[ 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[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?

 No.408

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.

 No.409

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?

 No.410

>what do you think the democratic party needs to succeed this time?
Nominate someone who respects the entire Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

 No.411

>>408

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.

 No.412

>>408
>they colluded with a foreign power to affect the election
Is that necessarily such a bad thing though?  Suppose a candidate secretly borrows 10 kangaroos from the government of Australia for a surprise campaign event.  Would that significantly affect your decision to vote for or against that candidate?

 No.413

Even disregarding all the shady stuff surrounding Hillary Clinton, for the past four years we've had to endure:

1) A world-wide smear campaign on all heterosexual white men, driven by liberal media outlets

2) International domestic terrorism from Antifa

3) Widespread censorship on left-leaning social media, with a currently ongoing project from Google to severely hinder in the American elections as recently exposed by Project Veritas

4) The rise of political fringe groups on the far-left with extremist ideas on borders, migration, race, sex and communism/socialism

5) Constant accusations about Russian collusion, which have been completely disproved by the Mueller report

6) Constant shaming of Trump voters during a time where there was no better alternative

7) The smearing of centrists and moderates as "alt-right" due to not agreeing with certain far-left ideals

8) The attempts of Democratic states to dissolve and overthrow the electoral college in order to establish a tyranny of the majority

9) The ongoing migrant crisis at the border that is going ignored and unfunded due to Democrat interference

10) Non-whites getting off the hook for staging hate crimes

I could go on.

The Democratic party has a lot of thinking and restructing to do before I can even consider giving them a vote, no matter what kind of face they try to push forward. There are many people who could be better Presidents than Trump, but in its current state the Democratic party is in no shape to lead.

 No.414

>>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.

 No.415

>>414

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.

 No.416

>>414

So even with some tweaks and some limits to how easily they can be revoked, you do support driver's licenses?  What's the difference between those and a gun license?

 No.417

>>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.

 No.418

>>417

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.

 No.419

>>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.

 No.420

>>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.

 No.421

>>411
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.

 No.422

>>413
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.

 No.423

>>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?

 No.424

>>421
>I would be against any foriegn government trying to interfere in our elections
What do you mean by"interefere"?  If Canada wanted to broadcast a TV advertisement for a politician promoting his stance of reducing tariffs on maple syrup, saying that he would make American breakfast yummy again, and the ad very clearly indicated that it was paid for by the government of Canada, would you be opposed to this ad?  And if so, on what grounds?

 No.425

>>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?

 No.426

>>415
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.

 No.427

>>424
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.

 No.429

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/first-democratic-debate-2019-live-updates-night-two-n1023321

Posting a link for tonight's debates, as well, if anyone wants to tune in.  I might chime in with thoughts as I go.

 No.430

General question, does one HAVE to vote on which president you want if you want the rest of your votes to count?

Can I just vote on local laws, or our representatives?

What it ends up like last time, where the last two candidates I do not like, at all?

 No.431

>>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?
Yes.

 No.432

>>430
You dont get to sit out of having a president, why would you sit out of voting for one? They can still fuck your life up.

 No.433

>>427
>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 applies to any party doing advertisement though.  Why single out a foreign country?  Why are they worse than NRA or the Brady Bunch?

 No.434

File: 1561681949271.jpg (247.3 KB, 1448x2048, 181:256, 1556050716980.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>425
Considering how viciously the gun-grabbers want to infringe our rights, I'd say we should everything possible to protect our rights.

 No.435

>>434
No one wants your guns, and its a joke that anyone acually thinks they are going to take them. Like, its literally a hyperbolic exageration of rural people to say they believe the guns will be taken away.

 No.436

>>433
This feels like moving the goalpost/false equivelency.

 No.437

>>435
Then why is it so hard to buy a sound suppressor capable of reducing a 9 mm pistol from 160 decibels to 140 decibels?

 No.438

>>436
Please elaborate. Why is it so much worse when Canada does it then the NRA does it?

 No.439

>>437
Well for one thing, thats not a gun. Second, making it harder to buy certain guns (or not-guns) is not taking any already owned guns away from anyone.

 No.440

>>438
You're trying to compare your innocuous hypotheticals to the real world situation which I don't think is a fair comparison and would seem to me is only serving to make the real world sound more innocuous than I believe it is and is moving us further and further away from the original point. So I'm not going to engage any further.

 No.441

>>439
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.

 No.442

>>441
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.

 No.444

>>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.

 No.445

>>432
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.

 No.446

>>445
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.

 No.447

>>445
You can do what Lost Pony does and write in Twilight Sparkle.

 No.448

>>444
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!

 No.449

>>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.

 No.450

>>449
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.

 No.451

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.

 No.452

File: 1561693760834.png (265.18 KB, 880x1359, 880:1359, 347-3474602_sad-horse-clip….png) ImgOps Google

>>450
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.

 No.453

>>452
Fine, youre right. I apollogize. Im jusy still upset by people I knew checking out last election instead of looking at the issues and what they were saying and support. Voter turnout, or lack thereof is a big reason Trump got elected. Because young people checked out, and didnt consider the consequences for disenfranchised people. Not yoru fault, but what you did/are doing is part of a large problem.

 No.454

>>450

>but it does lower my personal opinion of you

I'm not really certain how that works on an anonymous board, but that's too personal a statement for a place that's about discussing concepts and ideas.  We aren't here to discuss the merits of our fellow posters.

 No.455

>>454
Noted, and ive apologized. Lets get back on topic

 No.456

>>451
>Speaking of Harris, though, she's far and away the winner tonight.  
Fug, she is one of them that would make me seriously consider voting for Trump.

 No.457

>>456
Why?

 No.458

>>456

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?

 No.459

>>453
Thank you.

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.

 No.460

>>459
Not sure why changing devices changed my name...huh

 No.461

>>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.

 No.462

>>461

Might be worth it to look into it again, and double check anything you find with two or more sources.

 No.463

>>461

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.

 No.464

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.  

 No.465

>>463
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?"

 No.466

File: 1561696057470.png (55.1 KB, 200x201, 200:201, a7352e41fc56047fb1a7430e37….png) ImgOps Google

>>463
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.

 No.467

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.

 No.468

>>466
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.

 No.469

>>465
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.

 No.470

>>467
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..."
Words right from the horse's mouth.

 No.471

>>468
>I hope they nominate her. I like her enthusiasm, and he stances on things
What stances in particular do you like?

 No.472

>>470
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.

 No.473

>>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.

 No.474

>>473
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.

 No.475

>>474

That's a fair stance, I think.  Maybe my own stance will change more as the election approaches.  We'll see what happens.

 No.476

>>475
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.

 No.477

>>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.

 No.478

>>477
I'm sorry, but I need something a little more specific than that as a source. That could have easily been fabricated or exaggerated.

 No.479

>>478
Google the quote. You'll find plenty of references.

 No.480

>>479
You're the one using it. You should be able to provide that. It's literally the only counter to Hillary you've presented.

 No.481

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.

 No.482

>>481
That's not really a viable option with the way things are set up currently. All it does is serve to take votes away from the one who can actually take on the bad guys.

 No.483


 No.484

>>483

https://thinkprogress.org/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-open-borders-9c005c2b6d16/

>Here is the quote in its entirety:

>“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Which maybe you're still against that, but it was basically about sharing energy, specifically.

 No.485

>>483
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?

 No.486

>>484
yeah, see. I knew it was out of context. More smear campaign.

 No.487

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 [1] or approval voting [2] would be a great improvement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

 No.488

>>486

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.

 No.489

>>488
Depends on what the funding was for. If it was to make sure detainees get food and water, then it's not a negative.

 No.490

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.

 No.491

>>487
Both those methods sound like they would lead to President Dipshit-From-Youtube.

 No.492

>>490

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?

 No.493

File: 1561699298853.jpg (35 KB, 680x750, 68:75, homu-1401864329964.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>491
You think a majority would prefer Dipshit-From-Youtube to all other candidates?

 No.494

>>493
Most people are stupid. They wouldn't follow the issues, they'd just vote for someone familiar to them. If all the people younger than me voted that way, I can see that happening.

 No.495

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.

 No.496

>>495
Not sure I agree.

 No.497

File: 1561699601174.jpg (130.32 KB, 484x691, 484:691, homu-1425695683737.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>496
Why do you think Biden in the front-runner?

 No.498

>>497
Is he, though? And also probably because he's propular, as in he's the name most people know at this point in time. But we just started this thing. He took a few heavy blows tonight.

 No.500

>>476
I read it and appreciate it.

I will try to catch up and watch the debates as soon as I can.

 No.505

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.

 No.508

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?

 No.509

>>508
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.

 No.510

>>509
>I'd say it's probably not well thought out
I'll go further than that and say that it is definitely, beyond a reasonable doubt, not well thought out.  The field of cryptography is still making progress and new attacks are continuing to be discovered.  Using a cryptosystem that moves at the speed of government is not a smart idea, even if it isn't backdoored.

 No.511

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.

 No.512

>>511
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.

 No.514

>>512

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.

 No.515

>>514
Biden's answer on deportation was certainly a non-answer. I'm sure there were more.

 No.517

File: 1561829907604.jpg (33.95 KB, 500x510, 50:51, babysnek.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>515
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 would be:

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 ith-ranked candidate (R_i) is determined by striking R_1 thru R_(i-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.

 No.518

>>517
Or we could just get rid of the electoral college and pick the person who gets the most votes.

 No.519

>>518
>Or we could just get rid of the electoral college
How? Amending the Constitution to get rid of the electoral college requires ratification by 3/4 of the states, so the states that benefit from the electoral college are able to veto any effort to abolish it.  

 No.520

>>519

And there's definitely a lot more than 25% of the states benefitting from it.

 No.521

>>519
Don't vote on it. Just do it. It's clearly a broken system, and 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) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/the-racial-history-of-the-electoral-college-and-why-efforts-to-change-it-have-stalled

 No.522

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.

 No.523

>>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"?

 No.524

>>521
>>522

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.

 No.525

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...

 No.526

>>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.

 No.527

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.

 No.528

>>525
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.

 No.529

>>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.

 No.530

>>527

So basically Trump?

 No.531

>>530
Someone who has many of Trump's good points, while lacking his numerous bad points, would indeed be an ideal challenger.

 No.532

>>531
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.

 No.542

>>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.

 No.556

>>542
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.  

 No.557

>>531

The problem is, somebody who has many of Trump's good points is never going to be a Democrat.

 No.558

>>557
I think it's also a problem that the populace is pretty split on what Trump's "good" points are. He's in favor of things many Americans are completely against and many are completely for. There are also people in denial about the reality of a lot of Trump's policies and what they cause to happen.

 No.560

>>558

Not to mention that there are a lot of falsehood spread about Trump and his policies. Like how AOC is trying to spread the hoax that there are literal concentration camps for migrants in America.

 No.561

>>560
To call that a falsehood is to get into a semantic argument over what a "concentration camp" is. I'm not interested in that. But children ARE being separated from their parents at the border and being held in holding facilities with no plan to return them to their parents. That is not a falsehood.

 No.562

>>561

They can't afford to bring the children back to their parents because the Democrats are blocking bills to actually provide funding to these camps.

 No.563

>>562
Do you have any proof of that? The Democratic party did not even control the House until well after this was being done.

 No.565

>>563

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-border

https://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.

 No.567

>>565
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?

 No.568

>>567
>The second link is from breitbart, a known white supremacist website.
Do you have any proof of that?  That Breitbart expresses a belief that white people are superior to people of other races?

 No.569

>>565
>>567

It would make sense that Democrats oppose that funding, because their ultimate goal is to get them into the country, not keep them at the border in improved facilities.  I'm willing to believe that the Trump administration wants to improve facilities, since from what I remember this whole fiasco started with them ordering new mattresses.  The right wing thought new mattresses would be good for the immigrants, while the left wing thought they shouldn't need mattresses because they shouldn't be detained.

 No.570

>>568
Steve Bannon along with former employee Milo Yiannopoulos (two known figures in the alt-right/white supremacy/white nationalism movements) both solicited ideas for stories from, and worked to advance and market ideas of, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News

https://theweek.com/speedreads/729269/leaked-emails-show-how-milo-yiannopoulos-worked-stephen-bannon-altright-transform-breitbart

https://www.cjr.org/watchdog/buzzfeed-milo-bannon-right-wing.php

 No.571

>>569
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.

 No.572

>>571

Except when a 10 year old child is separated from its "parent" with 20 different semen samples inside of her.

 No.573

>>570

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.

 No.575


 No.576

>>570
I vaguely remember seeing some evidence that Bannon is a white nationalist, but do you have any proof that he is also a white supremacist?

 No.577


>>572
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.

 No.578

>>577
>Mint horse is a white supremacist
Is he?  I thought he was only a white nationalist.  I don't think he claims that the white race is superior to other other race.  

 No.579

>>575
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.

 No.580

>>578
He believes all races other than Eastern Asians are inferior to whites because of IQ scores. And before you try to start ANOTHER semantic argument, I know that technically makes him a "white superorist" or something and not a "white supremacist", but that is splitting hairs on a massive scale. he still believes whites are superior to most other kinds of people.

 No.581

>>579

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?

 No.582

>>581
It's not unfair to ask for a second source on something like this. Especially if it is a verifiable fact. The source you gave has a history of not being credible, and has an interest in a particular narrative. All I ask is a second or even third source that supports the claim you are making.

 No.583

>>582

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.

 No.584

>>583
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?

 No.585

>>584

I am 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?

 No.586

>>584
>And again, if Google is supposedly censoring this stuff, why not use another search engine to find the results?
Isn't like kinda like saying "If Russia is running TV ads to influence the election, why not just watch Hillary's ads instead?"?

 No.587

>>585
>Or do I literally have to spoonfeed you the time like the baby you are

That kind of personal attack is over the line for /townhall/.  Keep it civil here, we're discussing ideas, not each other.  It's never absurd to ask for a second source, especially when that source is supposed to draw validity based on who they are but presents as fully anonymous.

 No.588

>>585
>like the baby you are
Please be careful, you're crossing the line into personal insults now.

 No.589

>>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.

 No.591

>>585
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?

 No.592

Also, watching this video, the biggest thing that comes to mind as an issue with the video is this anonymous dude is kind of reinterpreting everything on the screen or from these interviews in a way that supports his position.  No one else is explaining these things.

Like he's painted it all that they're anti-Trump and so they have to do everything they can to prevent Trump from getting elected, but what I'm understanding from the side of, say, Jen Gennai, is they were responsible for getting Trump elected in 2016 because they didn't police people using their site to spread false information.  That sort of thing has been a recurring theme in politics and with social media lately, where lies get spread so wide that people believe them even though they've got no real backing, they're just accepted as common knowledge.  So what Google is doing is not mobilizing to prevent Trump from getting elected because they don't like Trump, but mobilizing to prevent themselves from influencing elections in the way they did in 2016.

 No.593

Also these bits where they try checking what autocomplete gives you is really meaningless.

"Men can" - what?  What did you expect to find in there?  What was bizarrely missing from this list?

"Women can" - Not unlike "Men can", the list was largely about things that women traditionally don't do.  These were actually very equivalent.

"Hillary Clinton's emails are" - This had no autocomplete, because...what would it put in there.  They followed this up by looking for search trends for "Hillary Clinton's emails" which of course were high because that's the full search term.

"Donald Trump's emails" - has a whole lot of autocomplete options because there's a variety of things you might be looking for.  Do you want to know what his email is?  Were you actually looking for his Twitter account?  Do you want a pdf with his former emails in it?

And most erroneously, all of this was then framed as "not returning results".  The auto-complete isn't results!  If you Google any of those things by pressing Enter you get results!

 No.594

I think I'm done trying to persuade you all.

Nobody is actually watching the damn thing, and the one person who did bother to even watch a fragment properly is getting wrong message because he gets the base facts all wrong.

Mobilizing to prevent themselves from influencing elections? What a joke. If you even had a shred of an idea about the amount of right-wing and even centrist political channels on Youtube being demonetized, striked, or even removed utright, you'd know that this is a completely inaccurate interpretation.

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.

All I have to say is, wait and see. I pray for Trump 2020, or at least another Republican president. Another Democrat president in this day and age would bring America to ruin, and you'll be to blame for it.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.595

>>594
This isnt what /townhall/ is for. If youre going to make a claim, you have to be able to back it up. All we did was ask you for a second source. You still have all the chance in the world to prove us wrong by providing some unbiased and credible evidence.

 No.596

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.

 No.597

>>596
There are better pokemon for president.

 No.598

>>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.

 No.599

>>597
Which Pokemon would make the best president?

 No.600

>>594
>another Republican
I wonder if Trump will face significant opposition in the Republican primaries.  Usually the incumbent has an unsurmountable advantage, but Trump is, well, Trump.  I wonder who the Libertarians will nominate.  I'd vote for John McAfee.

 No.601

>>600
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?

 No.602

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.

 No.603

>>602
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.

 No.604

>>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.

 No.606

>>604
Why, though? For better or for much much worse, he's done everything he promised to do. He built his stupid wall, he cracked down on immigration to inhumane results... Why would they lose faith in him?

 No.607

>>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.

 No.608

>>607
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.

 No.609

>>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.

 No.610

File: 1562043481216.png (40.83 KB, 793x525, 793:525, Capture.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>609

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.

 No.614

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.

 No.618

>>614

This is all true, but I don't think people have learned their lesson on that one yet.  So as far as getting elected goes, everything is still the president's fault.

 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 ]