The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

So your a Clinton Voter then...

So you are a moron then?

[The Flyattractor]

Only if I vote for either candidate this election.

[garhkal]

If you want to use that term loosely, I guess. But only in its most loose and liberal definition. Now this thing about the crimes and horror stories...is that a "feeling" that your brand of "conservatives" like to push as being superior to facts? Because it seems that people who live in the border region seem to disagree.

http://interactives.dallasnews.com/2016/border-poll/

Apparently a border wall isn't all that popular and people feel that crime has been greatly exaggerated. You could argue that their feelings are just that, but then again you're a fan of making feelings worth more than actual facts.

Nice poll.. However ,it never specified who those 1200 or so people polled WERE. In relation to things like
Race, Sex, Ethnicity, nationality and age..

Plenty immigration laws already in place, and plenty of undocumented immigrants don't really care.

IMO thats more cause they are not enforced..

Most illegals come in via AIRPORTS with VISA's and then they STAY. Tood has pointed this out more times than I care to count.

And that is cause we have no one in power, PUSHING to actually track and monitor those on visas, to ensure those who do overstay get out when their time is up..

pass the Duchie on the left hand side.

I used to love listening to that song in the 80s..

[SGalisa]

That went both ways.

I did write *all*, so it wasn't just Cruz & Rubio. Trump was included in the *all* (please see below quote)

In the beginning, it seemed that a Cruz/Rubio ticket would have been a good choice. Well, that is, until they both started bashing Trump by starting those schoolyard bully -- ninny-ninny sessions. Then, they *all* lost favor in my standard of POV.

You *really* still need a refresher?

THe primaries were ages ago and you're not a regular thread-visitor. So when I ask, it's because I can't remember.

Eeeeeeeeek!! It's been said that the memory is the first to go...
You're only about 20 years younger than me, and...

It's not an unwillingness to deliberately not remember.

I'm teasing!
I can't even remember what I said 5 minutes ago in real life.. but that's always been normal for me, even during my childhood..! Has nothing to do with growing older.. but lots to do (in my world) with how my brain was been wired since birth.. or conception-- you know, that pesky DNA strand thing.

Yeah, start reading the Bible. ... *whew!*

Not gonna happen.
I don't own one to begin with, and I don't believe in those stories like you seem to do.

Don't need to *own* one. Until certain internet sites get blocked, there's always the on-line internet versions (www.biblegateway.com/passage/ is a good starting point). At least 20 different versions, and in many different languages too. They can be read side-by-side (to compare similarities and differences), and read as whole chapters or single verses. I prefer those versions that I am most familiar with, from our own resource library (if in doubt, check it out with the printed versions).

I look at the real world instead and educate myself.

I look at the real world too, and track what's been told that may come into existence -- by keeping that info in the back of my mind-- seeing or using the Bible as a *guidebook*. Yes, it may be based on faith in what is mostly unseen from my limited lifespan.. But it's better to be prepared than encounter unpleasant surprises. Some daily events are unpleasant to begin with -- no surprise there -- but it's also helpful to understand what is causing the potential "news" behind such moments. It may be speculative in guesswork, but it's also based in educating oneself about the history of such data that is actually happening.

That's the difference between you and me, and me from most of the rest of the world. I've learned to see the bigger picture in a broader perspective view.. the whole earth/history (past, present, and potential future).. It's not just a snippet in time, based solely on researched archeological proof.. and then expect other current/social or even political events to simply work themselves out. If there is an iota of a possibility of Biblical *nonsense* to you to actually occur from my faith's POV, I'd rather know what's on both sides of the proverbial fence, than just what my eyes see and ears might be hearing. I've lived thru enough unpleasant surprises to NOT want more events that may be thousands times worse happening, which at the current rate of world events, will be nothing but bad news.

So, in essence, the shorter answer is simple--
Tracking Biblical stuff is freaky at best, the bad news portions are not stuff I like to dwell on reading about. It just seems like for my own real life----gone are the days of enjoying a gentle hammock rest, and swimming in clean, clear, beautiful water to help soothe those achy muscles.
If you read the Bible and understand how to apply various science facts with what was written in sometimes symbolic illustrations--well----

"Climate change" threats are real, especially when it is understood in proper perspectives (study all possible causes, and do not ignore the prophesies just because that sounds like *fiction*). Even the Bible states the earth will *warm* up hotter and hotter -- in the last days of "this age".. this was not politically oriented. The info was written about at least 2,500 years ago. So, either we're in for a mini-hot-HOT-drying out event or the final warm-up.

Anywho.. I read the end of the (Bible) book.. Eventually, the earth's environments will temporarily stabilize again, but not before a massive war breaks out around the same approximate time the earth's oceans begin to die off along with major agricultural problems and disease infestations. We should be resolving life to be free of such problems, but it seems the opposite is happening instead.
That is *how and what* I sometimes see is happening in the "real world" now----within our own lifetime.

[Falcon Horus]

Pass the Duchie on the left hand side.

Yes please...

Just respond, don't think.............
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/...c02f3fee423527

Does he ever think?

I used to love listening to that song in the 80s..

I used to sing along as a teenager without knowing the actual meaning of the line.

Eeeeeeeeek!! It's been said that the memory is the first to go...
You're only about 20 years younger than me, and...

It was close to 3am...
Besides, thread jumps around so much it's not always presidential elections.

Although... lately...

I'm teasing!

3am - too hot to sleep, and think apparently.

I can't even remember what I said 5 minutes ago in real life...

You're a GOLDFISH?!?

[Annoyed]

I would go along with this only if the ability to enter was streamlined, but you want that. It's double talk and disingenuous. The line is long and has a waiting period of decades. Instead of relying on market forces you simply want to rely on "feelings." You don't want many people coming in, I even doubt if you know what conditions would merit what amount of immigrants to come to the US.

Of course legal immigration levels should be set to benefit our own citizens, as opposed to citizens of other nations. If the line is long, so be it. But that doesn't excuse sneaking in or overstaying a visa. It is NOT the United States' job to provide for the needs of other countries.

As far as setting the legal levels, I would say the job market is the best thing to tie it to. If we get to the point where employers can't get workers AT ANY PRICE, then we can increase levels of legal immigration. But that "at any price" bit is crucial. I don't mean that if employers can't get workers at crappy wage/benefit levels, we open immigration. I'm saying that if the vast majority of employers can't get people to apply by increasing wages and benefits offered, or by offering retraining for workers whose skills have been rendered obsolete; basically "at any price", because the "real" unemployment rate (Not the doctored figures the govt. uses) is effectively 0, then we can talk about increasing legal immigration levels. But allowing business to use immigrants as a safety valve to avoid having to offer better wages and benefits is not only directly harmful to US workers, it's unethical as well. Look at Microsoft. Hardly paupers, they are pushing (have gotten by now?) for an increase in H1B visas, despite a glut of US IT workers. Intel is doing the same, as is Disney. This spring, I recall reading that Disney hired a bunch of immigrant workers at its theme parks at substantially lower wages than the domestic workers, who were told to train their replacements and then fired. I don't care how you slice it, that is wrong.

The real solution is simple. Remove welfare from immigrants who have not paid into the system long enough to merit it and make it easier for those who can't make it go back home where they at least know the lay of the land and allow the market to just simply dictate the numbers. If there are jobs to be had, they'll come. If there aren't, they wont come. Simple.

That's a good place to start. But consider. If immigrants, both documented and undocumented were not competing in our job markets, and of businesses were not allowed to outsource production offshore (a point in both Trump's & Sanders' platforms), we could substantially decrease the number of US workers who can't find jobs and require welfare.
In fact, substantially reducing welfare across the board should be part of the plan too, in order to force workers onto the payrolls of companies who have to compete for workers, because they can't import or outsource to get cheap labor.

The idea is a unified approach to many of our problems. By forcing business to hire domestic worker, and to have to compete for their services, which would drive wage and benefit levels up would benefit the US lower middle class, increasing the number of jobs available to them, and seeing that those jobs pay better, to some degree offsetting the "income inequality" or whatever you want to call it. The increase in benefits companies would have to offer to get workers would also mean that many more would gain healthcare.

[Falcon Horus]

Annoyed, some good news as far as free trade goes between the EU and the US. The TTIP negotiations are considered as failed after 14 rounds of talking. Well, according to the German minister for Economics anyway.
The US has too many demands the EU doesn't want to hear about.

CETA, on the other hand, the trade agreement between Canada and the EU is a success.

[aretood2]

Nice poll.. However ,it never specified who those 1200 or so people polled WERE. In relation to things like
Race, Sex, Ethnicity, nationality and age..

I would imagine that the race, sex, ethnicity, nationality, and age of the polled reflects the demographics of that area...because that's how polls work.

IMO thats more cause they are not enforced..

Or that they are simply ineffective or just not realistic given bureaucratic issues. For example, imagine the US keeping the same exact laws involving the internet from the 90's. Do you think they would be effective today? Or even sufficient? The thing about laws is that they can and should change according to the needs present at the time. Immigration laws right now are simply put, outdated.

And that is cause we have no one in power, PUSHING to actually track and monitor those on visas, to ensure those who do overstay get out when their time is up..

That's not true. Rubio, Rand, the Bush's and a few others have asked for such a thing. But all anyone on your side of the aisle cares about is putting up a wall and setting up a goose stepping deportation force so nothing was ever done.

Of course legal immigration levels should be set to benefit our own citizens, as opposed to citizens of other nations. If the line is long, so be it. But that doesn't excuse sneaking in or overstaying a visa. It is NOT the United States' job to provide for the needs of other countries.

On that note you seem to think that everything is a zero sum game. That if one isn't loosing the other is the one loosing. But that's simply not the case an a number of different fronts. Open migration isn't about looking for the needs of other countries, they don't factor into the equation at all. It's about economic principles and establishing a more effective market that is able to respond to changes in the economy effectively to ensure the most efficient use of resources. That is the essence of capitalism. That's something you seem to fail to understand. It's socialism and it's desire to spoon feed the populace everything that would have the incentive to prevent migration.

As far as setting the legal levels, I would say the job market is the best thing to tie it to. If we get to the point where employers can't get workers AT ANY PRICE, then we can increase levels of legal immigration. But that "at any price" bit is crucial. I don't mean that if employers can't get workers at crappy wage/benefit levels, we open immigration. I'm saying that if the vast majority of employers can't get people to apply by increasing wages and benefits offered, or by offering retraining for workers whose skills have been rendered obsolete; basically "at any price", because the "real" unemployment rate (Not the doctored figures the govt. uses) is effectively 0, then we can talk about increasing legal immigration levels.

Oh dear Lord, please please please please take an economics course or at least buy a textbook or something or stop talking about things that you obviously know very little about as if you were some expert. 0 unemployment is impossible, anything less than 3% is effectively a fantasy. Anything less than 4-6% could cause problems such as hyperinflation depending on the situation. Several chunks of the work force aren't figured in because they are A) Students B)Stay at home spouses C) Rich enough to not care D) Retired E)Clergy or something similar. Most "real" numbers add on those five chunks of the population, which when added up together form the bulk of the "unfixed" figure.

As for job market, that's not how it works! In essence you'd ask farmers to offer $25 an hour plus benefits for an underpopulated workforce that can't even provide the needed production to bring in normal revenue, let alone enough to pay such outrages wages before they can even ask the slow moving inefficient government to debate about bringing in more workers from somewhere else. The result would be steep increase in prices and decrease of production causing a shortage. The shortage may not be a problem if you could simply import the goods...but then you want trade barriers, so so much for that solution.

Do you honestly think the government will be able to act effectively to respond to changes in the economy? Your trust in government is perplexing for someone who claims to...not trust government.

The true market based system would be open competition. If workers want higher wages, they can unionize and negotiate for such increases. In different areas of the countries, agricultural and factory wages aren't that bad. They aren't going to be buying RV's and summer homes any time soon, but they can afford to live and enjoy some comforts.

Dealing with illegal immigration would automatically get the wages to go up anyway. Once it becomes clear to employers that their workers do have a choice in the matter. But you seem to underestimate just how expensive agriculture and manufacturing is.

But allowing business to use immigrants as a safety valve to avoid having to offer better wages and benefits is not only directly harmful to US workers, it's unethical as well. Look at Microsoft. Hardly paupers, they are pushing (have gotten by now?) for an increase in H1B visas, despite a glut of US IT workers. Intel is doing the same, as is Disney. This spring, I recall reading that Disney hired a bunch of immigrant workers at its theme parks at substantially lower wages than the domestic workers, who were told to train their replacements and then fired. I don't care how you slice it, that is wrong.

Now all of a sudden you are concerned with ethics and morality? Trump is doing the same thing too, btw. He has for a very long time. I don't buy your sudden consideration of ethics and morality in this issue when you hold such matters in disdain in other issues.

That's a good place to start. But consider. If immigrants, both documented and undocumented were not competing in our job markets, and of businesses were not allowed to outsource production offshore (a point in both Trump's & Sanders' platforms), we could substantially decrease the number of US workers who can't find jobs and require welfare.
In fact, substantially reducing welfare across the board should be part of the plan too, in order to force workers onto the payrolls of companies who have to compete for workers, because they can't import or outsource to get cheap labor.

And the shortages I mentioned above would also become a reality. Socialist policies rarely work for job markets. Venezuelans are learning that the hard way.

The idea is a unified approach to many of our problems. By forcing business to hire domestic worker, and to have to compete for their services, which would drive wage and benefit levels up would benefit the US lower middle class, increasing the number of jobs available to them, and seeing that those jobs pay better, to some degree offsetting the "income inequality" or whatever you want to call it. The increase in benefits companies would have to offer to get workers would also mean that many more would gain healthcare.

It would bring about a host of new problems.

[garhkal]

I used to sing along as a teenager without knowing the actual meaning of the line.

I tried last night, but couldn't cause i could barely understand half the lyrics...

That's not true. Rubio, Rand, the Bush's and a few others have asked for such a thing. But all anyone on your side of the aisle cares about is putting up a wall and setting up a goose stepping deportation force so nothing was ever done.

Its not just our side.. Dems have also stalled on implementing any changes/enforcement of those things..
BUT i do agree, its all politics.. BOTH sides just keep kicking the can down the road.

[Gatefan1976]

Its not just our side.. Dems have also stalled on implementing any changes/enforcement of those things..
BUT i do agree, its all politics.. BOTH sides just keep kicking the can down the road.

What?
Are you seriously trying to compare reform to deportation?

[Coco Pops]

Hey do any of you in the US want Pauline Hanson to be running with Trump? I think they'd be a good match.

BTW on local politics why is the government trying to rush through lots of legislation without letting the Senate review it? Isn't that the role of the Senate as a house of review?

[garhkal]

When the dems only seem to wanna make 'reform' mean give the bloody immigrants, and the GOP seems to be "Deport the lotta them".. IT Is imo 2 sides of the same coin.

[Gatefan1976]

When the dems only seem to wanna make 'reform' mean give the bloody immigrants, and the GOP seems to be "Deport the lotta them".. IT Is imo 2 sides of the same coin.

That just shows a lack of understanding on the issue dude
There is nothing -wrong- with wanting immigration reform, there is nothing wrong with wanting to keep illegals out of the country, but building walls and carrying on like a racist pig of a person (Trump, not you) WILL SOLVE NOTHING. Reforms such as what Tood suggested earlier such as needing all documentation to get governmental assistance is -perfectly- reasonable, and it's fairly damn humane. Expedited visa's for people who have been here a long time and just want to become legal is -also- humane. Been in the US for 10 years and kept your nose clean for those 10 years? expedited visa. You can also place a limit on that visa if you want, and that's humane. Back taxes? Given the low to non-existent level of federal taxes for people in the US (note -FEDERAL, not state), why bother? If they have been living somewhere, they are paying state and sales tax already. Why sacrifice 20+% of their paycheque that they are already paying in taxes and contributing to the local economy to get 10% more, when getting that 10% more would cost you more to recover it?

Mass Deportation simply will not help you, and get you more trouble than it is worth. Look at few bits of news you tend to get in America about Australia. I -Gaurentee you, most of it will be about how BADLY we treat "boat people", and given that Australia lives or dies on the global stage with Diplomacy, that negative press -hurts-. Now, granted you are not in the same boat as us, so that one issue won't hurt as much on it's own, when you start to throw it "in the heap" with the rest of the issues the world has with the US, it starts to add up.

Long story short, mass deportation is a non-viable, non cost effective, non diplomatic solution to your problem. Immigration reform -IS-, even if it is more "hardline" than it is now. This is what the GOP -base- needs to understand. The party knows it, they did the research in 2012 after losing -AGAIN- to Obama while they had control of the house and the senate. The TEA party might have got the GOP control, but they unleashed a monster when they embraced them.

[Coco Pops]

Frankly Australia's treatment of refugees and boat people is deplorable

[Gatefan1976]

Frankly Australia's treatment of refugees and boat people is deplorable

Yes it is.