ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , democratic party , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 12th July 2019, 06:11 PM   #41
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, "ORANGE MAN BAD" is a pretty constant refrain around here.

But it doesn't seem too much to ask, that in a thread about Democratic candidates, people find something more substantive to say about a Democratic candidate's platform. The way TGZ puts it, Warren doesn't have an immigration plan so much as she has yet another Two Minutes Hate.

Who knows? If Warren actually has a sensible immigration plan, she might be worth voting for. But TGZ's immediate spiral into senseless rage suggests she doesn't.
It was a pithy comment about how it doesn't matter what the details of the plan are, reactionaries will be reactionary. Trying to distort that into some kind of "evidence" of there being no actual policy is downright beguiling.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 12th July 2019 at 06:12 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 06:17 PM   #42
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,163
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I can only respond to the argument someone makes.
Except that you didn't do that. You focused solely on a very short blurb that's not meant to stand alone in the first place. You addressed a small portion of the argument as if it was the whole, even there.

If you want to go more in depth into Warren's actual presented arguments on why private prisons should be banned, though... Here's a link for exactly that.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 07:48 PM   #43
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Except that you didn't do that. You focused solely on a very short blurb that's not meant to stand alone in the first place. You addressed a small portion of the argument as if it was the whole, even there.

If you want to go more in depth into Warren's actual presented arguments on why private prisons should be banned, though... Here's a link for exactly that.
She is making a more broad and sensible argument there.

The article

Quote:
There should be no place in America for profiting off putting more people behind bars or in detention.
The policy

Quote:
There is no place in this country for profiting off cruelty.
These are different.


ETA: I understand her complaints about private prisons. I would suggest the customers for these prisons are highly satisfied with results.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 12th July 2019 at 08:13 PM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 08:13 PM   #44
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,813
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I can only respond to the argument someone makes.
Or, you could, you know, rein in that deep-seated need to respond on issues on which you haven't bothered to inform yourself.

Just a thought in passing.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 08:22 PM   #45
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Or, you could, you know, rein in that deep-seated need to respond on issues on which you haven't bothered to inform yourself.

Just a thought in passing.
I would say I'm fairly familiar with private prisons. The article she wrote didn't present new information that I wasn't aware of. That is why I have no issue with that article. She isn't making the same statements in the policy proposal. It receives a different response.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 11:30 AM   #46
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,163
Alright, plan time!

Harris just put forth a Fair Chance at Housing Act.

Quote:
The Fair Chance at Housing Act of 2019 represents a comprehensive reform of the eviction and screening policies for federal housing assistance, such as Public Housing and the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The legislation rolls back harmful policies that continue to unfairly threaten tenants with eviction for minor crimes in the absence of sufficient evidence, allow for the termination of the tenancy of an entire family because of the criminal activity of a guest even without the knowledge of anyone in the household, and continue to create unfair barriers to federal housing assistance for individuals who are trying to rebuild their lives.

This legislation aims to reduce recidivism by helping ex-offenders find stable housing and ensuring those currently receiving federal assistance are not unfairly evicted. For decades, the War on Drugs has done far more harm than good, wreaking havoc on American families through mass incarceration while having a very limited impact on rehabilitation. Moreover, these efforts have had profoundly disproportionate effects on minorities, who have historically been the primary target of harsh anti-drug policies. The consequences of these now-debunked policies reach much farther than the doors of our prisons. A criminal background can have lifelong implications for a person’s ability to obtain housing, employment, education, and to otherwise rebuild their lives. Access to stable housing in particular is one of the most important first steps to rehabilitation, but federal laws continue to pose unnecessary and punitive barriers to federal housing assistance for those with criminal records.
Hmm. I honestly don't see anything in the way of down sides to this in its effects on America. I would expect for Republican propagandists to either ignore it or raise a stink, though, but they'll do that for pretty much anything proposed by a Democrat.

Buttigieg's put forth a "Douglass Plan" to invest in black America.

Quote:
In committing to a comprehensive plan that focuses on Black Americans, the goal of the Douglass Plan is not to ignore the specific histories and experiences that have impacted other communities of color in the United States. Mayor Pete understands that racism is not just a black and white issue, and that we also need to address the unique challenges facing other communities–from Native communities confronting poverty and dispossession to the Islamophobia impacting Middle Eastern, Arab, and South Asian communities, to dehumanizing immigration policies that stereotype the Latinx community and overlook their vital contributions to our economy. America’s racist structures were built to justify and perpetuate slavery, and by achieving greater equity for Black Americans we lay the groundwork for achieving greater equity for other people of color as well.

When Black America experiences economic justice and opportunity, we all benefit. When our democracy works for Black America, it is a better democracy for all of us. When we place Black women at the heart of the struggle for reproductive justice, the lives of all women are made healthier and freer. When young Black men have equal employment opportunities, all of America benefits from their economic contributions. The Douglass Plan is a specific plan for Black America–but it also establishes a deep and solid foundation for racial and economic justice for all communities of color and for all Americans.
I'm a little on the fence about this. It's obviously a big move to court the black vote and I would say that it would be nice to have actually happen, but I don't see it being politically feasible, and that it's got a number of things that Republicans would gleefully twist into their narratives.

Warren put forth a plan to accelerate the transition to clean energy.

Quote:
Publicly traded companies have an obligation to share important information about their business. But right now, these companies don’t share much about how climate change might affect their business, their customers, and their investors.

<snip for brevity>

My Climate Risk Disclosure plan addresses these problems by requiring companies to publicly disclose both of these types of climate-related risks. It directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules that make every public company disclose detailed information, including the likely effect on the company if climate change continues at its current pace and the likely effect on the company if the world successfully restricts greenhouse gas emissions to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement

My plan also requires the SEC to tailor these disclosure requirements for specific industries so that, for instance, fossil fuel companies will have to make even more detailed disclosures.
I think that... it would be an extremely effective idea, if it could be put in play as envisioned. I question the availability of the expertise that is required to actually pull it off, though, especially for smaller scale businesses.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 13th July 2019 at 11:32 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 07:15 AM   #47
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I would say I'm fairly familiar with private prisons. The article she wrote didn't present new information that I wasn't aware of. That is why I have no issue with that article. She isn't making the same statements in the policy proposal. It receives a different response.
I would bet that if Warren as president out out a contract to run a Norwegian style prison, she would receive a bid outlining how they would meet those requirements.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 10:22 AM   #48
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,633
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
It was a pithy comment about how it doesn't matter what the details of the plan are, reactionaries will be reactionary. Trying to distort that into some kind of "evidence" of there being no actual policy is downright beguiling.
I'm not sure you know what beguiling means, but okay, whatever. If this plan is so planful, why is the first and most important thing to say about it is that some people will hate it?

And why are you defending this, instead of discussing the merits of the plan itself?

This is how toxic your Trump Derangement Syndrome has become. A Democrat candidate publishes an immigration policy, and you can't even figure out how to discuss it, over the clamor of your two minutes hate.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 10:49 AM   #49
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure you know what beguiling means, but okay, whatever. If this plan is so planful, why is the first and most important thing to say about it is that some people will hate it?

And why are you defending this, instead of discussing the merits of the plan itself?

This is how toxic your Trump Derangement Syndrome has become. A Democrat candidate publishes an immigration policy, and you can't even figure out how to discuss it, over the clamor of your two minutes hate.
The Derangement is entirely on the Trump side when it comes to Immigration: this administration is twisting and breaking the system to create a crisis and then demand walls and soldiers to sink money it the problem to no effect except to create a sunken-cost fallacy.

Warren's plan, by and large, is to make the current system work by supporting what needs support and replacing non-functioning bits with working ones.
It's not radical, it's comprehensive and it is based on data.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 10:56 AM   #50
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,168
Love how we're accused of two minutes hate by someone who's only input in the discussion is to make pejorative assertions about the other participants in the discussion.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 12:01 PM   #51
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,163
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And why are you defending this, instead of discussing the merits of the plan itself?
Defending the right of people's words to not be wildly twisted into something unrecognizable, both in content and emphasis? Your entire complaint rests on a wild misrepresentation of the situation at hand and people are naturally unhappy with your wild misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is how toxic your Trump Derangement Syndrome has become. A Democrat candidate publishes an immigration policy, and you can't even figure out how to discuss it, over the clamor of your two minutes hate.
Yet another example of TDS being invoked when it doesn't apply at all. Thanks for demonstrating, yet again, how delusional the complaints of TDS tend to be.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 01:33 PM   #52
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,633
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Love how we're accused of two minutes hate by someone who's only input in the discussion is to make pejorative assertions about the other participants in the discussion.
When in Rome.

Meanwhile, you're still not talking about Warren's actual plan. Why not?

This seems like the perfect thread for it.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 01:35 PM   #53
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,633
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The Derangement is entirely on the Trump side when it comes to Immigration: this administration is twisting and breaking the system to create a crisis and then demand walls and soldiers to sink money it the problem to no effect except to create a sunken-cost fallacy.

Warren's plan, by and large, is to make the current system work by supporting what needs support and replacing non-functioning bits with working ones.
It's not radical, it's comprehensive and it is based on data.
Sounds promising. Tell me more.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 02:45 PM   #54
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,163
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sounds promising. Tell me more.
Why? You can read it yourself, easily enough. What comments do you have about it?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 08:11 PM   #55
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,163
To poke at the doom and gloom posters...

Trump trails Biden, Warren and Sanders in new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll

Harris, too, but by only 1%, which is within the margin of error.

Quote:
Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the president by 9 points among registered voters, 51 percent to 42 percent — outside of the poll’s margin of error of plus-minus 3.5 percentage points.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is ahead of Trump by 7 points, 50 percent to 43 percent.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., holds a 5-point advantage, 48 percent to 43 percent.

And Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is ahead by just 1 point, 45 percent to 44 percent — a jump ball.
Trump certainly can win, obviously, but those saying that Biden, Sanders, or Warren will lose because left or center voters won't like them have their focus distinctly misplaced.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:09 AM   #56
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,546
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
When in Rome.
Blaming other people's behaviour for your own is pretty damned silly.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:40 PM   #57
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,163
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris' Bill to Combat Human Trafficking Unanimously Passes out of State Senate

Quote:
SACRAMENTO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced that a bill she is sponsoring to ensure that those convicted of human trafficking crimes involving minors will not be able to keep the financial benefits reaped from those crimes unanimously passed out of the state Senate.

“The trafficking of human beings is an unseen problem in California and throughout the country,” said Attorney General Harris. “I am proud to sponsor legislation that will undercut the trafficking of human beings throughout our state.”

Senate Bill 1133, authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), ensures that those convicted of human trafficking crimes involving minors will not be able to keep the financial benefits reaped from those crimes. This bill expands on the current list of assets that the perpetrator must forfeit and provides a formula to redirect those resources to community groups that aid victims of human trafficking. It passed the Senate floor 36 to 0.

“Sex trafficking of minors is a horrendous crime that is driven by the prospect of lucrative profits,” said Senator Leno. “This legislation aims to deprive convicted criminals of the financial resources and assets that would allow them to continue luring young people into the sex trade. In turn, proceeds from those forfeitures would rightfully be used to help victims begin to repair their lives.”
Good!

And now, a Booker plan.

How Cory Booker would address long-term care

Quote:
Medicaid currently makes people spend down their assets and have low income before they can qualify for long-term services and supports for the elderly or disabled, though eligibility rules vary by state. Booker would increase Medicaid asset limits for long-term services to $200,000 and income limits to 300 percent of the federal poverty line (almost $50,000 for a family of two) to expand access to these services.

Booker would also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to help cover family caregivers' expenses. He would also pay long-term care workers at least $15 an hour and extend them full workplace benefits. He additionally would back legislation that would give the disabled the right to access long-term services in their homes.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:36 PM   #58
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,813
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Time warp? You're citing Harris' bill from 2012 with a one-word comment, "Good!".

Booker's "plan" is current.

Is there a point you're trying to make, because it escapes me.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:54 PM   #59
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,163
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Time warp? You're citing Harris' bill from 2012 with a one-word comment, "Good!".

Booker's "plan" is current.

Is there a point you're trying to make, because it escapes me.
Not quite. Including a Harris Bill from 2012 was my mistake! It is good and is relevant to Harris' record, but I wouldn't have included it had I caught that it was from 2012. Sorry, and thank you for the catch!
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; Yesterday at 11:57 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:16 AM   #60
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,673
I was wondering why it was calling her the Attorney General.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.