US Politics Thread

[inbetween]

There's zero argument for having guns widely available to all and sundry but we have that too.

Are you arguing for or against guns because I'm not quite sure? The US gun industry is worth $90bn per year so what is your argument against guns? Illegal migrants don't contribute that much so surely by the logic I've read on here it makes sense for the US to continue to keep guns legal and made as available as possible?

Any sane person knows that this is a bad idea because guns kill people which is why they're completely illegal here in the UK. An illegal gun market however has not come to exist in the UK because we strictly enforce those laws and strictly control permits and gun purchases.

It would be totally insane to for example make guns illegal in the US and then accept some illegal gun economy because you still want that $90bn per year. That however is the argument that people are making on illegal migration. They want a contiguous illegal population which itself has no rights or even basic human rights such as access to healthcare just to support the economy, it's an utterly ridiculous argument.

Why not instead just enforce the border to reduce the numbers coming in and then have an amnesty to legalise the illegal migrants who are already present? You can then forget worrying about the economy because legal migrants will support the economy and you can then have a policy that actually functions to combat further illegal migration.

If you want an illegal economy supported by an illegal population and you're not willing to deter people from coming by removing the risk of deportation then why have a border at all?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Are you arguing for or against guns because I'm not quite sure? The US gun industry is worth $90bn per year so what is your argument against guns? Illegal migrants don't contribute that much so surely by the logic I've read on here it makes sense for the US to continue to keep guns legal and made as available as possible?

Any sane person knows that this is a bad idea because guns kill people which is why they're completely illegal here in the UK. An illegal gun market however has not come to exist in the UK because we strictly enforce those laws and strictly control permits and gun purchases.

It would be totally insane to for example make guns illegal in the US and then accept some illegal gun economy because you still want that $90bn per year. That however is the argument that people are making on illegal migration. They want a contiguous illegal population which itself has no rights or even basic human rights such as access to healthcare just to support the economy, it's an utterly ridiculous argument.

Why not instead just enforce the border to reduce the numbers coming in and then have an amnesty to legalise the illegal migrants who are already present? You can then forget worrying about the economy because legal migrants will support the economy and you can then have a policy that actually functions to combat further illegal migration.

If you want an illegal economy supported by an illegal population and you're not willing to deter people from coming by removing the risk of deportation then why have a border at all?

You can’t do amnesty. Obviously I would be supportive of this. But we already discussed this. Reds want all illegal immigrants jailed and deported, immediately, now. That’s their “compromise”. There aren’t any others. There’s status quo, and that. I didn’t set up those two sides — those sides were set up by hardline reds. So why are you bothering with “compromise”?

Same with guns. What’s the hard red position? Everything and anything is legal, period. It’s they who have set up the hard line with no compromises.

Do you not see the point here? Do you not understand what “sane”, “rational” people are fighting? Yet we are deemed leftists (LOL) etc for deigning to think through common sense compromises.

There is no negotiating with political terrorists. You can only defeat them. We didn’t. So it will be four-plus years of political terror.

 

[inbetween]

You can’t do amnesty. Obviously I would be supportive of this. But we already discussed this. Reds want all illegal immigrants jailed and deported, immediately, now. That’s their “compromise”. There aren’t any others. There’s status quo, and that. I didn’t set up those two sides — those sides were set up by hardline reds. So why are you bothering with “compromise”?

Same with guns. What’s the hard red position? Everything and anything is legal, period. It’s they who have set up the hard line with no compromises.

Do you not see the point here? Do you not understand what “sane”, “rational” people are fighting? Yet we are deemed leftists (LOL) etc for deigning to think through common sense compromises.

There is no negotiating with political terrorists. You can only defeat them. We didn’t. So it will be four-plus years of political terror.

As you say the point of politics is that either idea was put to a vote and more people voted for change than no change. If Trump does deport illegal migrants then it will be a mere enforcement of a law that already exists, a law that the Democrats also acknowledged existed and chose not to enforce.

I honestly don't see the problem with enforcing the law. It's no different to arguing whether to prosecute people for drug dealing which itself is another illegal economy. We don't accept drug dealers in our society just because of some greater good of the economy, IE, they go out and spend their drug money.

One negative result is that companies exploiting illegal migrants will go out of business or they will have to employ people legally and pay them properly, big deal? It actually creates jobs for Americans instead of creating jobs for the citizens of other countries who have just decided to hop over the border.

This may increase food costs and prices but then if that's the reality of combating exploitation then so what? Increasing taxes upon major corporations and food providers would have the exact same effect and that's something that Harris was going to do so any argument on some greater good is just plainly silly.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

As you say the point of politics is that either idea was put to a vote and more people voted for change than no change. If Trump does deport illegal migrants then it will be a mere enforcement of a law that already exists, a law that the Democrats also acknowledged existed and chose not to enforce.

I honestly don't see the problem with enforcing the law. It's no different to arguing whether to prosecute people for drug dealing which itself is another illegal economy. We don't accept drug dealers in our society just because of some greater good of the economy, IE, they go out and spend their drug money.

One negative result is that companies exploiting illegal migrants will go out of business or they will have to employ people legally and pay them properly, big deal? It actually creates jobs for Americans instead of creating jobs for the citizens of other countries who have just decided to hop over the border.

This may increase food costs and prices but then if that's the reality of combating exploitation then so what? Increasing taxes upon major corporations and food providers would have the exact same effect and that's something that Harris was going to do so any argument on some greater good is just plainly silly.

“Chose not to enforce” — go look at the data on border detentions by administration FFS.

The reason there is an “illegal” economy is because legal residents won’t do certain jobs for the pay on offer, not because the labor pool exists. If all illegal immigrants disappeared, pay on offer would need to increase exponentially for jobs to be performed, and/or businesses would simply shut. Have you ever heard of the term stagflation? That’s what we’d have. But we don’t now — now we are in a near-full employment economy already. Job availability for Americans is not the problem.

And how will we pay for this extreme, no tolerance enforcement? Stripping the Dept of Education or the EPA? Diverting resources from stopping the drug annd gun trade you decry to haul people back to their countries of origin? Abandoning Ukraine to its fate or leaving NATO? It won’t be raising taxes on rich people, that’s for sure.

Policy is about compromise and trade-offs. Politics is about rhetoric. Unfortunately extremists don’t know the difference.

 

[Dax777]

In more detailed political news, Des Moines Register executive editor Carol Hunter wrote that Selzer had discussed a timetable for “winding down her work on the poll” over the last few years and confirmed that Selzer had given her notice over a year ago, saying that she would “not renew when her 2024 contract ended with [the] publication of the pre-election poll.”

In light of this news is makes sense now why she was so wrong in her final poll... It was a Hopium poll. She was being an activist rather than an informer.

Just watched this discussion between two YouTube intellectuals - Alex O'Conner and Destiny. Although it was filmed before the election Destiny does highlight some of the issues raised by @FogBlueInSanFran about democrats having to sink as low as the republicans. He sees that there is no political capital in taking a high road approach as the posture a democrat might take in that respect is easily mocked and undermined by the shameless rhetoric of the right.

An interesting point Destiny also makes is that trying to take a centrist or moderate approach is cowardly and gives the extreme view a sheen of respectability

Yes, because leftist have been centrist and moderate in their views all this while.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

One negative result is that companies exploiting illegal migrants will go out of business or they will have to employ people legally and pay them properly, big deal? It actually creates jobs for Americans instead of creating jobs for the citizens of other countries who have just decided to hop over the border.

Another case of 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

There are also cases of Trump employing undocumented workers and refusing to play them, because 'who are they going to complain to'?

Report: Trump Happily Employing Undocumented Workers Amid ICE Raids

The president is fine with an immigrant “invasion” when it’s benefitting him financially.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

“Chose not to enforce” — go look at the data on border detentions by administration FFS.

The reason there is an “illegal” economy is because legal residents won’t do certain jobs for the pay on offer, not because the labor pool exists. If all illegal immigrants disappeared, pay on offer would need to increase exponentially for jobs to be performed, and/or businesses would simply shut. Have you ever heard of the term stagflation? That’s what we’d have. But we don’t now — now we are in a near-full employment economy already. Job availability for Americans is not the problem.

And how will we pay for this extreme, no tolerance enforcement? Stripping the Dept of Education or the EPA? Diverting resources from stopping the drug annd gun trade you decry to haul people back to their countries of origin? Abandoning Ukraine to its fate or leaving NATO? It won’t be raising taxes on rich people, that’s for sure.

Policy is about compromise and trade-offs. Politics is about rhetoric. Unfortunately extremists don’t know the difference.

It's not just the first order effects, it's the second and third order effects on the economy. If this mass deportation happens it will be a shit-show of epic proportions, and low and middle-class families will sufferer immeasurably.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Yes, because leftist have been centrist and moderate in their views all this while.

Centrists and moderates are now called leftists (and Marxists) by the GOP and Trump, and especially by the worst of the MAGA kid-fiddlers.

OT, why did you abandon Obama after “working on his campaign”? Or maybe it isn’t OT.

 

[Dax777]

Centrists and moderates are now called leftists (and Marxists) by the GOP and Trump,

and especially by the worst of the MAGA kid-fiddlers. Is that why you abandoned Obama after “working on his campaign”? Empathy?

Projection much? Leftist are the ones who've always called anyone who didn't tow their ever changing lines as RWNJs. Just like you have done in the 2 prior posts above.

Anyway, i guess this is your new framing. You as part of the "sane and rational" people seeking common sense compromise of course. And on the other side, the insane MAGA who only care about extremist rhetoric. How quaint.

Again this is a false frame. MAGA is not the reason why every State in the country shifted Right. Those are your fellow "sane and rational" folks who are not satisfied with the present reality.

MAGA is NOT the reason 10 blue Counties in your State of California turned red. It's not the reason the AG of your State got bounced by an independent. It's not the reason why the Mayor of your own City got bounced. It's not the reason why your State voted to re-felonize shoplifting.

You can continue fantasizing about Extremist RWNJs and their stupidity. But it won't change what's happening in your backyard. And everyday people with common sense will react as they see fit. Regardless of what fantasy Foggy and his high society friends are currently entertaining.

 

[Dax777]

I wonder what will happen if a million illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes other than the crime of illegally crossing are immediately entered into the process of deportation when the new admin enters

And over the next 4 years the government sets a standing order. Any illegal alien who commits a crime must be immediately entered into the deportation process. And the process expedited. Followed by all new illegal crossers who are caught getting deported immediately. Applications for Asylum and Migrant visas must follow the point of entry process.

Perhaps by end of year 4, between 3 to 6 million illegal immigrants get deported.

Putting it in line with the level of deportation under President Obama.

Just wondering out loud how much economic harm this would cause...