Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:19 pm

K: did some research on Mr. Lott and he is an pro-gun fanatic whose research
was paid for by... the NRA......no bias there!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Universities themselves are radical institutions whose views are far left of the public.
It's next to impossible for conservatives or researchers with no political bias to get funds for research that has political implications, so they have to look for external sources of funding. Why is someone or institution that's pro-gun fanatical, but someone or institution that's anti-gun or pro-illegal immigration moderate?
Most Americans are somewhere in the middle on these issues.
The public is the barometer of who and what is radical, not universities or the MSM.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Carleas » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:55 pm

WendyDarling wrote:If the US has no count of the number of illegal immigrants, there can't be any accurate overall US study either one way or the other.

You don't seem to hold this against your own strongly held views that illegal immigrants commit more crimes. If there's no way to know, the proper response is to withhold judgement.

Of course, this isn't really a problem, we can make reliable estimates of the illegal immigrant population in a number of ways. If you are curious, check the methodology of your own sources for how they arrive at their estimates.

WendyDarling wrote:https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/illegal-immigrant-crime-by-the-numbers/

Nothing in this link addresses the criminality of illegal immigrants relative to citizens.

WendyDarling wrote:https://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000782

These sources have multiple problems.
Lott:
Though you complain that the survey I linked doesn't differentiate legal and illegal immigrant, you again hold your own sources to a different standard. As the flaming left Cato Institute points out, Lott misreads the dataset he used, and lumps all immigrants subject to deportation as illegal immigrants, which they aren't. Legal immigrants can be subject to deportation under a variety of circumstances, particularly almost all circumstances in which they'll show up in a Department of Corrections database (which is what Lott uses. And, correcting for that error, Cato finds that, even making the most favorable assumptions possible, Lott's own data show that undocumented immigrant's incarceration rate in Arizona is lower than their share of the population of Arizona, suggesting less criminality.

Camarota:
Taking for granted that he accurately reports and interprets the dataset he's using (not at all a given for Camarota, whose work has been characterized as "misleading and inaccurate" by multiple courts), Camarota looks only at federal statistics, which we should not assume to be representative of criminal convictions generally. In particular, immigrants can always move from state court to federal court, which they may be incentivized to do if the federal penalty is deportation and the state penalty is imprisonment. And states may me incentivized to pass cases involving immigrants to feds to get them off their plates, or because of greater federal expertise in dealing with such cases.

Unsourced:
You provide a quote without attribution that reads as an editorial, which makes the profound observation that "1,288,619 sounds like a lot of victimization to us". I hope you'll agree that this is nonresponsive (raw numbers tell us nothing about relative rates), and generally below what should be our standard of evidence.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:34 pm

Carleas wrote
Lott:
Though you complain that the survey I linked doesn't differentiate legal and illegal immigrant, you again hold your own sources to a different standard. As the flaming left Cato Institute points out, Lott misreads the dataset he used, and lumps all immigrants subject to deportation as illegal immigrants, which they aren't. Legal immigrants can be subject to deportation under a variety of circumstances, particularly almost all circumstances in which they'll show up in a Department of Corrections database (which is what Lott uses. And, correcting for that error, Cato finds that, even making the most favorable assumptions possible, Lott's own data show that undocumented immigrant's incarceration rate in Arizona is lower than their share of the population of Arizona, suggesting less criminality.


So I went to the Cato Institutes paper and read it, then went back to Lotts paper and read it. Cato is wrong about what information Lott acquired. Lott gathered information that differentiated between documented and undocumented immigrants prior to sentencing.

Here are Lotts figures which the Cato paper does not contest.
The Arizona data show that undocumented immigrants account for 11.8% of convictions
for first and second most serious offenses (11.2% of the most serious offenses and
13.8% of the second most serious offenses).

However, undocumented immigrants only make up an average of 4.8% of Arizona's population or less.

The Cato paper does not take into account how Lott actually acquired his information...Lott
The data here were collected for a report put together for the Arizona Prosecuting
Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC) (Lott and Wang, 2017). Beyond what criminals are
currently incarcerated for, the data have remarkable information on criminal history,
gang membership, whether they are identified as particularly dangerous, and citizenship
status. Citizenship status was determined by what was listed in the pre-sentencing
report, and prosecutors and others knew it even much earlier in the case than that. This
is key because documented immigrants aren’t labeled as “non-U.S. citizen, deportable”



Here is an excerpt from revisions to Lotts paper responding to the Cato reports findings and other erroneous critiques...
7 One person suggests that the Department of Corrections data mean something different that what I was
told by the APAAC. “Lott erroneously assumed that the third category, called ‘non-US citizen and
deportable,’ only counted illegal immigrants,” claims Alex Nowrasteh. He asserts it also includes legal
immigrants, though this ignores the importance of the pre-sentencing report in collecting this
information. Yet, even if that were correct, it doesn’t greatly affect our results. Only about 10% of those
deported are lawful permanent residents. Lott shows that after also accounting for temporary foreign
workers this claim only reduces undocumented immigrants’ share of convictions leading to incarceration
from 11.8% to 10.6%. Alex Nowrasteh, “The Fatal Flaw in John R. Lott, Jr.’s study on illegal immigrant
crime in Arizona,” Cato Institute, February 5, 2018. John Lott, “Responding to Cato's and others' attacks
on our research regarding crime by illegal immigrants,” Crime Prevention Research Center, February 6,
2018 (https://crimeresearch.org/2018/02/respo ... me-illegal


Lott's research hasn't been disproven by Cato. Try again, Carleas. Next I'll look into the other research you have tried to discredit.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:58 pm

Carleas wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:If the US has no count of the number of illegal immigrants, there can't be any accurate overall US study either one way or the other.

You don't seem to hold this against your own strongly held views that illegal immigrants commit more crimes. If there's no way to know, the proper response is to withhold judgement.

Of course, this isn't really a problem, we can make reliable estimates of the illegal immigrant population in a number of ways. If you are curious, check the methodology of your own sources for how they arrive at their estimates.

Why would I withhold judgement on criminals? Sneaking into our country makes them criminals from the get-go. Not all US citizens are criminals so illegals have already committed more crimes than native born citizens thus illegals have a criminal propensity to commit crime.

No, guesstimating is not an accurate way to conduct a study.

Carleas wrote
Camarota:
Taking for granted that he accurately reports and interprets the dataset he's using (not at all a given for Camarota, whose work has been characterized as "misleading and inaccurate" by multiple courts), Camarota looks only at federal statistics, which we should not assume to be representative of criminal convictions generally. In particular, immigrants can always move from state court to federal court, which they may be incentivized to do if the federal penalty is deportation and the state penalty is imprisonment. And states may me incentivized to pass cases involving immigrants to feds to get them off their plates, or because of greater federal expertise in dealing with such cases.


Still waiting for your evidence that federal statistics are higher than state and jail statistics.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:22 pm

Aside from the crime of sneaking into the country, I seriously doubt Hispanic illegals commit less crimes than average Americans, I mean Hispanics living in the US as a whole commit more crimes than average Americans, but even if Hispanic illegals commit less crimes than average Americans, it still makes sense to have strong borders and kick illegals out.
Mexico and central America's gangsters and thugs are Mexico and central America's problem, not America's.
America will still be safer if they don't allow anyone across the border until they can prove they're not gangsters and thugs.
And America will still be more peaceful and prosperous if they don't allow anyone across the border until they can prove they'll be a socioeconomic, and cultural asset, not just for the bureaucrats, democrats and ruling class, but for ordinary working and middle class Americans.

They have to go back.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:22 pm

all in the name of supporting illusionary ideals of feeling good rather than observable reality that is accompanied by the irrefutable suffering which is life.


indeed, and part of the suffering of life involves feeling appalled at the millions of illegals storming your borders, as well as all the leftist clowns who defend them.

seems to me that the general mood of your statement is: a leftist's objection to the right is a kind of illegitimate complaining, while a rightest's objection to the left is not.

lemme explain what's happening here. anybody who's ideology is challenged will first blame the challenger for being ignorant, i.e., 'conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong... why can't you see that?!'... then, if the challenger remains unpersuaded, he/she will be called weak. in this case, the rightest has already concluded that the leftist isn't 'right', so the rightest can't imagine the leftist's obstinacy as being something grounded in certainty and authority; 'why is he so persistent? he's clearly wrong.' so all that's left is to interpret the challenger as weak. the rightest feels like they've explained the rationale of their position thoroughly enough, and that the leftist must by now understand, surely, so to not give consent means only one thing; they are weak, because they claim to be victims of my ideology.

but the moment the leftist challenger gains any strength and momentum, the rightest starts complaining.

when, where and how this spirit of ressentiment originates (for anyone, right or left) could be considered a 'meta-political' existential circumstance of human nature that must be conveniently overlooked in order for these debates to proceed. nobody wants to admit that there is no 'right' way in this universe... only different ways with their own unique set of problems.

a conservative, to me, is a person who is 'stuck' in time and terrified of the future. in the year 3278, an evolved human species will look back at the 'age of conservatism' with amusement... as if they were watching old dukes of hazard episodes.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:26 pm

Is there a such thing as asylum against gangs? Many illegals claim to flee due to gangs not a dangerous tyrannical government.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:31 pm

chu got a problem with the norteños, ese?
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:33 pm

promethean75 wrote:
all in the name of supporting illusionary ideals of feeling good rather than observable reality that is accompanied by the irrefutable suffering which is life.


indeed, and part of the suffering of life involves feeling appalled at the millions of illegals storming your borders, as well as all the leftist clowns who defend them.

seems to me that the general mood of your statement is: a leftist's objection to the right is a kind of illegitimate complaining, while a rightest's objection to the left is not. Rightist use observable reality to support and explain their beliefs while leftists don't, that's the difference.

lemme explain what's happening here. anybody who's ideology is challenged will first blame the challenger for being ignorant, i.e., 'conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong... why can't you see that?!'... then, if the challenger remains unpersuaded, he/she will be called weak. in this case, the rightest has already concluded that the leftist isn't 'right', so the rightest can't imagine the leftist's obstinacy as being something grounded in certainty and authority; 'why is he so persistent? he's clearly wrong.' so all that's left is to interpret the challenger as weak. the rightest feels like they've explained the rationale of their position thoroughly enough, and that the leftist must by now understand, surely, so to not give consent means only one thing; they are weak, because they claim to be victims of my ideology.

but the moment the leftist challenger gains any strength and momentum, the rightest starts complaining.

when, where and how this spirit of ressentiment originates (for anyone, right or left) could be considered a 'meta-political' existential circumstance of human nature that must be conveniently overlooked in order for these debates to proceed. nobody wants to admit that there is no 'right' way in this universe... only different ways with their own unique set of problems.

a conservative, to me, is a person who is 'stuck' in time and terrified of the future. in the year 3278, an evolved human species will look back at the 'age of conservatism' with amusement... as if they were watching old dukes of hazard episodes.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:34 pm

promethean75 wrote:
all in the name of supporting illusionary ideals of feeling good rather than observable reality that is accompanied by the irrefutable suffering which is life.


indeed, and part of the suffering of life involves feeling appalled at the millions of illegals storming your borders, as well as all the leftist clowns who defend them.

seems to me that the general mood of your statement is: a leftist's objection to the right is a kind of illegitimate complaining, while a rightest's objection to the left is not.

lemme explain what's happening here. anybody who's ideology is challenged will first blame the challenger for being ignorant, i.e., 'conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong... why can't you see that?!'... then, if the challenger remains unpersuaded, he/she will be called weak. in this case, the rightest has already concluded that the leftist isn't 'right', so the rightest can't imagine the leftist's obstinacy as being something grounded in certainty and authority; 'why is he so persistent? he's clearly wrong.' so all that's left is to interpret the challenger as weak. the rightest feels like they've explained the rationale of their position thoroughly enough, and that the leftist must by now understand, surely, so to not give consent means only one thing; they are weak, because they claim to be victims of my ideology.

but the moment the leftist challenger gains any strength and momentum, the rightest starts complaining.

when, where and how this spirit of ressentiment originates (for anyone, right or left) could be considered a 'meta-political' existential circumstance of human nature that must be conveniently overlooked in order for these debates to proceed. nobody wants to admit that there is no 'right' way in this universe... only different ways with their own unique set of problems.

a conservative, to me, is a person who is 'stuck' in time and terrified of the future. in the year 3278, an evolved human species will look back at the 'age of conservatism' with amusement... as if they were watching old dukes of hazard episodes.



And hence the cleverly disguised center from which Trump seeks to moderate the dissension between the left and right. Yes but is it real, or fake?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7292
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:26 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Is there a such thing as asylum against gangs? Many illegals claim to flee due to gangs not a dangerous tyrannical government.

There's loads of gangs in the US, but how many American citizens flee gangs in the US and seek asylum in Mexico or Canada?
Do any?
And how many are granted asylum?
I suspect 0, or next to it.
I suspect it's many, many times more difficult for an American fleeing US gangs to seek asylum in Mexico or Canada, if it's even possible on those grounds, than it is for a Mexican fleeing Mexican gangs to seek asylum in the US or Canada.
I suspect if you were fleeing gangs in America, and you went to the Mexican border and asked for asylum, they'd laugh and spit in your face, unless you were of Mexican heritage.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:35 pm

I tend to associate reason, philosophy and science with libertarianism rather than with both progressivism, and conservatism.
While these days conservatives tend to be more libertarian, historically this hasn't always been the case.

There's nothing reasonable about political correctness, microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etcetera, or generally authoritarianism.
And while science is reasonable, scientism, MSMism and academicism, are not.

In libertarianism you have to at least be persuasive, altho you can be persuasive with reason or rhetoric, whereas in left and rightwing authoritarianism you just have to knock people over the head you disagree with.
Altho there might be specific circumstances where measuredly knocking people over the head may be necessary, it's nothing to base your civilization on.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:07 pm

User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:05 pm

But if we didn't have illegals doing those filthy, physically demanding jobs, Americans wouldn't do them, right?
Wrong, many wealthy, white European countries do these jobs themselves, they don't have millions of illegals doing them, it's just these companies would have to pay Americans minimum wage or more + benefits to entice them.
This would increase costs to consumers, sure, but it would also reduce unemployment and taxes to pay for the unemployed, for there'd be more jobs available, while increasing the wages and benefits of all blue collar jobs, especially the filthiest and most physically demanding among them, for there wouldn't be illegals lined up to steal American jobs when Americans begin demanding better working conditions.
Proportionally Canada doesn't have anywhere near as many illegals as the US does, yet these jobs get done.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:37 pm

Gloominary wrote:But if we didn't have illegals doing those filthy, physically demanding jobs, Americans wouldn't do them, right?
Wrong, many wealthy, white European countries do these jobs themselves, they don't have millions of illegals doing them, it's just these companies would have to pay Americans minimum wage or more + benefits to entice them.
then wouldn't the most effective way to reduce illegals be to go after the employers? Reduce the market. You can't really blame or expect people in poor countries to not move to where they can do better financially, and if they have kids it would be nearly a moral obligation in some situations (whether opposed by other kinds of moral obligation in their morality or not). But if you cut off the opportunity, there is no motivation. Also the people crossing the border have less to lose than the employers. The former are often moving from unpleasance, whereas many of the employers are trying to move up the economic scale from at least survival level and more. IOW the legal consequences are more effective in relation to employers. This would also be better PR. Instead of police loading scruffy, dirt covered people who have crossed the border recently or chasing fairly poor people out of car washes, they would be arresting clean clothed people with businesses and professions. People who are benefitting from the situation and the people creating the demand.

Otherwise what we have is an enormous mixed message to, say, Mexicans. We don't want you, we will pay you to X here.

Clean up our own house first.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:18 pm

Yea but they have anchor babies, drain social services, and some of them commit other crimes.
We should go after both, the corporations that hire them, and the illegals themselves.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Silhouette » Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:25 pm

What is the real crime of being an illegal immigrant? Being in the wrong place without telling the right people?

It's all red tape and admin/bureaucracy for the sake of it - just to create a barrier when there isn't one.

It's a fiction how lifestyles and cultures just "end" and "start" either side of a border - it's continuous, people near one another influence each other culturally regardless of political boundary. The discrete lines don't just "not exist" they mislead. It just means government doesn't have to help people beyond a line in the sand.

It's funny how a discussion about Trump turned into a discussion about immigration - kinda sums him all up, there's nothing else to Populism. And still the support against "the other" is as timeless as it always has been... even statistics won't persuade people - apparently nothing will.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:37 pm

Silhouette wrote:What is the real crime of being an illegal immigrant? Being in the wrong place without telling the right people?

It's all red tape and admin/bureaucracy for the sake of it - just to create a barrier when there isn't one.

It's a fiction how lifestyles and cultures just "end" and "start" either side of a border - it's continuous, people near one another influence each other culturally regardless of political boundary. The discrete lines don't just "not exist" they mislead. It just means government doesn't have to help people beyond a line in the sand.

It's funny how a discussion about Trump turned into a discussion about immigration - kinda sums him all up, there's nothing else to Populism. And still the support against "the other" is as timeless as it always has been... even statistics won't persuade people - apparently nothing will.

There are physical boundaries between countries, it's not a line in the sand as idealism says. The USA is in decline due in part to illegal immigrants and I doubt there is a country in the West that hasn't been inundated with alien immigrants that is not in decline.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:43 pm

Gloominary wrote:Yea but they have anchor babies
One could change the law around that.
drain social services
Well it was Reagan, Bush and Clinton who drained social services.

and some of them commit other crimes.
That's covered by already existing laws.

We should go after both, the corporations that hire them, and the illegals themselves.
I think it would be much more effective to put all effort on the employers. And much more justified.

http://hrexecutive.com/how-many-employe ... -illegals/

Going after the employers is a forensic bureaucratic and economic set of investigations mainly. I think the main reasons it does not happen is because the system tacitly approves. Going after illegals with border police and armed raids is part of the ever increasing militarization of law enforcement. And here going after the weaker parties.

You get rid of the jobs, it is still the third world for them.

It's not a coincidence that the system focuses on armed law enforcement aimed at people with not much power.
The drug was has been like that for many decades, and both are part of increased arming of law enforcement and having them out and about and slowly but surely getting us used to that on all levels.

Who is morally more wrong? The employers. They are protected by the law enforcement and have already received the benefits of US citizenship: public education, road services, police and fire protection and so on. Instead of following the law while protected by that law, they reap benefits of illegal activies. The illegal aliens are selfish in relation to the states, but they are not betraying their own country. They have more choices and better options than the illegals.

You start putting them in prison en masse and then we will actually find out what we think of illegal aliens. Because I don't think it is clear at all what we as a nation actually think and want.

One might also want to put the writers and promoters of Nafta in prison also.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:51 pm

Silhouette wrote:What is the real crime of being an illegal immigrant? Being in the wrong place without telling the right people?
who would say no. It's not like they missed making a call that would have worked or something. So it's not like a late filing for the renewal of a driver's licence. Are you will to broaden this rule out to cover all the doing all the (let's call it) non-violent illegal or not entitled activities without going through the beauracracy with the right people? What is the scope of the abstraction?

I mean, I think the problems are coming from other sources. I don't think the immigrants are the threat to people, even simply economically, that some make out.

But we all go through all sorts of bureaucratic hoops as citizens and get punished if we dont' and get punished if we try but were not honest or we do not get what we want since we do not qualify.

I suppose if we are going to set bureaucracy aside, I would want to be included. Equal under the law and all that.

Now the first group that comes to mind who get unequal treatment in courts and otherwise are rich and powerful people. They are not treated like us.

But I also don't think your summation of the situation is really quite right either.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:01 pm

Silhouette

What is the real crime of being an illegal immigrant? Being in the wrong place without telling the right people?

It's all red tape and admin/bureaucracy for the sake of it - just to create a barrier when there isn't one.

This is our club.
We get to decide who we admit and why, not nonmembers.

It's a fiction how lifestyles and cultures just "end" and "start" either side of a border - it's continuous, people near one another influence each other culturally regardless of political boundary. The discrete lines don't just "not exist" they mislead. It just means government doesn't have to help people beyond a line in the sand.

While there is no definite or exact beginning/ending between cultures, lifestyles and so on, there is an approximate, relative or rough beginning/ending.
Average Americans, the vast majority of Americans share more in common with each other, culturally, linguistically, politically, socioeconomically, racially, religiously and so forth, than they do with average Mexicans, the vast majority of Mexicans.
Birds of a feather, statistically even liberals prefer friends, partners and neighborhoods they share the same cultural background with, regardless of whether they're white, brown or black, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.

So why not model policy after these perfectly natural, normal and healthy preferences?
Because the oligarchs told us not to, full stop.
The people's input was never asked for, or was asked for, but then flippantly dismissed.
We were told to shut up and accept everything they've been rolling out for us for the last several decades without question or complaint.

Well most Canadians and Americans want to limit legal immigration, and they most certainly don't want any illegal immigration, but the university professors pontificating from their ivory towers and the plutocrats hiding in their gated communities, couldn't care less.
We need to take our democracies back, we need to start voting for independents and third parties who'll listen to us, and if that doesn't work, heads will have to roll.

I mean you could say what you're saying about lots of things.
There is no precise beginning/ending between say a geological feature such as a mountain and other geological features like the ground underneath or surrounding mountains, but that shouldn't preclude us from thinking of and treating it as fundamentally, mostly or in some important way, its own entity.

It's funny how a discussion about Trump turned into a discussion about immigration - kinda sums him all up, there's nothing else to Populism. And still the support against "the other" is as timeless as it always has been... even statistics won't persuade people - apparently nothing will.

For me, populism goes far beyond being anti-(illegal) immigration.
It's about society, government and the economy serving, the people, as opposed to the special interests, whether these special interests are bankers, big businessmen and bureaucrats on the right hand, or racial, religious and sexual minorities on the left.
either we should have a libertarian government, or, if we are to have some intervention, and I strongly recommend that we do, particularly economic, it should be intervention that serves the interests of the people, which in Canada and America means, the white, Christian (I'm an agnostic, but whatever) working classes.

For me, populism could be called majoritarianism.
It's not about capitalism or socialism so much as it is about nationalism, democracy and serving the interests of the people, especially the dominant demographic.

For me, populism goes far beyond Trump.
He's at best a means to an end, and at worst, a huckster.
He's a half-populist on his best days, and an anti-populist on his worst.
If he won't secure the border, Americans need to vote for someone who will.
He most definitely won't go after the plutocrats, or Jewish crime syndicate, because he's one of them, and theirs.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:38 pm

Populism is the proper ideology of any true democracy.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:21 am

Gloominary wrote
This is our club.
We get to decide who we admit and why, not nonmembers.

But what about equality for all under the law? Equal opportunity for all? :evilfun:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Gloominary » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:21 am

Karpel

Gloom: Yea but they have anchor babies

Karpel: One could change the law around that.

That's true, and we should.

Gloom: drain social services

Karpel: Well it was Reagan, Bush and Clinton who drained social services.

I don't like Reagan, Bush and Clinton.
It was both, politicians and illegals.
There is a place for social services.

Gloom: and some of them commit other crimes.

Karpel: That's covered by already existing laws.

Not well enough.
Catch and release needs to be replaced with detain and deport.
They can apply for asylum on the other side of the wall.

Karpel: I think it would be much more effective to put all effort on the employers. And much more justified.

http://hrexecutive.com/how-many-employe ... -illegals/

Going after the employers is a forensic bureaucratic and economic set of investigations mainly. I think the main reasons it does not happen is because the system tacitly approves. Going after illegals with border police and armed raids is part of the ever increasing militarization of law enforcement. And here going after the weaker parties.

You get rid of the jobs, it is still the third world for them.

It's not a coincidence that the system focuses on armed law enforcement aimed at people with not much power.
The drug was has been like that for many decades, and both are part of increased arming of law enforcement and having them out and about and slowly but surely getting us used to that on all levels.

Who is morally more wrong? The employers. They are protected by the law enforcement and have already received the benefits of US citizenship: public education, road services, police and fire protection and so on. Instead of following the law while protected by that law, they reap benefits of illegal activies. The illegal aliens are selfish in relation to the states, but they are not betraying their own country. They have more choices and better options than the illegals.

You start putting them in prison en masse and then we will actually find out what we think of illegal aliens. Because I don't think it is clear at all what we as a nation actually think and want.

One might also want to put the writers and promoters of Nafta in prison also.

Good points, but we still need strong, secure borders and to detain and deport, for some illegals are here to commit other crimes, and we just don't want a bunch of undocumented aliens running around, even if there's fewer of them for we're cracking down on the corps that hire them, and while going after the corps that hire them will help, there's always going to be some that slip through the cracks.

I agree that corporations, their owners and managers are far more morally culpable than illegals, the latter are socioeconomically vulnerable, the former couldn't be further from.
So long as they haven't committed any crimes, illegals should be well fed and taken care of, on their journey back to Mexico or wherever they came from, while those who hire them need to sit in a jailcell and eat TVP for a long, long time.
The more money they have, the longer.

I am concerned police are being militarized in the process, that this could be turned around on citizens (in)advertently, so we do have to be careful how we go about it.
Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:44 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:26 am

Better a patriotic fool to lead a country then an unpatriotic genius.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2953
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users