No.407[Last 50 Posts]
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?
File: 1561672745894.gif (979.32 KB, 360x144, 5:2, emails.gif) ImgOps Google
I haven't seen the debates yet. Just the highlights from a few sources. I will probably watch both soon.
I think Hillary was clearly the best choice with the most experience, but the Republican party started a smear campaign on her. Something they could easily do with the next candidate. it's also my opinion that the evidence clearly shows they colluded with a foreign power to affect the election, and it's a fact that Trump has said publically he would be willing to do so.
When I last looked at the Dem field (months ago), my favorites were Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, and Beto O'Rourke.
I really hope the Dems nominate someone I can vote for. I don't want to vote for Trump again.>>407>But I'm especially looking forward to Yang, who's still my favorite for the nomination
IIRC, Yang's biggest campaign issue is UBI. Do you support him mainly for that, or are there other things too?
Well that definitely answers the first part of the question, but then how could Democrats fight back against smear campaigns and prevent collusion in the future?>>409>IIRC, Yang's biggest campaign issue is UBI. Do you support him mainly for that, or are there other things too?
That's definitely his main platform and a lot of the reason I do support him. The problems that Yang wants to address are problems I've always known were coming and was worried about, and UBI was my first go to for how we could solve those problems. So when he showed up and started saying all the stuff I was already thinking, I latched on pretty quickly.
A lot of the big topics other presidential candidates like to discuss just aren't as big for me. I'm not super concerned about immigration or climate change or gun control. I don't support war, but I'm not sure even Trump would say
he supports war. I expect most candidates to fall along party lines for abortion rights and stuff, so that's not really anything I need to hear from people. What I want to know is how the two parties are going to tackle upcoming problems that I'm concerned about, and so far Yang is the only person who's really stepped up for that.>>410
There was a fair amount of talk on that sort of thing in the debate, so I can tell there's more nuance to it than what I'd say I'm concerned with. Klobuchar's stance, roughly quoted, is that whenever she thinks about gun control she thinks about how it'll affect her uncle, who sells hunting equipment in her home state of Minnesota, a state with a big hunting and fishing community. That's something she draws a hard line on as not impacting. Simlarly someone brought up gun collectors and stated that they clearly aren't the problem. I think Booker's stance was that really all we need is licenses distributed for gun ownership much like we have for cars, another dangerous device.
So I think
the Dems can elect someone who isn't just your typical gun grabber and will actually go on record as someone who wants to defend gun ownership as a whole. We'll have to see where they trend, though, as we near the actual election.
>>411>I think Booker's stance was that really all we need is licenses distributed for gun ownership much like we have for cars, another dangerous device.
Welp, that rules him out, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd also like to see a constitutional amendment entitling anyone (who can demonstrate competence at driving) a driver's license. (And yes, that includes even illegal immigrants. The issue of driving safely is orthogonal to immigration status.) Revoking a driver's license for reasons such as defaulting on certain debts should be illegal.
An easily amended constitution is a meaningless constitution.
We owe illegal immigrants nothing. If they want to come to the US for a better life, then they should immigrate legally instead of jumping the border.
>>415>We owe illegal immigrants nothing.
I disagree. If an illegal is accused of murder, I think we still owe him a fair trial rather than just summarily executing him.
And if an illegal wants to pay the fee for a driving test and passes, I think he should get a license. There is no reason for his immigration status to even come up at driving testing, other than the silly this most states do conflating a proof of identity with a license to operate a motor vehicle.
Of course, if it comes to the attention of the authorities to a give person is an illegal, and this fact is established in court, he should be kicked out post-haste, barring any statue of limitations.
If an illegal is accused of murder, he deserves an investigation. But he does not
deserve a trial. A murdering illegal is simply a hostile invader of American soil, and he should be put down as such.
As for anything else, I repeat that we owe illegal immigrants nothing. They do not contribute to our country, if anything they are a hindrance to it. They do not deserve anything unless they are willing to immigrate legally, and for them to demand otherwise stinks of entitlement.
>>416>What's the difference between those and a gun license?
Practically, a difference is that a large contingent of politicians would attempt to pervert the gun licensing process to make it needlessly onerous and restrictive as a "fuck you" to the other party and to pander to their base.
Theoretically, if it could be guaranteed that the licensing process would be fair and reasonable (e.g., testing available in evenings and weekends, not just during normal working hours), I wouldn't necessarily be opposed amending the Second Amendment to allow a license requirement. But unfortunately, no such guarantee can be made.
>>418>A murdering illegal is simply a hostile invader of American soil, and he should be put down as such
The whole point of a trial is to determine whether he is in fact a murderer or whether he was falsely accused.
The other issue is that, unless CBP apprehends an illegal crossing the border or immediately afterwards, the government doesn't have direct evidence that the person even is illegal. To protect citizens from being falsely deported as illegals, I think some sort of court proceeding is necessary (when no direct evidence exists) as a safeguard against government mistakes.
Well, first they need to acknowledge that Trump has openly admitted to a willingness to collude. Even without concrete evidence he did so in the past, that is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. As for how to prevent smear campaigns, that one is tougher. Fox News could tell people that Trump's poop tastes like ice cream and some of his followers would believe it. I think the best way to combat false statements is to make sure the real information is out there and spread as much as possible. But there's no easy solution.>>412
I would be against any foriegn government trying to interfere in our elections, no matter how small or large the act may seem. Furthermore, I feel like your hypothetical inadvertently downplays the scope of what happened by drawing a comparison to it.
7 of these things aren't even connected to democrats in the US.
And some of this is straight up wrong, and all of it is reactionary.
>>413>which have been completely disproved by the Mueller report
Except, it wasn't. In fact, the Mueller report directly states that it does NOT exonerate him. There's just not enough evidence yet to convict.
A lot of your other points seem partially or completely fabricated. Can you provide evidence for any of them?
>>419>But unfortunately, no such guarantee can be made.
Technically, it can't be guaranteed that the Second Amendment isn't further amended. That's a thing that could
be done if enough people agreed to it. We can all talk about how we shouldn't
amend the bill of rights, but it's been done many times before already. Is it reasonable to say that we shouldn't have licenses because they might become more strict when we could become more strict even without licenses?
You DO know that immigrating legally is made intentionally difficult to keep certain groups out, right?
Can you tell me the process for immigrating legally and how long it takes to do so? And how much doing so costs? People would not risk their lives and their families to try and come here if doing so legally was a viable option for them. Surely you must understand that.
Broadcast in America? Yes, I would be. On the grounds that they are trying to influence American voters to vote a certain way to gain something that benefits their government, and does not factor in the ways it could hurt the American people. That advertisement does not have to concern itself with his promise to both lower Maple tariffs AND kick every cat in America.
And again, I feel like your hypothetical inadvertently downplays the scope of what happened by drawing a comparison to it.
>>430>General question, does one HAVE to vote on which president you want if you want the rest of your votes to count?
No. In some states you can also write in.>>430>Can I just vote on local laws, or our representatives?
File: 1561681949271.jpg (247.3 KB, 1448x2048, 181:256, 1556050716980.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Considering how viciously the gun-grabbers want to infringe our rights, I'd say we should everything possible to protect our rights.
Restricting suppressors like that is still an infringement.>>440
I am more interested in the abstract question whether political influence by foreign govts is actually bad. For Trump yeah there are some things that made it worse than the general case.
How? The Constitution doesn't promise suppressors.
Also, using a a loaded term like "gun grabbers" implies they are... grabbing guns. Taking away guns that are already out there. You should use a term like "Gun restrictions" or even "gun suppressors" if you want to use an apt pun.
>>441>I am more interested in the abstract question whether political influence by foreign govts is actually bad.
I would say at the very least
it is suspicious. There's a deep possibility of ulterior motives there. It's not any different from when a pharmaceutical company contributes heavily to a campaign, which is something else that a lot of people really want to limit or stop entirely. There's a sense of purity people want out of democracy that things like corporate donations and foreign involvement don't fit into.
Ok, last time when it came down to Trump or Hilary, I did NOT want EITHER of them. I hated both the options, as I thought neither of them would do even a decent job at handling this country.
But, I got pressured (I know, I'm an adult and can make my own decisions) by friends, family, and co-workers. So pressured in fact that I almost lost a friend over getting so worked up over it all.
When it finally came time to vote, I ended up walking in that booth feeling defeated and like I didn't really know what I was voting for. I barely had even done my research on the local stuff because I had spent so much time debating Morales with people that I was drained. I ended up just voting strictly on the local stuff and just lying to my family about who I voted for.
That is the first time in my life where voting didn't feel like a right and a privilege, but something forced on me for fear of alienating people. It hurt.
I'm not doing that again this time. I'm not letting people pressure me like they did last time, and I'm going to just stay the hell out of everyone else's discussions so I can do my own research and come to the decision of who I feel is best for a position of power like that. And if I feel like the final candidates are not fit to run this country, then I don't think I should be forced to choose a lesser of two evils. That doesn't sit right with me.
You shouldn't feel "pressured. You should have done the research, seen what candidate advocated issues and stances that were closest to yours and chose who to vote for based on that, not on who you would or wouldn't upset as a result. It was clear to most people what candidate had ideals and stances closest to theirs this time. It was a very polarized election and both candidates with were on opposite sides of the spectrum on most issues.
From the sound of it, you just didn't bother to look into either candidate or what they were saying or supporting. If you are not willing to do that, then yeah, you should not vote. But not voting doesn't mean you won't be affected by what you don't choose. That others won't be affected by the decision made. And if you do, you kind of sacrifice your right to ever complain about or condemn anything going on in the country because you refused to participate.
Sounds like people don't like seeing the inside of the slaughter house and would rather pretend that it doesn't exist.
Nice fours, BTW!
>>446>From the sound of it, you just didn't bother to look into either candidate or what they were saying or supporting.
That's a pretty harsh assumption. I did look into it, but not just what they said they were going to try and do, but what they had done with their lives this far. That is how I found out that I did not want either as my president.>But not voting doesn't mean you won't be affected by what you don't choose. That others won't be affected by the decision made.
I am well aware of this, and it is another reason why I didn't like the choices we had for office. I should have spent more time researching the other votes I had a choice in so I could have made at least a half decent stance, instead of letting myself be emotionally drained.>And if you do, you kind of sacrifice your right to ever complain about or condemn anything going on in the country because you refused to participate.
I rarely complain anyway, and I try very hard not to condemne. I'm only human though.
But I got my answer, thank you guys. I'm going to step out now.
If you came to the conclusion that they were equal in what they had done with their lives up to that point, it makes me question how much research you actually did.
I guess it doesn't matter, since you're not participating, but it does lower my personal opinion of you. A lot of these issues are too important to sit on the fence about, in my eyes.
So back on track a little, Biden absolutely got gutted on stage tonight. Almost the whole stage just tore out his organs all night. He's so old that some of the candidates got to stand on stage and say "I was six when you did this, and I still remember." Kamala Harris had such a big emotional speech that Biden had to go on the defensive and explain why he wasn't racist and I don't think he convinced anyone.
The worst moment for Biden was when the moderators asked if people supported the decriminalization of undocumented immigrants. Everyone raised their hand, answering the question wordlessly...except Biden, who sorta half raised his hand like he had something to say. So he was asked directly, and he went off on some tangent. He was asked again, went off on some tangent. He was asked a third time, still trying to force out an answer, and all he managed was "I don't think they should be the focus of ICE." There is no one on stage who had a gaffe of that level on either night. Biden had the most to lose, and he may have just lost it all. I don't think he can recover after tonight, and I'm gonna be really suspicious and really worried if he keeps his lead.
Speaking of Harris, though, she's far and away the winner tonight. She knew exactly what she was doing and dominated the whole stage. She was cool and collected, had a bunch of great quips, and really showed exactly what she cares about and why it's important. She went from someone people were curious about to someone people are interested in. Even in the speech she gave that tilted Biden so hard, she precluded it with "I'm not going to call you a racist." She was able to bring up race as an important thing to notice and think about while at the same time acknowledging that figuring out who is racist and who isn't won't do us any good.
Quick summary of the other candidates:
Swalwell: Pass the torch meme. He's really just pressing the age issue of Biden and Bernie.
Buttigieg: Well spoken, but maybe not memorable enough.
Bernie: Did a lot of question dodging and didn't seem to me like he was able to draw anyone new in for support. Really fumbled when he replied to a question about one of his own quotes as a mischaracterization of his character.
Gillibrand: Kinda milquetoast, did speak to women's rights a bit, but amongst the other democrats it feels like that's covered, it doesn't set her apart.
Bennet: Also milquetoast, but sounds like Garth from Wayne's World. He did manage to get in some good stabs at Biden, supporting Kamala in driving the knife all the way into his heart.
Hickenlooper: Interesting appeals, definitely managed to set himself apart as someone who considers himself a scientist and small business owner, wants to use Colorado as an example for the country. Interesting, but not enough to really breakthrough tonight. We'll have to see if he shows up more later.
Williamson: Very little airtime, had some big great quips on people, but also some lengthy hippie tirades that'll probably be polarizing, at best.
Yang: Also not much airtime, but I think he got all the points he wanted out and hopefully people want to hear more about him, but he almost certainly has been overshadowed by Kamala.
File: 1561693760834.png (265.18 KB, 880x1359, 880:1359, 347-3474602_sad-horse-clip….png) ImgOps Google
Where did I say I thought they were equal? I'm sorry if that's what you got from what I was saying.
My point was more that I did not find them fit to be president of a country. I have voted before them, and I will vote again. I made a mistake that time by letting myself be influenced.>lower my opinion of you
Jesus dude. You
asked why I didn't/wouldn't vote. I just came in here to ask a question, and was trying not to be rude by ignoring everyone after they made the effort to answer that question for me.
I understand that presidency is a very important issue, but that's no reason to treat me like a bug under your foot because I didn't make the right decision one time.
As much as the debates were about figuring out how to beat Trump, I'm still holding out hope that Trump isn't even nominated by his party again. Bill Weld is looking good and I know he's gonna try to oust him. No idea how likely that is, but he's my backup for if the Democratic nomination goes south and third parties aren't putting forth anything interesting.
What makes you not a fan of Harris?
I know it is a problem and probably a large part of why I felt defeated. Nobody I knew at the time seemed to want to let me make my own choice, or even support me in the slightest when I showed distrust for the people running.
I will try to do better this time, and hopefully, it will be better this time around.
>>457>Why>>458>What makes you not a fan of Harris?
To be honest, I don't really remember specifics. I just remember when I looked into her a few months ago, I came away with an unfavorable impression.
And also there really wasn't anything exciting about her. Some of the other candidates had interesting ideas, but I don't remember anything special about her.
Not having interesting ideas is a running problem. Too many of the democrats are just...democrats. They don't have a catchy slogan, they don't have big ideas, they just want to...not be Trump.
Which for the democratic voters is enough. But the democratic voters already lost once by not being Trump, so I think they really need something to reel people in who might not be voting otherwise. That's another reason I like Yang and the Freedom Dividend. It might get people talking and mobilize voters.
File: 1561695827962.jpg (15.42 KB, 300x450, 2:3, bear-teekyuu-7-100930.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>453>but what you did/are doing is part of a large problem.
Eh, I would say the blame falls on the Democratic party for nominating someone as awful as Hillary. We could have had Bernie. I don't agree with all of Bernie's positions but at least he has integrity, and I respect him.
The slogans and things like that come in later, I think. They have to lay a foundation of their stances to build on first. >>451
I like Kamala the most, for pretty much the same reasons you said. I also think it was hilarious when they asked Yang how he plans to do what he plans and he just gave a dumbfounded "what?"
File: 1561696057470.png (55.1 KB, 200x201, 200:201, a7352e41fc56047fb1a7430e37….png) ImgOps Google
Aye!>>462>Might be worth it to look into it again
Definitely. I'm not going to make any voting decisions based on half-remembered impressions. I do hope that the Dems nominate someone else though and spare me the effort.
File: 1561696106991.gif (979.32 KB, 360x144, 5:2, emails.gif) ImgOps Google
>>464> awful as Hillary
I fundamentally disagree she was "awful". She was an intelegent person with lots of experience in politics, who was working closely with Bernie and others to deal with the issues. Most of the things I've heard about Hillary have all been propoganda and smear tactics pushed by the Republican side, or misconceptions about her stances like she wanted to "ban video games" or something equally ridiculous.
I hope they nominate her. I like her enthusiasm, and he stances on things.
Plus it will just piss off all the racists, which is a plus.
I want to add that it looks like most of the candidates fundamentally agree on most things. Immigration reform, improving health care, ending the separation of children and parents at the border, dealing with gun violence. These are all things the Democratic nominees all agree on wanting, to some degree.
The issue is how each candidate plans to deal with those issues and how successful their plans could be.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..."
Words right from the horse's mouth.
Would you mind what about that you disagree with. Also when she said it and in what context?>>471
All the stuff I mentioned in >>469>Immigration reform, improving health care, ending the separation of children and parents at the border, dealing with gun violence.
I like her willingness to stand up for and back up those things. To me, they don't just feel like talking points from a checklist to her. She's dealt with bigotry personally.
>>465>I also think it was hilarious when they asked Yang how he plans to do what he plans and he just gave a dumbfounded "what?"
I don't even know what went on there. Like, did he not understand the question? Was he just not paying attention? Not the greatest showing, but his actual answer after that was solid enough, I think.>>468
I would vote for Harris if she won the nomination, I think. I wouldn't vote her for
the nomination, necessarily. Not yet, anyway. But I do think she'd be a good president.>>467
The big thing from that election was how the Democratic party was handling things, clearly trying to force Hillary and subdue Bernie. They didn't want a radical socialist in the race, they thought that was bad optics. They did
want a female, which would mobilize some voters and let them call everyone who didn't support her a sexist. The whole thing really got to me.
There were also some issues I just didn't agree with her on. Like as an isolationist I couldn't let go of the fact that at some points in her career she had voted in favor of war, just like Biden is under fire for now. The issue is even more at the front of things with the current Iran situation.
I ended up voting third party in that election because I really liked Gary Johnson and wanted my vote to at least appear in there. Make a statement that some people are upset with the two parties we have. This time around I still have hope that the Democratic party heard me
on that, that they're somewhat remorseful for how things were handled, and aren't going to stifle the party to try to force their own favorite into office.
My metric going in is pretty simple. If after all these major faux paus from Biden they still put him in as the frontrunner...he's not getting my vote. There's all sorts of great people to choose from in this race, and even some people who are at least mediocre, and if they stick to the current frontrunner for some reason then I know the system is still broken and I just refuse to participate in that.
Refusing to participate in the system does not keep it from fucking you.
I'm not a huge fan of Biden either, although probably not for the same reasons you are, because I don't think I'm an "isolationist" and I'm not even sure what that means. But if Biden wins, however undeserved I think that is, I'm going to vote for him.
Because me not voting out of protest doesn't mean that neither Biden or Trump gets to be president. One of them WILL be president at the end of it. Me sitting out on voting isn't going to change that fact. And I'd rather it not be the one who is doing things that are actively hurting people like me and people I care about. It would be irresponsible of me to do otherwise.
This right here >>474
is what I should have said to >>446
but I got heated. Mostly because it reminded me of someone I once knew, and of the larger issue of voter turn out.
It's young people who disillusioned with the system and choose not to participate, but unfortunately, it's also young people who are less bigoted and care more about the important issues. We have to start changing the system little by little, not sitting on our hands and refusing to participate because we can't have things exactly how we want them. Sometimes you have to root for Godzilla, even if he's not the optimal choice, if it means he takes out the other, more dangerous monster.
>>472>Would you mind what about that you disagree with.
The part about open borders.>Also when she said it and in what context?
I think it was a speech to rich globalist bankers, in 2013. Someone leaked it to us plebs.
File: 1561698416914.png (610.01 KB, 1023x721, 1023:721, 142879578352.png) ImgOps Google
>>476>choose not to participate
Voting for a 3rd party is still participating. If enough people do it, maybe eventually we'll start to see some improvement in the status quo.
I still feel like this could have been taken out of context, but for the sake of argument lets say it's something she actually said.
I'm going to assume you aren't really concerned with the Canada/American boarder and are referring to the one with brown people. What do "open borders" mean to you, and what about them are you opposed to?
File: 1561698777049.png (434.68 KB, 706x767, 706:767, 1519263094827.png) ImgOps Google
>>482>he way things are set up currently.
FPTP is horrid. Adopting a Condorcet method  or approval voting  would be a great improvement.
According to this article, she even supported extra funding for border control, which is very much the opposite of "open borders". Though for some people that's probably a negative again.>>487
It's an unfortunate situation, because to enact any change someone has to use the system to win and then dismantle the system they used to win. At least, barring more radical options.
File: 1561698984434.png (388.51 KB, 600x775, 24:31, hameru-is-here.png) ImgOps Google
>>484>it was basically about sharing energy, specifically.
I disagree. I think that was Hillary giving a post-hoc interpretation. A hemispheric common market in electricity makes no sense. Transmission costs between South America and North America would be way too large.
I dunno, I've dug as deep as I care to on this one. In theory the whole speech is out there somewhere.>>491
Would that be worse than President Dipshit-From-Reality-Television?
File: 1561699298853.jpg (35 KB, 680x750, 68:75, homu-1401864329964.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
You think a majority would prefer Dipshit-From-Youtube to all other candidates?
File: 1561699506094.jpg (335.01 KB, 640x1523, 640:1523, homu-1418097205483.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>494> they'd just vote for someone familiar to them.
That's exactly how Hillary became the nominee last time, and why Biden is the front-runner now.
File: 1561699601174.jpg (130.32 KB, 484x691, 484:691, homu-1425695683737.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Why do you think Biden in the front-runner?
I read it and appreciate it.
I will try to catch up and watch the debates as soon as I can.
File: 1561736465003.png (105.56 KB, 252x229, 252:229, 1546802312872.png) ImgOps Google
>>484>but it was basically about sharing energy, specifically.
And even if that is true, it is bad. Electricity transmission is complex and fragile. Remember the Northeast blackout of 2003? Interconnecting the electric systems of the Western Hemisphere will set us up for a nationwide blackout due to a fault event in e.g., Brazil.
Just saw this article claiming that Trump is considering asking Congress to ban certain kinds of math.https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/27/trump-officials-weigh-encryption-crackdown-1385306
Any of the Dems oppose this sort of nonsense?
The article says it's to ban certain types of computer encryption.
Since it's coming from them, I'd say it's probably not well thought out and motivated by ulterior motives. But that's a personal opinion.
News for the day:https://theweek.com/speedreads/850089/andrew-yang-nbc-are-now-arguing-over-whether-mic-during-democratic-debate
Yang says his mic didn't work, NBC assures everyone his mic was working. I don't want to assume malice just yet, but NBC was having multiple audio issues during both nights of the debate, so I'm not really inclined to believe the Yang's mic was consistently working.https://mobile.twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/59569343968706560
Also, if you thought Williamson sounded like a hippie during the debates last night, you should see her tweets.>When enough minds are vibrating on a high enough level, then all lower thought forms will fall of their own dead weight.
Honestly doesn't make me like her any less, but like...damn. She sounds like someone who got kicked out of the green party because she had concerns other than climate change.>>505
That's certainly a reasonable take. It is
still different from just wanting open borders, though.
Yeah, she sounds like the type of person who would try to get me to communicate with the moon goddess with my good vibes. Are we sure she wasn't high?
And yeah, the audio was malfunctioning, so I'd give Yang the benefit of the doubt. Still, when he did finally answer, it was kind of a non-answer.
I've unfortunately got some Yang bias from hearing him speak in other situations. I'm even listening to a half hour question and answer session right now. So when he spoke at the debates, what I heard was just what I expected to hear but a bit shorter, which isn't the same thing people who aren't already on board with Yang would hear.
Which answers did you feel were non-answers? 'cause there was definitely a lot of that going on last night.
File: 1561829907604.jpg (33.95 KB, 500x510, 50:51, babysnek.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Unfortunately, the primaries often tend to nominate more extreme candidates, who are more popular with the party's base than they are with the general population. If Biden says he supports amnesty for illegal aliens, that might help him in the primary but hurt him in the general election. Thus his evasion on giving a concrete answer.
I would replace our current presidential election system with something like the following:
1. As the primary, each voter chooses at most 10 candidates that he would like to see as options in the general election. Then the general-election ballot will contain up to the top 50 candidates, ordered by how many people selected the candidate in the primary. Any candidate selected by fewer than fewer than 0.1% of the primary voters would be excluded from the general-election ballot.
2. In the general election, each voter ranks the candidates. (Candidates left unranked would be considered a tie for dead last.) A national winner is chosen by a Condorcet method, weighting each voter's vote according to their state's representation in the Electoral College. I.e., the weight of a vote in a state S
1/(number of people who voted in state S
) * (number of electors that state S
has in the Electoral College)
This could be implemented as soon as enough states (as to constitute a majority in the Electoral College) agree that their electors will vote (for the Condorcet winner) in the Electoral College; it does not require a change to the Constitution.
The simplify the computation in step 2 (and thereby provide (to the general population) greater transparency of each state's contribution), the following alternative could be used, which I believe is roughly equivalent. First, for each state, an overall ranking R
for that state is determined recursively as follows:
1. The first-ranked candidate (R
_1) is the Condorcet winner of the state.
2. The i
th-ranked candidate (R_i
) is determined by striking R
_1 thru R
-1) from the ballots and choosing the Condorcet winner from these modified ballots.
Then, to determine a national winner, a Condorcet election is simulated in which elector in the Electoral College votes his state's ranking. Then, for the real Constitutionally-mandated vote of the Electoral College, each elector votes for the Condorcet winner of the simulated election.
File: 1561845221911.jpg (535.08 KB, 1529x1087, 1529:1087, 668d24089cd0e9d3a1a279d154….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>521>Don't vote on it. Just do it.
How? The only legal way to abolish the Electoral College is via Article V. Are you proposing civil war?>>521> there's evidence that there is racially motivated reasons it's being kept (states with higher demographics of non-white people have less voting power)
Eh, I think the core reason is more likely partisan, not racial. Blacks vote Democrat by a large margin, so Republican efforts to prevent Democrats from getting more voting power would naturally have a disproportionate effect on blacks.
>>522>Blacks vote Democrat by a large margin
Why do you suppose that is?
And would it not be more logical and ethical for the Republican party to address that fact, and try to attract more voters of color than to "prevent Democrats from getting more voting power"?
Black people are also often more concentrated in urban areas, which is the actual thing the electoral college is meant to impact. Preventing the major urban centers from inherently overpowering the majority of the country. Without the electoral college, candidates could essentially campaign in only the top ten most populous cities and ignore the concerns of the remainder of the country.>>523>And would it not be more logical and ethical for the Republican party to address that fact, and try to attract more voters of color than to "prevent Democrats from getting more voting power"?
Some of them do! Bill Weld is definitely campaigning on a position of recovering black and hispanic voters this election and I really hope he beats out Trump, who uh...isn't doing that.
Don't know much about the candidates at this point, but if the dems were smart, they'd let a moderate through the primary. I think playing middle would be strong right now. You're not going to loose any left-leaners to trump, and let's face it, the way the political system is set up, an dependent isn't in a position to oppose you.
But then, if democratic voters were smart, they'd all move together to small states. If they distributed their numbers better, they'd completely dominate the republican party. Problem is, not only do they, culturally, actually encourage shitty voter distribution, but they shoot themselves in the foot in the primaries! A bit of top-down planning would do them a lot of good...
>>523>Why do you suppose that is?
Historically, it dates back to the 1960s and the 1970s, when the leaders of the Republican Party decided to try to get the racists to switch from voting Democrat to voting Republican. So, the Democratic Party became the party of civil rights for colored persons, and the Republican Party became the party of racists. Black leaders associated with the Democrats and urged their fellow blacks to vote Democrat. Nowadays, there are few genuine racists left, and the Republican Party is no longer a party of racism. However, the old alliances remain, and most blacks continue to vote Democrat.>And would it not be more logical and ethical for the Republican party to address that fact, and try to attract more voters of color than to "prevent Democrats from getting more voting power"?
Logical? If there is an opportunity to prevent the opposing party from gaining more power, I don't see how, in general, it would be illogical to refrain from taking the opportunity.
Ethical? Depends on one's system of ethics. E.g., a believer in utilitarian consequentialism might give a different answer that a believer in deontological ethics.
File: 1561921694200.png (1.31 MB, 850x1200, 17:24, bb54a1a853e3992eb855805b48….png) ImgOps Google
>>407>what do you think the democratic party needs to succeed this time?
Nominate someone is who is clearly not SJW-leaning and who doesn't pander to identity politics. Also, not a career politician -- nominate someone with experience in business (especially as an entrepreneur) or in the military, etc.
Well, Democrats aren't a hive-mind. It's unrealisitc to expect large groups of people to uproot their lives and move to new states just to game a broken system. We should work on fixing the system, or rather, just getting rid of it. The person who gets the most votes should win, pure and simple. >>526>>526>Historically....
I agree with you and what you say seems toi line up with historical fact all the way up until >>526> Nowadays, there are few genuine racists left, and the Republican Party is no longer a party of racism.
I disagree. But I'm going to assume this is personal opinion on your part starting at "nowadays".
I don't know what "utilitarian consequentialism" is. All I know is that it's a pretty shitty thing to do to make certain groups of people have less voting power than others, regardless of what groups it is. And all that doesn't change the fact that, whether it be intentional or unintentional, black people DO have less voting power in the US because of the Electoral College.
>>526>Ethical? Depends on one's system of ethics. E.g., a believer in utilitarian consequentialism might give a different answer that a believer in deontological ethics.
I think even a utilitarian consequentialist would see that voter supression is pretty bad.
Taking away political power from the most downtrodden parts of the population, this is part of the reason why the wealth disparity is so great america.
I can't really agree. I think it's a pipe-dream to think that someone from outside the system will magically fix the system.
Also, you really need to define what "SJW-leaning" means in this context. Because I've seen angry straight white males use "SJW" to describe any cause or idea that helps people who are NOT straight white males in anyway. They would have called ending slavery and letting women vote "SJW" back in the day.
>>532>I think it's a pipe-dream to think that someone from outside the system will magically fix the system.
Contrarily, I think it requires
someone from outside ths system. Anyone inside the system is benefitting from the system and wouldn't even think it was broken.
Yeah, but anyone who is outside the system and also has enough money to run for president
is also benefiting from the current system. Moreover, people within the system are more aware of the problems the system has and how to possibly combat them. Whereas someone outside it isn't going to know how to fix any of the problems, even if they choose to and don't just use it for personal gain. I think Trump has shown us just how electing someone from "outside the system" will go perfectly. He's not educated on the things he's supposed to be in charge of, and often acts only in self-interest or for monetary gain.
Sure. Problem is that Google censors it, as proven by the video published by Project Veritas, and any results from Bing or other search engines would be immediately dismissed by you as "right-wing propaganda".https://biggs.house.gov/media/press-releases/house-democrats-block-funding-address-humanitarian-crisis-southern-borderhttps://beazreport.com/democrats-block-emergency-funding-for-border-crisis/https://republicans-homeland.house.gov/house-democrats-block-humanitarian-border-crisis-funding-for-17th-time/
Tim Pool also covered it in several videos, but sadly you'd probably dismiss him as "alt-right" because he's a left-leaning centrist rather than extreme-left.
Do you have any proof that google is "censoring" it? Because that sounds like unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to me. And if "google" censors it, why not use another search engine to find the results.
The first link you gave is from a Republican congressman. The second link is from breitbart, a known white supremacist website. and the third is website specifically made for right-wing propoganda with no actual connections to the government. Tim Pool is also a know alt-right figure.
All people with personal interest in smearing the Democratic party and spreading potentially biased information to protect the Trump campaign. Do you have any sources that are more neutral?
What "fiasco"? It started when the Trump administration started separating kids from their parents at the border. We should not be keeping mass amounts of children in any kind of facility for months and years, regardless of how nice the facilities are.
Arguing over the state of the facilities and who or what isn't funding them is missing the core of the issue. It should not be happening.
Also, you unironically believe that Milo Yiannopoulos supports not only white supremacy, but also neo-nazism? Two groups that absolutely despite homosexuals?
You just lost all your credibility. Get your info from someplace other than Buzzfeed.
I have no idea what you are talking about with this one. I need some sources on what this is, and also it's relevancy to the topic.>>573
I've never heard that white supremacists are against homosexuals. Mint horse is a white supremacist and still identifies as gay.>>576
This feels like playing semantics here. White supremacists and white nationalists are two groups with a lot of overlap. It is very rare for someone to be one but not the other, so I feel this argument is pointless. That said, breitbart is clearly a white nationalist website, and as a result of that, often features white supremacist ideas and contributors.
Project Veritas is run by James O'Keefe III, who's work is almost exclusively focused on doing heavily-slanted attack pieces against organizations or individuals he considered to be "liberal". He has been criticized for selectively editing videos to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects' responses, creating the false impression that people said or did things they did not.
If Google censorship is a real, verified thing, then you should be able to provide me with a less biased and more credible source. A few of them, in fact.
Long story short, you didn't bother to watch it because whatever liberal source you frequent claims he is bad. Okay.
If several minutes of complete, unaltered video footage, recorded by a Google insider who is not Janes O'Keefe, where a Google exec explains without breaks their entire plan on how to systematically censor conservative content in order to influence the 2020 elections is still not clear enough for you... I don't know what else to tell you.
If real video footage is not clear enough proof for you anymore, do you even still possess the ability to think independently?
So you literally want to see the same video hosted somewhere else? Is that what you're asking for? Or are you asking for another
Google exec confessing these things in a video made by somebody else?
If you're seriously trying to ask for the latter, than I can't even fathom what kind of mental gymnastics you're doing just to avoid the proof.
Well, whoever is in the video claiming these things has his identity withheld and his voice altered. It could literally be anyone posing as "a google exec". I want something more substantial and verifiable than that, yes. Something that proves what you are saying without the possibility of being altered, and from a source that doesn't have massive biases to one side like this one.
And again, if Google is supposedly censoring this stuff, why not use another search engine to find the results?
using other search engines. That's why I know these things and why you believe in falsehoods.
Also, you clearly have not watched the hidden cam footage. That's the big part here. Or do I literally have to spoonfeed you the time like the baby you are, so you can dismiss it because it infringes with your political beliefs?
>>584>And again, if Google is supposedly censoring this stuff, why not use another search engine to find the results?
I'd also like to point out to the room that this video was the third result when I searched "project veritas google exec" on Google. The first two apparently being other Project Veritas articles about Google executives.
It's not exactly the pinnacle of censorship here.
But you've failed to prove that what I believe is a falsehood. You haven't done so. You posted a video who's validity is based on who is presenting, but the person remains completely anonymous. "hidden camera" footage can be doctored, or fabricated easily. It's not unreasonable to ask for a second source.>>589
You'd think if this proves what he claims, it would be the #1 target to get taken down, right?
File: 1562019265215.png (112.22 KB, 396x400, 99:100, 729755_C84E4BE5-2EB3-46E2-….png) ImgOps Google
I think the Dems should nominate Wooloo for president. I'd vote for Wooloo.
>>594>But it's pointless. I'm talking to people in a bubble who refuse to inform themselves. Who refuse to think further than immediate emotional impulses, and who refuse to apply common sense and logic.
This isn't acceptable on this board. As Zecora mentioned, we are discussing facts not each other. Just because people exercise healthy skepticism towards things you hold as fact doesn't mean they are emotional or refuse to apply logic.
Issuing a short term ban, please understand the environment we are trying to foster here when you post again.
I don't think that's going to be the case. Trump didn't get picked despite the way he is. He got picked because
of the way he is. No matter what he does or the stances he takes, he continues to be popular with voters on the right, and the Republican party has continued to back him this entire time. Why would that suddenly change now?
File: 1562025675660.png (45.29 KB, 253x264, 23:24, 1561754186502.png) ImgOps Google
>>601>Why would that suddenly change now?
A lot can happen between now and the primaries. Trump is 73 years old. His cardiac health probably isn't so great, judging by his waistline. A major health event could befall Trump. There are also rumors that he is suffering from progressive dementia -- a bad episode of that in public could help spell the end of his reelection chances.
We can hope, but I find it doubtful.
Also, according to his adminstration's official statements, Trump is in the best physical condition any president has ever been.
>>601>Why would that suddenly change now?
Trump got picked because of the way he said
he was. More than a couple people have lost faith since he was elected.
>>606>He built his stupid wall
Huh? Last I checked , not much of the Great Wall of Trump was completed.
And he certainly didn't drain the swamp.
Last I heard he declared a "national emergency" to get the wall started. I think the Democrats tried to block that, but there wasn't much they could do.
I don't think anyone honestly expected a (purportedly) rich businessman to "drain the swamp" and not use the opportunity to line his own pockets.
>>606>He built his stupid wall,
There's absolutely no wall, and all the people who hate immigration are still dealing with all the things they hate about immigration.>>608>I don't think anyone honestly expected a (purportedly) rich businessman to "drain the swamp" and not use the opportunity to line his own pockets.
That's a lot more optimistic than I'm capable of.
Really, his campaign promises were pretty absurd, but I bet I could Google a list of what they were and how none of them were accomplished.
File: 1562043481216.png (40.83 KB, 793x525, 793:525, Capture.PNG) ImgOps Google
Well, better than I expected, but even this is pretty optimistic. He definitely cut taxes and I'm pretty sure he boosted production of oil and gas. He also definitely replaced the Supreme Court Justice.
I can't say much about regulations, but I don't think the average citizen really keeps track of that. I'm also not sure what "rebuild the military" was even supposed to mean, because I don't recall it being destroyed, but I guess he did increase the budget.
But the major ones? Obamacare? That's not fixed. The wall? Purportedly started, but it'll almost certainly be cancelled if anyone else enters office. Hell, some private walls people tried putting up were forced open for blocking important landmarks. Drain the swamp? Didn't even act like he was working on it. Infrastructure is a bust.
Anyone who voted for him hoping for that latter half is unhappy. Just the other day he withdrew an action to deport more immigrants as part of negotiations with the Democrats and people were furious
File: 1562070627418.jpg (155.06 KB, 850x1180, 85:118, 1475113845104.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
It seems that sometimes people forget that we're electing a president, not a dictator. The number of actions that a president can take unilaterally is relatively small. Simply getting funding for something can be a major issue, like when the Dems obstructed funding for the wall by filibustering it in the Senate in Trump's first two years. And now that Congress is divided, Trump has even more problems pushing through his agenda.
>>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.
File: 1562104817308.png (20.76 KB, 700x700, 1:1, jDBr2RI.png) ImgOps Google
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
File: 1562257404877.png (335.28 KB, 520x360, 13:9, 1525389784625.png) ImgOps Google
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Please cite your sources.
You get many of these facts wrong, so I'm really curious where you're getting your information from.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.pdfhttps://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.pdfhttps://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.
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?
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.