2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you appreciate that finishing your description with a closing argument that 'these people' deserve being taxed is a bit ... expressing a bias against them? Like, I understand the entire fundamental concern. But, I've been told many times that the frustration is with the global elite that is profiting from the laborer. So, closing the argument by 'othering' the worker is expressing an implicit bias?
I have to say I appreciate this response and some of the things you brought up, and I will try to do justice at least to this bias problem. In school I was a more capitalistic, open borders person, but events in the years since have changed my attitude. The situation seems to have turned more political than economic. My most recent complaint is that the immigrants appear to be willing pawns in a bid to flip districts blue. The use of foreigners for this purpose is just contemptible, on the part of both the Democrats and the foreigners.

In my perception, at least, the left seems to be attacking what I call the "American identity group" by associating it with whiteness and racism. It is supposed to be an ideological group around American values, like freedom, competition, individualism, and regard for the founding documents. The values are ovewritten with the memetic power of racism. The goal is to form a coalition of racial and sexual identity groups that can be held together by the existence of this common foe, the Republicans. It includes bringing non-Americans into the fight, as immigrants. It's outrageous, orcish. There seems to be no higher ideal than the prospect of beating Republicans. It's practically the only thing on this forum that rouses peoples' passions.

I spent time in South America, and having been caught up in face-to-face arguments with them (to practice my Spanish, actually) as well as a riot in the streets of Lima that ended up unseating the government, it dawned on me there how far left Latin and SA are, especially the smaller countries. On this forum I am freqently reminded by people that "left" in America is nowhere near what it is in the rest of the world— as if this is supposed to be reassuring— though I already know. So why should I be pleased about international leftists breaking into the US with the Democrats' assistance and influencing our politics? What's in that for me?

"Bias" against immigrants in principle may not be accurate for me; more like, my respect for the immigrants and my confidence in their motives has deteriorated. I think they're dehumanized themselves by attaching themselves to the left's strategy in the US as pawns.
 
My most recent complaint is that they appear to be willing pawns in a bid to flip districts blue.

Why isn't the response to this to appeal to people politically? There is a way to keep districts from flipping blue - you could win more votes in those districts.
 
My most recent complaint is that the immigrants appear to be willing pawns in a bid to flip districts blue. The use of foreigners for this purpose is just contemptible, on the part of both the Democrats and the foreigners.


Far more than "contemptible," this is better described as "ridiculous." Outside of Alex Jones fans and the most idiotic of Breitbarfers is there actually anyone, anywhere, who seriously buys into the idea that foreigners who cannot vote are somehow "flipping districts blue"?
 
Far more than "contemptible," this is better described as "ridiculous." Outside of Alex Jones fans and the most idiotic of Breitbarfers is there actually anyone, anywhere, who seriously buys into the idea that foreigners who cannot vote are somehow "flipping districts blue"?

Why can't they vote? I thought you didn't ask for identification in 'Merica.
Not that i think many illegals would want to go vote (why risk it) but in theory it doesn't seem impossible (?).
 
Why can't they vote? I thought you didn't ask for identification in 'Merica.
Not that i think many illegals would want to go vote (why risk it) but in theory it doesn't seem impossible (?).

We don't ask for ID to vote, but you can only vote if you are registered to vote. Registering to vote requires identification and proof of citizenship. That's why the entire "we need a voter ID check" claim is just thinly disguised voter suppression in the form of a poll tax. It's really never about identification, it's about specific identification. Like a student ID with your name and photo won't do because it implies you are young and more likely to vote against the GOP, so what we want is a driver's license that you have to pay for and that students that don't have cars wouldn't really need or be likely to have.
 
I have to say I appreciate this response and some of the things you brought up, and I will try to do justice at least to this bias problem. In school I was a more capitalistic, open borders person, but events in the years since have changed my attitude. The situation seems to have turned more political than economic. My most recent complaint is that the immigrants appear to be willing pawns in a bid to flip districts blue. The use of foreigners for this purpose is just contemptible, on the part of both the Democrats and the foreigners.

In my perception, at least, the left seems to be attacking what I call the "American identity group" by associating it with whiteness and racism. It is supposed to be an ideological group around American values, like freedom, competition, individualism, and regard for the founding documents. The values are ovewritten with the memetic power of racism. The goal is to form a coalition of racial and sexual identity groups that can be held together by the existence of this common foe, the Republicans. It includes bringing non-Americans into the fight, as immigrants. It's outrageous, orcish. There seems to be no higher ideal than the prospect of beating Republicans. It's practically the only thing on this forum that rouses peoples' passions.

I spent time in South America, and having been caught up in face-to-face arguments with them (to practice my Spanish, actually) as well as a riot in the streets of Lima that ended up unseating the government, it dawned on me there how far left Latin and SA are, especially the smaller countries. On this forum I am freqently reminded by people that "left" in America is nowhere near what it is in the rest of the world— as if this is supposed to be reassuring— though I already know. So why should I be pleased about international leftists breaking into the US with the Democrats' assistance and influencing our politics? What's in that for me?

"Bias" against immigrants in principle may not be accurate for me; more like, my respect for the immigrants and my confidence in their motives has deteriorated. I think they're dehumanized themselves by attaching themselves to the left's strategy in the US as pawns.

Spot on. Let me start by stating that I lived my first 37 years in the middle of South America. I know them well, and their mindset. I know them so well, that I (with wife and very young children) decided to move as far away as possible from them and their mindset, so we crossed the entire continent from South to North and are now (relatively -- see our moronic Prime Mistake) happy Canadians.

Let me state it clearly: we are the "atypical" Southamerican immigrants, highly educated both, strong old school conservative values, traditional family principles. If you ask me, I oppose with all my strength the mass immigration of people that are not interested in joining your country, or any country whatsoever, completely and unconditionally, period. I came to Canada to become Canadian, full package, not partially, not only for the things that I consider beneficial to me and my family, but in whole, values, principles, responsibilities, everything. I strongly oppose anyone, especially from my former country or similar, coming here to abuse the system, to keep their twisted ways, to "import" anti-values. To do that, stay where you are.

If they want to come to North America to become North American, especially when it comes to values and principles, rule of law, etc, then by all means, I will help you as much as I can. If they want to come here to "expand" their (sorry to say, but it's the truth) sh**-hole, then sorry, but I will be the first to form a wall to stop you. I did not come here to see the same happening again, and this time to my chosen home. Come here to be one of us, or stay where you are.
 
international leftists breaking into the US with the Democrats' assistance
Tristan_C said:
"Bias" against immigrants in principle may not be accurate for me; more like, my respect for the immigrants and my confidence in their motives has deteriorated. I think they're dehumanized themselves by attaching themselves to the left's strategy in the US as pawns.
The bolded is contradicted by more or less everything you've posted on the subject on this thread, but I am only quoting that couple of lines because I don't want to clutter the thread.
 
the pols dont want them coming in

The pols don't want to build a wall, either. So if you're going to advocate for policy that saves lives, advocate for policy that actually is directed toward the goal of saving lives.
 
I don't know what 'the pols' means in this context but the wall is neither popular with the public nor the legislature.
 
The pols have been building walls, there's a better chance they will continue than letting people in. Either policy is better than what we have now.
 
The rule of law does not require strict enforcement against misdemeanor offenses, nor does it require extraordinary measures to enforce or prevent such offenses from being committed. Look anywhere in society. You will see a constant stream of people committing misdemeanor offenses, free from any enforcement or prevention mechanisms. In other words, the "rule of law" argument is either completely ignorant, or bad faith bullcrap. Are you sure this is one you want to be making?
Sophistry. It's a law you dislike, even though it is the law so you are openly advocating contempt for the law. That is much more serious than a simple misdemeanor.

It should also be noted that 10,000,000 misdemeanors are a fairly serious matter in its own right.

J
 
Under pressure from Democrats Bernie has endorsed a commission to study reparations

They're trying to hand Trump another 4 years

in other news Elizabeth Warren is trying to stay a step ahead of Bernie by calling for the return of the country to her ancestors
 
Sophistry. It's a law you dislike, even though it is the law so you are openly advocating contempt for the law.

J

It isn't the law that is being treated with contempt, it is the absurdity of putting such a priority on the enforcement of a law that is basically about a petty crime. It's like looking at unsolved murders and saying "What we really need is anti-tank guns for the highway patrol and a suspension of excessive force limits so we can finely end the speeder crisis on our highways."

Of course there is plenty of healthy contempt for your posts as well, due to them seeming so much like parody but you constantly claiming they are intended seriously.
 
It isn't the law that is being treated with contempt, it is the absurdity of putting such a priority on the enforcement of a law that is basically about a petty crime.

What is a petty crime according to you? Entering your country illegally? I don't know a single LEGAL immigrant that is in favor of illegal immigration, quite the opposite: all that I know, including myself and my family, are strongly opposed to illegals. Many reasons for that, but one dominates: we, the legal migrants, did everything we had to do (and it's a lot, even for Canada) according to the laws of our chosen country to enter in perfect legal terms. The reason for that, once again, is really very simple: how can I dream of becoming a real, lawful Citizen of my new, chosen home if I am already breaking a law (any law) even before entering????

Let's drop the hypocrisy here. As a country, what you want for immigration is to get the "best and brightest" from around the world. Period. Why would you want anything less? Why should you? USA used to be one of those places, actively and unapologetically attracting the best. To confess a little of my truth, what we as a family really wanted was to become Americans, that was our dream. You know why we settled for Canada? Because when we had to decide, it felt like the US government was making the job of legal immigrants wannabes a heck of a lot harder than what they were doing to stop illegals... in other words, it felt like the encouragement was in favor of illegal immigration, and we did not wan to start our new life like that. I even remember an American immigration officer, working in the American embassy in my former country, telling me in front of all the other visa applicants that it was a shame that people like us had to go to another country instead of the USA because his government made it more difficult for legals than for illegals to enter. Honest truth.

So, is that what you want for your country? To attract the law breakers? And yes, they ARE law breakers ab ovo, from the very start. What makes you think they will stop after entering? But more importantly, do you think the "best and brightest" wants to come in illegally? Do you want anything less than the best from around the world, the ones that are not only capable of real contributions to the advancement of your society, but are also the ones that want to become Americans unconditionally?

Why would you want that?
 
Last edited:
What is a petty crime according to you?

How about instead of the whole subjective rant about "according to you" we go with the objective reality that illegal entry is, in fact, a misdemeanor. Dingbat Don and his merry morons want to invest billions into prevention of a misdemeanor. They want to invest more into prevention of a misdemeanor than is currently spent on investigation of an assortment of major felonies. And once the misdemeanor is committed ICE spends more in a month tracking down people who committed a misdemeanor than the SEC spends in a year tracking down people who are risking the economic stability of the nation through felony stock manipulations. There are plenty of people who have been incarcerated longer for committing this misdemeanor than I spent in prison for committing multiple bank robberies. Do you seriously not recognize how absurd these facts are? And yet they really are honest truth, rather than your totally subjective narratives about the tangents of the subject.
 
Well, a misdemeanor is a pretty broad range. And I do want the government to enforce against misdemeanors. There's a spread: crimes of violence, crimes of property, and non-violent crimes. Asking me to chose between them is pretty easy, and I'll answer according to my specific whim. But, I think we'd easily get a broad consensus. Maybe not on any specific ordering, but a vibe.

So, it depends on the underlying motive for the crime. I can see why we'd enforce it, regardless. And I can see why any specific crime is actually unmasking a deeper issue that needs solving.

Illegal entry to live in uncertain conditions to work? I have sympathy for that. It's still a misdemeanor. I've seen people speed to get to a job interview, which (when using broad definitions) is pretty similar. I mean, I understand why you did it. I understand why we ticket for it. But, I also know many people who just regularly speed to get to work or even to get home from work. So, context. I don't want people speeding to get to a job interview. But, I'd not want to hear contempt from people willing to commit a victimless misdemeanor just to get home.

I don't have iron-clad solutions to illegal border crossing, since there are many motivations and a mix of incentives to do so. But I hold a pie-chart of possibilities for what any individual would represent of the whole. I once crossed provincial borders merely to get better healthcare, so I can understand why someone would do so. But, upon arriving, I've spent time in the presence of people who feel justified in cheating on their taxes, so the spread of what people seem to tolerate in non-violent crimes is sometimes stunning.
 
How about instead of the whole subjective rant about "according to you" we go with the objective reality that illegal entry is, in fact, a misdemeanor. Dingbat Don and his merry morons want to invest billions into prevention of a misdemeanor. They want to invest more into prevention of a misdemeanor than is currently spent on investigation of an assortment of major felonies. And once the misdemeanor is committed ICE spends more in a month tracking down people who committed a misdemeanor than the SEC spends in a year tracking down people who are risking the economic stability of the nation through felony stock manipulations. There are plenty of people who have been incarcerated longer for committing this misdemeanor than I spent in prison for committing multiple bank robberies. Do you seriously not recognize how absurd these facts are? And yet they really are honest truth, rather than your totally subjective narratives about the tangents of the subject.

Tell that it is a misdemeanor to the thousands of legal immigrants that did the right thing, at high cost and effort. What is a "tangent" for you, likely from the comfortable position of having being born there by accident (yes, every birth is basically an accident in geographical terms... choosing your country and moving there, that's another story), is a core matter for others like myself, who were born, again, by accident, in a Moderator Action: Redacted , but chose to start from scratch in a new place more aligned with their values and principles. If that is tangential to you, well, that speaks volumes... about you.

Moderator Action: Please don't evade the autocensor --LM

Misdemeanor or not, it is breaking the law. It is especially serious because it attacks a core principle of any civilized society: the rule of law above anything and everything. Even if you disagree with the law. People that break it, any law, right from the beginning, are attacking that core principle from the start. If you don't see anything wrong with it, and see only "tangents", maybe you should reconsider your line of thinking, perhaps aided by some visit to one of those countries, not as a tourist, but as an objective observer that tries to learn what their mindset is, what such a mindset can do to your (still existing?) core values and principles. Try that, and then come back to me.

EDIT: see how easy it is to fall into a misdemeanor? Shame on me, I was not trying to evade the autocensor but self-censoring me, but that does not matter: I should have been more careful, intention is not a defense. Please mods, I am not doing any PDMA here, I am trying to use the matter to reinforce my point, as follows, so bear with me.

My point is that what may seem to be a misdemeanor might be something more serious in disguise if you dig deeper than the obvious. To know the average Latino mindset, you have to live among them, for as long as it takes you to start grasping their "idiosyncrasy". Let me tell you one core thing I learned from living there my first 37 years: the average Latino believes that the law is opinable. What does that mean? Well, translated into simple words, they truly, deeply believe that if they disagree with the law, any law, they are in their right to ignore it. Period. That simple, powerful and poisonous "value" has been at the core of the Latino "culture" since I have memories.

Can you see the danger in such a proposition? Can you put what you deem a misdemeanor under the light of such a Weltanschauung? I have already seen traces of such idiosincrasy among the local population of North America, and it is concerning, because I know from experience where it leads. Such a vision has to be fought anywhere and everywhere, for it truly represents the path to Third World status (I don't need to remind you that what made most Anglo Saxon countries succesful is their strong philosophy around the Rule of Law, now do I?).

Now, imagine the effect of massively importing such a mindset, because that is exactly what you do when having a soft stance on illegal immigration. Do you want to have millions of people that truly believe the law is opinable exerting a growing influence on everyday's life of your citizens? What will the effect be on those locals that are already living by that "contaminated" idiosincrasy? What will the effect be on those who try to still live by the Rule of Law?

I can tell you the end of the story if no one stands up to it. I was there, I know how it ends.

I don't want my children to have to look, once again, for a new country where the Rule of Law is king and the lawbreakers are not only punished, but not let in. Even if it is "only" a misdemeanor (I would say especially if it is, as it is there where it all starts... nobody in Latin America starts by robbing banks, they all start with what you call "misdemeanor").
 
Last edited:
Sophistry. It's a law you dislike, even though it is the law so you are openly advocating contempt for the law. That is much more serious than a simple misdemeanor.

It should also be noted that 10,000,000 misdemeanors are a fairly serious matter in its own right.

J
So we need to seriously address speeding which occurs far more that 10,000,000 times per day at the misdemeanor level?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom