• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Conservative politics and assumption

Not quite no. Visa overstays are a lot whiter. The biggest nation by the numbers for illegal immigrants thanks to overstay?

Canada.

Canada is the number one nation via legal immigration, and Germany alone outnumbers the sum total of central american immigrants.




Damn Pamela Anderson, she never went home after Baywatch ended! :mad:
 
I think it's a pretty odd decision to post this bloated diatribe- which could be summed up as essentially, "why conservatism is wrong"- on a forum where about four out of five people are progressives, and two of those four are Marxists/socialists. Why are you here, exactly?

Premise:

Conservative politics are generally speaking a set of unsupported or already debunked assumptions, made into policy by those with power, often at odds with basic science, logic, or economics. These policies are supported through a combination of things, namely: (1) apathy (2) lack of empathy (3) self-centered focus (4) discrimination and cliquishness. Fundamentally, these policies are not only flawed, but actively bad for society. The worst examples of these politics are those policy positions which create an imaginary national interest where none exists, and seeks to exclude and disenfranchise many groups at the expense of one. When taken as a whole, conservative politics are morally reprehensible in practice.

You don't know what a premise is.

The assumption that we all want the same things.

This is ill-defined to the extent of meaninglessness, and your explanation doesn't really clear anything up. You just go on a tangent about how bad the US healthcare system is compared to Norway. I think it's a basic part of the human condition that we do have common needs and desires.

An immigrant in the United States would not receive the same level of care if they weren't rich, because (4) discrimination.

The sheer non-sequitur here makes it hard to know how to respond. Really, how is treating people based on their level of wealth of a form of discrimination? It's wrong, sure, but the corollary of your statement is that the immigrant would get the same level of care if he were rich, so you can't be talking about national discrimination. But it's not class discrimination either, because 'richness and poorness' do not correlate to 'bourgeois and proletariat,' least of all in America.

The assumption that a cluster of undifferentiated embryonic cells is more valuable and has more rights than the mother.

"Human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. An unborn baby, as a living human being, has separate rights from those of the mother. Oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. Taxpayer dollars should not be used for the government to provide abortions. Support legislation to prohibit partial birth abortions, called the “Partial Birth Abortion* Ban”"

The assumption that an embryo has separate rights without a separate body means that some conservatives want to tell a woman she has no right to say no to a pregnancy already in progress, so if they're underage and got raped by their uncle, they're forced to give birth to a child unwillingly.

That's (2) lack of empathy.

Why? Just because I hold one value (the right to life) higher than another (the woman's feelings or bodily integrity) doesn't mean I'm rejecting the latter. Whether or not the right to life applies to embryos is completely irreverent to this point.

This is intended to be a dialogue.

You should leave the dialogue to those whose opinions of others' views isn't summed up by "meanness and selfishness" (paraphrasing).

Assumption that legalized voluntary euthanasia will necessarily lead to state-enforced murder for fiscal reasons.

What? Dude, everything below this is just a defense of euthanasia. There's literally no argument being made about state-sanctioned murder anywhere (and I don't think many conservatives who aren't also truthers and birthers actually believe that- I've never met one, and I lived in Georgia for three years).

The Earth does go through natural cycles of hundreds of thousands of years. Global warming in 100 years is a very different animal and results in mass extinctions and collapsed ecosystems and deserts where there was farmland. Maybe we even want to save some coal for the worst of a global cooling period, so we can artificially create more atmospheric CO2, turning carbon into a gentle space heater rather than a sudden blast furnace and runaway forest fire. That's an option, if we haven't burned all our fossil fuels already.

But if you don't care about something whose effects won't affect you in the next 10 years, then (2) lack of empathy for the kind of planet we're leaving for the next generation.

How, how do you not view this as a strawman? NO ONE SAYS THEY DON'T WANT TO FIX GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE IT WON'T AFFECT THEM PERSONALLY. Except for Nwabudike Morgan I guess.

If you're saying that it's so obvious that man-made global warming is true that you do not have to avail yourself to present an argument, and that conservatives only deny it because they don't actually care about the future, than that sounds to me like lack of empathy.

No one wants to build a border wall with Canada. The racism is kind of blindingly obvious here. Did you really not notice that the white people border is wide open too and literally no one cares, not even Donald Trump?

Canadians do not immigrate to the US in large numbers, haven't done so in recent decades, and can assimilate more easily than any nationality on Earth. They're our version of Scotland, even closer, really; we just have different styles of government.

The colonists who made this country in the first place were all illegal immigrants. We have a proud tradition of just showing up here and making it our home.

OK... but this is an appeal to hypocrisy. You don't get to say that Englishmen moved here without permission from the locals a couple centuries ago, and it is therefore fair to allow the rest of the world to do the same to the descendants of those Englishmen.

Assumption that one's own religion should be endorsed by the government or perpetuated by the government.

"The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This prevents the government from establishing a national church/denomination. However, it does not prohibit God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings. Symbols of Christian heritage should not be removed from public and government spaces (eg., the Ten Commandments should continue to be displayed in Federal buildings). Government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom."

This paragraph is very carefully phrased. Here's the neutral position:

You can believe what you want, you can personally pray to yourself all you like. The government shouldn't tell you what to believe or what not to believe. And that's the point. When you have the Ten Commandments being referred to and endorsed by federal judges, that is the government telling you what to believe. When the teacher at school insists that you refer to God, pray to god, respect a god, pledge allegiance to the flag of a nation "under God", that is the government telling you what to believe, and what to say.

Here's the difference:

What you do in your own space, on your own time, is your business. When you are an official that works for the government, your rights continue to be the same. You can worship/pray/believe in whatever you want, on your own time, in your own space. That's your business.

When you are acting as an official of the government, that is no longer your own time. That is no longer your own space. That space belongs to ALL OF US, including those who believe differently, or choose not to believe.

You must take a neutral position while acting as a representative of the government, because the government is FOR ALL OF US, not just for religion 1,023 out of many thousands of religions that have existed. That is how you can personally be a Catholic while also serving as an official of the government, but, you can represent Protestants who do not believe in the papacy, while acting as that government official, because your official position is neutral. You're respecting religion but not establishing Catholicism as the state religion.

This isn't even a difficult concept. Why in the blue Jesus are you even struggling with it?

Neutral is not the same as denial. Neutral means "I believe, but it's ok for others not to believe." Neutral means "The government doesn't take a position, even if I do."

That's why Kim Davis couldn't keep her job as a clerk of the court, citing her personal beliefs as a reason to FAIL to execute the FUNCTION of her OFFICIAL duties while acting as the government that exists to serve ALL OF US, not just the extreme right wing gay-bashers. That's how she gets to have HER religion in her own mind, her own heart, her own home, in her own private place, in her own church, and out on the street.

By the way, it's disgusting how her lawyers used her as a martyr for their cause and kept encouraging her to do this, because it pretty much ruined her reputation and disrupted her life. She probably would have been perfectly content to back down and rubber stamp things had she not been an unwitting pawn of her lawyers who liked to sacrifice her so they could make a name for themselves. She's not totally innocent, but she's nowhere near the scumbags her lawyers were, using her like that. She was clearly in over her head. The penalty for being dumb should just be having to live as a dumb person forever. It shouldn't put you in the headlines as "dumb person behaves dumbly" where you get made into a public spectacle for believing in a religion literally. That's overkill and I'm not a fan of it, by the way. Not understanding the difference between public government and private religious views shouldn't be a crime that ruins your life, and it could have been avoided had she not been goaded into continuing by everyone she knew and trusted. I bet most people don't even know their names. But I digress.

In the government itself, you are supposed to be neutral. You don't take a position. You keep it to yourself and you do your danged job.

That is basic pluralism. It allows for us all to coexist. You start messing with that, then I'm going to go ahead and insist that atheism becomes the state's official position if I ever get into a government office, and deny anyone any kind of religious freedoms, because in MY PERSONAL VIEW, it's all garbage and nonsense. But if neutrality is abandoned, then I'm going to impose MY view that it's all nonsense, and declare all marriages that happen only in a church, and not in a courthouse, to be invalid, because religion is meaningless to me. (That's not actually what I would do, but this is an example of where a person serving as an arm of the government has NO RIGHT to impose their beliefs or lack thereof on you.)

Neutrality is not denial of religion. Neutrality is not endorsement either. It's taking no position. It's secular, not atheistic, not religious. Secular government that takes no position. People can have whatever position they want. The government takes none except to respect everyone's belief or lack thereof.

Get it? This is government and freedom for everyone 101. It's the basics of the basics. If you don't understand this, ask your pastor why JFK was a Catholic president but everyone in the United States wasn't required to acknowledge the Pope. That's how this whole system works. JFK can be Catholic, the nation isn't.

Okay? I don't have to acknowledge the Pope, and I don't have to acknowledge the Ten Suggestions. So don't force them on me in a neutral setting like a courtroom where the judge is supposed to take no position while executing his official duty as a representative of the government. He can have it in his private chambers in the back, where that's his personal space, I don't care. He can put a prayer rug in there and pray to Allah on it. Doesn't bother me. It bothers me when he starts quoting the Koran while judging me.

How would you feel if I was the atheist judge, and in my courtroom, I put up a big sign that said "religious people have it all wrong, God isn't real and it's quite silly to think he is" and then I started inserting that into all my judgments. That would be a very rude and imperfect version of my beliefs, but it sure would get to the point in a hurry. How do you feel about my ability to treat you fairly and justly while shoving that in your face during your trial? Does that feel good?

How would you like me, as the teacher of your children, to take a position, and tell them directly, as a fact, that God isn't real. That's the difference between denial and neutrality.

Keep it neutral. The instant you don't, I'm going to insist that all scientists, politicians, teachers, judges, even the clerk at the courthouse, anyone who isn't religious, specifically deny God to your face while they're doing their official duties. Loudly, and rudely. Because I promise you, religious nutjobs can get very rude and very loud with their supremacist viewpoints. Turnabout is fair play.

Not so pleasant, is it? But, it would be very fair. That would be the fair response to public school teachers teaching God, insisting on a pledge of allegiance containing references to God, judges insisting on displaying the Ten Commandments, and the money that we use referencing God. Would you appreciate a Department of the Treasury that printed "God is a hoax" on all of our money? How would that feel?

Is ok?

If you don't mind, let's split it up by population percentage. I'd even go for what, 10 percent of the money, however many people in the USA are avowed atheists and agnostics? Let's get representative in this endeavor. Have 10 percent of the money specifically deny God in big bold letters across the top. "God isn't real, trololol". Whoops, sorry. "GOD ISN'T REAL, TROLOLOL." That's more like it. That's all I'll have in my wallet and that's the only kind of currency I'll pay people with. I'll trade in all the god-endorsement money I receive and withdraw only atheist bills, and carry them around proudly. Heck, let's not stop there, have some more money talk about Allah and Vishnu and Xenu as well. Let's be very inclusive and support everyone's beliefs.

No? That's horrific to you? Then take the neutral position instead of forcing your beliefs on everyone else.

Neutrality. It's not a difficult concept. Stop crossing the line.

When a gay couple gets married, your job as a government official is to execute the law. The law says it's legal. You can take your personal happy touchy-feely beliefs that don't apply here and keep them to yourself, or find another job. Those are the only two options.

Let's get medical for a second. Are you a member of a religion that opposes the donation of organs, or blood transfusions? Then don't be a doctor that will have to do those things. It's really that simple. How are people not getting this? Don't want to support contraceptive care for women, or allow abortions as a choice? Don't be a doctor. Take your personal feelings and leave them at the door, or don't bother trying to get that job. If you don't believe in Western Medicine and would rather use Reiki and energy crystals and homeopathy to cure patients, that's great. Don't be a doctor. Take that nonsense to the street corner and make sure you put "for entertainment purposes only, not intended to treat or cure any disease" to cover your butt on the legal front, and then go ahead, you're free to be a charlatan. Just don't advertise yourself as a doctor. That requires special training and also requires that you not sell voodoo as science. They're different things.

Let's take it down to the non-critical business enterprise level. In order to be a business, you need to register the business with the government and say I'm going to follow the law or lose my business license.

So now your job is to make cakes, but you refuse to make cakes for gay people. Sound familiar? Well then you can lose your business license and never make cakes for the general public again. Instead, you can bake cakes at home and sell them to your religious friends that you know. Easy peasy. Very simple stuff. Take your bigotry and fantasy out of the public space and keep it in your private space where it belongs.

PS, I happen to know it says nowhere in your Bible that you must refuse to do business with men who lie with other men. I've read it.

The real question is, how do you not know that? Even if it did say such a thing, which it does not, I have books that say your books are full of it. It appears we are at an impasse, since book versus book is logically a draw. My books contain more facts about reality than yours, but let's call it even, for expedience sake.

Thus, neutrality.

Even if more voters are religious than non-religious. Popularity doesn't enter into this. The minority has rights as well, and they have a right to not subscribe to your religion. The state cannot impose it on us. Period. But this also extends to any business licensed to do business in any state. From hospitals all the way down to bakeries. Until you put "church" on the outside of the building, you have to do business as a non-church. Church or business, pick a side. Church or state, pick a side. Those are the rules.

Would you like to have an irreligious doctor specifically prevent you from seeing a priest before you die, if you request it? Or how about laughing in your face for thinking you're about to meet God? Not cool at all? Okay, then how about leaving your position on religion out of the medical profession as well. Seems fair to me. Your job is medicine, not clerical work. You don't offer religious positions on anything until asked by the patient or their family.

In summary:

Private = your own opinions matter.
In Public, as the state or a business licensed by the state = neutral. Your own opinions don't enter into it at all. Not even close.

The state takes no position, so when you're acting as the state, you do not take a position either, or you can go work at the church. State or church. You pick, because they are not the same thing. Separation of church and state. Say it with me: Separation of church and state. Separation... Of church... And state. They're not the same thing. That's what makes them separate.

For a business, you can choose to sell only Christian things. But the moment you refuse to sell your Christian things to an entire class of people, that's when you screwed up and cannot be a business anymore. It's a bit lighter, but it still applies.

All clear? Can we NEVER have this conversation again please? It really gets tiresome after so many decades of having to do it over and over and over and over. This should be the very first class you're required to take before you take any government job, or before you volunteer to be a doctor, or open up a business that serves the general public. If you fail the class, you don't get the job or the business license. End of story.

By the way you're speaking one would assume it's difficult to make a post on this forum without some Salvation Army moonbat labeling you a heretic. (I'm only quoting this entire thing because it amuses me to watch you tearing your hair out, frothing at the mouth and essentially speaking into the void.)

Anyway, though I despise Scott Alexander, I think I now understand the type of person who might benefit from reading his stuff.

But marriage isn't a religious institution, or isn't only religious. The legal aspect of marriage is carried out by the courthouse. The courthouse might employ persons with religious beliefs, but the courthouse belongs to the state. It belongs to all of us.

And the law says that you cannot deny marriage licenses to gay people, because that's a violation of the Constitution. The courts have ruled on this point.

Oppose same-sex marriage in your church or home, or in your mind. Feel free.

But when the gay couple applies for a marriage license, that's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The courts ruled that people of the same sex could not get a marriage license for over two hundred years. Does that mean this was right?

Assumption that the UN is a failure and that our military keeps us safe, and that this is money well spent and it's effective.

"The UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission to promote world peace and human rights. The wars, genocide and human rights abuses taking place in many Human Rights Council member states (and the UN’s failure to stop them) prove this point. History shows that the United States, not the UN, is the global force for spreading freedom, prosperity, tolerance and peace. The U.S. should never subvert its national interests to those of the UN. The U.S. should never place troops under UN control. U.S. military should always wear the U.S. military uniform, not that of UN peacekeepers. [Opinions vary on whether the U.S. should withdraw from the UN.]"

No one is talking about placing US troops under the command of the UN.

The UN is an imperfect body which has done a lot of good in the world. We can talk about those things if you want, but I'm going to save space by assuming that's not in question. Ping me about it or google it yourself if you want to know what good they are.

But let's talk about who else has failed in their mission to promote world peace.

How many armed conflicts has the United States voluntarily inserted itself into in the past 30 years?

How many innocent civilians have died by our hands and our weapons?

How many innocent people are under the oppression of dictatorships which wield weapons of US origin and point them at their own people?

Let's talk about it from an I-hate-people and only-care-about-money standpoint. How much money have we spent to NOT eradicate al-Qaeda, NOT stop ISIL from forming, NOT utterly defeat the Taliban, and NOT end "terror" or "terrorism" as concepts?

Here's a counterargument.

Keep US troops on US soil and defending US waters around US territory. Then maybe it wouldn't cost us several trillion dollars to maintain and we'd get the same OR BETTER results, and fewer dead soldiers.

Here's another counterargument.

Assumption that terrorism requires trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers in order to fight, because it's one of the greatest threats to the US.

"Terrorism poses one of the greatest threats to the U.S. The world toward which the militant Islamists strive cannot peacefully co-exist with the Western world. In the last decade, militant Islamists have repeatedly attacked Americans and American interests here and abroad. Terrorists must be stopped and destroyed. The use of intelligence-gathering and military force are the best ways to defeat terrorism around the world. Captured terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants and tried in military courts."

51 people die from lightning strikes per year in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike#Epidemiology

Meanwhile, 25 non-combatant United States citizens died in 2010 due to terrorist strikes worldwide.

17 worldwide deaths in 2011.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

Compare that to mass shootings within the United States that we spend zero money on because gun rights, and compare that to traffic accidents that we don't care about, compare it to the number of people who are killed by MOOSE on the highway.

And what about the unseen terrorist attacks that our trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers have prevented? What about the terrorists who were deterred from trying because of our defenses?

Also, did you just cite Globalresearch? I think that's a fine place for this to end.

Historically, yeah. It's only in the post-'45 world that conservative became as intellectually vacuous as we see today. Used to be, conservativism produced as many important and powerful thinkers as the liberal or socialist movements, people who, even where I disagree with them, had things to say that couldn't be summarised as "old man yells at cloud".

TF, has it occurred to you that being an 'intellectual' isn't a proper qualifier to vote or have an opinion? People who are suffering get to vote for the person who promises to help them, and you don't get to shame them by pointing out why Donald Trump/Nigel Farage are appealing to racists or are misusing some statistic. In my experience, the unwashed masses know what's going on a lot more of the time than philosophers who spend time arguing over why nationalism is a narcissistic delusion, and psychologists about which mental illness must be producing that delusion, etc.
 
The sheer non-sequitur here makes it hard to know how to respond. Really, how is treating people based on their level of wealth of a form of discrimination? It's wrong, sure, but the corollary of your statement is that the immigrant would get the same level of care if he were rich, so you can't be talking about national discrimination. But it's not class discrimination either, because 'richness and poorness' do not correlate to 'bourgeois and proletariat,' least of all in America.

Yes they do, it's part of what makes the proletariat proletarian and the bourgeoisie bourgeoisie.

Why? Just because I hold one value (the right to life) higher than another (the woman's feelings or bodily integrity) doesn't mean I'm rejecting the latter. Whether or not the right to life applies to embryos is completely irreverent to this point.

If you want to ban abortions, you are removing women's rights to have abortions, and that is undeniable

Canadians do not immigrate to the US in large numbers



And what about the unseen terrorist attacks that our trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers have prevented? What about the terrorists who were deterred from trying because of our defenses?

650,000 deaths and counting from the invasion of Iraq
 
Mouthwash said:
And what about the unseen terrorist attacks that our trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers have prevented? What about the terrorists who were deterred from trying because of our defenses?

Why, I've been snapping my fingers for seven years yet I haven't been trampled by a single elephant!
 

Shaky definition of liberal. The thread is not about "classical liberalism", and Europe is most decidedly not an example of their philosophy. There may be some elements that still believe, but Europe is socialist, not a purely free market. There are almost no examples of such a market.

Next point:

Chile is not the supply-siders Malibu dream house you made it out to be. You didn't respond to any of my substantive points demonstrating their greater commitment to the laborer than the United States, which was your own example of "free market" success. The constantly government mandated increasing minimum wage has nothing to do with a free market, particularly as you define it, where you define it as the government having no say in how you spend "your" money. The free market is not determining the wage floor, as "conservatives" in the United States are arguing should occur, the state is. That's the opposite of your point. It's also silly to suggest that the policies you approve of are the reason for economic growth, but not the more left-wing policies which exist in those countries, when you have no evidence that is the case, none stated, none implied.

Next point:

You never addressed how a majority or supermajority of the country wants the minimum wage to be increased, or how its value is half of what it was in the 1968, and has been driving mostly downward ever since due to higher prices and stagnant wages. You never ever addressed the popularity of a higher wage even in conservative US states.

Your only focus is on Venezuela, and bizarrely, North Korea, as opposed to Norway, UK, Australia, Canada, most of Europe and South America, and how they take better care of their people than the US. I demonstrated that almost all of Europe and most of free world are socialist states, but you continue to define socialism only as Venezuela and North Korea, which proves you're intellectually bankrupt, or intellectually dishonest, or both. Likely both, given what I've seen so far.

Next point:

"Australia and Canada are more economically free than the United States. In the Economic Freedom Index they rank 5th and 6th respectively. So much for being 'liberal'"

They have higher minimum wages, stricter gun controls and socialized medicine, all of which are considered liberal policies, and are opposed by conservatives in the Untied States. This might be news to you, but this is about the difference between US liberals and US conservatives. Re-defining all western socialist countries as conservative is laughable in such a context. No one defines minimum wages, gun controls, or socialized medicine as conservative, not even you.

This thread is about liberal (US) policies versus conservative ones, with examples given throughout the world (and in liberal US states) which demonstrate that if what liberals in the US were advocating were put into practice, they'd succeed.

If you're going to argue that the economic freedom index as your only metric of what constitutes liberal economy, then I'm going to dismiss you as a parody account. You can't possibly believe that yourself. You're accepting literally every single socialist idea, as long as the country is high on the freedom index.

If that is the case, then we don't even disagree on anything. Let's put the liberal and socialist policies we both support in place. Wage controls, universal healthcare, gun controls. You'd be a socialist in the US, not even a Democrat, with that position.

Next point:

"Once again, minimum wage is not the only factor measuring economic freedom. South Korea is in no way socialist. Maybe you confused it with the North?"

You never addressed that the South Korea rising mandated wage floor is not a free market policy, nor a "classical"ly liberal one. South Korea has state mandated health insurance. Universal healthcare. That's not a free market, that's socialism. That's not classical liberalism either. All of the examples of better countries according to "free market" principles you cited are more socialist than the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_South_Korea

Next question:

Have you ever lived in the United States? Your knowledge and understanding of what socialism is and what conservatives and liberals are seems to be wholly foreign to this discussion, and also quite incorrect, for a discussion about conservative policy positions in the United States.

Next question:

Why did you pick those countries, Chile and South Korea? Asked and not answered.

Next point:

Never addressed the difference between a label and the policies of the countries bearing the label. I pointed out that most of the political parties in Latin America claim to be socialist. Not all of them are the same.

Your "free market" example of South Korea has most of the seats in its parliament occupied by parties which are not conservative, although they do have a plurality of conservative party members. Again, this particular "conservative" definition is further to the left than US liberals, because they support wage controls and universal healthcare.

If your only problem is keeping the hardcore communists out, then you and I would be in agreement. The trouble is, you keep comparing modern liberalism / mixed economy socialism which is a proven success with failed communist states, and that's about as reasonable a comparison as comparing Canadian socialism with the Nazis, which is another really ignorant comparison to make.

I suppose if you live so far to the right of everyone else, you can't tell the difference between a center-right Barack Obama and a Pol Pot. But that is more like a you problem.

Next point:

You completely ignored the fact that all the successful countries in the world are socialist (mixed) economies and most of them are more socialist than the United States. You keep pointing to an economic freedom index, ignoring all the socialist programs in place in those countries.

Now that you have gone so far as to argue that China has done much to eliminate poverty (thank you) I will show you this:



There's that rising minimum wage again, which is the only way to eliminate poverty.

While China has a long way to go on the fronts of worker safety, pollution, vacations, child labor, and a 40-hour work week, the reason why poverty is being reduced in China is because of a rising minimum wage.

The problem I have with China is not their rising "official" minimum wage, but the companies which pay off state officials to look the other way when wage violations, safety violations, and other violations take place, where workers are being exploited, in defiance of those controls. Those are problems which are obviously not being addressed by "free market" capitalism, since capitalism is not a system which attempts to address them. Only socialism addresses those issues. Reformers need to crack down on those wage and safety abuses in China.

More reasons why China is being lifted out of poverty:

They also are working towards universal healthcare and the state runs most of their hospitals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_reform_in_China

Neither of those ideas, wage controls, or state control of healthcare are "free market", nor have they stalled the growth of wealth even in a developing country. And you'd be a fool to suggest that safer working conditions or paid overtime would be an anathema to the Chinese economy, since both of those things are not very costly.

Next point:

You never addressed how higher wages would mean less dependence on the state.

Next point:

You never discussed wage theft.

Next point:

You never addressed how businesses fail to regulate themselves, no solution proposed.

Next point:

You never addressed how the US economy was better under the higher tax rates of Clinton.

Next point:

You never addressed how Donald Trump could be called a socialist due to a policy position he advocated, but that it doesn't make him primarily a socialist.

There are a lot of different political parties which implement socialist ideas, or at the very least, call themselves socialist, because socialism works so well, but some political parties which claim to be socialist do other things which are damaging to their own countries. Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il, both deceased, are not the common example of socialism, whatever they might choose to call themselves. They are in the extreme minority of anything that calls itself socialist. Capitalism also existed in Venezuela and North Korea, you don't find me blaming what happened in those countries on capitalism, or even US conservatives. Nor do you find me comparing US conservatives to Adolf Hitler.

You continually suggest that socialism = communism. You honestly shouldn't be arguing anything in a political thread if you make such an argument. It is cringe-worthy and causes me to feel embarrassed for you.

That's the difference in intellectual honesty and reasonableness in this thread. You're arguing cringy nonsense that is neither self-consistent nor consistent with the mainstream definitions of things. When you go so far as to call the ultra-right wing Adolf Hitler the example of a mainstream socialist... smh.

Next point:

You never argued the point that China would be correct to push "free market" principles like a lack of a mandated minimum wage, lack of universal healthcare, or lack of workplace safety conditions or regulations.

If you want to be a free market apologist, you might try arguing for positions that aren't socialist, and are actually purely laissez-faire capitalism and invisible-hand free market ideology. You'd make a remarkably poor conservative in the United States based on your inability to argue for your own side, and your continued scoring of points for mine.

Next point:

You never addressed the point that you are picking failed communist states which bears the name socialist, whose downfall was caused by other concerns than wage controls, gun controls, universal healthcare, safety conditions, etc, social safety nets which do just fine in both major industrialized nations and developing countries.

It is the same hydro dam argument CH was making, only with socialism. Never addressed this type of cherry picking, and misunderstanding of what the problems there were actually caused by.

You suggest that the rare example of a total nutjob dictator being in control of an entire state and implementing policies which do not match the several dozen other countries which implement socialist policies, are the only definition of socialism. That would be like me arguing that the Westboro Baptist Church is the only definition of baptism, or that the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints is the only definition of mormonism.

You're intellectually dishonest in the extreme. If you continue to do so, my responses to you will be limited to a short copy-and-paste reminding you of how intellectually dishonest you are and explaining why, because you're wasting people's valuable time arguing absurdities which even you should know to be falsehoods.

Like this one:

"The policies you support have been tried in the 20th century by almost half the world and have failed spectacularly leading the collapse of the Soviet Empire and making the people of Eastern Europe to hate socialism and some of them even banned Communist parties. Socialism leaves behind only misery, poverty and millions of dead (Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed more than Hitler ever did). "

Which policies?

Higher minimum wage? Universal healthcare? Welfare for the sick and the elderly? The right to unionize? You point out the collapse of communist states. Mixed economy states on the other hand (Socialist, not free market), particularly ones which emphasize wage controls, centralized healthcare, and regulation of the economy, enforcing safety standards, and creating better working conditions. How about the difference in taxation between Norway and the United States, how that's resulted in almost no change in economic freedom, mobility, or growth, and they have a balanced budget and a surplus, and a better welfare system and higher starting wages, and virtually no crime?

All of those policies have nothing to do with your one-man internet crusade against obsolete communist states, and everything to do with modern liberalism and socialism which exists throughout the first world, successfully, might I add, which you have never once addressed.

Your position seems to be that if a nation is capitalist, then all the socialist policies which are in place are actually not socialism, and if a nation is communist, then all the socialist policies in place are the reason for their downfall, when it was actually the totalitarian state and communism and the end of capitalism which was the root cause.

Your position seems to be that if someone is a socialist they seek to abolish capitalism. Not sure what right wing screeds you've been reading to come to that conclusion, but it bears no resemblance to reality. Socialism is by definition an extension of capitalism, a slight control on the free market. And you cannot point to any of these correct social policies as being "free market" ideas. These are all government intrusions into a free market. Just like monopolization is an intrusion into a free market. Except one has positive effects and the other does not.

You're basically taking the equivalent of a big stinky poo in the middle of the street right now. Either begin to argue better, or be mocked for it.
 
Alright. Let's take the example of Utah, a conservative stronghold.

According to the 2007 State New Economy Index, Utah is ranked the top state in the nation for Economic Dynamism, determined by "the degree to which state economies are knowledge-based, globalized, entrepreneurial, information technology-driven and innovation-based". In 2014, Utah was ranked number one in Forbes' list of "Best States For Business". Utah also has the 14th highest median average income and the least income inequality of any U.S. state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Behind Maryland, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, Hawaii, Minnesota, Alaska, Delaware, and Washington (both D.C. and the State). Of which only Alaska is solidly Republican, and they distribute oil profits to their own citizens in much the same way Norway uses oil profits to support the state. That's uh, socialism. They also have almost no citizens living there. Government is needed when more people are involved. No one is suggesting that if you and three other guys live on a desert island that you privately own that there needs to be a national healthcare system. We are suggesting such a thing is needed for a nation of 330 million people.

All of those are examples of less conservative states beating Utah, even Alaska doesn't match the typical norm of Republicanism due to the oil fund, and very much disagrees with your "classical" liberalist view. To say nothing of your sudden enthusiasm for income equality. (lol)

Let's also talk about how Utah tackled its huge homeless problem:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

Hint: Through state intervention. Socialism. State housing projects. The state coming in and giving these people a place to live.

I don't know how much more socialist you can get, as a policy position. That might even be a communist idea. But however you define it, it is most decidedly not a free-market or classically liberal idea. Didn't you get the memo?
 
Why is it that every time Christos brings me a "conservative" success story, a 2 second google search immediately reveals a solution that would be on the leftmost wing of the Democratic party, or something Bernie Sanders would want to implement nationwide?

Is anyone else seeing the pattern? Because it's really starting to look like christos is a parody account.
 
What were to happen if we were to use median income as the definition of economic success? Then christos would be blown out of the water even harder.

I am not the one making that argument, because I know where the flaws are in it. It's utterly ridiculous and farcical to use it as a standard, but since christos doesn't understand the definition of socialism, liberalism, or economics in general, I'm going to use his own premises and his own examples and his own arguments against him, yet again. South Korea, Chile, China, Europe... doesn't matter which citation he uses. It all argues against his points and advances my points. Or, in the case of North Korea and Venezuela, proves he has little grasp of what constitutes the typical example of a socialist country.

I'm going to do the exact opposite.

I'm going to demonstrate exhaustively that the typical example of a conservative Republican state is a failure BY CHRISTOS' OWN DEFINITION.

Using government data only.

Just the facts. Read them and weep like a baby.

~

We'll define the success of states as higher median income, which, by the way, completely ignores cost of living in that state, which is the main reason why higher incomes are even necessary in the first place, but leaving that aside, despite how important cost of living is...

The bottom 25 states are:

50 Mississippi (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

49 West Virginia (both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
2/3

48 Arkansas (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

47 Kentucky (Conservative Republican governor, the upper chamber of the legislature is conservative Republican)
2/3

46 Alabama (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

45 Tennessee (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

44 Louisiana (both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
2/3

43 New Mexico (Conservative Republican governor, conservative house of representatives)
2/3

42 South Carolina (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

41 Oklahoma (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

40 Idaho (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

39 North Carolina (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

38 Montana (both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
2/3

37 Florida (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

36 Missouri (both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
2/3

35 Ohio (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

34 Michigan (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

33 Georgia (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

32 Maine (Conservative Republican governor, the upper chamber of the legislature is conservative Republican)
2/3

31 Indiana (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

30 Arizona (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

29 Oregon (Democrats control all 3)
0/3

28 South Dakota (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

27 Nevada (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

26 Kansas (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

25 Texas (Conservative Republican governor, both chambers of the legislature are conservative Republican)
3/3

143 out of 153 entities controlling the bottom 26 states by median income were Republican. There are almost no liberal Republicans in government. Even libertarians make up a tiny fraction of the Republican party. The Republican party of the United States is among the most conservative political parties currently in existence that are not part of an actual Theocracy.

(wikipedia for the governors and state legislatures, and the source for the national legislatures)

Take a look at the makeup of the legislatures.

Here's the national one. Misleading visual, since the geographic size of a district has no bearing on its representation in Congress. You need to count the numbers, not look at the size.
Spoiler :


Dang, it's like conservatives have absolutely no understanding of the economy, their own ideology, or their opponent's ideology, and have no understanding of their own track record.

The worst performing states by your own defintion are conservative ones. You have received the memo, now you have to read it and understand it.

1:26 of those states were controlled by Democrats. But Oregon's median income is on the rise now that we have Democrats in charge and the minimum wage is nearing 10 dollars an hour. And that minimum wage is slated to increase again and again.

Just wait a few years, and Oregon won't even be on that list at all, and it will be 25/25 bottom states conservative Republican.
 
I picked the bottom 25, ended up being the bottom 26, but if I were to keep going, the results would continue to indicate Republican states performing poorly based on that metric, since there are so many states with Republican legislatures or governors.

Look at the top of the list, it's almost all Democrat controlled states and/or special little snowflakes like Alaska (with socialist-state oil profit distribution to its own people, making it not like a typical Republican state).

You'd think if conservative politics were the mark of success, it wouldn't be Democrats on top and Republicans on the bottom extremely very consistently.

Again, using median income as the only indicator is bad. Median is one way of determining an average, but it makes little note of economic disparity.

https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/

It also makes no note of cost of living, which as I mentioned, is why incomes needed to be higher in many states in the first place. That's what happens when so many people want to live in your state that housing becomes expensive. Supply and demand, that economic truism, takes over, and raises prices.

People want to live in liberal states, or cities governed by liberal policies. That's why wherever there are high concentrations of people, the people are generally liberals, even in conservative Texas. Just look at the politics of the cities in Texas as opposed to the rural places. It's why liberals make up the majority of the popular vote, but are represented by fewer districts in Congress and fewer Senators.

Almost anywhere you have decent colleges and access to health care, people are liberal. If you're out in the boonies on a farm somewhere, and your only interaction with the government is to pay taxes on services you don't use, and really wish you could get away with exploiting migrant workers with under the table pay and no minimum wages, it makes sense you'd be a conservative.

The rest of society on the other hand, has higher standards.
 
The legislature map may as well be a map of population density, with some few exceptions. The blue parts represent the majority of the total number people in the nation.
 
So I assume I wasted my time picking apart your claptrap.

(Just a heads up- it's considered bad form to post six times in row.)
 
I think it's a pretty odd decision to post this bloated diatribe- which could be summed up as essentially, "why conservatism is wrong"- on a forum where about four out of five people are progressives, and two of those four are Marxists/socialists. Why are you here, exactly?

I've been on CFC since 2007. I've long been a member of the off-topic section but I took a long hiatus.

This site is moderated, as opposed to some other sites. Here, if you stray too far from the topic or troll the board, something will happen. Thus, I'm conversing here.

This is ill-defined to the extent of meaninglessness, and your explanation doesn't really clear anything up. You just go on a tangent about how bad the US healthcare system is compared to Norway. I think it's a basic part of the human condition that we do have common needs and desires.
The fact that human beings get hungry or require medical assistance does not make us politically the same. Some human beings believe it is perfectly fine, in fact, superior, that the poor should die off, and that controls by the government would be a worse outcome for both them and the nation at large.

As demonstrated by their opinion pieces and their policy positions.

The sheer non-sequitur here makes it hard to know how to respond. Really, how is treating people based on their level of wealth of a form of discrimination?
If you're asking why discrimination for a basic service that is required for people's survival, based on wealth, employment status, or legal immigration status is discrimination, then I must refer you back to the public school system so they can try again. If we ran the school systems that way, the poor would never be educated. That's why there's a government, and that's why universal healthcare works and profit-only healthcare doesn't.

Why? Just because I hold one value (the right to life) higher than another (the woman's feelings or bodily integrity) doesn't mean I'm rejecting the latter. Whether or not the right to life applies to embryos is completely irreverent to this point.
When you have the state prevent the woman from making her own choices about what happens inside her own body, that means you are rejecting the latter.

Your personal approval of her choices is not required. Getting out of the way of her choices is.

What? Dude, everything below this is just a defense of euthanasia. There's literally no argument being made about state-sanctioned murder anywhere (and I don't think many conservatives who aren't also truthers and birthers actually believe that- I've never met one, and I lived in Georgia for three years).
Imagine that, your personal experience with the world isn't the most knowledgeable one. Why do I know more about your political movement than you do?

So your argument is that conservatives don't use the slippery slope argument to connect voluntary euthanasia to healthcare? Sarah Palin doesn't ring a bell? She's not an outlier either. The SND link I provided in the OP made that argument explicitly.

Again, in bold and red this time. Don't make me quote it a third time please.

"Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide
Conservative
Neither euthanasia nor physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. It is immoral and unethical to deliberately end the life of a terminally ill person (euthanasia), or enable another person to end their own life (assisted suicide). The goal should be compassionate care and easing the suffering of terminally ill people. Legalizing euthanasia could lead to doctor-assisted suicides of non-critical patients. If euthanasia were legalized, insurance companies could pressure doctors to withhold life-saving treatment for dying patients. Many religions prohibit suicide and euthanasia. These practices devalue human life."

Or try these:

https://stream.org/new-data-suggests-loose-euthanasia-laws-really-slippery-slope-culture-death/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/03/what-dr-jack-kevorkian-didnt-understand-about-death.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/maga...policy-holland-the-netherlands-slippery-slope

Read up about this common tactic here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_the_slippery_slope


How, how do you not view this as a strawman? NO ONE SAYS THEY DON'T WANT TO FIX GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE IT WON'T AFFECT THEM PERSONALLY. Except for Nwabudike Morgan I guess.
No, but they instead argue it doesn't exist, so they don't have to make such an argument. Google "Fox News global warming" and read just about any link at random, that'll get you started. I could mine 100 links for you, it's tough to know which one to pick. I doubt it would get read or get a reaction from you if I bothered.

If you're saying that it's so obvious that man-made global warming is true that you do not have to avail yourself to present an argument, and that conservatives only deny it because they don't actually care about the future, than that sounds to me like lack of empathy.
Pointing out climate change denial, the kind of denial which is almost a direct parallel to the cigarettes cause cancer denial, that's an example of a lack of empathy? Right up there with accusing those calling out bigots of bigotry themselves for not being tolerant of bigots.

I mean, it's a useful rhetorical trick, on stupid people. Not gonna work here.

Canadians do not immigrate to the US in large numbers, haven't done so in recent decades, and can assimilate more easily than any nationality on Earth. They're our version of Scotland, even closer, really; we just have different styles of government.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY 15 DHS Entry and Exit Overstay Report.pdf

Canadians are the number one source of Visa overstays. In other words, more people illegally overstay their visa coming from Canada than Mexico, or any other country. In fact, more than double the amount of Canadian overstays compared to Mexican overstays.

Source: Department of Homeland Security report, United States government, page 21 of 28. The charts on pages 19 and 20 will help you compare. The chart on page 21 shows how much more visa overstay happens from Canada and Mexico than the others, and Canada is more than double Mexico's rate. Almost 100,000 people from Canada per year overstay their legal Visas and remain in the country. Third column from the right, "total overstays."

Meanwhile, Mexican immigrants commit fewer crimes than the average American citizen.

Source: the conservative Wall Street Journal. Won't even try to cherry pick a liberal website for you.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

Seems like the Mexican immigrants are being slandered by those like Donald Trump who claim they are mostly criminals, considering they end up committing crimes at a lower rate than US citizens.

You may wish to educate yourself on these matters. Google + the words you're speaking, plus reliable government resources will correct many of your misconceptions about visa overstays, or who is really better at assimilating into the laws of the United States.

OK... but this is an appeal to hypocrisy. You don't get to say that Englishmen moved here without permission from the locals a couple centuries ago, and it is therefore fair to allow the rest of the world to do the same to the descendants of those Englishmen.
Sure I can. I just would impose some conditions on their staying. Mainly, getting on the grid with a government ID, complying with minimum wage laws, and ensuring that they pay their fair share of taxes, which many of them already do. And they need to submit to a background check. Once that happens, they can stay.

Recommend some english courses as well. All do-able. It's what I'm doing in Norway. I'm attending Norwegian classes even though Norwegian is not a particularly useful language outside of Norway. It's called assimilation.

That's called a pathway to citizenship and almost all liberals and any reasonable conservative would agree with it. Those who totally oppose all pathways to legal citizenship are folks on the far right like el Trumpo.

The courts ruled that people of the same sex could not get a marriage license for over two hundred years. Does that mean this was right?

No, that's why I'm a liberal. I go with what is right, always, as opposed to what is presently legal.

But since the argument was made during the entire same sex marriage debate that law and tradition supported the conservative cause, now I get to say, it doesn't anymore.

Neither the law, nor the popular opinion, supports it. And even if both did, it would still be wrong. Now it's correct. Stop trying to break it.

Here's a counterargument.
Here's another counterargument.

If you can't summarize, I'm going to assume you didn't read it either. I summarize the content of my links. If you can't be bothered to make the argument yourself, I mean, why bother posting here?

And what about the unseen terrorist attacks that our trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers have prevented? What about the terrorists who were deterred from trying because of our defenses?
Our defenses are not the problem. I have no problem with police work in the United States or background checks on the border or air marshals on planes.

Our attempt to squash terrorism by invading states has not squashed terrorism. Those trillions of dollars and those thousands of soldier's lives would not have been lost, and there is simply no way that Al-Qaeda could have caused the number of casualties we've inflicted upon ourselves by going to war, nor the level of economic damage.

9/11 was the best they could hope for. Guys in jeeps in Afghanistan can't hope to do more than that, and I fully and totally support the defenses we implemented in the United States that still respected the constitution and didn't involve torture. All of those were practical, cost-effective, and 1,000 times cheaper.

Defenses are great. I've never once argued we shouldn't try to defend ourselves against terrorists. Bombing them indiscriminately and taking out a ton of civilians, on the other hand, is both morally wrong, extraordinarily expensive, and ridiculously ineffective. It's not even how we took out Bin Laden. We sent in a swat team, in this case a seal team, based on intelligence.

Intelligence + surgical strikes = good.

Decade of war + 100,000 Iraqis dead = Not good.

Not difficult concepts.



Also, did you just cite Globalresearch? I think that's a fine place for this to end.

I am perfectly okay with you noting if a source is awful, because (as has been demonstrated by my penchant to cite government sources wherever possible, and I have generally avoided using liberal blogs or opinion pieces) I only want to use good sources.

If you want me to blacklist Globalresearch, I will. It was the top google search result for what I looked for, and it was backed up with plenty of other sources down the list.

So I'll go down the list.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

Snopes and politifact.

Fact checking websites side with my position. And even Globalresearch, if it is a crappy source with other weird positions, got this one correct.

So you can piss and whine about the source all day long. Doesn't bother me.

I'll find a different source, if it is indeed a bad source. But the source being bad didn't change the facts. The bad source reported the same correct facts as a more reliable source. The bad source was a good citation in this instance, because it was STILL TRUE.

You want to challenge this? The onus is on you to find better sources.

You want to rebuttal? You don't get the easy way out of saying that since I posted one bad source (with correct information, might I add) that the many dozens of other links and sources I have are invalid.

You're just hiding like a coward at that point. Is that who you are? Or can you own up to the fact that you just whined about nonexistent incorrect data where the correct data existed on one bad source? I can cite Fox News as a source when they also back up the actual data, even though they're a totally asinine source of information, mostly to make a point about how dumb something is when even Fox News can't argue for it.

See the difference between a bad source and a bad citation? The citation you just complained about was absolutely correct. So you may want to get over yourself.
 
I've made one post and it's kinda conspicuous.

:rolleyes:

I responded in chronological order and I do other things in my real life. Also, when you have to find actual data for things, it takes longer.

If I take a day, or two days, or three days or a week to respond to you, you'll just have to sit patiently like the rest of the class. Educating you for free takes time.
 
WSJ article linked in above post was not behind paywall when I first clicked on it. Paywall only seems to appear intermittently.

Is the conversation that Republicans want to have about immigration any more serious than the one Democrats want to have about race?

The Republican presidential field sports no shortage of individuals capable of speaking intelligently about America’s broken immigration system. Sens. Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham have drafted legislation on the issue. Jeb Bush co-wrote an entire book on the subject. And Rick Perry ran a border state with the nation’s second-largest immigrant population for 14 years. So why is Donald Trump, whose comments about immigrants and crime are as ugly as they are uninformed, doing all the talking?

Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Jason Riley on the businessman’s surge in the presidential polls. Plus, who has concrete solutions for immigration reform?

The candidates who expect to outlast Mr. Trump in the primaries are no doubt eyeing his supporters. But Republicans would do better to focus on swing voters, whom they might lose if Mr. Trump’s position on immigration is perceived as the GOP’s. Mr. Trump is bringing heat to a debate that needs more light, and other candidates have an opportunity to provide it.

They might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.”

A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” according to the report. “This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”

It also holds true in states with large populations of illegal residents. A 2008 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants are underrepresented in the prison system. “The incarceration rate for foreign-born adults is 297 per 100,000 in the population, compared [with] 813 per 100,000 for U.S.-born adults,” the study concludes. “The foreign-born, who make up roughly 35% of California’s adult population, constitute 17% of the state prison population.”

High-profile incidents, like the recent arrest of a Mexican national in the horrific shooting death of a young woman in San Francisco, can give the impression that immigrants are more likely to commit violent crimes. But the alleged killer is no more representative of Mexican immigrants than Dylann Roof is representative of white people.

Every immigrant here illegally has already broken a law, though that doesn’t mean they are predisposed to crime. In a 2005 paper, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported that more recently arrived immigrants are even less crime-prone than their predecessors. In 1980 the incarceration rate of foreign nationals was about one percentage point below natives. A decade later that had fallen to a little more than a percentage point, and by 2000 it was almost three percentage points lower.

Mr. Trump wants to have an unserious debate about immigration, one that involves scaring voters and scapegoating newcomers for crime problems that are mostly homegrown. The liberal press corps will continue indulging him because he’s entertaining, and they know his bluster helps Hillary Clinton.

But it behooves other Republicans to raise the level of discourse. After six years of President Obama fluctuating between doing nothing on immigration and issuing legally suspect executive actions that are still tied up in the courts, voters will want to know where the GOP candidates stand.

How do you balance border security and labor-market demand? Should relatives of people already here continue to be given an immigration preference? Is it time to move toward a skills-based immigration system similar to Canada’s? How should the federal government treat border states and cities that bear the upfront costs of illegal entries? Is walling off the southern border feasible? Would it make the U.S. safer? And what should be done about the estimated 12 million undocumented people already living here?

Voters—including the more than 40% of swing Hispanic voters that George W. Bush won in 2004—will be paying attention not only to what the candidates say about border issues but also how they say it. Tone matters, and Mr. Trump sounds like someone eager to spurn voters that the Republicans likely need next year. Most people agree that illegal immigration ought to be reduced. The question is not whether it’s a problem but how to solve it. It’s time for some adults in the GOP presidential race to weigh in.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).

Their sources were the immigration policy center, in turn, FBI data. If the opinion piece cites actual government data, it can be valid. Mostly I am citing WSJ as an example of where even opinion pieces backed by government data on conservative websites clash with the vicious and racist rhetoric espoused by alt-right conservatives. I don't have to find liberal websites that trash Donald Trump's ideology, I can even find mainstream conservative sources which bash it.

That's how far down this particular rabbit hole goes. The Republican party has gone so far to the right that blatant lies about minority groups and immigrants, in the style of every other historical dictator who needed a scapegoat, is their official position and what their presidential candidate represents.

Note who the author of the opinion piece is, and his obvious opinion about liberals. A conservative who makes all my points for me.

It's great when there are so many sources of conservatives own-goaling themselves for me to choose from.
 
TF, has it occurred to you that being an 'intellectual' isn't a proper qualifier to vote or have an opinion? People who are suffering get to vote for the person who promises to help them, and you don't get to shame them by pointing out why Donald Trump/Nigel Farage are appealing to racists or are misusing some statistic. In my experience, the unwashed masses know what's going on a lot more of the time than philosophers who spend time arguing over why nationalism is a narcissistic delusion, and psychologists about which mental illness must be producing that delusion, etc.
Coupla things.

First, I'd tend to use a broader definition of "intellectual". Not just professors and philosophers, but anyone who's seriously involved in the exchange of ideas: trade union organisers, journalists, clergy, anyone who plays a role in formulating and circulating ideas. Something like Gramsci's "organic intellectual", rather than a discrete intelligentsia. Overalls are as fitting a uniform for the intellectual as a black turtle-neck.

Second, it's not about being right or wrong. I think that most conservatives are wrong about most things most of the time. But, there's wrong and there's wrong: there's wrong because your premises or reasoning are in some way flawed, which does not prevent your arguments from being robust and sophisticated and even profound, and there's being wrong because you've made no serious effort at being anything other than wrong, and that's what I see in a lot of contemporary conservative thought, especially in the United States.

The intellectual hollowness of conservatism isn't about a lack of beard-stroking philosophers in their camp, it's about the fact that conservatives have collectively stopped seriously engaging with political ideals, their own or those of others. Some still try, but they are very far from the mainstream, and seem to be regarded with suspicion and hostility by their fellow travelers, who seem to regard self-criticism as intrinsically Marxist. The state of modern conservativism is such that people who read Ayn Rand books are among the more thoughtful and imaginative members of the movement, and that's something that any serious conservative should find very worrying.
 
Next point:

Chile is not the supply-siders Malibu dream house you made it out to be. You didn't respond to any of my substantive points demonstrating their greater commitment to the laborer than the United States, which was your own example of "free market" success.

That they allow the workers to organize in unions is considered socialism? Since when?

The constantly government mandated increasing minimum wage has nothing to do with a free market, particularly as you define it, where you define it as the government having no say in how you spend "your" money. The free market is not determining the wage floor, as "conservatives" in the United States are arguing should occur, the state is. That's the opposite of your point. It's also silly to suggest that the policies you approve of are the reason for economic growth, but not the more left-wing policies which exist in those countries, when you have no evidence that is the case, none stated, none implied.

Is there any evidence that the increase in minimum wage is the catalyst in Chilean economic growth? No. Under the Marxist government, before Pinochet took over, the Chilean escudo had an inflation rate of 140%. The average Real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of 5.6% ("negative growth"); and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined. The combination of inflation and government-mandated price-fixing, together with the "disappearance" of basic commodities from supermarket shelves, led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour.

Under Pinochet, the economy expanded from 1977 to 1980 with high growth rates. From 1984 to 1990, Chile's gross domestic product grew by an annual average of 5.9%, the fastest on the continent. So it is clear that the growth of the Chilean economy was due to the Chicago Boys, not the rise of minimum wage. In fact, the leftist economic policies preceding the liberalization had dire consequences, as shown above.

Next point:

You never addressed how a majority or supermajority of the country wants the minimum wage to be increased, or how its value is half of what it was in the 1968, and has been driving mostly downward ever since due to higher prices and stagnant wages. You never ever addressed the popularity of a higher wage even in conservative US states.

Just because a majority wants something, it does not mean that it is right. The majority in Germany in 1933 wanted Hitler. Were they right? Yes according to your argument.

Your only focus is on Venezuela, and bizarrely, North Korea, as opposed to Norway, UK, Australia, Canada, most of Europe and South America, and how they take better care of their people than the US. I demonstrated that almost all of Europe and most of free world are socialist states, but you continue to define socialism only as Venezuela and North Korea, which proves you're intellectually bankrupt, or intellectually dishonest, or both. Likely both, given what I've seen so far.

Venezuela and North Korea are the pure examples of socialism. Also, mixed market economies do differ from free market ones which I support, but they are not socialist. You may argue that a few European states, the ones in Scandinavia especially, are socialist, but mixed market economies are not the same as socialist ones. Unless you also believe that the conservative parties in Europe or Australia are somehow socialists. Then the social democratic parties in that states are communist according to your thinking?

There is a reason why the economic system of those states is called mixed market economy. They combine a mostly capitalistic system with some socialist elements. They are not socialist.

Considering the economic crisis in the Eurozone due to the failed social democratic economic systems in Southern Europe and how the Mediterranean states had to liberalize their economies in order to leave behind the recession and return to growth, I question as to how successful your 'socialist' model is.

In fact, let's take the example of Greece (the country where I live) to see how socialism can bankrupt a country and how the liberalization of the economy can lead to economic growth:

After the removal of the right-wing military junta in 1974, Greek governments wanted to bring left-leaning Greeks into the economic mainstream and so ran large deficits to finance military expenditures, public sector jobs, pensions and other social benefits. From 1974–80 the government had budget deficits below 3% of GDP, while 1981–2013 deficits were above 3%.

Source

Fiscal imbalances developed from 2004 to 2009: "output increased in nominal terms by 40%, while central government primary expenditures increased by 87% against an increase of only 31% in tax revenues."

As one might expect, this economic policy, combined with high debt as the Greek state loaned in order to function an ineffective and large government, led to the economic crisis. So your view of social democratic states in Europe as being paradise on earth is false. And before you argue that Greece is an exception, note the crisis in Portugal and Spain too and the liberalizing reforms that those countries too made. But let's return to Greece to see how a failed socialist state can return to growth through economic reforms.

The social democratic Prime Minister George Papandreou appointed Giorgos Papakonstantinou as Finance Minister of Greece. During his tenure, he overhauled the budget process, instituting a medium-term fiscal framework with expenditure monitoring and assessment mechanisms, and an independent statistical authority; embarked on tax reform, with legislative and organizational changes to combat tax evasion; implemented a wide-ranging program of structural reforms in product, service and financial markets; and designed a large-scale and wide-ranging privatization strategy. When he left office, the public deficit was more than 6 percentage points of GDP lower than upon his appointment, while Greece had recovered half the competitiveness lost since Eurozone entry and was named the OECD country with the fastest pace of structural reforms. The next government, led by conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, passed reform bills approving the layoff of 15,000 public employees, among them high school teachers, school guards and municipal policemen. At the same time, he cut value-added tax (VAT) in restaurants to 13 percent from 23 percent. He also pushed forward with privatizations and budget cuts. Greece achieved a primary government budget surplus in 2013. In April 2014, Greece returned to the global bond market as it successfully sold €3 billion worth of five-year government bonds at a yield of 4.95%. Greece's credit rating was upgraded by Fitch from B− to B. Greece returned to growth after six years of economic decline in the second quarter of 2014, and was the eurozone's fastest-growing economy in the third quarter.

What this example shows: that your view that socialism in Europe is a success story is false, since it leads to bankruptcy, while the conservative view that liberalizing the economy leads to economic growth is the correct approach. Also, the Greek governments had achieved all this while reducing minimum wage from about 700 euros to less 400. So your point about minimum wage is false too. But you may say, "Greece and the other southern states are failed states. Why don't you talk about the Nordic countries?"

I will also argue against you "success story" of Nordic socialism. Firstly, the Scandinavian businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and protectionism. So they are not pure socialists nor do they have as much regulations as you and the leftists want.

Secondly, a study by Swedish group Timbro compared the GDP of various European Union nations to those of individual states in the United States. As stated by the study:

“If the EU were a part of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states?”

Denmark:

If Denmark were one of the US states, it would rank tenth among the poorest states for per capita GDP.

Finland:

Finland would come in fifth among the poorest if it were a US state.

Sweden:

Sweden would be the seventh-poorest as a state of the US.

Additionally, the study found that the United States as a whole ranks higher in economic output per person than every European Union nation except for the tax haven economy of Switzerland. Denmark, Sweden and Finland all ranked significantly lower than the United States.

Another point to be made:

United States:

Average disposable income: 31,410 US Dollars

Average gross income: 42,028 US Dollars

Source

Norway:

Average disposable income: 25,224 US Dollars

Average gross income: 37,094 US Dollars

Source

Finland:

Average yearly income: 24,958 US Dollars

Source

Sweden:

Average yearly income: 22,387 US Dollars

Source

Denmark:

Average yearly income: 23,213 US Dollars

Source

Iceland:

Average yearly income: 22,387 US Dollars

Source

Finally, in the case of Norway it is not so much the the socialist policies the cause of the per-capita GDP but the fact that Norway produces roughly 200 barrels of oil per person per year. That puts it at number 5 in the world for per capita oil production.

Source

Next point:

"Australia and Canada are more economically free than the United States. In the Economic Freedom Index they rank 5th and 6th respectively. So much for being 'liberal'"

They have higher minimum wages, stricter gun controls and socialized medicine, all of which are considered liberal policies, and are opposed by conservatives in the Untied States. This might be news to you, but this is about the difference between US liberals and US conservatives. Re-defining all western socialist countries as conservative is laughable in such a context. No one defines minimum wages, gun controls, or socialized medicine as conservative, not even you.

They do have some socialist policies but they are mixed market economies, not socialist. I never said they were free market economies but unlike your socialist fantasies, they do not over-regulate businesses as socialists want and although they do have tax burden which should be lowered, they are not the socialistic countries you try to make them to be.

If you're going to argue that the economic freedom index as your only metric of what constitutes liberal economy, then I'm going to dismiss you as a parody account.

I never said that. You are the one who tries to make Australia or Chile look like they are socialist paradises.

You can't possibly believe that yourself. You're accepting literally every single socialist idea, as long as the country is high on the freedom index.

If that is the case, then we don't even disagree on anything. Let's put the liberal and socialist policies we both support in place. Wage controls, universal healthcare, gun controls. You'd be a socialist in the US, not even a Democrat, with that position.

I never said that I agree with those policies. What I said is that those countries are mixed market economies, not socialist systems (even if you define socialism as the Nordic democratic socialism).

Also, I have argued against welfare state and in favor of the negative income tax in all my posts and you have not replied to this argument of mine. So, instead of accusing me of supporting socialist policies, why do you not actually read my arguments and see that I support negative income tax?


Link to video.

Next question:

Why did you pick those countries, Chile and South Korea? Asked and not answered.

I have answered again and again about why I chose Chile and no matter how much you argue that it is a socialist state, it is simply not one. That is a fact. I am not going to argue further about this since it is like someone trying to name as fish a meat. You cannot argue with him since he does not understand basic concepts. Same with you.

About South Korea, it is a mixed market economy (albeit more free market oriented) and I used it as an example because of its comparison to a purely socialistic system, that of North Korea.

Next point:

Never addressed the difference between a label and the policies of the countries bearing the label. I pointed out that most of the political parties in Latin America claim to be socialist. Not all of them are the same.

I addressed repeatedly why Venezuela is a socialist state. The fact that it is a dictatorship does not change the fact that it has socialist economic policies in place anymore than it changes the fact that Pinochet had conservative economic policies in place.

Venezuela is rated 176 in Economic Freedom Index, being slightly more free than Cuba and North Korea only, and the International Finance Corporation ranked Venezuela one of the lowest countries for doing business, ranking it 180 of 185 countries for its Doing Business 2013 report with protecting investors and taxes being its worst rankings. Its government has instituted price controls of numerous farmlands and various industries and had excessive public spending (Bolivarian Missions).

Now that you have gone so far as to argue that China has done much to eliminate poverty (thank you) I will show you this:



There's that rising minimum wage again, which is the only way to eliminate poverty.

While China has a long way to go on the fronts of worker safety, pollution, vacations, child labor, and a 40-hour work week, the reason why poverty is being reduced in China is because of a rising minimum wage.

Citation needed. You somehow seem to believe that it is the minimum wage that reduced poverty when it is the liberalization of the economy that did so. Before Deng Xiaoping the socialist economic programs and welfare of the government had no effect at all at the people and even led to millions of deaths (Great Leap Forward). It is only after the economy began to be liberalized that poverty began to be reduced and economic growth skyrocketed.

Neither of those ideas, wage controls, or state control of healthcare are "free market", nor have they stalled the growth of wealth even in a developing country. And you'd be a fool to suggest that safer working conditions or paid overtime would be an anathema to the Chinese economy, since both of those things are not very costly.

I would argue that if China further liberalized its economy, it would achieve higher rates of economic growth and lead to less control of the party over society. Indeed, with the liberalization that has been done so far, the society is less controlled by the party.

Also, of course China is not a free market economy. They have made only partial liberalization reforms yet (which have proved to be successful) and they still need to make more. I believe that Xi Jinping has committed to make further market reforms.

Next point:

You never addressed how businesses fail to regulate themselves, no solution proposed.

Because I do not see a problem. I do not see how businesses failed to regulate themselves.

Next point:

You never addressed how the US economy was better under the higher tax rates of Clinton.

Let's compare Reagan and Clinton.

Reagan:

During Reagan's administration, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.4%. During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared with 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988). Comparing the recovery after the 1981–82 recession (1983–1990) with the prior 1970s decade, between 1971 (end of a recession) through 1980, shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 3.05% under Reagan versus 2.14% under Carter. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

Clinton:

Reagan took over an economy with double-digit inflation and almost no growth, yet left office with much lower inflation than he inherited and a strongly growing economy. Clinton, by contrast, took over a relatively low inflation, moderately growing economy, and left it in recession.

Employment growth was very strong during both the Reagan and Clinton years, but in terms of percentage change in the total number of jobs, Reagan beat out Mr. Clinton by 3 points.

Source

Next point:

You never addressed how Donald Trump could be called a socialist due to a policy position he advocated, but that it doesn't make him primarily a socialist.

He is not true conservative either. He is a populist, albeit more reasonable in economy than Clinton, although Clinton is more reasonable in foreign policy.

There are a lot of different political parties which implement socialist ideas, or at the very least, call themselves socialist, because socialism works so well, but some political parties which claim to be socialist do other things which are damaging to their own countries. Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il, both deceased, are not the common example of socialism, whatever they might choose to call themselves. They are in the extreme minority of anything that calls itself socialist.

They both followed a socialist economic model. You may name it 'communism' but communism is a branch of socialism.

You continually suggest that socialism = communism. You honestly shouldn't be arguing anything in a political thread if you make such an argument. It is cringe-worthy and causes me to feel embarrassed for you.

You argue that Pinochet's Chile is socialist. That would make real socialists be embarrassed for you. Also, because you are losing an argument, there is no need to be rude or not make personal attacks.

That's the difference in intellectual honesty and reasonableness in this thread. You're arguing cringy nonsense that is neither self-consistent nor consistent with the mainstream definitions of things. When you go so far as to call the ultra-right wing Adolf Hitler the example of a mainstream socialist... smh.

If Hitler's arguments resemble yours, it is not my problem. I am not saying that you are a Nazi, but that Nazis (like Stalinists) are your political "relatives".

Next point:

You never argued the point that China would be correct to push "free market" principles like a lack of a mandated minimum wage, lack of universal healthcare, or lack of workplace safety conditions or regulations.

See above in my argument about China.

You're intellectually dishonest in the extreme. If you continue to do so, my responses to you will be limited to a short copy-and-paste reminding you of how intellectually dishonest you are and explaining why, because you're wasting people's valuable time arguing absurdities which even you should know to be falsehoods.

If you do not have arguments, turn to personal insults. :goodjob:

Like this one:

"The policies you support have been tried in the 20th century by almost half the world and have failed spectacularly leading the collapse of the Soviet Empire and making the people of Eastern Europe to hate socialism and some of them even banned Communist parties. Socialism leaves behind only misery, poverty and millions of dead (Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed more than Hitler ever did). "

Which policies?

Big government, over-regulation of the economy and (I assume since in one thread you said that you supported Sanders; correct me if I am wrong) protectionism.
 
Top Bottom