The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Dak]

Well I agree with her on why poor whites like Trump, but that is summarized in a couple of sentences and isn't anything new. All the fellating of gimmedats is . What's the *real* difference between begging for crumbs from political power vs economic power?

 

[rms]

I think this article is kinda old, friend linked it to me so now it's rather same-y

but I don't see many articles/pieces establish the historical context in that piece

also knew the gimmedats was too strong

 

[Dak]

I think this article is kinda old, friend linked it to me so now it's rather same-y
but I don't see many articles/pieces establish the historical context in that piece
also knew the gimmedats was too strong

Well there's certainly a historic precedent for intra-"white" discrimination, and it goes well back into the Middle Ages. Discrimination has occurred along geographic, religious, familial, and monetary lines concurrently. People haven't change that much over the last 1000 years. Imperialism, Nationalism, Corporatism, and "Identism"(or whatever) have been applied to our natural tribalism to try and grow and shape the accepted tribe size and content.

People generally are not going to be happy without something bigger than themselves to belong to. This is where I think Nietzsche's projection of the coming of an Overman ultimately runs into reality. They are both rare and have always been with us: They create the "Something bigger". Unfortunately the "something bigger" has progressively shrunken in size in the post-modern era, and I suspect that that is the underlying systemic source of a lot of depression and anxiety. Available "great purposes" are tiny and hollow.

 

[CiG]

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-existed both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right and therefore cannot take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

http://conservativetribune.com/trum...2017-01-23&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

 

[arg]

Massive blow to illegals and refugees yesterday!

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.n...-immigrants-wall-trump.amp.html?client=safari

Sooo proud of our new president #winning

 

[J.]

Exactly. I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms over the US NOT letting in illegal aliens and refugees. We have immigration LAWS. We dont get to choose which ones not to enforce. This should have happened a long time ago.

The whole "nation of immigrants" argument doesnt hold anymore. Just because my ancestors from generations ago came here, doesnt mean akmed, jose, and juanita can come here and settle like they belong in 2017. Two different time periods, apples and oranges.

 

[Einherjar86]

We've been enforcing our immigration laws, and it has been happening for a long time. Do either of you have any idea how difficult the immigration process was under Obama?

A wall isn't part of our immigration laws, nor is blocking certain immigrants because of religious affiliation. Additionally, blocking Syrian refugees hurts those trying to flee from terrorism far more than it deals any kind of blow to terrorism. Those who think this will make us safer are morons.

None of Trump's proposed measures are intelligent or realistic, and I'm also betting they won't be effective.

 

[tagradh]

The negative impact Trump's gonna have upon millions of people's lives sorta sucks but still, I am finding the whole 'what stupid shit is he gonna do or say next?' thing kinda funny.

 

[Dak]

A wall isn't part of our immigration laws

http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-current-state-of-the-border-fence

Recognizing the effectiveness of physical barriers as a means of border control, Congress first mandated the construction of a border fence in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). IIRIRA called for the construction of a 14-mile, triple-layered fence along the boundary between San Diego and Tijuana.[1]

By 2004, only nine miles of fencing were completed. Congress subsequently passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. That legislation called for double-layered fencing along the border, augmented by manpower and technology, and directed the Secretary of Homeland security to construct “reinforced fencing along not fewer than 700 miles of the southwest border, in locations where fencing is deemed most practical and effective.”[2]

None of Trump's proposed measures are intelligent or realistic, and I'm also betting they won't be effective.

Banning immigration from countries across the ocean is more effective than not banning it, if the aim is to reduce the amount of persons coming from those countries. Obviously effectiveness probably won't hit 100% but it doesn't have to.

To a lesser degree, a wall will be more effective than no wall. But the question regarding the wall revolves around cost vs benefit which is much more complex. Obviously Trump has done no real investigation into the complexity of the issue. Building a wall is an "easy" physical example of "Job Done!"

 

[Einherjar86]

http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-current-state-of-the-border-fence

That's a fence. Not a wall. A wall is quite different than a fence.

Banning immigration from countries across the ocean is more effective than not banning it, if the aim is to reduce the amount of persons coming from those countries. Obviously effectiveness probably won't hit 100% but it doesn't have to.

No, it won't be. I'm appealing to your argument here.

Those who would come here legally will be the ones prevented from coming; or they'll find illegal ways to do so, thereby complicating things more.

Terrorists won't come here legally, or they'll just come here from other countries.

I can't believe that you wouldn't understand this.

To a lesser degree, a wall will be more effective than no wall. But the question regarding the wall revolves around cost vs benefit which is much more complex. Obviously Trump has done no real investigation into the complexity of the issue. Building a wall is an "easy" physical example of "Job Done!"

"Realistic" and "effectiveness" also refer to cost, which will inevitably fall on us - I don't care what Trump says. Who cares if it stops 10 or even 20% of Mexicans coming over the border, if it's going to be a burden on us economically? Most of those coming from Mexico contribute to the economy, and abide by the law.

 

[CiG]

Banning Muslims for any period of time essentially ensures no Muslim will even cooperate with America. As to the wall, it's just an expensive piece of symbolism that won't actually change much. But people love symbolism so they won't care, it's overwhelmingly positive to Trumpsters and overwhelmingly negative to the anti-Trumpers.

As to this:

We've been enforcing our immigration laws, and it has been happening for a long time. Do either of you have any idea how difficult the immigration process was under Obama?

What do you mean, difficult?

 

[Dak]

That's a fence. Not a wall. A wall is quite different than a fence.

I don't know if I would say *quite*. My point primarily, and I keep having to make it in many places, is that the shrieking about border barriers being unAmerican or some such thing simply isn't true. While I was still in the SW and could see the border barriers from I-8 in some places it amazed me that people with access to the internet had no clue we already had it.

No, it won't be. I'm appealing to your argument here.

Those who would come here legally will be the ones prevented from coming; or they'll find illegal ways to do so, thereby complicating things more.

Terrorists won't come here legally, or they'll just come here from other countries.

I can't believe that you wouldn't understand this.

I agree it won't do much to combat ISIS or whatever the new organized jihadist flavor is. It will net reduce immigration from very problematic countries, and I don't see how we can distinguish the good from problematic in those coming from problematic countries.

"Realistic" and "effectiveness" also refer to cost, which will inevitably fall on us - I don't care what Trump says. Who cares if it stops 10 or even 20% of Mexicans coming over the border, if it's going to be a burden on us economically? Most of those coming from Mexico contribute to the economy, and abide by the law.

They "contribute to the economy" by depressing wages for bigAg etc. and I think it needs to be halted. Obviously unless Mexico cuts the US a check, the US is footing the bill, and it's probably not worth going the wall route. I think a much better, more cost effective and efficient option would be to eliminate border patrol and task the US Army with border security. A defense operation for the Department of Defense?? Whaaaat???? So crazy it just might work.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree it won't do much to combat ISIS or whatever the new organized jihadist flavor is. It will net reduce immigration from very problematic countries, and I don't see how we can distinguish the good from problematic in those coming from problematic countries.

If terrorists just start coming over from other countries then it's going to get really tough to distinguish "good" countries from "problematic" ones.

They "contribute to the economy" by depressing wages for bigAg etc. and I think it needs to be halted. Obviously unless Mexico cuts the US a check, the US is footing the bill, and it's probably not worth going the wall route. I think a much better, more cost effective and efficient option would be to eliminate border patrol and task the US Army with border security. A defense operation for the Department of Defense?? Whaaaat???? So crazy it just might work.

Seems more reasonable to me than "build that wall! Build that wall!"

 

[Einherjar86]

What do you mean, difficult?

If you look up what the immigration process is (or was, now) you'll see what I mean, I'm sure. "Extreme vetting" was already happening. Now Trump is basically turning the country into "Christians Only" club

 

[Dak]

If terrorists just start coming over from other countries then it's going to really tough to distinguish "good" countries from "problematic" ones.

It costs resources to get from country to country, and many countries have their own various barriers to immigration, infrastructure usage etc. I don't think we will have a major problem with distinguishing whether or not Japan is problematic if we have an influx of Yemeni people rerouting through that country (which they probably couldn't even do).

 

[Einherjar86]

It costs resources to get from country to country, and many countries have their own various barriers to immigration, infrastructure usage etc. I don't think we will have a major problem with distinguishing whether or not Japan is problematic if we have an influx of Yemeni people rerouting through that country (which they probably couldn't even do).

It wouldn't be an influx, that's the problem. These organizations know you can't just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Terrorists come from all over, and are incredibly patient. There's a reason that since Obama was president the attacks have been "homegrown" terror. Putting a complete halt on immigration from Muslim countries is going to do nothing about this, and won't stop the trickle of terrorists who still want to transplant.

 

[CiG]

If you look up what the immigration process is (or was, now) you'll see what I mean, I'm sure. "Extreme vetting" was already happening. Now Trump is basically turning the country into "Christians Only" club

We have immigration LAWS. We dont get to choose which ones not to enforce.

I believe by immigration laws he meant combating illegal immigration, no? Not solely the process of entering legally.

 

[Dak]

It wouldn't be an influx, that's the problem. These organizations know you can't just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Terrorists come from all over, and are incredibly patient. There's a reason that since Obama was president the attacks have been "homegrown" terror. Putting a complete halt on immigration from Muslim countries is going to do nothing about this, and won't stop the trickle of terrorists who still want to transplant.

Personally I don't want people from Arab countries even if they would honestly disavow Islamic extremism. The US has enough poor, broken, dysfunctional people without importing more of them with significant culture/language dissimilarities thrown in for good measure (at the moment I'll exclude Jordan, but reports that come to my attention suggest that that eye in the storm is slowly being dragged down with the rest). It's akin to the absurdity of handing out foreign aid when A. the US has a budget deficit and B. Citizens in poverty etc. (nevermind that foreign aid doesn't generally get to the poor anyway). Potentially hampering terrorist infiltrators is a bonus afaiac.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Trump's ban of certain Muslim countries is illegal and likely to get knocked down by the courts for violating the 1965 Immigration Act. If he want's to do this, he has to go through congress and pass new legislation that overturns the 1965 Immigration Act.

As for The Wall, it's a very expensive symbol to ease stress in the minds of racists and xenophobes. I hope they enjoy the price hike in the grocery store. It will do little stop illegal immigration, especially if it leads to a trade war with Mexico that hurts its already depressed economy. The worse the Mexican economy does, the more illegal immigration we will see. And yes, it is possible to dig a tunnel seven feet deep.

 

[J.]

Most of those coming from Mexico contribute to the economy, and abide by the law.

Except the fact they broke the law by coming here illegally....???

Why does no one care about this? The USA is not a free-for-all for illegal peoples to just come here.