The News Thread

I'm oddly pessimistic that if Hillary is elected, we might have a repeat of the Bill era where a Republican Congress and Senate could keep a lot of their bullshit in check and work together on tackling the debt issue, but who knows. The way I figure it, she can't do anything worse than continuing the direction of the last 16 years, and if shit is going to hit the fan it's inevitable either way. Maybe a proper proxy war in Syria with Russia, maybe revive some shit with Iran, blow even more money by spending it on dumbass college kids that can't handle their own finances, and by the time it's 2020 we'll hear "Hey it may be $30 trillion but we mostly owe it to ourselves so it doesn't matter". As long as shit holds up long enough for me to buy a house I don't really care at this point, I don't think Trump could fix the biggest issues with just immigration reform and whatever alone.
 
Yeah, there are more registered independents than either party individually iirc, but of course that doesn't matter if a lot of them vote for a single party 90% of the time anyways.
 
I think there are some major misunderstandings as to what it means when these major companies fail. It simply is not going to be this epic disaster for the common man. There are differing levels of bankruptcy/failure, and even in the worst, it doesn't mean the products and services vanish. It means they become available for more competent ownership/management. Such rhetoric about "too big to fail" is simply self-serving for the ".1%"

You make it sound so harmless. It really would be a huge deal for a lot of people, though. I don't think I'm misunderstanding it.
 
It doesn't surprise me that you see it as a positive - but that's a value judgment, not a factual analysis.

Banking crises detrimentally affect a structurally significant percentage of people ("structurally significant" meaning that those negatively affected will themselves have an effect on economic development), and this percentage will increase in proportion with the size and influence of the economic institution.

In the long run, banking crises may indeed lead to what you might identify as more prosperous conditions (better management, better regulation, etc.); but I question whether the improved conditions enjoyed by people in the distant aftermath of a crisis outweigh the negative conditions suffered by those during and immediately after such crises. Barring significant evidence to the contrary, I would venture that avoiding crises in major financial institutions is preferable to letting them fail.
 
Last edited:
I hate it when i hear this nonsense. a signature statement by the "pro illegals" crowd. First off, that is straight bullshit. I know countless people that would do ANY of the jobs that you think only illegal immigrants would do. And second, the only reason they even get some of those jobs is because there are piece of shit employers out there who know that an undocumented residents would work for half the cost of minimum wage, because they really have no choice. And when that happens the POS employer is also breaking the law. Ive seen this happen more-so than i'd like and its truly disturbing. Rarely do you have anyone paying an illegal properly. Taking advantage of someone and paying them in bread crumbs is pretty despicable if you ask me.

Here you and I are in agreement. However, you have to understand that with your anti-path-to-citizenship position, there's no reasonable way to stop this phenomenon of exploitation. Because undocumented inmigrants are disenfranchised, they are often terrified of reporting to authorities. The capitalist system is all about maximizing profit. Therefore, there will always be businessmen and women are going to take advantage of the the disenfranchised class, so long as they can. Now on the other hand, if there was a reasonable path to a working visa that provided these immigrants with a path to confidently enforce the rights given to all workers in this country, then the phenomenon would decrease dramatically.

If you are here illegally, than you shouldn't have a job in this country, as simple as that.

Simple was a good word choice, because the only way that statement can be taken seriously is via a simplistic divorce from history and reality. Since NAFTA has made it increasingly easy for capital to cross borders, it has created economic crises throughout Mexican and Central American communities. Mass immigration is an inevitable consequence destroying local economies for capitalist gain. We can't claim that it's not our problem since it was our government and elected officials who implemented the trade agreement. Moreover, we have aided coups in Central American countries, most notably Honduras, and contributed to massive violence, which has naturally triggered immigration. It's unreasonable to have foreign policy that creates the conditions of mass migration, and then categorically disenfranchise the those same people when they inevitably arrive in our country.

In short, our international policies and immigration laws have heavily contributed to the mass illegal immigration to our country, which results in the appalling worker's right violations you mentioned above. However, deporting the immigrates is not a plausible solution because it is 1. unethical (since we are partially responsible for their immigration) 2. it is too expensive and 3. will not solve the problem, as another wave of immigrants will come when all the deported people return to their home country, creating increased competition for jobs in their home country. A reasonable solution would be to create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the USA right now and at the same time create immigration reform that makes more reasonable access to work visas for "unskilled laborers".

I also want to push you on your categorical statement that if you are here illegally, then you shouldn't have a job. What about children who were brought here by their parents, go through our education system, and become qualified for a skilled job? Currently, they cannot legally work in many states, but for all intents and purposes they are as American as anyone else. Moreover, since tax payers have already invested the money into producing this skilled laborer, does it really make sense to you to deport them to another country so that they can contribute to their economy? Even from a purely economic standpoint, setting aside ethics and emotional attachments, that seems like a terrible investment.

I have family on the other side of the world who have been trying hard as fuck to come here legally and start a proper future for themselves and their families for over 10+ years now, but its okay for julio to just hop the fuckin' fence tomorrow and come right on over? fuck no.

Where is your family coming from?

illegals lower wages and take jobs. it's a myth that they "take jobs no one wants to do". many low-skilled but legal american citizens, including legal mexican-americans, would take them.

i don't think Trump will be able to build the entire wall anytime soon or deport every illegal. but if he builds part of the wall at key areas, gives more authority and resources to border patrol, and deports -some or a lot- of illegals that would be great. implement e-verify and penalize businesses that hire illegals, cut off welfare and healthcare to them and they will self-deport.

no matter how thorough the vetting is, if there is no data to check the refugee against, then there is nothing to base the vetting on. furthermore, there is no reason to accept even the ones who are not terrorists.

by barring entry based on where they're from, and deporting suspicious muslims preemptively.

less taxes for everyone. including you and me, and the companies that hire us, so they can give us bonuses. don't you want a bigger paycheck? then we can buy more stuff and the economy will be better

nope, his personality, his rhetoric, and even his past dont matter, only the policies that he will implement in office and the competent republican staff he will appoint to carry them out. and how those policies affect your and my and every legal american of every ethnicity's quality of life.

Oh that's Aug? I never would have responded if I knew that. How many times does he need to get banned before they just block his IP address?
 
You can be against the policies that caused the immigration problem as well as the immigration problem. Derp.

It's not a matter of being for or against, the consequences have already taken effect and now we have to live and deal with the consequences of our decisions and the decisions of our elected officials. There's no time machine and we can't take what happened and we as a nation are responsible. Certainly, we can change those policies in the future (which I believe we are both in favor of), but that doesn't mean we can ignore the present situation.

And again, other than creating a reasonable path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in conjunction with immigration reform, there is no plausible solution. Mass deportation is highly expensive and massively damaging to our economy (not to mention unethical, inhumane, and a form of eliminationism), and ineffective as immigrants will simply return for the same reasons as before (and to reconnect with family-in many cases children- that are US citizens). A no, a big wall isn't gonna stop a mother or father from getting back to their child. But it will cost a shit ton of money.
 
It's not a matter of being for or against, the consequences have already taken effect and now we have to live and deal with the consequences of our decisions and the decisions of our elected officials. There's no time machine and we can't take what happened and we as a nation are responsible. Certainly, we can change those policies in the future (which I believe we are both in favor of), but that doesn't mean we can ignore the present situation.

And again, other than creating a reasonable path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in conjunction with immigration reform, there is no plausible solution. Mass deportation is highly expensive and massively damaging to our economy (not to mention unethical, inhumane, and a form of eliminationism), and ineffective as immigrants will simply return for the same reasons as before (and to reconnect with family-in many cases children- that are US citizens). A no, a big wall isn't gonna stop a mother or father from getting back to their child. But it will cost a shit ton of money.

Just because some idiots did some things against my will and without my consent doesn't mean I have to be in favor of a magnifying the problem through some easystreet illconceived post hoc justified plan to assuage some bleeding hearts and profit the "1%". Trump is wrong about a great many things, but he's not wrong about "either we have a country or we don't have a country".
 
Just because some idiots did some things against my will and without my consent doesn't mean I have to be in favor of a magnifying the problem through some easystreet illconceived post hoc justified plan to assuage some bleeding hearts and profit the "1%". Trump is wrong about a great many things, but he's not wrong about "either we have a country or we don't have a country".

:rofl: Ill-concieved? Please explain your solution. I'm sure it's brilliant.
 
There is no "brilliant solution". There is only some pain for some, or much pain for many.

Agreed. There will be pain for many if we waste over $400 billion on deportations. There will be pain for many when our economy went into another recession as a result of the impact on the economy. There would be pain for a generation who had to live with the moral burden of tearing apart their neighbor's families. And there would be pain for many when they realized it was all for nought as a new wave of immigrants came, since the root of the problem was not addressed.
 
You probably won't want to hear this, but you're voting with your feelings just as much as crimson and I are. All the proposals you've made assume a specific set of values, none of which have anything to do with logic or rationality. From your perspective, everything you listed seems perfectly logical - but that's because you have a deep-seated emotional commitment to the values that inform these positions.

Something like "quality of life" is a fascinatingly vague position, but your other suggestions tell a lot about what it means. Basically, I should think about the quality of life of "my fellow Americans." But plenty of my fellow Americans are elderly and/or handicapped, neither of which necessarily amounts to an unwillingness to live on their part or the impossibility of still enjoying their lives. You'd deny them any and all kind of support... but then isn't this damaging the lives of your fellow Americans?

When I read your list of positions, I don't see a carefully thought-out and rigorously conceived argument. I see an emotionally charged and contradictory rhetorical rampage. You only think you're voting with your head because these positions fuel your pre-established emotional convictions.

For instance, you say that Hillary will provide corporate welfare, but on the previous page you wrote:



The big kinds of corporations you're talking about (multinationals) operate on a level of economic complexity that demands government intervention. At this point we could let the big ones fail, but that's going to fuck up your life as much as it fucks up the board members' lives. Given this information, corporate assistance seems like a pretty "pro-corporation" policy from my perspective.

As far as Hillary's economic policies "crippling" American businesses... that's at best an overstatement, and at worst completely inaccurate. Obama's economic policies have in fact not crippled American businesses, nor can it be effectively argued that in an overwhelming number of cases his economic policies were directly responsible for companies that did fail (i.e. there are many reasons why companies go under). Plenty of small businesses continued to thrive and grow under Obama's presidency, so I don't see how Clinton's policies will be catastrophically worse.
being pro-corporation does not necessarily mean corporate welfare. i mean low taxes, light regulations, low minimum wage, no affirmative action, etc. i absolutely believe failed businesses should fail.

i'm ok with social security for old folks who paid into it their whole lives

i'm ok with voluntary charity
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. There will be pain for many if we waste over $400 billion on deportations. There will be pain for many when our economy went into another recession as a result of the impact on the economy. There would be pain for a generation who had to live with the moral burden of tearing apart their neighbor's families. And there would be pain for many when they realized it was all for nought as a new wave of immigrants came, since the root of the problem was not addressed.
that's why you make it so unhospitable (no welfare or healthcare, punish employers, use e-verify) for illegals that they self-deport. a new wave won't even come when they hear how terrible it is. eliminate the pull factors. path to citizenship is a pull factor it must not be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
Agreed. There will be pain for many if we waste over $400 billion on deportations. There will be pain for many when our economy went into another recession as a result of the impact on the economy. There would be pain for a generation who had to live with the moral burden of tearing apart their neighbor's families. And there would be pain for many when they realized it was all for nought as a new wave of immigrants came, since the root of the problem was not addressed.

The only part you have right is the last part. Deportations aren't necessarily the best course of action, but it's only contingently a total waste(like if they come right back). The economy never really got out of recession, and even if you believe all the QE and zirp/nirp mean it has, it's still going back in officially whether or not there's a crackdown on illegals. I can't help you with your notions of blame and guilt, Haidt says I can only try to understand.