Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Here's my response to "Oh no don't make fun of Trump because he's terrible and his supporters are terrible people with power":
The only way to get terrible people to change their ways in an election is to show them what happens when they try and be terrible. I support Trump's stupidity because I know that once he's not just inside their own little bubble, he will lose, because the general electorate doesn't put up with that kind of thing.
Now, will people really change their way of thinking just because their guy lost and lost badly? No, probably not. But it weakens their position, way moreso than "We only lost because we picked milk-toast!"
I am, of course, talking about pundits who prize themselves for their centrism.
Pundit centrism in modern America is a strange thing. It’s not about policy, as you can see from the many occasions when members of the cult have demanded that Barack Obama change his ways and advocate things that … he was already advocating. What defines the cult is, instead, the insistence that the parties are symmetric, that they are equally extreme, and that the responsible, virtuous position is always somewhere in between.
The trouble is that this isn’t remotely true. Democrats constitute a normal political party, with some spread between its left and right wings, but in general espousing moderate positions. The GOP, on the other hand, is a deeply radical faction; even its supposed moderates are moderate only in tone, not in policy positions, and its base is motivated by anger against Others.
What this means, in turn, is that to sustain their self-image centrists must misrepresent reality.
This is a key insight. So-called "moderates" do exist: they are called Democrats. But the political media establishment cannot admit that, because they would lose the ability to pretend that they occupy some hypothetical neutral middle between the two parties.
We keep talking about the extremists who support Trump, but they've always existed and will always continue to exist. They aren't the cause of our current problem; the cause of our current problem is the self-appointed cult of centrist media insisting that they represent a reasonable argument that deserves our attention, because the alternative is to admit that they've been failing completely at their jobs for the past thirty or so years.
Let's take just one example. Instead of talking about "Tea Party voters with serious concerns about the viability of U.S. debt", we should be talking about "a fringe political group that doesn't understand how money works".
edited 27th Jul '15 12:06:36 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Big Majority of GOP Voters favor mass deportation, Poll Finds.
But Republicans favor stopping the flow of undocumenteds and deporting those already here by 63-34. So do conservatives, by 55-43. “Those already here,” of course, amount to some 11 million people.
Now, it’s certainly possible that GOP support for deportation is inflated somewhat by the inclusion of securing the border on that side of the question. But even when the question is framed a bit less starkly, as a recent Post/ABC News poll did, a majority of Republicans does not think the undocumented should be allowed to live and work here even if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. This should not obscure the fact that a substantial number of Republicans are, in fact, open to legalization; it’s just that more of them apparently aren’t.
And as such, what the CNN numbers again confirm is that there is a deep and intractable divide between the two parties on what to do about the undocumented population. This fundamental underlying difference matters far more than Donald Trump’s vicious rhetoric, which (assuming he doesn’t run as a third party candidate) will likely prove ephemeral.
Indeed, the CNN poll hints at the demographic challenge the GOP will face after Trump fades and the only person still listening to his bluster is his reflection in the mirror. As Brian Beutler recently observed, the GOP effort to grapple with the Trump phenomenon without alienating his supporters throws into stark relief the basic divide among the GOP presidential candidates over how to get to the White House. Some (Jeb Bush) are arguing for a genuine effort to broaden the party’s appeal outside its core constituencies, while others (Scott Walker) are seemingly betting it all on an ability to energize still more Republican-friendly white voters. As Beutler argues, the rise of Trump illustrates in particularly harsh terms that Republicans may have to choose one or the other.
![]()
![]()
The Jews had lived in their countries for centuries, as opposed to illegally crossing the boarders. In addition we would deport illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin, and not to a death camp. Stuff like this is why people find it hard to take elements of the left seriously.
So, what's your plan for finding all 11 million undocumented immigrants, rounding them up, and shipping them back to their countries of origin? What's your plan for dealing with the dislocation to the families that they've established here? Do you send their children (who are automatically U.S. citizens, let me remind you) back, illegally, or force them into foster care? How do you replace the labor they provide to U.S. businesses? What, exactly, would these deported individuals do when they got home, with no economic opportunities and a nation that has suddenly been deprived of the financial support of their remittances?
Until you can answer those questions seriously, you have no business discussing any form of mass deportation.
Our laws are failures. Talking about "rule of law" is just hot air.
edited 27th Jul '15 1:37:06 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
A proportion of these "illegals" are second or third generation. Don't know about you, but being sent "back" to a place I've never known doesn't sound all that friendly.
Doesn't matter to those people if it's their great-great-great-great-grandparents or their grandparents: they don't come from where their family did anymore. You're basically penalizing somebody for who their parents were. After all, we all get to choose beforehand, right?
edited 27th Jul '15 1:39:41 PM by Euodiachloris
That's kind of missing the point. Immigrants aren't moving into our country and saying "This is ours now". Many of them provide vital services. Ultimately the only difference between a native US citizen and an immigrant is their country of birth. That's it. They can contribute just as much to society if given the chance.
edited 27th Jul '15 1:39:01 PM by Kostya
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying it's silly to try and claim that people from, England or whatever, where illegal immigrants. No, they weren't because there was no legality involved, there were no immigration laws to be violated. Not to say they didn't do anything wrong but the argument "everyone who isn't a native American is a descendent of illegal immigrants" is, frankly, stupid.
edited 27th Jul '15 1:42:55 PM by LSBK
@Jack I'm not in favor of illegal immigration either but deporting 10 something million people, many of which are working and a good share of them with children born in the US, being not just draconian but also expensive, logistically constraining along not doing anything to fix the problem, those people will find their way back in legally or not.
edited 27th Jul '15 1:41:26 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
Except it's not the same. I mean, the theft of the land is bad, but that's not where talking about. You're equating the act of people moving from one place another, something humans have been doing for thousands of years, with knowingly violating the laws of a sovereign state. There's a bit more nuance there than you're making it out to be.
edited 27th Jul '15 1:47:20 PM by LSBK

Even being a crack-smoking criminal asshole apparently isn't a deterrent to getting votes, see Toronto's former crack mayor....
edited 27th Jul '15 9:54:43 AM by nightwyrm_zero