Political Roundtable Part XX

[dckingsfan]

Nate has gone on record saying he supports separating children from their parents at the border, and has actually taken it further and said there's no line he wouldn't cross to prevent scary brown people from entering his country

No he didn't. How could you possibly extrapolate that statement(s) above? This is like yelling fire in a theatre.

Just disagree with his premise that we shouldn't collect individuals at the boarder and immediately deliver them back to their country. That you believe some portion of those at the boarder are truly being persecuted in their home countries and deserver refugee status. That you think the wall is an epic waste of time and money. That you think separating young children by force from their parents puts us on the wrong side of history.

Godwin's law takes effect here - this is how you immediately lose the argument.

I asked him point blank if there was any line he wouldn't cross in deterring immigration and his answer was "no"

He is on board with this policy. Just ask him.

Two different issues - is he onboard with the policy and is he for mass extermination (Hitler).

What he said was that he was for a Wall and immediate deportation back to the home country. And the only time force should be used was if there was an attack on the boarder.

You and I both know that a Wall is ridiculous - it would be incredibly expensive, very hard to maintain and still very porous. We both know that immediate apprehension and deportation would require legislation - and isn't a near-term solution. And we both know that separating a mother and child at the border would certainly cause PTSD effects in children and it is immoral (and both Ds and Rs have come out on the subject). We both know that they are trying to use this to get their base to vote - but it seems to be boomeranging

But the jump to extermination - eh, not with you on that one.

BTW, I would like to know your thoughts on optimal immigration policy (I would really like to understand your perspective as a recent grad).

[dckingsfan]

Nobody wants to read these derposphere tweets. Everyone ignores them. They don't encourage conversation. They don't share any new information. They just take up space and promote SD20's agenda.

They're spam

When I put his posts on spam the thread became very readable. Just saying...

[I_Like_Dirt]

No he didn't. How could you possibly extrapolate that statement(s) above? This is like yelling fire in a theatre.

I agree, I don't see it here. What nate has admitted in past politics threads is that he believes that skin color is genetically linked to intelligence, propensity towards violence, etc. and more than a few other things of that type. He's also suggested that simply dealing with the fallout from global warming will cost less than trying to prevent/limit it would cost - speaking of America specifically and so shouldn't really be a major concern on that level. He hasn't exactly hidden his views here, and frankly, I can at least respect the honesty. I'm not sure who's yelling fire first, in your analogy, though. It's pretty tough to take any particular statement of his and not jump to certain conclusions given his other stated and well-articulated points.

[stilldropin20]

I think all the grand standing makes this the perfect time to bring both sides to the table and make a comprehensive immigration deal.


and the deal was already made. Trump and Paul Ryan's bill give dems everything they've been asking for:

1. Even though there are only 650,000 daca recipients. trump was willing to give 1.8 million the pathway to full citizenship.
2. It allows for the the immigration of 1,000,000 annually.
3. allows ice to kick everyone else out, specifically criminals.
4. Trump get the 25 billion for the wall<---that's all you have to give up dems...the wall.

and trumps mexico tariffs and re-working from nafta is going to eventually pay for the wall according to trump<--who has delievered on all campaign promises so far.

[stilldropin20]

No he didn't. How could you possibly extrapolate that statement(s) above? This is like yelling fire in a theatre.

Just disagree with his premise that we shouldn't collect individuals at the boarder and immediately deliver them back to their country. That you believe some portion of those at the boarder are truly being persecuted in their home countries and deserver refugee status. That you think the wall is an epic waste of time and money. That you think separating young children by force from their parents puts us on the wrong side of history.

Godwin's law takes effect here - this is how you immediately lose the argument.

I asked him point blank if there was any line he wouldn't cross in deterring immigration and his answer was "no"

He is on board with this policy. Just ask him.

Two different issues - is he onboard with the policy and is he for mass extermination (Hitler).

What he said was that he was for a Wall and immediate deportation back to the home country. And the only time force should be used was if there was an attack on the boarder.

You and I both know that a Wall is ridiculous - it would be incredibly expensive, very hard to maintain and still very porous. We both know that immediate apprehension and deportation would require legislation - and isn't a near-term solution. And we both know that separating a mother and child at the border would certainly cause PTSD effects in children and it is immoral (and both Ds and Rs have come out on the subject). We both know that they are trying to use this to get their base to vote - but it seems to be boomeranging

But the jump to extermination - eh, not with you on that one.

BTW, I would like to know your thoughts on optimal immigration policy (I would really like to understand your perspective as a recent grad).

i've seen it all now. i'm arguing with a child that just got out of school. probably with a liberal arts degree. Amazeballz!!!!!

[gtn130]

BTW, I would like to know your thoughts on optimal immigration policy (I would really like to understand your perspective as a recent grad).

I don't know what is optimal.

Immigrants are often a pretty big benefit to the economy, but at some point we would hit critical mass. I'm obviously in favor of having a large and expansive social safety net, so that critical mass of immigrants from a fiscal perspective is a realistic concern with, say, Bernie Sanders as President.

With a normal replacement level D or R administration, again, I don't know what would be optimal. From my vantage point, immigration was never really a problem as it was mostly an economic benefit. I don't think I'm qualified to have an opinion on what the optimal number of immigrants would be since a lot of it boils down to economics, but in my idealized Bernie Sander world, we'd probably be offering aid in some capacity to those countries that can't support their people and we can't take them in.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

Two different issues - is he onboard with the policy and is he for mass extermination (Hitler).

Right. We know he is in favor of separating children from families, and he's leaving the rest up to our imaginations. I'll let Nate chime in and clarify, but I suspect he won't really want to because the line he draws will be somewhere that makes everyone real uncomfortable.

[stilldropin20]

No he didn't. How could you possibly extrapolate that statement(s) above? This is like yelling fire in a theatre.

I agree, I don't see it here. What nate has admitted in past politics threads is that he believes that skin color is genetically linked to intelligence, propensity towards violence, etc. and more than a few other things of that type. He's also suggested that simply dealing with the fallout from global warming will cost less than trying to prevent/limit it would cost - speaking of America specifically and so shouldn't really be a major concern on that level. He hasn't exactly hidden his views here, and frankly, I can at least respect the honesty. I'm not sure who's yelling fire first, in your analogy, though. It's pretty tough to take any particular statement of his and not jump to certain conclusions given his other stated and well-articulated points.

climate change has occurred on this planet since the beginning of time.

Knowledgeable men of science understand that in nature there is a natural tendency of disorder or randomness in any given universe.

rotating Iron ore deep in our earth core created magnetic fields and gravity that created essentially every thing we see and know about earth today from life itself to electronics and communications.

And the climate has always been changing since the beginning of time and will continue to change. Earth will drastically heat up and will face another ice age.

The more order we create on earth (sky scrapers, homes, farms, etc) the more nature will resist or to create disorder. Both of which will create heat. which will increase overall temperatures.

If you are looking for a bad guy in climate change blame the cultures and countries that are over populating. Human beings are the problem.

[dckingsfan]

BTW, I would like to know your thoughts on optimal immigration policy (I would really like to understand your perspective as a recent grad).

I don't know what is optimal.

Immigrants are often a pretty big benefit to the economy, but at some point we would hit critical mass. I'm obviously in favor of having a large and expansive social safety net, so that critical mass of immigrants from a fiscal perspective is a realistic concern with, say, Bernie Sanders as President.

With a normal replacement level D or R administration, again, I don't know what would be optimal. From my vantage point, immigration was never really a problem as it was mostly an economic benefit. I don't think I'm qualified to have an opinion on what the optimal number of immigrants would be since a lot of it boils down to economics, but in my idealized Bernie Sander world, we'd probably be offering aid in some capacity to those countries that can't support their people and we can't take them in.

Pretty well thought out for not having an opinion!

[I_Like_Dirt]

Re: immigration

It's clearly to America's benefit to have a strong, stable and thriving Mexico as a neighbor. Why? Because they're a natural buffer for fleeing migrants. The problem is that Mexico right now is a hot mess politically speaking so it's not much of a buffer at this point. This has been an ongoing problem for quite some time, so realistically this is well past the point of finger pointing or anything like that and it isn't an issue with any obvious solutions, or quite possibly any desirable solutions at all. If there was ever a country that made sense to support and try to build up, it was Mexico. Unfortunately, the cartels realized that first.

[dckingsfan]

Re: immigration

It's clearly to America's benefit to have a strong, stable and thriving Mexico as a neighbor. Why? Because they're a natural buffer for fleeing migrants. The problem is that Mexico right now is a hot mess politically speaking so it's not much of a buffer at this point. This has been an ongoing problem for quite some time, so realistically this is well past the point of finger pointing or anything like that and it isn't an issue with any obvious solutions, or quite possibly any desirable solutions at all. If there was ever a country that made sense to support and try to build up, it was Mexico. Unfortunately, the cartels realized that first.

You make a couple of great points. The first is that Mexico isn't much of a buffer. What is interesting is that with NAFTA in place the immigration has been net negative with more going back to Mexico than coming from Mexico. That isn't the case for other South American countries. Still, as you say, Mexico is a hot mess.

Another point I would like to float by you is the notion of moving toward skills/age based immigration and away from familial/refugee based immigration. On its cover it looks heartless. But if you have set ratios it could work. You could have an immigration policy that addresses our demographic & skills based issues. And then a ratio to bring in family members/refugees.

X% Individuals (and family members under 35)
Y% Refugees
Z% Familial Immigration

But that would still mean we would need enforcement at the boarder and subsequent deportation of those who come here illegally.

The reason that it is so hard is that you different groups that have different goals, some want:
1) Want no immigration
2) Want unlimited familial immigration
3) Want a much large influx of refugees
4) Don't believe immigration should be age related
5) Think that immigration should be age related
6) Don't believe immigration should be skills related
7) Think that immigration should be skills related
8) Don't believe in birthright immigration
9) Believe in birthright immigration

There seems to be too many variables to come to a compromise.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I'm definitely not against the kinds of framework you're suggesting, dc. I also don't expect it to happen anytime soon for the reasons you suggested. Compromise isn't something that is easy to come by these days, nor is foresight on issues that require consistency over several decades rather than the standard term of any democratically elected leader.

[Zonkerbl]

Alright, Nate, I have a truly imaginary, hypothetical question for you. Answer it honestly (it's just a yes/no question), and then I promise I'll leave you alone forever.

The floodgates are open, fine. There's no way to stop the army of brown people entering the country and stealing our jerbs, fine. We must do ANYTHING to stop this. Apparently that includes kidnapping children to terrorize their parents. Does that also include gathering immigrants into concentration camps and exterminating them in gas chambers?

Is that the point where you would finally realize you are on the wrong side of this question? Are you just rooting for evil because it's fun to be on the winning team? Or are you truly evil and are just waiting for Trump's depravity to catch up to you?

It's a stupid hypothetical because there's no reason to exterminate anyone. You just gather them up and drop them in their home country. Then build a wall and don't let anyone back. I suppose the only scenario where deadly force might come into play is if there was a literal wave of immigrants rushing the gates after refusing to stop when told by the border guards. That would be equivalent to a foreign invasion and nations throughout history have used deadly force to stop foreign invaders without being compared to Hitler.

Answer the question anyway. I would like to know the answer.

[GhostofChenier]

Alright, Nate, I have a truly imaginary, hypothetical question for you. Answer it honestly (it's just a yes/no question), and then I promise I'll leave you alone forever.

The floodgates are open, fine. There's no way to stop the army of brown people entering the country and stealing our jerbs, fine. We must do ANYTHING to stop this. Apparently that includes kidnapping children to terrorize their parents. Does that also include gathering immigrants into concentration camps and exterminating them in gas chambers?

Is that the point where you would finally realize you are on the wrong side of this question? Are you just rooting for evil because it's fun to be on the winning team? Or are you truly evil and are just waiting for Trump's depravity to catch up to you?

It's a stupid hypothetical because there's no reason to exterminate anyone. You just gather them up and drop them in their home country. Then build a wall and don't let anyone back. I suppose the only scenario where deadly force might come into play is if there was a literal wave of immigrants rushing the gates after refusing to stop when told by the border guards. That would be equivalent to a foreign invasion and nations throughout history have used deadly force to stop foreign invaders without being compared to Hitler.

Answer the question anyway. I would like to know the answer.

I have answer, ur an idiot lolz

When i graduate I am leeeeeaving this dump of old ugly peope.

[Zonkerbl]

No he didn't. How could you possibly extrapolate that statement(s) above? This is like yelling fire in a theatre.

I agree, I don't see it here. What nate has admitted in past politics threads is that he believes that skin color is genetically linked to intelligence, propensity towards violence, etc. and more than a few other things of that type. He's also suggested that simply dealing with the fallout from global warming will cost less than trying to prevent/limit it would cost - speaking of America specifically and so shouldn't really be a major concern on that level. He hasn't exactly hidden his views here, and frankly, I can at least respect the honesty. I'm not sure who's yelling fire first, in your analogy, though. It's pretty tough to take any particular statement of his and not jump to certain conclusions given his other stated and well-articulated points.

I would like to know if someone who defends Trump's policies no matter how abhorrent they are has a moral line he will not cross. How far over the edge of this precipice do Trump supporters intend to drag us? If they in fact intend to drag us all the way to fascism we might as well start fighting back now, because the more we let them get away with the more they will push. If there is no line they will not cross than we have to take action that is drastic enough to kick them out of power as quickly as possible, and we may not have time to wait for the midterms.

[dckingsfan]

No he didn't. How could you possibly extrapolate that statement(s) above? This is like yelling fire in a theatre.

I agree, I don't see it here. What nate has admitted in past politics threads is that he believes that skin color is genetically linked to intelligence, propensity towards violence, etc. and more than a few other things of that type. He's also suggested that simply dealing with the fallout from global warming will cost less than trying to prevent/limit it would cost - speaking of America specifically and so shouldn't really be a major concern on that level. He hasn't exactly hidden his views here, and frankly, I can at least respect the honesty. I'm not sure who's yelling fire first, in your analogy, though. It's pretty tough to take any particular statement of his and not jump to certain conclusions given his other stated and well-articulated points.

I would like to know if someone who defends Trump's policies no matter how abhorrent they are has a moral line he will not cross. How far over the edge of this precipice do Trump supporters intend to drag us? If they in fact intend to drag us all the way to fascism we might as well start fighting back now, because the more we let them get away with the more they will push. If there is no line they will not cross than we have to take action that is drastic enough to kick them out of power as quickly as possible, and we may not have time to wait for the midterms.

Well this is the question, right? Do they keep inching to the line and then jump all the way over - or do they never quite get to the line. Less than 4 months to Nov 06, 2018 mid-terms.

[nate33]

No he didn't. How could you possibly extrapolate that statement(s) above? This is like yelling fire in a theatre.

I agree, I don't see it here. What nate has admitted in past politics threads is that he believes that skin color is genetically linked to intelligence, propensity towards violence, etc. and more than a few other things of that type. He's also suggested that simply dealing with the fallout from global warming will cost less than trying to prevent/limit it would cost - speaking of America specifically and so shouldn't really be a major concern on that level. He hasn't exactly hidden his views here, and frankly, I can at least respect the honesty. I'm not sure who's yelling fire first, in your analogy, though. It's pretty tough to take any particular statement of his and not jump to certain conclusions given his other stated and well-articulated points.

I would like to know if someone who defends Trump's policies no matter how abhorrent they are has a moral line he will not cross. How far over the edge of this precipice do Trump supporters intend to drag us? If they in fact intend to drag us all the way to fascism we might as well start fighting back now, because the more we let them get away with the more they will push. If there is no line they will not cross than we have to take action that is drastic enough to kick them out of power as quickly as possible, and we may not have time to wait for the midterms.

You are trying to paint a scenario where there is no way to stop illegal immigration except deadly force. Indeed, this is essentially the goal of the Left. They wish to put as many roadblocks as possible in the way of immigration enforcement so we have no choice but take in more poor people who will eventually vote Democrat. It really is astonishing. Simply expressing a desire to have some control of who and how many people we let into the country is considered virulently racist.

We have laws that make no sense whatsoever. You can run across the border, claim "asylum" and then be let loose to wander the country until your hearing. Skip the hearing and you get to stay. Have a kid or two, and they're citizens with welfare benefits and free education. Wait a few years and you get amnestied. Rinse. Repeat.

What would you do if we passed laws that allowed homeless to get access to your home whenever they want, eat your food, and you couldn't do anything about it? Would you just open your doors wide open and let 10 of them in? If not, you're Hitler!

[Zonkerbl]

I agree, I don't see it here. What nate has admitted in past politics threads is that he believes that skin color is genetically linked to intelligence, propensity towards violence, etc. and more than a few other things of that type. He's also suggested that simply dealing with the fallout from global warming will cost less than trying to prevent/limit it would cost - speaking of America specifically and so shouldn't really be a major concern on that level. He hasn't exactly hidden his views here, and frankly, I can at least respect the honesty. I'm not sure who's yelling fire first, in your analogy, though. It's pretty tough to take any particular statement of his and not jump to certain conclusions given his other stated and well-articulated points.

I would like to know if someone who defends Trump's policies no matter how abhorrent they are has a moral line he will not cross. How far over the edge of this precipice do Trump supporters intend to drag us? If they in fact intend to drag us all the way to fascism we might as well start fighting back now, because the more we let them get away with the more they will push. If there is no line they will not cross than we have to take action that is drastic enough to kick them out of power as quickly as possible, and we may not have time to wait for the midterms.

Well this is the question, right? Do they keep inching to the line and then jump all the way over - or do they never quite get to the line. Less than 4 months to Nov 06, 2018 mid-terms.

We're already over the line. We are currently plummeting into the abyss.

[Zonkerbl]

I agree, I don't see it here. What nate has admitted in past politics threads is that he believes that skin color is genetically linked to intelligence, propensity towards violence, etc. and more than a few other things of that type. He's also suggested that simply dealing with the fallout from global warming will cost less than trying to prevent/limit it would cost - speaking of America specifically and so shouldn't really be a major concern on that level. He hasn't exactly hidden his views here, and frankly, I can at least respect the honesty. I'm not sure who's yelling fire first, in your analogy, though. It's pretty tough to take any particular statement of his and not jump to certain conclusions given his other stated and well-articulated points.

I would like to know if someone who defends Trump's policies no matter how abhorrent they are has a moral line he will not cross. How far over the edge of this precipice do Trump supporters intend to drag us? If they in fact intend to drag us all the way to fascism we might as well start fighting back now, because the more we let them get away with the more they will push. If there is no line they will not cross than we have to take action that is drastic enough to kick them out of power as quickly as possible, and we may not have time to wait for the midterms.

You are trying to paint a scenario where there is no way to stop illegal immigration except deadly force. Indeed, this is essentially the goal of the Left. They wish to put as many roadblocks as possible in the way of immigration enforcement so we have no choice but take in more poor people who will eventually vote Democrat. It really is astonishing. Simply expressing a desire to have some control of who and how many people we let into the country is considered virulently racist.

We have laws that make no sense whatsoever. You can run across the border, claim "asylum" and then be let loose to wander the country until your hearing. Skip the hearing and you get to stay. Have a kid or two, and they're citizens with welfare benefits and free education. Wait a few years and you get amnestied. Rinse. Repeat.

What would you do if we passed laws that allowed homeless to get access to your home whenever they want, eat your food, and you couldn't do anything about it? Would you just open your doors wide open and let 10 of them in? If not, you're Hitler!

It's a real simple question. A yes/no answer will suffice. If the Trump administration fibs up a reason to gather immigrants into concentration camps and start exterminating them, will you then oppose that policy?

Don't answer "Trump won't do it." That's not what I'm asking.