US Politics: Wondering the Acosta

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Triskele said:

snip

Well said, Monkey Man. My obsession is more specifically on winning back the Senate but I would happily attach my point of view to what you've written here.

 

Here comes Jace's Senate breakdown, as best as I can manage with the tools at my disposal. I'm taking a break from writing my novel about Gertrude Stein's reanimated corpse being a member of the Trump cabinet to do this so you bastards better be grateful! I'm using Morning Consult's data that can be found here if you wanna proof my work. It's one polling outlet and I'm one subjective analyst, take it for what it's worth. I'm operating under the (chosen delusion) that Democrats can tie Trump's unpopularity to Republican incumbents in vulnerable seats.

Here we go...

Alaska:

In the last Morning Consult post (just imagine that sentence at the start of every one of the following state breakdowns as well) conducted on the first of June, Donald has a 45% approval vs 43% disapproval. He hasn't cracked 50% approval in the state since November last, while disapproval has remained steadily in the 41 to 47 range for the last 2 years.

Dan Sullivan, incumbent Republican had a 38% approval vs 32% disapproval late last year.

Alaska looks like a place to try and get a push going to me. The small population could actually be a benefit to Democrats here as the margin for error that Republicans have to walk is razor thin. Depress the rural vote with non-stop ads about climate change and Donald's insanity on the subject and see if we can run up the few urban centers.

Alabama:

Is a loss, Trump is 24% above water there. Doug Jones, good job or whatever keeping the pedophile out of the Senate I guess.

Arizona:

Lookin' good. Donald is at 45% approval vs 52% disapproval, his numbers have been underwater there more or less (a few small lead changes for short spells) since mid-'17.

Martha McSally, incumbent Republican, was sitting dead even 35% approve and disapprove last checked. Recall that she lost the race last year to Krystine Sinema by about 2.4 percent but was reappointed to John McCain's vacated seat in a politically shrewd move.

Arizona has to be a win for Democrats. Nothing short of all-out war is acceptable in this new purple state. I'd love a 'tough on crime' sort who isn't a fascist to appeal to the suburbans who don't like seeing people get put in concentration camps but still have affluence-anxiety.

Arkansas:

Shockingly Trump's at just 51% approval in the state vs 45% disapprove. His approvals have been sort of lazily trending down for a long time now and the mid-40's has been pretty consistent for the disapproves. That's... almost... kinda viable. I'd love to see Democrats get a strong candidate in there and make Republicans play defense. I just don't see Arkansas going blue unless they really get hit with some fucked up weather (fingers crossed) and people drown en masse or something, but making Trump go to rallies down there would be a positive outcome. Biden is probably the only candidate who could actually carry the state, but I've made my feelings on that man clear.

Tom Cotton, incumbent Confederate, is basically untouchable with 48% approval vs 28% disapproval. We're not flipping that seat. Just making the Kochs spend money is the play.

Colorado:

The Donald is drowning in Colorado. 42% approval vs 55% and those numbers haven't changed beyond margin-of-error since '17. If Dem's can't carry Colorado and swipe the Senate seat then we nominated Marianne Williamson.

Cory Gardner, incumbent Republican, right next to McSally at 35% for and against. Again, though, if Trump's disapproval isn't enough to sink Gardner then Dem's done fucked up.

Delaware:

Is nowhere near as lopsided as I'd like. Only 44% approval to 53% disapprove, but if we lose this seat it's a rout.

Chris Coons, incumbent Democrat, is very popular in the state sitting at 52% approval to 29% disapproval.

Georgia:

Donnie dipshit is sitting at 48% vs 48% in Georgia, and he's basically been sliding between a few points above or under water since November last. I want Stacy Abrams to run for Senate so bad I can literally taste it, I know that having the Governorship stolen away probably broke her fucking heart. But goddammit Jace needs a hero.

David Perdue has a lot of support, he's sitting at 47% approval vs 29% disapproval, but dammit this is a state that needs to be fought for if only to make the Republicans defend another front. Kinda like the Germans getting the Young Turks to attack Russia. They didn't think the Ottoman Empire was gonna win them WWI, but it's one more region for the enemy to consider.

Idaho:

Our fearless leader's doing great here. 57% approval vs 39% disapproval. I wouldn't even run a candidate for Senate unless he (don't run a woman there) knew he was just cheer leading for whichever of the house districts are less unwinnable.

James Risch, incumbent Republican, is at 43% approval vs 29%.

Illinois:

Biggest margin so far! 38% approval vs 58% disapproval, those numbers have stayed consistent.

Tricky Dick Durbin isn't terribly popular, only 37% approval vs 35% disapproval, but this is as safe as we get.

Iowa:

God, but Iowa gives me hope. Donald's at 42% approval vs 55% disapproval and those numbers haven't changed since mid '17 except for a blip very early last year when the gap closed for a month then returned to roughly what it has been at otherwise.

Joni Ernst, incumbent Republican, is eminently vulnerable with 40% approval vs 37% disapproval. This seat must be flipped if our party has a viable future.

Kansas:

Almost looks tempting. 50% approval vs 47% disapproval. I don't trust Kansas as far as I could throw a nuke at it, but there's no incumbent and the economy has been in a shambles for fucking years so if there was any place to put $30 against and hope you're happy to lose money it'd be Kansas for my money. I feel like a candidate for Senate could write up some silly bill about empowering teacher's unions from the Federal level and get some traction.

Kentucky:

Irrelevant. Donald's at 56% approval vs 41% disapproval. They hate Mitchell but they'll reelect him. That fighter pilot lady is the best chance Dem's would get though so we've got that going.

Mitch has 36% approval vs 50% disapproval. I write that only as a completionist. Seriously, don't think they'd elect a Democrat.

Louisiana:

Similar story to Kentucky, 55% approval vs 41% disapproval. Not gonna get a flip here, but we can pray for deaths in this storm if you're feeling ambitious.

Bill Cassidey, incumbent Republican, is safely ensconced in power at 47% approval vs 29% disapproval.

Maine:

Is so frustrating. 43% approval vs 54% disapproval, but those people fucking love them some Susanne Collins for some reason.

She's at 52% approval vs 39% disapproval in one of the most mind-boggling states we have. I fucking hate Maine.

Massachusetts:

35% approval vs 62% disapproval.

Ed Markey, incumbent Democrat, is safe at 51% approval vs a comfortable 22% disapproval.

Michigan:

Just stay steady, Michigan. Stay stead! 40% approval vs 55% disapproval and those numbers have been very steady.

Gary Peters, incumbent Democrat, could be more secure at 33% approval vs 22% disapproval but if this is a loss then the Russians outright hacked the voting machines (probably for the 2nd time, I'll fucking say it).

Minnesota:

Looks safe at 41% approval vs 57% disapproval.

Incumbent Tina Smith has decent favorable. 42% approve vs 24% disapproval.

Mississippi:

Is red as red gets. 57% approval vs 39% disapproval.

Cindy Hyde-Smith, incumbent Republican, shouldn't give you false hope. She's even at 38% approval to 37% disapproval but that's because she's a woman not because they'll consider a Democrat.

Montana:

Is worth competing in. 52% approval vs 45% disapproval. This is another place where Democrats should go full-court press on the negative ads to try and depress turnout.

Steve Daines, incumbent Republican, is almost certainly not gonna lose. But it's worth a shot. He's at 44% approval vs 31% disapproval. Again, try to depress turnout and hope we get lucky.

Nebraska:

Is certainly tempting, with 49% approval vs 48% disapproval but it's not gonna go blue and Ben Sasse won't lose his seat.

Ben Sasse, incumbent Republican, is at 49% approval vs 27% disapproval. Sure, it could go blue in a blowout but this is primarily supposed to be about the Senate and that's not in play here.

New Hampshire:

37% approval vs 60% disapproval.

Jeaneen Saheen, incumbent Democrat, is very popular with 53% approval vs 32%

New Jersey:

41% approval vs 56% disapproval. Should be safe as long as Corey doesn't do something stupid.

Cory Booker, incumbent Democrat, is quite popular at 47% approval vs 33% disapproval.

New Mexico:

Looks almost blue with 40% approval vs 56% disapproval. Let's play good defense here.

Tom Udall is retiring from the seat.

North Carolina:

Is awfully exposed with Trump sitting at 47% approval vs 50% disapproval. These numbers have been super tight and flipping back and forth since August of '17. This is a state Democrats need a good showing in. I would hammer repeatedly the dirty tricks Republicans used to damage the governorship after the voters spoke and tried to steal the house seat.

Thom Tillis, incumbent Republican, is supremely vulnerable with 34% approval vs 33% disapproval. We need a good showing here and this seat could be won. Fuck, enough down ticket support and some voter suppression tactics could be combated to return the state to the purple status so many analysts thought it was going towards.

Oklahoma:

Trump sits at 54% approval vs 42% disapproval.

James Inhofe, incumbent Republican, won't lose this seat with 41% approval vs 29% disapproval.

Oregon:

39% approval vs 58% disapproval. Safe as they get.

Jeff Merkley,incumbent Democrat, is safe at 46% approval vs 28% disapproval.

Rhode Island:

38% approval vs 59% disapproval.

Jack Reed, incumbent Democrat, enjoys 49% approval rating vs 27% disapproval.

South Carolina:

Vaguely worth competing for presidential victory, as Trump has only 52% approval vs 44% disapproval.

Lindsay Graham, incumbent Republican, will not lose his seat though. 52% approval vs 31% of people who aren't sniveling lickspittle.
 

South Dakota:

Worth fighting for, at 50% approval vs 46% disapproval. There's been fluctuation over the course of his term, but it's stayed within striking distance and narrowed of late. Another place where just making R's play defense is a good play because...

Mike Rounds, incumbent Republican, has the highest approval rating in the open seats at 56% approval vs 28% disapproval. He won't lose his seat but we can hope to trap Trump into campaigning up there to save himself instead of protecting vulnerable Senators.

Tennessee:

57% approval vs 40% disapproval.

It doesn't matter who runs here, Democrats shouldn't waste their time with these fuckwits.

Texas:

The cocktease of the Liberal dreamer. Trump has a little cushion with 50% approval vs 46% disapproval, and those numbers have been relatively constant since summer of '17 but the fact that he'll have to campaign here is a win. It'd be nice if Beto wasn't torpedoing his own viability as a Senator when he could have a Presidential candidate to draft off of.

John Cornyn is very safe at 43% approval vs just 25% disapproval. All the more reason someone who performed well in the state like Beto should be doing the right thing and challenging him.

 Virginia:

I expect a strong Democratic presence to defend this small margin of 46% approval vs 50% disapproval, numbers that have barely budged in the last 2 years.

Mark Warner, incumbent Democrat, is a good champion with 48% approval vs 29% disapproval. As long as the candidate isn't a disaster I expect Virginia to stay blue but we'll need to fight for it.

West Virginia:

Not even worth competing in at 58% approval vs 39% disapproval.

Shelley Capito, incumbent Republican, sits at 48% approval to 30% disapproval.

Wyoming:

Not worth fighting for. Donald's at 59% approval vs 37% disapproval.

Michael Enzi, incumbent Republican, won't lose the seat with 52% approval vs 23% disapproval.

 

There it is, my breakdown. Hope you enjoyed it.

 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

PHILADELPHIA—One of the loudest and most sustained applause lines on the final day of the Netroots Nation conference came when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) pledged to investigate potential crimes committed against immigrants in the United States if she were in the White House. 

“To anyone out there who is working in this system,” she said to a packed ballroom inside the Pennsylvania Convention Center on Saturday. “Understand, you abuse immigrants, you physically abuse immigrants, you sexually abuse immigrants, you fail to get the medical care that they need, you break the law of the United States of America,” Warren said to a thunderous ovation.

 “And Donald Trump may be willing to look the other way, but President Elizabeth Warren will not. On my first day, I will empower a commission in the Department of Justice to investigate crimes committed by the United States against immigrants,” the Massachusetts Democrat told the presidential forum. 

 

Immigration Dominates Final Day of Netroots, Ahead of Planned ICE Raids
The presidential forum had few protests and a lot of agreement on one thing: The Trump administration must pay for its disastrous immigration policies.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/immigration-dominates-final-day-of-netroots-ahead-of-planned-ice-raids?ref=home1

[Jace, Extat]

15 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Immigration Dominates Final Day of Netroots, Ahead of Planned ICE Raids
The presidential forum had few protests and a lot of agreement on one thing: The Trump administration must pay for its disastrous immigration policies.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/immigration-dominates-final-day-of-netroots-ahead-of-planned-ice-raids?ref=home1

Now THAT, that, I can get behind a nominee saying. Simultaneously tears down Trump while implying adherence to the nebulous concept of 'law and order'. Damn fine statement.

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

link?

There are dozens, here's one- 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/tacoma-police-armed-man-throwing-incendiary-devices-shot-outside-ice-detention-center/

[Zorral]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/us/politics/2020-democrats-future-now-fund.html?

"Here’s One List Where Kirsten Gillibrand Is Winning and Kamala Harris Is Tied With Marianne Williamson

A study of the Democratic presidential contenders says Gillibrand, Warren and O’Rourke have done the most to help build the party by boosting state legislative candidates."

Probably no surprises as to who is on the top of the list and who is at the bottom.

 

Quote

 

The idea is that rebuilding the party nationally depends on the hard work of winning seats in state legislatures around the country. With that in mind, the two-year-old Future Now Fund, working with the progressive think tank Data for Progress, is trying to apply pressure to the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates by ranking them in terms of who is doing the most to help Democrats win state legislative races.

A ranking released Thursday shows that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas are currently the most engaged with candidates for state office. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are also ranked in the top 10.

Senator Kamala Harris of California is ranked in the bottom 10, according to the analysis, which has her slightly ahead of Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York and tied with the self-help author Marianne Williamson.

 

 

 

 

[Darzin]

7 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

A 68/69 year old anarchist in Tacoma Washington was shot and killed for torching the vehicles ICE is going to be using during their gestapo round ups. He didn’t shoot at the cops even though he was armed, but he was still killed, over property destruction. 

 

Its funny how every last militia fool that went on about gun rights because "when the government starts rounding people up in camps we'll need to fight back" is  cheering government jackbooted thugs on for shooting the one honest american who did precisely that. 

 

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

[Zorral]

13 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

Such deep thinking, such profound analysis, such brilliant interpretation, it's impossible to comprehend why there is no there there in them there words.

[DanteGabriel]

17 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

Do you have a firm idea of how immigration policy changed between Obama and Trump? Do you realize how much this is a "crisis" purely of Trump's manufacturing?

I get that there is a risk in Democrats going too far out over their skis in regard to immigration policy, but this post is a whole lot of both-sidesing and false equivalency and water carrying for the right wing view of immigration.

[maarsen]

17 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

"Open borders!"

Larry, my position on immigration since the '70's has been open borders. When people have the opportunity to vote with their feet, politicians' little hearts and minds will surely follow. 

[Bonnot OG]

46 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

Yes it’s wrong to enforce current immigration laws. They are not moral or ethical. Just because it is law doesn’t make it okay. Slavery was legal, the holocaust was legal, and helping people avoid either and or escape was considered illegal. 

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

There are dozens, here's one- 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/tacoma-police-armed-man-throwing-incendiary-devices-shot-outside-ice-detention-center/

He got killed for damaging vehicles. He did at least damage one vehicle ICE was gonna use today for sure. So good on him 

[Darzin]

51 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Do you have a firm idea of how immigration policy changed between Obama and Trump? Do you realize how much this is a "crisis" purely of Trump's manufacturing?

I get that there is a risk in Democrats going too far out over their skis in regard to immigration policy, but this post is a whole lot of both-sidesing and false equivalency and water carrying for the right wing view of immigration.

Yes I understand that, I understand Trump has made a lot of this, I understand the cruelty is the point, I understand Trump has made things deliberately worse, but this has led some democrats down the wrong path in that they are arguing against the existence of immigration enforcement not the inhuman way Trump is doing it. The poster I quoted called immigration raids fascist so I asked if Obama was one for presiding over it.

It's not both siding, I'm not saying democrats are equally as bad, I'm saying that the second a democrat is elected all those people calling deportation racist and fascist are going to not say a peep. So all those people telling Triskele and Jace that we can't take a harder line on immigration because of teh morals are wrong wrong wrong, because when a democrat is elected none of them will say a peep.

Now let me be clear is Trump a racist, yes absolutely, are the conditions in his camps deplorable absolutely, could he make them better but chooses not to yes absolutely, are ICE and CPBP deeply racist institutions that need reform yes absolutely, is it inherently racist to detain people who lack the proper documentation or legal right to be in a country? No, it isn't. So democrats should pass the bill to improve conditions and then lambast Trump when conditions don't improve. They can advocate for increased legal immigration with increased enforcement, which is incidentally what Trump ran on.  Except you know actually do it. Increasing the number of undocumented immigrants helps no one as it's just increasing a marginalized class, we should be for reducing that number and increasing legal immigration and border enforcement is part of that.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 7/12/2019 at 9:52 AM, Gertrude said:

As Trump was talking about what a great talent Acosta is, he added -

Who the fuck randomly points out someone's ethnicity when it doesn't have one single bit of relevance to the topic at hand? I mean, racists do, but Trump tells me he's the least racist person I know, so ...

I literally dropped my jaw when I heard him say that because who the fuck talks like that? Once again, it's the little things that sometimes gut-punches me all over again with this president. I'm numb to this big things like attacking free speech and threatening to resist lawful court rulings, but the little things can catch me off guard.

My interpretation of that is that Trump wanted to basically compliment Acosta by highlighting this aspect: Acosta was able to succeed despite being Hispanic. I would assume he was very much trying to appeal to this idea that, that it’s harder for people of his descent to get ahead, and people look at Acosta in a more sympathetic light. Despite his identity having totally nothing to do with what people criticizing him, and quite frankly if ever brought up in a discussion of liberal political figure no matter the circumstances  would be derided by Trump and his ilk as nothing more than SJW/PC/neo-Marxist pandering.

Like there are tens of thousands of posts on the internet  from the right actively defending Trump attacking 4 Congresswomen as not being real Americans by saying they should fix their own country, as totally not being xenophobic, because insert nonesense reason.

23 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

It's gonna be brutal, and billions-with-a-B of people will die. But when you consider that there are too many humans for this planet to properly support already... well nobody ever accused arithmetic of being compassionate and it's our own damn faults for letting it get to this point in the first place.

I find the idea of “the world just doesn’t  have enough resources” innately fascist quite frankly. The people discussed as being the root cause overpopulating the earth, are typically of the non-white, and/or poor variety. 

We do not lack for resources. Our means of distributing said resources is the problem. We don’t lack for housing in America for instance. It is fully in America’s ability to House 6 times the amount of homeless it has:https://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/

Nor do we lack for food:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/the-world-has-a-surplus-of-food-so-why-cant-we-eliminate-hunger/article34709360/

We could literally feed all of China for a year just on the surplus of food companies produce annually. A billion people or so dying literally won’t mean anything. People will be starving at the very best farcical scenario at the same rate they are now. 

21 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Let's look at it from a basic cost-benefit analysis. Democrats get almost 70 percent of Latino votes... why are we opening ourselves to attacks chasing a demographic that is already ours? Do you really think that promising healthcare for illegal immigrants is going to woo the kind of Latino voters who broke for Trump? It just don't make no sense, playa! I used to live in Texas, man. You'd be surprised how many Hispanic folks hate and sneer at undocumented immigrants, because they feel like they get a bad rap by association of skin color.

This has a modicum of truth. Too many Democrats conflate being Hispanic with being sympathetic to undocumented immigrants. Sort of a little benign form of racism. Just because they look the same doesn’t mean there’s going to be some deep sense of kinship between all non-white Hispanic Americans and Hispanic undocumented immigrants. 

Though, I do think you’re taking, the majority of the Hispanic community for granted. Many could, revolt to Trump. His popularity among them has only risen from the 28% support he got from 2016.https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/24/2020-hispanic-voters-donald-trump-225192

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Darzin said:

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

It could be fascism just to execute someone for property damage. We live in a country where we've given police free reign to execute us for whatever they want.

[Zorral]

Does anyone honestly believe that any of the Dems are actually advocating for no oversight, no regulation, no management open borders?????????  Really??????????????

We have to begin creating the many programs and systems to handle what is coming due to climate change, warlordism and capitalism's violence, to handle this humanely, with decency and some order.  Not to mention that this nation needs immigrants.

Handling it the way this criminal, deranged, ugly, disgusting insane, sadist and his enablers, the republicans, are handling it, is equally criminal, deranged, ugly, disgusting insane, and sadistic.  You know the end to this story -- it will be gas chambers and war.  And nobody gets out alive (relative speaking) from this one, not even North Americans.

So such questions are filled with the air of flatulence and bad breath, utterly lacking signification.

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Does anyone honestly believe that any of the Dems are actually advocating for no oversight, no regulation, no management open borders?????????  Really??????????????

We have to begin creating the many programs and systems to handle what is coming due to climate change, warlordism and capitalism's violence, to handle this humanely, with decency and some order.  Not to mention that this nation needs immigrants.

Handling it the way this criminal, deranged, ugly, disgusting insane, sadist and his enablers, the republicans, are handling it, is equally criminal, deranged, ugly, disgusting insane, and sadistic.  You know the end to this story -- it will be gas chambers and war.  And nobody gets out alive (relative speaking) from this one, not even North Americans.

So such questions are filled with the air of flatulence and bad breath, utterly lacking signification.

Who needs gas chambers when you can just over crowd the concentration camps & not feed or hydrate them & not bathe them? Let them die of malnutrition, dehydration & disease. All of this is intentionally done to inflict harm upon them and possibly kill them off. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Darzin said:

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

Re: the bolded, I think you'll find that several of us here, myself included, criticized Obama and his administration for many of the immigration and deportation policies during his tenure in office.

But there's a qualitative difference between Obama's deportation strategy and Trump's. Obama's administration mainly focused on deporting either newly arrived undocumented immigrants or those with criminal convictions or backgrounds (which I acknowledge is problematic because of the biased and often racist justice system in the U.S.).  While raids were carried out under his watch, his policies weren't as focused on the interior of the U.S., and weren't as focused on undocumented immigrants who had resided as law-abiding members of their communities for years.

Trump, however, has taken a more aggressive tack, and has threatened (and begun conducting) increased numbers of raids in the interior U.S., with no regard to the length of residency or the criminal history (or lack thereof), of the immigrants swept up in these raids.  He's also kicked into high gear the denaturalization of U.S. citizens.

Trump has also done away with the practice of releasing apprehended undocumented immigrants to await their hearing dates, and has vastly increased the practice of separating minor detainees from their parents (my Google-fu is failing me, but iirc, the practice used to be reserved mainly for instances where human trafficking was suspected, but Trump made that practice mandatory in all cases).  He also signed the EO abolishing DACA, which is a sharp and unnecessary departure from Obama-era policies.

The problem with Democrats isn't that they don't want to have immigration laws in effect or that they don't want to enforce immigration laws in general. Rather, it's that the immigration laws in effect right now are just bad laws. For example, the main reason in the past that undocumented immigrants have come to the U.S. is to find work. And the main reason they come as undocumented is because it's hard as fuck for an unskilled laborer to obtain a work visa to legally work in the U.S.

I realize these numbers are out of date, but here is a 2013 list of the number of work visas the U.S. issued that year. There are several different types of non-immigrant work visas the U.S. issues, but the 3 important numbers to take away from that list are: the total number of work or work-related visas issued (1.4 million) and the total number of H-2A and H-2B visas issued (~170,000). H-2A and H-2B visas are work visas issued to unskilled, seasonal workers for agricultural and non-agricultural (landscaping, resort workers, etc.) occupations, respectively.

So, nearly 90% of the work visas issued that year were to recipients with professional occupations, who are looking to invest in the U.S., who work for multi-national corporations and are transferred to the U.S., or who meet certain other criteria (high incomes or extensive assets, valuable skill-sets, etc.).

That's an inverted pyramid, because the vast majority of open occupations filled by undocumented immigrants are unskilled occupations, which are severely restricted. Many of those who come here to work seasonally would love to come and work the season, and then head back to their country at the end of the season and repeat the process each year. But they can't, because it's nearly impossible for them to procure an unskilled worker visa, so when they get here and find a job, it's easier for them to just stay in the U.S. than it is trying to cross back and forth each time the work season comes around. Bad law.

And the border crisis that's been ongoing has been mostly because of people coming to the U.S. to claim asylum, which is absolutely legal, even though the Trump administration has been treating them like criminals and worse. So that's not even about Democrats not enforcing immigration law; it's about them upholding both U.S. and international law.

But the sad fact of all this is that Trump has, by design, changed the nature of the conversation. Yes, the reports of children being abused are bad for him, but it's also changed the way Democrats are approaching the problem. When was the last time you heard Democrats talking about comprehensive immigration reform, or pathways to citizenship, or protecting Dreamers? 

No, now it's the idiot media asking Democratic primary candidates to raise their hands if they'll provide healthcare for undocumented immigrants, and the candidates falling into the stupidity trap. The question is poorly defined, ignores existing laws stating that absolutely anyone can receive medical treatment at an emergency room (EMTALA), and forces the candidates into territory where their responses can be easily misconstrued and manipulated, instead of letting them talk about issues where they're on much firmer footing with voters, like with comprehensive immigration reform and pathways to citizenship for Dreamers. It's all stupid, stupid, stupid and because the Democrats are stupid, they're falling into the trap that Trump and his ilk have set for them.

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, Darzin said:

Yes I understand that, I understand Trump has made a lot of this, I understand the cruelty is the point, I understand Trump has made things deliberately worse, but this has led some democrats down the wrong path in that they are arguing against the existence of immigration enforcement not the inhuman way Trump is doing it. The poster I quoted called immigration raids fascist so I asked if Obama was one for presiding over it.

It's not both siding, I'm not saying democrats are equally as bad, I'm saying that the second a democrat is elected all those people calling deportation racist and fascist are going to not say a peep. So all those people telling Triskele and Jace that we can't take a harder line on immigration because of teh morals are wrong wrong wrong, because when a democrat is elected none of them will say a peep.

Now let me be clear is Trump a racist, yes absolutely, are the conditions in his camps deplorable absolutely, could he make them better but chooses not to yes absolutely, are ICE and CPBP deeply racist institutions that need reform yes absolutely, is it inherently racist to detain people who lack the proper documentation or legal right to be in a country? No, it isn't. So democrats should pass the bill to improve conditions and then lambast Trump when conditions don't improve. They can advocate for increased legal immigration with increased enforcement, which is incidentally what Trump ran on.  Except you know actually do it. Increasing the number of undocumented immigrants helps no one as it's just increasing a marginalized class, we should be for reducing that number and increasing legal immigration and border enforcement is part of that.

Border enforcement is an inherently racist and xenophobic practice that is done by dehumanizing people. So no. We shouldn’t. Open borders, free movement for all. This shit is exactly why nation states are horrible. 

 

And none of what the GOP and Trump are doing is about enforcing borders. It’s about enforcing white supremacy. 

 

Trumps comments telling brown skinned US citizens to go back to their own countries is a good indication as to what is going on and where we are headed.

They’re going to kill dark skin people in masses. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

I find the idea of “the world just doesn’t  have enough resources” innately fascist quite frankly. The people discussed as being the root cause overpopulating the earth, are typically of the non-white, and/or poor variety. 

 

 

Welcome to Earth? There will be massive famines and droughts when global warming starts to really bite. The U.S. is in pretty good position to survive (can't wait until we start pumping the oceans to the inland seas that poor people are gonna dig in exchange for a food and water ration) but if you think a fucking ounce of wheat will go to India or China or Africa or South then you've never met an American. 

Sure, if we have the surplus there will be broad support for humanitarian aide where needed. And the other party will adopt a stance against it. Then gridlock. Then no humanitarian aide.

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Who needs gas chambers when you can just over crowd the concentration camps & not feed or hydrate them & not bathe them? Let them die of malnutrition, dehydration & disease. All of this is intentionally done to inflict harm upon them and possibly kill them off. 

Ya ... of course.  But even that is outright idiotic because you know sure as a mosquito is gonna plunge her probocis into your bare skin there is going to be an outbreak of contagious, epidemic disease.  It's not even impossible that one of them will be bubonic plague or ebolla.  The bubonic carriers are endemic in the southwest among underground dwellers such as prairie dogs. In any case, the list of such diseases is long, and will not be contained behind bars.

Most people in this country are so f*cking ignorant about everything it's reached basic rules of hygiene and sanitation -- thus the idiotic anti-vaxxers.  Just wait and see what happens when their kids die of measles and mumps that have gotten incubated in these camps.

This should be talked about by the Dems every single minute too.