The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Aretood is talking in old people clichés

[garhkal]

I could link you some studies from CATO, but seeing that it is a libertarian org you probably think it's not an American organization

CATO.. They actually seem to advocate for smaller government, so are ok in my book..

At least let me in on your logic. How is lifting immigration quotas forcing anyone to forgo background checks, criminal records, and histories and using said information from preventing anyone from entering the US based on the reasonable belief that they'll commit crimes or seek to cause harm or are fleeing justice or have little desire to be productive members of society?

If you are vetting people, that means you are going to wind up having to DENY people based on things like
Bad records, Criminals, Diseases. Which means you won't have unfettered access will you..

So not being super conservative=Not American? Is it my stance on Immigration and free trade? I've said nothing Gary Johnson hasn't said, and a lot of which I have said was practically plagiarized from Ronald Reagan himself. Is it my dislike of Trump? Just watch the Democratic convention, or #nevertrump, I'm not alone in this. Is it my issues with police impunity when it comes to police brutality? Both the Democratic and Libertarian parties share my concerns (And the democrats are even more vocal). My distaste for Sanders or Trump? My lack of imperialist tendencies for foreign policy? Have you ever heard Ron Paul or his son speak on the matter...or the GOP of the early 20th century? My dislike of countries like China, North Korea, and Russia? My Support of Israel? My (what at times does seem like unreasonable) belief in the free market? Or is it outlier issues like my support of public education and accessible healthcare for all Americans? Once again, just look at the donkey party's planks. My views on Abortion? Look in a mirror. My religious beliefs? Who knew Christianity was unAmerican. That I believe that voting is a right? (Belief not needed, just the constitution). Or that I remember that the bill of rights is comprised of more than just the 2nd amendment? Or that I have the audacity to believe that racism still exists because I have actually lived through such experiences?

ITs a mix of some of the above... I bolded where i feel it made me thing you were not american.. Some of them made it sound like you were (Well to my POV) more on the lines of wanting us to be more like some of the EU socialist states, which CAN mean you are from one of them, that's why you like that way of thought..

True, ALL media does that, be they left, right or sensationalist.

Quick. Alert the presses. Me and GF see eye to eye again!>!

Well, what does it cost you to have them?
The only public service I can think of that illegals -may- use is Hospital emergency services.
They won't call the cops, they won't kick up a stink if they get short changed with work.

You also get, welfare (and there are states that do give them that), EBT/WiC (for those which have had an anchor baby), Prison stays, jacked up insurance for everyone else (from all the illegals who drive without insurance and crash), schooling to include college/uni level (many states allow IN STATE costs for illegals). It all adds up..

Given that illegal immigration to the US has been on the decline for quite some time now (fact, not feel), I doubt the number has gone up much at all, if any.

Not based on some of the sites i have seen..
Such as
http://www.theamericanresistance.com...n_numbers.html

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...1H0&ajaxhist=0

[aretood2]

CATO.. They actually seem to advocate for smaller government, so are ok in my book..

They also advocate free trade and prefer having large numbers of immigrants.

If you are vetting people, that means you are going to wind up having to DENY people based on things like
Bad records, Criminals, Diseases. Which means you won't have unfettered access will you..

That's a case of you putting words in my mouth. Ending the quota system (plus some necessary reworking of the welfare state) does not require the preclusion of denying access for safety concerns. The two are not mutually exclusive.

ITs a mix of some of the above... I bolded where i feel it made me thing you were not American.. Some of them made it sound like you were (Well to my POV) more on the lines of wanting us to be more like some of the EU socialist states, which CAN mean you are from one of them, that's why you like that way of thought..

CATO and Ronald Reagan agree with me on the first section (Not to mention that it's an integral part to the liberalism that developed in Europe in the 1700's which was used as the basis for the founding of this country). The Democrats on the second and to be honest, plenty of moderate republicans support public education. Either way, politics is such a poor way to distinguish national identity...except for fascists who do love using people's opinions as a litmus test to see if they are loyal or whatnot.

The problem is that your tendency attaches national identity to a concept that does not define all Americans and much less all Americans across time. Besides, why wouldn't you think that would make me Canadian? It is all true for Canada too.

[Falcon Horus]

Canadians are awesome!

Justin Trudeau is awesome!

[jelgate]

Canadians are awesome!

Justin Trudeau is awesome!

I am going to counter your argument with two words

Justin Bieber

[aretood2]

I am going to counter your argument with two words

Justin Bieber

There's Mily Cyrus which means we came to an agreement with the Canadians to not speak of them.

[Annoyed]

Probably not. But for you? Isn't this more of the pot calling the kettle black?

I read that as your way of saying that Trump isn't the ideal candidate, and that he is deliberately courting the lower/middle classes.
Quite true.
But after 30+ years of seeing the Republicans betray the interests of lower/middle class working stiffs in favor of their big business pals, and given that the Democrats' ideals are so far from my beliefs I could never support the Democratic party candidate, is it a surprise that I support Trump?

Oh, and one more unbeatable strike against the Democrats. Remember, I live in NY state, which has been under Democratic control for 50+ years, and our economy is one of the worst in the nation as a result. I live in direct evidence of what Democratic policies result in. I could NEVER support expanding their ideals.

[Falcon Horus]

I am going to counter your argument with two words

Justin Bieber

Okay, some Canadians are awesome.

[aretood2]

I read that as your way of saying that Trump isn't the ideal candidate, and that he is deliberately courting the lower/middle classes.
Quite true.
But after 30+ years of seeing the Republicans betray the interests of lower/middle class working stiffs in favor of their big business pals, and given that the Democrats' ideals are so far from my beliefs I could never support the Democratic party candidate, is it a surprise that I support Trump?

Oh, and one more unbeatable strike against the Democrats. Remember, I live in NY state, which has been under Democratic control for 50+ years, and our economy is one of the worst in the nation as a result. I live in direct evidence of what Democratic policies result in. I could NEVER support expanding their ideals.

I implied both don't have sound grounding on reality. But if you ask me, I think our greatest problem is the electoral system. It forces a two party system which fails to correctly catch the range of political ideologies in the US. You're forced to deal with two binary choices that forces everyone in the middle to pick lesser of two "evils" no matter who the candidates are. With a popular vote system, allowing for second choice as well, you would have green party, libertarian party, Republican party, and Democratic party all represented within the conversation. You might even have some single issue parties too when the need arises.

[Annoyed]

There is nothing stopping any 3rd party from becoming dominant if it garners the support of enough people to justify it.
If you recall, much earlier in the selection process this year, I was thinking that the "establishment" Republicans wouldn't accept Trump, and that Trump might be capable of running on his own and beating the Republicans?
That kind of thing is perfectly possible.

[aretood2]

There is nothing stopping any 3rd party from becoming dominant if it garners the support of enough people to justify it.
If you recall, much earlier in the selection process this year, I was thinking that the "establishment" Republicans wouldn't accept Trump, and that Trump might be capable of running on his own and beating the Republicans?
That kind of thing is perfectly possible.

I mean politics in general. From local politics to that of Congress and the Presidency. In any case there's one problem with your statement. Something is stopping a 3rd party. For virtually all of US history there have ever really been 2 parties. The only time a 3rd party rose in stature was to replace an existing party. Sure there was at one point the whole progressives thing in the early 1900's, but that didn't quite last at all. That "thing" is the nature of our electoral system at the presidential level. It has a trickle down effect where parties that are unable to get a president remain very very small. Thus a 2 party system.

[Womble]

I mean politics in general. From local politics to that of Congress and the Presidency. In any case there's one problem with your statement. Something is stopping a 3rd party. For virtually all of US history there have ever really been 2 parties. The only time a 3rd party rose in stature was to replace an existing party. Sure there was at one point the whole progressives thing in the early 1900's, but that didn't quite last at all. That "thing" is the nature of our electoral system at the presidential level. It has a trickle down effect where parties that are unable to get a president remain very very small. Thus a 2 party system.

The thing stopping your political system from spawning a third viable party is the winner-takes-all nature of the Presidential system.

In a Westminster-style parliamentary system, smaller parties can win proportionate representation- a party that takes 10% of votes will get 10% of Parliament seats. The head of state (or mayor or whoever elections must determine) emerges as a consequence of coalition negotiations. In Israel, it works like this on both national and municipal level. In your system, whether on the district, state or federal level, only a single winner can emerge. Such an arrangement favors large, well-organized parties and nips in the bud the emergence of new political forces because, being new, they have little chance of federal-level success from the get go, and nothing else brings lasting gains.

Another factor is that, up until recently anyway, American society was a lot more cohesive than the European ones for whom multi-party systems are typical. Successful formation and survival of new political parties requires existence of large dissenting groups within the society which feel that they are not adequately represented by existing parties, and relative weakness of factors which can mitigate social fragmentation.

[Gatefan1976]

The thing stopping your political system from spawning a third viable party is the winner-takes-all nature of the Presidential system.

In a Westminster-style parliamentary system, smaller parties can win proportionate representation- a party that takes 10% of votes will get 10% of Parliament seats. The head of state (or mayor or whoever elections must determine) emerges as a consequence of coalition negotiations. In Israel, it works like this on both national and municipal level. In your system, whether on the district, state or federal level, only a single winner can emerge. Such an arrangement favors large, well-organized parties and nips in the bud the emergence of new political forces because, being new, they have little chance of federal-level success from the get go, and nothing else brings lasting gains.

Another factor is that, up until recently anyway, American society was a lot more cohesive than the European ones for whom multi-party systems are typical. Successful formation and survival of new political parties requires existence of large dissenting groups within the society which feel that they are not adequately represented by existing parties, and relative weakness of factors which can mitigate social fragmentation.

I would agree with this, but I would add that an independent coalition -can- become powerful in the US system within the House and senate still. It's far, far harder to do, but it is not impossible.

[garhkal]

They also advocate free trade and prefer having large numbers of immigrants.

Oh, in that case, nuke them from orbit, its the only way to be sure!

That's a case of you putting words in my mouth. Ending the quota system (plus some necessary reworking of the welfare state) does not require the preclusion of denying access for safety concerns. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Why do you feel we need an end to quotas?? And what reworking do yu see we need on welfare?

Canadians are awesome!

Justin Trudeau is awesome!

I am going to counter your argument with two words

Justin Bieber

There's Mily Cyrus which means we came to an agreement with the Canadians to not speak of them.

Don't forget Celin dion..

[Falcon Horus]

Don't forget Celin dion..

Does she fit in the awesome column or the Justin Bieber column?