|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
Warren's plan includes: * Migrants who enter the US without papers would still be considered criminals * Keeping ICE * No promise of a pathway to citizenship using executive order (putting her to the right of even Harris) * Increased DEA funding in South America * Increased ad campaign spending to tell migrants not to try to come to the USA
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Warren's plan includes: Uh, seriously, say what you will about Warren, but portrayals like this have gotta be intentionally disingenuous. The alternative is something else altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
warren plan includes bonus points on your application for citizenship scorecard as well as a generous (6 month) fast tracking of your application.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
warren will make ICE eco-friendly just like her plan to fix the military
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
generic one posted:Uh, seriously, say what you will about Warren, but portrayals like this have gotta be intentionally disingenuous. The alternative is something else altogether. I mean no, those are all actual elements of her plan. Her plan does a lot of “good” stuff, a lot of reverting to Obama norms. But when Warren is acting like she’s going to grant citizenship to all undocumented immigrants these conservative caveats to her plan stand out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It would be nice if polls that ask respondents how closely they pay attention to politics, or how informed they are, followed up with general questions of fact to then gauge the quality of the respondents information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Polls used to do exactly this! These are called “filter questions”. Of course, using filter questions tends to yield a smaller sample and less sensational results, so polling firms don’t do this anymore, because integrity is hard and gently caress it, right? Well what use is knowing the opinion of the educated 10% rather than the electorate at large?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well what use is knowing the opinion of the educated 10% rather than the electorate at large?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean no, those are all actual elements of her plan. Her plan does a lot of “good” stuff, a lot of reverting to Obama norms. Let’s use your first bullet point as an example: quote:Migrants who enter the US without papers would still be considered criminals That’s disingenuous because her plan calls for eliminating criminal penalties for crossing the border, and just leaving the civil penalty in place, which is pretty much the same thing that every progressive candidate has in their platform. You see what I’m saying, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Phone posted:warren plan includes bonus points on your application for citizenship scorecard as well as a generous (6 month) fast tracking of your application. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452954-warren-pledges-to-create-commission-to-investigate-crimes-committed-by-the quote:“On my first day, I will empower a commission in the Department of Justice to investigate crimes committed by the United States against immigrants,” she said at the progressive Netroots Nation conference. This isn't exactly heavy on details but I don't think I've heard anyone else saying they'd prosecute ICE officers
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Because those people are a, more politically engaged and influential (ie more likely to actually vote!) and b, people who are not engaged and less educated are far more likely to just make poo poo up, often based on the question wording and/or what they think the administrator “wants,” which gives you useless data. One study polled people about a fictitious issue and most people gave an answer even when presented with “don’t know” as an option. Even when they are reporting a position they’ve thought out to some extent, those positions are not durable and therefore not especially useful. Either they should follow expert advice and then the poll is the wrong tool or they want to know public opinion as undereducated as it may be. The idea that asking filtering questions is effective anymore is disproven so effectively by the recent Sierra Club poll that did use filtering questions, except half the population declared themselves climate focused voters. So Joe Biden is the pick of “climate change voters” was the headline because filter questions like that don’t work for general topic polling like this. generic one posted:Let’s use your first bullet point as an example: It isn’t disingenuous because it is still a true statement. Under Warren’s best plan they’re still treated like criminals and they’re still subject to deportation hearings. That’s also basically a plagiarized line from the Vox coverage of her plan. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jul 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It isn’t disingenuous because it is still a true statement. Under Warren’s best plan they’re still treated like criminals and they’re still subject to deportation hearings. That’s also basically a plagiarized line from the Vox coverage of her plan. I’m not sure that’s how I’d interpret this part of her platform, but you do you. quote:Entering the country without authorization has always been a violation of civil immigration law, but thanks to a former segregationist Senator, it’s also a criminal violation. This additional criminal provision is totally unnecessary for border security, and for a century, it was rarely enforced. But since the early 2000s, it has been used to build and sustain a massive immigration detention complex
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
generic one posted:I’m not sure that’s how I’d interpret this part of her platform, but you do you. Right, that part says they’ll still be treated as people who have violated the law. Just with civil penalties like deportation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
Warren's plan isn't necessarily bad, but it's worse than Bernie's. Not a lot of detail on either, but Bernie also mentions DAPA in addition to DACA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Right, that part says they’ll still be treated as people who have violated the law. Just with civil penalties like deportation. Lemme ask you this: Do you understand that there is a difference between a criminal and a civil offense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
generic one posted:Lemme ask you this: Do you understand that there is a difference between a criminal and a civil offense? edit: Like I would understand an argument of "It is good that undocumented migrants are forced to interact with court systems" (though it would be wrong), but not "Being forced to interact with a court system is not being treated like a criminal, because we invented a special court system we have named 'civil' and the words 'civil' and 'criminal' have different letters in them" twodot fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jul 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are you contending that people that have committed a civil offense aren't currently treated like criminals? The only contention I’m making there is that there’s a clear difference between a criminal and a civil offense. Under our current administration, folks who cross the border are charged with criminal offenses, which means jails and fines and an indifferent (at the least) justice system. If crossing the border is decriminalized, and only results in a civil offense, it’s an entirely different picture. Decriminalization of crossing the border is something that’s in every progressive platform. Warren’s is one of those. I suggested it was disingenuous to say she would continue prosecuting crossing the border as a criminal offense. Bernie’s said the same thing, so has Castro, so has... well, Harris? Booker? Maybe a couple of others. generic one fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jul 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
generic one posted:Lemme ask you this: Do you understand that there is a difference between a criminal and a civil offense? Sure. But to bring it back to what started this whole topic of conversation, there's a significant difference between "legalize 11 million" and "revert illegal immigration to being a civil offense rather than a criminal one" - a difference that she apparently doesn't see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
generic one posted:The only contention I’m making there is that there’s a clear difference between a criminal and a civil offense. Trabisnikof posted:It isn’t disingenuous because it is still a true statement. Under Warren’s best plan they’re still treated like criminals
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Polls used to do exactly this! These are called “filter questions”. Of course, using filter questions tends to yield a smaller sample and less sensational results, so polling firms don’t do this anymore, because integrity is hard and gently caress it, right? Oh, I don't want them filtered out. They're still people at least marginally engaged and somewhat likely to vote. I just want a follow up breakdown where we find out that X% of those who self report as closely following politics, or whatever, can/cant answer simple questions of fact and Y% of those who don't self report as such can/can't. All the other categories, other than liberal/conservative, that voters are broken down into in these polls have some level of quantitative basis. Men think this, Rich people think this, High School only educated think this. But the segment of voters who make up the closely following/highly informed/whatever grouping is subjective as gently caress. Which is a problem, because the entire point of the question is to try and differentiate people who are like us and really paying attention and those who catch a soundbite or two on the TV when they're eating lunch at Zaxby's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure. But to bring it back to what started this whole topic of conversation, there's a significant difference between "legalize 11 million" and "revert illegal immigration to being a civil offense rather than a criminal one" - a difference that she apparently doesn't see. I mean, kinda? I told Trabisnikof that they’d posted a lot of that platform disingenuously, and that I was just gonna use that first bullet point as an example of how their loose interpretation was either blatant lying or just a lack of comprehension. Those are clearly two separate issues. twodot posted:Sure, this is true, but the post you replied to said this: When we’re talking about decriminalization of crossing the border, I think we need to be really clear about what that means. Section 1325 is what Sanders, Castro, Warren, Harris, and even (to my surprise) Mayor Pete have supported repealing. Doing away with that poo poo would be a decent step in the right direction, at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
generic one posted:When we’re talking about decriminalization of crossing the border, I think we need to be really clear about what that means. Section 1325 is what Sanders, Castro, Warren, Harris, and even (to my surprise) Mayor Pete have supported repealing. Doing away with that poo poo would be a decent step in the right direction, at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
generic one posted:I mean, kinda? I told Trabisnikof that they’d posted a lot of that platform disingenuously, and that I was just gonna use that first bullet point as an example of how their loose interpretation was either blatant lying or just a lack of comprehension. Those are clearly two separate issues. And you're wrong. From Vox's coverage of the Warren plan: quote:Here’s a breakdown of what Warren is calling for: Now are you going to accuse Vice of lying or lack of comprehension too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:Absolutely, we should be very clear that civil offenders are treated like criminals. Yes, please, continue being an obtuse doorstop. That’ll absolutely allow for objective conversation without extremes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
i don't think any candidate has come out in support of banning deportations, the correct platform
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Now are you going to accuse Vice of lying or lack of comprehension too? It says right there in the section you quoted that only making it a civil offense would be an improvement, you dolt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
generic one posted:It says right there in the section you quoted that only making it a civil offense would be an improvement, you dolt. And you said I was a liar because I correctly stated they would still be charged with a crime and treated like a criminal. Your position here is getting more and more absurd. edit: I get it it is "lying" if I say a bad thing about Warren's plans without also saying all the good things about it too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
generic one posted:Yes, please, continue being an obtuse doorstop. That’ll absolutely allow for objective conversation without extremes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:The whole contention is whether people will be treated like criminals, if you insist on lasering on minutiae that has nothing to do with how people will be treated, you're the one being obtuse regarding what the actual conversation is. Trivial minutiae like “whether something is a crime or not.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:The whole contention is whether people will be treated like criminals, if you insist on lasering on minutiae that has nothing to do with how people will be treated, you're the one being obtuse regarding what the actual conversation is. There's a lot of points of contention, because there are a lot of lovely things about US immigration policy and treatment of immigrants. When someone zeroes in on just one particular detail - be it "children in cages", "path to citizenship", or "civil lawbreaking vs criminal lawbreaking" - it's usually as a way to avoid talking about the larger issues. For example, Section 1325 certainly isn't great, but it played no role in whatsoever in some of our biggest abuses of immigrants, such as the mass deportations of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the 1930s and the 1950s, and getting rid of it won't stop Trump from mass-deporting people simply for being here illegally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 05:42
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:i don't think any candidate has come out in support of banning deportations, the correct platform Bernie's been using his mailing list to warn people in danger of being deported; while I'd like for him to outright say that he'll ban deportations, I think we can suss out his position pretty clearly from his actions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
So her plan isn't then, as she represented herself to those protestors, to legalize immigration but to instead make minor changes to restore the white supremacist status quo to "good working order" as she sees it. No thanks. She's not a former Republican, she's a current Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Trivial minutiae like “whether something is a crime or not.” It's just "whether a candidate means what she says" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Trivial minutiae like “whether something is a crime or not.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bernie's been using his mailing list to warn people in danger of being deported; while I'd like for him to outright say that he'll ban deportations, I think we can suss out his position pretty clearly from his actions. given sanders' has a long record of saying we need immigration controls in order to protect american workers and social programs im not really ready to suss out that he's secretly Candidate Open Borders do think its great for his campaign to be helping people like that though
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:If something isn't a crime, but the people who do the something wind up being treated like criminals, then whether or not something is a crime is indeed trivial minutiae for the purpose of discussing whether people who do the something wind up being treated like criminals. Well, people aren’t generally locked in cages awaiting civil hearings. They generally aren’t separated from their children pending the outcome of civil enforcement actions. The existence of the crime has had real practical and legal consequences for immigrants and you’re coming off as ignorant of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Well, people aren’t generally locked in cages awaiting civil hearings. They generally aren’t separated from their children pending the outcome of civil enforcement actions. The existence of the crime has had real practical and legal consequences for immigrants and you’re coming off as ignorant of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:The question isn't "Does this have consequences?" it's "Are civil offenders treated like criminals?" and civil offenders are forcibly subjected to court systems, and legal consequences for their actions that violate government code, so if your contention that isn't being treated like a criminal because they don't have pre-trial detention (despite literal criminals having bail!?) then make it, but at least engage with the actual conversation. Personally, I’m fine with having a completely open border and letting anyone come who wants to, subject to basic security checks (I had that opinion long before the self-righteous left did, by the way; I vividly recall when Hillary Clinton was pilloried by Bernie supporters for momentarily seeming to call for open borders). However, there isn’t really much constituency for that policy. I think there are middle ground policies that allow for some border enforcement and immigration control without the disgusting human rights abuses that are presently occurring. A good first step would be to decriminalize border crossing (which would end the camps and the family separations). A good second step would be to loosen up the asylum rules so that it can granted to more people. A good third step would be to expand the number of immigrants that can legally come to the us. There are probably other good steps to take after that too short of open borders. But while there are still immigration restrictions, some people will be “exposed” to the court system. That’s how it works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Personally, I’m fine with having a completely open border and letting anyone come who wants to, subject to basic security checks (I had that opinion long before the self-righteous left did, by the way; I vividly recall when Hillary Clinton was pilloried by Bernie supporters for calling for open borders). However, there isn’t really much constituency for that policy. I think there are middle ground policies that allow for some border enforcement and immigration control without the disgusting human rights abuses that are presently occurring. A good first step would be to decriminalize border crossing (which would end the camps and the family separations). A good second step would be to loosen up the asylum rules so that it can granted to more people. A good third step would be to expand the number of immigrants that can legally come to the us. There are probably other good steps to take after that too short of open borders. Wait, what? Bernie attacked Hillary because she was for open borders? What kind of dumbass nonsense is this? I mean, here's what actually happened on their debate on immigration: https://time.com/4218850/democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-central-america-unaccompanied-minors/ Not to mention that as the sole member of the Congressional progressive caucus in the Senate, Bernie was a signatory of fix96 in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
joepinetree posted:Wait, what? Bernie attacked Hillary because she was for open borders? What kind of dumbass nonsense is this? I edited that because she didn’t actually call for open borders. She said something that sounded a bit like calling for open borders, and then a bunch of Bernie people freaked out because in 2016 protectionism was in vogue on the left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 06:33
|
|