Reply With Quote
Sorry, skinny white middle-aged chick with long unkept hair and John Lennon glasses usually equals liberal .
The question has to be asked inward. Are you here to change your mind or here to change other people's minds? You can only change your mind.
Sorry, skinny white middle-aged chick with long unkept hair and John Lennon glasses usually equals liberal .
Yeah great argument you ing idiot. That's why you're stuck with that fat orange bas because your side is so stupid.This is what I hate the most. People can't ing compromise and we end up with ing orange because they too good to vote for Hillary. ing pussies.
yet they wonBut as a whole, the repub gots are ALL ing idiots.
Entertainment is probably the largest draw these days, but there are some solid takes here or there, and certainly some debatable topics
I'll happily change my mind when presented with a compelling argument. I also hope my compelling arguments might give people pause on their positions. That said, I'm not really a regular here over the years, so I'm not necessarily using my discussion with people here as an example, just political debate/discussion in general.
Slippery slope argument. No one is suggesting letting in billions of poor people. At some point, charity and logistics do clash. "Can't contribute?" The migrant class has never not contributed. Quit believing the "they're all on welfare" meme. There's some logic to the last point, and that might be a debate worth having, but I don't think the current immigration rate is going to dramatically shift the impact of climate change one way or the other.
Pretty much this. Pretty much a waste of time making a concerted effort to try to change someone else's mind.
Pretty much this too.
He's in his Libertarian phase. I went from leaning socialist (like real socialist, not social democracy) to Libertarianism because it's a solid and sensible idea in a vacuum, with its main selling point being limited government invention (this idea is attractive because, historically, governments have been bad actors). But for Libertarianism to work in the real world, you'd need a society of near-perfect ethical and rational agents.
Example: A Libertarian would argue there's no need for an FDA, because a food or drug company wouldn't knowingly bring to market a potentially harmful/substandard project since doing so would hurt profits long term. Nice logic. Except that's not how it works in the real world. If a drug company knows 5% of its patients experience dangerous side-effects and runs a cost benefit analysis that to make the drug 100% safe would cost an additional 50 million in research and development vs. 20 million in settled lawsuits/fines, they're going with the latter, especially if they're a publicly traded corporation. The Libertarian supply-side theory also doesn't work in the real world, at the macro corporate level at least.
I would say I'm a micro-Libertarian in that I believe small businesses should enjoy more tax cuts and a less regulated environment (as long as the less regulation doesn't have social consequences) than their corporate counterparts.
that got nathan89 changed his mind tbh. Went from a hardcore bernie lover to hard core right leaning trump lover.
Might be useful to ask him what happened.
So how many poors is adequate? Some don't even want borders. A mere fence is immoral. We should apparently defund ice. Just a slippery slope argument.
Dems are increasingly pushing for Ubi so usefulness of the low skilled workers is not very significant at present.
What are the welfare statistics on this topic? Also would like to know next generation and from what country these people are coming from. I'd like to look at your sources.
We have anywhere from 11million to high 20s million illegals alone. Pretty sure that's significant. And that's before we get into legal immigrants. And that's all before we get into the high birth rates when they come here. Surely it's not significant. We need immediate and drastic change but not in this area of course.
From non-partisan econofact (that cites its sources):
https://econofact.org/do-undo ente...nment-benefitsDespite scapegoating in public discourse, the drain that undo ented immigrants place on government benefit programs is small. The number of low-income undo ented immigrants is small relative to the size of the overall low-income population, and federal law restricts their participation in most programs. Because so little federal assistance is available, some states and localities bear a disproportionate burden. As enforcement efforts become more aggressive, it is expected that undo ented immigrants will be less likely to access public programs on behalf of their children who, as citizens, are legally eligible for these benefits.
The centrist Brookings Ins ution (one of the most respected think tanks in the world) concluded that immigrants don't undercut American labor:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brook...rican-workers/As Brookings Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown explains in her new Brookings Essay, “The Wall,” immigrants may not actually be “stealing” as many U.S. jobs as Trump thinks. As she put it, “the impact of immigrant labor on the wages of native-born workers is low… However, undo ented workers often work the unpleasant, back-breaking jobs that native-born workers are not willing to do.”
I don't know how many immigrants we should let in. As I said, there's a point where charity clashes with logistics (A homeless shelter that only has room for 50 people obviously can't let in a 1000). But the current situation is in no way threatening said logistics. The US is in' huge. For a comparison, Japan can fit 130 million people on an island the size of Montana.
Another way to curb illegal immigration is to build industry there, like plants and factories. Yes, more "outsourcing." But not really. Maybe move the plants and factories that were outsourced to China to Mexico and Central America. I believe Ford has a few plants in Mexico. Mexico also manufactures other for US corps. And guess what? Immigration from Mexico is at a historic low.
http://tacna.net/companies-succeeding-in-mexico/
BigCorp globalizing NAFTA wiped out Ms of Mexican subsistence family farms, forcing Ms to flee to USA to support their families.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-23-2019 at 12:02 AM.
No, they are absolutely ing idiots.Well at least you not denying repub gots aren't all ing idiots.
Bad math. If the 20m are illegal, they are likely not counted in the census.So 1 in 10 people might be illegal in the US?
So will anyone else. The issue is that people don't see eye to eye and don't have the same rationality, so "compelling" has a different requirement for each person.
It doesn't count undo ented illegals.
Are you the standard bearer for independent?"independent"
"Generally accepted estimates put the population of undo ented immigrants in the United States at approximately 11.3 million."So 1 in 10 people might be illegal in the US?
"After running 1,000,000 simulations of the model, the researchers’ 95% probability range is 16 million to 29 million, with 22.1 million as the mean. "
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insigh...ious-estimates
He's no more independent than you are.
I think he was a Bernie bro but even that wasn't ing stupid enough for him so he downgraded iirc
... is why Repugs are fighting hard to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census, to reduce the number of illegals counted for apportionment.
Bigger problem than illegals is the Congressional capping of seats at 535 in 1929, when the population was 120M vs todays 330M. So that's not even an Amendment, but an act of Congress.
and of course the Cons utional bias favoring land (per state) over population, aka, the ing Senate
ST populated by enlightened progreesives and the occasional "vaguely intelligent conservative".
Yeah, ok. Enjoy the condescension casserole.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
