Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Who's your money on?Follow

#1002 Apr 11 2016 at 5:55 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That's wonderful and all, but just because not all classified information is a serious state secret, not everything that's classified *isn't*. You're basically arguing that since it's possible that nothing on her server was of the "serious secret" nature, that we should just assume that is the case, so there's no reason to even bother looking into it to find out. Which seems... silly. It's like saying that since it's possible that the men in ski masks walking into the bank might not be planning to rob it, we should just ignore them or something.


See post #987
#1003 Apr 12 2016 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which makes no sense, given that we were just talking about how conservatives don't act based on liking or disliking people, but liberals do.
So by your own definition you're a liberal.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1004 Apr 12 2016 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm too lazy to muddle through Gbaji's ramblings, but someone make sure to tell him that he's not allowed to talk about what liberals want, believe or how they think because he isn't one.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1005 Apr 12 2016 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Something something knows a liberal something something everyone predicted it something something it's just obvious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1006 Apr 22 2016 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
New polling shows Trump favored to win Indiana as well as sweep this Tuesday's races. Sam Wang's model shows Trump is poised to win 1,237 delegates before the convention although that's not a sure thing. This seems to be the direction the RNC is ready to face themselves with Preibus blasting the whole "Never Trump" movement and saying the party needs to unify around their nominee.

On the blue side, it's much the same story with Clinton ready to blow through Tuesday and leading in Indiana as well.

Also, recent poll finds Trump sweeping California:
Politico wrote:
California is worth 172 delegates when it votes on June 7 — with the winner of each of the state’s 53 congressional districts receiving three delegates. The statewide winner receives 13 delegates.

The Capitol Weekly/Sextant Strategies poll shows Trump winning in almost every corner of the state, from San Diego and Orange County to northern California and the Bay Area, though some regions have small sample sizes.

Cruz performs strongest in the Central Valley, as he has in previous surveys, though he still trails Trump there by 7 percentage points, 35 percent to 28 percent. Trump leads in the liberal Bay Area, but it is Kasich who nudges above Cruz into second place, trailing Trump 39 percent to 25 percent.

Trump’s strongest region is the Inland Empire of southern California, where he hits 49 percent support.





Edited, Apr 22nd 2016 6:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1007 Apr 25 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
On the blue side, it's much the same story with Clinton ready to blow through Tuesday and leading in Indiana as well.
Polls over the weekend haven't really changed anything. Connecticut and Indiana might be close for Hillary. Rhode Island doesn't seem to like Cruz very much.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1008 Apr 25 2016 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
PPP released a poll showing Clinton -4 in RI but two other polls had her ahead. Of course, no one gives a shit about who wins Rhode Island. Losing RI or even RI & CT by a couple points is meaningless when Clinton is poised to take PA and MD by nearly/over double digit leads.

Cruz & Kasich have publicly stated that they are going to work together and trade off remaining states to try and stop Trump from getting the nomination. Which, of course, plays right into Trump's narrative that the Republicans are trying to rig the system against him.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1009 Apr 25 2016 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I get the feeling there's a large number of Republican party people who just wish the primary system would go away in some shape or form. Given that it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of producing good candidates as of late. All that said why not just jump on the Trump bandwagon at this point? Hopefully the guy can pivot well enough to make it a race in the general. Not like the party base is going to be particularly motivated to support a candidate that has been snuck in the back door either.

Then again, what do I know? Just doesn't seem like "anyone but Hillary" is a good enough rallying cry from here though.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1010 Apr 25 2016 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Also, just for fun. A brief look at the logistics of deporting 11 million people.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1011 Apr 25 2016 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'm pretty sure those are some of those "details" things that conservatives regularly tell us to ignore. You know, forest and trees.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1012 Apr 25 2016 at 1:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
For the best I suppose; probably better off not knowing the details of an operation that would end up being de facto genocide anyway. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Apr 25th 2016 12:02pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1013 Apr 25 2016 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:


That article doesn't actually contain any logistics. Just a bunch of hyperbole. Not that Trump isn't engaging in the same, but deliberately taking the most absurd approach, assuming that's what will happen, and then pointing out how it wont work, isn't terribly useful.

How do you deport 11 million people? Well. You don't do it in one day. You don't go running around with jackbooted thugs dragging people out of their houses en masse. You simply actually apply the existing laws as they are on the books today. One person at a time. You stop having your enforcement agencies actively look the other way. You stop handing out exemptions for pretty much everyone so as to avoid deporting anyone. You don't even need to add many agents to do this. Illegals fall into our legal system constantly. And whey they do, they are supposed to be deported. But most of the time, unless they're literally caught whilst sneaking across the border, they are not deported.

Will that actually result in every single one of those 11 million people being deported? Not a chance. But that's not the point. What people are angry about are the cases where someone is caught, but is let go. Or when they see sanctuary cities spring up, where police are prohibited from checking legal status, even when everyone knows who is and who isn't here illegally. We pretend we don't. And, as I've posted many times in the past, despite the bleeding hearts thinking they're "doing the right thing" here, they really aren't. If you can actually create a new type of visa that covers the same work being done by current illegals, giving them a way to do what they're doing now without fear, and place threat of deportation on the other side of the equation, then yes, many of those 11 million will voluntarily sign up for the new visa, and voluntarily be "deported", only to walk out the exit door of the same US immigration building, on the US side of the border, only now with legal documentation.

I'm quite sure that Trump uses this purely as a red meat issue, but there is an actual valid path to pursue here. It just gets lost in the ridiculous counter rhetoric.

Edited, Apr 25th 2016 2:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1014 Apr 26 2016 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
How do you deport 11 million people? Well. You don't do it in one day. You don't go running around with jackbooted thugs dragging people out of their houses en masse. You simply actually apply the existing laws as they are on the books today. One person at a time. You stop having your enforcement agencies actively look the other way. You stop handing out exemptions for pretty much everyone so as to avoid deporting anyone. You don't even need to add many agents to do this. Illegals fall into our legal system constantly. And whey they do, they are supposed to be deported. But most of the time, unless they're literally caught whilst sneaking across the border, they are not deported.


See the article addressed that:

Quote:
ICE claims it could deport 400,000 undocumented immigrants a year. Apply Trump's triple formula not just to the staffing but to the results and it's still 2027 before the last of them is gone, and again this presumes nobody puts up a fight, nobody tries to come back, and nobody new tries to get in.


It's just a simple logical deduction. The problem is you can't just apply the laws the same way they're on the books today because you don't have the manpower to do it. If you take Trump's stated solution to the problem (3x the man power), then it takes over a decade to get everyone out assuming you don't have the inevitable governmental bloat with diminishing returns after hiring additional people.

gbaji wrote:
If you can actually create a new type of visa that covers the same work being done by current illegals, giving them a way to do what they're doing now without fear, and place threat of deportation on the other side of the equation, then yes, many of those 11 million will voluntarily sign up for the new visa, and voluntarily be "deported", only to walk out the exit door of the same US immigration building, on the US side of the border, only now with legal documentation.
You're still asking people that have good reason to fear the U.S. government to trust that same government. How do you get through those decades of instilled fear? (I mean really, angry white guys talking about deporting people is probably the worst way to do this...) Even then you still have to process 11 million people (many of whom, again, aren't going to be very trusting that you have their best interests in mind) to give them visas. Even in the best case scenario you're going to have a sizable percentage of the population (I mean even by some miracle if 2/3rds of the people voluntarily walk into a ICE station for procession you're talking about a manhunt for nearly 4 million people) you're going to have to pay to track down and process.

Whatever happened to small government anyway?

Edited, Apr 26th 2016 10:11am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1015 Apr 26 2016 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
If homeland security budgets were quadrupled, you could probably expect to deport a1-2million to people per year. Obviously it gets harder as you try to root out people who are more resistant to enforcement. Over an 8 year term you would basically bring the numbers to a negligible figure, especially if the influx were dampened in conjunction. That level of funding increase is less that 1% of the Federal budget, so it's economically feasible.

It's still probably not a good idea.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1016 Apr 26 2016 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Whatever happened to small government anyway?
Still a largely meaningless buzphrase that's appealing to easily manipulated people. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1017 Apr 26 2016 at 11:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
If homeland security budgets were quadrupled, you could probably expect to deport a1-2million to people per year. Obviously it gets harder as you try to root out people who are more resistant to enforcement. Over an 8 year term you would basically bring the numbers to a negligible figure, especially if the influx were dampened in conjunction. That level of funding increase is less that 1% of the Federal budget, so it's economically feasible.

It's still probably not a good idea.

Well no, probably still not a good idea.

1) Diplomatic fallout: I can't imagine a positive response from our various allies. It'd almost certainly be labelled as a some kind of humanitarian crime from the United Nations. Latin American nations would likely not be very happy about millions of their citizens being "deported" (regardless of what that word would actually mean), problems with less money being sent home due to work disruption would have economic consequences in their countries, etc.

2) Someone will inevitably **** something up. Guy gets shot/killed while he's being "arrested," someone sent back to Mexico who should have been given a work visa, Family gets separated inadvertently, old lady dies from the strain of moving, etc. Those are the types of stories that could easily derail the whole program, or ruin the trust in the system needed to keep it from being stupidly extensive (I mean, it's a lot cheaper if people are going to voluntarily come down to the ICE office rather than being rounded up). Lord knows those opposed to the idea would pounce on the first piece of negative propaganda they could and make it a big thing.

3) Our economy would have problems. You need people working, not hiding from law enforcement, or traveling to the Mexican border to get permits to work here. 11 million people is a sizable chunk of the population that won't be contributing to the economy.

4) Seriously what happened to the small government Republicans? We're sitting here talking about spending large sums of money to fix a problem which really isn't that much of a problem to being with. Why not just let that money stay in the economy instead?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1018 Apr 26 2016 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Whatever happened to small government anyway?
Still a largely meaningless buzphrase that's appealing to easily manipulated people. Smiley: thumbsup
Sigh... suppose it's a bit of a logical fallacy to expect a politician to actually want to reduce the importance of their job. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1019 Apr 26 2016 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Illegal Immigration from Mexico is a states problem. Specifically: California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Tell those 4 to smarten the **** up and stop trying to pass off their problems onto everyone else.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1020 Apr 26 2016 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Illegal Immigration from Mexico is a states problem. Specifically: California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Tell those 4 to smarten the **** up and stop trying to pass off their problems onto everyone else.
We can't even stop giving full driver's licenses to illegals without a national shitstorm. Can't really speak for the other three states.
#1021 Apr 26 2016 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
To the surprise of no one, looks like Trump's gonna sweep all five states. Only question is how many he takes 100% of the pot from.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1022 Apr 26 2016 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Illegal Immigration from Mexico is a states problem. Specifically: California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Tell those 4 to smarten the **** up and stop trying to pass off their problems onto everyone else.
We can't even stop giving full driver's licenses to illegals without a national shitstorm. Can't really speak for the other three states.


Well, that and when there are attempts to do something at the state level, then the federal government steps in and says "you can't do that!". IIRC, Arizona attempted to take on border and immigration enforcement duties to "help" the feds out (basically, allocating state resources to locating illegals and bringing them to the doorstep of ICE for deportation). They were told they could not do that because immigration was a national issue and the federal government's authority took precedence.

Other parts of the system are somewhat rigged as well. Federal education dollars often come with strings attached that require that any "resident" of the state must receive public education. Resident, of course, not meaning "legal resident". Then, of course, there's cases like Obama's Dream Act, where the federal government basically says "you have to keep them in school, no matter what!". Federal anti-discrimination laws are "interesting" in how they handle undocumented workers, sometimes resulting in bizarre cases. Like say, if I discover that undocumented workerA is here illegally via some random method, I can fire them (and am legally required to). But, if that same worker is engaged in union activities (like say on strike), and I fire him, it can be alleged to be retaliation for going on strike, and I would be violating the law to fire him (and also to *not* fire him, so go figure!). Apparently, union protections trump legal status.

Those states don't have the biggest problems because they're just going off and doing their own things and causing problems. They have the biggest problems because they have the largest populations of illegals, and thus they are the ones most stuck dealing with the federal government's failure to manage it's immigration policy properly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1023 Apr 26 2016 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
See the article addressed that:

Quote:
ICE claims it could deport 400,000 undocumented immigrants a year. Apply Trump's triple formula not just to the staffing but to the results and it's still 2027 before the last of them is gone, and again this presumes nobody puts up a fight, nobody tries to come back, and nobody new tries to get in.


It's just a simple logical deduction. The problem is you can't just apply the laws the same way they're on the books today because you don't have the manpower to do it. If you take Trump's stated solution to the problem (3x the man power), then it takes over a decade to get everyone out assuming you don't have the inevitable governmental bloat with diminishing returns after hiring additional people.


Which again, assumes all you're doing is running around trying to find and deport people. Which is only half of the equation (less than a third actually). If you provide an alternative method for those currently coming (and staying) here illegally to do exactly what they're doing today, but with a legal status and documentation, a very very large percentage of them will follow that path. Which kinda makes the whole "deport those here illegally" thing quite easy and obtainable.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If you can actually create a new type of visa that covers the same work being done by current illegals, giving them a way to do what they're doing now without fear, and place threat of deportation on the other side of the equation, then yes, many of those 11 million will voluntarily sign up for the new visa, and voluntarily be "deported", only to walk out the exit door of the same US immigration building, on the US side of the border, only now with legal documentation.
You're still asking people that have good reason to fear the U.S. government to trust that same government. How do you get through those decades of instilled fear?


I think you are grossly misunderstanding what those here illegally actually fear, and why they fear it. If the US government provided them a legal way to stay in the US and work, even if it gives them no benefit towards citizenship, they'd be very happy.

Quote:
(I mean really, angry white guys talking about deporting people is probably the worst way to do this...)


Yeah. That's not the narrative that actually resonates with the undocumented population though. I get that it's a great stereotype to use. But it's just not accurate.

Quote:
Even then you still have to process 11 million people (many of whom, again, aren't going to be very trusting that you have their best interests in mind) to give them visas. Even in the best case scenario you're going to have a sizable percentage of the population (I mean even by some miracle if 2/3rds of the people voluntarily walk into a ICE station for procession you're talking about a manhunt for nearly 4 million people) you're going to have to pay to track down and process.


And if we don't do this, does the size of the problem magically shrink? Does it disappear? No, it does not. I think the problem isn't the number here illegally today, but the rate at which the illegally enter the country. The number above points this out. We already deport nearly half a million people every year. That's the "normal" level of load. It's already a massive undertaking, and shows no sign of getting smaller. If we change the approach, making it so that those who are actually just coming here to work can do so, and keeping those with less honorable intentions out, we may have some extra load in the short term (decade or so), but will significantly decrease that load over time.

These "deportations" would also be much cheaper. Again, assuming we can actually get some kind of guest worker program working.

Quote:
Whatever happened to small government anyway?


Is this where I repeat, for the zillionth time, that "small government" is less about the total dollars spent, and much more about making sure things are handled at the correct level of government. Border enforcement and immigration is a federal level problem. So unlike things like food stamps, housing assistance, funding for arts and education, and a host of other things that liberals think the federal government should have a hand in, immigration is actually one of the small handful of things the federal government should actually be doing.

Small government is about shrinking the federal government down to just the things it actually needs to do. It's like I have to keep explaining this every month or so. Don't worry though. I'm sure the next time we get into a discussion about why the GOP supports military spending when we're "small government", or why we're ok with getting involved the middle east despite being "small government", I'll have to trot out the same explanation again. And again. And again.

Edited, Apr 26th 2016 7:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1024 Apr 26 2016 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
To the surprise of no one, looks like Trump's gonna sweep all five states. Only question is how many he takes 100% of the pot from.


Yeah. Not surprising. The 64k question is how many delegates he can grab, and whether he can get a majority going into the convention. That's honestly the only question here. If he can, he wins the nomination, if he can't. Things get.. fun.

I'm thinking a Kasich/Rubio ticket coming out of a contested convention. Just to get back to the original question of the thread.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1025 Apr 26 2016 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm thinking a Kasich/Rubio ticket coming out of a contested convention.
Well I know who not to put money on.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1026 Apr 26 2016 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
To the surprise of no one, looks like Trump's gonna sweep all five states. Only question is how many he takes 100% of the pot from.


Yeah. Not surprising. The 64k question is how many delegates he can grab, and whether he can get a majority going into the convention. That's honestly the only question here. If he can, he wins the nomination, if he can't. Things get.. fun.

I'm thinking a Kasich/Rubio ticket coming out of a contested convention. Just to get back to the original question of the thread.


I assume that is based on wishful thinking, rather than any real strategy.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 265 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (265)