Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1700
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GW Hayduke

  1. Folks that use a lot a fallacies, that usually means your positions are weak. Changing positions is preferable to using fallacies
  2. I think folks are ok with the article. The issue is what you are trying to show based on the article. The article is not about Canada "cracking down" on anything. The article is about Canadian officials spreading the word that Canada has immigration laws and follows them and why they are doing that. You seem to be making the point that Canada enforcing their immigration laws is somehow notable and somehow means something. All countries have immigration laws and enforce them. IMO it is more telling that immigrants/refugees are trying to leave the US and get to Canada. Another point you seem to be making is that Canada's "strict" immigration laws and enforcement somehow makes the US's laws and enforcement look easy, less strict, more humane, or something. Why do you feel you need to make the US's immigration situation look a certain way? Points from the article: - Canada is expected to increase their total number of admitted immigrants and total number of refugees. - The trump administration is decreasing the total number of admitted immigrants and total number of refugees. - Canada and the US are expected to accommodate almost the same number of refugees. Considering our differences in total populations, this is rather significant. The article didn't even paint the entire picture of US's current immigration situation: trump ran on an anti-immigrant platform inline with the alt-right, trump has attempted various muslim bans, and his administration has implemented the policy of splitting up families in the name of deterrence. Your main evidence that Canada is "stricter" seems to be that they use qualifications/skills when evaluating immigrants. This wasn't described in the article. If you are interested in having an intelligent conversation on the pros and cons of US's and Canada's approach, another article would probably be more relevant - one that preferably provides some grounding in the basics. I would advise that immigration is a wedge issue that is often used to inflame emotions, so care should be taken if you want to have a productive discussion.
  3. Are folks expecting to see our defense run a lot of four-man fronts?
  4. Canada is having an election in 2019, and they are currently a top target for the alt-right, xenophobic, Russian disinformation campaigns. r/canada on reddit has a huge alt-right presence now. I don't believe this particular piece by USA today is straight up fake news or xenophobic propaganda, nor do I think phdhorn is a witting alt-right troll. However, news articles like this can easily be re-framed into a divisive, misleading discussion. Taking legitimate news and turning it into a wedge between groups is classic tribalism, identity politics.
  5. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article212299529.html A new Russian influence operation has surfaced that mirrors some of the activity of an internet firm that the FBI says was deeply involved in efforts to sway the 2016 U.S. elections, a cybersecurity firm says. A website called usareally.com appeared on the internet May 17 and called on Americans to rally in front of the White House June 14 to celebrate President Donald Trump’s birthday, which is also Flag Day. FireEye, a Milpitas, Calif., cybersecurity company, said Thursday that USA Really is a Russian-operated website that carries content designed to foment racial division, harden feelings over immigration, gun control and police brutality, and undermine social cohesion. The website’s operators once worked out of the same office building in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency had its headquarters, said Lee Foster, manager of information operations analysis for FireEye iSIGHT Intelligence. “We’re not saying it (USA Really) is the Internet Research Agency but there are a number of indicators that suggest it is,” Foster said. Russians involved in the website work for the Federal News Agency, which is known by its Russian acronym FAN and closely follows the Kremlin line on international issues. Ownership of the agency is not publicly known. The new website may be part of a pending broader campaign, Foster said. “There are a bunch of other domains as well that play on USA Really that we are monitoring that haven’t launched,” he said. But so far, he said, Russians haven’t been pushing the website and its stories using robotic networks, or botnets, to promote them on social media, and they may be holding back. The House intelligence committee recently released thousands of Facebook posts that they said were Russian creations. USA Really has created a Facebook page and a Twitter account. On Friday afternoon, after a McClatchy reporter queried Facebook about the USA Really page, the company said it disabled it. The Twitter account remained active, with 385 followers. “They may also be contemplating what risks are involved if we were able to positively ID Russia trying to influence the 2018 mid-terms. To what extent does that undermine denials about 2016 activity? I’m sure that’s something that’s playing around in their minds as well,” Foster said.
  6. Collusion isn't defined, and neither side is ever going to agree on whether collusion occurred. 30% maybe 25% of the population that make up the core base of trump will always deny collusion because it means trump is winning and it wouldn't matter what evidence is ever presented. Colluding with Russia makes him smart, or trump is being framed. They would believe 2+2=5 if it meant Trump is winning. On the other side, there is maybe 35% of the population that already thinks Trump and his campaign colluded. They don't need any more evidence. The middle 30% will be swayed by what else comes out. A question is at what point will evidence start to sway them in the midterms and in 2020. Another question is is there even a tipping point at which republicans in Congress will step up to remove him.
  7. Its not that the stats were skewed during 90s. I’m not excusing the rates from the 90s. We just have an understanding of why we had a big spike during that time. My point is that just comparing two points in time (one in peak crack cocaine era and the other today) and concluding that rates of violence has plummeted and therefore we don’t have a problem, isn’t the best way to look at it. Hence, a need to look at a range of stats/information to come up with an understanding of the gun violence issue in the US. Looking at how we compare to other countries is an attampt to do this. Vox attempted to do this. See items 6 and 7 in the below vox link. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts See page 5 of the BJS study I linked earlier today. Blacks have a higher rate of homicides when compared to whites, and Hispanics have a higher rate when compared to non-Hispanics. IMO no one should be saying that we don’t have a gun violenece problem because non-white people are involved. Blacks and Hispanics are still part of our community. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf The opposite occurs when looking at suicides. Whites make up more of suicides by firearm then blacks. Basically, most suicides by firearms are whites and most homicide by firearm are blacks.
  8. Hopefully the trolling has gone away. The below report looks at gun violence from 1993 to 2011. Note that after the crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s, rates have been relatively flat. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf In addition to the crack epidemic and war on drugs, another potential factor that may have helped lower rates of gun violence in 90s was the lowering of lead levels in the blood of children during the 70s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis
  9. Purposefully dishonest? Trolling? Here are some methods to address. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2015/04/09/10-tips-to-dealing-with-trolls/amp/
  10. True. But we should still want things applied consistently. If he lied to the feds, he should be prosecuted.
  11. There is an unfortunate sizable percent of our population that has completely bought into the tribalism, us-vs-them identity politics to the point that 2+2=5, facts/logic/science are replaced with feelings, trolling is appropriate, and nothing matters as long as my side comes out on top.
  12. We were experiencing the tale end of the crack-cocaine epidemic in 1993. 1993 isn’t a good year to compare gun violence. Since then, change in rates of gun violence have been relatively flat, while also being much higher when compared to other countries.
  13. That was his attempt to justify trolling.
  14. I suspect this us-vs-them, tribalism politics has led folks to think that trolling is an appropriate response to take. This mentality led to someone swatting Hogg. Why do folks think this type of trolling is ok?
  15. Trolling isn’t justified and is a sad response to weak positions. I get that you feel ingrained on the side against gun control, but you don’t have to act like you are argueing from a weak poisition.
  16. Trolling doesn’t add to the discussion.
  17. It seems that you don’t trust licenced medical professionals. Who do you trust to treat people who are ill?
  18. I see lots of folks compare our current rates to those in the 80s and early 90s. This is a comparison to a time experiencing a crack-cocaine epidemic and the war on drugs. Yes, rates were higher then. However since the crack wars, change in rates have been relatively flat. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/ What is the best way to compare our current rates of firearm violence? IMO looking at just one thing will skew perspective. In order to attempt to grasp a full perspective of a complicated issue such as gun violence in the US, we need to be able to absorb a range of information. Vox does an OK job of attempting to do this. Some key points from their presentation. They also have an easy to consume video. - US’s rate of firearm violence far exceeds any first world country. - US has way more guns per capita than other countries. - Mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of the overall firearm deaths in the US. - Mass shootings (those with 4 victims) occur about once a day in the US. - States with more guns have more gun deaths. - Countries with more guns have more gun deaths. - The US does not have more violent crime in general than other first world countries. The US has more lethal violence - driven by prevalence in firearms. - Areas with more gun regulations tend to have lower rates of firearm deaths. - Most gun deaths are suicides. - States with more firearms have more suicides. - Firearms are much more efficient at suicide. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
  19. I suspect it is because Petraeus plead guilty for actions that involved providing access to top secret information to a reporter and then lied about it. The continued Hillary hatred is really bizarre.
  20. There are ill people in our society. Psychotropic drugs are used to treat illness and are prescribed by medical professionals. Why would we limit the treatment options of medical professionals?
  21. This is what has happened to the majority of the population in Russia. This is why Putin controls his country so well. Bannon/trump brought this to the US. Ideally, we can keep the 2+2=5 crowd from getting too large here in the US. Right now I guess it is maybe 25-35% of the population
  22. Ok. It seems that you might be on board with the idea that it was/is appropriate for the two investigations to follow different paths. It seems that you don’t trust the outcome of the Hillary investigation.
  23. First, Hillary was investigated and it was determined that no crime occurred. Referring to a “known crime” isn’t accurate. Second, mueller has made multiple indictments and obtained several guilty please. The two situations are completely different. One side had no crime. The other side has multiple crimes and is currently being investigated for a broad ranging conspiracy. We are talking about apples and oranges. Why wouldn’t the processes for investigating them be drastically different?
  24. It seems from your view that both Hillary and Trump did the same things. It doesn’t matter that both were treated differently. It only matters what they did, and whether the Fbi/doj followed appropriate standards/processes. What if only one committed a crime?
  25. I’m not convinced that he isn’t trolling though he seems like a possible example of the end result of a conspiracy-driven filter bubble. Npr wouldn’t promote this
×
×
  • Create New...