The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

Scott Adams on the 90 ban
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-filter-and-immigration

This strikes me as an apology for Trump's method, and a horrible argument against protesting.

 

[Dak]

I provided the evidence in the Business Insider article, and you just ignored it. Here let me provide the evidence again, this time from the actual research article. Provide an evidence-based rebuttal or concede the point.

When they refer to the "lower bound estimate" that SPECIFICALLY addresses the theory you're throwing out there about citizens taking over the jobs. Of course, because they took more than ten seconds to think about it, they take account of the unemployment rate in the given industry, something you consistently fail to do (really stupid of you, as I've pointed out to you numerous times in the past).

I recommend looking at the article on the actual website, as the chart doesn't transfer clearly, but I've pasted the most pertinent part below.

https://www.americanactionforum.org...moving-undocumented-immigrants/#ixzz4XBDDcAx9

I have ignored it because It doesn't counter my original point because I have not argued for deportations. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

Please stop talking about fallacies. While you are great at committing them (like the false equivalence you made between the cost of the Wall and the cost of undocumented immigrants), you are terrible at identifying them.

No false equivalence there. The wall costs x to prevent what it blocks from costing y. However, you keep making a false equivalence between halting illegal immigrants inflow and mass deportations.

Research shows that legalizing undocumented immigrants would benefit the economy, in contrast to deporting them, which I have already demonstrated will harm it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-5-trillion-hit-from-deporting-undocumented-workers/

I don't think anyone is disputing this or making counter claims. The problem with amnesty isn't that it hurts the economy in itself, it is that it encourages more illegal immigration, which hurts.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I have ignored it because It doesn't counter my original point because I have not argued for deportations. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

Sorry weasel, you've been trapped.

"Dismantle economies dependent on immigrants". "Jobs go with them". There are hundreds of thousands of able bodied, adult age Americans in need of jobs and currently scraping by on government benefits. If x number of jobs open up because non-Americans are no longer available to undercut Americans, how is the economy dismantled? The benefit to the national budget is also present, since illegals have to work under the table which means no taxes. Your economic scare mongering is 100% propaganda.

I said there were enough unemployed Americans to fill those jobs. Illegal immigrant estimates are at 11 million, with an estimated 8 million working. The official unemployment rate (which excludes people who could work but aren't even looking) is at 4.9% equals ~15.5 million Americans. There are nearly twice as many Americans actively looking for work as there are illegal immigrant workers. There's nothing to weasel out of.

I've provided research showing why this is wrong, so go ahead and weasel again, but the evidence is there for everyone to see. I'm not gonna keep beating my head against a wall while you go deeper and deeper into denial.

As a lower-bound scenario, they assumed that any available unemployed native-born or lawful immigrant workers in each industry would pick up as much of the slack as possible and fill in at least some of the jobs vacated by the deported workers. In this scenario, not all the jobs would be filled, as they found that there wouldn't be enough unemployed native or lawful immigrant workers to take over.

Moving on...

No false equivalence there. The wall costs x to prevent what it blocks from costing y. However, you keep making a false equivalence between halting illegal immigrants inflow and mass deportations.

The Wall (cost X) is gonna deport zero undocumented immigrants that are already in the USA (a major source of cost Y). Therefore, it won't impact cost Y, at least not to the level you are implying.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Trump's immigration policies are not the greatest of my concerns right now. I find the censorship he's imposing on agencies much more worrisome:

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

President Trump has banned employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from giving social media updates and speaking with reporters, according to The Associated Press.

The EPA ban comes amid other reports of agency staff being restricted from interacting the members of the Congress or the general public.

BuzzFeed reported Tuesday that the Department of Agriculture instituted a similar ban, telling its employees not to distribute information about research papers or to post on Twitter under the agency's name. A Tuesday report in the Huffington Post said agency employees under the Department of Health and Human Services were told not to speak to public officials.

 

[Dak]

Sorry weasel, you've been trapped.
I've provided research showing why this is wrong, so go ahead and weasel again, but the evidence is there for everyone to see. I'm not gonna keep beating my head against a wall while you go deeper and deeper into denial.

Moving on...

The Wall (cost X) is gonna deport zero undocumented immigrants that are already in the USA (a major source of cost Y). Therefore, it won't impact cost Y, at least not to the level you are implying.

Man you're really wrapped around the axle on mass deportations. Your article specifically assesses the impact of a mass deportation event. I said nothing about this. Plenty of illegals take themselves home, which is why net illegal immigration is down since the beginning of the "Great Recession", primarily driven by an exodus of Mexican illegals. This is how jobs can open up without a deportation event. However, illegal inflows from other countries has increased to fill some of this gap - keeping Americans priced out of those labor markets.

I'm not pro-wall for a variety of reasons, but one of them is because it inhibits the flow in both directions. So as I already stated, the wall is a hamfisted option and would take quite some time to pay for itself.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Interesting strategy that I would love to see California take. Fight fire with fire.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ld-cut-off-feds-in-response-to-trump-threats/

"Interesting", lmao, history isn't too kind to people that don't pay taxes.

 

[Einherjar86]

Trump's immigration policies are not the greatest of my concerns right now. I find the censorship he's imposing on agencies much more worrisome:

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

Climate and ecology are some of my primary concerns, so this also worries me a ton. Several agencies have set up alternative social media accounts in order to keep publishing information.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

"Interesting", lmao, history isn't too kind to people that don't pay taxes.

I recommend you check out who is sitting in the oval office.

 

[rms]

Climate and ecology are some of my primary concerns, so this also worries me a ton. Several agencies have set up alternative social media accounts in order to keep publishing information.

Basically every state west and including Colorado has legislature in Congress to sell public lands for exploitation. Shit is going downhill fast

 

[Dak]

The Federal Government owns the majority of the land in the west. Not much there for the states to sell.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/federal-land-ownership/422637/

 

[rms]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sell-off-federal-land/?utm_term=.483e4cf2a4e6

 

[Dak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sell-off-federal-land/?utm_term=.483e4cf2a4e6

Ah, I was not aware of that development. I don't have an issue with reducing federal land holdings, but I doubt everything will be done in an intelligent way.

 

[rms]

inherently, of course not. seems quite obvious that state legislators are interested in going for that last oil barrel =/

 

[Dak]

inherently, of course not. seems quite obvious that state legislators are interested in going for that last oil barrel =/

Ofc. I'm fine with oil extraction as long as that is understood to be a bridge to something more sustainable, and maybe we pull our collective heads out of ass about nuclear power.

This came across my newsfeed, and NR has hardly been kind to Trump prior to the election:
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

I think all the protesting is kneejerk overreaction.

 

[rms]

I'm less interested in a 'tax' or interest in renewables than just destroying nice lands for momentary greed

This came across my newsfeed, and NR has hardly been kind to Trump prior to the election:

it gives me a freedom chub to see people protesting, and before this I would say protest is the wrong word -- women's march was more 'we're watching' than 'you fucked up'

the 120 day ban is kind of a big deal, there's a bunch of stories of athletes, olympians, students etc being blocked from returning to U.S. from one of the countries listed.

The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening

=/ OK -- let's see if this idiot can do something right? Conservative hogwash right here.

There's a tweet that stated no refugee since the Vietnam era has committed an act of terrorism, kind of damning to say we aren't doing enough there.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think all the protesting is kneejerk overreaction.

Even admitting that Scott Adams is on to something, how about a little lesson in negotiation?

If Trump is pushing for the excessively ridiculous because his endgame is to settle for something less, then he expects protests. If he expects protests, and none happen, then he has no incentive to scale back his policies - and what does he care? He comes off looking great.

Even if he doesn't expect them, the protests are keeping all this in check. I think you're being way too complacent with your "kneejerk overreaction" sentiment. Sometimes it's necessary to go mill about in a street for a while. Especially when it's with 100,000 other people.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Any of you guys have any alternate perspectives on why Trump's ban doesn't include countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Turkey? All I'm hearing is it's because he has business interests in those countries and doesn't want to offend them.

 

[Dak]

Any of you guys have any alternate perspectives on why Trump's ban doesn't include countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Turkey? All I'm hearing is it's because he has business interests in those countries and doesn't want to offend them.

Here's a more likely reason for the list.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...led-muslim-ban-are-ones-obama-choose-n2278021

I would like to see Saudi Arabia on the list if nothing else, but there are a variety of geopolitical reasons why that isn't the case.

Even admitting that Scott Adams is on to something, how about a little lesson in negotiation?

If Trump is pushing for the excessively ridiculous because his endgame is to settle for something less, then he expects protests. If he expects protests, and none happen, then he has no incentive to scale back his policies - and what does he care? He comes off looking great.

Even if he doesn't expect them, the protests are keeping all this in check.

A reasonable point if you consider any action to control the flow of people into the country excessive.

I'm also still curious about your response to my diagram that was accidentlied.

 

[Einherjar86]

A reasonable point if you consider any action to control the flow of people into the country excessive.

Wow, seriously? You're a natural at twisting other people's words.

I'm fine with regulating and controlling the flow of people into our country. I'm not okay with the targeting that is currently taking place.

I'm also still curious about your response to my diagram that was accidentlied.

You said you were surprised that I'm unfamiliar with it. I understand the very simple point it was making. I'm not sure what my reaction to it is supposed to be.

 

[Dak]

Wow, seriously? You're a natural at twisting other people's words.

I'm fine with regulating and controlling the flow of people into our country. I'm not okay with the targeting that is currently taking place.

My bad. I meant any additional*. I think targeting places like Iraq and Yemen is completely reasonable. I would quibble with having Iran on there and not Saudi Arabia, but nothing about this is "beyond the pale".

You said you were surprised that I'm unfamiliar with it. I understand the very simple point it was making. I'm not sure what my reaction to it is supposed to be.

You had quoted my comment about finding it interesting but not put any text to go with the quote, that's all. I figured you had meant to respond.