Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[213374U]

 

16 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Immigration is a net positive on the economy. Children of immigrants show tremendous upward mobility. Your entire premise is flawed. https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/13#424

While interesting, I would caution against taking the predictions it makes as gospel, because there is no control to measure against -- a limitation acknowledged by the authors themselves in the opening statements of the chapter:

"Chapter 7 described accounting approaches for assessing the fiscal impact of immigration and outlined the conceptual challenges involved in its measurement given that the counterfactual scenario (no immigration) is unobservable."

I would not go as far as saying the premise is "flawed" because you're not really arguing the same thing. The report claims that second-generation immigrants are strong contributors to the economy overall and that's mostly where the net positive effect comes from. But you need to absorb the first generation of immigrants now before their babies start businesses and pay taxes. That seems to have worked out well for the 1994-2013 period, but as the context changes, you are relying on limited predictive power and the assumption that circumstances won't change to decide whether taking in immigrants (and how many) will result in a net positive twenty years down the line. I wonder if conclusions will be the same if the chosen time period moves to 2008-2027.

I'm not really in disagreement with you btw. But the "immigrants are good for the economy" is as much a political talking point as "immigrants are a drain on resources" is. It's complex stuff and spending 20 years to become an expert will leave you with more questions than answers. And since The People are supposed to decide what policy they want, crappy talking points is what we have.

[Hurlshort]

3 minutes ago, 213374U said:

 

I'm not really in disagreement with you btw. But the "immigrants are good for the economy" is as much a political talking point as "immigrants are a drain on resources" is. It's complex stuff and spending 20 years to become an expert will leave you with more questions than answers. And since The People are supposed to decide what policy they want, crappy talking points is what we have.

Sure. So if the answer is 'nobody really knows', we might as well be the good guys and give immigrants the chance to be successful.

You know, instead of kids in cages, hysterectomies, and other clearly terrible ways of treating human beings.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Sure. So if the answer is 'nobody really knows', we might as well be the good guys and give immigrants the chance to be successful.

You know, instead of kids in cages, hysterectomies, and other clearly terrible ways of treating human beings.

I suspect that if we were forced out of our countries of origin, we would ask for nothing more than this.

[213374U]

12 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Sure. So if the answer is 'nobody really knows', we might as well be the good guys and give immigrants the chance to be successful.

You know, instead of kids in cages, hysterectomies, and other clearly terrible ways of treating human beings.

Yes, I considered adding that too. But that's an invitation to go down the utilitarian vs deontological "good" rabbit hole, which I thought was best avoided...

Eh, don't mind me. Middle age crisis hitting early or something.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Yes, I considered adding that too. But that's an invitation to go down the utilitarian vs deontological "good" rabbit hole, which I thought was best avoided...

FWIW, they keep children in cages in Omelas also.

[213374U]

Children, or child?

Doesn't matter, obviously humane conditions in processing facilities are a prerequisite. That doesn't say much about what the overarching migration policy should be, though.

[Orogun01]

6 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Sure. So if the answer is 'nobody really knows', we might as well be the good guys and give immigrants the chance to be successful.

You know, instead of kids in cages, hysterectomies, and other clearly terrible ways of treating human beings.

So is the claim from a single nurse? Stellar journalism there.

This is the kind of hyperbolic crap that make people lose faith in journalists. They claim "mass hysterectomies" then there should be several people involved that performed them who should be available for comment. I expect that the news cycle will continue to follow on this and hold people accountable so that the issue gets fixed.
Otherwise I have to assume that the news don't care about hispanics either or that it was just an unreliable witness and they didn't bother to check the story.

On other news from one single whistleblower, Chinese Hong Kong virologist claims Coronavirus cover up by the CCP
https://www.foxnews.com/media/li-meng-yan-virologist-china-coronavirus-coverup

[Gromnir]

Military Police Leaders Weighed Deploying 'Heat Ray' Against D.C. Protesters

misleading title. US Park police were the folks who requested. pentagon had refused to use in iraq 'cause o' ethics and morality concerns. were also recognition by the military that the first deployment o' such a weapon would have serious pr repercussions... although the wh directed hhs to use ADS (Active Denial System) at the southern border in 2018 but kirstjen nielsen refused citing humanitarian concerns.

bunch o' "dopes and babies" in the military trying to undermine The Monarch? is too bad the venture brothers recent cancelled 'cause this kinda thing writes itself, no?

related

No Pain Ray Weapon for Iraq (Updated and Bumped)

...

of more immediate significance, major adam demarco of the d.c. national guard is calling the feds and wh narrative regarding the lafayette park protest dispersal a bunch o' lies.

no doubt will be a few o' our pro totalitarian posters who see nothing wrong with using ADS kinda weapons on US citizens exercising first amendment rights and regardless, 

so again, where is the trump supporters of conscience? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

11 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

Military Police Leaders Weighed Deploying 'Heat Ray' Against D.C. Protesters

misleading title. US Park police were the folks who requested. pentagon had refused to use in iraq 'cause o' ethics and morality concerns. were also recognition by the military that the first deployment o' such a weapon would have serious pr repercussions... although the wh directed hhs to use ADS (Active Denial System) at the southern border in 2018 but kirstjen nielsen refused citing humanitarian concerns.

bunch o' "dopes and babies" in the military trying to undermine The Monarch? is too bad the venture brothers recent cancelled 'cause this kinda thing writes itself, no?

related

No Pain Ray Weapon for Iraq (Updated and Bumped)

...

of more immediate significance, major adam demarco of the d.c. national guard is calling the feds and wh narrative regarding the lafayette park protest dispersal a bunch o' lies.

no doubt will be a few o' our pro totalitarian posters who see nothing wrong with using ADS kinda weapons on US citizens exercising first amendment rights and regardless, 

 

so again, where is the trump supporters of conscience? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I seem to recall Republicans justifiably acting in horror at the heavy handed and violent treatment of citizens during the Cliven Bundy standoff in '14. I seem to recall and article in the WaPo where Obama considered using drones on the protesters and militia types there. Not that Obama would have drawn a distinction. But when it's Trump manhandling people out of a public place so he can have a photo op it's all cool.

That is where we are now. Nothing is morally wrong so long as it's you "team" doing it. 

[BruceVC]

22 hours ago, Achilles said:

Likewise

 

The gist seems to be (and please correct me if I am wrong) that there might be economic concerns that should trump humanitarian ones.

 

Sorry for the belated response, I was busy with RL work pressures 

Just to comment on the important  question you have raised above, often my overall point is misunderstood and people assume I am suggesting a binary choice " economy or immigration ". Not at all, these two are inextricably connected and definitely  not mutually exclusive

Firstly all countries have moral\ethical , UN and  legal responsibilities to accept immigrants under certain circumstances like civil wars on your border or collapsed economies on your border like Zimbabwe and the hugely negative impact it has had on SA. So we must always understand and be part of the humanitarian objective but it still needs to be controlled and immigrants arriving still need papers or facilities must be provided for refugees  that keep them safe until they can return home 

This is common throughout the world and the UN actually pays for it. In Africa refugee camps have been created in many countries except for SA where somehow it is seen as " unAfrican " but thats another story. Also it seems that only in the USA are ICE refugee centers seen as inhuman and cruel when in fact many such centers exist in other countries to process and detain illegal immigrants 

http://www.africaranking.com/biggest-refugee-camps-in-africa/

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

But going back to the main question, no country can just accept immigrants without managing the number of immigrants. You also have to be  a growing and functional economy to accept immigrants because initially they will understandably be a drain on social services until  they find there way 

So its not a choice between " the economy and allowing immigrants ", these 2 are connected but what never changes is the limited resources and how these resources are allocated 

[BruceVC]

On 9/16/2020 at 10:47 AM, MedicineDan said:

0130 post, so take it as it is.  I think Bruce, a few pages back, kind of poked fun at me for saying this is the most important election of our lifetimes.  I think that was it.  I don't mind the poke.  I'm not the bear some folks are around here.  I won't provide a mountain of foolish text to 'refute' you, Bruce.  However, if anyone truly believes that these times in which we live are anything like what we've seen in our lifetimes... well... I don't want to be rude and so I'll simply stand in stunned silence.

I

Hi Dan

Just to clarify something important, I wasnt poking fun at  your opinion on a personal level. Firstly a statement like " this election is the most important election of our lifetimes " is a completely subjective comment  and also involves people agreeing what specifically makes election xx so important. You could quite possibly be correct but a real reflection of the gravitas of the outcome of this election, and all important elections and referendums, will only be known in years from now and sometimes decades 

This is common throughout events in history. For example Robert Oppenheimer , the lead scientist on the Manhattan Project, was deeply conflicted with the creation and his contribution around the invention of the Nuke. He was quoted as saying " Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" because he believed that nuclear weapons would destroy the world in future conflicts but Oppenheimer was wrong because actually what happened was because of " mutually, assured destruction " and the fact that both the USSR and USA has enough nuclear weapons to annihilate each other there wasnt a   WW3 and there never will be for numerous reasons that include the fact that several countries have nuclear weapons and no one wants there country wiped out

So this election and how important it is will be truly understood in years to come and sometimes what we think at the time is good or bad can absolutely change and be seen as the opposite  for the society 

But it still could be the " most important election of our lifetime" but not necessarily 

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by BruceVC

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But going back to the main question, no country can just accept immigrants without managing the number of immigrants. You also have to be  a growing and functional economy to accept immigrants because initially they will understandably be a drain on social services until  they find there way

I'll go back to my first response to repeat, "I can see how this may be true for countries other than the U.S."

We *can* "just accept immigrants" because for almost all of our history, that has been our calling card. We are a nation of immigrants. As for the second point, we're wealthiest nation in the history of the world. Not bragging, just stating a fact.

Lastly, see my previous response re: "growing and functional economies". Economies only function when lots of people take turns handing each other money. Poor people stimulate the economy in ways that wealthy people don't. Not saying they are better, just saying that it might be a mischaracterization to label them categorically as a "drain".

Quote

Also it seems that only in the USA are ICE refugee centers seen as inhuman and cruel when in fact many such centers exist in other countries to process and detain illegal immigrants 

If those countries have immigration centers that conduct themselves like ours do, then yes, they would also be inhumane and cruel. It may be that other countries are significantly better at this than the U.S. and you're mentally applying whatever standard you're familiar with to this conversation and wondering what all the fuss is about. The fuss is that we're really being ***holes with ours. The concern isn't that we have them, it's what we're doing with them.

I suspect there may be a similar "gulf of shared understanding" with regards to the term "illegal immigrant". The immigration system in the U.S. makes it intentionally impossible for a vast majority of people to enter the country legally. Not just criminals or suspected terrorists. Everyone. So, if you're used a much more reasonable immigration process, then you, again, may hear people from the U.S. discuss this and wonder what all the fuss is about.

Best of luck with your RL stuff. I look forward to your response, when time permits.

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I seem to recall Republicans justifiably acting in horror at the heavy handed and violent treatment of citizens during the Cliven Bundy standoff in '14. I seem to recall and article in the WaPo where Obama considered using drones on the protesters and militia types there. Not that Obama would have drawn a distinction. But when it's Trump manhandling people out of a public place so he can have a photo op it's all cool.

That is where we are now. Nothing is morally wrong so long as it's you "team" doing it. 

not accurate, but not complete wrong neither. in the bundy standoff, unarmed predator drones were used for surveillance, and there were a couple lunatic-fringe far-right blogs which claimed to have sources deep embedded in the pentagon which insisted eric holder had advocated an armed drone strike to neutralize the protesters. such claims never gained much traction and were never any proof whatsoever. obama justifiable took considerable heat during and after his Presidency regarding his willingness to indulge in spying 'pon american citizens and while the drone surveillance weren't the same thing, it were consistent with the administration's use o' resources which had previous been deemed verboten on american soil. 

what had Gromnir's shorts in a twist at the time were harry reid labeling bundy and his followers "domestic terrorists." drone strikes woulda' been less dangerous than the successful application o' domestic terrorist bit. obama did not push back on the label. the precedent woulda' been difficult to undo if clive bundy had been charged for sedition and we were personal borderline apoplectic over the widespread indifference from too many democrats on the issue.

HOWEVER, clive bundy were not actual charged with rebellion or sedition. we blame obama for not clear reprimanding reid and others, but...

we will note that while am not recalling any wapo article as gd describes, there were a national review article which were... disturbing. compared bundy to mahatma gandhi and george washington. the national review conservatives recognized that the law were against bundy but that were precise why clive bundy's heroics were so noteworthy-- few attributes more american than a willingness to stand up to tyranny.

...

is indeed disappointing to see how the narrative changes when the folks accused o' domestic terrorism is playing for the opposing political team, or is predominant sharing more robust melanin production.

the domestic terrorist bit were terrifying to us in 2014. fast forward six years and william barr is proving to many just how dangerous is the label. 

Barr Tells Prosecutors to Consider Charging Violent Protesters With Sedition

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

I'll go back to my first response to repeat, "I can see how this may be true for countries other than the U.S."

We *can* "just accept immigrants" because for almost all of our history, that has been our calling card. We are a nation of immigrants. As for the second point, we're wealthiest nation in the history of the world. Not bragging, just stating a fact.

Lastly, see my previous response re: "growing and functional economies". Economies only function when lots of people take turns handing each other money. Poor people stimulate the economy in ways that wealthy people don't. Not saying they are better, just saying that it might be a mischaracterization to label them categorically as a "drain".

If those countries have immigration centers that conduct themselves like ours do, then yes, they would also be inhumane and cruel. It may be that other countries are significantly better at this than the U.S. and you're mentally applying whatever standard you're familiar with to this conversation and wondering what all the fuss is about. The fuss is that we're really being ***holes with ours. The concern isn't that we have them, it's what we're doing with them.

I suspect there may be a similar "gulf of shared understanding" with regards to the term "illegal immigrant". The immigration system in the U.S. makes it intentionally impossible for a vast majority of people to enter the country legally. Not just criminals or suspected terrorists. Everyone. So, if you're used a much more reasonable immigration process, then you, again, may hear people from the U.S. discuss this and wonder what all the fuss is about.

Best of luck with your RL stuff. I look forward to your response, when time permits.

I have enjoyed this debate and I think you have made some good points and I have basically made mine, in summary I would say we have certain common views and then things we disagree on .....so its your normal constructive forum engagement. Until the next one 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

not accurate, but not complete wrong neither. in the bundy standoff, unarmed predator drones were used for surveillance, and there were a couple lunatic-fringe far-right blogs which claimed to have sources deep embedded in the pentagon which insisted eric holder had advocated an armed drone strike to neutralize the protesters. such claims never gained much traction and were never any proof whatsoever. obama justifiable took considerable heat during and after his Presidency regarding his willingness to indulge in spying 'pon american citizens and while the drone surveillance weren't the same thing, it were consistent with the administration's use o' resources which had previous been deemed verboten on american soil. 

what had Gromnir's shorts in a twist at the time were harry reid labeling bundy and his followers "domestic terrorists." drone strikes woulda' been less dangerous than the successful application o' domestic terrorist bit. obama did not push back on the label. the precedent woulda' been difficult to undo if clive bundy had been charged for sedition and we were personal borderline apoplectic over the widespread indifference from too many democrats on the issue.

HOWEVER, clive bundy were not actual charged with rebellion or sedition. we blame obama for not clear reprimanding reid and others, but...

we will note that while am not recalling any wapo article as gd describes, there were a national review article which were... disturbing. compared bundy to mahatma gandhi and george washington. the national review conservatives recognized that the law were against bundy but that were precise why clive bundy's heroics were so noteworthy-- few attributes more american than a willingness to stand up to tyranny.

...

is indeed disappointing to see how the narrative changes when the folks accused o' domestic terrorism is playing for the opposing political team, or is predominant sharing more robust melanin production.

the domestic terrorist bit were terrifying to us in 2014. fast forward six years and william barr is proving to many just how dangerous is the label. 

Barr Tells Prosecutors to Consider Charging Violent Protesters With Sedition

 

Another difference between the two events was that Obama did not become personally involved until it was a "thing". It would not come as a surprise to me if the removal of demonstrators came from or was at least discussed in front of Trump before it happened. 

FYI, I think you are right. It was Holder that suggested it. Obama would of course have to give the OK and it never happened so he didn't. 

[Malcador]

Barr is a truly reprehensible man.

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Barr is a truly reprehensible man.

Hes not that bad....what do you consider  are his worst things he has done that are really bad ?

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Hes not that bad....what do you consider  are his worst things he has done that are really bad ?

Not that each individual thing is "really bad", but add them up and all he seems to be is a high class muscle man.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Malcador

[Gfted1]

I wish I had an ADS mounted to the roof of my car.  

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Hes not that bad....what do you consider  are his worst things he has done that are really bad ?

...

am suspecting bruce has ignored every william barr post by Gromnir in the past couple o' years.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Malcador]

12 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

I wish I had an ADS mounted to the roof of my car.  

A speaker playing any number of terrible rock bands would do that.  :P

[Gfted1]

But imagine the hilarity!

scene: bicycle protesters are blocking the streets

me: get out of the way Im trying to get home

bicycle protesters: hell no we wont go

me: microwaves a path to freedom

Maybe blasting GWAR would work? 

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

...

am suspecting bruce has ignored every william barr post by Gromnir in the past couple o' years.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yes I have read many of your posts around Barr, I am not surprised you dont like Barr but remember you are always going to judge someone like Barr on how he interprets the law and Constitution and then how he acts on it because its a field you studied and devoted much of your life to . Also many see Barr as a hardcore Trump loyalist and I have seen interviews on numerous international news networks where very well respected lawyers and commentators believe Barr is a terrible AG and has corrupted or is trying to undermine, to push a  Trump  agenda , the USA and how its legal system works......its all quite confusing for someone like me who doesnt really understand or study these overly complicated legal issues and court rulings 

So I focus on what I see on the ground and the sentiment expressed in the media and polling data matters .....its more accurate and refined than what happened in 2016  

So in summary what I am saying is despite both real and unfair criticism towards Barr he is firmly part of the Trump campaign and Trump is narrowing the polling data gap?

[Hurlshort]

Apparently Kamala Harris has a very divisive way of going down the stairs.

 

[Pidesco]

She goes down the stairs like she isn't an old person desperately reaching for the walker, which I imagine is unusual given typical senior politician demographics.