U.S. Politics: Gunnin' From The Long Arm of the Law

[all swedes are racist]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

How the hell would anyone know the effect of ending a program that's hasn't ended yet - let alone its effect on vote choice?  You have an annoying habit of asking for impossible evidence then acting like the absence of such supports your point.

Responsibility attribution would be much clearer on who ended DACA than who is responsible for school shootings in many voters minds.

lmao, yeah, you wanna bet an election on that? i'll put up 4 pack of the finest trillium beer to whatever you got

[Sivin]

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

No, they should not.

At least we all know the score. 

Unfortunately the Democrat motto of "leave no minority behind" is going to have to draw the line at going back to get kicked in the throat after the fact. 

Get used to that feeling, it'll be important in the years to come. 

[karaddin]

I think Kalbear's claim is pretty reasonably backed up at this point. Partisan Republicans show up to vote no matter what. Sure the polling may be strongly against getting rid of DACA, but that's not going to translate into them voting against Republicans, nor even staying home for most of them. It's more of an open question as to whether it would motivate non-voters into turning out to vote Democrat, but if they need that impetus to get out to vote I'm not confident this is going to be that last straw to get them moving. And you have to worry about other actions which alienate the people who care at the same time.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Partisan Republicans show up to vote no matter what. Sure the polling may be strongly against getting rid of DACA, but that's not going to translate into them voting against Republicans, nor even staying home for most of them. It's more of an open question as to whether it would motivate non-voters into turning out to vote Democrat, but if they need that impetus to get out to vote I'm not confident this is going to be that last straw to get them moving. And you have to worry about other actions which alienate the people who care at the same time.

Of course partisan Republicans aren't going to change their minds, but if Trump starts (and continues) to deport Dreamers it's another - and likely quite salient - reason to vote Democrat in the increased vote share we've already seen for Dems in special elections and Virginia.

18 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

lmao, yeah, you wanna bet an election on that? i'll put up 4 pack of the finest trillium beer to whatever you got

If Trump deports Dreamers en masse up to the election?  Sure I'll take that bet in terms of the Dems taking back the House.  And the stakes are single-malt Scotch or bust.

17 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Unfortunately the Democrat motto of "leave no minority behind" is going to have to draw the line at going back to get kicked in the throat after the fact. 

I'm not sure what this means.

[lokisnow]

What kind of Underground Railroad will appear to try to hide the fugitive slaves... err I mean fugitive DACA families, from ice’s army of Hans Landa impersonators?

but at least we know dmc would rat people out to Hans landa, because you know it’s following the law, and issue salience, and political capital...

[all swedes are racist]

27 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Of course partisan Republicans aren't going to change their minds, but if Trump starts (and continues) to deport Dreamers it's another - and likely quite salient - reason to vote Democrat in the increased vote share we've already seen for Dems in special elections and Virginia.

If Trump deports Dreamers en masse up to the election?  Sure I'll take that bet in terms of the Dems taking back the House.  And the stakes are single-malt Scotch or bust.

I'm not sure what this means.

I want compelling proof that DACA swayed enough 2018 elections tip the house at the very least

put it to the mods: 1) can we get this wager recorded and blessed under thy auspices? 

2) (directed to @Xray the Enforcer, et al) can we get a ruling of equivalency on whatever these yinzes can put up comparable to a ne-ipa?

 

[all swedes are racist]

11 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

What kind of Underground Railroad will appear to try to hide the fugitive slaves... err I mean fugitive DACA families, from ice’s army of Hans Landa impersonators?

but at least we know dmc would rat people out to Hans landa, because you know it’s following the law, and issue salience, and political capital...

well politico had an answer to this, not sure it was a good one tho 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

I want compelling proof that DACA swayed enough 2018 elections tip the house at the very least

That seems to be a pretty subjective standard.

8 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

can we get a ruling of equivalency on whatever these yinzes can put up comparable to a ne-ipa?

LOL at the yinze.  Been here three and a half years, doesn't begin to qualify.  And I don't want any damn IPA - single-malt Scotch or bust.

22 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

but at least we know dmc would rat people out to Hans landa, because you know it’s following the law, and issue salience, and political capital...

WTF?

[mormont]

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

How the hell would anyone know the effect of ending a program that's hasn't ended yet - let alone its effect on vote choice?  You have an annoying habit of asking for impossible evidence then acting like the absence of such supports your point.

I mean, you can ask about issue salience in opinion polls, can't you? 'How likely would this issue be to change your vote?' It's not as reliable evidence as after-the-fact evidence, but that's pretty inherent in opinion polling. 

[Shryke]

Dreamers getting deported is gonna be a huge shitshow in the press and rile up the Democratic base a lot. As long as they keep their focus on it being the Republican's fault and not start blaming the Democrats in the usual left-wing circular firing squad, it'll probably help.

And support for Dreamers polls real damn high so while I wouldn't expect it to shift hardcore Republican voters it can certainly shape the opinions of the uninformed masses of moron voters.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

I mean, you can ask about issue salience in opinion polls, can't you? 'How likely would this issue be to change your vote?' It's not as reliable evidence as after-the-fact evidence, but that's pretty inherent in opinion polling. 

Sure, and it is.  But that wasn't the issue at hand, or what "I didn't know."  What I didn't know was the effect of ending DACA, and specifically the effect of ending DACA on vote choice.  My assumption, based on the widespread popularity of finding a path to citizenship for (or at least keeping) Dreamers, is that starting to deport them would raise its issue salience.

BTW, pollsters rarely ask "how likely would ___ be to change your vote."  The direct measure of salience is usually though an item asking which issue(s) is(are) most important to you?

[Inigima]

I do not think this DACA shitshow is an electoral advantage for Democrats. The coverage of what it means and who Dreamers are helps, but I don't think it will move the needle substantially. It's very hard to convince a DACA opponent that they should change their stance, because whether you think DACA is good public policy or not -- I think it's bad policy, personally -- there is no good counterargument to the argument that illegally immigrating is, well, illegal, because it is. The only real counterargument is that just because something is law doesn't mean it's just -- and that's true, but it isn't an argument, particularly, that this particular law is unjust. I think this very public fight is going to keep a lot of people from voting for Democrats in November, because I think an awful lot of people do want stricter enforcement of immigration law, regardless of its merits.

Furthermore, a big push of the administration, by way of Stephen Miller, is to cut legal immigration too. That at least is pure anti-immigrant racism, but if you don't like immigrants, no amount of policy argument or personal stories or statistics is going to convince you.

[mormont]

57 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I do not think this DACA shitshow is an electoral advantage for Democrats. The coverage of what it means and who Dreamers are helps, but I don't think it will move the needle substantially. It's very hard to convince a DACA opponent that they should change their stance, because whether you think DACA is good public policy or not -- I think it's bad policy, personally -- there is no good counterargument to the argument that illegally immigrating is, well, illegal, because it is. The only real counterargument is that just because something is law doesn't mean it's just -- and that's true, but it isn't an argument, particularly, that this particular law is unjust. I think this very public fight is going to keep a lot of people from voting for Democrats in November, because I think an awful lot of people do want stricter enforcement of immigration law, regardless of its merits.

Furthermore, a big push of the administration, by way of Stephen Miller, is to cut legal immigration too. That at least is pure anti-immigrant racism, but if you don't like immigrants, no amount of policy argument or personal stories or statistics is going to convince you.

See, this is where I think it comes down to irreconcilable viewpoints and basis differences in how the left and right see the world.

Immigration is like abortion, or prostitution, or drug use. Whether it's legal or illegal, or legal to some degree, it is never going to go away. You can't ever stop people taking drugs, or getting abortions, or moving to other countries. If you make it illegal, they'll still find a way, even if that means breaking the law.

Left-wingers look at situations like that and say 'well, that means we have to use the law to find sensible ways to manage these things'. DACA is a great example. Right-wingers, though, look at the same issues and say 'if something is illegal it's wrong, and if it's wrong it should be illegal'. Left-wingers see the law as a tool to manage social issues, right-wingers see it as a tool to distinguish right from wrong. 

That's why it's hard for the left to appeal to right-wing voters on these issues. They aren't talking the same language. The only way they can win is to shift the debate onto their ground. Which can be done. But it relies on using evidence and facts, which are harder in the current climate than dog-whistles.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's why it's hard for the left to appeal to right-wing voters on these issues. They aren't talking the same language.

I think the language barrier is the left tends to view immigration - undocumented or otherwise - as a good thing while the right tends to view immigration - undocumented or otherwise - with fear.  This is not exclusive to the US.  And yes, there is a middle ground, as demonstrated by the majority of the Senate voting for two different plans that would provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers just yesterday.  But the radical right will continue to become more intransigent and influential as the west becomes darker.

[Which Tyler]

I aplogise if this has been posted; but I just heard it, and had to check out the maths for myself.

 

US gun deaths 2014-Today (so 50 months) = 58,614

Vietnam War US Casualties (so 234 months) = 58,220

 

Source for Vietman:

https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics

Source for domestic: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ & http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

2018 = 1,859

2017 = 15,590

2016 = 15,094

2015 = 13,515

2014 = 12,556

Total = 58,614

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

I think the language barrier is the left tends to view immigration - undocumented or otherwise - as a good thing while the right tends to view immigration - undocumented or otherwise - with fear.  This is not exclusive to the US.  And yes, there is a middle ground, as demonstrated by the majority of the Senate voting for two different plans that would provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers just yesterday.  But the radical right will continue to become more intransigent and influential as the west becomes darker.

Democrats have a centrist view on immigration, similar to President Regan or Bush Sr. It's just a right-wing talking point that Democrats are pro open borders. This only became a big issue because the right radicalized. 

Libertarians are pro open border, they just have virtually no influence on the issue.

[Which Tyler]

11 hours ago, goomba said:

guns dont kill people, people kill people!

Guns don't kill people. People who say "guns don't kill people" kill people.

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Guns don't kill people. People who say "guns don't kill people" kill people.

Guns don't kill people, NRA payola to slimy politicians kill people. 

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Democrats have a centrist view on immigration, similar to President Regan or Bush Sr. It's just a right-wing talking point that Democrats are pro open borders. This only became a big issue because the right radicalized. 

Libertarians are pro open border, they just have virtually no influence on the issue.

No, Democrats really have moved pretty far leftward on immigration over the past 8 years or so. Consider what the party's 2008 platform said on immigration:

Quote

We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law. We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence. We need to dismantle human smuggling organizations, combating the crime associated with this trade. We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally. And we need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It's a problem when we only enforce our laws against the immigrants themselves, with raids that are ineffective, tear apart families, and leave people detained without adequate access to counsel. We realize that employers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States, and we will ensure that our system is accurate, fair to legal workers, safeguards people's privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers.

Then look at what the party's 2016 platform said on immigration. The only times enforcement is mentioned at all are:

Quote

We believe immigration enforcement must be humane and consistent with our values. We should prioritize those who pose a threat to the safety of our communities, not hardworking families who are contributing to their communities. We will end raids and roundups of children and families, which unnecessarily sow fear in immigrant communities. We disfavor deportations of immigrants who served in our armed forces, and we want to create a faster path for such veterans to citizenship.

and

Quote

We will promote best practices among local law enforcement, in terms of how they collaborate with federal authorities, to ensure that they maintain and build trust between local law enforcement and the communities they serve. We will also vigorously oversee any programs put in place, to make sure that there are no abuses and no arbitrary deportation programs.

It's fine to think that the party is in a better place now on immigration, but it'd be wrong to say that there hasn't been a leftward shift.

[Martell Spy]

19 minutes ago, Fez said:

No, Democrats really have moved pretty far leftward on immigration over the past 8 years or so. Consider what the party's 2008 platform said on immigration:

Then look at what the party's 2016 platform said on immigration. The only times enforcement is mentioned at all are:

and

It's fine to think that the party is in a better place now on immigration, but it'd be wrong to say that there hasn't been a leftward shift.

There has never been actual open border policy by Dems though. Remember the Reagan amnesty? Not too far from Dem policies.