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
edited 25th Jan '16 11:48:55 AM by Nihlus1
The Sherif's probably sympathetic to the Hammond's anyway. People out their have a very different relationship with the government that most of us. Also he's probably just tired of the whole thing and wants it to go away, a bit like letting the screaming children have their toy. Of corse that will encourage them to scream even more.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.![]()
![]()
Yes, he is extremely anti-immigration, because he believes the common fallacy that the US economy is all or nothing; that the country can't prosper unless it stops letting poor people in. The only difference between them is that Trump wants to deport illegals, while Sanders only wants to stop NEW immigrants from coming (legally or illegally).
Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.
Ezra Klein: Really?
Bernie Sanders: Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...
Ezra Klein: But it would make ...
Bernie Sanders: Excuse me ...
Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?
Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that.
This, by the way, is one of the many reasons why Sanders' supporters are almost purely young, middle class whites.
edited 25th Jan '16 11:56:24 AM by Nihlus1
You mean this
source for the big block quote? His stance on immigration is well-documented.
EDIT: Oh, I'm sorry. You meant that part about his supporters being almost purely white. Well this South Carolina poll
, for one. There's also this poll
where Clinton was in the lead vs Sanders on the Latino vote 73-3.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:01:27 PM by Nihlus1
The interview where Sanders says that is here
His more written statements are here
At least he acknowledges some important bits, like unfair trades that cause poverty in other countries. I do not think Hillary touches that.
So one way or another, you guys are still screeeeeeeeewed.
You could, of course, build that wall
...
So build that wall and build it strong
'Cause we'll be there before too long
edited 25th Jan '16 12:06:45 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesNihlus conveniently forgets the rest:
You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?
I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.
Ezra Klein Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by, say, Malaysian standards, so if the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility?
We have a nation-state structure. I agree on that. But philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?
Bernie Sanders I do weigh it. As a United States senator in Vermont, my first obligation is to make certain kids in my state and kids all over this country have the ability to go to college, which is why I am supporting tuition-free public colleges and universities. I believe we should create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. I believe we should raise the minimum wage to at least 15 bucks an hour so people in this county are not living in poverty. I think we end the disgrace of some 20 percent of our kids living in poverty in America. Now, how do you do that?
What you do is understand there's been a huge redistribution of wealth in the last 30 years from the middle class to the top tenth of 1 percent. The other thing that you understand globally is a horrendous imbalance in terms of wealth in the world. As I mentioned earlier, the top 1 percent will own more than the bottom 99 percent in a year or so. That's absurd. That takes you to programs like the IMF and so forth and so on.
But I think what we need to be doing as a global economy is making sure that people in poor countries have decent-paying jobs, have education, have health care, have nutrition for their people. That is a moral responsibility, but you don't do that, as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers, which has already gone down very significantly.
Of what I can gather that he's complaining about is Republican-Big Business' policy of open borders in the sense that poor workers come in, get exploited with lousy work conditions, and businesses use their low paying wages to justify rat fucking the wages of other blue collar workers, is what I get from it. He's not saying close the borders, but he's saying opening the borders wide open is stupid.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:14:01 PM by PotatoesRock
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
There are others like that, yes. Here's a slightly better source.
About 6 months old, but it'll do. In that poll, Sanders only had 9% of the non-white Democrat vote.
Those "poor wages" are largely a myth BTW. The average income for an illegal immigrant household in 2007 was $36,000 (equivalent to $41,500 now).
Or, to put it another way, 72% of the average household income, for a population group that pays fewer taxes and has, on average, little education. Illegal immigrants here are far better off than they would be in their own countries, and they almost entirely gravitate to jobs that "normal" Americans won't work, so they're actually helping the economy.
Not even considering legal immigrants.
In short, he's outright making shit up ($3 hourly wages? lol) to justify his nativism.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:22:34 PM by Nihlus1
Depends. Iowa and New Hampshire results tend to get hyped and warp reality around them. Hillary could in the blink of an eye start losing support in general. Vox made a note that Iowa and NH basically tend to warp political reality as their results get hyped. Obama went from nobody to somebody because of Iowa and NH.
Ball's in your court, Nihlus.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:22:06 PM by PotatoesRock
Huh. Here is an interesting article I came across. Most of the time I lurk but I thought I'd just drop this. Apologies for long link text, posting from my phone and don't know how to shorten it.
Basically it talks about where the populist support Trump has is coming from, quite a few of whom are often dismissed by ones on both sides. the left categorizing them as white racists saying "they terkin ur jerbs!" which is something I've seen in this very thread, and the right as ivory tower intellectual rich elites who keep telling the poor rubes to just keep believing in capitalism and these trade deals totally aren't just enriching themselves while claiming its for everybody.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:46:12 PM by TheWanted
Honestly, speaking as someone from outside, it doesnt really look like anything.
He is talking moreabout regulating companies rather than immigration but this is a momentuous I would dare say impossible task. A random company can and will easily get illegal immigrants without the government knowing about it and an illega immigrant will come ad do this job happily because the company can pay less like that and because he immigrant really has n other option.
What Sanders is refering to more is about regulation of the companies and how legal immigrants are going to have an easier time coming in, by all the measures he is trying to increment. This is a benefit to the U.S as a whole, but it is a Brain drain to other nations
In either case: The kids Sanders does not see getting a job do not get a job because they are not qualified or willing to do them, so the solution there is educating and teaching them skills. Not trying to shoo or regulate companies.
Build your wall. Make your papers. You will not control the flow of immigrants at this point in either way. Use thermal cameras. Drones. Use the goddamn terminator, the immigrants will still appear, legally and illegally.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
Politicians use vague rhetoric with no concrete facts and distract from the actual issue. News at 11. He's made his stance on "unskilled" immigrants (i.e. most of them, and disproportionately the ones from Hispanic countries) quite clear when he's actually bothered to get specific:
"[I voted against the 2007 bill] because these immigrants would be competing against kids in this country who desperately need jobs.”
He clearly stated his policy and his reasoning. He believes immigration from the south should be quelled because he thinks it hurts the economy because them DAMN MEXICANS ARE TAKING OUR JERBS. This has been repeatedly proven to be false, but it's explicitly the logic he's working under.
It's textbook nativism, and it's the same logic that drives his anti-free trade stance.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:30:54 PM by Nihlus1
I will note, the Trade Deals (such as NAFTA, TPP) are under attack because there's been a decline in quality of life for workers since these have been enacted. General Qo L might be raised on the whole, but personal anecdotes hold strong. If people don't see their life meaningfully improve or at least stay at a good quality, they're going to start getting suspicious.
As much as free trade is good, if you don't do something to cushion and protect your populace's general life quality, they start sharpening pitchforks and look for good torch-material wood. (i.e. Political revolt)
edited 25th Jan '16 12:31:29 PM by PotatoesRock
![]()
He is not saying "Mexicans are taking our jerbs"
He is saying "Companies are taking mexicans over our kids because they can pay them less, so I want to legalize all mexicans here that they are forced to be paid these minimum wages of mine, and we will be more meticulous about newcoming immigrants from now on"
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesSaying most of his support is built on nativism, regardless of what his actual feelings on immigration are (and they don't seem to be as black and white as you're making it out to be) is a pretty big stretch either way. At the very least if that were true it would have been mentioned here before now.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:33:55 PM by LSBK
He's not trying to put on a cushion, he's just breaking the chair. Or something. I'm not good at metaphors.
Those quotes are from the articles I posted. Specifically this one.
Uh, his platform is anti-immigration and anti-free trade. These are the bases of his campaign.
![]()
No he isn't, he outright said that he doesn't want to let a bunch of immigrants because they would compete with natives for jobs. Like, those were his exact words.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:40:20 PM by Nihlus1

No, and in this case it's not an example anyway. Definitely an example of something else, though, like terminal pants-on-head syndrome.
edited 25th Jan '16 9:30:04 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"