|
theres a will theres moe posted:He looks french! Git 'im! And the party platform is 100% pro-choice. I do agree that we need to watch these primaries and loving punish anyone who supports a pro-life candidate over any sane human pro-choice candidate during the primary. But if some pro-life nominee wins the primary without statewide or national support, we should support them in the general of the race is winnable. shrike82 posted:you're the worst stereotype of a centrist come to life Nah, I just understand the fact that a majority-holding party will fundamentally include members far to the right of me on a variety of issues. In a representative democracy our more conservative districts will result in more conservative members so, to me, I accept that I will need their support to achieve what my leftwing representative wants to do. But if we have a large coalition we can afford defections on specific issues and have the party still progress.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
farraday posted:You've got a real nice Monday drunk going on man. Good on you. I have a feeling this is going to be a loong week for everyone. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
pacerhimself posted:
That sounds rather close to a confession
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That sounds rather close to a confession It is the tweet of a confident man, who is clearly not afraid of his past catching up with him. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
farraday posted:That's put together by a reporter. If you don't believe those are the categories here is the text of the RAISE Act from Cotton's website. No no, I totally believe it's real, even more because it's so stupid and feels like something put together in 15 minutes. The spouse clause really seals the deal, almost every wife of immigrants I know in the US would get like 15 points. It kinda feels like those election literacy tests for African Americans. I want to believe this is too stupid even for some Republicans. Also doesn't it need 60 votes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, i didn't know you could Photoshop a dude that sleazy into Ward Cleaver. But you CAN!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/894557797005705216 Really like those cops info leaked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Also, looking at that ridiculous RAISE Act score thing and combining that with the projection that it would only reduce legal immigration by 50% tells me that our current requirements are too high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Is Jon Bel Edwards pro-life? I know he's a gun nut for sure
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Also, looking at that ridiculous RAISE Act score thing and combining that with the projection that it would only reduce legal immigration by 50% tells me that our current requirements are too high. The main thing I drew from that is "fuuuck, anyone who can beat this score is DEFINITELY qualified to take my job"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Holy poo poo, i didn't know you could Photoshop a dude that sleazy into Ward Cleaver. But you CAN! Uuuuh, it's clearly supposed to be a lighter-skinned George Stephanopolos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Also, looking at that ridiculous RAISE Act score thing and combining that with the projection that it would only reduce legal immigration by 50% tells me that our current requirements are too high. We still have a no communists rule
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Is Jon Bel Edwards pro-life? I know he's a gun nut for sure He's pretty firmly anti-abortion, I'm afraid. e: Ahahaha, I didn't notice the edit in the illustration. Nice. Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Aug 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:We still have a no communists rule "Okay Johnathan Immigrant, are you or were you ever a member of a communist party? Or were we on the ISIS question?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Also, looking at that ridiculous RAISE Act score thing and combining that with the projection that it would only reduce legal immigration by 50% tells me that our current requirements are too high. Not quite. The act eliminates diversity immigrants (55k a year) Limits refugees to 50k (same as existing law but removes ability of president to determine, with consultation, that more can enter) Lowers Family visas from 480k minus (extensive calculation) to 88k minus (more extensive calculations) Limits immigrants under the new points system to 140k. The previous calculation was 140k plus (calculation involving previous years visa issues) The drops come from not letting other people in. The points system is about making sure the "right" people still can get in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:"Okay Johnathan Immigrant, are you or were you ever a member of a communist party? Or were we on the ISIS question?" Like clearly anyone can lie easily but it's so weird we have an official "no communists allowed" policy
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like clearly anyone can lie easily but it's so weird we have an official "no communists allowed" policy it assumes you will lie you cant strip citizenship from people as a penalty, but you can strip citizenship given under false pretenses, so they ask if you are a nazi, a terrorist, a communist, whatever, so they can strip your citizenship later on if you managed to sneak in, and all these laws were passed when those things were all basically equal
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it assumes you will lie Still seems so anti American to legally forbid ideologies
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
I thought the point was to make it so immigrants could only come to this country as slave labor for companies here in the US. This new act does not seem to do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Still seems so anti American to legally forbid ideologies say what you want about the tenents of national socialism, dude, at least its an ideology
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I thought the point was to make it so immigrants could only come to this country as slave labor for companies here in the US. This new act does not seem to do this. The schism in the Republican Party is real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I thought the point was to make it so immigrants could only come to this country as slave labor for companies here in the US. This new act does not seem to do this. America has a large enough local pool of unskilled labor (for what's not outsourced to other countries or replaced with robots). Immigration is about importing brains.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I thought the point was to make it so immigrants could only come to this country as slave labor for companies here in the US. This new act does not seem to do this. Trump's personnel don't, won't, or can't understand that, if they did, they'd just be standard Republicans (and wouldn't have won the primaries). Alternatively, from the viewpoint of the oligarchs, this is just making sure they save on high-end salaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/894758854298222592 This is going to lose them a lot of support amoung South Koreans hoping for Japan to get hit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
I just looked at the nationalization test and you are allowed to say "states rights" as the reason for the civil war, lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I thought the point was to make it so immigrants could only come to this country as slave labor for companies here in the US. This new act does not seem to do this. "That's what prisons are for." -Republicans
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
All joking and doom and gloom aside aside, a large population of people (including many Europeans I know) would absolutely love to move to America and study/work there. Most of these people I know are engineers/STEM types and a lot of them write it off because it's not really accessible but the idea of it is a dream goal to many.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Also, looking at that ridiculous RAISE Act score thing and combining that with the projection that it would only reduce legal immigration by 50% tells me that our current requirements are too high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That sounds rather close to a confession Im trying to think of any major world leader in my lifetime that bitched this loving hard and constantly incluidng ones with cause and just nothing. It just never ends even when he's on vacation
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I just looked at the nationalization test and you are allowed to say "states rights" as the reason for the civil war, lol I do believe the, ahem, CORRECT answer, suh, is "Northern aggression." *sips mint julep, continues being AG*
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
e: weird double post
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This gets back into the question of if it's unethical to promise something during an electoral campaign that you don't believe you'll be able to deliver on in a timely fashion. I'm amused by the double standard here: that if you say "I support single payer" then you're an rear end if you don't instantly produce a complete policy paper ready to be turned into legislation on day 1 and a commitment from everyone in congress to vote for it immediately. But if you're opposed to single payer then you can just say "healthcare is good, bad things are bad, I want good things not bad things don't ask me how I'll do it it's a myyyyystery!" and you're the serious adult in the room with grown-up policy. Anyway, what you're proposing sounds as dishonest if not more so. Essentially you're saying a politician should run on vague platitudes and encourage everyone to imagine that he supports what you yes you specifically want and the vagueness is to trick everyone else (haha those suckers!) into fooling themselves thinking they'll get what they want instead. And then, after getting the votes of people who want a single payer system, we can betray them and sell them out to insurance companies. But dishonesty is okay, because if we had told the truth about what we were planning during the campaign we wouldn't have gotten elected, and then we can just tell voters not to be mad because "well akshually if you examine my public statements you'll see that I never actually promised the things I was implying, so really you shouldn't be mad that insurance companies and pharma wrote the bill again and prioritized their profits over affordable healthcare again" and somehow this won't lead to the huge losses we suffered the last time we did this exact thing and voters were still mad. I also like the neat catch-22 this puts voters in. You lecture them in the primary that the grown-up adult thing to do is vote for the vaguest car salesman tactics you can serve up and browbeat anyone who wants firm policy commitments by calling them dumb babies for expecting a clear platform. And then when you pass watered down bullshit written by corporate lobbyists, you get to turn around and call them dumb babies for voting for a pig in a poke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm amused by the double standard here: that if you say "I support single payer" then you're an rear end if you don't instantly produce a complete policy paper ready to be turned into legislation on day 1 and a commitment from everyone in congress to vote for it immediately. But if you're opposed to single payer then you can just say "healthcare is good, bad things are bad, I want good things not bad things don't ask me how I'll do it it's a myyyyystery!" and you're the serious adult in the room with grown-up policy. FWIW, the big advantage of the public option is that it short circuits this particular argument because you can just say "Let everyone sign on to Medicare and Medicaid" and blammo, detailed policy proposal, because Medicare and Medicaid are about as detailed as one can get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Politicians, especially presidents, in the past have tried hard to carry out most of their campaign promises. Trump is a huge divergence from the norm there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:FWIW, the big advantage of the public option is that it short circuits this particular argument because you can just say "Let everyone sign on to Medicare and Medicaid" and blammo, detailed policy proposal, because Medicare and Medicaid are about as detailed as one can get. And I'm fine with that message if they want to go with that. It's good messaging to piggy-back on a program that people already like. However legislatively it will be just as hard to pass as single payer, because insurance companies and pharma companies know it's the beginning of the end for their profits if private insurance has to compete with a public option, if big business can save itself healthcare costs by dumping everyone on the public system thereby removing private insurance's largest institutional customers, and for pharma if everyone gets on Medicare/aid and the government uses that collective bargaining power to get affordable drug prices like people in every other country get. Considering the massive lobbyist and donor opposition that will bring all the pressure and bribes to bear that they can to defeat anything like that, politicians who refuse to take defined positions on real policy and prefer to campaign on vague platitudes that could mean anything are suspect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:All joking and doom and gloom aside aside, a large population of people (including many Europeans I know) would absolutely love to move to America and study/work there. Most of these people I know are engineers/STEM types and a lot of them write it off because it's not really accessible but the idea of it is a dream goal to many. People seem to discount how hard it is to immigrate to most any country when talking about the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Politicians, especially presidents, in the past have tried hard to carry out most of their campaign promises. Trump is a huge divergence from the norm there. Yeah, but it's not exactly unusual for candidates (yes, even those that get elected) to make big, grand, aspirational promises that they can't fulfill overnight, but may be able to over the course of a few years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, but it's not exactly unusual for candidates (yes, even those that get elected) to make big, grand, aspirational promises that they can't fulfill overnight, but may be able to over the course of a few years. Sneakster fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Aug 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Also quick reminder that recent events in California proved that "oh we can't talk specifics because we're throwing the widest net possible in order to win the supermajority we'll need to pass universal health care so it would be a mistake to get anything ready before the election" is a total sham because the instant they got elected the speaker killed UHC in committee and said "oh my gosh we're just too busy to write health care bills, gosh darn I really wish we'd had something ready before the election, oh well can't do it now" "suckers"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:38
|
|