Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. 10 hours ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

    Pussies are people who ignore IG findings because their fragile, irrational bubble just can't bear popping.  Pussies are those whose principles are so malleable that they embrace wannabe fascists rather than face the humiliation of admitting they fucked up.  Pussies would rather rail about someone who lost an election 1.5 years ago because they've got nothing else.  The Party of No became the Party of No Balls, and you're the poster child.

    This is good

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  2. 3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    1000% the problem. Open borders or nothing.  You absolve the parent completely for putting their child in that position in the first place. You absolve Mexico and the countries they passed through as well. 

    Why are illegal immigrants >> than minority Americans?  Where is your hill top for all of the American children separated from their parents from the criminal justice system (Kaepernick)?  We already can’t or don’t help those in most need  in our country but you want to double the problem. 

    As long as one side will only approach the issue with emotional antidotes we will never fix our broken system. Those in power to make the policy and those who champion the cause turn a blind eye and insult the Americans already suffering today. 

    Why are you ok with separating American families but not illegal immigrants?  How much extra have you contributed in taxes to cover the cost?  How many people live in you 3000sq ft home?  It’s easy to play white knight when your standard of living is in zero jeopardy. Everyone seems to agree that low skilled and manual labor jobs are rapidly disappearing, but we want to flood the country with more of these workers??  It is pure fucking insanity. It seems you won’t be happy until it’s the .1% and the rest on welfare. 

     

    Your comments make no sense. Lets look at your first paragraph of this comment.

    "1000% the problem."  What is the problem? Where is the verb? What are you saying? 

    "Open borders or nothing." There is no verb here. What are you saying? 

    "You absolve the parent completely for putting their child in that position in the first place." This is a strawman. No one is absolving the parent completely of anything. You are attempting to argue against a position that no one is taking. A strawman is a sign of weakness.

    "You absolve Mexico and the countries they passed through as well." This is another strawman. 

    Your entire first paragraph had absolutely no meaning and made no sense.

    • Like 1
  3. 12 minutes ago, F250 said:

    It's immoral, removing a baby or toddler from their parents and then locking the child up separated from any family member without a dedicated primary caregiver is a horrible thing to do. Any human with a shred of humanity ought to be morally outraged by whats happening with these children.

    Trump has done a lot of bad shit but this here is a stain on the soul of the nation and we are all culpable for this sin.

     

    The outrage is justified. Just like the outrage over the realization we were torturing prisoners.  Torturing and separating families are counter to American values. This is basic stuff.

    IMO it takes a degree of xenophobia or nativism driven by propaganda that allows people to view immigrants as less-than-human to get to the point where separating families is OK or justified.

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, RandomIdoit said:

    And how much do they get back on their tax return? If they have children, they get back more than they paid into SS, Medicare, and Federal withholding. I used TurboTax as an estimator and a single parent with 2 children received almost $9,000 back.

    I don't know what they would get back. I'm not sure how it is relevant though. There are federal income taxes; however, there are also state and local taxes. 

  5. 21 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

    This is a good argument. However, what does the US do after they allow unskilled immigrants in and then they start having children? They will need medical care, food stamps, and housing. So now we have people to fill those jobs, but we have to support them if they have children because they are unskilled and they are paid accordingly.

    Unskilled laborers make an income and pay taxes. For a full understanding of the issue, see the CBO report I linked above.

  6. Mexico has a large amount of unskilled labor so they don't need additional unskilled laborers.

    The US has a need for unskilled workers. 

    Lets look at our current legal immigration process.  See the below link and the left side of the chart. 

    https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf

    If you are unskilled and have no family in the US, your only option is illegal immigration.

    Since the US has a demand for unskilled workers and that demand should be met to support our industries and economy, we have an obligation to ensure we provide a humane pathway for unskilled workers to enter and contribute to our economy.  

  7. 1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    The problem is the manipulation and ignorance of facts surrounding immigration.

    First, we actually need the labor.  There are currently more jobs available than workers to fill them.

    Second, immigrants (legal and illegal) are a net positive on the economy.

    Third, immigrants (legal or illegal) are less likely to be incarcerated for criminal behavior than a natural born citizen.

    I’m all for border security but there needs to be a streamlined process to allow people to come into the country without fear of persecution and contribute to the country if that’s what they want to do.

     

     

    These points are accurate.  These issues are complicated.  Combine that with a sizable amount of our population's inability to understand complicated issues, folks with varying degrees of nativism and xenophobia, and organized propaganda taking advantage of all this, we get the alt-right, fox news, trumpkins, and online right-wing trolls spouting what they spout and unable to converse in any meaningful way.

    CATO: "The criminal conviction and arrest rates for immigrants were well below those of native-born Americans. Moreover, the conviction and arrest rates for illegal immigrants were lower than those for native-born Americans."

    https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant#full 

    CBO: "Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax
    revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."

    https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

    • Like 1
  8. 14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I am sure that Bolverk thought through all the nuances of 1950's tax policy when he arrived at his conclusion to "tax rich assholes more". 

    LOL why would anyone ever need to think "through all the nuances of the 1950's tax policy" before developing the conclusion to the tax the rich more? Is it that there isn't a need and that you are just spouting shit? 

    Also, try to stop spouting shit. It is lame.

  9. 1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

    Because the suggestion that we should go back to eisenhower rates without considering the total tax policy context that those rates were deployed in is the dumbest thing going. 

    And how do you know that he did not consider that when he formulated his opinion, uh argument? 

  10. 1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

    This is one of the dumbest arguments going. Read up about about the total tax scheme and effective tax rates under eisenhower. 

    That wasn't an argument. It was an opinion. Lets pretend it was an argument, do you have a rationale for why it would be "one of the dumbest arguments going?"

  11. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    Emphasized for, well, emphasis.

    How many years have we listened to their rhetoric of "oh, I don't have any problem with LEGAL immigrants who do it the right way -- I just have a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants, because the law!  How dare you call me racist!"?  Seriously, that's been their repeated chorus.  Now, their God-king is repeatedly tweeting about CHANGING the existing law to reduce currently LEGAL immigration.

    And it is -- AND ALWAYS WAS -- utter bullshit.  100%, pure-dee bullshit.

    They don't want any more dirty brown people coming here.  And if the LEGAL system would allow that to happen, well....then we just need to change that.

    Trump and the Trumpkins are what they are, and what they always have been.  I guess the refreshing thing is that they've finally stopped trying to hide it.

    I agree with your use of "trumpkin." It is a very important distinction. Their anti-immigrant positions are not held by conservatives or traditional republicans.  See the CATO institute, the Bushes, McCain, McConnell, Romney, and Ryan.  The core conservative actors all support immigration. They know how valuable immigration is to our industries and economy.

    The alt-right, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and Steve Miller wing of the party are leading the charge against immigrant for the trumpkins.  

    Racism applies. Xenophobia and nativism may be more accurate.

    The MS-13 stories, stories of crimes by "illegals," and false and overblown economic impact stories are all obvious propaganda trying to tap into nativism.  Fox news is full of this. 

    Humans evolved into families and tribes so these urges can be very strong. Unfortunately, the biggest counter to nativism and xenophobia are education, life experiences with new people, and traveling to new places. This is why the republican party is susceptible.  

     

  12. 13 minutes ago, Equinox said:

    Uhhh....

    Both sides, it's not new, etc.

    BoTh SIDeS aRe tHe SaMe is a meme for a reason. It’s a meme because only one side uses it, which gives it ironic humor. It’s a meme because it requires the use of fallacies, both whataboutism and false equivalency. 

  13. 38 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

    Because the other side doesn't have the intellectual capacity to troll a bait line.

    Wrong. The right doesn’t troll because the left are dumb. That makes no sense. The right trolls because they are dishonest, lack values, and are consistently in weak positions. If they were honest and had values, the right would modify their positions, rather than having to troll

    • Like 1
  14. 48 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

    Hell, I voted for her, but I don’t like her and I didn’t think she would do anything positive for the country. I viewed her as a placeholder until somebody better came along. 

    What is the possibility that this sentiment is the result of persistent criticism by republicans? We are all influenced by media in some way shape or form.

    7 hours ago, Satchel said:

    From Politifact:

    "Her polling numbers started going up during her time in the Senate and hit another peak of 58 percent in 2007 while a senator and just after announcing she would run for president, according to Gallup.

    After another dip, it shot up to 65 percent in 2009 when she became secretary of state and stayed high for most of her tenure".

    All of that changed when Republicans seized the opportunity to demagogue the Bengazhi tragedy early on. As we're seeing today, withering, persistent criticism facilitated by a profit centered media can change one's political fortunes in an instant. Trump's media strategy against Mueller has been good enough to significantly lower his approval numbers. Should they drop below Trump's target of 50%, expect Mueller's firing post-haste.

     

  15. 47 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    I think the level of Congressional instigation and oversight made it unprecedented.  This was political and high profile from the start.  There was nothing Comey could say, do, or not say, or not do, that wasn't going to have one side or the other skewering him. 

    This may be in hindsight, but the best action would have been to follow the policy and not disclose while evaluating/analyzing the emails on weiner’s laptop. Since there was nothing incriminating on the laptop, they would have never needed to disclose anything and no one would have skewered anyone.

    i do agree it was high profile and the GOP was pushing; however, policies are made to assist in those times.

  16. 20 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    Prior to reading the report, I believe that Comey had an imperfect approach to a no win situation.  It seems silly to use "deviate from norms" as a criticism of an unprecedented situation.  If an analysis of what he should have done takes more than the time he had to set his path, then it certainly something I take with a grain of salt. 

    And that's with the understanding that his imperfect actions likely lead to the election of the worst president in American history.  The severity of the results does not define the unreasonableness of the actions. 

    Now, I'm open to being convinced otherwise, once I dig into the specifics of the report.

     

    What was unprecedented about it? I understand the FBI/DOJ have conducted investigations and inquiries into parties involved with campaigns in the past. This seems simple to me. There was a policy that prevented disclosures near elections. Comey chose not to follow the policy. He had his reasons, but still chose not to follow the policy.Policies are in place to aid decision makers during difficult times. They are also in place to protect the decision makers. 

  17. 36 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    Isn't this separate from the Mueller investigation? If he's cooperating in this case, that doesn't mean they can ask him if he met with Russians in Prague as reported in the Steele dossier, does it?

    It is separate from the Mueller investigation; however, if Cohen is cooperating with federal prosecutors, he will be sharing everything about Prague.

  18. Axios:

    The American Medical Association has formally — and overwhelmingly — endorsed a slate of gun control measures, calling gun violence a public health crisis. 

    Why it matters: The AMA isn’t as powerful as it once was. But in the uphill climb to frame gun violence as a public health issue, having the AMA on board certainly can’t hurt.

    According to AP, the policies the AMA endorsed at its annual policy meeting yesterday include:

    Banning gun sales to people younger than 21.

    Requiring safety training along with licensing and registration.

    Expanding limits on gun ownership — for example, allowing families of potentially suicidal people to seek a court order removing guns from their possession.

    https://www.axios.com/american-medical-association-endorses-gun-control-16b9e100-ff8d-4b92-a056-1712bac958b7.html

  19. 1 hour ago, PittsburghTiger said:

    That's awesome. ^^

    There was another Tweet from some media guy about Trump loving dictators, or something along those lines, and then someone showed his Tweet about Obama calling good Ol' Raul Castro and how wonderful it was.

    I know there is an affinity to look at this as BoTh SIDeS but that isn’t an accurate comparison.

    Trump has repeatedly gone against our democratic allies (canada, UK, Germany, France, Mexico, Australia) while showing openness to and never attacking anti-democratic authoritarians (Putin, Erdogan, Duterte).

    Trump loving dictators while attacking democracies isn’t equivalent to Obama’s approach. 

  20. I suspect this is a reflection of critical thinking skills along with the ability to differentiate between news and opinion and the ability to gauge the differences in quality journalism. I would be interested in someone taking a look at the media consumption habits of these different groups.

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...