[ldrews]

 jjbrr, on 2018-January-23, 16:54, said:

I suppose I don't understand your post about Trump specifically, but these Harvard/Harris polls always seems very poorly conducted to me to the point of being meaningless. Do I want secure borders? Of course I do. Do I want physical barriers? Maybe, if the borders are unsafe without them. Do I oppose a government shutdown? I think so in most cases. Do I oppose a government shutdown for DACA? I didn't realize DACA had anything to do with government shutdowns except in Trump's government, but when was that context provided? And if that's the context, there are other things besides DACA that contribute to my answer. Similarly, if that's the context, do I want physical barriers at the border? No, of course I don't want Trump's borders, but that wasn't the question.

This seems to me to be an easy deal. Fund the wall, fix the immigration laws so problems do not reoccur (merit based, no chain migration, no lottery), and fix DACA in a reasonable way (permanent green cards, normal path to citizenship). I believe the Goodlatte bill does this.

What is the problem?

[ggwhiz]

"60% oppose letting the Dreamers bring their parents to the US. 40% support it."

How the hell did they get to the US and where are the parents now? Let the Dreamers stay but deport ALL of their parents?

Meanwhile what about the guy that came here at 10, just missing the DACA cut off who married a US citizen, had 3 kids, squeaky clean law abiding taxpayer sitting in Mexico City and only seeing his family on Skype. Or the 15K and counting daily who can no longer work legally with expiration of their DACA status.

This survey as presented has more holes than Swiss cheese.

[cherdano]

I am sure a majority are against "chain migration". I am also sure a majority would be in favour of allowing "family reunions". And I prefer to think that a majority would be against deporting parents who are caring for US-born children (i.e. US citizens) and against ICE pulling families apart, because I prefer to think that the most powerful country on earth isn't full of completely soulless racist bigots. But unfortunately, the current administration is.

[jjbrr]

without defining "worst" is lu.r|po,a or ldrews the worst poster in bbf history? who am i missing? should I start a new thread so we can discuss?

edit in case she's googling

[Winstonm]

 cherdano, on 2018-January-23, 18:02, said:

I am sure a majority are against "chain migration". I am also sure a majority would be in favour of allowing "family reunions". And I prefer to think that a majority would be against deporting parents who are caring for US-born children (i.e. US citizens) and against ICE pulling families apart, because I prefer to think that the most powerful country on earth isn't full of completely soulless racist bigots. But unfortunately, the current administration is.

The amount of occult racism in this country never fails to stagger me.

[jjbrr]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-23, 22:28, said:

The amount of occult racism in this country never fails to stagger me.

Yeah? Why?

[Winstonm]

 jjbrr, on 2018-January-23, 22:46, said:

Yeah? Why?

Well, I tend to think of others as an extension of myself and it never dawns on me that anyone could be stupid enough to think race has anything to do with anything, so I assume (wrongly, it seems) that others see race the same as me.

[Winstonm]

This new reporting from CNN may be a real sleeper in the entire Russia investigation. If Gates flips, Manafort is sure to lose at trial and then he may try to make his own deal.

Quote

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates has quietly added a prominent white-collar attorney, Tom Green, to his defense team, signaling that Gates' approach to his not-guilty plea could be changing behind the scenes.

[jjbrr]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-23, 22:54, said:

Well, I tend to think of others as an extension of myself and it never dawns on me that anyone could be stupid enough to think race has anything to do with anything, so I assume (wrongly, it seems) that others see race the same as me.

[y66]

Quote of the day from Amanda Taub and Max Fisher at the NYT:

Quote

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, published an excellent book last year, “How Democracies Die.” Here, from their book, is some food for thought on how and when the United States became fully democratic. This only-just-recent process leaves American democracy weaker and more troubled than we might think and explains its problems today. It’s an important lesson in the fallibility of any democracy.

Quote

America’s democratic institutions were challenged on several occasions during the twentieth century, but each of these challenges was effectively contained. The guardrails held, as politicians from both parties — and often, society as a whole — pushed back against violations that might have threatened democracy. As a result, episodes of intolerance and partisan warfare never escalated into the kind of “death spiral” that destroyed democracies in Europe in the 1930s and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s.

We must conclude with a troubling caveat, however. The norms sustaining our political system rested, to a considerable degree, on racial exclusion. The stability of the period between the end of Reconstruction and the 1980s was rooted in an original sin: the Compromise of 1877 and its aftermath, which permitted the de-democratization of the South and the consolidation of Jim Crow. Racial exclusion contributed directly to the partisan civility and cooperation that came to characterize twentieth-century American politics. The “solid South” emerged as a powerful conservative force within the Democratic Party, simultaneously vetoing civil rights and serving as a bridge to Republicans. Southern Democrats’ ideological proximity to conservative Republicans reduced polarization and facilitated bipartisanship. But it did so at the great cost of keeping civil rights — and America’s full democratization — off the political agenda.

America’s democratic norms, then, were born in a context of exclusion. As long as the political community was restricted largely to whites, Democrats and Republicans had much in common. Neither party was likely to view the other as an existential threat. The process of racial inclusion that began after World War Two and culminated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act would, at long last, fully democratize the United States. But it would also polarize it, posing the greatest challenge to established forms of mutual toleration and forbearance since Reconstruction.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-23, 22:54, said:

Well, I tend to think of others as an extension of myself and it never dawns on me that anyone could be stupid enough to think race has anything to do with anything, so I assume (wrongly, it seems) that others see race the same as me.

I offer myself for consideration.

I have been married three times, this third marriage was 23 years ago and is going fine, thank you.

All three of my marriages have been to white women. I don't think the fact that all three were white is just a coincidence but I don't think that makes me a racist. I don't think the fact that all three were women is a coincidence but I don't think that makes me homophobic.

To look at it from another angle, all three were from fairly modest economic backgrounds. My first wife's father was an iron miner, after he had health problems he became a bartender. My family background is also modest economically so again I don't think it is a coincidence that the same is true of my wives. Becky's parents actually sent her to a private college, so definitely this is a step up the economic ladder for me, but it was Ohio Northern, not Wellesley. Her family lived in San Francisco near Haight Asbury in the 1960s and Ohio sounded like a very good place!

The trick, I think, is not to assert that race has absolutely nothing to do with anything but rather to accept that we are all, in religious language, children of the same god. And again, you do not have to believe in a god, as you don't and I don't, to accept the truth of this.

I dated some women who came from considerable wealth but, to turn a phrase, such girls are fine to date but you wouldn't want to marry one of them. Easy, that's my attempt at humor. My fundamental point is that we can acknowledge the existence of differences without being any sort of -ist.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-January-24, 08:38, said:

I offer myself for consideration.

I have been married three times, this third marriage was 23 years ago and is going fine, thank you.

All three of my marriages have been to white women. I don't think the fact that all three were white is just a coincidence but I don't think that makes me a racist. I don't think the fact that all three were women is a coincidence but I don't think that makes me homophobic.

To look at it from another angle, all three were from fairly modest economic backgrounds. My first wife's father was an iron miner, after he had health problems he became a bartender. My family background is also modest economically so again I don't think it is a coincidence that the same is true of my wives. Becky's parents actually sent her to a private college, so definitely this is a step up the economic ladder for me, but it was Ohio Northern, not Wellesley. Her family lived in San Francisco near Haight Asbury in the 1960s and Ohio sounded like a very good place!

The trick, I think, is not to assert that race has absolutely nothing to do with anything but rather to accept that we are all, in religious language, children of the same god. And again, you do not have to believe in a god, as you don't and I don't, to accept the truth of this.

I dated some women who came from considerable wealth but, to turn a phrase, such girls are fine to date but you wouldn't want to marry one of them. Easy, that's my attempt at humor. My fundamental point is that we can acknowledge the existence of differences without being any sort of -ist.

I mostly agree. The question though is would you (or anyone else) have ruled out a girl who fit the other parameters for dating simply because of her race?

This is the kind of obscured racism I am talking about (and I'm not accusing you, Ken), the kind of person who thinks himself non-racist but would never marry or allow his kids to date outside of his race, who thinks there is reverse discrimination against whites, who thinks in terms of "those people" based on race rather than culture or economic status.

[olegru]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-23, 22:54, said:

... anyone could be stupid enough to think race has anything to do with anything ...

https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States

[barmar]

Did you hear Trump's description of the Visa lottery system?

Quote

When we take people in a lottery, they're not putting their best people in the lottery. It's common sense. They're not saying, 'Oh, let's take our best people and let's put them into the lottery so that we can send them over to the United States.' No. They put their worst people into the lottery. And that's what we get in many cases.

From Politifact

Quote

In this case, Trump oversimplified and misconstrued the program. Countries don't send their people. Lottery applicants must meet minimum standards for education or work experience. The lottery is run by the United States, not foreign countries. Lottery winners are selected by a random, computerized process. Individuals must pass background vetting by the U.S. government before getting a visa.

The White House declined to comment on the record for this fact-check.
...
Trump’s comment that the worst are coming not only ignores vetting done by the State Department, but also lottery entry requirements of at least a high school education or its equivalent, or two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience to perform.
...
Cohen said Trump and his administration have promoted two conflicting goals: They have attacked family reunification immigration policies, but also the diversity lottery, "which does not rely on family reunification and is far more skills-based than the name suggests."

Regardless of what you think about merit-based immigration vs. other criteria, this is either "pants-on-fire" lying or total ignorance about one of the current systems. Either of those possibilities is evidence of Trump's unfitness.

[Winstonm]

 olegru, on 2018-January-24, 10:05, said:

https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States

Quote

Affirmative action in the United States is a set of laws, policies, guidelines, and administrative practices "intended to end and correct the effects of a specific form of discrimination."

Exactly. This is not discrimination against whites because they are white but an attempt to establish justice for past discrimination that was based solely on race.

[Cyberyeti]

An example of affirmative action and the issues it can cause that our American forumites may be unaware of is in South African cricket.

Post apartheid, there have been quotas for non white players in the national (and I think top domestic) teams.

This has had the effect of getting more non white representation, BUT has caused a lot of white players to decide they're going to make themselves unavailable for South Africa and qualify by various means as English as far as English domestic cricket is concerned as it pays as well and more securely as playing for SA. Some were getting fed up with being overlooked for inferior black players.

It has got into the realms of flat out discrimination (source http://www.espncrici...ayer/46681.html) "Ontong was selected ahead of Jacques Rudolph for political reasons. It emerged that Percy Sonn, then the South Africa board president, had overruled the selectors and insisted on the inclusion of Ontong, a Cape Coloured, ahead of Rudolph, a white player. Rudolph and Ontong were room-mates at the time and have remained friends despite the circumstances of the tour."

[olegru]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-24, 12:34, said:

Exactly. This is not discrimination against whites because they are white but an attempt to establish justice for past discrimination that was based solely on race.

There is old Russian joke, sorry it seems a bit rude:
"Rabinowitch, dear, please make up your mind and hide one of two things: Orthodox Cross or your penis.”

I am simply saying that if you agree with existing of based on race policies you cannot say "race has nothing to do with anything" in the same time. I am not discussing morality and logic behind the policy, but can share my opinion - generalization based solely on the skin color is stupid and racist.

[helene_t]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-24, 12:34, said:

This is not discrimination against whites because they are white but an attempt to establish justice for past discrimination that was based solely on race.

It is discrimination.

Affirmative action may be a good policy. Actually, I think it is a good thing in many cases.

But we must call a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel.

[y66]

Good discussion here about the 2018 midterm elections and the challenges and opportunities they present for Democrats by Frank Bruni, NYT, Deval Patrick, former Massachusetts governor and the managing director of Bain Capital Double Impact, and Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist most recently with the Doug Jones Senate campaign in Alabama.

More focus on core values, fixing the health care system, expanding the economy to those left out and securing our communities consistent with the Constitution -- not Trump bashing -- is the key? Good idea.

[Winstonm]

 helene_t, on 2018-January-24, 15:22, said:

It is discrimination.

Affirmative action may be a good policy. Actually, I think it is a good thing in many cases.

But we must call a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel.

This is not action against whites because they are white - that would be racial discrimination. This is action to advance those of color, not because of anyone's color but because of previous and continuing discrimination against those peoples.