Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[tyrlaan]

Why is it, too many on here cannot say they simply disagree with someone, rather than first insulting them? I have no issues with someone disagreeing with me. I do with how they do. Anyway, I will make it so there is no issue between us anymore.

Because this isn't "I like movie X and you dislike movie Y, so we just disagree". This is a fundamental misuse of words that have actual meaning.

Its much like a flat earther. There's no point in the discussion where you can just say "oh we just disagree", because one side of that argument is ignoring facts and science to prop up fiction.

So no, you may want this discussion to be a "we just disagree" scenario, but one of us is twisting the definition of words to make their point. Either you're ignorant of the meaning of the phrase "open borders" or you're being deliberately disingenuous about the meaning of the phrase. I can't read your mind to narrow it down further.

But what I can tell you is "simply disagreeing" with you is an unacceptable conclusion to the conversation because it legitimizes your position, which is propped up by factually false aspects. We can disagree on whether Warren's plan is good or bad, or whether we like it or not, but facts are fucking facts, and trying to paint an argument over what words mean as "can't we just disagree" is utter bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Hickenlooper's out.

Don't everyone shed their tears at once.

[Cracked]

And this is why, walls do help with illegal immigration. And if Sanders, Warren and other radical Democrats have their way, it will be even easier than it is now to come here illegally.

I'm not opposed to the wall or stricter immigration control, but to say it's about a wall is disingenuous. The #1 reason immigration is limited in Europe is language barriers. Before the Schengen, when you entered illegally, you were sent back the same day any authority found out.

SENDING PEOPLE PROMPTLY BACK FROM WHERE THEY CAME IS EFFECTIVE.

Not stopping their tracks. They can find a million ways to physically get here if they want to. But if you show you are not willing to tolerate their stay once they are here, that's a different story.

[Endus]

Why is it, too many on here cannot say they simply disagree with someone, rather than first insulting them? I have no issues with someone disagreeing with me. I do with how they do. Anyway, I will make it so there is no issue between us anymore.

You were discussing issues of fact, not opinion. And you were expressing arguments that were factually incorrect, and refusing to amend your position when confronted with the actual facts.

That's willful ignorance. There is no "disagreement", there's one person with a fact-based viewpoint, and another with an entirely fictional delusion that they want to be given equal credence as the facts.

You can disagree about whether a politician's policy views are a good thing for society. You don't get to "disagree" with what those policy views are, because that's a statement of fact, and there's a right and many wrong answers. If you're "disagreeing" with someone who's right, then you're just admitting that you're wrong and refusing to amend your position even though you know it to be wrong.

[Blur4stuff]

It's always weird when conservatives say dems want open borders as if Obama wasn't sending people back in record numbers.

If Warren/Sanders become president there's still going to be border security. People will still get sent back. We'll also have a better shot at actually having meaningful immigration reform that works.

What republicans are doing doesn't work at all. A wall would be equally pointless. It just causes conflict, division, and suffering. The same immigration problems still exist and haven't be addressed even a little bit.

[Endus]

It's always weird when conservatives say dems want open borders as if Obama wasn't sending people back in record numbers.

They're trying to oversimplify the debate, so the only choices on offer (in their preferred viewpoint) are 1> fully armed and operational bunker fortification along the entire US border, annihilating anyone desperate enough to come close, or 2> open borders, where we just remove all border agents and say "do, like, whatever, man."

Because the latter is so obviously untenable, nobody can support it, but if they can lie about it enough to make gullible people think it's what the Democrats are pushing for, they'll get support for their New Iron Curtain by default.

It's dishonest and manipulative, but it's not remotely accidental.

[Felya]

What republicans are doing doesn't work at all. A wall would be equally pointless. It just causes conflict, division, and suffering. The same immigration problems still exist and haven't be addressed even a little bit.

Because it’s “by any means necessary”. It’s the same thing how Trump called democrats arsonist, within just weeks of a white nationalist setting fire to black churches. It was effective in causing conflict, divisions and suffering.

[tyrlaan]

They're trying to oversimplify the debate, so the only choices on offer (in their preferred viewpoint) are 1> fully armed and operational bunker fortification along the entire US border, annihilating anyone desperate enough to come close, or 2> open borders, where we just remove all border agents and say "do, like, whatever, man."

Because the latter is so obviously untenable, nobody can support it, but if they can lie about it enough to make gullible people think it's what the Democrats are pushing for, they'll get support for their New Iron Curtain by default.

It's dishonest and manipulative, but it's not remotely accidental.

And what really pisses me off is the media helps them because they more often than not won't get into details. You could see this in clear display when CNN asked their questions and how they cut off conversations at the last debate.

[Endus]

And what really pisses me off is the media helps them because they more often than not won't get into details. You could see this in clear display when CNN asked their questions and how they cut off conversations at the last debate.

I've said before in other threads that journalism is dead. Network news has largely relegated itself to blandly stating the facts of events, and then asking questions and letting 2-4 people yell about the answer before never settling anything and moving on to the next set of facts.

Journalism used to be about analysis, not just presentation of the facts. And giving idiots the same platform as intelligent people, in the name of "fairness" or "equality", is a violation of basic journalistic ethics.

They approach every story like this;

"There's an increasing controversy over the use of vaccines, in America. Tonight, we'll be discussing vaccination with our panel, to drill down into the answers. Our guests tonight are a vaccine researcher with 40 years of experience in developing vaccines, and personally responsible for two major vaccines that have saved thousands of lives, a naturopath with a 90-day certificate from a community college who thinks injecting poisons into your body can't be as effective as sniffing smelly oil products, a hospital adminstrator who's managed vaccination programs and seen the virtual elimination of polio in their region, and Jenny McCarthy, a porn star who's probably functionally illiterate and has an IQ somewhere south of 80."

This is an abdication of ethical responsibility for educating your viewers as to the facts, not journalism.

[Felya]

But checking documents is super racist or people wouldn't compare showing your ID to fascism.

Like fucking clockwork... the issue isn’t that it’s a barrier for people voting, but that you heard someone... at some point... call it fascism. If only you gave a shit about anything else, as much as you do phantoms. But... what can one even say... voting by mail is cool without ID, but in person it isn’t... because... you heard someone be called a fascist...

[Dextroden]

Like fucking clockwork... the issue isn’t that it’s a barrier for people voting, but that you heard someone... at some point... call it fascism. If only you gave a shit about anything else, as much as you do phantoms. But... what can one even say... voting by mail is cool without ID, but in person it isn’t... because... you heard someone be called a fascist...

We're talking about showing documentation for border crossing, not voter ID.

Like fucking clockwork.

[tyrlaan]

I've said before in other threads that journalism is dead. Network news has largely relegated itself to blandly stating the facts of events, and then asking questions and letting 2-4 people yell about the answer before never settling anything and moving on to the next set of facts.

Journalism used to be about analysis, not just presentation of the facts. And giving idiots the same platform as intelligent people, in the name of "fairness" or "equality", is a violation of basic journalistic ethics.

They approach every story like this;

"There's an increasing controversy over the use of vaccines, in America. Tonight, we'll be discussing vaccination with our panel, to drill down into the answers. Our guests tonight are a vaccine researcher with 40 years of experience in developing vaccines, and personally responsible for two major vaccines that have saved thousands of lives, a naturopath with a 90-day certificate from a community college who thinks injecting poisons into your body can't be as effective as sniffing smelly oil products, a hospital adminstrator who's managed vaccination programs and seen the virtual elimination of polio in their region, and Jenny McCarthy, a porn star who's probably functionally illiterate and has an IQ somewhere south of 80."

This is an abdication of ethical responsibility for educating your viewers as to the facts, not journalism.

Yup.

I also assume an extra angle to why things have become like this is $$/ratings.

[Felya]

We're talking about showing documentation for border crossing, not voter ID.

Like fucking clockwork.

What? Who exactly is saying this? The person you quoted sure as hell didn’t and this is the first I hear of ID at the border being an issue... what the fuck are you talking about?

Edit: are you talking about the US citizens ICE detain, despite their state issued ID? Because the issue there wasn’t the need for ID, but the fact that ICE ignored them. They were fascist because of who they asked for ID and the fact that the ID didn’t mater.

[Dextroden]

What? Who exactly is saying this? The person you quoted sure as hell didn’t and this is the first I hear of ID at the border being an issue... what the fuck are you talking about?

What are you talking about then since I didn't mention voter ID? Are you hallucinating again?

[Felya]

What are you talking about then since I didn't mention voter ID? Are you hallucinating again?

I assumed you were talking about voter IDs, because that’s the big talking point and I have not seen anyone say shit about entering the country without ID. This includes the post you were responding to...

I assumed that you were talking about voter ID, that much should be clear. What ID are you talking about?

Edit: Flaming reply took 2 minutes... a reply to actually explain what you mean is at 45 minutes and counting... Something something... priceless...

[Ghostpanther]

I'm not opposed to the wall or stricter immigration control, but to say it's about a wall is disingenuous. The #1 reason immigration is limited in Europe is language barriers. Before the Schengen, when you entered illegally, you were sent back the same day any authority found out.

SENDING PEOPLE PROMPTLY BACK FROM WHERE THEY CAME IS EFFECTIVE.

Not stopping their tracks. They can find a million ways to physically get here if they want to. But if you show you are not willing to tolerate their stay once they are here, that's a different story.

Well the wall in Berlin did help in preventing the majority of East Germans from crossing over to West Berlin. But I do agree with your points overall. Being strict on illegals by getting them arrested, contained and returned is very important.

Meanwhile a new Fox News Poll was just released..https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxne....png?ve=1&tl=1

Early still, but interesting how much Warren has gained and Sanders has slipped. Biden still has a healthy double digit lead however.

[Edge-]

Well the wall in Berlin did help in preventing the majority of East Germans from crossing over to West Berlin.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...all-180953268/

It worked, but there were still ways around it.

Crossers were also under threat of being shot, which is not remotely reasonable as a border defense so it's a pretty awful comparison to the US border.

[Ghostpanther]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...all-180953268/

It worked, but there were still ways around it.

Crossers were also under threat of being shot, which is not remotely reasonable as a border defense so it's a pretty awful comparison to the US border.

Well, yeah. I do not think a wall it will prevent all illegal crossings. And yes, we should never start shooting those crossing. lol! It is not just Berlin however, were walls have been shown to be effective barriers. I think Israel uses them also. And rich estates across the US. Elvis Presley had one around his estate.

[Thekri]

Well, yeah. I do not think a wall it will prevent all illegal crossings. And yes, we should never start shooting those crossing. lol! It is not just Berlin however, were walls have been shown to be effective barriers. I think Israel uses them also. And rich estates across the US. Elvis Presley had one around his estate.

Not with this nonsense again...

There is a huge difference between shorter walls that under continuous human observation (Like the Berlin Wall), enclosed walled compound (That may or may not be guarded), and a massive border wall that covers thousands of miles.

In military doctrine, there is no such thing as an obstacle that actually blocks anything. All barriers do is delay. So walls that are continuously observed and guarded, like the Berlin Wall, are effective because someone will see you and stop you if you try to cross it (Possibly by shooting you, but that isn't the only way). Enclosed compounds like forts and residences are different as well, as the primary purpose of walls in that case is to establish clear boundaries, and arouse immediate suspicion if anyone sees you crossing. Again, they are usually paired with active monitoring systems, because the wall itself doesn't stop anybody.

As far as the Israeli border wall, studies have shown that its greatest effect was in the immediate period after it was constructed, and rapidly declined in efficiency after that. The reason is quite simple, attackers learned how to deal with it. The Israeli wall is also very different in its intent, it is trying to stop terrorists, not immigrants. It isn't particularly successful against either.

As far as the shorter, observed border walls, those are quite effective, and we already use them on the border. Quite a lot in fact, and they are great and useful and we should absolutely keep them. We use them in areas of high volume crossings, such as around populated areas. Extending this to the entire border is not only ruinously expensive, but also runs into diminishing returns extremely hard. The idea that immigrants will just see a wall and give up is laughable. If a single wall was the only barrier between starvation and a better life for you and your family, would you stop? I know I wouldn't.

[Edge-]

Well, yeah. I do not think a wall it will prevent all illegal crossings. And yes, we should never start shooting those crossing. lol! It is not just Berlin however, were walls have been shown to be effective barriers. I think Israel uses them also. And rich estates across the US. Elvis Presley had one around his estate.

Israel uses them to counter attacks on their territory and dehumanize Palestinians. Attackers aren't coming up through illegal border crossings, they're coming though legal ports of entry or are home-grown.

And are you really comparing fences around peoples property to a border wall? This is "Family finances are identical to government finances!" levels of absurd.

[Ghostpanther]

Not with this nonsense again...

There is a huge difference between shorter walls that under continuous human observation (Like the Berlin Wall), enclosed walled compound (That may or may not be guarded), and a massive border wall that covers thousands of miles.

In military doctrine, there is no such thing as an obstacle that actually blocks anything. All barriers do is delay. So walls that are continuously observed and guarded, like the Berlin Wall, are effective because someone will see you and stop you if you try to cross it (Possibly by shooting you, but that isn't the only way). Enclosed compounds like forts and residences are different as well, as the primary purpose of walls in that case is to establish clear boundaries, and arouse immediate suspicion if anyone sees you crossing. Again, they are usually paired with active monitoring systems, because the wall itself doesn't stop anybody.

As far as the Israeli border wall, studies have shown that its greatest effect was in the immediate period after it was constructed, and rapidly declined in efficiency after that. The reason is quite simple, attackers learned how to deal with it. The Israeli wall is also very different in its intent, it is trying to stop terrorists, not immigrants. It isn't particularly successful against either.

As far as the shorter, observed border walls, those are quite effective, and we already use them on the border. Quite a lot in fact, and they are great and useful and we should absolutely keep them. We use them in areas of high volume crossings, such as around populated areas. Extending this to the entire border is not only ruinously expensive, but also runs into diminishing returns extremely hard. The idea that immigrants will just see a wall and give up is laughable. If a single wall was the only barrier between starvation and a better life for you and your family, would you stop? I know I wouldn't.

They can be effective. Many people use them. Of course you make a good point about the length of a wall makes a big difference. Which is why they need to be patrolled and not depend on the simple wall itself to stop people. Those who work in Border Patrol have said they would help. You know, the ones who are actually charged with border security.

You are free to disagree and call it nonsense all you want. I will still on occasion mention them as a effective tool for border security.

- - - Updated - - -

Israel uses them to counter attacks on their territory and dehumanize Palestinians. Attackers aren't coming up through illegal border crossings, they're coming though legal ports of entry or are home-grown.

And are you really comparing fences around peoples property to a border wall? This is "Family finances are identical to government finances!" levels of absurd.

The concept applies.