US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

How have their position changed with regards to border security? (honest question)

Trick question.

A couple of things. Any present day Democrat or progressive who spoke like the people in those quotes would be run out of town. It appears to me that Democrats are saying one thing but not backing it up with 'concrete' action. If their position hasn't changed (I think it has) then they would be in favor of a wall/fence/barrier that would actually work at least better than what is there now. I believe that their position has changed because no one in the Democratic leadership is saying or would dare say "We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it". Quite the opposite. Walls are immoral but illegal immigrants are not. This is all about Trump and the game is quite apparent. Even a minor victory here for the President is an intolerable option. 2020 is coming fast.

The truth is Dowly that eventually a wall that actually works will be built. The present situation can't go on forever. Eventually the flow of poor, uneducated, low skill workers and their families will become a crisis inside the USA. How that actually plays out I do not know but there is a limit to everything. It would be quite ironic if a future Democratic President had to do this. Position change #3.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Things such as?

Building a wall

Dowly, you can say it's a stupid wall, but I guarantee if your country faced a massive influx of illegal aliens, you would be supporting a wall too. And don't let the race issue color your thinking. Just because it's Mexico on our southern border does not mean we do not like Mexicans. We just like it when they stay in their country and we stay in ours. try to imagine if your country was being flooded with illegal aliens from Texas like me, you would not like that at all,

[Rockstar]

"Finland is not to make everybody happy in the world. Finland should take care of the Finns first."

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Dems have been willing to fund Trump's stupid wall in exchange for proper a DACA solution (i.e. not an extension, but a permanent solution). Think the highest Dems have gone was $25B?

This is where the Democrats lack of good faith comes into play. Trump offered a temporary stay during the shut down that the Dems could certainly have bargained up to a permanent one had they been willing to seriously negotiate with Trump over border security.

[Buddahaid]

There are asses on both sides in this mega game of chicken. Only the common man loses.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Dowly, you can say it's a stupid wall, but I guarantee if your country faced a massive influx of illegal aliens, you would be supporting a wall too. And don't let the race issue color your thinking. Just because it's Mexico on our southern border does not mean we do not like Mexicans. We just like it when they stay in their country and we stay in ours. try to imagine if your country was being flooded with illegal aliens from Texas like me, you would not like that at all,

Majority of your illegals are due to overstaying their visas. As I already said before in this thread, maybe you guys should look into making it harder for illegals to live in America. I'm not against border security, I'm simply against the wall. It's stupid.

Originally Posted by August

This is where the Democrats lack of good faith comes into play. Trump offered a temporary stay during the shut down that the Dems could certainly have bargained up to a permanent one had they been willing to seriously negotiate with Trump over border security.

Dems did try to negotiate with Trump and I am sure the question of DACA came up more than once.



In other news,

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by u crank

I don't think that politicians and especially the President are elected to compromise....

I am only one voter, but that is exactly whats I am looking for when electing a representative and president.

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”― Otto von Bismarck


Politics is about negotiating consensus and cooperation between factions.

The effective politician is pragmatic and pragmatism welcomes compromise.

One could modify Bismarck's comment to read "Politics is the art of the compromise.

[Platapus]

The Arizona Legislation is trying to pass a law proclaiming that porno is a public health crisis in Arizona.

I wonder where they get off saying that.

[Skybird]

I am not against border security, I am only against that wall, said Dowly.



Assuming for the monent the wall would be an effective border security measure. And not even a lethal one, like the Germna wall was that was build to keep people in, not to keep unwanted foreigners out (although that was what the SED regime claimed when labelling it the anti-fascist protection wall).



Then the quote would be, in brief: I am against effective border security, i only want a strawman alibi to claim I have border security, while de facto I have none.


I am not certain whether that wall will work the way it is inteded. Many border protectors say it will be a shift towards the positive (=the wanted intention), some borde rprotectors say it will not make much difference.



So why not trying it. Fact also is the American people have all right one could imagine whether or not they want foreigners coming in and walkign on their land. Its not the Mexicans' land, they have zero claim for anything in all this. They can and muist ask for permission, and if the answer is no, they have to accept it - unconditionally.



Walls and fences can be good to keep the bad guys out, or to keep people who cannot live together, apart. Only walls that keep apart people that want to live together, and walls keeping innocents locked in, are bad. But this wanting to live together, must be mutual. And if the one side does no share the desire of the other, then a wall is absolutely legitimate, and morally fine. Its the same reasoning why we have doors in our houses and usually locking them.



Walls are demonised in general today. that is absurd. Walls protect, can give shelter, provide cover and security and help law and order. Ask the Israelis whether they compare their walls to the German wall and its death strip, that killing zone of mines and self-shooting installtion. They will say no and prove you black on wide and empirically that where they have build wals, the number of violent incidents and terror attacks by border-crossing terrorists have drmaatically, substantially dropped.



I am a fan of walls and fences, if erected for the right reasons. It helps to keep things sorted, and helps to declare clearly what goes and what not, how far the other can move forward, and where the line in the sand is. Becasue we are not all the same bunch, we are not all the same kind, and not everybody can and wants to live peacefully together with just everyone and everybody else.



Walls provide safety in the generla menaing of keeping unwanted people out. And who is unwated and who not gets decided by just one side: the owner of the place.

On this there can and shall be no compromise.


Whether a wall between the US and Mexico works or not, remaisn to be seen. When it works and empricaly counting things out shows it drops illegal border crossings signfiicantly, then it works. If it doe snot cntrbute to this intention, then it works not. Just one thing is clear: the desire of froegners to corss the border, play absoutely no role here. Not at all.



Else Dowly would need to accept to let me in and give me a third of his garden if I move there and say I want to build a small blockhouse to live there. I cannot imagine he would accept that without setting up a fight. Because its his garden - not mine.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Then the quote would be, in brief: I am against effective border security, i only want a strawman alibi to claim I have border security, while de facto I have none.

No. The quote remains the same. Do not put words in my mouth.


Why not try the wall? Because it is fudging expensive and there are no guarantees that it works!

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am only one voter, but that is exactly whats I am looking for when electing a representative and president.

Politics is about negotiating consensus and cooperation between factions.

The effective politician is pragmatic and pragmatism welcomes compromise

I am not suggesting that the President should not compromise. There is a difference between compromise and capitulation. In regards to the border security debate it would seem that this is what Pelosi and Schumer want. Capitulation. We saw that after the shut down ended. To deny the President some success on a campaign promise is just that. Trump wants $5.7 billion for his wall. In less than a decade the interest on the national debt will hit the $1 trillion mark and then become a consistent $1 trillion outlay each year. What Trump wants is peanuts and to deny him that is pure political warfare by Nancy and Chuck. The fact that they are not trying to extract a good deal here when one is possible says a lot.

This situation and others are problematic because giving into Trump on any issue is anathema for the Democratic leadership. Trump's reelection chances just keep going up.

A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece.

Ludwig Erhard

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Majority of your illegals are due to overstaying their visas.

Cite! This is simply not true

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dowly

No. The quote remains the same. Do not put words in my mouth.


Why not try the wall? Because it is fudging expensive and there are no guarantees that it works!

The money argument is a thing the Americans have to settle with all by themselves. The efficiency of the wall as a tool to cut illegal migration must be tested. As I said, walls in other parts of the world and throughout history has proven to be very effective for their tasks. Today in the west people already go hysterical if you juts say the word "wall". It should all be a rosy-red pony farm instead where all are smiling and be happy and nobody does nobody else any harm.



You want guarantees? And do nothing if no guarantee is given? Best lay still and be dead then. Life has no guarantees for nothing.



Be empirical, test and experience. Test it, see the results, and then one knows. Many border patrolling officers seem to say it works. Some say it works not and is a waste of money. Let the US go in full with this and then learn for sure what it is about.



What else should be done? Legalising migration and making illegal migration dissappear this way? Or the Australian model? Sure I like the Australian model, it is super-efficient and apparently the most successful attenmpt to tackle migraitpon and cut it to a low one digit percentage value of its former volume, but it raises even more antipathy in the public than the wall model. And the social-cultural unity by which the Han and the Japanese refuse any call to mix their ethincity and culture with foreigners is an option that is unrelastic in the West since such an ammount of collective unity does not exist over here.



The simple truth is this: migration can be digested by Western countries only to a certain level and not beyond, else migration takes over the hosting country. And cutting migraiton back cannot be done in a nice and "humane" way, but only by saying "No!" and acting dirty and unkind. Nobody wants to be seen like that, but thats how it is. They keep coming - either you kick them out and slam and then guard the door, or you give up and let them come in. These two options. Anything else is just egg-dancing and babbling.

[Platapus]

To the optimist, a compromise is the result where both sides win
To the pessimist, a compromise is the result where both sides lose
To the pragmatist, a compromise is the result of doing the best you can with what you have.

All three are correct.

Capitulation only works in an environment where these is a quid pro quo exchange.

I allow you to get everything you want in this area and you agree to give me everything I want in another area. Unfortunately, that only works when each side does not care that much about one of the issues.

One of the skills for a good negotiator is being able to recognize that which the opposing party is willing to negotiate and that which the opposing party is not willing to negotiate. They can then focus on the possible instead of wasting time on the improbable.

There are times, rightfully or not, where the concept of "everything is negotiable" may not apply. That's when you reach an impasse and that's when the skill of negotiation becomes apparent.

[Skybird]

There are things that are unnegotiable per se. When somebody wants you to take a lethal poison. What should a compromise be then? That you can opt for a sweet versus a sour taste? Can take the poison over three evenings instead of all in one drink? That you can opt for pill format and choose the pill colour freely? You are dead, no matter your negotiating skill.

Its not all and everything negotiable.

Also when the other has no right and claim to raise demands against you, and you owe him nothing. Why should you then even agree to hold negotiations - if the other does not use violence as a threat and you are too weak to resist to that? In which case it is no negotiation anyway, but a mere dictate of conditions.