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 donald trump , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 20th April 2017, 11:27 AM   #481
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Combine that resentment with results on "most important issues" facing the country, and it's a pretty safe conclusion:

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/...2016-election/

Trump voters list immigration as third on the "important" list behind the economy and terrorism. So, two out of three are pretty obviously racial issues, and the "economy" has long been a means by which racists can voice their malicious views indirectly, as the quote from Lee Atwater explains.

Now, I would like that broken down in more detail. 65% of Democrats think Immigration is "very important," but their candidate wanted to strengthen DACA, create a path to citizenship, and not, you know, break up families and build a stupid wall. I think it's fair to say that Trump made immigration an important issue in the election - stopping him from doing crazy **** or supporting him.

The economy is always going to be a major issue, but it's doing pretty well. Not great or even good, but compared to where it was in 2008, it's stellar. So, if you're the sort of person who looks at the state of the country and thinks Immigration and Terrorism are 2 of the top 3 issues we face, it's pretty clear racial resentment is going to play a huge role. There just isn't an empirical argument for listing those that high.

Then, of course, a tiny percent of Republicans cited treatment of racial and ethnic minorities as a problem.



Others compared it to economic issues. The study cited in this article deals with economic issues (which, again, have been historically laden with racial resentment in this country - "Welfare queens..."):


https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/...onomic-issues/




That's a convenient dodge. Trump is racist, the single biggest predictor of support for Trump is racial resentment. The causal issue you're focusing on really isn't all that relevant. Did they vote for him because he was racist, or was that just something they largely shared in common with him but believed his obvious ******** about the economy? In a practical sense, why does the answer to that question really matter?

If I'm concerned about immigration, I'm racist. If I care about terrorism - racist.

Because the economy is doing "well but not good" anyone who claims that as a concern (and voted for Trump) must be racist? Am I understanding you?

Are you talking about Republicans, Trump supporters, or people who voted for Trump? You mention all three.

You make a lot of very bold assertions based on data that can be manipulated in many different ways. You are stating these claims as fact and there is no way you can know any of this. Ridiculous.
mgidm86 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 20th April 2017, 11:29 AM   #482
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,843
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
If I'm concerned about immigration, I'm racist. If I care about terrorism - racist.

Because the economy is doing "well but not good" anyone who claims that as a concern (and voted for Trump) must be racist? Am I understanding you?
Everybody's racist. They just don't know it. So I'm told.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 20th April 2017, 11:31 AM   #483
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,638
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
If I'm concerned about immigration, I'm racist. If I care about terrorism - racist.

For what reason are you concerned about immigration?

For what reason are you concerned about terrorism?


Do the facts and figures justify your concern?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 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 20th April 2017, 11:35 AM   #484
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,036
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
For what reason are you concerned about immigration?

For what reason are you concerned about terrorism?
And does that concern for terrorism include groups like the freemen on the land or not.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th April 2017, 11:52 AM   #485
MrFliop
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 81
Since most immigrants coming to the US are in fact Hispanics of Native American decent wouldn't that actually reverse the trend that's been going for the past 300 years. If latinos are becoming a majority in some areas, then doesn't that mean that the US is reverting back to its original demographic?
MrFliop 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 20th April 2017, 11:57 AM   #486
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
If I'm concerned about immigration, I'm racist. If I care about terrorism - racist.
Maybe it's just me, but I think there is a vast gulf of difference between "I'm concerned" about something and "I think it's one of the top three issues facing this country."

For instance, I'm concerned that my friends may be splitting up their marriage does not equate to the idea that this couple's marriage is one of the most important things this country must deal with.
wareyin 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 20th April 2017, 12:00 PM   #487
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
If I'm concerned about immigration, I'm racist. If I care about terrorism - racist.
If you think Immigration and Terrorism are two of the three most important issue facing the nation, I'm betting the more we talk, the more racially uncomfortable things I'm going to hear. The predilection to believe malicious nonsense - crime on the border, Muslims flooding into the country and setting up Sharia law - is a symptom of racial resentment.

Feel free to establish those as issues of major concern.

Quote:
Because the economy is doing "well but not good" anyone who claims that as a concern (and voted for Trump) must be racist? Am I understanding you?
The economy is demonstrably better now than it was in 2008 and 2012. There are deep structural problems, but overall, it is ok.

Now, you've made my claim much stronger than I did. Concern for the economy includes things like wages and taxes and opportunity but has also historically included many racial issues. Welfare, food stamps - the notion that there's a secret economy where racial minorities are getting free stuff has been a rallying point for conservatives since at least Reagan.

My point is that highlighting the economy as a major issue among Republicans doesn't necessarily allow them to evade charges of racial resentment. Ideas on the economy and what should be done often evince that resentment.

Quote:
Are you talking about Republicans, Trump supporters, or people who voted for Trump? You mention all three.
You have to look at the various surveys. They deal with different populations. I have been clear about which are which.

Quote:
You make a lot of very bold assertions based on data that can be manipulated in many different ways. You are stating these claims as fact and there is no way you can know any of this. Ridiculous.
Here's what I just wrote a few posts ago:

Quote:
Ok, fair enough. I, along with the author, are making a bit of a leap. It's social science, we aren't going to have a causal mechanism akin to a law of physics. I see an accumulation of a wide range of evidence that all converges around a high level of racial resentment among Trump voters, Trump being a pretty blatant racist, and the advocacy and support for policies that, at a minimum, cause much more damage to minority communities.
You are reading much stronger claims into my writing than actually exist. I think there's more than sufficient evidence available to draw certain conclusions. Feel free to provide contradictory evidence. We'll evaluate that, too.

Last edited by TraneWreck; 20th April 2017 at 12:01 PM.
TraneWreck 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 20th April 2017, 12:02 PM   #488
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,843
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
If you think Immigration and Terrorism are two of the three most important issue facing the nation, I'm betting the more we talk, the more racially uncomfortable things I'm going to hear.
Just so I'm sure: what does "racism" mean to you?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 20th April 2017, 12:09 PM   #489
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Just so I'm sure: what does "racism" mean to you?
Two levels (at least) that are intertwined:

1) Prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism directed at certain groups based on a belief that one group is inferior.

2) The structure that resulted from centuries of #1. It is an on-going phenomenon.

All racists and racism aren't equal. You have your cross-burners up to your O'Reilly's through the people happily benefiting from the structures of white supremacy while convincing themselves that they because they don't fall in category 1, they can't possibly be contributing to structural inequity.

The more eager the Trump voter, the more they're likely to be overt racists. Then you have folks like Paul Ryan who constantly advocate policies that will do more damage to minority populations. This is what Lee Atwater was talking about when he said:

Quote:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
TraneWreck 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 20th April 2017, 12:12 PM   #490
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,843
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Two levels (at least) that are intertwined:

1) Prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism directed at certain groups based on a belief that one group is inferior.

2) The structure that resulted from centuries of #1. It is an on-going phenomenon.
Ok I can go with that, especially #1.

You do understand, though, that simple concern about immigration isn't racist. I do understand that it's often an expression of racism (like holocaust denial usually hides anti-semitism; the holocaust didn't happen but by god the Jews sure deserved it!), but it doesn't follow that the concern necessarily stems from racism.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 20th April 2017, 12:24 PM   #491
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You do understand, though, that simple concern about immigration isn't racist. I do understand that it's often an expression of racism (like holocaust denial usually hides anti-semitism; the holocaust didn't happen but by god the Jews sure deserved it!), but it doesn't follow that the concern necessarily stems from racism.
I tried to make this point in an earlier post, but it's worth repeating:

There is nothing inherently racist about discussing immigration or having an opinion on the issue. It isn't true of the logic of topic.

It's factually true of the current political immigration debate that, because there just isn't any evidence that it's major problem, people who are REALLY REALLY concerned about immigration - concerned enough to say it's one of the top three most important issues our country faces - are basing that on something other than an analysis of the issues. The only "problems" with immigration are (1) the shortfall of funds spent on services for undocumented people compared to the taxes they pay and (2) the abuse of undocumented people, themselves.

The CBO pegs (1) at less than 5% of budgets in almost all areas with significant population and that does not consider the economic activity generated by that population. Nationwide, the shortfall for local governments is about $190 million, which is comically low given the size of our economy. The whole "problem" can be resolved with a minor reimbursement from the feds.

So, what does it say about a person who believes a wall needs to be built, families need to be broken up, and other extreme actions taken? The wall costs literally 100x more than the actual shortfall to state and local budgets. It's insanity.

Similarly, people in the South during segregation - even at a time when it was perfectly acceptable to say horrific racist things outloud - often defended themselves by reference to crime and safety. If one of your primary concerns in Birmingham in 1958 was crime committed by black people, you were almost assuredly a racist. Not because there's anything inherent in concern over crime, but because of the reality of that situation.
TraneWreck 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 20th April 2017, 01:05 PM   #492
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,372
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post

It's factually true of the current political immigration debate that, because there just isn't any evidence that it's major problem, people who are REALLY REALLY concerned about immigration - concerned enough to say it's one of the top three most important issues our country faces - are basing that on something other than an analysis of the issues.
Yes, but they could be basing it on ignorance rather than racism. They have been told that illegal immigration is a big threat. They trusted the source. That doesn't require that they're racist.

They're just butt wrong instead.
phiwum 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 20th April 2017, 02:02 PM   #493
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,843
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
It's factually true of the current political immigration debate that, because there just isn't any evidence that it's major problem, people who are REALLY REALLY concerned about immigration - concerned enough to say it's one of the top three most important issues our country faces - are basing that on something other than an analysis of the issues.
What about just a problem or not among the top three concerns?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 20th April 2017, 09:57 PM   #494
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 21,795
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
The only "problems" with immigration are (1) the shortfall of funds spent on services for undocumented people compared to the taxes they pay and (2) the abuse of undocumented people, themselves.
You slipped a spanner in the works there, TraneWreck. Those two problems only relate to illegal immigration. I think legal immigration is too high because I think overpopulation is a serious global problem ... and a serious USA problem. Why are we letting more and more people become residents when we should be seeking to reduce our population footprint?

Do I escape your notion of a racist?
SezMe 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 21st April 2017, 12:22 AM   #495
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,668
Quote:
First, candidate Donald Trump said a judge of Mexican descent couldn't give him a fair hearing.

Now, President Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is suggesting that a judge from Hawaii — which he dismissively labels “an island in the Pacific” — should not be able to strike down Trump's travel ban.

Here's what Sessions told radio host Mark Levin on Wednesday, in audio uncovered by CNN's Andrew Kaczynski:

We are confident that the president will prevail on appeal and particularly in the Supreme Court, if not the Ninth Circuit. So this is a huge matter. I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...verrule-trump/

Who does this judge think he is jeopardizing American lives from this rock in the middle of nowhere? Absolutely outrageous. No one but God himself should be able to second guess President Trump and his infinite wisdom that know no bounds.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 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 21st April 2017, 01:09 AM   #496
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 4,491
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...verrule-trump/

Who does this judge think he is jeopardizing American lives from this rock in the middle of nowhere? Absolutely outrageous. No one but God himself should be able to second guess President Trump and his infinite wisdom that know no bounds.
The Constitution consists of a manly 2nd Amendment, the rest is fluff reading for sissies. It's in the Buy-Bull! Only place to shop.
__________________
Please use your own words for foundational concepts and main argument; I do not wish to debate a disjointed quote machine made of foreign parts that jerry-rig on command. I am happy, however, to debate an identifiable set of statements of your clear authorship that are intended to hold together.
Hlafordlaes 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 21st April 2017, 01:33 AM   #497
WilliamSeger
Graduate Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,632
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...verrule-trump/

Who does this judge think he is jeopardizing American lives from this rock in the middle of nowhere? Absolutely outrageous. No one but God himself should be able to second guess President Trump and his infinite wisdom that know no bounds.
The unexaggerated version of Session's comment is almost as bad: He's saying that if Trump does something that "appears" (to Jeff Sessions) to be Constitutional, then he's "amazed" that an uppity Hawaiian judge should be able to interfere.
WilliamSeger 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 21st April 2017, 01:50 AM   #498
TofuFighter
Muse
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 918
Well, since Obama was born there, Hawaii is probably a muslim.
__________________
"It's dots all the way down"
TofuFighter 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 21st April 2017, 06:54 AM   #499
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,087
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I think legal immigration is too high because I think overpopulation is a serious global problem ... and a serious USA problem. Why are we letting more and more people become residents when we should be seeking to reduce our population footprint?
Pilots of small planes may get a different perspective that someone living in or near a population center.

There are miles and miles and miles of nothing but open land all over this country. This is especially true now that less land is being required for agriculture. There's lots of room for more people, and in general people are an asset, not a liability.

The key is to discourage people from clustering in areas that are already overpopulated.
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi
Fast Eddie B 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 21st April 2017, 07:21 AM   #500
Roger Ramjets
Master Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Why are we letting more and more people become residents when we should be seeking to reduce our population footprint?
The problem isn't our population footprint, but our consumption footprint. Immigrants are generally used to living on less. The only objection I have to immigration is that we will corrupt them into living a less healthy lifestyle (for them and the planet).
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 21st April 2017, 07:45 AM   #501
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
You slipped a spanner in the works there, TraneWreck. Those two problems only relate to illegal immigration. I think legal immigration is too high because I think overpopulation is a serious global problem ... and a serious USA problem. Why are we letting more and more people become residents when we should be seeking to reduce our population footprint?
Immigration doesn't increase population, it's people moving from one place to another. They could be on the planet in one country or the other.

In fact, if global population is your concern, the USA should let more people in as citizens of stable, wealthy nations produce far fewer offspring. And, if they're living in a place with cleaner energy production, better pollution controls, and a generally less wasteful infrastructure, their footprint will be less damaging to the environment.

Quote:
Do I escape your notion of a racist?
Possibly, more information needed, but you sure did validate my claim that there isn't a serious or even significant problem with immigration in the US.
TraneWreck 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 21st April 2017, 07:47 AM   #502
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What about just a problem or not among the top three concerns?
I would love to see someone establish it as a problem, at all. If anything, our country needs more young people willing to work in it.

Take Social Security, for example, there is a shortfall in the trust fund created to compensate for the Baby Boomers. Because subsequent generations are smaller and can't fund the huge retiring population, in 2038 benefits will drop to 80% of the current level.

One way to solve that problem is to life the income cap on SS tax. Another way is to have more working age people paying into the system. A pathway to allowing more guest workers or allowing currently undocumented people to obtain citizenship would solve far more problems than it would create.
TraneWreck 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 21st April 2017, 07:51 AM   #503
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Yes, but they could be basing it on ignorance rather than racism. They have been told that illegal immigration is a big threat. They trusted the source. That doesn't require that they're racist.

They're just butt wrong instead.
I would say that an inclination to believe stories highly derogatory towards minorities (this is about Mexicans and Muslims) doesn't wholly excuse someone from the racism charge, even if we can distinguish them from the Bannons of the world.

As for the purely ignorant, they're perpetuating a system highly favorable to white folks. That's why structural racism is an important concept: the default is white supremacy and the ignorance contributes to that, even if people aren't burning crosses.
TraneWreck 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 21st April 2017, 08:04 AM   #504
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,843
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
I would love to see someone establish it as a problem, at all.
Yeah but you didn't answer my question: if they say it's _a_ problem, is it still racist?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 21st April 2017, 08:10 AM   #505
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,879
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...verrule-trump/

Who does this judge think he is jeopardizing American lives from this rock in the middle of nowhere? Absolutely outrageous. No one but God himself should be able to second guess President Trump and his infinite wisdom that know no bounds.

Yeah. Who do they think they are? Goin' around wearin' grass skirts and havin' loo hows every day. Surfin' and drinkin' Mai Tais all the time.

It ain't like they're real 'Muricans. They're just as bad as those Californicators.

Mebbe worse.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta 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 21st April 2017, 08:13 AM   #506
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,879
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Immigration doesn't increase population, it's people moving from one place to another. They could be on the planet in one country or the other.

<snip>

I suspect that for most Trump supports other countries might as well be on another planet.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta 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 21st April 2017, 08:33 AM   #507
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 40,129
Well, apparently Trump forgot Paul Ryan's name and now calls him Ron, soooo.... Guess it's time for me to get to work on that anti-healthcare, anti-abortion agenda.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins 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 21st April 2017, 08:51 AM   #508
Distracted1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
I would love to see someone establish it as a problem, at all. If anything, our country needs more young people willing to work in it.

Take Social Security, for example, there is a shortfall in the trust fund created to compensate for the Baby Boomers. Because subsequent generations are smaller and can't fund the huge retiring population, in 2038 benefits will drop to 80% of the current level.

One way to solve that problem is to life the income cap on SS tax. Another way is to have more working age people paying into the system. A pathway to allowing more guest workers or allowing currently undocumented people to obtain citizenship would solve far more problems than it would create.
That assumes that having more working-age people in the country will result in having more work to do. That is not a self evident assumption.

If having more people in the country only results in having more people on the receiving end of expenditures, it works in direct opposition to your assertion. (Whether the unemployed are made up of the immigrants themselves or of people displaced by them.)
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 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 21st April 2017, 09:04 AM   #509
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
That assumes that having more working-age people in the country will result in having more work to do. That is not a self evident assumption.
Fair point. Take the examples of Alabama and Georgia. Both states recently cracked down on their undocumented population and suffered massive losses of economic activity in their state:

Quote:
To forgo a repeat of last year, when labor shortages triggered an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses, as crops rotted in the fields, officials in Georgia are now dispatching prisoners to the stateís farms to help harvest fruit and vegetables.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi.../#a1b8768492aa

Quote:
Within a year, between 40,000 and 80,000 Latinos had bolted the state, according to a study by the University of Alabama's Center for Business and Economic Research, costing the state up to $10.8 billion in lost income and tax revenues.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/w...t-donald-trump

Several other states have achieved similar results. There is currently more than enough capacity in this nation. This is one of the main reasons why I say this isn't a problem.

Quote:
If having more people in the country only results in having more people on the receiving end of expenditures, it works in direct opposition to your assertion. (Whether the unemployed are made up of the immigrants themselves or of people displaced by them.)
People aren't coming to the US for its generous social services. They're coming to work. That's why the single best thing we could do to slow undocumented immigration would be to help make the Mexican economy as strong as possible. A stronger Mexican economy combined with our slump since 2007 has drastically slowed border crossing.
TraneWreck 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 21st April 2017, 09:08 AM   #510
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah but you didn't answer my question: if they say it's _a_ problem, is it still racist?
Almost always.

As I said, not because there is anything inherently racist about discussing immigration, but because in this place, in this time, the issues are such that a hyper-focus and concern has little basis in reality absent scorn for the "type" of immigrant under discussion.

Once again, it's akin to talking about "crime" or "women's safety" in Birmingham in 1958: that was a coded way to justify segregation. The only danger to women came from their husbands, so passing laws excluding black people from swimming pools was as useless as building a wall on the border - unless you had some other motivation.
TraneWreck 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 21st April 2017, 09:11 AM   #511
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,843
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Almost always.
So your use of the word "major" highlighted by me earlier was just for show? Your use of the "top three" qualifier was also for show? Why did you use these words if they make no difference?

Quote:
As I said, not because there is anything inherently racist about discussing immigration, but because in this place, in this time, the issues are such that a hyper-focus and concern has little basis in reality absent scorn for the "type" of immigrant under discussion.
And now you're back to the more narrow definition. I'm having a hard time following you, Trane. Is the hyper-focus related to racism or not?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 21st April 2017, 09:26 AM   #512
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So your use of the word "major" highlighted by me earlier was just for show? Your use of the "top three" qualifier was also for show? Why did you use these words if they make no difference?
I'm confused. Those are very relevant. If you live in America in 2017 and think Terrorism and Immigration are two of the three most important issues facing the country - ones that need to be solved IMMEDIATELY - racial animus is likely going to be a driving factor.

I would say it's the single largest driving factor behind that assessment because there is a complete lack of any other reason to prioritize those issues so highly.

I have given a wide range of evidence to support this claim, including the positive link between racial resentment and the voters prioritizing immigration issues, while recognizing that it can never be proven like E=MC2.

Quote:
And now you're back to the more narrow definition. I'm having a hard time following you, Trane. Is the hyper-focus related to racism or not?
I really don't follow your objection. I can't answer because I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

Last edited by TraneWreck; 21st April 2017 at 09:28 AM.
TraneWreck 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 21st April 2017, 09:29 AM   #513
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,843
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
I'm confused. Those are very relevant. If you live in America in 2017 and think Terrorism and Immigration are two of the three most important issues facing the country - ones that need to be solved IMMEDIATELY - racial animus is likely going to be a driving factor.
Ok, look: I asked you whether racism would be the driving factor in your opinion, if one thought that "terrorism and immigration" was ONE issue facing the country -- not major ones, not two of the three most important ones, but simply a problem to be dealt with without regard to its priority or importance -- and you replied that it would STILL be the case.

And now that I point this out, you bring BACK the major, top three issues comment. Which is it?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 21st April 2017, 09:35 AM   #514
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,949
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ok, look: I asked you whether racism would be the driving factor in your opinion, if one thought that "terrorism and immigration" was ONE issue facing the country -- not major ones, not two of the three most important ones, but simply a problem to be dealt with without regard to its priority or importance -- and you replied that it would STILL be the case.

And now that I point this out, you bring BACK the major, top three issues comment. Which is it?
Ah, I must have misunderstood your earlier point.

I think it's perfectly possible to have not looked into either issue particularly deeply, consider them of some importance, and not be racist.

I would say that if people persist in considering them "major problems," however we want to define that, upon an examination of the issues, or they continue to think that bans, the breaking up of families, and border walls are minimally coherent solutions, there's almost certainly some sort of racial animus at work.

But again, that doesn't interest me much. It's like you're looking for a OJ juror: some well meaning, intelligent person who is totally ignorant about current events. I will acknowledge that person exists, but I don't think they exist in large enough numbers to be relevant.

People were *********** EXCITED to chant about that border wall.
TraneWreck 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 21st April 2017, 10:19 AM   #515
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,736
He really hates free speech.

Quote:
President Trump's lawyers on Thursday argued that anti-Trump protesters infringed on his First Amendment right by expressing "dissenting views" at his campaign rallies.

According to a report by Politico, Trump's lawyers are asking a judge to halt an ongoing lawsuit against the president by maintaining that protesters "have no right" to voice opposing views during rallies.
Stacko 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 21st April 2017, 10:24 AM   #516
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,843
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Amazing.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 21st April 2017, 10:25 AM   #517
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,736
Trump refused to provide a list of his properties for sale so USA Today built one and found some interesting transactions.

Quote:
President Trumpís companies own more than 400 condo units and home lots whose sale could steer millions of dollars to Trump, a USA TODAY investigation has found.

USA TODAY spent four months cataloging every property Trump's companies own across the country. Reporters*found that Trumpís companies are sitting on at least $250 million of individual properties in the USA*alone.*Property records show Trumpís trust and his companies own at least 422 luxury condos and penthouses from New York City to Las Vegas, 12 mansion lots on bluffs overlooking his golf course on the Pacific Ocean*and dozens more smaller pieces of real estate. The properties range in value from about $200,000 to $35 million each.

Unlike developments where Trump*licenses his name to a separate*developer for a flat*fee, profits from selling*individual*properties directly owned by his companies*ultimately enrich him personally.

...

Since Election Day, records show Trump companies have sold at least 14 luxury condos and home-building lots for about $23 million. Half were sold to limited liability companies.*No names were listed in deeds, obscuring buyersí identities.
That's an easy way to hide an emolument.
Stacko 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 21st April 2017, 11:23 AM   #518
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,565
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I think legal immigration is too high because I think overpopulation is a serious global problem ... and a serious USA problem. Why are we letting more and more people become residents when we should be seeking to reduce our population footprint?
Since 1960, global birthrates have fallen sharply, according to the World Bank. Just about everywhere. In industrialized countries it has dropped even more. Birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa are down, but many are still higher than the "replacement rate." The U.S. and other "rich" countries have fallen below the replacement rate.

If you are just talking about the U.S. population, we were below the replacement rate in 2015. People live longer which makes things more crowded. Immigrants from countries with high birth rates would probably feel they don't have to have 14 kids because there is a social safety net and clean drinking water.
Minoosh 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 21st April 2017, 07:22 PM   #519
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,349
We should get those kids who outed their faux school principal to take a look at this guy.
alfaniner 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 21st April 2017, 11:06 PM   #520
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 21,795
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Pilots of small planes may get a different perspective that someone living in or near a population center.

There are miles and miles and miles of nothing but open land all over this country. This is especially true now that less land is being required for agriculture. There's lots of room for more people, and in general people are an asset, not a liability.

The key is to discourage people from clustering in areas that are already overpopulated.
I AM (well, used to be) a small plane pilot and I disagree that there is a lot of open land. In fact, I'm discouraged by how little undisturbed land there is. But I do know others disagree. That there is simply room to put people does not impress me as to the overpopulation question. Hell, you could take the entire population of the Earth, put them in Texas and each would have about 1,000 square feet.

But we're getting a bit away from Trump so I'll leave it at that. We can take up the issue again if it is directly relevant to Trump or his policies.
SezMe 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 04:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.