Political Roundtable Part VIII

[nate33]

The weird thing is that immigration should be a right wing "thing". Low cost labor benefits business (on the whole). Oh well, go figure.

Because the left wing is willing to import as many poor, welfare-dependent people as necessary to win elections.

[dckingsfan]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/black-lawmakers-merrick-garland-pick-220924

Now this is the stuff that p*sses me off. This petty bullsh*t. This is what gives the republicans the ammunition for us playing the race card. This is the f*cking fight you want to have? He's nominated two women, one being a latino and you're going to go b*tch about him not nominating a far left minority over a guy who has some of the most impressive credentials I've seen in a while? Really? Really???? Jesus Mary and Joseph wtf?!?!

Actually it might make a bit of sense looking through the prism of - their last chance for a while to really get minorities onto the supreme court. I kind of get where they are coming from - you get the first black president and don't get a black supreme court nominee...

[dckingsfan]

The weird thing is that immigration should be a right wing "thing". Low cost labor benefits business (on the whole). Oh well, go figure.

Because the left wing is willing to import as many poor, welfare-dependent people as necessary to win elections.

Yeah, I don't think it is that conspiracy thing - although it may be trending that way.

I think it is more opportunist. R Farmers & some labor intensive businesses needed the immigrants. Then they got here and didn't want to go home and the Ds took up their cause - which was both reasonable and responsible from their perspective both politically and from a humanitarian aspect.

True - they didn't take the costs into account. But they have been fiscally irresponsible on both the local and federal levels - so, I don't think it would be rational to think that they would take the costs into account when setting their position(s).

[Zonkerbl]

The weird thing is that immigration should be a right wing "thing". Low cost labor benefits business (on the whole). Oh well, go figure.

Because the left wing is willing to import as many poor, welfare-dependent people as necessary to win elections.

You seem like a smart person, Nate, and all your fanboys in this thread say you are. And then you keep repeating ignorant crap like this. I expect better from you. You're just spouting out unthinking hate. Will you just for one second think about it?

Does the party whose political base is unions really want to import a lot of cheap labor?

If the Democrats are interested in helping immigrants, they want to help high-skilled immigrants who will join unions, where the cost of getting votes mobilized is low. Welfare recipients aren't politically organized and it's much harder to get them to come out and vote.

I think the Dems are holding their noses as they give a lot of lip service to helping out Latinos/immigrants, but I very much doubt they are serious. Like it or not, recently immigrated Latinos are religiously conservative, pull yourself up by your bootstraps sorts who are much better suited for the Republicans, and the GOP will have to embrace them eventually. If anything I think a bunch of Latinos are just going to take over the Republican party from the current batch of incompetents. Look at Rubio and Cruz.

[nate33]

The weird thing is that immigration should be a right wing "thing". Low cost labor benefits business (on the whole). Oh well, go figure.

Because the left wing is willing to import as many poor, welfare-dependent people as necessary to win elections.

You seem like a smart person, Nate, and all your fanboys in this thread say you are. And then you keep repeating ignorant crap like this. I expect better from you. You're just spouting out unthinking hate. Will you just for one second think about it?

Does the party whose political base is unions really want to import a lot of cheap labor?

If the Democrats are interested in helping immigrants, they want to help high-skilled immigrants who will join unions, where the cost of getting votes mobilized is low. Welfare recipients aren't politically organized and it's much harder to get them to come out and vote.

I think the Dems are holding their noses as they give a lot of lip service to helping out Latinos/immigrants, but I very much doubt they are serious. Like it or not, recently immigrated Latinos are religiously conservative, pull yourself up by your bootstraps sorts who are much better suited for the Republicans, and the GOP will have to embrace them eventually. If anything I think a bunch of Latinos are just going to take over the Republican party from the current batch of incompetents. Look at Rubio and Cruz.

The "Latino's are conservative" meme is a lie. Latinos vote 70/30 for Democrats. Therefore Democrats want more Latinos. You are deluding yourself if you don't see this.

Furthermore, Democrats are trying to bestow victimhood on the Latinos and make them equal to blacks on the discrimination scale (and therefore make them permanently beholden to Democrat victimhood politics). This is utterly ridiculous. Latinos came here voluntarily to be discriminated against by the evil white man and their evil racist system. It was their choice. Blacks were forced to come here against their will and therefore have a legitimate grievance.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Zonk has a point, though, nate. I very much doubt that Latinos would vote so overwhelmingly Democrat if the Republican party was interested in improving their lives and not deporting them.

That's really the crux the Republican party. There are two sides to the coin and it makes absolutely no sense that the blue collar workers have aligned themselves with business owners looking for cheap labor and less government intervention as they drive down wages. So on one hand, you have the Trump and Cruz supporters who are all anti-immigration, and on the other hand you have all the Rubios and Kasichs who are clearly more interested in an amnesty and aren't necessarily that believable when they talk about border security.

The catch, though, is that Zonk is right. A lot of those immigrants are very much like the working class, which is why they swarmed in and help the business/investor class drive down wages. It's just that those frustrated with immigration aren't looking to add more to their ranks, and the less than warm welcome causes a pretty strong divide.

To be honest, I think the solution would be to have a significantly increased share of the cost of government supports for the businesses benefitting from immigrant labor, which would very quickly change their minds on the issue. When the benefits are taken only by the wealthier, and the costs are borne largely by the not-so-wealthy who don't benefit at all in the form of taxes and lower wages/job losses, it stands to reason that maybe something needs to be done to tilt the balance a bit.

[nate33]

Zonk has a point, though, nate. I very much doubt that Latinos would vote so overwhelmingly Democrat if the Republican party was interested in improving their lives and not deporting them.

So appease the Latinos by importing more Latinos. Maybe get that 70/30 disparity down to 60/40. Republicans will lose on every sale but make it up in volume!

How about this? How about we stop importing poor, unskilled people who are likely to be dependent on welfare (and if they're not, they're still likely to drive existing Americans into welfare). Limiting immigration will also drive down the cost of housing and education.

The best way to make Republicans is to decrease the price of family formation. Basically, landlocked, medium sized cities with room for urban sprawl tend to vote Republican. Think Salt Lake City, UT, Columbus, OH, Memphis TN. Housing is cheaper so the people get married younger, and have more kids, which solidify their conservative leanings. Democrats are concentrated in big cities and coastal cities where lack of available land drives up the cost of housing and the cost of living. People get married late or don't get married at all and therefore vote Democrat.

Mass immigration does nothing but limit the conditions that allow Republicans to thrive, and increase the conditions that allow Democrats to thrive. This notion that Republicans must accept it is false. There's no reason whatsoever why steps can't be taken to reduce immigration. We are at record high levels of immigration now. Why? Why not revert to immigration levels we saw between 1920 and 1965 when we saw the biggest growth of the middle class in world history?

[I_Like_Dirt]

I'm not saying they will or even should embrace immigrants, nate, just pointing out that a lot of those immigrants are the result of very similar forces in other countries, similar to those which many Republicans are frustrated with right now. This isn't about whether or not Republicans must accept anything. It's just about the similarities between the two groups.

Really, it's just about where you want to draw the line between us vs. them. And that's certainly one way to go about it, because it's easier to spread the wealth amongst fewer people, if you look at it from that angle. You actually see something similar in Canada, for instance, where status Indians lobby tirelessly to not include other aboriginal subsets such as Metis and Inuit into various agreements with Government, under the line of thinking that there will be only so much government money so they better not allow the others in.

The reality, though, is that where you draw the line on us vs. them is a bit of a red herring after a point. Importing a lot of low-skilled immigration is problematic at the start, but can work out as a long-term play if you're willing to invest in the population as a whole and grow even more high skill people later on as the population base expands. Again, not that this is necessarily something the US can/can't or should/shouldn't do, but the logic is sound. The real problem is that the tables are tilted no matter how you slice it, towards the significantly wealthier classes, and right now, an increased influx of low-skilled labor continues to worsen that gap. I don't think immigration would be nearly the hot-button issue it is today if working-class wages had also increased along with all the financial gains made over the course of the economic recovery, but that just didn't happen.

[Zonkerbl]

Zonk has a point, though, nate. I very much doubt that Latinos would vote so overwhelmingly Democrat if the Republican party was interested in improving their lives and not deporting them.

So appease the Latinos by importing more Latinos. Maybe get that 70/30 disparity down to 60/40. Republicans will lose on every sale but make it up in volume!

How about this? How about we stop importing poor, unskilled people who are likely to be dependent on welfare (and if they're not, they're still likely to drive existing Americans into welfare). Limiting immigration will also drive down the cost of housing and education.

The best way to make Republicans is to decrease the price of family formation. Basically, landlocked, medium sized cities with room for urban sprawl tend to vote Republican. Think Salt Lake City, UT, Columbus, OH, Memphis TN. Housing is cheaper so the people get married younger, and have more kids, which solidify their conservative leanings. Democrats are concentrated in big cities and coastal cities where lack of available land drives up the cost of housing and the cost of living. People get married late or don't get married at all and therefore vote Democrat.

Mass immigration does nothing but limit the conditions that allow Republicans to thrive, and increase the conditions that allow Democrats to thrive. This notion that Republicans must accept it is false. There's no reason whatsoever why steps can't be taken to reduce immigration. We are at record high levels of immigration now. Why? Why not revert to immigration levels we saw between 1920 and 1965 when we saw the biggest growth of the middle class in world history?

Why do you think we are telling the Republicans to import more Latinos? Where have I said that? All I've said is be nice to Latinos and they will be nice to you. Spitting on diseased rapist immigrants is why Latinos vote 70/30 Democrat. Oh, that and at every swearing in ceremony for newly naturalized U.S. citizens there is a representative of the local Democratic party congratulating them. The Republicans are notably absent.

Thanks for the spit-take on your marvelously naive political theories about my home state of Ohio. I haven't had such a good laugh in days. Republicans thrive in an all-white environment surrounded by voices of hate to distract them from the fact that billionaires are manipulating them with Fox News and Breitbarth and laughing all the way to the bank. I grew up there and I know. Family values have nothing to do with it. It's right wing propaganda paid for by the Republican "establishment."

Democrats thrive in urban areas because urban areas are where gays and blacks and women with careers and other victims of white male hegemony are located. Republicans thrive out in the boonies where people are willfully ignorant and suck. Except Windsor CO where my mom lives. Those guys are ok.

[nate33]

Zonk has a point, though, nate. I very much doubt that Latinos would vote so overwhelmingly Democrat if the Republican party was interested in improving their lives and not deporting them.

So appease the Latinos by importing more Latinos. Maybe get that 70/30 disparity down to 60/40. Republicans will lose on every sale but make it up in volume!

How about this? How about we stop importing poor, unskilled people who are likely to be dependent on welfare (and if they're not, they're still likely to drive existing Americans into welfare). Limiting immigration will also drive down the cost of housing and education.

The best way to make Republicans is to decrease the price of family formation. Basically, landlocked, medium sized cities with room for urban sprawl tend to vote Republican. Think Salt Lake City, UT, Columbus, OH, Memphis TN. Housing is cheaper so the people get married younger, and have more kids, which solidify their conservative leanings. Democrats are concentrated in big cities and coastal cities where lack of available land drives up the cost of housing and the cost of living. People get married late or don't get married at all and therefore vote Democrat.

Mass immigration does nothing but limit the conditions that allow Republicans to thrive, and increase the conditions that allow Democrats to thrive. This notion that Republicans must accept it is false. There's no reason whatsoever why steps can't be taken to reduce immigration. We are at record high levels of immigration now. Why? Why not revert to immigration levels we saw between 1920 and 1965 when we saw the biggest growth of the middle class in world history?

Why do you think we are telling the Republicans to import more Latinos? Where have I said that? All I've said is be nice to Latinos and they will be nice to you. Spitting on diseased rapist immigrants is why Latinos vote 70/30 Democrat. Oh, that and at every swearing in ceremony for newly naturalized U.S. citizens there is a representative of the local Democratic party congratulating them. The Republicans are notably absent.

Thanks for the spit-take on your marvelously naive political theories about my home state of Ohio. I haven't had such a good laugh in days. Republicans thrive in an all-white environment surrounded by voices of hate to distract them from the fact that billionaires are manipulating them with Fox News and Breitbarth and laughing all the way to the bank. I grew up there and I know. Family values have nothing to do with it. It's right wing propaganda paid for by the Republican "establishment."

Democrats thrive in urban areas because urban areas are where gays and blacks and women with careers and other victims of white male hegemony are located. Republicans thrive out in the boonies where people are willfully ignorant and suck. Except Windsor CO where my mom lives. Those guys are ok.

Not sure if that rant was serious, or a parody.

[DCZards]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/black-lawmakers-merrick-garland-pick-220924

Now this is the stuff that p*sses me off. This petty bullsh*t. This is what gives the republicans the ammunition for us playing the race card. This is the f*cking fight you want to have? He's nominated two women, one being a latino and you're going to go b*tch about him not nominating a far left minority over a guy who has some of the most impressive credentials I've seen in a while? Really? Really???? Jesus Mary and Joseph wtf?!?!

Actually it might make a bit of sense looking through the prism of - their last chance for a while to really get minorities onto the supreme court. I kind of get where they are coming from - you get the first black president and don't get a black supreme court nominee...

While most black folks I've spoken to are unhappy that Obama didn't name a black nominee, the prevailing opinion has been that a deal has been cut with Hillary, who will take care of that.

[DCZards]

The "Latino's are conservative" meme is a lie. Latinos vote 70/30 for Democrats. Therefore Democrats want more Latinos. You are deluding yourself if you don't see this.

Furthermore, Democrats are trying to bestow victimhood on the Latinos and make them equal to blacks on the discrimination scale (and therefore make them permanently beholden to Democrat victimhood politics). This is utterly ridiculous. Latinos came here voluntarily to be discriminated against by the evil white man and their evil racist system. It was their choice. Blacks were forced to come here against their will and therefore have a legitimate grievance.

If Latinos are voting 70/30 for Dems, yet are more politically-suited to be Repubs, as Zonk points out, then maybe Repubs need to take a good long look at how they talk to and about Latinos. Because if Latinos do indeed feel like victims, it's because of the rude and uninviting treatment they've gotten from many in the Republican party. That's driven more Latinos into the Dem column than anything that the Democratic party has done.

[TGW]

Zards....why in hell are you voting for Hillary? Hillary and Bill have been nothing but awful to Afican Americans. Probably moreso than Trump could ever be.

[nate33]

The "Latino's are conservative" meme is a lie. Latinos vote 70/30 for Democrats. Therefore Democrats want more Latinos. You are deluding yourself if you don't see this.

Furthermore, Democrats are trying to bestow victimhood on the Latinos and make them equal to blacks on the discrimination scale (and therefore make them permanently beholden to Democrat victimhood politics). This is utterly ridiculous. Latinos came here voluntarily to be discriminated against by the evil white man and their evil racist system. It was their choice. Blacks were forced to come here against their will and therefore have a legitimate grievance.

If Latinos are voting 70/30 for Dems, yet are more politically-suited to be Repubs, as Zonk points out, then maybe Repubs need to take a good long look at how they talk to and about Latinos. Because if Latinos do indeed feel like victims, it's because of the rude and uninviting treatment they've gotten from many in the Republican party. That's driven more Latinos into the Dem column than anything that the Democratic party has done.

Every single Latin American country populated primarily by Mestizos has drifted towards socialism or outright communism. I fail to see why one would believe the Latin Americans that come here are somehow innately conservative.

Besides, Republicans tried the welcoming approach once. It's called California. Politically, Republicans don't do so well there anymore.

[closg00]

I don't know if this is been brought up earlier in this thread, but I'd be curious to know if folks think that Trump can put together a coalition to win in November? Could he put certain Blue states in-play?

I think HRC unpopularity combined with Trump cobbling together enough of a coalition of Dems/Repubs/Independents, he could sell his way into the Whitehouse.

[nate33]

I don't know if this is been brought up earlier in this thread, but I'd be curious to know if folks think that Trump can put together a coalition to win in November? Could he put certain Blue states in-play?

I think HRC unpopularity combined with Trump cobbling together enough of a coalition of Dems/Repubs/Independents, he could sell his way into the Whitehouse.

I think it all depends on how well Trump can consolidate his right flank. If you take the Romney coalition and add the working class whites that Trump brings in (and you subtract a few blacks who won't show up because no Obama), then the Republicans can win. I just don't know if Trump can hold together the conservative, college educated right. He'll surely lose the pure neocon wing who really only care about Middle East policy, but that's a very small number (though they do have money).

[DCZards]

Zards....why in hell are you voting for Hillary? Hillary and Bill have been nothing but awful to Afican Americans. Probably moreso than Trump could ever be.

Where did I say I was voting for Hillary? But you can be assured that I won't be voting for Trump.

[dckingsfan]

And then there is Bernie's SS promise to increase SS spending... and he is pulling Hillary with him.
http://tinyurl.com/zvebze3

So, basically allow SS to go bankrupt - smh. I expected a bit more of her.

The estimates are that both the Sanders and Clinton proposals would suck out 10 to 15 Trillion over the next 50 to 75 years... remember that shrinking pie for all other programs like infrastructure...

[nate33]

And then there is Bernie's SS promise to increase SS spending... and he is pulling Hillary with him.
http://tinyurl.com/zvebze3

So, basically allow SS to go bankrupt - smh. I expected a bit more of her.

The estimates are that both the Sanders and Clinton proposals would suck out 10 to 15 Trillion over the next 50 to 75 years... remember that shrinking pie for all other programs like infrastructure...

All these crazy ideas (including crazy Republican ideas like permanent war in the Middle East) will persist until there's a collapse of the dollar and people finally get serious. It's a shame that it's going to take a financial calamity before anyone gets serious, but it is what it is.

[Wizardspride]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FoxNewsInsider/status/710823504090824706[/tweet]