Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 feeder wrote:
The idea that the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world is facing an existential crisis because of illegal immigration is laughable.

You claim to be dispassionate and objective, yet you use ludicrous rhetoric like "it is time to survive". Come on.

At what point are we allowed to make self sustaining decisions about our nation?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Are you seriously trying to suggest these people don't know they aren't supposed to sneak into the country? That is just silly man. You know they know.

On some level yes they do, but the information they have on legal entry is also usually wrong, incomplete, or incorrect, or the Coyote taking them through 90% of the rest of their journey up to the border is just gonna take them in the way he knows how or is comfortable with.

Meanwhile the legal ports of entry have been playing games with who/when they will allow asylum seekers or the like in.

The US was built on immigration - yes. Different time - different world. Now we have cars and machines to do all of our work - we don't need laborers - we don't even have enough labor for our own people.

We have plenty of demand for labor. Unemployment is at a record low. Most of our issues in that arena is that Labor has effectively zero market power and industries are turning over rapidly.

We don't need more mouths to feed. We don't need a bunch of illiterate people that contribute nothing to society and drain social services.

Broadly speaking, thats not what we are getting. We are getting people looking for work, and very few are completely illiterate.

At some point - your ship is full - and you have to leave some behind or the boat will capsize. We are very nearly there. This is not the time for idealism - it is time to survive.

The US is the single most powerful and wealthy nation in the history of the human race, and, as a nation, in 2018 we are richer than we have ever been before. If we have a resource issue, it's distribution issue, not because we're suffering shortages.

We also have dramatically more space and a lower population density than just about any other industrialized nation except Russia and Australia.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Well... yeah. If one party starts to unravel and break the tools of democracy, and the other side once in power do nothing to fix them and instead just break them harder and faster, then where does it stop?

I have to explain this constantly to 12 year olds on the school playground who seem to think that this is time that the punch they land will be the one that ends the argument forever, rather than just escalating the conflict, but depressingly it's just part of the human condition to react to being wronged with any sort of retribution rather than conciliation.

In real life in the world of politics there are no teachers to break up the fight. If a kid hits you, well then maybe you can try to back off one time, but when he comes at you time and again, sooner or later you can't keep getting hit and being nice. There comes a point when the only way the fight is ever going to end is when that kid realises that you are willing to hit back, and that kid is much better off not fighting because he's gonna get hurt as well.

In real life politics is a game not a existential bloodsport. If one of the teams I coach is playing a game and the other team is playing dirty or cheating I don't tell our kids to start playing dirty and cheating too, that would be counter productive to achieving our goals of playing well and winning the game with the added bonus of teaching them a terrible lesson. The real opponent you face in any game/sport is yourself, you want to play your best. If you perform at your best and the team collectively performs at a high level then your odds of winning will be as good as they can be. If the other team is playing dirty/cheating I want my team to get angry about and use that anger to be more focused, execute better, score more points and win the game. The individual goal for the kids on the team is to play their best, the team goal is to win the game. Instructing the kids to play dirty/cheat sabotages the individual goal and really doesn't improve the odds of achieving the team goal.
Wrestling with a pig in the mud and filth is just going to get you dirty and the pig is going to like it. Lowering your standards of behavior isn't impressive in the least, literally anyone can do it. You've spent several pages of posts across multiple US Politics threads arguing about the false equivalency of the idea that both Parties are bad and now you're advocating that the Democratic Party adopting a carbon copy of all of the gakky underhanded things the Republican Party does is the best way forward. How is having the Democrats literally behaving just as badly as the Republicans a practical solution? It seems like you're getting too invested in this and are missing the forest for the trees.
I know it's tough to imagine the Democrats suddenly prioritizing good governance and knuckling down and accomplishing stuff but that is their best way forward.

But what is the point behind playing your best if the other team can just start breaking your legs and their win still counts, with no ifs ands or buts? Or if you're a boxer and your opponent just shoots you in the face? You're never going to win when the deck is stacked so heavily against playing fairly.

What is the obstacle that you think Democrats are facing that is keeping them from nurturing good candidates, proposing well conceived legislation, making cogent arguments to persuade the electorate and providing good governance when they achieve political office?
I think we've gotten too caught up with analogies and have lost track of the subject. Democrats don't need to lie, insult, obfuscate, disregard laws, implement reprehensible policies and be extreme legislative obstructionists in order to convince people they're better politicians than Trump. Granted, they've made plenty of missteps already but if they get their act together they should be able to present a better strategy for winning the presidency in 2020 than simply having a candidate that isn't Trump. I'm already getting a Bush v Kerry 2004 vibe about 2020 and the Democrat candidate will rely on the ability to say Well at least I'm not Trump, as the key to victory.

Persuading the electorate doesn't exactly work in a world where facts don't matter and both sides are equally bad.

Dems don't need to do that, but the fact is by not doing so they and their supporters are negatively affected because the other side can do so without consequence.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Well... yeah. If one party starts to unravel and break the tools of democracy, and the other side once in power do nothing to fix them and instead just break them harder and faster, then where does it stop?

I have to explain this constantly to 12 year olds on the school playground who seem to think that this is time that the punch they land will be the one that ends the argument forever, rather than just escalating the conflict, but depressingly it's just part of the human condition to react to being wronged with any sort of retribution rather than conciliation.

In real life in the world of politics there are no teachers to break up the fight. If a kid hits you, well then maybe you can try to back off one time, but when he comes at you time and again, sooner or later you can't keep getting hit and being nice. There comes a point when the only way the fight is ever going to end is when that kid realises that you are willing to hit back, and that kid is much better off not fighting because he's gonna get hurt as well.

In real life politics is a game not a existential bloodsport. If one of the teams I coach is playing a game and the other team is playing dirty or cheating I don't tell our kids to start playing dirty and cheating too, that would be counter productive to achieving our goals of playing well and winning the game with the added bonus of teaching them a terrible lesson. The real opponent you face in any game/sport is yourself, you want to play your best. If you perform at your best and the team collectively performs at a high level then your odds of winning will be as good as they can be. If the other team is playing dirty/cheating I want my team to get angry about and use that anger to be more focused, execute better, score more points and win the game. The individual goal for the kids on the team is to play their best, the team goal is to win the game. Instructing the kids to play dirty/cheat sabotages the individual goal and really doesn't improve the odds of achieving the team goal.
Wrestling with a pig in the mud and filth is just going to get you dirty and the pig is going to like it. Lowering your standards of behavior isn't impressive in the least, literally anyone can do it. You've spent several pages of posts across multiple US Politics threads arguing about the false equivalency of the idea that both Parties are bad and now you're advocating that the Democratic Party adopting a carbon copy of all of the gakky underhanded things the Republican Party does is the best way forward. How is having the Democrats literally behaving just as badly as the Republicans a practical solution? It seems like you're getting too invested in this and are missing the forest for the trees.
I know it's tough to imagine the Democrats suddenly prioritizing good governance and knuckling down and accomplishing stuff but that is their best way forward.

But what is the point behind playing your best if the other team can just start breaking your legs and their win still counts, with no ifs ands or buts? Or if you're a boxer and your opponent just shoots you in the face? You're never going to win when the deck is stacked so heavily against playing fairly.

What is the obstacle that you think Democrats are facing that is keeping them from nurturing good candidates, proposing well conceived legislation, making cogent arguments to persuade the electorate and providing good governance when they achieve political office?
I think we've gotten too caught up with analogies and have lost track of the subject. Democrats don't need to lie, insult, obfuscate, disregard laws, implement reprehensible policies and be extreme legislative obstructionists in order to convince people they're better politicians than Trump. Granted, they've made plenty of missteps already but if they get their act together they should be able to present a better strategy for winning the presidency in 2020 than simply having a candidate that isn't Trump. I'm already getting a Bush v Kerry 2004 vibe about 2020 and the Democrat candidate will rely on the ability to say Well at least I'm not Trump, as the key to victory.

Persuading the electorate doesn't exactly work in a world where facts don't matter and both sides are equally bad.

Dems don't need to do that, but the fact is by not doing so they and their supporters are negatively affected because the other side can do so without consequence.

Without consequence? So you think there has been no negative impact to the GOP from Trump's victory and presidency? That the GOP of today is in as good of a positon of power or better than they were in years past?

They're in control of all branches of government.

They're in power, they just can't govern.

First asylum is BS. The term does not apply to immigrants. These aren't political refugees persecuted out of their country. They aren't going to be killed for their political views if we send them away. Their life just sucks.

None of these people qualify for asylum - nor do we have to grant ANYONE asylum. It's 100% nonsense to even suggest that. There is a legal process for seeking entry into this country - to claim these people don't have access to it is nonsense. Most of them probably don't even try. It's a known fact among these people that there is a list they could get put on but it will take forever and they will likely be denied. So they take it into their own hands. They pay a professional human smuggler to sneak them into the country (that should really be the clue that they are doing something illegal).

 Xenomancers wrote:
First asylum is BS. The term does not apply to immigrants. These aren't political refugees persecuted out of their country. They aren't going to be killed for their political views if we send them away. Their life just sucks.

None of these people qualify for asylum - nor do we have to grant ANYONE asylum. It's 100% nonsense to even suggest that. There is a legal process for seeking entry into this country - to claim these people don't have access to it is nonsense. Most of them probably don't even try. It's a known fact among these people that there is a list they could get put on but it will take forever and they will likely be denied. So they take it into their own hands. They pay a professional human smuggler to sneak them into the country (that should really be the clue that they are doing something illegal).

It's not just political. It includes, but isn't limited to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. In fact, priority one asylum seekers are

"persons facing compelling security concerns in countries of first asylum; persons in need of legal protection because of the danger of refoulement; those in danger due to threats of armed attack in an area where they are located; or persons who have experienced recent persecution because of their political, religious, or human rights activities (prisoners of conscience); women-at-risk; victims of torture or violence, physically or mentally disabled persons; persons in urgent need of medical treatment not available in the first asylum country; and persons for whom other durable solutions are not feasible and whose status in the place of asylum does not present a satisfactory long-term solution."

Bold mine.

Also https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-us-border-asylum-seekers-fleeing-violence-are-told-to-come-back-later/2018/06/12/79a12718-6e4d-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.9d82cb9ed2fc

Yeah, they don't have access to the legal way.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Without consequence? So you think there has been no negative impact to the GOP from Trump's victory and presidency? That the GOP of today is in as good of a positon of power or better than they were in years past?

The GOP undeniably have the power in all the federal branches of government and control the majority of state governments. What they have done has worked and is working. They are winning. You can argue that the GOP leadership is may not have control, but the GOP as the whole hold a tremendous amount of power now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Are you seriously trying to suggest these people don't know they aren't supposed to sneak into the country? That is just silly man. You know they know.

I don't know, nor do you. You have no idea what they know. I accept that, you blindly believe you know what they know, however I'd question anyone that states this. None of us know what even all our partners know. How can we possibly know what someone tens to hundreds of miles from us know. Their education and knowledge will be based on their peer circles. It the person down the pub (bar) tells the people that they can get into the US through route X then they may just accept that.

The US was built on immigration - yes. Different time - different world. Now we have cars and machines to do all of our work - we don't need laborers - we don't even have enough labor for our own people. We don't need more mouths to feed. We don't need a bunch of illiterate people that contribute nothing to society and drain social services.

This statement really lacks some thought. Jobs change because of technology. Instead of horses that might need the blacksmith occasionally to shoe it, you now need the design engineer, the fuel engineer, the mechanic, the tyre manufacturer, the programmer, the steel worker etc etc. If you are saying you don't need people with a scythe in a field anymore then you are correct, but for every advance in technology you need a greater population that you can educate to advance that technology further. If you are unhappy that large numbers of people are being left behind as technology advances then yes I would agree, but then that is an issue with the state's education system and that having it teach people the use of a scythe in the field is no longer useful.

The more people you have the more niche technologies and jobs you can support. Wargaming wasn't manufactured hundreds of years ago because there wasn't enough people to support it; or the manufacturing of base jumping equipment etc. The desires of 100 people can generate much more wealth than from 1 person.

At some point - your ship is full - and you have to leave some behind or the boat will capsize. We are very nearly there. This is not the time for idealism - it is time to survive.

The US is perhaps the first or second richest nation on Earth (yet with only 4% of the population)
It is about 15th in the obesity league
It is 5th largest in use of resources per capita
and so on.

That is not a nation that is full or that is needing to survive. That you feel (or have been told) that the nation is about to capsize is an issue with distribution of those resources peddled by those that don't really want to share it (and my guess is that you aren't in that wealth category).

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Well... yeah. If one party starts to unravel and break the tools of democracy, and the other side once in power do nothing to fix them and instead just break them harder and faster, then where does it stop?

I have to explain this constantly to 12 year olds on the school playground who seem to think that this is time that the punch they land will be the one that ends the argument forever, rather than just escalating the conflict, but depressingly it's just part of the human condition to react to being wronged with any sort of retribution rather than conciliation.

In real life in the world of politics there are no teachers to break up the fight. If a kid hits you, well then maybe you can try to back off one time, but when he comes at you time and again, sooner or later you can't keep getting hit and being nice. There comes a point when the only way the fight is ever going to end is when that kid realises that you are willing to hit back, and that kid is much better off not fighting because he's gonna get hurt as well.

In real life politics is a game not a existential bloodsport. If one of the teams I coach is playing a game and the other team is playing dirty or cheating I don't tell our kids to start playing dirty and cheating too, that would be counter productive to achieving our goals of playing well and winning the game with the added bonus of teaching them a terrible lesson. The real opponent you face in any game/sport is yourself, you want to play your best. If you perform at your best and the team collectively performs at a high level then your odds of winning will be as good as they can be. If the other team is playing dirty/cheating I want my team to get angry about and use that anger to be more focused, execute better, score more points and win the game. The individual goal for the kids on the team is to play their best, the team goal is to win the game. Instructing the kids to play dirty/cheat sabotages the individual goal and really doesn't improve the odds of achieving the team goal.
Wrestling with a pig in the mud and filth is just going to get you dirty and the pig is going to like it. Lowering your standards of behavior isn't impressive in the least, literally anyone can do it. You've spent several pages of posts across multiple US Politics threads arguing about the false equivalency of the idea that both Parties are bad and now you're advocating that the Democratic Party adopting a carbon copy of all of the gakky underhanded things the Republican Party does is the best way forward. How is having the Democrats literally behaving just as badly as the Republicans a practical solution? It seems like you're getting too invested in this and are missing the forest for the trees.
I know it's tough to imagine the Democrats suddenly prioritizing good governance and knuckling down and accomplishing stuff but that is their best way forward.

But what is the point behind playing your best if the other team can just start breaking your legs and their win still counts, with no ifs ands or buts? Or if you're a boxer and your opponent just shoots you in the face? You're never going to win when the deck is stacked so heavily against playing fairly.

What is the obstacle that you think Democrats are facing that is keeping them from nurturing good candidates, proposing well conceived legislation, making cogent arguments to persuade the electorate and providing good governance when they achieve political office?
I think we've gotten too caught up with analogies and have lost track of the subject. Democrats don't need to lie, insult, obfuscate, disregard laws, implement reprehensible policies and be extreme legislative obstructionists in order to convince people they're better politicians than Trump. Granted, they've made plenty of missteps already but if they get their act together they should be able to present a better strategy for winning the presidency in 2020 than simply having a candidate that isn't Trump. I'm already getting a Bush v Kerry 2004 vibe about 2020 and the Democrat candidate will rely on the ability to say Well at least I'm not Trump, as the key to victory.

Persuading the electorate doesn't exactly work in a world where facts don't matter and both sides are equally bad.

Dems don't need to do that, but the fact is by not doing so they and their supporters are negatively affected because the other side can do so without consequence.

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Without consequence? So you think there has been no negative impact to the GOP from Trump's victory and presidency? That the GOP of today is in as good of a positon of power or better than they were in years past?

Yes, no negative consequence, however low the GOP has gone, the voters keep showing up. The fact that they are incompetent is their own problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

You mean exactly like the GOP does, talk about the kettle and pot.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First asylum is BS. The term does not apply to immigrants. These aren't political refugees persecuted out of their country. They aren't going to be killed for their political views if we send them away. Their life just sucks.

None of these people qualify for asylum - nor do we have to grant ANYONE asylum. It's 100% nonsense to even suggest that. There is a legal process for seeking entry into this country - to claim these people don't have access to it is nonsense. Most of them probably don't even try. It's a known fact among these people that there is a list they could get put on but it will take forever and they will likely be denied. So they take it into their own hands. They pay a professional human smuggler to sneak them into the country (that should really be the clue that they are doing something illegal).

It's not just political. It includes, but isn't limited to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. In fact, priority one asylum seekers are

"persons facing compelling security concerns in countries of first asylum; persons in need of legal protection because of the danger of refoulement; those in danger due to threats of armed attack in an area where they are located; or persons who have experienced recent persecution because of their political, religious, or human rights activities (prisoners of conscience); women-at-risk; victims of torture or violence, physically or mentally disabled persons; persons in urgent need of medical treatment not available in the first asylum country; and persons for whom other durable solutions are not feasible and whose status in the place of asylum does not present a satisfactory long-term solution."

Bold mine.

Also https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-us-border-asylum-seekers-fleeing-violence-are-told-to-come-back-later/2018/06/12/79a12718-6e4d-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.9d82cb9ed2fc

Yeah, they don't have access to the legal way.

By that definition ever citizen in mexico might actually qualify. I see what you did there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Without consequence? So you think there has been no negative impact to the GOP from Trump's victory and presidency? That the GOP of today is in as good of a positon of power or better than they were in years past?

Yes, no negative consequence, however low the GOP has gone, the voters keep showing up. The fact that they are incompetent is their own problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

You mean exactly like the GOP does, talk about the kettle and pot.

What are you even talking about? What about the GOP is identity politics?

 feeder wrote:
The idea that the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world is facing an existential crisis because of illegal immigration is laughable.

You claim to be dispassionate and objective, yet you use ludicrous rhetoric like "it is time to survive". Come on.

It's not ludicrous - it's just a dog whistle for the actually ludicrous "white genocide" conspiracy theory gak.

 Spinner wrote:
They're in control of all branches of government.

They're in power, they just can't govern.

They don't fully control the Senate (except for things that can't be filibuster).

So, Democrats still has considerable power over the Senate.

So, I see The House and the Presidency that the GOP "controls".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AdeptSister wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Without consequence? So you think there has been no negative impact to the GOP from Trump's victory and presidency? That the GOP of today is in as good of a positon of power or better than they were in years past?

The GOP undeniably have the power in all the federal branches of government and control the majority of state governments. What they have done has worked and is working. They are winning. You can argue that the GOP leadership is may not have control, but the GOP as the whole hold a tremendous amount of power now.

That's true... until the fickle voters get tired of the current status quo and pine for "greener side over there".

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First asylum is BS. The term does not apply to immigrants. These aren't political refugees persecuted out of their country. They aren't going to be killed for their political views if we send them away. Their life just sucks.

None of these people qualify for asylum - nor do we have to grant ANYONE asylum. It's 100% nonsense to even suggest that. There is a legal process for seeking entry into this country - to claim these people don't have access to it is nonsense. Most of them probably don't even try. It's a known fact among these people that there is a list they could get put on but it will take forever and they will likely be denied. So they take it into their own hands. They pay a professional human smuggler to sneak them into the country (that should really be the clue that they are doing something illegal).

It's not just political. It includes, but isn't limited to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. In fact, priority one asylum seekers are

"persons facing compelling security concerns in countries of first asylum; persons in need of legal protection because of the danger of refoulement; those in danger due to threats of armed attack in an area where they are located; or persons who have experienced recent persecution because of their political, religious, or human rights activities (prisoners of conscience); women-at-risk; victims of torture or violence, physically or mentally disabled persons; persons in urgent need of medical treatment not available in the first asylum country; and persons for whom other durable solutions are not feasible and whose status in the place of asylum does not present a satisfactory long-term solution."

Bold mine.

Also https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-us-border-asylum-seekers-fleeing-violence-are-told-to-come-back-later/2018/06/12/79a12718-6e4d-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.9d82cb9ed2fc

Yeah, they don't have access to the legal way.

By that definition ever citizen in mexico might actually qualify. I see what you did there.

Most of South and Central America actually, what's your point? Just "immigrants are bad?"

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First asylum is BS. The term does not apply to immigrants. These aren't political refugees persecuted out of their country. They aren't going to be killed for their political views if we send them away. Their life just sucks.

None of these people qualify for asylum - nor do we have to grant ANYONE asylum. It's 100% nonsense to even suggest that. There is a legal process for seeking entry into this country - to claim these people don't have access to it is nonsense. Most of them probably don't even try. It's a known fact among these people that there is a list they could get put on but it will take forever and they will likely be denied. So they take it into their own hands. They pay a professional human smuggler to sneak them into the country (that should really be the clue that they are doing something illegal).

It's not just political. It includes, but isn't limited to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. In fact, priority one asylum seekers are

"persons facing compelling security concerns in countries of first asylum; persons in need of legal protection because of the danger of refoulement; those in danger due to threats of armed attack in an area where they are located; or persons who have experienced recent persecution because of their political, religious, or human rights activities (prisoners of conscience); women-at-risk; victims of torture or violence, physically or mentally disabled persons; persons in urgent need of medical treatment not available in the first asylum country; and persons for whom other durable solutions are not feasible and whose status in the place of asylum does not present a satisfactory long-term solution."

Bold mine.

Also https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-us-border-asylum-seekers-fleeing-violence-are-told-to-come-back-later/2018/06/12/79a12718-6e4d-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.9d82cb9ed2fc

Yeah, they don't have access to the legal way.

By that definition ever citizen in mexico might actually qualify. I see what you did there.

Most of South and Central America actually, what's your point? Just "immigrants are bad?"

The point is we can't possibly take that on. If we are going to help them - we have to help them another way.

 Xenomancers wrote:

What are you even talking about? What about the GOP is identity politics?

The whole opposition to immigration thing? Or the being mad at NFL players taking a knee thing. Or that thing in the past with Obama and his birth certificate. Or wait, what about that ambiguity about white nationalism/racism thing?
The GOP uses identity politics all the time. And that is okay. Every single political party in the entire world uses identity politics all the time. "Identity politics" is a meaningless buzzword. Politics are inherently intertwined with identity. All politics is identity politics.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

You mean exactly like the GOP does, talk about the kettle and pot.

What are you even talking about? What about the GOP is identity politics?

Are you joking? Even back to Reagan we have had the "people like that shouldn't have those things", the dog whistles, the demonizing of immigrants, welfare recipients and minorities through their law and order signalling is all identity politics, you just can't see it because its aimed at you.

You know, for once I'm entirely in agreement with Iron_Captain.

"Rural," "Christian," and "Small Business Owner" are all identities in America. All American Politics is "identity politics."

EDIT: Iron_Captain captured it perfectly.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

You mean exactly like the GOP does, talk about the kettle and pot.

What are you even talking about? What about the GOP is identity politics?

Are you joking? Even back to Reagan we have had the "people like that shouldn't have those things", the dog whistles, the demonizing of immigrants, welfare recipients and minorities through their law and order signalling is all identity politics, you just can't see it because its aimed at you.

Immigration and welfare are not race issues. They are social issues made into race issues by democrats. lol

"We can't afford to take in more immigrants" Dem "you are racist vs brown people"
"People who don't work shouldn't be eating lobster" Dem "You are racist vs black people"

See how that works?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

You mean exactly like the GOP does, talk about the kettle and pot.

What are you even talking about? What about the GOP is identity politics?

Are you joking? Even back to Reagan we have had the "people like that shouldn't have those things", the dog whistles, the demonizing of immigrants, welfare recipients and minorities through their law and order signalling is all identity politics, you just can't see it because its aimed at you.

Immigration and welfare are not race issues. They are social issues made into race issues by democrats. lol

"We can't afford to take in more immigrants" Dem "you are racist vs brown people"
"People who don't work shouldn't be eating lobster" Dem "You are racist vs black people"

See how that works?

I see how it works, like I said, you just can't see it because its aimed at you. No amount of arguing can force you to see that, because its plain to see already.

The people who say that they can't afford immigration services or welfare rarely object to spending millions, billions, on invading and bombing other countries.

Page after page of “us” vs “them” posts.

Complaints about identity politics.

Go figure.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

You mean exactly like the GOP does, talk about the kettle and pot.

What are you even talking about? What about the GOP is identity politics?

Are you joking? Even back to Reagan we have had the "people like that shouldn't have those things", the dog whistles, the demonizing of immigrants, welfare recipients and minorities through their law and order signalling is all identity politics, you just can't see it because its aimed at you.

Immigration and welfare are not race issues. They are social issues made into race issues by democrats. lol

"We can't afford to take in more immigrants" Dem "you are racist vs brown people"

Well, when the nation has never been wealthier, it undermines the former argument.

"People who don't work shouldn't be eating lobster" Dem "You are racist vs black people"

See how that works?

Sure, but when there's again almost no truth to the former (at least in the sense of routinely eating extrvagant meals at taxpayer expense) barring cherrypicked examples, and the supposed policy solution is to gut programs wholesale, that argument is seriously undermined.

More to the point, studies going back decades show that responses to and views of social assistance programs are suuuuuuuuuuuuuuper influenced by who racial perceptions of recipients.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

You mean exactly like the GOP does, talk about the kettle and pot.

What are you even talking about? What about the GOP is identity politics?

Are you joking? Even back to Reagan we have had the "people like that shouldn't have those things", the dog whistles, the demonizing of immigrants, welfare recipients and minorities through their law and order signalling is all identity politics, you just can't see it because its aimed at you.

Immigration and welfare are not race issues. They are social issues made into race issues by democrats. lol

"We can't afford to take in more immigrants" Dem "you are racist vs brown people"

Well, when the nation has never been wealthier, it undermines the former argument.

"People who don't work shouldn't be eating lobster" Dem "You are racist vs black people"

See how that works?

Sure, but when there's again almost no truth to the former, and the supposed policy solution is to gut programs wholesale, that argument is seriously undermined.

More to the point, studies going back decades show that responses to and views of social assistance programs are suuuuuuuuuuuuuuper influenced by who racial perceptions of recipients.

It has nothing to do with the economic standing of the people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The only way democratic candidates know how to pursue an electorate is by using identity politics. The lowest form of human drivel ever produced in politics.

You mean exactly like the GOP does, talk about the kettle and pot.

What are you even talking about? What about the GOP is identity politics?

Are you joking? Even back to Reagan we have had the "people like that shouldn't have those things", the dog whistles, the demonizing of immigrants, welfare recipients and minorities through their law and order signalling is all identity politics, you just can't see it because its aimed at you.

Immigration and welfare are not race issues. They are social issues made into race issues by democrats. lol

"We can't afford to take in more immigrants" Dem "you are racist vs brown people"

Well, when the nation has never been wealthier, it undermines the former argument.

"People who don't work shouldn't be eating lobster" Dem "You are racist vs black people"

See how that works?

Sure, but when there's again almost no truth to the former (at least in the sense of routinely eating extrvagant meals at taxpayer expense) barring cherrypicked examples, and the supposed policy solution is to gut programs wholesale, that argument is seriously undermined.

More to the point, studies going back decades show that responses to and views of social assistance programs are suuuuuuuuuuuuuuper influenced by who racial perceptions of recipients.

How TF are we wealthier than ever with a 20 trillion national debt?

 d-usa wrote:
Page after page of “us” vs “them” posts.

Complaints about identity politics.

Go figure.

Another day in the off-topic forum. It’s fascinating to see such a spectrum of opinions though, as well as how people argue for or against these positions.

 SkavenLord wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Page after page of “us” vs “them” posts.

Complaints about identity politics.

Go figure.

Another day in the off-topic forum. It’s fascinating to see such a spectrum of opinions though, as well as how people argue for or against these positions.

Yeah, best part is if you also witnessed the Obama era for these threads, its just astounding how far some people have just moved quietly along with the new 'reality'.

I'm hesitant to "gut" many social safety nets, but let's be honest, there is plenty of room to trim the fat. I think it was Vermont a few years back that implemented some new restrictions on food stamps that I totally agree with.

It was simple really. If you were a young (18-49 I believe) person, able bodied, able minded, and had no dependents you had work requirements. Have any job, regardless of how many hours worked or pay rate, OR do minimal community service, OR do some job training.

There was something like a 90% voluntary drop-out rate.

We have always been at war with Eurasia!