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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , 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: 3,641
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: 5,565
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: 17,904
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: 41,468
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: 17,904
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: 5,565
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: 17,904
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: 39,137
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 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, 10:49 AM   #49
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,113
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.
__________________
Now listen, I could just have you revoked.
K-i-l-l-e-d, revoked.
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: 3,641
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: 5,565
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: 39,137
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 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, 01:35 PM   #53
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,137
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 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, 02:45 PM   #54
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,565
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: 5,565
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 15th July 2019, 05:09 AM   #56
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,348
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 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 15th July 2019, 01:40 PM   #57
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,565
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 15th July 2019, 11:36 PM   #58
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
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 15th July 2019, 11:54 PM   #59
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,565
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; 15th July 2019 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 16th July 2019, 01:16 AM   #60
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,871
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
Old 16th July 2019, 02:49 PM   #61
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,073
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
When in Rome.

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

This seems like the perfect thread for it.
Uber-liberal Kevin Drum points out in Mother Jones that Warren's plan is, for all intents and purposes, open borders.

Quote:
I have previously criticized Republicans who accused liberals of wanting “open borders.” President Trump tweets about this endlessly. But I have to admit that it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders. As near as I can tell, CBP will be retasked away from patrolling the border looking for illegal crossings; if border officers happen to apprehend someone, they’ll be released almost immediately; if they bother to show up for their court date, they’ll have a lawyer appointed for them; and employers will have no particular reason to fear giving them a job.

Am I missing something here? Does Warren’s plan explicitly make it vanishingly unlikely that anyone crossing our border will ever be caught and sent back?
When you're going a little too far for Mother Jones....
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 16th July 2019 at 02:50 PM.
Brainster 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 16th July 2019, 04:56 PM   #62
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,565
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Uber-liberal Kevin Drum points out in Mother Jones that Warren's plan is, for all intents and purposes, open borders.



When you're going a little too far for Mother Jones....
Well... the easy answer to that his question at the end is - Yes, he's missing things. Warren's plan revolves around a number of fixes to outright abuses of the system that Trump, and to a lesser extent Bush, were doing on that front. Namely, it's more a "Return to Sanity, Law and Order, and Humanity" plan in its overall thrust - a return to a situation where the borders were very much not Open Borders, but rather Controlled Borders with more focus on preventing actual criminal actions and letting those who want to immigrate and contribute to the US to have a fair chance and those who wish to claim asylum have a fair chance to make their case.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 16th July 2019 at 04:59 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 16th July 2019, 06:16 PM   #63
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,137
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Well... the easy answer to that his question at the end is - Yes, he's missing things. Warren's plan revolves around a number of fixes to outright abuses of the system that Trump, and to a lesser extent Bush, were doing on that front. Namely, it's more a "Return to Sanity, Law and Order, and Humanity" plan in its overall thrust - a return to a situation where the borders were very much not Open Borders, but rather Controlled Borders with more focus on preventing actual criminal actions and letting those who want to immigrate and contribute to the US to have a fair chance and those who wish to claim asylum have a fair chance to make their case.
This seems like the AOC school of definitions.

First, crossing the border illegally is an actual criminal action. Reference.

Second, those who want to immigrate and contribute to the US already have a fair chance: The legal immigration process. Those who wish to apply for asylum already have a fair chance: The legal asylum process. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is literally giving an unfair chance to everyone involved.

Third, treating legal immigrants and legal asylum seekers unfairly in this way is not a return to humanity, but a turning away from humanity.

Fourth, turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is not a return to law and order, but a turning away from law and order.

Fifth, to the extent that turning a blind eye to illegal immigration discourages people from using the legal immigration process, it is not a return to sanity, but a turning away from sanity.

Your analysis appears to be fractally wrong.
theprestige 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 16th July 2019, 06:56 PM   #64
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,565
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This seems like the AOC school of definitions.

First, crossing the border illegally is an actual criminal action. Reference.
*sigh* One which was enforced as a civil violation until 2005, for a number of good reasons. Not least of those being relevant treaties that the US signed and the economic benefits brought by the people in question. Is it a problem that should be dealt with? Sure! The borders still haven't been open borders for a long time, though, and Warren's plan really wouldn't make them such.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Second, those who want to immigrate and contribute to the US already have a fair chance: The legal immigration process.
Seriously? No. Especially after the BS that the Trump Administration's been pulling, though the Republican attacks on legal immigration didn't start there at all.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Those who wish to apply for asylum already have a fair chance: The legal asylum process.
Seriously? No. Especially after the BS that the Trump Administration's been pulling, though the Republican attacks on legally seeking asylum didn't start there at all. Even if one were to excuse the legal measures taken to restrict asylum seeking... how, exactly, do you count endorsing and enacting numerous outright illegal measures to impede and harm asylum seekers who are trying to legally seek asylum to be giving a fair chance to the asylum seekers?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is literally giving an unfair chance to everyone involved.
Meanwhile, Warren's plan specifically states multiple ways to try to address the reasons why it's happening and to remove much of the worst of the incentive that the Republicans are giving to make asylum seekers and immigrants willing to try their luck at the much more dangerous options to enter the country illegally.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Third, treating legal immigrants and legal asylum seekers unfairly in this way is not a return to humanity, but a turning away from humanity.

Fourth, turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is not a return to law and order, but a turning away from law and order.

Fifth, to the extent that turning a blind eye to illegal immigration discourages people from using the legal immigration process, it is not a return to sanity, but a turning away from sanity.

Your analysis appears to be fractally wrong.
The premises that you base this upon are wrong-headed. It's not surprising that you would come to said conclusions, though, when you refuse to acknowledge even the very simple and obvious fact that, presently, the people in question very frequently DON'T have a fair chance - and that much of the reason that they don't is because of the Republicans and Trump.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 16th July 2019 at 07:03 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 17th July 2019, 12:22 AM   #65
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,113
The current asylum request processing process doesn't meet the needs - intentionally so. To claim that people are provided with a fair chance when the means to address their plight are withheld from them is disingenuous.
__________________
Now listen, I could just have you revoked.
K-i-l-l-e-d, revoked.
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 17th July 2019, 04:23 AM   #66
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,796
For President!!!

applecorped 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 17th July 2019, 08:55 AM   #67
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,137
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
*sigh* One which was enforced as a civil violation until 2005, for a number of good reasons. Not least of those being relevant treaties that the US signed and the economic benefits brought by the people in question. Is it a problem that should be dealt with? Sure! The borders still haven't been open borders for a long time, though, and Warren's plan really wouldn't make them such.



Seriously? No. Especially after the BS that the Trump Administration's been pulling, though the Republican attacks on legal immigration didn't start there at all.



Seriously? No. Especially after the BS that the Trump Administration's been pulling, though the Republican attacks on legally seeking asylum didn't start there at all. Even if one were to excuse the legal measures taken to restrict asylum seeking... how, exactly, do you count endorsing and enacting numerous outright illegal measures to impede and harm asylum seekers who are trying to legally seek asylum to be giving a fair chance to the asylum seekers?



Meanwhile, Warren's plan specifically states multiple ways to try to address the reasons why it's happening and to remove much of the worst of the incentive that the Republicans are giving to make asylum seekers and immigrants willing to try their luck at the much more dangerous options to enter the country illegally.



The premises that you base this upon are wrong-headed. It's not surprising that you would come to said conclusions, though, when you refuse to acknowledge even the very simple and obvious fact that, presently, the people in question very frequently DON'T have a fair chance - and that much of the reason that they don't is because of the Republicans and Trump.
None of those issues are addressed by the points you raised in your analysis. Those points still have the problems I described. If you want to make some other analysis of some other part of Warren's plan, go right ahead.
theprestige 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 17th July 2019, 10:52 AM   #68
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,904
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
None of those issues are addressed by the points you raised in your analysis. Those points still have the problems I described. If you want to make some other analysis of some other part of Warren's plan, go right ahead.
How do you know the current immigration process is fair? That was one of your claims.
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 17th July 2019, 11:10 AM   #69
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,137
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
How do you know the current immigration process is fair? That was one of your claims.
It's axiomatic.

Privileging people who bypass the legal process is unfair to those who follow the legal process.

This is true even if the legal process itself is unfair. In that case, the fair solution would be to make the legal process more fair, privilege those who follow the legal process, and de-privilege those who bypass it.

Solving the unfairness of the legal process by privileging those who bypass it is also a turning away from law and order. Perhaps Warren (and Aridas) believe this is the appropriate remedy in this case, but if so, they should not lie and claim it's a remedy that returns to law and order.

If there's some other part of Warren's plan that focuses on making the legal process more fair (or efficient, or humane, or whatever problem she's trying to solve), then perhaps that should be the focus of claims that Warren's plan is a return to fairness and law and order.
theprestige 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 17th July 2019, 11:14 AM   #70
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,904
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's axiomatic.

Privileging people who bypass the legal process is unfair to those who follow the legal process.

This is true even if the legal process itself is unfair. In that case, the fair solution would be to make the legal process more fair, privilege those who follow the legal process, and de-privilege those who bypass it.

Solving the unfairness of the legal process by privileging those who bypass it is also a turning away from law and order. Perhaps Warren (and Aridas) believe this is the appropriate remedy in this case, but if so, they should not lie and claim it's a remedy that returns to law and order.

If there's some other part of Warren's plan that focuses on making the legal process more fair (or efficient, or humane, or whatever problem she's trying to solve), then perhaps that should be the focus of claims that Warren's plan is a return to fairness and law and order.
But you claimed the current process is fair. Are you saying that is axiomatic? If so, how could it be unfair like you wrote in your third sentence?
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 17th July 2019, 11:46 AM   #71
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,137
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But you claimed the current process is fair. Are you saying that is axiomatic? If so, how could it be unfair like you wrote in your third sentence?
Ah. Good point.

So. To be very clear: I am not claiming that the current legal process is perfectly fair, or absolutely fair, or objectively fair. And I do not know as an empirical fact exactly how fair it is.

I assume it is reasonably fair, within the limits of how fair such government programs can practically be. Fair enough that the appropriate remedy for such unfairness as undoubtedly exists is to improve the process, not bypass it. Fair enough that it's reasonable to call it a "fair" process in most conversations.

Fair warning: I'm absolutely not interested in having a scientific skepticism conversation about the fairness of the current legal immigration process. If that's the conversation you're looking for, then my next reply to you is almost certainly going to be, "I have no opinion about that."

However, I am open to arguments that the current legal process is not as fair as I think it is, and that Warren has a plan to remedy this unfairness by improving the current legal process. I would be especially interested in plans that do this without turning a blind eye to people who bypass the process, and discouraging people from following the process. In my opinion, de facto open borders, as Mother Jones assesses the Warren plan, is not a good solution to the hard problem of effective immigration control.
theprestige 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 17th July 2019, 12:08 PM   #72
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,113
Mother Jones calling Warren's plan de facto Open Borders is pure BS. Nothing but a pile of nonsense.
To quote:
Quote:
Decriminalizes unauthorized immigration and returns to the civil enforcement we had before George Bush began Operation Streamline.
Eliminates abusive immigration enforcement and keeps law enforcement at arms length from CBP and ICE.
Reduces and reforms immigrant detention.
Reforms immigration courts.
Raises the refugee cap to 125,000 and affirms refugee protections.
Reforms legal immigration and creates a path to citizenship.
Nothing in this means Open Borders. MJ is of its rocker.

Trying to streamline the process isn't the same as letting everyone in. And we know from past administrations that the process, when done properly and with adequate resources, leads to a level of screening no other country in the world has - hence the extremely low rates of crime committed by migrants in the US. The US didn't drown in migrants before Bush, and it won't under Warren.
__________________
Now listen, I could just have you revoked.
K-i-l-l-e-d, revoked.
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 17th July 2019, 03:52 PM   #73
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,565
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
None of those issues are addressed by the points you raised in your analysis. Those points still have the problems I described. If you want to make some other analysis of some other part of Warren's plan, go right ahead.
Pointing out some of the ways in which the premises you're working from are completely wrong, which makes the points that you invoke irrelevant and wrongheaded to invoke in the first place, is somehow not addressing the issues? Get real.

You claim that Warren's plan involves turning a blind eye to illegal immigration? It's pretty close to the opposite, given that it's focusing directly on addressing the root causes. Perhaps you've fallen into the trap of thinking that only showing brazen cruelty towards the symptoms of the problems can be used as an indicator of addressing the issue. Similarly, you may also have fallen into the trap of forgetting that Warren's plan doesn't even remotely involve rebuilding the system from scratch, but rather just focuses on providing fixes to some of the ways that the system has been abused to make it unfair and frequently very inhumane in practice.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 17th July 2019 at 04:01 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 17th July 2019, 04:53 PM   #74
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,160
Here's an analysis of the 2020 election based on negative partisanship and demographics:

Quote:
Why is Trump in so much trouble in the Midwest? First, and probably most important, is the profound misunderstanding by, well, almost everyone, as to how he won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in the first place. Ask anyone, and they will describe Trump’s 2016 Midwestern triumph as a product of white, working class voters swinging away from the Democrats based on the appeal of Trump’s economic populist messaging. Some will point to survey data of disaffected Obama-to-Trump voters and even Sanders-to-Trump voters as evidence that this populist appeal was the decisive factor. And this is sort of true. In Ohio, Trump managed the rare feat of cracking 50%. Elsewhere, that explanation runs into empirical problems when one digs into the data. Start with the numerical fact that Trump “won” Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan with 47.22%, 48.18%, and 47.5% of the vote, respectively, after five times the normal number in those states cast their ballots for an option other than Trump or Clinton. This, combined with the depressed turnout of African Americans (targeted with suppression materials by the Russians) and left-leaning Independents turned off by Clinton (targeted with defection materials by the Russians) allowed Trump to pull off an improbable victory, one that will be hard to replicate in today’s less nitpicky atmosphere. Yet, the media (and the voting public) has turned Trump’s 2016 win into a mythic legend of invincibility. The complacent electorate of 2016, who were convinced Trump would never be president, has been replaced with the terrified electorate of 2020, who are convinced he’s the Terminator and can’t be stopped. Under my model, that distinction is not only important, it is everything.

Trump’s second problem is that along with a turnout surge of Democrats that in many states like Virginia is simply larger than the turnout surges of Republicans because of demographics, he is deeply unpopular among Independents because of all the abnormal, norm-breaking and according to the Mueller Report, even illegal things, he does as president. This has left him with , who largely broke against Republicans in the 2018 midterms as my theory predicted. In a follow-up piece to this forecast, I will show that much of this swing among Independents is actually the product of their own turnout surge, which brought more left-leaning Independents out to the polls by the same negative partisanship mechanisms that moved their partisan counterparts. This is why even the Democrat’s sharp drift to the left as they chase their party’s nomination, following the Republicans down the path of ideological polarization won’t have the impact on the vote choice of Independents Republicans are hoping for in 2018.

At the end of the day, Independents will be asked to weigh what Democrats might do against what Republicans, particularly Trump, are doing; the reverse situation from 2016 when Democrats suffered from the referendum effect among Independents. Even if the Democrat’s nominee is unabashedly liberal, it is not likely Trump can win a referendum among college-educated Independent voters without a dramatic transformation in both tone and style.

Republicans can survive an under-maximized Democratic turnout surge, like the one we saw in 2018 (I'll be showing this in forthcoming work), but not one that it is combined with the loss of Independent voters and not one without a corresponding Republican turnout surge which can only be accomplished via things likely to further isolate Independent voters and agitate Democrats.

Does the Democrat’s nominee matter? Sure, to an extent. If the ticket has a woman, a person of color or a Latino, or a female who is also a person of color, Democratic Party turnout will surge more in really important places. If the nominee is Biden he’d be well-advised to consider Democratic voter turnout his number one consideration when drawing his running mate to avoid the critical mistake made by Hillary Clinton in 2016. This is true for any of the white male candidates. If the nominee hails from the progressive wing of the party, it will provoke massive handwringing both within the party and the media that if not controlled could become self-reinforcing. But the Democrats are not complacent like they were in 2016 and I doubt there is any amount of polling or favorable forecasts that will make them so. That fear will play a crucial role in their 2020 victory. We will not see a divided Democratic Party in 2020.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha 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 17th July 2019, 08:39 PM   #75
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,690
Here come the bots here come the bots.

An anonymous Democratic group leaked a poll that shows swing voters deeply dislike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the left wing, widening the party's rift

Riiight. No red flags there. "anonymous Democratic group leaked a poll"
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 17th July 2019 at 08:59 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 18th July 2019, 12:15 AM   #76
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,073
Qualified for the second debate: Everybody who qualified the last time, plus Steve Bullock. Eric Swallwell dropped out so there will still be 20 candidates in total, or 10 per night.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 18th July 2019, 01:39 PM   #77
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,137
It's going to be a real slog if they don't actually use the debates to winnow the number of candidates.
theprestige 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 18th July 2019, 02:02 PM   #78
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,019
I recently waded into black twitter (that's what they call it, don't get mad at me) and discovered that there is some deep seated animosity towards Warren there over the entire ancestry thing and her having been a Republican until the mid 90's. I previously thought it might just be some lone cranks that were so agitated by this but now I'm understanding that I might have been a bit blinded by my white privilege to how minority groups were perceiving all that.


Given this I'm now thinking that Silver might be right and Warren might have a lower ceiling than we thought if she is going to have a very hard time winning over minority voters due to this existing animus.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis 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 18th July 2019, 02:28 PM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,137
It's well understood that revolutionaries must turn to in-fighting and ideological purges, to consolidate power in the hands of a few, following a successful revolution.

What is less well understood is that revolutionaries must sometimes turn to in-fighting and ideological purges before the revolution, to consolidate strength in the revolutionary faction best capable of succeeding in the revolution.

Something similar is going on with Democrats today. They all want to defeat Trump, but there's dissension about which faction or coalition of progressives is best able to do so. As the long march through the primaries continues, it'll be interesting to see which factions get to keep their seat at the table, and which factions get poisoned during the soup course or knifed by the waiter with the hors d'ouvres.
theprestige 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 18th July 2019, 03:57 PM   #80
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,258
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As the long march through the primaries continues, it'll be interesting to see which factions get to keep their seat at the table, and which factions get poisoned during the soup course or knifed by the waiter with the hors d'ouvres.
Nah, I think the script's been well approved and managed so far.

Progressive voices to be suppressed, Republican-lite to provide the chosen one: Biden, or Harris as a worst-case scenario, just in case Joe really screws up, although the example of Trump shows that you can make plenty of mistakes and still clean up the primaries.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 10:01 PM.
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.