US Politics Thread

[shawnbm]

Yes, on this he does make a lot of sense. I think words like fascist and communist/socialist get thrown around too easily, but he hits a strong point on this concerning the protections of the 14th Amendment. People of to go on about Ellis Island and the hoards of people that came hundred plus years ago to the shores of the United States of America, mostly through that Harbor in New York. That is all true, but notice that there are long list of names and that they came through legal channels. We have never had the kind of insanity we have had the last 20 to 30 years with masts illegal immigration with full intent of doing illegally. The People he came hundred years ago came legally in the country except of them legally. These people are not coming legally. They don't want to wait and they don't want to go through what needs to be gone through. They just want to do it because they want to do it and then give birth to children here and then they can hire lawyers (the American Way) and file lawsuits and drag things out when all the could be done legally. I still have not heard a valid reason by opponents to what I suggest to mask illegal immigration as opposed to legally entering the country. They have been incentivized by the current administration to do exactly what it is they are doing. We need to create new incentives and strictly enforce the laws. If half of the people crossing illegally were to go through proper channels and legally enter the country, that would not be a bad thing, but a good thing. But when you are permitting and almost encouraging the illegal immigration, you're going to get a lot of the bad things, along with it. We all know what that is.

 

[Federberg]

Yes, on this he does make a lot of sense. I think words like fascist and communist/socialist get thrown around too easily, but he hits a strong point on this concerning the protections of the 14th Amendment. People of to go on about Ellis Island and the hoards of people that came hundred plus years ago to the shores of the United States of America, mostly through that Harbor in New York. That is all true, but notice that there are long list of names and that they came through legal channels. We have never had the kind of insanity we have had the last 20 to 30 years with masts illegal immigration with full intent of doing illegally. The People he came hundred years ago came legally in the country except of them legally. These people are not coming legally. They don't want to wait and they don't want to go through what needs to be gone through. They just want to do it because they want to do it and then give birth to children here and then they can hire lawyers (the American Way) and file lawsuits and drag things out when all the could be done legally. I still have not heard a valid reason by opponents to what I suggest to mask illegal immigration as opposed to legally entering the country. They have been incentivized by the current administration to do exactly what it is they are doing. We need to create new incentives and strictly enforce the laws. If half of the people crossing illegally were to go through proper channels and legally enter the country, that would not be a bad thing, but a good thing. But when you are permitting and almost encouraging the illegal immigration, you're going to get a lot of the bad things, along with it. We all know what that is.

just look at Europe to see how bad things can get. Stockholm in the summer was a fun place to go to in the 90s and noughties. Not anymore...

 

[shawnbm]

It is funny you mentioned Europe in your response. I remember when I lived over their in the late 1980s and early 1990s how seemingly homogenous so many of the nations in Europe were even at that time. In southern Spain and Madrid he did have more Moroccan's than the country had been accustomed to and there was certainly pushback as to that. The same can be said of Marseilles friends and those groups of people that were clearly non-French and came from other countries that were in certain areas of Paris. When you makes these different cultures and ethnicities together, it is only natural there could be some friction and misunderstanding. But apart from that, as well as certain things in southern Italy, large parts of Europe were seemingly homogenous. People you met had family and whatnot that were there for generations and generations. People would talk about race relations in USA and criticize the country, which at that time was during the Reagan-Bush eras. I found myself on the defense of quite a bit back them.

Fast-forward to today and Europe is tasting a bit of what it is like to have a country that views itself as a melting pot and has a significant immigration situation. We still grapple with this here in USA, but for Europe it seems to me some of this is quite new. You mentioned Sweden and I know the situation is ongoing in a similar vein in Norway. On top of that you have an incredible amount of North African immigrants into France and even into Switzerland now, that is a new phenomenon and causes its own set of problems. It is so easy to throw around labels use offensive names and whatnot, but until you experience it and see how things can change within the just a few years, it is best to sit back and be patient and trying to understand the dynamics at play. People always try to emigrate to a land that offers more opportunity and clearly North America and Western Europe are viewed as areas that offer a lot of opportunity. It creates certain tensions and difficulties. But in light of the values of Western civilization, the people keep coming. There are some very wealthy nations in the Middle East and in Asia, but we don't see the kind of emigration to those areas anywhere near the level we have seen in the last decades to the areas I mentioned above, do we? I wonder why.

 

[Federberg]

It is funny you mentioned Europe in your response. I remember when I lived over their in the late 1980s and early 1990s how seemingly homogenous so many of the nations in Europe were even at that time. In southern Spain and Madrid he did have more Moroccan's than the country had been accustomed to and there was certainly pushback as to that. The same can be said of Marseilles friends and those groups of people that were clearly non-French and came from other countries that were in certain areas of Paris. When you makes these different cultures and ethnicities together, it is only natural there could be some friction and misunderstanding. But apart from that, as well as certain things in southern Italy, large parts of Europe were seemingly homogenous. People you met had family and whatnot that were there for generations and generations. People would talk about race relations in USA and criticize the country, which at that time was during the Reagan-Bush eras. I found myself on the defense of quite a bit back them.

Fast-forward to today and Europe is tasting a bit of what it is like to have a country that views itself as a melting pot and has a significant immigration situation. We still grapple with this here in USA, but for Europe it seems to me some of this is quite new. You mentioned Sweden and I know the situation is ongoing in a similar vein in Norway. On top of that you have an incredible amount of North African immigrants into France and even into Switzerland now, that is a new phenomenon and causes its own set of problems. It is so easy to throw around labels use offensive names and whatnot, but until you experience it and see how things can change within the just a few years, it is best to sit back and be patient and trying to understand the dynamics at play. People always try to emigrate to a land that offers more opportunity and clearly North America and Western Europe are viewed as areas that offer a lot of opportunity. It creates certain tensions and difficulties. But in light of the values of Western civilization, the people keep coming. There are some very wealthy nations in the Middle East and in Asia, but we don't see the kind of emigration to those areas anywhere near the level we have seen in the last decades to the areas I mentioned above, do we? I wonder why.

you're largely correct, but to be fair... Dubai has more immigrants than locals. Japan has a huge Brazilian population, and there are a shit load of Africans doing manual labour, particularly Nigerians. Walk around Shinjuku in the middle of the night and there's a vast array of languages being spoken. Still... it's no where near to the level of Europe and North America. The main difference is that the local culture is maintained. None of this melting pot shite. If you come to a country speak the language, adopt the culture. At least make an effort to do so. Problem is that if you go to cities like Bradford in the UK it's different now. I'm not sure there's much difference from being in Lahore! Some areas practice Sharia law. I mean what the absolute fuck!

And miss me with the cultural intolerance bullshit. You go to countries in Africa and if immigrants don't toe the line there's hell to pay. In South Africa there are often riots by the local black population against Nigerians (who tend to be entrepreneurial) accused of taking all the good jobs. I recall a story about Nigeria in the early 80s, where immigrants from neighbouring countries (Ghana, Togo etc..) were given a few weeks to leave Lagos. You know those laundry bags? That's what people had to use to flee with their belongings. To this day, if you meet a Nigerian talking about 'Ghana must go' bags, that's what they're talking about. My point is that accusations about Western countries being intolerant whatever denigration, should be absorbed with the understanding that they're a hell of a lot better than anywhere else. I would love to see these assholes stabbing and raping people in European cities try that shit in Jeddah...

 

[shawnbm]

^ This. And when someone in western Europe or North America brings that up, the immigrants-at-all-costs people cry out in unison that we should strive to do better and be more than xyz ... It is garbage. Is it any wonder the overwhelming majority of a tying that immigrated to this country, as well as the Polish and German immigrants, a century ago fully embraced the American way of life, including the language, and now they don't speak Italian or Polish or German and most of their children don't either. They became Americans in English is the language of this country. I can't speak for other people's countries, but that is the case in the USA. The new modern immigrant does not want to acclimate all. They want to come to this country and, as in the case in Dearborn, Michigan, create their own country within the boundary of this country, complete with their own customs, their own local laws and religious guard, etc. They don't want to learn the language or they learned only passing only in their language from their country means the language there. It was the same thing with the Cubans in South Florida, but not for very long. The people that originally came over embraced becoming American and even if it was difficult, they chose to speak English. Nowadays, a very different situation. Make no mistake – – I am an American who feels that American citizens should strive to be at least bilingual is that is becoming more important in the world. But, all these illegal aliens and immigrants are just coming her to work. All of the people in Dubai are not citizens and they are not immigrating there to become citizens of that country. Make it work permits and the come there for the work with the understanding that they will go back once the building is finished. At least, that is what I understand.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, on this he does make a lot of sense. I think words like fascist and communist/socialist get thrown around too easily, but he hits a strong point on this concerning the protections of the 14th Amendment. People of to go on about Ellis Island and the hoards of people that came hundred plus years ago to the shores of the United States of America, mostly through that Harbor in New York. That is all true, but notice that there are long list of names and that they came through legal channels. We have never had the kind of insanity we have had the last 20 to 30 years with masts illegal immigration with full intent of doing illegally. The People he came hundred years ago came legally in the country except of them legally. These people are not coming legally. They don't want to wait and they don't want to go through what needs to be gone through. They just want to do it because they want to do it and then give birth to children here and then they can hire lawyers (the American Way) and file lawsuits and drag things out when all the could be done legally. I still have not heard a valid reason by opponents to what I suggest to mask illegal immigration as opposed to legally entering the country. They have been incentivized by the current administration to do exactly what it is they are doing. We need to create new incentives and strictly enforce the laws. If half of the people crossing illegally were to go through proper channels and legally enter the country, that would not be a bad thing, but a good thing. But when you are permitting and almost encouraging the illegal immigration, you're going to get a lot of the bad things, along with it. We all know what that is.

I love you, Shawn, but this is not historically sound. Not everyone 'came legally until recently.' First, there weren't immigration restrictions for some time, or many. They were "legal" because there were few laws against them. Then there was the rather horrible "Chinese Exclusion Act" of 1882. The Chinese had to carry papers to prove they were legal, even as some were citizens, because the Chinese (or even if they looked Chinese) were assumed to be illegal. Which also implies that many were. Early 20th C., the US decided it didn't want so many southern Europeans, based on racist ideas. Italians still came in, under false names, and as stowaways. I went on a tour of the Tenement Museum here in NYC. (I've been on a few. It's an excellent museum!) It was the home of an Italian-American family. The husband came from Southern Italy legally in...I'm going to say the mid-late 30s. He got a job, an apt., this particular apt., and had his wife join him after a couple of years. But the laws had changed, and she couldn't come legally. So she sailed to Canada, and entered the US illegally. If I remember correctly, she never was legal in the US, even though they lived there for another 40 or so years. They were the last tenants in that apt. before it was shut, and eventually bought by the association that runs the Tenement Museum, and restored it. It's a genteel story, and no one would begrudge her, but that is the story of some immigrants, now, too. They're just trying to join family.

It's wrong to pretend that immigrants to the US used to always play by the rules, and now they don't. It's also wrong not to recognize that our immigration policies have gone from non-existent, to racist and strict in one direction or another, back to loose and welcoming, and back to strict. I'm not saying that we don't have an immigration problem, but you can't say that immigrants used to play by the rules, and now they don't. That's just not true.

 

[Federberg]

Fascinating. This video describes the efforts Claudine Gay and other black professors at Harvard took to cancel a groundbreaking black economics professor at Harvard. The guy they cancelled is fascinating. His research questions a lot of the tropes used to excuse the lack of progress of blacks in America. He uses data, and he's put his time and money to the test by creating schools and environments that have had great results for black students. Interestingly race hustlers have resisted his efforts on behalf of disadvantaged black students. Let me repeat that, these people (who you would think are all about black empowerment) were more interested in sustaining victimhood than supporting efforts to improve the lives of black students. Anyone who feels pity for Gay should take a rain check on that. It's incredible. These people are evil, but they sound well meaning...

 

[Moxie]

SCOTUS will take on the Colorado decision about putting DJT on the ballot, or not. They won't disappoint him, I'm sure. Meantime, the anniversary of insurrection was yesterday, and Trump has taking to calling those accused and convicted of insurrection and other crimes related to that event as "J-6 hostages." And worse, some Republicans are parroting it. Rep. Elise Stefanik, (R-NY) being one, on the morning shows today. Unconscionable.

 

[Federberg]

SCOTUS will take on the Colorado decision about putting DJT on the ballot, or not. They won't disappoint him, I'm sure. Meantime, the anniversary of insurrection was yesterday, and Trump has taking to calling those accused and convicted of insurrection and other crimes related to that event as "J-6 hostages." And worse, some Republicans are parroting it. Rep. Elise Stefanik, (R-NY) being one, on the morning shows today. Unconscionable.

you're probably right. I'll assign a greater than 50% probability to your view. But... these guys are there for life. Of the conservatives I think there are a few who are not Trumpers. Their choice is not Trump or the democratic party though. It's Trump or other Republican candidates. Don't be shocked if some of them strictly follow the constitutional text. If they do... my understanding is that it's pretty clear, he's disqualified

 

[Kieran]

Fascinating. This video describes the efforts Claudine Gay and other black professors at Harvard took to cancel a groundbreaking black economics professor at Harvard. The guy they cancelled is fascinating. His research questions a lot of the tropes used to excuse the lack of progress of blacks in America. He uses data, and he's put his time and money to the test by creating schools and environments that have had great results for black students. Interestingly race hustlers have resisted his efforts on behalf of disadvantaged black students. Let me repeat that, these people (who you would think are all about black empowerment) were more interested in sustaining victimhood than supporting efforts to improve the lives of black students. Anyone who feels pity for Gay should take a rain check on that. It's incredible. These people are evil, but they sound well meaning...

Claudine Gay is an emblem of everything that’s wrong with America, and growing to be a problem in the west in general. She’s a gift of the DIE initiative, a product placement for bad ideologies, but she was placed in a high position, to lend credibility to the worst ideas available. To advance them. Democrats love to moan about the insurrection: the insurrection gave us Claudine Gay, an incompetent bigot, and an academic hoaxer who was put in charge of Harvard, of all places. It gave us BLM, trans tyranny in schools, mostly peaceful riots, and feminists being punched in the face by men, while being cheered by leftists.

That’s a shocking story which shows that all the race nonsense in America is just that - nonsense. As bigot number one in the White House put it, “You ain’t black” if you’re a black person who’s not following the program. There’s a right way to be black, and Claudine was on the team, cheerleading the abuse of Jewish people.

Tellingly, when she finally fell on her sword (and why did that take so long? It was clear cut) Ibram X Kendi, an anti-intellectual cowardly darling of the left, tweeted this:



Follow the thread of his thoughts and you see a man who filters everything through his primitive but lucrative notions of race. This is a man who dim bulb white liberals gave more than $40m to manage a race-hustle research centre in Boston university that has produced not a single research paper in 3 years but did produce many lay offs of staff, though naturally Kendi gets paid.

Roland Fryer is the great rebuttal to the modern race narrative, which meant the left had to try destroy him..

 

[Kieran]

I will give it all a look...thanks!

What did you think of it?

 

[Moxie]

What did you think of it?

Interesting. I liked those guys...they're smart and very fair.

 

[Moxie]

you're probably right. I'll assign a greater than 50% probability to your view. But... these guys are there for life. Of the conservatives I think there are a few who are not Trumpers.

While I generally prefer to be idealistic, the court doesn't encourage that. They've already put their finger on the scale in Bush v. Gore. (Yes, a different make-up of the court, but this one is more conservative and pro-Trump.) Clarence Thomas is unlikely to recuse himself, despite his wife's position on the "stolen" election, and Jan. 6th rally.

Their choice is not Trump or the democratic party though. It's Trump or other Republican candidates.

That's not their choice, at all, is it? I mean, if they were to make a political "choice," which they're not supposed to do. They're supposed to rule on the law and the constitutionality of the lower court's decision. IF they were to make a political choice, IMO, it would be to find a way to keep Trump on the ballot to let the voters decide, rather than risking the fall-out, which could be huge, of having Trump excluded from some states and not others. It's tricky stuff, especially if they're trying not appear partisan.

Don't be shocked if some of them strictly follow the constitutional text. If they do... my understanding is that it's pretty clear, he's disqualified

I might be surprised if they vote for strict letter of the Constitution, but I would be heartened, from the POV of SCOTUS. Not because I'm anti-Trump, (which I am,) but because, like you, my reading of the Amendment is that he's not qualified. And the conservative justices claim to be strict Constitutionalists. However, I don't know what becomes of us, in the short-term, if Trump is excluded from the ballot in some states. I do, however, believe that what becomes of us in the long-term, if they don't uphold that amendment, is not very good. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. This is where I think I would miss Scalia and Ginsburg.

 

[Kieran]

Interesting. I liked those guys...they're smart and very fair.

Which guys? The ones reviewing the film, or the ones who made the film?

 

[Federberg]

That's not their choice, at all, is it? I mean, if they were to make a political "choice," which they're not supposed to do. They're supposed to rule on the law and the constitutionality of the lower court's decision. IF they were to make a political choice, IMO, it would be to find a way to keep Trump on the ballot to let the voters decide, rather than risking the fall-out, which could be huge, of having Trump excluded from some states and not others. It's tricky stuff, especially if they're trying not appear partisan.

I think you're misreading this. And that's not to say they won't take your view. But... Bush vs Gore was about... Bush vs Gore presidential election. In this case this is about a primary candidate. If Trump is off the ballot it doesn't mean that Republicans lose. It just means that another candidate will represent the Republican Party. The polling numbers seem to indicate that both Trump and Biden are unpopular. Biden's numbers against anyone not named Trump are bad... very bad. So if we want to frame this as a political decision, it's entirely possible that these very smart conservative judges might come to the conclusion that it's actually not harmful to the Republican cause. It's bad for Trump and Trumpers for sure. But not the Republican Party. I guarantee you Biden is hoping SCOTUS does what you fear they'll do. I find it hard to believe that all of them will disregard that aspect of this. It just might give them the comfort they need to focus on the constitutionality of this decision and not the politics. Look... I'm cynical enough to believe that they probably will do what you think, but I'm also smart enough to realise that if they do the right thing it just might work out that their political desires get realised. Are you telling me these guys aren't able to make the same calculation? Hmmm...

 

[Federberg]

interesting thesis... if it's Trump vs Biden I still think it'll be a blow out in Biden's favour. This largely parallels my view that Trump is not additive and is structurally below 50% of the electorate and I don't see that changing over time. If you tell me some significant independent candidates then maybe Trump would have a chance. Otherwise.....

 

[tented]

Interesting. I liked those guys...they're smart and very fair.

Did you agree with them?

 

[Federberg]

^that reminds me I need to watch the Rumble thing on George Floyd. Haven't commented because I'm yet to watch it

 

[shawnbm]

I love you, Shawn, but this is not historically sound. Not everyone 'came legally until recently.' First, there weren't immigration restrictions for some time, or many. They were "legal" because there were few laws against them. Then there was the rather horrible "Chinese Exclusion Act" of 1882. The Chinese had to carry papers to prove they were legal, even as some were citizens, because the Chinese (or even if they looked Chinese) were assumed to be illegal. Which also implies that many were. Early 20th C., the US decided it didn't want so many southern Europeans, based on racist ideas. Italians still came in, under false names, and as stowaways. I went on a tour of the Tenement Museum here in NYC. (I've been on a few. It's an excellent museum!) It was the home of an Italian-American family. The husband came from Southern Italy legally in...I'm going to say the mid-late 30s. He got a job, an apt., this particular apt., and had his wife join him after a couple of years. But the laws had changed, and she couldn't come legally. So she sailed to Canada, and entered the US illegally. If I remember correctly, she never was legal in the US, even though they lived there for another 40 or so years. They were the last tenants in that apt. before it was shut, and eventually bought by the association that runs the Tenement Museum, and restored it. It's a genteel story, and no one would begrudge her, but that is the story of some immigrants, now, too. They're just trying to join family.

It's wrong to pretend that immigrants to the US used to always play by the rules, and now they don't. It's also wrong not to recognize that our immigration policies have gone from non-existent, to racist and strict in one direction or another, back to loose and welcoming, and back to strict. I'm not saying that we don't have an immigration problem, but you can't say that immigrants used to play by the rules, and now they don't. That's just not true.

Thank you for your post, Moxie. I love you also my dear, and I cannot say that I know one way or the other everything you say in your post is true as set forth above in your reply concerning immigration. I know that there were many immigrants who came here legally a century ago (and some illegal) but, more importantly, our nation was open to immigrants at a certain time because of the need for people to come to this country which was expanding, growing and needed people. Yes, there were altruistic reasons as well, including taking in people who were hungry and suffering in other parts of the world. We are still doing that today. It is the scale and orchestrated nature of mass illegal immigration that was not present back then. There were not the kind of coordinated smuggling operations for sick profits like today. Every nation has a right through its political system to decide how many people it wants to permit to come into its country. A number of countries have very strict laws in this regard. I do not see a problem with that. And when that law is there for all to see and understand, I do not see a problem with deporting people who illegally enter. From what I read here, there are countries out there that have much stricter regulations regarding immigration than USA does. I will want to go to one of these museums the next time in New York City. It is an ongoing issue and I find it interesting that some Western European nations are really feeling the pinch these days concerning mass emigration from North Africa, the Middle East and Asia into these previously largely homogenous societies of a different ethnicity and culture. It is going to be a struggle as it always is.

I hope you enjoy the Australian open even though your very favorite is injured again and will not be there. That is a very sad a piece of news and I sincerely hope he is back up and running for the claim court season and an effort to prevail in Paris yet again. If he got injured so easily plaintiff's one little event before the Australian open, that I have to wonder if he is going to play the grass court season. Maybe he makes it to Wimbledon but no other grass court events?

 

[tented]

^that reminds me I need to watch the Rumble thing on George Floyd. Haven't commented because I'm yet to watch it

I’d love to get your thoughts on it too.