i explained exactly how GOP immigration policy is based on racism, several times now. in the very post you quoted, i explained the racist roots of GOP immigration policy.Originally Posted by pbjosh
a zero tolerance policy is changing the enforcement policy. im glad we now agree that trump changed enforcement policy.
the TSI has not increased.
Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-20-2018 at 09:37 AM.
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
Trump is now trying to change immigration enforcement such that people attempting to seek asylum can't unless they travel through a port. What is the positive spin on that? Also, I miss the q&a with docwho. I feel like some of his questions about pre-trial detention need further expansion and clarification.
no, no racism here. lol
not written by me, but an excellent summation of the state of the republican party:
Things like support for the military/vets, small government, fiscal responsibility, etc. were things that were paid lip service for decades. Maybe some in the party (meaning politicians/party operatives, not voters) really believed in these things, and certainly the lip service helped secure support of R voters who belive in those things and needed that verneer to justify ignoring the other aspects of the party. So we all have this idea that it's going to hurt Trump to bash the troops and blow up the deficit because for decades that's been what the GOP claims to care about.
But for his base, for the people who actually vote for Trump? Those things have apparently never been more than a fashion accessory. A thing to identify you as a member of the right team. Their real motivations have been, for as long as I've been paying attention, exactly what we see on display so overtly these days - xenophobia, racism, religion (of a very specific variety), authoritarianism, and hate.
That may be why Trump doesn't seem to me to be much of a departure from the GOP of the past - those were always my fundamental issues with the GOP. The other stuff? They were never really distinguishing factors anyway. It was never true that liberals didn't support the military/vets. It was never true that we want big government (we want functional government), etc. These were never controversial to me, they were just things the right would lie about to maintain that verneer and pull in R voters who actually care about those things. They never seemed like actual differences between us, so their loss of prominence doesn't matter much to my perception.
I'm sure it seems vastly different if you (the general you, not a specific person) were one of those rational R voters who focused on those "traditional" R values of economics and support for vets, and assumed they were core party values, that the other stuff was just noise or unfounded accusations by us uncivil, mean liberals. To you, abandoning those principles is antithetical to the R core; but that's only because you yourself are rational and not a shitty person. You, unfortunately, don't represent a controlling majority of the party. As it turns out, the actual party base is what we've been saying it is for decades.
Bashing vets won't hurt him because his supporters are no longer required to put on the sherade. Trump gives them what they really want - what I've always seen them to want - without asking them to pretend to care about anything else. They don't have to be "pc" anymore. They can "tell it like it is".
Those who still care about cuck nerd stuff? Like respect for the troops and the office of the president? Like democratic institutions, economic responsibility, and the constitution? You've lost your party, if you ever had it in the first place, and that's terrible for all of us.
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
What do you need further expansion/clarification on?
Kinetic Paintball
Owner
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018...dlanders-intl/
Remarkably coincidental to conversations about race. And I think really gets at the issue of Trump as racist while hiding behind victimhood.*There is a certain sense amongst certain sectors of historical white societies, that those societies are being diluted. That those societies are being diluted on other people*s terms,* he says.
*When you use terms like *diluted* I think Nazism,* I interject.
*I think eugenics. I think of all these horrible things from the past. Why is being *diluted* a problem?* I ask.
*No, David, that*s neurotic. The societies are, in demographic terms, being diluted.*
Saying that our society is being diluted by integration is straight up disgusting.
- - - Updated - - -
I was hoping they would answer your last few questions - let me go back and find them to bring them to the front.
Irony responded to the first question, but you found his response lacking. I would agree. No one responded to these second two questions, and I'd like to circle back to that part of the discussion. Is that being suggested?
And then all of this, which had responses but ended with your question, "Have we not been talking about pre-trial detainment?"
Because I thought we were talking about pre-trial detainment, and am very lost about the responses from Irony and Josh.
EDIT: Perhaps I phrased this all wrong. I liked the questions. I really can't follow where the answers are going. I think it's a worthwhile conversation to continue.
Last edited by Unfated33; 11-20-2018 at 11:44 AM.
That makes sense. During the Bush administration most of the people crossing the border were young men looking for work, over 90%. In the last decade this changed to families crossing the border, an increase to nearly 50%. What also happened with the people traveling across the border stopped running from border patrol, and started running to them, knowing that if they seek asylum that they we be allowed entrance and a trial. This is directing them to the ports to properly enter the country at a port and legally seek asylum instead of just crossing at a random border crossing. Interestingly, a lot of countries deny asylum unless you cross at a port. Some jail you directly for months, as I have pointed out, before your trial.Trump is now trying to change immigration enforcement such that people attempting to seek asylum can't unless they travel through a port.
Should we let people just come across where ever they feel like it declare we need to take care of them while they seek asylum? This is 40,000 people a month. Go to the friggen port. If I crawled up on the coast of Britain, begging for asylum, even with my passport in hand, do you think they are going not arrest me? But, if I go to a port, well...
Obama actually put the policy in practice as a deterrent to families, so they would not attempt to cross the border in the first place. I am not suggesting but informing people that the policy that is there is one put in place for exactly that reason, by Obama. Again, this happened because of the change in the dynamics of the people crossing, and also is why he increased the funding 3600%, to help accommodate people seeking asylum.Also, can you explain how you see the EO as solving a moral problem? Are you suggesting that a "zero tolerance policy" is preferred because it will discourage people from attempting to cross the border with their kids thus stopping the separation of families?
To speed up the process Trump added more judges and facilities, and to deter more people he raised the rate of enforcement of existing laws and rules. Same playbook, more resources, tougher enforcement. No matter that Gordon says, that is the fact of the matter.
Gordon is conflating the problem with Pre-trial detainment with a Zero-Tolerance arrest policy. Gordon thinks that the process that is on the books for pre-trial detainment is evil, and he thinks those policies are put in place by Trump. The problem is they were there before Trump - all Trump did is change the portion of people detained, as a method to deter the large number of people crossing. As explained above. But you might explain that to Gordon. Well, try. I don't think he gets it yet, being hooked on Racism. I think we can agree his point of view is lacking any really exploration of the matter.Because I thought we were talking about pre-trial detainment, and am very lost about the responses from Irony and Josh.
Josh Coray
J4 Paintball
Lead Design
www.j4paintball.com
I read the article, I know they didn't have their hoodies up. I didn't say they did. How often do you reply with a Strawman fallacy? 50% of the time? More? Why reply with a losing fallacy if you are going to reply at all? What a confusing waste of time.If you read the article you'd know the men never put their hoodies on.
Now, lets look at your actual words.
"Protected classes aren't imaginary, and no, you can't eject someone based on race."
They didn't eject them based on race. Nor can they. We are both in agreement. They can eject them for dress code and behavior.
You just said the race of the guards didn't matter - so you are saying a black guard ejects a black hoodie wearing person in a mall that blocks hoodie wearing people at their discretion, then when they come back and demand to be allowed on the property, they should be allowed?
No, you didn't say that - see, strawman.
But you are assuming, and pointing fingers and judging the mall, claiming that there is a protected class the security at the mall is part of, and somehow based on race, these kids were not in it. Right? Then if so, you think mall security was wrong to throw them out, and that act was racist? Right? But you wanted to also say the race of the people who actually judged them and threw them out wasn't reverent. See, they were not judged by some protected class. They were judged by those of their same race.
That matters in the complete structure of your argument.
If they were of a different class, maybe. No points there man. You are just trying to find racism.
ALSO you are assuming that nothing else happened that made them want to eject the young men. You have no idea, and neither do the people writing the article, if anything else happened that would make the security guard want to eject them. You don't know, I don't know. And we never will. You are assuming you know by making your judgement.
You don't.
Wait, did the Left just celebrate taking the house away from the GOP? Wouldn't that mean the DNC got the mandate? So confused at your point. Also, republics. Look them up. You do not understand the reasoning, or even the title of the Good Ole USA if you think that is why our system works the way it does.This is what Gerrymandering looks like, and what Republicans interpret as a "mandate" from the voters.
And if you think only the Right gerrymands, or tries to claim spurious victories, or tries to tilt things in their favor, you are half blind to reality. They both do it when they can. Ever look at Chicago's voting lines? Friggen spaghetti. I think we should break up both parties in a big antitrust movement and let a computer figure out the gerrymandering lines.
https://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/11/redistricting
As for back up on gerrymandering:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2018/0...rail-maryland/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/democr...y-get-to-do-itPolitical Insiders Plotted the Most Gerrymandered District in America?and Left a Paper Trail
A wild ride through Maryland's 6th, which the Democrats flipped from red to blue, and the Supreme Court case that may force them to give it back.
Isn't that racist, according to you? Damn....Why did Bartlett go off the grid and why did Mooney have to move across the James Rumsey bridge? Because Democrats decided to give themselves another Congressional seat. As Mother Jones describes it, ?Democrats added a strange-looking appendage to the district, reaching all the way down into the affluent Washington DC, suburbs to scoop up Democratic voters. More than 360,000 people were moved out of the district, and nearly as many were moved in. It went from solidly Republican to reliably Democratic; the Cook Political Report identified it as the biggest district swing in the country.?
Today, I live in Alexandria, Virginia, a city that Democrats dominate. In May of 2009, however, one Republican managed to get elected to the six-member City Council. This was apparently too much for Democrats to stomach. One month after his election, the City Council voted to move municipal elections from May to November?an attempt to squash the chances that Republicans could compensate for their numerical disadvantages by organizing to win low-turnout elections. It worked.
Last edited by pbjosh; 11-20-2018 at 01:50 PM.
Josh Coray
J4 Paintball
Lead Design
www.j4paintball.com
Josh (and others), you might enjoy playing with this tool from Fivethirtyeight where you can see the general effects of different redistricting methods that could be put into place to dilute (or heighten) the effects of gerrymandering:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ithmic-compact
It is perhaps one of my favorite articles they've printed. I've selected the link where you can see how the algorithm method (similar to your Brown University article) plays out. And it turns out it is not necessarily a bad choice. As a mostly moderate, I favor maximizing the number of competitive races myself, but I can't argue with the simplicity of the compact algorithm.
Posting Permissions
