Politics

[loomis41973]

I think the people advocating for abolishing ice think it will create open borders.

Pretty simple.

 

[IrishLax]

I think the people advocating for abolishing ice think it will create open borders.

That's an inference from something not contained anywhere in that flyer.

Moreover, it isn't true. This is from today -- http://thehill.com/homenews/house/394617-dem-lawmakers-announce-support-for-law-to-abolish-ice -- that's a law being proposed by Democrats to abolish ICE... not to open borders, but to stop what they consider inhumane separation/deportation tactics. You can disagree with their position on ICE and its practices, but it's disingenuous to say no ICE == open borders.

And this is from March if you want to get deep on it -- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/19/17116980/ice-abolish-immigration-arrest-deport

It's like when those on the Right said "abolish the EPA"... they weren't saying don't do anything at all to protect the environment, they were saying that they didn't like how the EPA functioned and that it should be dismantled in favor of something else that fits policy points XYZ. Same thing with "abolish the IRS"... the point was not to have no taxes at all.

 

[IrishLax]

Pretty simple.

Did we have open borders before ICE in 2003? Yes or no.

 

[loomis41973]

Did we have open borders before ICE in 2003? Yes or no.

No.

Did she say fix or change?

 

[IrishLax]

No.

So considering we didn't have open borders before ICE existed, it follows that getting rid of ICE doesn't have to == "open borders."

As you said, pretty simple.

 

[IrishLax]

Again, I'm not saying I agree with or support her platform, just that most of that flyer is a pretty standard Left position. None of it is that crazy or sensational... none of it is radical policy that isn't already being discussed.

For example, multiple Democrats in Congress want to dismantle ICE. Multiple are on record saying as much, many others saying they want to overhaul or change how it operates. None that I am aware of are on record saying they want "open borders."

This is a pretty quick read on such claims by NYT that gets straight to the point -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/fast-check-donald-trump-democrats-open-borders.html

There are special interest groups and lobbyists that support "open borders." They are the ones that manufacture or play up a lot of controversy on social media and elsewhere, and many Republicans are quick to seize on that as the position of the "Democrats" because it's an easy way to score points against a dumb policy position.

 

[IrishLax]

Also, this is a good piece from The Hill on "open borders" and the fake debate on something no lawmaker on either side currently supports and why we keep talking about it -- http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrat...ve-been-played-again-by-open-border-advocates

 

[Ndaccountant]

Again, I'm not saying I agree with or support her platform, just that most of that flyer is a pretty standard Left position. None of it is that crazy or sensational... none of it is radical policy that isn't already being discussed.

For example, multiple Democrats in Congress want to dismantle ICE. Multiple are on record saying as much, many others saying they want to overhaul or change how it operates. None that I am aware of are on record saying they want "open borders."

This is a pretty quick read on such claims by NYT that gets straight to the point -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/fast-check-donald-trump-democrats-open-borders.html

There are special interest groups and lobbyists that support "open borders." They are the ones that manufacture or play up a lot of controversy on social media and elsewhere, and many Republicans are quick to seize on that as the position of the "Democrats" because it's an easy way to score points against a dumb policy position.

TBH, that is the point of the whole damn flyer. She knew who she was up against, flipped the script on him and the incredibly red, and further diversifying district, went along for the ride.

In effect, she "trumped" him.

 

[ACamp1900]

McConnell is in rare form lately...

 

[NorthDakota]

TBH, that is the point of the whole damn flyer. She knew who she was up against, flipped the script on him and the incredibly red, and further diversifying district, went along for the ride.

In effect, she "trumped" him.

Incredibly red? you mean blue i assume?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Incredibly red? you mean blue i assume?

Brain fart

 

[Irish YJ]

It’s interesting for sure and deserves an honest debate. My first question is “what about all the tenured professors, university presidents, etc who are making high salaries?”. If the taxpayer is paying for free college for all, how will the the state universities get their salaries covered w/o taking a pay decrease? I assume this wouldn’t affect private universities until somone cries that the private schools are offering a better education & college experience than the state schools & how unfair it is.

Regardless, something needs to be done as the value of a college education seems to decrease as the cost of that education continues to skyrocket.

Private education, for the most part, will always be better than public. That will not change. States and the fed can be creative. Georgia for instance, funds the Hope Scholarship entirely with the state lottery system. It could be done if government would be willing to be creative.

Highly paid university staff are not my concern to be honest. I think some of the salaries are ridiculous, and I've never been a fan of tenure. In my college experience, the tenured guys were lazier, more political, and less effective. That said, I don't think you necessarily have to change the pay depending on how you do things.

Personally I think they need to provide Hope like support to the mainstream universities, and also provide stripped down colleges or trade schools for others. Kids at the core, IMO, deserve at least basic higher education. They don't need grand campuses, sport teams, fringe degrees, etc.. Just give them the basics (computer, math, business, etc.) that will help them prepare for the mainstream workforce. And if they excel out these stripped down universities, give them a path to mainstream.

Bottom line, I'd rather educate kids for free, training them how to fish for a lifetime, then provide them fish for a lifetime.

 

[Irish YJ]

Quality, affordability, universality. You can have two of those things, not all three.

Putting the "squeeze" on drug companies is the dumbest possible argument in any conversation on health care. The way to make sure we never cure cancer is to put the squeeze on the companies that will discover those treatments.

What is dumb, is that the US pays twice as much for the same drugs as other countries. What is dumb, is that the government, because of the Part D agreement, can not negotiate drug prices (like the insurance companies can) with drug companies. It's basically a giveaway to drug companies. What is dumb, is that we subsidize the rest of the world by paying twice what they pay.

Care to explain why the above isn't dumb?

 

[loomis41973]

So considering we didn't have open borders before ICE existed, it follows that getting rid of ICE doesn't have to == "open borders."

As you said, pretty simple.

..and as you see in the protests in Portland is EXACTLY what is meant by "abolish ICE"



Sick brainwashed and also the many paid protesters.

 

[loomis41973]

What is dumb, is that the US pays twice as much for the same drugs as other countries. What is dumb, is that the government, because of the Part D agreement, can not negotiate drug prices (like the insurance companies can) with drug companies. It's basically a giveaway to drug companies. What is dumb, is that we subsidize the rest of the world by paying twice what they pay.

Care to explain why the above isn't dumb?

Shit drives me nuts. Add to that the systematic Medicare/Medicade fraud....add the state healthcare fraud. It's sickening.

 

[Irish YJ]

Again, I'm not saying I agree with or support her platform, just that most of that flyer is a pretty standard Left position. None of it is that crazy or sensational... none of it is radical policy that isn't already being discussed.

For example, multiple Democrats in Congress want to dismantle ICE. Multiple are on record saying as much, many others saying they want to overhaul or change how it operates. None that I am aware of are on record saying they want "open borders."

This is a pretty quick read on such claims by NYT that gets straight to the point -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/fast-check-donald-trump-democrats-open-borders.html

There are special interest groups and lobbyists that support "open borders." They are the ones that manufacture or play up a lot of controversy on social media and elsewhere, and many Republicans are quick to seize on that as the position of the "Democrats" because it's an easy way to score points against a dumb policy position.

The Left is careful to not to come out and say "open borders", but their policies speak loudly. They are careful in what they say because they don't want to lose votes, and it's easier to not say it, and play on heart strings.

Catch and release which results in 95+% lost. Visa overstays in which we went after less than 3% of the time. Obama telling the states that cooperation with Federal forces is optional. The decrease over Obama's tenure of deportations. They don't have to say it, to not mean it. Anyone who looks at their policies and actions objectively hears it.

 

[Irish YJ]

Shit drives me nuts. Add to that the systematic Medicare/Medicade fraud....add the state healthcare fraud. It's sickening.

The left wants us to believe its not a problem, while they continue to ask for more....

Shit's been broken for a long time. The more broken it gets the harder it gets to fix. The left wants it to be really broken and complex, so it takes more government to not fix it..... lol.

 

[Irish YJ]

Shit drives me nuts. Add to that the systematic Medicare/Medicade fraud....add the state healthcare fraud. It's sickening.

this is timely
U.S. charges hundreds in healthcare fraud, opioid crackdown
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-healthcare/u-s-charges-hundreds-in-healthcare-fraud-opioid-crackdown-idUSKBN1JO26B

 

[Bishop2b5]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...attending-2-events/ar-AAziSaa?ocid=spartanntp

This is funny and ironic. Mad Maxine is having to cancel speaking engagements because of threats after she encouraged people to harass and threaten Republicans. She didn't really think any of this through before opening her mouth and saying such stupid stuff.

 

[Irish YJ]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...attending-2-events/ar-AAziSaa?ocid=spartanntp

This is funny and ironic. Mad Maxine is having to cancel speaking engagements because of threats after she encouraged people to harass and threaten Republicans. She didn't really think any of this through before opening her mouth and saying such stupid stuff.

She is so ironic in her words and actions, nothing surprises me. I don't think anyone deserves death threats, but she deserves everything else. I'm surprised she isn't heckled by the LGBT community in Cali given her ties with Farrakhan as well.

I still don't understand how she gets elected. Isn't her district mostly Latino?

 

[Irishize]

Private education, for the most part, will always be better than public. That will not change. States and the fed can be creative. Georgia for instance, funds the Hope Scholarship entirely with the state lottery system. It could be done if government would be willing to be creative.

Highly paid university staff are not my concern to be honest. I think some of the salaries are ridiculous, and I've never been a fan of tenure. In my college experience, the tenured guys were lazier, more political, and less effective. That said, I don't think you necessarily have to change the pay depending on how you do things.

Personally I think they need to provide Hope like support to the mainstream universities, and also provide stripped down colleges or trade schools for others. Kids at the core, IMO, deserve at least basic higher education. They don't need grand campuses, sport teams, fringe degrees, etc.. Just give them the basics (computer, math, business, etc.) that will help them prepare for the mainstream workforce. And if they excel out these stripped down universities, give them a path to mainstream.

Bottom line, I'd rather educate kids for free, training them how to fish for a lifetime, then provide them fish for a lifetime.

I agree. I wasn’t voicing concern over the tenured professors and administration, I was thinking of the blowback from their side if their pay was adversely affected.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

She is so ironic in her words and actions, nothing surprises me. I don't think anyone deserves death threats, but she deserves everything else. I'm surprised she isn't heckled by the LGBT community in Cali given her ties with Farrakhan as well.

I still don't understand how she gets elected. Isn't her district mostly Latino?

Yeah I'm not gonna call all her constituents "deplorable", but I really question the logic in repeatedly voting this woman into office. But...California gonna be California. She's always been batshit crazy, but Trump has sent her overboard. First calling for his impeachment and now calling for violence against Republicans. Sick.

 

[Irish YJ]

Yeah I'm not gonna call all her constituents "deplorable", but I really question the logic in repeatedly voting this woman into office. But...California gonna be California. She's always been batshit crazy, but Trump has sent her overboard. First calling for his impeachment and now calling for violence against Republicans. Sick.

Between her crooked past, being buddies with an anti-gay/antisemitism/anti-white/anti-christian hate monger, being pro-Castro, and being pro-looting.... I mean what else does she have to do before people stop voting for her... I'm surprised the Dems haven't had an Ocasio-Cortez like push in her district. But hey, she's very bad for the Dem establishment, so I shouldn't complain.

 

[Wild Bill]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...attending-2-events/ar-AAziSaa?ocid=spartanntp

This is funny and ironic. Mad Maxine is having to cancel speaking engagements because of threats after she encouraged people to harass and threaten Republicans. She didn't really think any of this through before opening her mouth and saying such stupid stuff.

We should NEVER prevent her from speaking. She's the best.

IN PEACH!

 

[Irish YJ]

We should NEVER prevent her from speaking. She's the best.

IN PEACH!

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pgiuh90ueVg" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Michael Brendan Dougherty just published an article titled "Wanted: Justice Amy Coney Barrett":

The mental relief that one will never again have to read an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy is enough to satisfy for weeks. Just be glad for this, I’m telling myself. We never have to hear this man explain that his job is to “impose order on a disordered reality.” In an America of 300 million people, the likelihood of finding a new justice with Kennedy’s self-regard is near zero. After all, Donald Trump is unlikely to appoint himself.

But we must refuse the natural complacency that should settle on a normal and well-adjusted people who have survived the rule of Anthony Kennedy. We must press ahead. To do so, Donald Trump should appoint Amy Coney Barrett to the highest court in the land.

There are many good and fine people rumored to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates for the Supreme Court, including Amul Thapar and Senator Mike Lee. But Barrett’s qualifications match them all.

And her appointment, in particular, has several political advantages. Millions of Republicans held their noses and voted for Trump because they felt it was necessary to protect the liberty to practice their faith. The fight over Barrett’s confirmation would almost certainly build trust between President Trump and social conservatives. It would energize Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.

The facts of Barrett’s life — that she is a mother of seven children, and that when she speaks about her Catholic faith, she speaks about God as if she really believes in His existence — will provoke nasty and bigoted statements from Democratic senators and liberal media personalities. Again.

You may recall that this has already happened. In 2017, during confirmation hearings for a seat on the Seventh Circuit, Senator Dianne Feinstein surveyed Barrett’s public statements on her personal faith and told her that she worried that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” The bizarre idiom she created was a sign that Feinstein didn’t have an easy way to say what she wanted to say: A Catholic is fine. A believing Catholic is not.

The Feinstein incident caused Christopher L. Eisgruber, president of Princeton University, to publicly defend Barrett and her writings on how her faith relates to her duties as a judge. He then urged against what he saw as an emerging religious test. “In my view,” Eisgruber wrote, “Professor Barrett’s qualifications become stronger by virtue of her willingness to write candidly and intelligently about difficult and sensitive ethical questions: Our universities, our judiciary, and our country will be the poorer if the Senate prefers nominees who remain silent on such topics.”

It won’t just be her faith. In 2012, a columnist chastised two Republican presidential candidates for their “smug fecundity.” For Barrett, the comments on the number of children she has are likely to be much worse. The fact is that women nominated for positions of authority often inspire hysterical and self-defeating reactions in those who oppose them. And it will likely be other women who dislike Barrett’s way of life who will make the ugliest remarks. Trump will very likely understand the dynamics at play instinctively.

Now, it would be churlish to choose Barrett only because her nomination will cause some Democrats to bleep, bloop disconcertingly before entering into auto-destruct mode. It would be good to nominate her, however, because the fight to confirm her will contain edifying political lessons. We don’t have religious tests for public office in this country, and having a republic that does not have an established religion does not require excluding sincere believers from positions of authority.

Liberals have lately internalized the idea that so long as they can justify their policy preferences as having egalitarian motives or ends, they should be able to compel religious people to conform to liberal moral norms — which just so happen to track exactly to doctrinal developments in the once dominant Mainline Protestant churches. The ACLU would compel Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The last administration wanted to compel Notre Dame to offer contraceptives as part of its compensation to employees. The baker will be made to cater at the private solemnities that offend his conscience. Evangelicals at a crisis pregnancy center will be made to advertise for abortion.

An Amy Coney Barrett nomination fight would contain an even deeper lesson, one that is salutary for both liberal secularists, who once indulged in triumphalism, and conservative believers, who have been tempted to despair: Believing Catholics and Evangelicals will continue to make their contributions to the common good of this country. You will live with us. If we’re going to have peace, we’re going to make it together.

For those who don't know, Barrett graduated from ND Law and has taught there since 2002, even after her appointment to the 7th Circuit last year.

 

[ACamp1900]

Okay, I laughed:

https://babylonbee.com/news/democra...d-after-all-her-votes-forcibly-redistributed/

 

[NorthDakota]

Michael Brendan Dougherty just published an article titled "Wanted: Justice Amy Coney Barrett":



For those who don't know, Barrett graduated from ND Law and has taught there since 2002, even after her appointment to the 7th Circuit last year.

I have a feeling she's getting chosen.

 

[Irish YJ]

I have a feeling she's getting chosen.

That would be awesome. I still think it's too soon for her though.

Okay, I laughed:

https://babylonbee.com/news/democra...d-after-all-her-votes-forcibly-redistributed/

 

[Wild Bill]

Anyone know her position on the 2A? I can't find anything she's written.