[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.407[View All]

Debate footage starts at 2:00:44.

So the first Democratic Presidential Debate was last night, the other half of contenders are going on tonight.  To anyone who watched it, what were your opinions?  Who would you say made themselves look good in that debate, and who are supporting right now?

I think Beto o'Rourke and Gabbard went off on some weird tangents in there.  De Blasio seems to have some pretty extreme viewpoints, but they're viewpoints a lot of people could support, too.  I thought Klobuchar, Booker, and Castro all gave pretty even handed answers.

Tonight I'm really looking forward to high pollers like Sanders and the former VP.  But I'm especially looking forward to Yang, who's still my favorite for the nomination, even though he's currently sort of behind.  This might be his chance to really get into the public light.

As some further questioning, what did you think of Hillary Clinton's race the last go around, and what do you think the democratic party needs to succeed this time?
166 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.623

>>614
>>614
>And now that Congress is divided, Trump has even more problems pushing through his agenda.

Good? I mean, why choose this as your example when the Republicans blocked Obama on nearly every good thing that he tried to do.

Ignoring the fact that people are also against Trump's wall for moral reasons, the wall would do little to lessen illegal immigration, or at least do much less for that cause than would justify it's cost. Thinking it would shows a massive lack of understanding of the major causes and means of illegal immigration and therefore a lack of understanding on how to combat it. The wall is only going to waste money and not achieve what it's meant to do. It's kind of one party's JOB to try and keep the other party in check and make sure they don't do things like waste money on ill-advised pipe dreams that won't do what they say they will.

 No.625

File: 1562104817308.png (20.76 KB, 700x700, 1:1, jDBr2RI.png) ImgOps Google

>>623
>Good?

Technically speaking, Fantastic Armadillo didn't comment on whether it was good or bad.

But I would agree, the wall is a bad idea.  In my opinion, it would be more effective to solve Mexico's problems such that its citizens aren't constantly trying to flee through our borders.

And that's assuming you don't just want to welcome the extra citizens, which I feel like most people would consider a boon rather than a drain.

 No.626

>>625
The majority of illegal immigration to the United States doesn't come from citizens of Mexico, but from countries south of it.

Reforms to the immigration system of America would be the most effective way to deal with illegal immigration. But yeah, some people aren't actually interested in the logistics of it and more interested in keeping certain groups of people out. But you can't actually solve the issue that way, and that only leads to mistreatment of those groups in inhumane ways.

 No.627

>>626
Ok, I was wrong. Mexico officially accounts for a little over half the unauthorized immigration to the US, which would be the slight majority. Problem is, it's hard to say who actually originated from Mexico since most have to travel through it. Here is the break down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Countries_of_origin

What I find most interesting is that 13% of America's unauthorized immigrants don't come from places south of our southern border where Trump's border wall will be. They come from countries like China and India. There's also between 65,000 and 75,000 Canadians living in the US illegally. Why? Canada is better!

 No.631

>>625
>And that's assuming you don't just want to welcome the extra citizens, which I feel like most people would consider a boon rather than a drain.

I think it's just awful, awful timing. Real wages are pretty horribly low right now relative to cost of living, and more people working on the bottom just drives them even further down. Supply and demand. More jobs being automated just exacerbates problems even more. Honestly, i worry the bottom is pretty close to collapsing, where people start living in slums despite working 60-hour work weeks because real wages would be driven so low. Saturated work force has already lead to degree and licence inflation. An over-saturated work force is a very legitimate concern that's already wreaking havoc on people's lives everywhere.

 No.632

>>631
Is that the fault of people trying to work, or of greedy corporations? Perhaps the cause of these problems should be addressed, instead of trying to lessen the number of people. Addressed with the guillotine, preferably.

 No.635

File: 1562213136593.jpg (50.31 KB, 717x529, 717:529, 36910790.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>632
>instead of trying to lessen the number of people
I think we actually do need to reduce the world population (but preferably thru birth control, not the guillotine).  The environmental impact of 7 billion humans with an developed-world standard of living seems beyond the carrying capacity of the planet Earth, at least with present technology.

>>632
>Is that the fault of people trying to work, or of greedy corporations?
I'd say neither.  American consumers demand cheap products and services.  Businesses either adapt to those demands or get competed out of business.  Protective tariffs might help the American worker in some cases.  UBI will give a safety net for workers laid off due to automation, but it will require more aggressive border control and immigration enforcement and/or a repeal of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause.

 No.636

>>635
The guillotine comment was meant to be a solution to the disproportionately wealthy, not overpopulation. That seems important to clarify.

I'm not sure I agree overpopulation is as big a problem as it seems, though. The Earth could support a lot more people, if we got our shit together with renewable energy.

 No.637

>>632
I mean, definitely greedy corporations, but i'm not sure how much we can top-down manage that. As long as there's people who are in a position where they have to work for cheap, i think it'll be like a hydra. For every greedy asshole head we cut off, 2 more will take it's place. As long as there's a market for greed and exploitation, there won't be any lack of people trying to exploit others. Plus i think it's going to be near-impossible to pin down that many ultra-wealthy people, especially since i imagine many of them are exceptionally good at hiding their wealth and influence for this very reason.

 No.641

>>631

I suppose it is pretty bad timing, yes.  The default in my head is always that more people would be "jobs neutral".  They'd take jobs, sure, but they also create more work by virtue of needing resources and services themselves.

But these days that's becoming less of a thing.  General advances in tech means that our efficiency has increased enough that the amount of work a person can do and the amount they need done isn't really proportional, and like you mentioned, automation is going to start snipping some of those jobs out of the picture entirely.  In the long run, that could have some really harsh effects on immigration.

 No.644

File: 1562250531453.jpg (199.6 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1508381626131.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>636
>The guillotine comment was meant to be a solution to the disproportionately wealthy
I don't think it works that way.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the 8th Amendment prohibits capital punishment except for murder and crimes against the state such as treason and espionage.

 No.645

>>644
Revolutions rarely follow the old laws.

 No.647

File: 1562257404877.png (335.28 KB, 520x360, 13:9, 1525389784625.png) ImgOps Google

>>645
Are you seriously suggesting a violent overthrow of the United States government and shredding at least part of the Bill of Rights?  I don't really see an armed rebellion against the government succeeding, even if it is helped by Russia in an attempt to weaken the United States.  The armed forces and law enforcement agencies of the United States are quite capable of protecting the Constitution and its institutions from foreign and domestic enemies.  And most of the people would be opposed to such an uprising anyway.

 No.648

>>647
Am I suggesting or planning that? No.I am not planning or advocating a violent take-over of the government or the violent redistribution of wealth from the rich.

However, if you want my personal opinion. Things can't keep going the way they have been. There is corruption deep in every system of government, a small minority of rich people hold a disproportionate amount of the wealth (and therefore the power as well). The police and military are also part of that corrupt system.

As >>522 said, we have one political party trying to suppress the votes of the other side. A side who contains the vast majority of a rapidly expanding population. Demographic research shows that there's going to come a time soon when non-whites (collectively) outnumber whites in this country. White people will no longer be the majority. They will be the minority. And if that political party continues to try and suppress the votes of the majority, there is going to be push-back.

America, as it stands now, is a time bomb. There's only so much being stepped on people will accept and let slide before heads start rolling. Literally, in some cases. I don't know if that is going to take the form of a race war, a revolution against the rich and/or the government, or what. But something is going to give.

 No.649

>>648
>Am I suggesting or planning that? No.
Then what do you mean by "revolution"?

 No.650

>>649
Did you... read, anything else I posted?

I think you're confused. By "I'm not suggesting" I meant "I am not suggesting anyone actually try and do this." But, if you read the rest of my post, I am saying I see it as a possibility.

 No.651

One thing people seem to fail to realise is that while overpopulation is a problem, it's not being caused by us.

Worldwide overpopulation is by and large the fault of Africa and China.
China has a policy that each couple of only allowed to have one or two children, yet many more are born and simply abandoned. Especially girls are very frequently abandoned, because parents want a son to look after them when they are old. While some of these girls may end up being adopted in other countries, many of them end up being raised in orphanages and staying in China to have children of their own, rendering this law rather ineffective in their population growth.
As for Africa, their population has exploded due to our foreign aid, and now Africa faces a collective crisis because their numbers are now far greater than their resources can support. Africa is deathly dependent on handouts from the rest of the world. But telling men and women to reproduce less doesn't work, because as bizarre as it sounds, many men and women in Africa simply don't know that sex results in children. It's the same reason why diseases like AIDS have spread so rampantly in Africa. The majority has never made the connection between sex and its concequences, they just do it because it feels good. This means Africa's population is just going to keep growing unchecked, and is going to require more and more aid.

Our own countries don't or hardly contribute to the overpopulation problem. In fact, one of the reasons that most pro-immigration politicians cite is the fact that the local population isn't reproducing enough. So they then import hundred of thouzands of migrants, and then try to tell us that our country is overpopulated.... Isn't that crooked?

 No.652

File: 1562275398899.jpg (1.08 MB, 1692x2332, 423:583, 1507431928822.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>648
>As >>522 said, we have one political party trying to suppress the votes of the other side.
Saying "trying to suppress the votes of the other side" makes it sound like getting the voters to stay home or setting up bureaucratic red tape with the purpose of making it more difficult to prove eligibility to vote.  Arguably the Republicans have been guilty of enacting regulations with the latter evil motive in mind.  And the Democratic party suppressed its own voter turnout by nominating such a lackluster candidate in 2016.  But what I was talking about in >>522 was that small states have more voting power per capita than larger states.

>Demographic research shows that there's going to come a time soon when non-whites (collectively) outnumber whites in this country. White people will no longer be the majority. They will be the minority. And if that political party continues to try and suppress the votes of the majority, there is going to be push-back.
>America, as it stands now, is a time bomb.
Currently, Democrats tend to win in urban areas by a large majority, while Republicans tend to win in non-urban areas with a smaller majority.  Once enough voters in non-urban areas vote Democrat, Republicans will no longer be able to win even with the electoral college.


>>650
>Did you... read, anything else I posted?
Yes, but I wanted to reply to that bit first before I finished writing the rest of my response.

>I think you're confused.
Yes, we were using different meanings of "suggest".  It seems you were using it to mean "advocate for ____", but I was using it to mean "suggest it is possible that ____".  I apologize for the confusion.

 No.653

>>648
> I don't know if that is going to take the form of a race war, a revolution against the rich and/or the government, or what. But something is going to give.
I highly doubt a race war would happen.  American society and the armed forces are too racially integrated for that.  A violent uprising against the rich is somewhat more likely but still unlikely in my opinion.  If a supermajority of the people want change, they can effect it via the ballot box.  What I worry about the most is that people will vote themselves bread and circuses and America will decay like Rome did.

 No.654

>>651
Please cite your sources.

You get many of these facts wrong, so I'm really curious where you're getting your information from.

 No.658


 No.662

>>658
Is there anything about what you linked that you actually wanna discuss?

>>652
> the Democratic party suppressed its own voter turnout by nominating such a lackluster candidate in 2016.

That's not "suppressing" votes. Choosing someone that some people had a stick up their butt about for no reason because she had more experience isn't making it more difficult for or actively preventing certain people from voting.

>>652
> Once enough voters in non-urban areas vote Democrat, Republicans will no longer be able to win even with the electoral college.

Which is probably why Russia offered to collude with the Republican party on several occasions to try and influence the election.

 No.664

>>653
I'm not so sure. There are still plenty of places in the US that are all but segregated. Almost completely one race.

>>653
>If a supermajority of the people want change, they can effect it via the ballot box.

Except for the efforts to suppress their votes like the Electoral College and the corruption in the system.

The majority of American right now want improved or even free health care, immigration reform, legislation on gun violence, student debt forgiveness and all sorts of other things we just don't have. Despite the majority wanting them.

 No.670

File: 1562367012745.jpg (262.08 KB, 1024x1496, 128:187, 1503852289680.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>662
>Is there anything about what you linked that you actually wanna discuss?
I'm up discussing all of it.  Let's start with this:
>During this saga, Guap's lawyers repeatedly asked the attorney general's office to investigate what was happening, expressing concern that local officials alone couldn't fairly or competently handle charges involving so many of their own. The A.G.'s office—helmed by Harris—declined.
Do you think Kamala Harris made the right decision in this case?

>someone that some people had a stick up their butt about for no reason
Lots of Democrat-leaning potential voters were unexcited about Hillary, enough that they didn't even bother to show up to vote.

>>664
>legislation on gun violence
Gun violence is already a crime punishable by multiple years in prison.  What more legislation on gun violence do you want?

>>664
>... things we just don't have. Despite the majority wanting them.
That is the reason why I said "supermajority" instead of "majority".  Sometimes it is good that a majority doesn't get what it wants because it is more important to protect the rights of minorities.

 No.671

>>670
I'll respond to that first part in a bit.

>Lots of Democrat-leaning potential voters were unexcited about Hillary,

But they had no legitimate reasons to be. It was all just smear tactics or outright fabrications. Remember the Pizzagate nutcase? And again, my point is that people buying into propaganda isn't their fault. Also, it was democratic voters who picked Hillary in the primaries. The DNC doesn't just "pick" someone. They get voted on in the primaries.



>Gun violence is already a crime punishable by multiple years in prison.

That doesn't seem to be deterring it from happening.

> What more legislation on gun violence do you want?
I mostly said that phrase to avoid using the phrase "gun control". Because "gun control" is often misunderstood by gun enthusiasts to mean something that it does not imply. But what I mean is "more regulations on the sale of certain types of firearms and the people allowed to purchase said firearms to try and prevent future mass shootings."  


>Sometimes it is good that a majority doesn't get what it wants because it is more important to protect the rights of minorities.

Well my point was that even when the majority of people want something, we don't always get it. Even when it's an unarguably good thing. Like people not dying because they can't afford a doctor, or less children getting shot.

 No.673

File: 1562369043593.jpg (118.13 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1507430730995.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>671
>But they had no legitimate reasons to be.
Being unexcited is the default state of mind.  Hillary represented the old guard of the Democratic party and wasn't exciting to young voters.  Bernie had some big ideas and generated a lot more excitement.

> Also, it was democratic voters who picked Hillary
And the superdelegates.  

> "more regulations on the sale of certain types of firearms and the people allowed to purchase said firearms to try and prevent future mass shootings."
Depending on the specifics, a lot of people might be reasonably opposed, and the regulations might even be unconstitutional.

 No.674

>>673
>the regulations might even be unconstitutional.

Black people being free used to be unconstitutional. The constitution is not fool-proof. That's why amendments exist.

 No.675

>>674
>Black people being free used to be unconstitutional.
I'm nearly 100% certain that you're mistaken.  Nothing in the Constitution prevented a slaveholder from emancipating his slaves.  

>>674
>The constitution is not fool-proof. That's why amendments exist.
This is true.  But it takes a supermajority to amend the Constitution.  And as a practical, I highly doubt such a supermajority will ratify any amendment limiting the protections of the Second Amendment.

 No.676

>>675
I feel like you're taking the things I say too literally on purpose to try and annoy me.

You know what I meant. It used to be constitutional to own black people as property in this country. And that only changed with barely the required two-thirds majority votes. Unless barely meeting two-thirds is what you mean by "supermajority" in this case.

Either way, my point still stands. The constitution is not infailable, and has been changed in the past when it becomes necessary. So saying doing something would be "unconstitutional" does not automatically negate an argument for it. Just as there were arguments for the abolition of slavery when doing so would have been unconstitutional.

 No.677

>>671
>The DNC doesn't just "pick" someone.

Technically speaking they do, and in fact, the same thing happens in the actual election.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

>There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.

It is very uncommon for people to vote in a manner contrary to the popular vote, but there isn't anything stopping them from doing so, and even going by this official government website document it has happened, because "more than 99%" is not actually 100%.

 No.678

File: 1562380898426.png (345.92 KB, 782x1000, 391:500, 1504941794708.png) ImgOps Google

>>676
>I feel like you're taking the things I say too literally
That's very possible.

>>676
> to try annoy me.
Nope.  (1) It is impossible to have a coherent discussion when the parties don't understand what each other are saying, and achieving this understanding often requires clear and precise wording.  (2) Even in casual conversation, I tend to take things more literally than most, due my Asperger's.

>You know what I meant.
No, I thought you meant what you said, literally.  (Maybe that's just me being an aspie, and normal people would have understood what you meant, but since you're thinking that I'm misinterpreting you on purpose, I feel I should point out that I'm not.)

>>676
> The constitution is not infailable, and has been changed in the past when it becomes necessary. So saying doing something would be "unconstitutional" does not automatically negate an argument for it.
Yes, that's true.  But when a presidential candidate presents a platform, I think it's also important to ask whether that platform is realistically achievable, not just whether it is good in an abstract sense.

 No.679

>>654

Please specify what part I'm wrong about.

 No.680

File: 1562383624797.png (217.82 KB, 1151x992, 1151:992, china-births.png) ImgOps Google

>>679
Maybe China?

 No.681

>>678
If you say it's not on purpose than I believe you. But what does Aspergers have to do with it? What is Aspergers?

And that's true. But I wasn't really talking about a Presidential candidate running on a platform of those things. It was just examples of things the majority of people want, yet don't have.

 No.682

File: 1562385653389.png (2.78 MB, 1017x1727, 1017:1727, 1501125582921.png) ImgOps Google

>>681
>What is Aspergers?
>what does Aspergers have to do with it?
Asperger syndrome is a developmental disorder characterised by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. As a milder autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it differs from other ASDs by relatively normal language and intelligence.  Although individuals with Asperger syndrome acquire language skills without significant general delay and their speech typically lacks significant abnormalities, language acquisition and use is often atypical. Abnormalities include literal interpretations and miscomprehension of nuance.

 No.683

>>680

1.6 recorded births per woman. Do you really think parents register children that they're going to abandon? Of course not.

Why do you think China has such a massive population, even in comparison to bigger countries?

 No.684

>>683
The population numbers seem to tell the same story though: https://www.google.com/search?q=china+population+growth

 No.687

>>679
I have many problems with your post that I think wouldn't be present if you had intellectual integrity and had sourced your claims properly. Or at least, it would be clear where you were getting your faulty assumptions.

First of all you say, 1) overpopulation is a problem (in general) and 2) but it's not caused by us. Either, you are absurdly overconfident, confident enough to make a statement about the massively complicated situation of population growth and maintenance and where the blame for this assumed problem lies, without consulting an expert, or you're getting it from somewhere, and you're not citing that somewhere. That's the first error I notice, and it's one of essentially not knowing or not presenting the background for this problem, but still wanting to make absolute claims of where the moral responsibility should lie.

The strongest versions of arguments about where the problem originates are clearly more complex than this. You can't just say, it's africa and china, and that's it, no one else is at fault. It's got the mark of some kind of demagogue. You make no mention of colonialism, global power relations or disparities in wealth and education, as if these have nothing at all to say about the aetiology of the situation, when clearly these are at the very root. Shoddy and immoral intellectual work, simply, offloading your share of the blame to the only elements which benefit you. Shoddy indeed. I'll come back to this.

This is further reinforced in my mind, that you don't know what you're talking about, when you make factual errors in your representation.
>China has a policy that each couple of only allowed to have one or two children
All couples in china are currently allowed two children, it's been this way since 2015. So it's not that they're either allowed one or two children, it was one, and now it's two.
>yet many more are born and simply abandoned
This is not false, as far as I'm aware.
>While some of these girls may end up being adopted in other countries, many of them end up being raised in orphanages and staying in China to have children of their own, rendering this law rather ineffective in their population growth.
This claim requires so much citation. Especially considering that China's rate of population growth has been dropping rapidly since the 1970s to a point where it's now below that of other developed nations. It's true that some children are raised in orphanages, but you're misrepresenting the situation. And furthermore, these days, the proportion of boys and girls is split up pretty evenly, so another example of incorrect or outdated information there:

http://holtinternational.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Changing-Face-of-China-Adoption1.pdf
https://www.lwbcommunity.org/the-changing-face-of-chinas-orphans

>As for Africa, their population has exploded due to our foreign aid
This statement and the statements that follow are not an accurate representation of the aetiology of the problems in africa. These kinds of 1970s lifeboat ethics are unfair, self-serving and myopic, when applied to africa with the intention of cutting of all kinds of foreign aid.

As many scholars have competently put forward, these kinds of lifeboat ethics are not useful or constructive ways of viewing the problem on their own. You've got a half-truth, a tiny fraction of reality, and you're being led to a biased conclusion on that basis. You've essentially got on your intellectual blinders, only paying attention to the perspectives that are in line with your own world-view, and ignoring any causal factors or perspecttives, which might contradict with your ideology.

Is overpopulation a problem? Yes. Do I have any sort of responsibility for it? No, because see, here are two ways of framing the issue which only emphasize africa, and let's just ignore all that history and all of those geopolitical factors, which actually could support my country being the direct cause.

For a country to completely abandon responsibility on this ethical basis, this is the equivalent of kicking someone in the face, and then taking a step back and raising your hands and saying, 'well look, he's the one bleeding all over the parking lot, how can you say this is my fault'.

There's plentiful corroboration for this particular kind of worldview being too one-dimensional. Here's two papers that touch on this, which I enjoyed. Arguably not the best, but it's the ones I've read, so it's the ones I feel I can present knowing what's in them.
https://www.ghi-dc.org/fileadmin/user_upload/GHI_Washington/Publications/Bulletin42/065_nocartoon.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2017.1316114

>telling men and women to reproduce less doesn't work, because as bizarre as it sounds, many men and women in Africa simply don't know that sex results in children.
This is actually -- incredibly -- factually incorrect as far as I can tell, and also self-defeating, even if you take the factual error for granted. You're here arguing that because a significant portion African people are ignorant that sex leads to new life (citation really needed btw, this is not the case from what I've read), it is therefore futile to try and educate anyone. But that's exactly what education is for, man. That's what it do. Your idea defeats itself.

>This means Africa's population is just going to keep growing unchecked, and is going to require more and more aid.
Incredibly fatalistic take. And again, based on this notion that african people are incapable of learning. Not really something I'd consider consistent with reality. Almost as if you viewed them as being a lesser race or something. But I'm sure you don't. That's not something you would do, is it?

>Our own countries don't or hardly contribute to the overpopulation problem. In fact, one of the reasons that most pro-immigration politicians cite is the fact that the local population isn't reproducing enough. So they then import hundred of thouzands of migrants, and then try to tell us that our country is overpopulated.... Isn't that crooked?
Completely unsurprisingly, though, it is possible for a country to both be overpopulated, in the sense of the word that it requires an import of food and goods to maintain population, but still have demographic problems that make a temporary influx of people to manage the work force a good thing for the economy. These are not at all mutually exclusive situations. I feel like you literally don't understand how demographic problems work.

 No.692

>>687

>temporary influx of people

Change "temporary" into "constant, irregulated and unchecked".

 No.694

>>692
I think he said a lot more than that.

 No.696

>>692
Words that have never left any serious politicians mouth. If you're going to try and defend the position that this is what any serious modern politician platforms on, then you should just quit, because you're not even trying.

 No.699

>>694

I have seen his sources. The first two talk a lot about Chinese adoption rates, but they don't have anything that disproves my main point about Chinese population growth. The latter two talk a lot about morals and ethics, but besides saying "past studies are outdated" they don't talk a lot about facts.

>>696

Then why are Democrats opposing the wall? Why are they opposing regulations on immigration? Why are they supporting open borders? Why are they supporting the rights for illegal immigrants to vote? Why is California giving free healthcare for illegal immigrants? Why is Beto campaiging for 2020 in Mexico?

If you seriously believe that this is just a "temporary influx of people", why are the Democrats trying to hard to advertise themselves to illegal immigrants instead of looking after their own citizens?

 No.702

>>699
You seriously support the wall? You realize it's just a propaganda tool, right? It's not actually an effective border control method, and the fact that it's still on the table in anyone's mind is embarrasing. 2/3 illegal immigrants wouldn't be impeded by the wall (fence) in the way it is now being proposed since they enter the country through other means, and fences are extremely easy to circumvent. You can't station armed guards 24/7 along the entirety of the southern border, it's logistically infeasible. All it takes to circumvent this idiotic method of border control is a ladder and a blanket, or if you're a coyote, you can dig a tunnels. This method is regarded by all experts as completely ineffecient. Even building the fence is such an undertaking that it likely wouldn't be completed within an extended trump term. Democrats oppose the wall because it's an impractical method of border control, that takes focus away from actually important issues.

Opposing incredibly inefficient, inhumane or poorly planned methods of border control is not the same as wanting open borders. That's just good sense.

The same kind of reasoning applies to all of your other ideas. You can oppose regulations on immigration, on grounds that they are not the best method for carrying out border security. You're not for open borders for this reason.

California's medical aid is not targeted at illegals, in fact, if you're undocumented you get access to a reduced service, the very bare minimum of service, such as pregancy or emergency related service. The idea of this service is probably to avoid human rights violations. Even if someone is in your country illegally, you shouldn't necessearily pass up on giving them lifesaving treatment. Again, not evidence for a policy for constant irregulated and unchecked immigration.

It's interesting how when I bring up how your logic makes no sense, you throw things that are total non-sequiturs or tautologies at me. Almost like you have no good justification for the things you say.

If democrats aren't for constant irregulated and unchecked immigration then how come they're for open borders. That's literally a tautology right there. And you haven't demonstrated anything, you've just claimed it.

If america isn't for unchecked, irregulated and constant immigration, then how come they're not letting immigrants die in the streets and are treating their vital injuries?

Shit idk, dude, maybe because that's just a humane thing to do? It's ridiculous to call this an immigration policy. Considering that these immigrants are often exploited for labor and generally don't live very healthy lives, it's actually commendable that california offers a reduced service to those in the absolute most dire need.

And this medical aid only applies if you're extremely poor to boot. If you own more than 2000 dollars in assets, you don't get access to medi-cal, you have to pay. These immigrants are literally in extreme poverty, and are just being given the bare necessities of care, and that's not enough for you, in order for the country to be the way you feel is right, they'd have to be dying in droves it seems.

Beto took his campaign to mexico to protest human rights violations on asylum seekers being held in those facilities. It's just a move to rally the voters back home to change an inhumane policy, there's nothing sinister or conspiratorial about that.

 No.704

>>702

A wall seemed to work pretty darn well in Germany. Mere fencing also seems to be a great success in El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona. As for trying to sail around it or dig under it? The former is simply a matter of shooting down the boat, and the latter is just simply a rediculous idea. Unfeasible by any stretch of imagination.

Stationing armed guards 24/7 is not unfeasible. In fact, there are already armed guard patrolling the border 24/7. The only reason that it's not as effective as it could be is because the border is a wide open plain with no obstacles. No obstales like, say, a big obvious wall. One which not only gives guards a viewpoint advantage, but any attempts to climb over it would very easily be spotted.

But sure, give me some sources of these supposed "experts" of yours. I'd like to see what they think.

Also, you misunderstood what I said. I never meant they oppose constant, irregulated and unchecked immigration. I meant that they support it. In fact, it seems to be one of their main goals.
'
As for healthcare, America has no obligation whatsoever to take care of illegal immigrants. Call it inhumane if you wish, but the fact remains that they broke the law and that they shouldn't even be there.
If you want to treat them, fine. But don't do it for free. After they have been treated, detain them, make them work hard labor to pay off their debt, and then kick them out of the country. Problem solved.

Additionally, illegal immigrants do not live in "extreme poverty". They get welfare. They get scholarships. Some of them even get jobs. They are babied as much as the Democrats can get away with, and in some cases they are treated even better than legal citizens.

>Beto took his campaign to mexico to protest human rights violations on asylum seekers being held in those facilities. It's just a move to rally the voters back home to change an inhumane policy, there's nothing sinister or conspiratorial about that.

Citation sorely needed on these "human rights violations". Also, keep in mind that they're only there because the Democrats don't want illegal immigrants to be booted out as they should, but they are also vetoing every attempt to actually fund the facilities and camps they're held in.

 No.706

>>704
>But sure, give me some sources of these supposed "experts" of yours. I'd like to see what they think.
Prototypes for the wall being tested as unsatisfactory and posing extensive challenges:
https://www.engineering.com/BIM/ArticleID/17599/Writing-on-the-Wall-Report-Suggests-Border-Project-Is-Off-Track-and-Over-Budget.aspx

>Also, you misunderstood what I said. I never meant they oppose constant, irregulated and unchecked immigration. I meant that they support it. In fact, it seems to be one of their main goals.
Then give me some proof of that, because the democratic party line seems to overtly be increasing border security, and so far all you've brought up is a bunch of non-sequiturs.
https://democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform/

Why the original wall proposal was awful, as explained by a structural engineer:
https://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engineer-explains-why-trumps-wall-is-so-implausible/

Revised project, which is only half the scope of the original proposition is assessed by the same structural engineer:
https://www.nationalmemo.com/trump-wises-up-abandons-his-improbably-large-wall/

A breakdown of logistical problems and explanation of which companies would benefit primarily from the building of a wall:
http://fronterasdesk.org/sites/default/files/field/docs/2016/07/Bernstein-%20The%20Trump%20Wall.pdf
Note very importantly that these were the same companies that gave propositions on how much it would cost to build the wall, and how long it would take, making their estimates really untrustworthy, as it is in their interest to present the project as less of an undertaking than it would be in reality.

So that's the experts pretty much, pointing out why a cement wall is infeasible.

As for fencing, it is pointless to even bring this up, as there is already a fenced border. Trump's proposition isn't helping anyone, the security infrastructure is already there.

>A wall seemed to work pretty darn well in Germany
Lol, what, you mean the Berlin wall? Pleaaaase tell me you don't mean the Berlin wall. There were literally functional tunnels from west berlin to east berlin, and the manned guard costs of the wall were ridiculously high, and the human rights implications awful. The Berlin wall had anti-personell mines, people shooting those trying to climb the wall, one person for every 50 metres working shifts. I'm sure it wouldn't be a foreign policy disaster if this kind of policy was implemented at the border today. It absolutely cannot be on the table that a wall of this kind is implemented.

>Mere fencing also seems to be a great success in El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona
Fencing is fine if you guard it, the point is that democrats are right to oppose a plan of 2000 miles of concrete wall or fencing when there's already a functioning infrastructure in place, and when topographical situations make the construction of such a wall or fencing both incredibly difficult and unnecesseary in half of that space.

>The only reason that it's not as effective as it could be is because the border is a wide open plain with no obstacles.
It's not, though! There's already barriers in place.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/current-state-of-u-s-mexico-border-infrastructure-february-2019/

>Additionally, illegal immigrants do not live in "extreme poverty". They get welfare. They get scholarships. Some of them even get jobs. They are babied as much as the Democrats can get away with, and in some cases they are treated even better than legal citizens.
The only immigrants that are given any medical treatment are the ones that literally live in poverty, which are the ones we're talking about. That's what we're talking about! Californian medical aid, right? That's only given to immigrants that own less than 2000$ of assets, and who live below the adjusted state poverty line.

And they aren't even given full medical care, they're only treated for the very most vital conditions. What are you on about. Seriously.

>Citation sorely needed on these "human rights violations". Also, keep in mind that they're only there because the Democrats don't want illegal immigrants to be booted out as they should, but they are also vetoing every attempt to actually fund the facilities and camps they're held in.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48710432
This is what beto has gone on record as opposing with his trip.

 No.707

If we use the berlin wall as an example of what would be required to provide airtight security, we can do a quick calculation of how many standing officers this would require to maintain a 24/7 surveillance. Just one tiny part of border control costs.

The wall as originially proposed is 2000 miles long. The Berlin wall had people stationed every 50 metres, so let's go with that.

That's 3218688 metres divided by 50 to get the amount of guards to occupy one shift. 64 thousand three hundred guard posts.

Now we're going for 24/7 security so that would require 3 shifts of 8 hours for every guard. With holidays and time off, this comes to 4 guards per guard post to man shifts.

So that's 257 thousand guards. The typical CBP agent salary is 80 thousand a year, so this comes out to 20 billion dollars in salaries every year.

That's quite a bit of money, and this is excluding maintenance costs for the wall of course, the cost of buying up property to build the wall, the costs of constructing the wall itself, environmental costs of animals not having access to the rio grande, of drainage not occuring properly, dune environments being disrupted, all of which will probably incur greater costs than staffing, and of course, on top of all of this comes foreign policy costs, that will be incurred when foreign nations learn america is planning to militarize the border and shoot any unwelcomes on sight, right.

Add to this, that if there is just one corrupt agent, coyotes and drug smugglers can slip right through... I just don't see this as being a more worthwile investment than anything else that could be done with these literally billions of dollars.

No wonder Trump keeps making concessions on this monstrosity of a policy choice.

 No.709

>>702
>It's not actually an effective border control method
Perhaps not by itself.  It might be more cost-effective to have a fleet of armed aerial drones neutralize any illegal border crossers.  But I don't think it would be ethical to shoot someone just for crossing an imaginary line.  (And even rounds intended to be merely temporarily incapacitating can cause death or serious bodily injury if they hit the wrong body part.)  Thus the need for a wall.  Trying to circumventing the wall unambiguously demonstrates malicious intent, unlike crossing an imaginary line.

 No.710

>>709
But why spend billions upon billions on a wall when there are already fences along the border?

This doesn't make any sense. I don't know how people even entertain this idea.

It's like there's a miasma around Donald Trump that just kills everyone's brains.

 No.715

>>704
>the latter is just simply a rediculous idea. Unfeasible by any stretch of imagination.

There are active tunnels that people use to get into the United States from Mexico right now  We semi-frequently discover them and shut them down, but it's far from unfeasible.

I'm not sure it's entirely moral to shoot down civilian boats, either.

 No.720

>>715
>I'm not sure it's entirely moral to shoot down civilian boats, either.
You know how the saying goes though.

Don't expect sound moral reasoning from someone willing to place impoverished people in indentured servitude.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]