Jump to content

Paladin of Ice

Members
  • Content count

    2,579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Paladin of Ice


  1. 2 hours ago, redriver said:

    Have you just given up?

    Jace armors herself in despair, so other sorrows, disappointments, or heartbreak cannot touch her.

    Kinda like the smart mouth kids who crack self-deprecating jokes before their bullies can abuse them, leaving the bullies with no new way of getting to them.

    2 hours ago, redriver said:

    From an overseas perspective it seems like all these legal/quasi legal affronts keep piling up yet no one acts.

    Does someone like Pelosi wait for a critical mass of such to accrue or is she waiting for a real killer own goal?

    I get that most of this stuff appeals to his base and therefore has political worth for him, but Jesus he must have wandered into illegality enough times to impeach?

    Pelosi and older Democrats are terrified that an attempt to attack Trump via impeachment will only rally both his own backers and the people who choose to mostly remain uninformed and uninvolved except during presidential elections. They're afraid these people, who often lean somewhat conservative, but will vote reflexively against whoever is changing what they're used to in US politics/culture, will then stop seeing Trump as the disruption/source of corruption and see Democrats as simply trying to cast out Trump, and turn this into yet another false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans.

    They also know impeaching Trump is impossible, as you need 2/3 of senators to vote in favor of impeachment, which would mean getting 20 Republican senators to vote on their side, something which is not going to happen. So these Democrats are basically focused on trying to keep a spotlight on Trump's corruption and incompetence, without doing anything to turn the public against them.

    That generation of Democrats is not willing to gamble on the idea that an impeachment proceeding may shift the public to their side, as they remember how people turned against the Clinton impeachment effort and are prone to assuming the general public is more conservative than they are. (Studies show Democrats in politics often overestimate the support on the sides of Republicans by about 10%, so basically when the population is split 50/50 on Dem vs Republican, political Democrats tend to see that as 60/40 in favor of Republicans, as a for example. Those same studies say that Republicans are much more extreme in overestimating their support [think 20-25% or more]  and they really run with it.)

    Whether they can keep up this pattern given how Trump's reckless lawlessness is picking up momentum and becoming more brazen is the big question. Because a lot of people are starting to feel like we can't wait another year and change of letting him and his enablers run roughshod all over the country and the law.


  2. 21 minutes ago, Ordos said:

    Could somebody explain to me a story that's been going around the news lately?

    So I've been hearing the terms Ukraine, whistle blower and Biden thrown together in a story that I have not grasped what's going on.

    I've heard suggestions on the American right about opening up investigations against Joe Biden for this issue while those on the progressive side are saying there should be consequences on Trump for raising this issue to begin with.

    OR am I getting two unrelated news stories mixed up here? 

    Biden's son Hunter did business in Ukraine in the past, (working for a gas company or something, IIRC) back when it was led by a corrupt Russian puppet and had a culture of corruption.

    Ever since Biden announced his bid for the presidency there have been rumors that Trump and company were trying to push Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden to use against him. The newest breaking story is that an Intelligence official turned whistleblower and reported it because Trump more or less directly told Ukraine's new president that Trump would refuse to turn over the military aid and goods that had been purchased unless Ukraine gave him something to use against Biden. (Presumably made up shit would suffice.) If Ukraine doesn't do that, they can say goodbye to the supplies they need to keep Russian forces and separatists from breaking off more of their country.

    So you have a president trying to extort and essentially blackmail a foreign leader into interfering in U.S. politics/elections, while saying that America will refuse to follow through on the commitments it made to other countries or the fact that Congress passed that and the president isn't supposed to be able to effect it at all besides vetoing it or deciding how to carry it out.

    Republicans are muddying the waters by trying to throw the whole thing onto the Biden family, because I guess if Hunter Biden engaged in the culture of corruption that was endemic in Ukraine that would be be bad for Joe... somehow. Or they're trying to suggest that Joe was connected to all of that even though reviews at the time showed that there was no improper action or contacts between Joe and Hunter. But they gotta deflect somehow, and try to turn it around on someone else.

    ETA: Oh, and the report of exactly what the whistleblower said has been kept form Congress, even though the law says, plainly and unambiguously, that it needs to be turned over to Congress for oversight reasons should the Inspector General deem that it is legit and serious, which the IG has done and signed off on. Judging by statements made, this is being done at the insistence of Trump and Attorney General Barr, again despite the law and despite both Trump and Giuliani pretty much admitting to the call having happened. (After they denied it first, of course.)


  3. 15 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

    Fucking hell could Warren or Sanders just say "taxes will go up but savings on healthcare will go up to the point that middle class families are saving money"

    They’re probably trying to avoid the right wing media taking that statement and putting it in a commercial as just “Taxes will go up!”

    It’s a rather small minority of people that pay attention to news/politics all the time and will actually know or go out to learn the nuance and truth in those things, or even know what Medicare for all means. Most Americans are so disconnected from the workings of any true universal healthcare system that they imagine they’ll still need to pay insurance premiums and that their taxes will go up on top of that. Warren and, to a lesser extent, Sanders, don’t want to hand ammunition to the Right that will be used to confirm that misinformation and misunderstandings.


  4. 6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

    If someone is fleeing from a Central American country in fear of his life, he has reached safety when he crossed into Mexico. 

    If he continues through Mexico to try and get into the US, he is doing it for economic opportunity, not to escape persecution. He is therefore an economic migrant not an asylum seeker.

    Pretty simple. Unless you believe people should have free movement to work wherever the best economic opportunities are located. But that is not what asylum laws are for.

    Mexico isn’t a very safe country for Mexicans. Why, exactly, is it safe for Guatemalans, or Hondurans, or -insert random Central American nationality here-?

    Especially when their status, lack of connections, and attempts to travel make them uniquely targetable for organized crime cartels to exploit, or traffick, etc.? Or has the dipshit right already forgotten how they were pretending to be so concerned about human trafficking of Central American refugees just a few months ago?


  5. 1 hour ago, dornishpen said:

    Eugenics was always disgusting, including in an American context. It involved force and deception in sterilizations. It was extremely racist, classist and ableist. It led to one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time (certainly top 5), Buck v. Bell (1927) which has never been overturned and has the disgusting sentiment "three generations of imbeciles are enough" about Carrie Buck, her mother and daughter and Carrie Buck herself likely had a normal level of intelligence. Frankly defending this is either a sign of ignorance or abhorrent morals.

    Lets not forget that it went on long after the end of the Nazis and WWII as well. People in the Carolinas and a few other states were being sterilized without their knowledge as late as the 70s. These people only found out about it when they went to have kids and tried to figure why it wasn't working,

    and found out doctors had sterilized them all as kids because they had a mentally challenged cousin, were an unwed mother, or the state decided it didn't want any more hispanics running around.

    No, I'm not making any of that up.

    Eugenics in inherently a horror show. Anybody who wants to defend can go fuck themselves.

    This is at least a major shot across the bow, if not the start of a major shit storm: San Francisco designates the NRA a domestic terrorist organization. As much as the NRA organization is a cult made up of a bunch of fascist wannabes, (remember Dana Loesch and "the clenched fist of truth"?) San Fran might be reaching a little with this one. And I'm sure there's going to be massive blowback from the right because of it. Still, I think they need a nod of respect for being willing to call the NRA out and give them a kick that they're terribly overdue for.

    Quote

    The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution Tuesday declaring the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization” and urging the city to examine its financial relationships with companies that do business with the group.

    The sharply worded declaration noted recent acts of gun violence, including the July shooting that killed three people, all younger than 26, at a food festival in Gilroy, Calif., south of San Francisco.

    “The National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence,” it read. “The National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence, and … the leadership of National Rifle Association promotes extremist positions, in defiance of the views of a majority of its membership and the public, and undermine the general welfare.”

    The resolution, adopted unanimously by the board’s 11 supervisors, notes many of the statistics that make the United States stand out in terms of gun violence, stating that the country’s gun homicide rate is “25 times higher than any other high-income country in the world” and that 36,000 people in the United States die in gun-related incidents every year, an average of 100 per day.

    It also said the city would assess its financial and contractual relationships with vendors that do business with the NRA.

    “The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization,” it noted.

     


  6. A map blatantly altered with black sharpie lines, while the original lines showing the course of the hurricane are white. Also being obviously the wrong size, showing the potential course of the storm suddenly narrowing in the area with the black lines. Just in case the lie wasn’t already obvious enough.

    By the way, 20 minutes after Trump first mentioned Alabama, the National Weather Service specifically said he was wrong to prevent panic. Also, falsifying a map and info from NWS is a crime, so add that to the list.

    WaPo link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/09/04/president-trump-shows-doctored-hurricane-chart-was-it-cover-up-alabama-twitter-flub/

     


  7. 21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

     It's about knowing your classics:

    If "self-defense" is a "natural right," then it is "God-given" and sacred and government can only protect it, not infringe upon it.

    Of course the "state of nature" as defined by Locke & others is a fiction and natural rights too. But they may be seen as a pleasant fiction in some respects.

    The only self defense tools God gave people was our brains and bodies. Defend yourself that way. Unless the bible thumpers want to say that God's tools aren't good enough and want to rely on ones that are man made as opposed to those that God blessed them with...

    [/mild trolling]


  8. 2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

    I think those most seriously impacted by this would be immigrant US service members. If they aren't citizens, and their children aren't considered to be residing in the US for their birth, then they're kids are pretty much screwed on the citizenship thing aren't they? Combined with recent deportation of military veterans and military spouses this paints a grim picture in my mind.

    I found myself turning the whole thing around in my head during a quiet few minutes at and started wondering if they were the target of this... quite a few immigrants enlist to help with the naturalization process, and I’ve occasionally read the alt/racist right making resentful and/or disgusted comments about immigrants who go into the military, equating them with mercenaries and saying that we need them in the military at all is a sign of American softness and decadence. (I find them referring to immigrants and permanent residents as mercenaries like it’s a bad thing is ironic, since I also sometimes read them proclaiming their love for the stereotypical merc: no conscience, no qualms, no laws of war, carries out whatever morally lacking orders they’re given without question, etc.)

    We’ve seen in the past that Republicans are plenty willing to turn on servicemen and women in a heartbeat under the right conditions, (see the gay serviceman relentlessly booed and heckled at a Romney rally when he mentioned his service and his orientation) it wouldn’t surprise me if this comes from a very similar place as the family separation policy: close down an avenue meant to help immigrants by threatening their families.

    1 hour ago, Zorral said:

    Nobody is talking conspiracy at all -- except you.  As even written about today -- nothing as a conspiracy, but a reaction of KG's, however, perhaps, well meaning and sincere, but, it did create the result of taking Franken off the political board.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-running-to-win-women-didnt-work-for-gillibrand/

     

    Apologies, your prior post about how she’d already played her part by getting Franken out of the way for Democrats and bedbugs sounded like some conspiracy theory where the party/party leadership wanted Franken out of the way and Gillibrand took point on the effort to push him out or something along those lines.


  9. 3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

    The next step for this government, and they will start very soon I think, is to start stripping citizenship from citizens and deporting them. 

    Oh, the beginnings of that got started awhile ago, at least for naturalized citizens (in non-US speak, immigrants who've become citizens) and Stephen Miller and company definitely have their eyes on doing this to permanent residents. (The idea of deporting people for using public benefits, including to help pay for healthcare, which the law of the ACA required them to do... I bet that nasty xenophobic little creep Miller thought the idea was so clever that he hugged himself when he had it.)


  10. 2 hours ago, Zorral said:

    Ya, her work was done.  She cleared Al Franken out of the way for both the Dems and bedbugs.

    So how many conspiracy theories are there that Al Franken was the one true left wing messiah who was going to put an end to the evulz establishment if only he became president?

    Cause I can see some reason why there are ones about screwing with Bernie. Or trying to resist the changes Warren wants to make. Or the transfer of power to members of younger generations, whether we're talking Gen X (Booker, Harris, Pressley, Tlaib) or millenial (Mayor Pete, Ilhan Omar, AOC) but a conspiracy theory that everything that happened with Franken was a conspiracy encouraged among Democrats to protect the centrists from Franken has always struck me as a singularly underwhelming conspiracy theory.


  11. 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

    Thankfully, it looks like the worst of Dorian is passing between Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.  We just get to have fun early next week.

    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at5+shtml/174436.shtml?cone#contents

    I do wonder how many Trump fans in the southeastern states are aware about their favorite president moving money from disaster relief/aid to the wall budget. ($270+ million, according to one story I read) If we get a rough hurricane season like the last few, I also wonder if there’ll be people spending extra weeks sleeping in a school gymnasium somewhere due to that, and whether they would care.


  12. 13 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

    a conservative writer who calls himself a "free speech absolutist" and wrote about the need for discomfort in discussions threw a hissy-fit over a gentle insult and tried to get the guy in trouble with his boss.

    No, no, no. This is a common misconception. See, when people who want to ask the Hard QuestionsTM say they need to be able to ask uncomfortable questions, they mean something that is uncomfortable for people that aren't them. Questions like "Why are all non-Christian religions wrong?", "Why are all Muslim men vicious misogynists?" "Why are black people less intelligent?" "Why do immigrants always make the land they immigrate to worse than it was before?"

    Hard QuestionsTM are not supposed to be directed at the person asking them, or any group that they are part of or identify with. Such questions are not to be answered, but to be reacted to with anger and derision, because they would be of course not be true Hard QuestionsTM, but liberal propaganda and such. These False Questions must not be entertained, acknowledged, (beyond strawmanning and possibly ridiculing them) or treated in any way as though they are veritable or legitimate Hard QuestionsTM.

    Astute readers may have noted that the actual Hard QuestionsTM listed above were decidedly not open ended questions. This is because true Hard QuestionsTM are not really about questions, but merely a means of expressing what the questioner already knows. There is (of course) no chance that the questioner is wrong about any of his knowledge, (and it's always a he, women are incapable of asking Hard QuestionsTM due to biological differences) the Questions are merely a tool to get other, less intelligent or enlightened people to be made aware of the knowledge that the questioner has and to be brought around to the proper way of thinking.


  13. 1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

    I think Tulsi Gabbard really hit her hard on her questionable practices as a prosecutor and AG. I really think this hurt Harris in that she couldn't truly rebut it, which is honestly shocking, these narratives have been out there for a bit. She had to know they were coming sooner or later, and you'd think she might have a succinct, clear answer to it. Or maybe it's just indefensible. (To me it is)

    Yeah, at the time I saw people comparing it to a boxer with a glass jaw, or arguing that while a prosecutor is damn good at making the arguments they want to make, they’re all offense, no defense. Put them on the back foot or hit them with a surprise and some have trouble adjusting or changing the argument that they were making.


  14. 14 hours ago, Triskele said:

    What are the theories on why Harris has had such a collapse?  Any analysis on where some of the polling that was behind her has gone?  

    Harris had a bad second debate and was left floundering with no good answers when people started turning around and questioning her about her record. She hasn’t done much of anything since to put herself above the pack, so that’s all that really needs to be said about why her numbers have dropped.

    As for where her supporters have gone, I’d suspect some to Biden, some to various other candidates who’ve seen their support rise slightly since the debate, and some probably went to Warren. A lot of Warren people were listing Harris as their second choice, maybe some who had been starting to consider Harris a possible first choice after the first debate went back to the Warren camp after the second.

    Where they went is purely supposition, aside from the bit about Warren supporters listing Harris as their second choice. I wonder how many people who have Harris as their first choice had Warren as their second choice.


  15. Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer who fatally choked Eric Garner to death five years ago, has officially been fired from the NYPD by the police commissioner. The decision also strips Pantaleo of his pension, so he gets no parachute to fall back on.

    https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/19/20812386/daniel-pantaleo-fired-eric-garner-chokehold

    While I thought that the decision was leaning against Pantaleo after the official review and administrative court case, I’m a little surprised that the hammer came down so hard on him. I thought he might be given some last minute chance to resign or otherwise save face.

    A little takeaway for me is that the fact that Pantaleo didn’t spend 2 or 3 years saving every dime, get himself a job in a different police department or security gig or something says a lot about how much he, and likely other cops, see themselves as immune/protected from consequences for what they do.


  16. On 8/13/2019 at 4:00 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    “Give me your rich and powerful, and preferably white, masses huddled in first class waiting to be free”

    It says something about  Cuccinelli when he argues this policy isn’t prejudiced because it’s been around for 140 years while at the same time  wax poetically that his grandfather was an immigrant.

    This policy was exactly for those like Cuccinelli’s grandfather. Back then it was the “ savage”Irish, and ”Dagos” that needed to be stopped from coming here. Now it’s Mexicans and Latin Americans. 

     

    Yeah, 100%. My mother's family immigrated from Italy when she was just a couple of years old. They were ambiguously dark skinned people (there's a whole group of my cousins who would have been thrown right to the back of the bus in the old days) who came from the most backwater of backwaters in Italy, (we're talking an island of fishermen and goat herders where less than 300 people live year round) speaking no English, with no advanced skills that would win points in a merit based immigration system. They were seen as criminals and thugs, and the ones that weren't crooks were only good for blue collar labor, which only drove down the pay of "real Americans".

    Knowing that there is a group of my cousins out in Long Island who love Trump and cheer him on as he persecutes dark skinned immigrants coming from backwater areas because they don't speak English and have no advanced skills, talking about how "those people" bring crime and drive down wages, and that they see absolutely no conflict there, infuriates me to no end.


  17. 29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    If you want to flip Texas, register Latinos and minorities more generally by showing them images of the kids in cages and make the mental link that that’s because of Trump and Republicans in general. That’s more important than just mindlessly dumping money on the state.

    My opinion as a New Yorker with limited knowledge of Texas:

    Voter registration, hell yes. But the cages and immigration issues cannot be the only issues relied on to reach and fuel the voter mobilization. I’ve seen and heard many, many times over the years (including in these threads) how frustrated Latinx voters get when Democrats and Liberals get when we make the mistake of acting like immigration is the only issue that matters to them.

     If you think otherwise, you’re seriously underestimating the ability of people to “other” different groups of people, even ones who look very much like themselves and come from a similar background. I can also point you in the direction of many Hispanic advocacy groups and Texas Hispanics who are conservative Dems that will echo those points.


  18. I’ve been waiting and waiting for Booker to get a bigger profile in this race, from the start I thought he would be one of the few that matters in the end and I’ve consistently had him in my second tier of candidates. (First tier is reserved for Elizabeth Warren only.) Especially considering that he was a somewhat notorious media hound in NJ, the fact that he’s been flying quietly under the radar, (aside from some exchanges with Biden) was outright baffling to me for a long time.

     I did hear a few weeks ago that Booker has been going all in on the early states in terms of doing retail politics, that a year before the early primaries he was already spending every hour he could going door to door and giving talks in coffee shops to try to get word of mouth going. He explicitly compared it to his first local city council race, where he was the challenger against a better known and funded incumbent, and saying how he had to be on the grind shaking hands, listening to issues, etc. months before the incumbent even began campaigning. That let him slowly build his name and build buzz until the people in the area actually saw him as a credible challenger, whereas if he didn’t have that head start he’d just be the guy they didn’t know who was challenging the guy they did know, and most times that gets you nowhere.

    On one hand I see the sense of that, you can go into primaries with no buzz, but if you score a surprise victory or do significantly better than expected, the buzz will create itself around you. If you come in with tons of media buzz but lose or do worse than expected, you’ll just be yesterday’s headline, (which is worth somewhere between zero and nothing) and you’ll suddenly have a big hole that you’ll need to climb out of.

    Still a risky as hell strategy though, because it’s kinda all or nothing. If you don’t have the media buzz and don’t pull off an upset showing, you’re essentially left with nothing at all.

    8 hours ago, Triskele said:

    Why is Booker not more popular?  It makes no sense to me. 

    I think he's almost the perfect thread-the-needle of progressive versus pragmatic, right in his prime, and totally capable of beating Trump.   

    I'm aware of some of the nitpicks like the authenticity thing.  But all of these candidates have something like that.  As Rick Pitino said, Barack Obama is not walking through that door.  I think that Booker's positives are high and his ceiling is high and his negatives have been oversold.  

     


  19. 51 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

     

    Actually now that I think about it one of the women should go ahead and get "Shut Him Up!" trademarked, before he uses it on them.

    I think this one has a much better chance of being viewed favorably without falling into the inevitable "BOTH SIDES!!!111!!!111!" crap if you use "Lock him up" or "Send him home". Because just about everyone who isn't a Republican does want Donny to shut up.


  20. 9 hours ago, a good and nice guy said:

    well, maybe they haven’t killed anyone, but antifa have grievously injured some people like andy ngo, who they hit in the head with a frying pan so hard his head became pan shaped, and his eye balls popped out of his head and rolled around on the ground, all while little birds circled his head. where do you draw the line?

    I love the right wing lie that left wing groups aren’t just throwing milkshakes at right wing politicians or figures, but that mixed into the milkshake is quick drying cement so that they can hurt or kill people. (See here for example.)

    This ignores, of course, the fact that sugar prevents cement from setting, as a simple google search or having ever worked in construction can tell you. So unless it’s a milkshake with zero sugar, it’s not ever going to turn into cement.

    Not that this has stopped the lie from being a right wing meme, or stopped it from being used to further radicalize the Right.


  21. On 7/9/2019 at 10:47 PM, Triskele said:

    I thought it might be fun as well as interesting to do a straw poll of sorts where people state, at this early moment in the process, which candidate they're for if they had to choose right now.

    I'm strongly for Warren at this point, and right now it would take something pretty big to change my mind. Come the general election, of course, I'll vote for whoever is the nominee.In terms of favorites I tend to think of it in tiers, so Warren is the only top tier candidate, next one contains a couple of decent contenders like Harris, Booker, and maybe Castro.

    Below that is Sanders, who I was behind for quite awhile in 2016 but I slowly soured on him over the course of the primary. Below that is Biden.

    Then come all the also rans like Inslee, Bullock, and Hickenlooper, who I honestly don't think are worthy of contemplating, because their chances are 0. I've got nothing against them, but it ain't gonna happen, and I hope they all get it through their heads and drop out soon. I'd put "Mayor Pete" in that same tier, he's honestly a net "Meh" from me, since every time I hear something good about him or he does something I like, he doesn't something bad to balance it out. I think he has no business being in this. O'Rourke also falls into the category of not really worth discussing, as he's already shown himself to be an empty suit who's not to be up to the task and is in the middle of torpedoing his own campaign.

    Bottom tier basically consists of Seth Moulton, Williamson, (even if she wasn't completely off her rocker, she's an anti-vaxxer and I'm a medical technician, so that's an automatic "FUCK NO!!!" from me) and Tulsi Gabbard, who can fuck right off.


  22. 6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

    I think, at present, a great many people have failed to grasp just how massive and ugly this refugee crisis is going to get over the next decade or two.  Tens of millions of refugees seeking legal or illegal entry to the US each year might be enough to force a rethink on immigration and the wall.

    More or less nasty than the apocalyptic predictions we were hearing from you over a dozen years ago about how society was on the edge of imminent collapse because oil was running out?

    Honestly, a major migratory issue could be on the way, but there are so many moving parts at work, (how are the effects of climate change actually going to play out, what is going to be the political and social situations in Central American countries with crime, corruption, politics, etc.) that trying to predict it ahead of time is a fool's game. I don't trust anyone to be clairvoyant enough to accurately foresee the outcome of it all.

    Personally, I think if a major migration crisis comes to pass trying to resist it will be counterproductive and futile, (as it is now, every time Trump says he's going to get real tough on closing the border or building the wall, smugglers turn around and tell migrants and refugees "See, you gotta get across the border now before they put this change into effect!" which is one of the reasons why we're seeing a big increase in border crossings) I'd rather welcome them in and legally put them to work.

    Unfortunately, I don't know how you sell such a policy to the country, all too many of whom are threatened by immigrants who have a darker skin tone and don't speak English as their first language, so much so that people will simultaneously believe that immigrants are stealing their jobs and are too lazy to work without seeing the contradiction inherent there.


  23. On 6/16/2019 at 11:43 PM, Triskele said:

    Indeed, what is the Dems platform going to be?  This will be a huge campaign issue both because Trump will make it one as part of his MAGA and because it's a legit issue in its own right.  I cannot imagine that open borders is the position (though Trump will probably paint whichever Dem's position as such no matter what).  

    Predictions:

    saying family separation is inhumane and that we have a system of laws for handling immigrants seeking assylum

    But as you say, this actually has blown up.  Way more people are trying to come than ever, and it seems like the Dem is going to have to have some clearer message on this.  Even if Trump doesn't have a solution he at least has a message that works for his base.

    I think turning Trump's handling of immigration into a weakness may be easier than a lot of people think. Just keep beating him over the head with the fact that border crossings have skyrocketed since he took over and changed approach.

    Unfortunately, I also think that with the average American, (who is none too kindly disposed towards immigration) the only you can sell what I feel is the right policy (use aid and careful oversight to try to get Central America on its feet) is with some really unsavory sales marketing. Something along the lines of "Trump blew up aid to Central America and they all wanted to come here to get away from the hell hole their countries became! At least before that things were manageable! Lets throw some money at them so they stay over there instead of coming here!"

    It's certainly not my ideal solution, I'd rather welcome people in and put 'em to work legally, but a policy that embraced such an idea would raise the hackles of both the rabidly anti-brown immigrant Right, and the general low info voter who only votes as a reaction to what has happened since the last election.


  24. 2 hours ago, Mr. Fancy Pants said:

    Biden is a treasure trove of awful, terrible, disastrous ideas. And he's the front runner.

    US politics is dominated by awful ideas, and has been for a long, long time. Biden just represents us getting back to the normal of terrible ideas instead of policy being decided by a hate filled, tantrum throwing baby intent on flinging his crap at everyone and everything around.

    And a large, perhaps overwhelming portion of electorate wants nothing more than to get back to normal. Cause you know, once we get back to normal we can all take a breath and stop worrying about or paying attention to the state of politics or our country. It's not like normal was slowly killing us, stripping us of our rights, or leaving us trapped in lives of quiet desperation or anything.

    And okay, even if it was, it's a hell of a lot less threatening than change. Or those goddamn atheist socialists that are going to throw everyone who ever owned a gun in a FEMA camp or whatever other drivel is the favorite bullshit of right wing conspiracy theorists this hour.


  25. 30 minutes ago, Zorral said:

    Perhaps the same question could be asked of you, based on your responses, particularly the incredibly racist and lame bit about there aren't that many black women who vote.  You know nothing about this country and who is getting things done everywhere to say such a stupid thing.

    Or here’s a radical thought: black women can be really kickass at getting things done and be the most dependable Democratic voters, but not have the sheer numbers to decide a national presidential election. (What with African Americans making up roughly 12% of the population and, y’know not being a monolith, plus some who either don’t vote at all or are being disenfranchised from voting, etc.)

    Not being needlessly insulting and rude is also an idea that might be worth embracing.

×