. I'm not contemplating bombing them because I'm pissed off about it. How in the world should our immigration policy justify violence from people halfway around the world? That's just silly. Do you really believe what you are saying?

The jihadists who want to bomb us don't need a justification. They certainly aren't going to use our freakin' immigration policy as justification.

Bombing them with drones? Now THAT'S a real justification.

[dckingsfan]

Trump’s “ban all Muslims” proclamation aids and abets ISIS and other terrorist groups that want to paint America and Americans as Satan.

Trump’s rants are not void-filling leadership. It's dangerous buffoonery...and it's putting even more American lives at risk.

And Trump can be Trump because yes, we haven't had any strong/smart leadership in two straight administrations. The biggest danger we have is in having no direction.

I would say the lack of leadership is 10 or 100x more dangerous.

[nuposse04]

Trump’s “ban all Muslims” proclamation aids and abets ISIS and other terrorist groups that want to paint America and Americans as Satan.

Trump’s rants are not void-filling leadership. It's dangerous buffoonery...and it's putting even more American lives at risk.

And Trump can be Trump because yes, we haven't had any strong/smart leadership in two straight administrations. The biggest danger we have is in having no direction.

I would say the lack of leadership is 10 or 100x more dangerous.

So exacerbating a problem is then ignoring it? I agree the policy we have right now may seem frustratingly flat but inflaming the tension doesn't seem to me a 10-100X better alternative. :/

[DCZards]

Trump’s “ban all Muslims” proclamation aids and abets ISIS and other terrorist groups that want to paint America and Americans as Satan.

Again, I reject this premise. I reject the notion that everyone everywhere has an unfettered RIGHT to immigrate to America and Americans should have no say in the matter.

Australia severely limits Americans from immigrating there unless they provide a very specific skill that they can't find in Australia. I'm not contemplating bombing them because I'm pissed off about it. How in the world should our immigration policy justify violence from people halfway around the world? That's just silly. Do you really believe what you are saying?

The jihadists who want to bomb us don't need a justification. They certainly aren't going to use our freakin' immigration policy as justification.

Bombing them with drones? Now THAT'S a real justification.

Ok. So let's have an honest, open discussion about immigration. Let's improve the vetting. Let's develop a comprehensive immigration policy. Let's do everything we can to keep out the bad guys. I'm all for that!

But let's not stoop to the kind of buffoonery and xenophobia that Trump represents. That's not an immigration "policy." That's fear-mongering that plays on people's emotions.

[dckingsfan]

Trump’s “ban all Muslims” proclamation aids and abets ISIS and other terrorist groups that want to paint America and Americans as Satan.

Trump’s rants are not void-filling leadership. It's dangerous buffoonery...and it's putting even more American lives at risk.

And Trump can be Trump because yes, we haven't had any strong/smart leadership in two straight administrations. The biggest danger we have is in having no direction.

I would say the lack of leadership is 10 or 100x more dangerous.

So exacerbating a problem is then ignoring it? I agree the policy we have right now may seem frustratingly flat but inflaming the tension doesn't seem to me a 10-100X better alternative. :/

The point is that there was no discussion going on... it took Trump to "flame" the subject. And the policy we have isn't flat - it is basically non-existent on both sides of the aisle.

If it takes Trump flaming to begin having the discussion - then I am fine with that...