Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Ragitsu]

All this simmering anger from my fellow countrymen and countrywomen towards illegal immigrants never fails to amuse me. You have these folks that are more angry at some dude crossing the southern border than the US government upsetting the stability of his society by encouraging the trafficking of illegal narcotics (not to mention those that control their supply...i.e. drug lords and the gangs under their thumbs) and the US companies that happily hire cheaper illegal immigrant labor if they can get away with it. Rarely do they bother to stop looking at the effect (illegal immigration) and instead focus on the cause (the aforementioned tag-team of government and companies) which, if properly addressed, would reduce the severity of the effect.

[Ragitsu]

I loathe the "But Hilary!" and "But Obama!" deflections, yet I can't help but say "Y'know, if Obama had done this..." in regards to -> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/26/trump-fire-mueller-republicans-reaction-372387

[Sociotard]

I'm actually okay with this. The idiot President listened when his smart staff told him not to do something.  He wanted to do something, and didn't. I can't get too mad when somebody restrains their more awful instincts.

[Old Man]

The problem is, not only is attempting to fire Mueller equal to obstruction, covering up the attempt to fire Mueller is conspiracy and racketeering.

[DShomshak]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 4:08 PM, Ragitsu said:

All this simmering anger from my fellow countrymen and countrywomen towards illegal immigrants never fails to amuse me....

Clearly, some people are operating on very different narratives. I like to look at it this way: Is illegal immigration a home invasion or a parking violation?

 

Both are violations of law, but most people would say they are of greatly different severity. When people park where they shouldn't, we charge them a fine but we don't revoke their license, confiscate their car and demand massive government expenditure to make sure nobody double-parks or parks in a fire zone again. Neither do we shrug and say that since we can't stop everyone from parking in the wrong place every time, we should just give up and abandon all parking regulations.

 

To me, that describes illegal immigration. People haven't followed the rules, but it's no big deal. Levy a penalty, but give them a chance to re-park somewhere else.

 

A report on All Things Considered claimed that more than half the "illegals" actually entered the country legally but overstayed their visas. So this is nothing more than letting the parking meter run out on your car. Pay your ticket, move on.

 

But clearly, to many people illegal immigration is more home invasion. Strangers have violently entered a place that is theirs to rob them and do them harm.

 

The problem I see with this emotional response is that the country is not your home. Your home is yours. Your country is not. You, individually, do not get to say who belongs and who doesn't. Moreover, you are not, personally, robbed or harmed by the mere act of someone crossing a border without permission. Any harm is likely diffuse and indirect.

 

No matter how intense and visceral the sense of violation, feelings are not facts. Public policy should be carefully considered and made on the most objective grounds possible. Not just because some people are confused about personal boundaries.

 

(Though the point about employers of the undocumented is another issue. Here, I think the harm is quite objective and measurable -- including to the undocumented.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[Ternaugh]

My first cousin once removed is strongly anti-immigration. From what I can tell, there is a very big chance that both she and my mother were actually first-generation Americans*, and that their parents were not actually from the United States. This, of course, she vehemently disbelieves.

 

I've tried to find my grandparents and great-grandparents in the census documents, and my great-grandparents show up in the records around 1930. My grandparents show up in the records for 1940. My grand-père had a funny family story about a convenient church fire--"thirteen new citizens that day!", which would always get a reprimand from my grand-mere (she would have been one of the new citizens). A few years ago, I found out from my Mom that the convenient church fire was limited to one book of baptismal records.

 

I can't really fault someone for overstaying their visa, or for wanting a better life for their child.

 

 

*Mom had dual citizenship with Canada until age 18, when she had to choose.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, DShomshak said:

No matter how intense and visceral the sense of violation, feelings are not facts. Public policy should be carefully considered and made on the most objective grounds possible.

 

 

Sadly, this perception appears to be very common, not only among politicians but among the general public.

[Ragitsu]

1 hour ago, DShomshak said:

(Though the point about employers of the undocumented is another issue. Here, I think the harm is quite objective and measurable -- including to the undocumented.)

 

It has been shown (and I wish I had the hyperlink to the article/video, but I presently do not) that illegal immigrants or even just immigrants in general will work in back-breaking, sunstroke inducing conditions that most official United States citizens simply will not. What I am referring to are farms in California, but it would not surprise me if there were other primarily labor-based occupations across this nation that attract/repel similar demographics. Speaking of which? The economy is become increasingly...interesting...as automation steadily encroaches upon the realm which was once chiefly dominated by muscle power and sweat as opposed to servomotors and oil. At least one incentive to cross the southern border may very well diminish once agricultural technology reaches its next critical stage of development.

[assault]

2 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

It has been shown (and I wish I had the hyperlink to the article/video, but I presently do not) that illegal immigrants or even just immigrants in general will work in back-breaking, sunstroke inducing conditions that most official United States citizens simply will not.

 

I think the key here is starvation wages, not the terrible conditions.

 

Improving both wouldn't be a bad idea though.

[Ragitsu]

 

[megaplayboy]

I think we're on the verge of a period of high-intensity open partisan warfare in DC.  There's going to be a showdown about the investigation, and the "investigation" into the investigation.  Getting ugly, folks.  

[DShomshak]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 6:09 PM, Ragitsu said:

 

It has been shown (and I wish I had the hyperlink to the article/video, but I presently do not) that illegal immigrants or even just immigrants in general will work in back-breaking, sunstroke inducing conditions that most official United States citizens simply will not. What I am referring to are farms in California, but it would not surprise me if there were other primarily labor-based occupations across this nation that attract/repel similar demographics. Speaking of which? The economy is become increasingly...interesting...as automation steadily encroaches upon the realm which was once chiefly dominated by muscle power and sweat as opposed to servomotors and oil. At least one incentive to cross the southern border may very well diminish once agricultural technology reaches its next critical stage of development.

I remember that All Things Considered has aired a number of stories about large numbers of the undocumented working in chicken processing plants.

 

(Having worked in my father's tiny rabbit processing plant, I can confirm that meat processing is hard work and quite unpleasant. Keeping workers was quite a problem... So many people who said they wanted jobs, even if it was only one day a week, but worked only a few times or never showed up at all.

 

(All white, as far as I could tell. If it matters.)

 

And every time immigration makes the news, we get another set of stories about employers treating their undocumented as virtual slave lablr, such as by threatening to turn them in if they keep demanding the pay they were promised. In the interests of preserving the rule of law, I think employers should not be allowed to get away with this.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

[Old Man]

23 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

I think we're on the verge of a period of high-intensity open partisan warfare in DC.  There's going to be a showdown about the investigation, and the "investigation" into the investigation.  Getting ugly, folks.  

 

Christopher Wray forcing Andrew McCabe out of the FBI for basically no reason does qualify as ugly.  It's hard to paint that as anything other than an opening attack on the FBI.

[Christopher]

2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

(Having worked in my father's tiny rabbit processing plant, I can confirm that meat processing is hard work and quite unpleasant. Keeping workers was quite a problem... So many people who said they wanted jobs, even if it was only one day a week, but worked only a few times or never showed up at all.

 

(All white, as far as I could tell. If it matters.)

No surprise there. Years (decades?) ago I watched a Documentation about workers maintaining my countries streets. The foreman related a story of who is working there:

Exclusively Immigrants. Not for lack of trying or anything. He summed it up like that when "natural Germans" are concerned:

20 people that are looking for a job/receive out of job benefits are given the place as possible place of work*.

10 actually write a Application. All 10 are invited for a Job interview.

5 actually come to the Interview.

1 actually comes to the first day

0 are still there after the 1st week

 

People that claim immigrants take their jobs, do not ever want the job that immigrants actually have.

 

*Filtering for being unsuiteable for such a job is done way before that.

[Ragitsu]

2 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

I think we're on the verge of a period of high-intensity open partisan warfare in DC.  There's going to be a showdown about the investigation, and the "investigation" into the investigation.  Getting ugly, folks.  

 

1. "It never happened."

2. "It happened, but it's not a crime."

3. "Well it might be a crime, but a minor one."

4. "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself."

[Ragitsu]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-gripes-against-mccabe-included-wife-s-politics-comey-n842161

[csyphrett]

Never lets it go. He's like a dog with a bone and food aggression.

CES

[megaplayboy]

16 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

1. "It never happened."

2. "It happened, but it's not a crime."

3. "Well it might be a crime, but a minor one."

4. "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself."

5. "Your honor, in light of my client's long history of public service, we would ask for a lenient sentence."

[wcw43921]

Armed Trump Supporters Confront American Indian Arizona Lawmakers

 

I can't decide whether this part is ironic or just stupidity on the Trump supporters part--

 

"It was during the time that I left to find a security guard that one of the Trump protestors yelled at Rep. Descheenie to get out the country because he was here illegally. “--Rep. Wenona Benally

 

Rep. Eric Descheenie is a Navajo.  His ancestors were here long before the Trumpers' ancestors--but try telling them that. 

[Lord Liaden]

Doesn't matter if it was ironic or not -- just saying it aloud was stupidity.

 

OTOH a lot of people today seem to subscribe to the notion that if you say something often enough and loudly enough, that makes it true.

[Ragitsu]

48 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

OTOH a lot of people today seem to subscribe to the notion that if you say something often enough and loudly enough, that makes it true.

 

The scary thing?

 

It works.

 

At least, it works when it comes to convincing someone else who is equally or more gullible than yourself that what is being repeated at an elevated volume is the gospel.

[Old Man]

It's impossible to keep up.

 

• The White House has effectively refused to impose sanctions on Russia in accordance with a law overwhelming passed by Congress last year.  This is literally a Constitutional crisis. 
• Rep. Nunes and his GOP teammates on the House Intelligence Committee have voted to release a heavily redacted memo that will show that the FBI sought a FISA warrant against members of the Trump campaign, but will conveniently omit the evidence that explains why the FBI sought the warrant.
• Andrew McCabe was forced out of the FBI for reasons.
• The GOP, which when presented with evidence of an extramarital affair by a U.S. president, launched a multi-year investigation with a special prosecutor that culminated in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, did nothing when it heard about an alleged affair between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, or the front company that was set up for the express purpose of paying her off.
• Trump has turned the State of the Union address into a fundraiser; donors can pay $35 and up for the privilege of seeing their names on the screen during the speech.  To be clear: Trump is openly using his office for the direct enrichment of his political party.
• Trump has played three times more golf than any other president at this point in his term.
• It was revealed that Trump literally ordered the firing of Mueller last year (which, again, constitutes obstruction of justice); Trump's counsel only managed to override this by threatening to quit.
• Negotiations to stave off the next government shutdown are going nowhere.

 

I'm forgetting a whole bunch of stuff, but any one of these by itself is a serious crisis in government.  If I were cynical, I'd suspect that the GOP is counting on a constant drumbeat of outrage to wear out any opposition to its abuses of power.

[Ragitsu]

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

It's impossible to keep up.

 

It's shocking how we as a nation went from having a far-too-large chunk of the population bellyaching about the former President's tan suits and choice of condiments on his hamburger to a far-too-large chunk of the population flat-out not giving a rat's ass about the many legitimate abuses of power the current President is committing or even cheering him on while he effectively thrusts a middle finger at the spirit of the law. You can say this is a long-time coming symptom of the the public wanting to "stick it to the man" even at the detriment of their own prosperity (while they're idolizing a man who is "THE man"). You can chalk this up to apathy encouraged by the ugly side of anonymity which itself is bolstered by the internet. You can even call this a sign of the end times. However you want to frame it and/or explain it, the situation is persistently depressing.

[Pariah]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Doesn't matter if it was ironic or not -- just saying it aloud was stupidity.

 

OTOH a lot of people today seem to subscribe to the notion that if you say something often enough and loudly enough, that makes it true.

 

8 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

The scary thing?

 

It works.

 

At least, it works when it comes to convincing someone else who is equally or more gullible than yourself that what is being repeated at an elevated volume is the gospel.

 

Wizard's First Rule. People will believe any lie if they want it to be true, or if they're afraid that it might be true.

[Lord Liaden]

59 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

You can say this is a long-time coming symptom of the the public wanting to "stick it to the man" even at the detriment of their own prosperity (while they're idolizing a man who is "THE man").

 

You know, I could never understand that part. I remember all the critics of Hillary Clinton claiming she was in the pocket of big business, and that Donald Trump was immune to that because he has his own money. How do you not recognize that Donald Trump has all that money because he's one of the pockets?  All they did by voting him in was eliminate the middle man.