Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Greyparrot
So no response to literally anything that I said. I guess our discussion ends here.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
a state is "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government."WTF are you conflating a state with a nation for?
In the american context, a state is analogous to a province or a region. But the word state can also be applied to a nation. Ex Norway is a nation state.
UK is way bigger and more culturally unique than any one US state.
What is your point? Why would the population of the UK matter? They gain way more by being part of the EU than they have to give up.
Also, there are big differences between welsh, scotish, irish etc. If you think those differences are super important, then all the more reason each tiny region should be it's own country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Democrats: You cant critizize Greta!But what about Nick Sandman
How are those 2 things related. One is a teenager literally trying to save the planet. The other is just some guy who got into a confrontation at a political demonstration. I don't recall the president of the united states attacking Nick Sandman.
Democrats: We need to impeach Trump!What about Clinton who ACTUALLY committed a crime
Clinton lied about a blowjob. Trump abused the power of his office to extort and ally into interfering in a US election in order to personally benefit himself. That's like comparing a jay walker to a murderer.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not by the UK you authority lover.
What is your point? The UK is one state among many. If they had unilateral control of the council that would be authoritarian. Does Michigan scream about the authoritarian senate because they don't get to pick all 100 senators?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
He is making less money than before he took office, so personal gain is quite questionable.
Says who? We have no idea how much money he was making before he took office. We have no idea how much money he is making now. So you are just making that up. And personal gain doesn't only have to be monetary. Assistance in winning an election is personal gain.
By interfering in an election, you are referring to him looking into corruption.
If he had asked about corruption in general this wouldn't be an issue. He didn't. He only asked about 1 person, Biden. It was never about corruption, it was about smearing Biden. And if it had been about corruption, he would have gone to law enforcement. Trying to get a foreign government to do caused him to commit crimes.
That isn't illegal? WTF?
What exactly do you think Biden did that was illegal? I have never seen any evidence he committed any crimes.
Well, the people should also know when Trump does corrupt things. I hate the bias among networks. I bet CNN under-reported on the Clinton Foundation corruption as well.
I don't think corruption should be covered up. If Biden is corrupt, that should be reported. But we know Trump is corrupt and the news outlets you watch are actively working to cover it up.
No, I specifically said that neither should be impeached, as shown above. I set the bar very high for impeachable offenses.
So abusing the power of your office in order to steal an election isn't impeachable? I mean what worse things could you do in office than abuse it to undermine democracy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well I like federalism, so that is mainly my issue. The fact is that, even if you elect officials, you will still be well outnumbered by other countries' officials.
So you also don't like the US senate system? Because they are pretty much the same thing. Each state gets 2 senators. In the EU each state gets 1 council member. It is the same concept.
It took power away from British citizens to determine their destiny.
this is the same for any government. The US government takes freedom away from each and every state. But we all know that the states are stronger and better off together than as 50 independent countries. Similarly, the EU members are stronger and more prosperous together than if they were divided. There is always going to be a trade off. But they get way more than they give up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why? Cause 28 unelected authoritative bureaucrats know what's best for UK more than Boris Johnson?
Members of the council are usually cabinet ministers from the country they represent, so they would be elected. And even if they aren't elected, they are selected by the government of that country to represent them. That is how representative democracy works. Please stop pretending it is authoritarian.
The EU council does not make decisions on it's own. It has to work together with the MEPs. You clearly don't know how the EU actually works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just like the American People elected Jim Comey. What an authoritative tool.
Umm, he was selected by the democratically elected government. That is not authoritarian in any way. Do you know what that word means?
You do realize 27 of the 28 of the total EU ministers were not selected by UK Parliament members, right?
The EU council members are selected by the elected government of the country they represent. Each country gets 1 seat. That's like saying the majority of senators aren't from Iowa, so Iowa should leave the US. It is just silly.
And you do realize there are appointees somewhere in the middle of a 5-year term long after the PM was voted out of office, right?
You will have to provide an example for me to know what you are talking about.
It's a fucked up authoritative system totally unresponsive to the average UK citizen.
lol, the leadership are all elected officials or appointed by elected officials. The exact format is different than the US, but the idea is the exact same. It is not authoritarian in any way. And you're right, they have to balance the needs of lots of people in lots of countries. But the advantages of membership massively outweigh the small downsides.
But dem socialists luv dem some good ole authoratee yeehaw
You know the US, as well as many other countries, have the same sort of process right? I mean the UK itself has an entirely unelected house of parliament. That is way less democratic than the EU.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
But I will keep your biased comments to playback when reality shows you to have been deluded by TDS.
Your TDS makes it impossible for you to connect to reality. I think my new policy will just be to ignore you in all threads since there is no way to reach someone who is delusional.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The EU is overwhelmingly favorable to the smaller GDP countries, so it's no surprise for Ireland and Scotland to want to remain.
They want to remain because they aren't stupid. There is no advantage to leaving. Right wing news sources have just been engaged in a long standing smear campaign of the EU.
They would have to petition the EU for membership anyway as a new nation, so "remaining" is not actually an option.
True. But there is no reason to think it would be difficult since they are members right now.
The largest trading partner (USA) is ready to broker a trade deal immediately with Boris Johnson, so Ireland and the Scots should at least wait till that is done.
Why? There is no reason to think the US-UK trade deal would be better than the current trade deal they have with the US, via the EU. In fact many suspect that it will be much worse. For example the US wants the UK to lower their food standards so they can sell lower quality (potentially unsafe) food to the UK.
Also, the unionists have now been betrayed by Johnson. He threw them under the bus hard to get a deal. I would imagine there isn't alot of good will towards England at the moment.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
They should eventually be presented with the option. But not immediately.
In the case of Ireland it will need to be soon. I don't have the text as a reference, but I'm pretty sure the good friday agreement says that if there is any indication that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would accept reunifying with the republic of ireland, then a referendum must be held. If the Irish nationalists won in northern ireland, that would be a very clear sign.
Brexit has been afforded a popular mandate several times now
has it? It won by a tiny margin in a referendum. May held an election and got her ass kicked. In this election, there was no large opposition to Brexit. Labor refused to really tell anyone what their position on Brexit was. So the options were Brexit or "we'll tell you after we win". I don't see that as a win for brexit, I see that as a loss for people who refused to actually pick a side. Sadly the issue is likely settled now and massive damage is now unavoidable.
so all British subjects are obliged to give it a chance before resorting to measures that would tear apart the political fabric of their country.
um, why? The british government is obliged to carry through on it. But Scotland and Northern Ireland were very clear they didn't want it. It is just England forcing it's will on them. England has torn the fabric of the country apart, but you think that it is Ireland and Scotland that should just give in? England showed they don't give a shit about Ireland or Scotland. They are actively shitting on their allies in Northern Ireland.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
bmdrocks21 asked, "Were the Democrats too afraid of Clinton to impeach him for his crime?"
no. They knew that lying about a blowjob was a stupid thing to try to impeach someone for. Abusing the power of the presidency to interfere in a US election is a massive abuse of the office. The cover up is also seriously criminal.
What do you know? You dodged the question. The question was not comparing cases, but asking about the inner state of democrats during the Clinton impeachment.
I didn't dodge the question. The republicans went for impeachment over a lie that had nothing to do with the presidency. Democrats are impeaching over massive abuse of office. That very much has to do with the presidency.
Only SCOTUS can decide this.
no. the men who wrote the constitution decided this a very long time ago.
And yet you're %100 certain already. Biased much?
lol, the house hasn't voted. You are saying I am biased because I pointed out to you that you were, incorrectly, implying that they had.
Now, not only do you know what the republicans will not do and why, you even know what they wish they could do! Your TDS has made you incapable of rational thought.
I'm starting to remember why I usually don't respond to you. You are REALLY baised and kind of nuts. So i'm going to return to not answering you. there is nothing to be gained from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
She won the popular vote. The polls were correct.Then why were snowflakes wailing in the streets? Why were you sufferers of TDS stunned like deer in headlights?
Unfortunately America still clings to an undemocratic method of selecting the president. So even if you lose by millions of votes, you still get to rule against the will of the majority.
...recent polling shows every democratic candidate beating him.Then why not just beat him in a couple of months in the election, and then prosecute him when he doesn't have the immunity of the office?
He is committing crimes using the powers of the presidency. If you don't impeach him then you are essentially just giving him permission to keep doing it. If there are no consequences to abusing the office of the presidency, then he may as well be a king.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The EU is an unelected body governing the UK. If UK wants democracy, they cannot remain under the control of Brussels.'
I'm guessing you don't know very much about the EU. They are governed by elected officials. Every EU country elects MEPs. Those MEPs then select some executive. That is how representative democracy works.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I'm not an expert, but I don't believe the UK government has the power to prevent a referendum. In fact I believe they are bound by international treaty to require one in the case of northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement.
I think new referendums in both cases are pretty much inevitable now. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen. I was in Northern Ireland last year and things seemed tense. If the possibility of Northern Ireland joining the republic of ireland becomes serious, violence could resume.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury. You were against his impeachment.
he didn't obstruct justice. He went along with the impeachment inquiry. He did commit perjury. I don't think most people would say otherwise. But he lied about a blow job. Trump has lied about literally hundreds of topics including extorting foreign leaders to interfere in american elections. The 2 cases are in no way similar.
You keep mentioning how Trump dared to obstruct justice. You are for impeachment.
He abused the power of his office for personal gain and to interfere in an election. He then committed another crime by trying to cover it up. Of course I think he should be impeached.
Also, why do you keep complaining about Trump exposing Biden's corruption?
I don't. I have no issue with Biden's corruption being exposed. The problem is that Biden's corruption is totally legal. I really wish it weren't, but sadly it is. Trump's corruption, abuse of power and obstruction of justice are all very much illegal.
The American people should know if a presidential candidate is corrupt or not.
They should, but if fox news gets their way, about 45% of them will believe the trump's lies that he didn't commit the crimes that we have infinitive proof he committed.
I don't think Clinton should have been impeached and I don't think Trump should now.
lol so if someone lies about sex, they should be removed from office. If someone abuses the power of their office to smear a political opponent and interfere in an election, then engages in a cover up and obstructs justice, that shouldn't be punished?
You have insane priorities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Essentially, why should a large group of people that you didn't elect get to make so many changes in your life?
who would that be exactly. They do elect MEPs. Those MEPs then choose the important positions. That is representative democracy.
You had no consent over their election or appointment and they have very little accountability to you as a result.
they are selected by the elected MEPs. They do have accountability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really don't give a fuck what words are in it.
lol you complain that specific words aren't there. then say you don't care what words are there. I really wish republicans had some kind of spine or moral compass and wouldn't change what they considered important from minute to minute.
They called the president of Ukraine a liar and compared him to a battered housewife.
He is reliant on US assistance and support. He has a vested interest in pleasing trump. He is in now way a reliable witness.
They equated the possible denial of welfare to a foreign nation to a catastrophic breach of National Security.
because there was no reason to withhold it. He held up critical aid to an ally for personal gain.
Democrats are some sick fuckers.
lol considering the moral gymnastics republicans are doing to try to explain why abuse of office and obstruction of justice are somehow OK because trump is doing it, that is some serious stupidity.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
1/4 of Congress isn't so fucked up yet <we hope> to believe that they must go through an Executive Branch administrative department to make a case before a US court.
Again, what are you talking about? There is no mechanism, that I am aware of, for congress to send charges against the president to the courts. Please explain what you think 1/4 of congress could do.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
They have no accomplishments excpet undoing an democracy election
They have passed a huge number of bills in the house. The republicans in the senate block all of them. They then claim the dems "do nothing".
Obstruct and deflect is basically all republicans do for the last 10 years. Oh, and give more money to their millionaire/billionaire donors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The polls are also the reason no crimes are listed in articles of impeachment.
Correction, 2 crimes are listed in the articles of impeachment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you just don't get it do you, yeah the next democratic president will and should go through everything they are doing now, just like the nuclear option came back to bite them in the ass, so will this, they didn't learn from Harry Reed's stupidity nor will they learn from this.
What are you talking about. Republicans DID impeach clinton over nonsense. They repeatedly called to impeach Obama for nonsense. I am quite certain they will call to impeach the next dem president. But that wont be because of anything that happened to trump. It will be because that is what they do ALL THE TIME.
If they themselves believed they would win then why couldn't they wait for the next election to right these "wrongs"?
Because losing an election is not the response that is supposed to come from committing crimes. When most people commit a crime, they go to jail. When a president commits a crime, they get impeached. Waiting for the election would be allowing trump to get away with his crimes. No one should want that.
They know their position is so weak their only hope is to sabotage and create as much division as they can.
The entire field of dem candidates are more popular than trump.
Since you have such faith in the polls, do you have the same faith and shows increase support for Trump among the American black population?
Please provide a source. I would be happy to have a look and tell you what I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Remember the Hillery polls?Why do liberals have such short memories?
The polls showed her winning the popular vote. She won the popular vote. The polls were correct.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nobody was stopping 1/4 of Congress from presenting crimes to the Supreme Court. They simply had nothing to bring.
What does this even mean? The justice department says that a president can't be charged with a crime. What are you talking about?
You should be furious at the lack of spine and competence of the 1/4 of Congress.How could they fuck up so badly when they had 3 years to prepare?
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Is this some right wing conspiracy theory nonsense?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Clinton was found to commit crimes in a court, not Congress.
I'm not certain what your point is. The republican position is that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. They are also arguing it is not impeachable for him to obstruct an investigation into himself.
So he can't be charged, he can only be impeached. And he if he blocks the impeachment investigation then that isn't a problem either. Essentially the republican argument at the moment is that a president can do whatever he wants, block any investigation into his actions and there is nothing anyone can do about. Basically, they are arguing the president is a king.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Obstructing Congress is not Obstructing justice. If that were the case, every veto would be an impeachable offense.
During an impeachment inquiry, congress takes the role of the investigator. Obstructing an impeachment inquiry is obstructing justice.
If you believe that a president can't be charged criminally, and there can be no consequences for blocking an impeachment inquiry, you are essentially arguing that every president should be completely above the low and never have to face any consequences for any actions. IE, a king.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's such a shame that none of the Articles of Impeachment are crimes then.
I agree that it is a shame the dems did not include all the crimes trump has committed. But it is an extensive list and they wanted to make it as simple as possible.
But obstruction of justice (since congress was doing the investigation obstructing them is obstruction of justice) and abuse of office are crimes.
I'm not sure why people are so easily taken in by lies they hear on right wing propaganda sites.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The Supreme court has the authority to get involved in any constitutional matter.
And the constitution is EXTREMELY clear. There is no grounds for the supreme court to get involved.
Not every republican voted for impeachment of Clinton, and some democrats voted for impeachment. Do you know of any republican who voted for impeachment? The vote was 100% a party vote.
I may have missed it, but as far as I know the house hasn't voted on impeachment yet.
How is it not? Did any republicans vote for it? Any at all?
The house hasn't voted on it yet. And even if none of the republicans have the spine to say out loud that they know he is guilty, that doesn't mean they don't wish they could vote for it. They are just cowards who are trying to protect their own career by not doing their jobs.
We are 100% certain that trump has committed crimes and abused his office.We who? The democratic party of course, not the american people. 54% are now against impeachment.
47% for impeachment, 45% against. Also, whether or not people want trump impeached is irrelevant. The facts are that he committed crimes. Whether or not his cultists want him punished for those crimes is irrelevant.
And the fact that you can pretend to know the inner state of all republicans just shows how biased you are.
And the fact that you can pretend to know the inner state of all republicans just shows how biased you are.
Lol the same men who are defending trump now called him all sorts of terrible names in 2016. They hate him. They know he is a lying, asshole criminal. But none of them will say it in public now. They are afraid of him and his cultists.
bmdrocks21 asked, "Were the Democrats too afraid of Clinton to impeach him for his crime?"
Clinton lied about sex. Trump abused the power of his office in an attempt to extort a foreign country to smear his political rival. Its like comparing a guy who jay walked to a rapist. They are not even remotely similar cases.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I am going to go out on a limb here and say here that there is a chance that the Supreme Court may weigh in on this matter, because one party should not be able to impeach a President.
You don't understand how the system works clearly. Impeachment is solely the power of congress. The supreme court has no right or authority to get involved.
Your post also conveniently ignores that the republican party impeached clinton for lying about sex. We have been down the road of partisan impeachment.
Luckily, this is not a partisan impeachment. We are 100% certain that trump has committed crimes and abused his office. The fact that the republicans are too frightened of trump to admit it just shows how weak they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
"They must impeach him because they can't beat him in the next election"
Lol recent polling shows every democratic candidate beating him. Even klobochar and she is terrible.
I believe those are the reasons though they would never outright admit it.
You can choose to reject reality and believe the lies you hear on fox news. No one can force you actually look at reality.
Mark Levin gave a whole list of past presidents, all the way back to Lincoln who would have been impeached under the criteria the democrats have set.
lol you want to take seriously the man calling for the next democratic president to be impeached, before we even know who that is? That is just epic levels of partisan stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
Because he committed crimes in office. The republicans might be too afraid of him to actually convict, that is true. But if you don't impeach him for his crimes, he will continue to commit more crimes.
Just like any other child, if he gets away with things he will continue that behavior. If we teach him it is ok to abuse the power of his office and obstruct justice, he will do it again.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You just moved the goalposts instead of making your point about exploitation you have changed it to well they weren't permanent residents. Are you aware of this?
I did not. I have been saying this whole whole time that the policy is exploitative and doesn't usually offer them a pathway to permanent residency. If you haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying that is a you problem.
Guess 6.6% of the people who have had permanent residence are not actual immigrants. I'll wait for you to deport those Americans/immigrants back to wherever they came from.
Ok, so a policy is 94% exploitative and you want to split hairs because for 6% of people it might pay off? That is a ridiculous argument. If the system gets fixed then those people could just go through the normal process instead of having to use the guest worker program.
. Old people will, yeah. as you go lower than 65 that ratio shifts to bernie.Data.
It's late. I will find the polls tomorrow. But basically Biden dominates over 65. Sanders dominates under 35.
No you don't and your failure to know is actually making my point a lot more difficult to present. Let me put it in another I says guns can kill you and nothing else. The implication would be we should take-away guns because they can kill. Do you disagree?
Or you mean that I should be very careful while cleaning my gun. Or you mean that you are talking to your child and trying to keep him from playing with your gun. There are many contexts where the exact same words can imply very different things. you are choosing to infer Sanders' in the way that suits you when you and I both know he was talking about the guest worker program.
You didn't deny it would work for immigration in general did you?
i did not deny it. If you take his words out of context then they could be misinterpreted to apply to immigration in general. But since he was very clear that he was talking about the guest worker program, we know the context.
So is it my "biased" viewpoint or are you actually running out of arguments?
I haven't really had to make many arguments yet. You have yet to provide any evidence of his previous opinion on immigration. you have only provided a clip of his opinion on the guest worker program, which is not the same thing.
If it wasn't clear I want you tell me what I am missing from my comparison and how it is not heavily implied that immigration are bad because they depress American wages.
I'm honestly not sure how I could explain this to you. He was very clear that he was talking about the guest worker program. He never said what he thought of immigration. You are choosing to take his criticism of 1 very specific program and pretend like that is his position on immigration. There is no comparison because you have yet to provide any evidence.
You defame me instead acknowledging what Bernie says heavily implies immigration is bad.
lol I explain how you are defaming sanders and your response is that I am defaming you? an excellent deflection sir!
It is heavily implied and by your standard he is an idiot and a bigot. I still don't think you know what implication means so I am going to keep asking you until you decide to give an argument so I understand what you are so hung about not attack my character.
This is just getting really repetitive and sad. He said that the guest worker program (which temporarily imports people, then deports them before they can get much in the way of a raise or benefits) depresses wages. He did not say anything about immigration in general. He is talking about 1 specific policy. You are choosing to infer his meaning as something completely different to what he is saying.
P1: Bernie said immigrants depress American wages specifically about worker programs.
He said this specific program does that, yes.
P2: This also applies to immigration.
He did not say that. You are making this link. He did not.
Conclusion: This is at the least Bernie giving an argument against immigration or heavily implying he is against immigration.
incorrect. he was referring only to that one program. You are extending the argument to immigration in general. He did not.
Immigration isn't the cause of low wages.So Bernie is a liar?
Again, bernie didn't say immigration caused low wages. He said that 1 program did. Why do I keep needing to repeat this? I have refuted this over and over and over and you are just ignoring it.
Nick Fuentes? You know this is was directed about Nick Fuentes right not Bernie Sanders.
I may have misunderstood that point.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Didn't state how this isn't immigration. Immigration can be exploitation so you are going by a definition that excludes exploitation.
I answered this in a previous response. If you are deporting them back to the country they came from when you are done with them, then they weren't an immigrant, they were a temp.
What so illegal immigration doesn't count? Please tell me what this "actual" immigration is and if you say well worker programs then you are contradicting the very first statement I quoted from you. Choose your words wisely like how you didn't here.
By actual immigration i mean people moving to america with the intention of remaining there. The guest workers are being sent back, IE they aren't real immigrants, they are just guests.
"That clip was just him discussing a bill he opposed. No one asked him about what his plan was." Are you implying here that he is for creating an alternative or wants to abolish it?
those are the same thing. Once you fix the immigration system, you no longer need a "guest worker" program.
but one of the biggest is voting for someone who will make their lives better.Doesn't disagree with me. People love nostalgia which is why people would vote for Biden instead of Bernie.
Old people will, yeah. as you go lower than 65 that ratio shifts to bernie. If younger people show up to vote, and 2016 suggests they will, then relying on retiree's to carry you through isn;t a solid strategy. Also, it wouldn't work in the general election because the people Biden would need to win would likely just stay home since he doesn't care about them. He has told multiple people, on separate occasions, at his rallies to vote for other people. He isn't even really pretending like he cares about what people think.
I can't believe you don't know what an implication is.
I know what an implication is. The problem is that he did not imply that. You are choosing to infer it based on your own biased viewpoint. You want to see him as a flawed candidate so you choose to see a statement about the guest worker program as evidence of his opinion on immigration.
Dumbass says Spider-man 2 is bad because Spider man is in it. The obvious take-away would be Spider-man is in 1 and 3 therefore they all must be bad as well.This is exactly what Bernie did.
He said a specific policy hurts workers and drives down wages. You think that means he really meant that immigration is bad. That is a big stretch.
Bernie says workers programs import immigrants that depress American wages. The obvious take-away from this is that Immigrants are not only attained through worker programs so they all must depress wages.
This is a pretty good example of how centrists defame progressives. Bernie criticized a specific policy because it takes advantage of workers. You take that sentence out of context to defame him. This is no different that trying to say that Tusli is a russian operative or one of the countless slanders against yang. You are reaching for anything you can find no matter how thin it is.
If Bernie cares about Americans and wants what is best for them then Bernie is an idiot and bigot for being against immigration.
He never said he was against immigration! We are really circling around and around. You keep repeating he is against immigration. The only evidence you have provided is 1 offhand comment from 15 years ago where he wasnt even talking about immigration. Do you not see how pathetic this looks?
Do you still stand by this statement after I taught you what an implication is?
You didn't teach me anything. He did not imply what you are saying he did. You are choosing to infer what you want to infer.
So he is against immigration?
I have never seen any evidence of that.
I didn't say Bernie will put in laws to lower the minimum wage or something, I said by accepting what Bernie Sanders says his policies being pro-immigration will go against the very argument he gave in a 2007 clip that heavily implies he is against immigration or people who would be listening are not in the wrong to say immigration is bad by what Bernie said.
Immigration isn't the cause of low wages. So no, they are in no way contradictory. You seem to just be repeating talking points over and over no matter how many times I answer them.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am saying if you cared about American workers like Bernie Sanders admits would that be a good case against immigration? Don't scapegoat by giving other policies only saying yes or no to this.
The guest worker program is a bad program. It allows companies to bring people in and use them for low wages, then discard them before they would have to pay more. That is not immigration. That is exploitation.
Actual immigration is not the reason wages are low. Wages are low because the economic system we live in has been designed by oligarchs who like not paying high wages. Scapegoating immigrants won't help anyone. Reforming the system, like sanders intends to, will.
This has got to be a joke. Have you heard of an implication or how arguments can work for other positions?
But he isn't advocating for those positions. He is saying that this 1, specific program is bad because it is exploitative and drives down wages. You are trying to take that out of context and claim that he is making an argument about immigration in general, which he isn't. You are ascribing something to him which he is not saying.
How about the 6.6% it helped why not improve instead of abolishing it?
The program itself is flawed and designed to be abused. I provided a link already for his immigration policy. Those reforms are intended to fix the system. If people can actually immigrate normally then you don't need a exploitative "guest worker" program. His intention is to replace it with a functional immigration system.
Can you find the video or I am supposed to believe you on faith?
What video? You provided a video where he doesn't discuss immigration, he discusses the guest worker program. Here is a link to his immigration policy, again.
Hmm, interesting. The popular usage of that term implies negative intent. If that is the definition we should be using then the world has no meaning because pretty much every action anyone has ever taken would be exploiting. And once everything is exploitative, then it is meaningless.
But did he say "he is against immigration"?
no, he said he is against that particular bill because of the guest worker program. Please stop repeating that lie.
This is assuming people care about policy they don't. They care about buzzwords like free college or worked with Obama. Do you accept that?
No, this is yet another failed neo-liberal hold over. People vote for lots of reasons, but one of the biggest is voting for someone who will make their lives better. Neo-liberals found that they could convince people they would do something good for them if they just used the right buzz words. But that they didn't have to actually carry through on those promises. And it worked, for awhile. It worked for Obama too. But then the dems lost 1000 seats during his presidency because he didn't actually carry though on the things he promised. People have figured out the game. Neo-liberals will just keep spouting platitudes while refusing to do anything meaningful to help people. It isn't about the buzz words, it is about people believing you will do something to help them. People are now understanding that the buzzwords are meaningless, which is why centrists have shit support among young people who group up seeing the broken system.
First point is that we shouldn't have immigrants because they lower the wages of American workers. This is "heavily implied" given this very same can be used against immigration.
Sorry, do you mean Sanders thinks we shouldn't have immigrants (because he definitely didn't say that) or you think we shouldn't have immigrants? He didn't imply it either. He was specifically talking about the guest worker program. You are trying to imply that is what he meant, when he didn't say that.
You didn't actually attack my reasoning instead said well this was 15 years ago and like before he was talking about guest workers programs so by talking about a specific immigration policy he is against it but I can't extrapolate that into the general topic of immigration.
I'm not certain I am understanding your point. If you mean the idea that there should be no immigration, that is an utterly stupid idea. America cannot survive without immigration. Only idiots or bigots would advocate that.
I never implied this was 15 years ago and therefore wasn't important. I said you have provided absolutely no evidence of Sanders' beliefs on immigration. none at all. i was saying that you might be right. maybe he did think immigration was bad, but you haven't provided any evidence of it yet. The only evidence you have provided is a video of him talking about something only sort of related to immigration in which he says nothing about what his opinion of immigration is.
"he is willing to lower the wages of American workers during that time and that is if he is able to pass the law not fail and continue to lower American wages."You did not attack the point.
It's hard to specifically attack a point that doesn't seem to make any sense. He has never, to my knowledge, said that he is willing to lower wages. So you are ascribing things to him i have never heard him say and that you have not provided any source for. If he has said he wants to lower wages, please provide a source.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
People who make poor lifestyle choices will invariably end up with less wealth. That's not even debatable.
People who live in a broken economic system and weren't born rich will almost certainly end up with less wealth. This shouldn't be debatable, but sadly right wing people and some "centrists" cling to the belief that it should be totally normal for a tiny number of billionaires to control the majority of the wealth of a nation. And that "anyone can succeed if they work hard" despite the fact that a vary large number of people don't succeed, despite working hard. These "centrist" people are either complicit, in the sense that the system worked for them personally and therefore they don't think it should be changed, or simply blind or ignorant and just ignore the reality of the ever widening gulf between the ruling oligarchs and the rest of society.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Remember when you said I didn't give you an argument about Bernie? I have so do talk about instead of pivoting.
Which argument do you mean? You showed a video where he talked about 1 specific policy, then a video where he talked about immigration in general. those 2 videos were not contradictory. He is against the "guest worker" program which is basically just using people then discarding them before you have to provide actual benefits or raises. He is for immigration reform. Part of which is getting rid of the "guest worker" program.
those 2 things are totally aligned.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I didn't think you actually didn't want to help people. It just goes to show if my person is saying it, it is okay but if someone who I am opposing is saying it then it is bad.
This is one of the main flaws I see from "centrists". They can't see the difference between helping people and controlling people. Providing universal health care that covers everything and lets them go to any doctor they want gives people more freedom and helps them at the same time. People who want to think they are progressive, like bloomberg, want to "help" but don't actually care what the people they are "helping" want. So you get things like banning drinks which does nothing to help anyone (they can still buy 2 if they want more sugary drinks).
If he really thought there was something wrong with those beverages, go after billionaires selling them. Work to improve the financial situation of the people buying them so they can afford better food while providing education of making better food choices. Don't attempt to hurt poor people who can't afford a healthier vice. If he actually cared about fixing the problem then he is an idiot, because that method won't work.
They are stupid. No one with a sane mind decides to have kids with such shit conditions but poor people time and time again keep doing it thus repeating the poverty cycle.
Another example of the failure of neo-liberalism. Blaming poor people for being poor while more and more of the wealth is being moved to the top. It must be the lazy poor person working 60 hours a week. It couldn't possibly be the fault of the multinational corporation paying their workers as little as possible while raking in record profits. It's so much easier to just blame the poor person than to fix the system that made them poor. Centrists want to believe the system is fine, poor people just need to work harder. Meanwhile the middle class is shrinking while the top 400 individuals own more than the bottom 150 million.
Basically anyone who isn't a socialist is a right winger. Lol.
Bloomberg is a weird mutant of right wing economics and left wing social identity politics. Basically, he can only appeal to the tiny slice of rich white people who want to feel like they are progressive, but don't actually want to fix the broken economic system that has made them wealthy.
I didn't know the mayor had the power of the president to enact laws.
We are discussing him as a presidential candidate. It is perfectly valid to frame my criticism in that context.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Even now he is perfectly fine taking Amazon's money and a Universities.
Did you not read the sentence highlighted in red.
"The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families."
So people who work at universities or at amazon donate money to him and you think that is evidence of corruption?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Like how socialists who just can't help themselves critique this very amazing take:
Lol he is advocating a nanny state. Basically he is saying that the state needs to tax poor people because they are too stupid to take care of themselves. Do you actually think that is a good take? Bloomberg is the exact parody of a "liberal" that republicans point to.
He is the "perfect" mix of restricting people's freedoms because he thinks he knows better than them, while simultaneously doing nothing to actually improve their lives, like say providing health care or education.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No that = means it was supposed to be this.I make an eroor like that and useeroor = error.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. I think you are saying that your argument is the 1st video.
But the 1st video is only kind of related to the 2nd video. In the 1st video he explains why a specific policy for importing temp workers, then deporting them is bad. In the 2nd video he explains why he supports immigration reform. Those 2 things are not contradictory. In the same way you can criticize things Israel does, but not want to see it destroyed. Or you can dislike a game, but not hate the genre of game it is in. You can hate Jar Jar Binks, but still love star wars.
Criticizing 1 part of an issue, does not mean you are against the entire thing. Trying to argue that the 1st video describes his opinion of immigration is disingenuous. We both know he was talking about the guest worker program and not immigration as a whole. If you want to make the argument he used to be against immigration, then provide a source where he is actually talking about immigration.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol so? He is trying to fix america. In so doing people became very interested in what he had to say. So they went out and bought books he wrote. So now he is a millionaire and his positions have not changed at all from when he wasn't a millionaire.
This shows how his opinions are consistent. He had views before he had over 1 million, he has the same views after he had a million dollars. Sounds like a great endorsement of his consistency as a candidate.
that is one really lazy centrist smear job.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My argument = 1st video argument
This is like showing a clip of someone saying they don't like the new call of duty game and one saying they like video games and saying they are inconsistent. You can dislike a specific game and still like gaming. You can disagree with 1 specific policy and not be against immigration.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I didn't ask if people do. I was implying would the argument be also correct in respect to immigration?
The argument would have some validity, but is over simplified. There are many other aspects to it. Blaming immigration is mostly a scapegoat.
Nope my statement was that Bernie is against immigration in that video yet is pro immigration now. This can clearly been seen.
What video did you watch? He is talking about being against 1 specific program related to immigration that is being abused by massive corporations. He never says he is against immigration.
Worker programs even though only 6.6% have been permanent residents are still immigrants.
If most of them are being forced back to their home country then they weren't immigrants. They were temps being used in lieu of paying workers more.
He didn't say he wants to improve it, he said he wants to remove it without an alternative.
He said he wants to remove it. He also has plans for immigration reform. That clip was just him discussing a bill he opposed. No one asked him about what his plan was. Just because a short clip doesn't show him talking about his alternative does not mean he doesn't have one.
Taxation is exploitative. A job is exploitative.
Taxation is not exploitative. You are getting services for what you are paying. You get schools, roads, firefighters. The tax codes are decided by the elected representatives of the people.
Having an outrage over a specific program is a red herring because almost everyone is exploited for their labor.
This doesn't even make sense. We can't be upset by abusive, awful programs because there are other bad things in the world? With this mindset no one should ever try to fix anything. Sanders has a wide array of plans for fixing a wide array of problems. This is one of them. There are many others.
If I am Nick Fuentes and say we need to protect our western values and people decide to take that as we should be against immigration, don't you think I am to blame for what the people who follow me believe?
I'm not familiar with him. A quick google search tells me he openly advocates hate and fear of immigrants. That is not even remotely similar to saying a specific program is deeply flawed. Some people may take Bernie's statements to mean something he didn't intend. As long as he isn't trying to leave his statements vague so they can be misinterpreted I don't see that as his fault. Nick appears to be active preaching hate and intolerance. They are not remotely similar.
Why would the Democrats do the same again and how to do you propose Bernie wins the swing states?
Bernie would win the swing states for the same reason centrists think he won't. He is a populist.
You don't win swing states by advocating for failed neo-liberal policies that have ruined lives. That is a great plan to keep people home on election day and let trump win. You win them by promising you have a vision to fix their problems and getting people out to vote. Sanders is the best positioned to do that.
First point is that we shouldn't have immigrants because they lower the wages of American workers. This is heavily implied given this very same can be used against immigration.
You are incorrect. The entire conversation they were having was about the "guest workers" program. You are trying to take 1 sentence fragment from that conversation to paint it as if that is his opinion about immigration, when he was talking about 1 specific program. You choose to believe that this shows his opinion on immigration, when that is not what he said.
I don't know precisely what his opinions on immigration were 15 years ago. maybe you are right and he was against it. But I do know that taking one sentence out of a conversation he had about a specific program and applying it to mean his opinion of the broader question of immigration is an extremely weak argument.
Second point is that we should make immigrants citizens. Meaning he doesn't care about lowering the wages of American workers.
lol his entire platform is about helping american workers. You would be extremely hard pressed to find any politician who cares more about the wages of american workers.
The idea that immigration is the reason wages are low is a distraction. It almost certainly has an impact, but pointing to it is meant to deflect criticism away from the people that actually control wages. Why blame the billionaires and oligarchs who control wages when you can blame a poor immigrant with little money or power? It is part of the game that the billionaire oligarchs play.
he is willing to lower the wages of American workers during that time and that is if he is able to pass the law not fail and continue to lower American wages.
He has a numerous plans for how to improve wages for american workers. Just because he knows that immigration is not the main problem does not mean he is somehow ok with lowering wages.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Sure but can that very same argument be used against immigration entirely?
Some people do. He isn't doing that in the clip you provided. You are trying to paint him as inconsistent on immigration and then showing him making an argument about a specific exploitative program. You have not shown him give any argument on immigration in general other than the one that is his current position. If you feel it has changed then the burden of proof is on you to show that it has changed.
How about the unlikelihood of him winning, support in senate and congress?
People made the same arguments about trump. How the establishment would just obstruct him. But the republicans all bent the knee once he took over.
Most of the establishment dems primary concern is their own well being and career. If Bernie wins it will be because his ideas are what americans want. The threat of having Bernie sanders push for you to be primaried will terrify dems just as much as Trump's tweets scare republicans. They will do what the american people elected Bernie sanders to do or they will get primaried and removed by someone who will. If establishment dems choose to obstruct what the american people want, it will not end well for them.
From the numbers using this link we find out that 21.79% of them are being employed permanently.
Umm, 60,000 in a population of 900,000 is 6.6%, not 21%.
What should the number be or should this program never exist?
We have now strayed away from the point you made this thread to talk about. You wanted to argue that Sanders is inconsistent on immigration. You have failed to do that. You have shown that he criticizes 1 specific program related to immigration that he feels is flawed and abused. That hasn't changed. You have shown no inconsistencies thus far.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Do you see how this can apply to immigration as well?
Theoretically it could, but he is specifically talking about the guest worker program. Attempting to use this as evidence that he is against immigration is at best weak and at worst dishonest. He did not say he is against immigration in that clip.
What separates Bernie and Trump specifically regarding populism?
Bernie has specific plans for how he will actually help people. He will get them healthcare, bolster unions, fight climate change etc. Trump gets them riled up about the 'libs', immigrants etc. Trump pretends he is for the people when his actions primarily benefit himself and the rich. Sanders actually is for the people and has shown that in his decades of championing causes for the people.
Guest workers get discarded before they can get raises, benefits, citizenship etc.Source.
Here is some quotes:
- Guest workers in these programs are easily exploited—they are typically paid below market wages and have little bargaining power. Additionally, employers control guest workers’ visas, which means most guest workers are unlikely to speak up about poor working conditions or cooperate with authorities after a complaint has been filed.
- Employers have the option of sponsoring H-1B workers for permanent status, but few do. Just over 60,000 H-1B workers had their applications for permanent status certified in FY 2016 and for various reasons, not all of these certified petitions will lead to permanent status.[47] Considering 275,317 H-1B visas were issued and renewed in FY 2015[48] and the size of the H-1B workforce is projected to be nearly 900,000, few employers are transitioning guest workers to permanent status. If a skilled worker is exceptionally talented, a company should be motivated to keep the worker permanently. Instead, the lack of sponsorships is further evidence that guest workers are used as cheap, temporary labor.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So are they immigrants who decrease the wages of American workers?
No, they are not immigrants. immigrant implies they will stay. Guest workers are a commodity being traded by massive corporations. They import them, use them up, then discard them. Using people in this way is immoral as well as terrible for the american people. It is great for the millionaires and billionaires who own multi-national corporations though.
He talks like a populist should that is why he is so like Trump.
Being a populist just means you try to appeal to the people. That is what literally all politicians are supposed to be doing. The fact that the vast majority of them don't do that is the problem. If the democratic party hadn't stopped trying to appeal to actual people and focused on appealing to the upper class we wouldn't be in this mess.
What makes them different to the guest worker program immigrants?
Guest workers get discarded before they can get raises, benefits, citizenship etc. When they are done with them they just get rid of them and import a new one they can under pay. An immigrant moves to america and gets permanent residency or citizenship. If you employ an immigrant then they will have the expectation of a raise, benefits etc at some point. Guest workers don't get that because the whole point is to suppress wages.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This is from a guy who is a protectionist that was against immigration and now for it?
I believe you are misinterpreting what he is saying in the 1st video.
the 1st video he is specifically talking about the guest worker program where large corporations import workers rather than trying to hire americans. Then they send them back when they are done with them. These people usually don't become americans. And since they aren't intended to be there long term these companies never have to pay them any more, they just replace them with new "guest workers". That program is designed to keep wages down by maintaining a supply of cheap labor and not have to give those laborers any rights. It is a really shitty program both for americans and the "guest workers". if you can't find workers in america to fill a job, then by all means bring people in. But they should become a citizen, not a disposable commodity.
The 2nd video is about undocumented immigrants already living in america or trying to move to america. Many of these people already live in america.
One video is about massive corporations using people to suppress wages then getting rid of them. The other is about bringing new people into the american workforce. They are very different things.
Bernie is just like any candidate. When a position becomes untenable because of the Overton Window they decide to change. Politics is game of how can you win. Sure people can have personal beliefs but they are not going to say it if it does not benefit them.
I disagree that there is any real change in his position between those 2 videos. But even if he has moved on 1 issue. He is overwhelmingly consistent. People like Pete butigeg changes his positions constantly.
Liberals who make the majority of the left are the reason why Bernie is pretty much doing worse than Biden in any poll.
lol you attack me when I throw out things without evidence, but then you do the exact same thing. Sanders has considerable support among people under 45 and a large lead in support among people under 35.
One of the main reasons that Bernie isn't doing as well in the polls is that polling companies intentionally weight their polls to those they consider most likely to vote, that is to say old people,because statistically they show up to vote more. And in an election where no one actually appeals to young people that is a perfectly valid polling strategy. in most elections no one really does anything to appeal to young people. In an election where there are candidates that young people are actually excited about, it is a less valid polling strategy.
Voter turnout among 18-29 year olds was up 16 points in 2018. Turnout among 30-44 year olds was up 13 points. Those are the categories where Sanders does extremely well. If that trend continues Sanders will do much better than the polls suggest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I was referring to the Mueller investigation.
my apologies, in that case I agree we did not know if a crime had been committed going in. However we now know that Trump committed several crimes blocking the investigation.
That was a typo. I meant Schiff said there was clear evidence of collusion. I usually listen to conservatives, who are obviously biased, but I heard he didn't really impede the investigation. I think Mueller said something to that effect at the hearings.
Mueller laid out multiple counts of chargeable obstruction of justice. If you heard he said otherwise, you heard wrong.
They shouldn't be used as a weapon. The Republicans shouldn't be doing it now and the liberals shouldn't have done it before. It is more retaliatory than anything, which doesn't absolve them.
So you acknowledge the courts are being used inappropriately, and you want to do absolutely nothing about it?
Militias consist of citizens. Militias can be used to fight of a tyrannical government or foreign threats. I think it was intended for both.
Even if i accepted that you were right, it expressly says that the weapons are for a well organized militia. That vast, vast, majority of gun owners in the US do not belong to any kind of militia. The 2nd amendment was not intended to apply to them.
Well, we have bigger militias(more people with guns) to keep our bigger military in check. I do think our military is a bit too large, though.
Technology has changed too much for this to even matter any more. Drones and MBTs beat red necks with an AR 15.
No, they are blocking essentially everything Trump tries to do on immigration. They are abusing the system of checks and balances. Some should be stopped (I'm sure you'll point to the supposed Muslim ban), but many others shouldn't yet are because they disagree.
So you are fine with the courts blocking anything progressive, but when they block attempts to attack minorities you consider that abuse?
Good, we agree. But, currently the Supreme Court is tied, with Roberts very slightly leaning our way. Trump may very well pick a moderate if a spot opens to replace far-left Ginsburg, but I kinda doubt it. The country is too partisan for that right now.
Trump has had 2 chances to appoint judges that would be fair. He has appointed ideologues both times. He doesn't care about what is right. He only cares about winning. Which is the same reason the republicans have been trying to stack the courts for years.
Things should be how they were intended to be.
It was intended to be a slave state where women and natives had no rights. I assume you are fine with ending slavery and giving women rights. So you obviously don't want it to be what it was intended to be, you just want the exclusive right to determine what should and shouldn't be changed.
Slavery wasn't considered good....that was where the 3/5 Compromise came in.
So you are acknowledging that the founding fathers planned for slavery to be a part of america. That was part of how it was "intended to be"
Well, we are in agreement that lobbying/special interests are a huge issue. If we curtail their ability to manipulate politicians or at the very least, take away power from politicians, how can they control our lives?
If the government doesn't have the power to set labor laws, employers will abuse their workers. They do now, but no where near the levels they did before the government started regulating. If you want to have a particular medical procedure and your employer decides they don't want you to have it, they could just deny you health coverage. If the government regulates that, or better provides the health insurance themselves, you cannot be denied care. I can keep going, but essentially, any power the government gives up will be taken by someone else. If you actually succeeding in shrinking the government you would just be handing that power to the rich and powerful and would lose any say in the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
What about South Korea and Japan? The US should be involved in these areas.
I assume you mean the Korean war. They were invited there. Also it was a UN mission.
As for Japan, that was in 1945. It was 75 years ago. Virtually every example of the US invading or triggering regime change has been a disaster since then. Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq are great examples of military intervention going horribly wrong.
There are also tons of examples of America trying to use subterfuge or influence to control other countries, that usually goes wrong too.
Guatamala, Cuba, Iran etc
Basically, America needs to learn that they can't control or rule over the rest of the world. It ends badly every time they try.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It would seem that the only right wingers who make their voice heard are the lunatic fringe and this is a world wide phenomenon.
I think it is more of an issue of the failure of the "center". The people who called themselves the "center" for the last few decades have mostly been corportist sellouts. The middle class has gotten hollowed out while the rich got massively richer. All the main sources of media are owned by people who have a vested interest in maintaining this corrupt system and all the politicians are paid off. They have been able to suppress any kind of real reform to the many problems modern capitalism is creating.
The natural response is to look for a solution. Since the standard sources of information are all telling the same lies about how great the current system is, people start looking for more extreme answers. This way you get people like Trump or Le Pen in France who pin all your problems on a scape goat. It's easier to point the blame at muslims, or immigrants, or poor people. If you do that you don't have to take a deeper look at the rot and corruption of the entire economic system.
The solution to these problems is real economic change. This is why people like Bernie Sanders need to win. Otherwise democracy is in real trouble.
Created: