You could also say it's a major weakness of the 2 parties system and blame politicians instead of voters.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I say it's a question of Dems trying to please everyone and failing miserably. It's just can't be done.
They just need someone with charisma to overcome individual interests. Biden just isn't it.
Bush 2007 numbers
If the opponent was anyone other than Trump, the only other politician with numbers almost as bad, it would be the most foregone conclusion in history.
Is it actually idealism to say that 'we are not okay with the massacre of innocent people' ?
Oh, that I didn’t realize, but by 2015, most the world thought Hillary was sure to win.
Her campaign manager has a lot to answer for chaos the world endured in recent years.
If any one individual is to blame then it's James Comey of the FBI, he doesn'topen his mouth then Clinton would almost certainly have won in 2016
Has Nikki Haley been blasting Trump for the $83m fine? If not you know she’s just there for the donors money and a future cushy job.
I.e. her campaign isn’t a serious one cos this is a great opportunity to make some hay.
I.e. her campaign isn’t a serious one cos this is a great opportunity to make some hay.
Well no but the problem with the shitty voting systems in the US and UK is that you have to vote for the least shit candidate that can win rather than the one you actually like most. If you vote for a smaller party you risk ending up with some sort of fascist organised crime syndicate running the country. So yeah, vote Biden if he's up against Trump or the US and the rest of the world will sadly get even worse. World war kicking off in Europe or Taiwan being a not unlikely outcome.
A bit weak, innit? If she were a serious candidate I feel she could really get some good punches in.
Yeah but she needs Trump voters to defect to her and going after him too harshly usually has the opposite effect.
Nope, have no idea who that is.
Why do you need legislation to protect the borders? Aren't there existing laws in place to do so?
Outstanding hehehe hehehe cool
Trump and Vivek could be the new Beavis and Butthead
Someone bring back Mike Judge from retirement
Look, as I've already mentioned, there's no need for additional legislation to protect the border. Boarding a plane to the US requires thorough checks by security personnel in the departure country, including occasional strip searches. Meanwhile, crossing the southern border on foot appears to be a free for all. Where is the sense in that?
Let's be real: both political parties are more focused on posturing and appealing to their base than presenting viable solutions. The Democrats try to come off as they’ll let anyone in because they think ultimately those folks that come in will vote Democrat over the long haul. They want to paint Republicans as heartless, uncaring, unfeeling people. On the other hand, Republicans depict the situation as utterly chaotic and beyond control, becuase that plays with their self-portrayal as the party of law and order, and framing Democrats as indifferent to these principles. Republicans often suggest that immigrants crossing the border are likely to take your specific job, not just any job. Framed this way, it naturally leads people to oppose immigration, as anyone would prioritize their family's financial security.
That’s the setting and it's political bullshit designed to amount to pretty much sweet Fookall (Note: Immigration reform tends to be dormant, unless it's an election year - quelle surprise)
The real conversation we should be having should focus on determining a practical and humane immigration quota that the US can sustainably manage each year. Could it be, for example, a million people annually? Five million? Whatever the number is, let's establish a merit-based system, similar to Canada's, that selects the most qualified candidates across various categories add a number for family reunification and highly skilled workers. The current approach, where individuals cross the border en masse only to be transported to sanctuary cities, is fecking cruel.
Debating immigration policy or legislation does not justify neglecting border security.
Honestly, is there a number that most people would be happy with? Anything above a few hundred is basically incomprehensible in scale to most dumbass voters. And is there a number that wouldn't be sustainable? Realistically the land was stolen to be resettled, it will be resettled again. That's how the world works.
Agree with quite a lot here and what the Biden admin is offering to install is somewhat of a step towards what you envision, but the House GOP will stall this out potentially to the election for obvious reasons. It is quite the Gordian Knot. So much is being tied up by their calculated intransigence that security at home & abroad is being put in peril.
I blame Hillary. She was a terrible candidate and looking back at her campaign there's this beautiful mix of a smug certainty that she would win combined with some hilarious appeals to the youth.
Something about that 2016 election broke a lot of people's brains not only because Trump won but because Hillary lost.
This could go in the media thread as well...
What a tragedy. The reporters should be disbarred. If they were doctors or lawyers they would be for peddling falsehoods like this.
I wasnt specifically referring to that but it is a bit idealistic to think that it's better to not vote for Dems because a certain segment is a ok with it while on the opposing slate everyone is. It goes well beyond that though. The vast majority cares about a lot other things to lose their vote that are considerably trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Great post.
It is not Canada only. Pretty much every EU country or UK has strong policies on migration. The US has a dumbass policy where it is very hard to go if you are a highly skilled person from India, but if you can make it in foot from Mexico, that’s ok.
Its a broken policy, and one that both parties are responsible for. Trump's wall idea was also never going to be a fix since half of the illegals fly in and overstay their visas.
Why are the only options to vote for ancient fossils? Is there really no younger person who could be president of the U.S.?
Not sure about the wall, it looked a stupid idea initially but it would have reduced illegal migration. Physical barriers historically work, albeit by itself it would have not solved the problem, and like all things Trump did was more a PR stunt than anything else.
I actually am surprised why not fixing migration is a hill the Dems are willing to die in. Every rich country I am aware of has strict migration law. We have Europeans here complaining about US deporting illegal migrants, but Europe does the same. The US has by far the weakest migration policies and there are over 10 million illegal immigrants there which is beyond stupid.
Arguing that US should support unlimited migration just cause the US was founded in migration or something written in Statue of Liberty 200 years ago is as stupid as the GOP’s point of owning now machine guns cause of militia laws/2nd amendment 300 years ago.
The US politics in the last 10 years have degenerated in a cesspool of stupidity where both the main parties try to out-stupid each other and by default go to the opposite extreme of what the other party is doing.
Wh
Why's that dumb though? Train your own skilled people, let the immigrants do the shit jobs. Surely that's actually the sensible way to do it if you're a xenophobe?
Why's that dumb though? Train your own skilled people, let the immigrants do the shit jobs. Surely that's actually the sensible way to do it if you're a xenophobe?
Yes, it is a massive failure of the Dem party. Republicans of course don't have any better ideas other than what Trump attempted. Overall, the problem is symptomatic of two parties who don't want to be perceived as capitulating to the ideas of the other, and in the process, nothing happens.
For different reasons. On the Republican side, Trump controls everything and his decision to run means no other candidate will see the light of day. On the Dem side, the party hierarchy galvanizes around the next person up on the party seniority scale. In 2016 that was Hillary. In 2020 that was Biden. Fortunately, this looks like the last gasp of the olds in either party. Unfortunately, we don't know how much of a democratic process will survive if Trump happens to get back in.
He never hung up his boots mate. Why would he with golden content from the likes of VR at his fingertips.
Why should a highly skilled Indian have more of a moral right to come to the US than any Mexican? The US can pick and choose sure, but there can be no complaints if they don't pick the profile you personally prefer. I'm 100% sure Mexican bricklayers, Guatemalan farm workers and Venezuelan maids have done at least as much good for US society over the decades as the 10's of thousands of greencard holders currently at Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, WeWork etc.
Last edited:
The US needs an immigration system similar to Canada where the needs of the country dictate the immigrants allowed in. The points system. Why the Dems can’t platform on that I’ve no idea.
Obviously the US should pick and choose. In general, skilled workers whom speak English contribute much more than unskilled workers. Someone working for Apple or Google contributes around a million/year to the US GDP and pays 100k/year at taxes. That’s much more beneficial than an illegal farmer for Guatemala who is paying not much taxes and is in minimal wage (or even lower than that cause he is working illegally).
The issue is that the US is not picking and choosing. They have a very hard immigration system for legal workers, but if you reach US illegally, for most parts you are allowed to remain and work. Doing things illegally seems more ok than doing them legally.
A point system obviously makes sense. If the US needs mire farmers than coders, then just give more points to farmers than coders. If the US needs Spanish speakers rather than English ones, give more points to Spanish. The entire point is that the US should choose what migrants they want and then get those migrants. Like every other country does.
Well my honest opinion is that status quo is akin to this, just not formalized, because the informal nature is in favor of those benefiting from the illegal migration (the employers). It's just more beneficial to those in power to have those illegal workers have absolutely no rights rather than the very limited rights they would have if they were part of the official work force.
I'm not saying this is the right way to go about it, there would be countless ways to improve it (you mentioned one viable one) and the illegal migrants are those suffering most as a result. However any current republican arguing against illegal immigration is just vilifying and scapegoating the very people they are responsible for coming. If it's construction workers in Florida, meat packers in Amarillo or fruit pickers in California, they are all there at the mercy of the interests in power, and everyone who cares about it knows who set up the system.
My understanding from living in California for a while is that a good chunk of the agriculture side of the economy is fueled by 'wink and nod' illegal immigration. I believe it's true in Texas too. The seasonality of the work, the nature of being able to pay 'quietly' and the proximity mean that there is quite a good balance of supply and demand of labour there. It's a system that works given incentives, and I'm not sure how you build a comprehensive solution while that need is there.
Asylum seeking is obviously trickier, as it requires significant beaurocracy and long-term monitoring. Same for skilled workers.
It is the story of our times though. Most western countries - admittedly not as much the US - are desperate for young labour-force ready workers because of the demographic bomb they're about to hit or are hitting. The UK, western European nations desperately need new immigration to maintain the balance as the retirees swell.
I happen to be from a tiny country, where this has played out for my whole life. The strongest period - indeed we were briefly the wealthiest country in the world per capita - was during a swell of immigration, when large industries moved in and set up, creating new white-collar jobs for those that could get them. But the same thing happened - those unable to get those types of jobs were left with inflation they couldn't keep up with. And that resentment fueled a huge backlash, an anti-immigration government who then essentially removed long-term work permits, a move which eventually saw the working population fall by 20% as the ex-pats were forced to leave. And with that, the economy shurnk, prices didn't come back down, the boomers got older and now we're a bit screwed. The only way out is more immigration, but our government are essentially xenophobes elected by xenophobes, and all they do is try and carve off their own slices of an ever-dwindling pie.
Something shifted mentally from a positive-future outlook to a 'this is the best we'll get so keep it' mentality, and it's ruining so many parts of modern life. We for some reason can't acknowledge stastically how good things are now, how much better they are then during hte 'good old days' and therefore aspire to make things even better. It's the real meta-issue of our times.
Asylum seeking is obviously trickier, as it requires significant beaurocracy and long-term monitoring. Same for skilled workers.
It is the story of our times though. Most western countries - admittedly not as much the US - are desperate for young labour-force ready workers because of the demographic bomb they're about to hit or are hitting. The UK, western European nations desperately need new immigration to maintain the balance as the retirees swell.
I happen to be from a tiny country, where this has played out for my whole life. The strongest period - indeed we were briefly the wealthiest country in the world per capita - was during a swell of immigration, when large industries moved in and set up, creating new white-collar jobs for those that could get them. But the same thing happened - those unable to get those types of jobs were left with inflation they couldn't keep up with. And that resentment fueled a huge backlash, an anti-immigration government who then essentially removed long-term work permits, a move which eventually saw the working population fall by 20% as the ex-pats were forced to leave. And with that, the economy shurnk, prices didn't come back down, the boomers got older and now we're a bit screwed. The only way out is more immigration, but our government are essentially xenophobes elected by xenophobes, and all they do is try and carve off their own slices of an ever-dwindling pie.
Something shifted mentally from a positive-future outlook to a 'this is the best we'll get so keep it' mentality, and it's ruining so many parts of modern life. We for some reason can't acknowledge stastically how good things are now, how much better they are then during hte 'good old days' and therefore aspire to make things even better. It's the real meta-issue of our times.
That someone would exist irrespective of immigration. It's conflating two separate issues.
Typically illegal immigrants are working jobs that US citizens generally don't/won't work and no code monkey from some other country is going to work those jobs either. It's easy for a country like the UK or Japan to try to "pick and choose" because they're islands but a country like the US with a massive land border simply can't do that. Its doubtful that trying to do what you say would even work better. An unskilled worker isn't going to suddenly abandon the idea of coming to America to make a living because the US government says it only wants coders and nurses that month.
The legal immigration should be improved, streamlined and people shouldn't have to wait so long so get in legally but your idea sounds like it would solve nothing and just create more problems.
Sure, they might not abandon the idea. The US however should arrest, deport and ban them for 5 years or permanently to enter the US.
Like for example, Norway or Switzerland do.
I mean, entering a country illegally is a crime. Just because Dems decided to call those people with a cute name ‘Dreamers’, they still entered the US by doing a crime.
That is not what a Dreamer is. It refers to minors who were brought to the US and have grown up here. It is an acronym (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) for a bill to assist those who had no agency in arriving here and growing up here.