• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Presidential & VP Debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
I could live with some limits. We send cops onto the street with 15 round magazines in their guns, and soldiers into battle with 30 round mags in their rifles. Does a civilian really need 100?

Problem is, we set the limit at 15, the other side lobbies for 10. We drop to 10, they go for 7. And so on. In Britain, the limit is 3 shots, long guns only, and self defense is not a "legitimate" reason for gun ownership. I don't want us to end up like that.
 
It will be interesting to see how Biden supporters and the media will react if 100,000 or 200,000 more people die from coronavirus during a Biden term, the reactions would probably be just that there's not much a president can do to decrease the deaths, that he's doing all he can and that at least he's taking it seriously.
 
It will be interesting to see how Biden supporters and the media will react if 100,000 or 200,000 more people die from coronavirus during a Biden term, the reactions would probably be just that there's not much a president can do to decrease the deaths, that he's doing all he can and that at least he's taking it seriously.

I don’t know? Is he listening to the scientific community? Is he setting an example himself by making sure he and those in his administration are masking up and social distancing? Is he allowing folks like the CDC do their job without interference?

What exactly are the parameters of these possible dead in your scenario?
 
Last edited:
I could live with some limits. We send cops onto the street with 15 round magazines in their guns, and soldiers into battle with 30 round mags in their rifles. Does a civilian really need 100?

Problem is, we set the limit at 15, the other side lobbies for 10. We drop to 10, they go for 7. And so on. In Britain, the limit is 3 shots, long guns only, and self defense is not a "legitimate" reason for gun ownership. I don't want us to end up like that.
Britain has an intentional homicide rate that's less than a quarter of ours*, so I'd be very happy to "end up like that" for now.

* Yes, there are other factors at play that influence the intentional homicide rate, but ease of access to firearms and ammunition and their transportability across state lines and through local gun ordinances is the major issue in the United States.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
 
Switzerland's murder rate is half Britain's, and they're way more gun-friendly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland
AFAIK every male citizen in switzerland has to go to the army [they can of course also do "civil duty" if they do not want to go to the army for any reason], so they know how to properly use guns. They have to prove that they can shoot orderly and precise once a year. If you want to have a gun but are not in the military, you need a permit, for which you need to prove that you have not committed any serious crime and pass a practical and theoretical exam. And even with that permit, you are not allowed to own any full-auto weapons.
 
Switzerland's murder rate is half Britain's, and they're way more gun-friendly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland
Switzerland has roughly the population of New York City and compulsory military service, so this comparison is always dubious. They also still have stricter gun control measures and background checks than we do, put in place after a rise in crime and suicides in the 90s, and as a result of the stricter gun control laws, crime and suicides went down (funny that).

Also, only 11% of people keep their guns in their homes, and 25% of those only keep them for military or police service (compared to 5% here), and you're not allowed to walk around with a loaded weapon. You have to keep it unloaded and securely stored until you get to the range or hunting ground.

https://www.businessinsider.com/swi...s-a-shooting-contest-for-kids-aged-13-to-17-1
 
Last edited:
Call Trump a racist if you want. Given his unwillingness to condemn white supremacists (who rate nothing but contempt), you may be right. HOWEVER, if you're going to condemn him because of his stance on immigration... well, you're not going to like this.

EDIT: I tried to merely post a link instead of embedding the video, figured that would piss off fewer people, but the site wouldn't let me.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Call Trump a racist if you want. Given his unwillingness to condemn white supremacists (who rate nothing but contempt), you may be right. HOWEVER, if you're going to condemn him because of his stance on immigration... well, you're not going to like this.

EDIT: I tried to merely post a link instead of embedding the video, figured that would piss off fewer people, but the site wouldn't let me.
:confused: Why would I give a fuck what Tucker Carlson thinks?
 
I didn't post the video because of its opinions. I posted it because of its facts.
If, by facts you mean lies, then, um, okay. :shrug:

---

In any case, here's an idea: Instead of posting a video without substantive comment about its contents, why don't you tell us what you yourself think?
 
I get accused of making drive bys and presenting opinions that are unsubstantiated by facts.

While I have no idea of how to verify what that video claims, I know that anything it states as a fact (Biden's opposition to a specific measure for instance) has to be true. Otherwise, they are sufficiently large and well-known that they would certainly be sued for slander and YouTube would be directed to remove their videos. You can slant the truth all you want, but you can't lie.
 
Did you even WATCH the video? Or are you just blowing up at me because I refuse to be a liberal?
 
Call Trump a racist if you want. Given his unwillingness to condemn white supremacists (who rate nothing but contempt), you may be right. HOWEVER, if you're going to condemn him because of his stance on immigration... well, you're not going to like this.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I watched the video and there are a number of inaccuraces.

While Cesar Shavez was opposed to illegal immigration, it was because the growers were using illegals as strike-breakers. He himself was non-violent, preferring to follow the examples of Gandhi and would fast in protest.

It was Cesar's cousin Manuel who led violence against strikebreakers.

As for the claim that wages fell in 1980 after the Mariel boatlift, the review of the data does not support that and the view is that Borjas' analysis is flawed.

Tom Lahrer, mathematician and songwriter, phrased it correctly in his 1965 song about George Murphy: Should Americans pick crops? George says "no," cause only a Mexican would stoop so low.

The truth is Americans do not want to do the hard work involved in harvesting. In 2013, the Associated Press reviewed 6-months of California farmer posted ads looking for 1,160 farm working positions for US citizens and legal residents. Only 233 people in those categories applied. One farmer paid $10.25 per hour to foreign workers.

The Yale study claiming 22 million illegal immigrants, which doubles the usually accepted estimate of 11 million illegal immigrants, has been rejected by both pro and anti-immigration advocates, including the Pew Research Center, the Center for Immigration Studies and the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.

Here is the 2016 DNC Platform plank about Fixing our Broken Immigration System:
The United States was founded as, and continues to be, a country of immigrants from throughout the world. It is no coincidence that the Statue of Liberty is one of our most profound national symbols. And that is why Democrats believe immigration is not just a problem to be solved, it is a defining aspect of the American character and our shared history.
The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security. People should come to the United States with visas and not through smugglers. Yet, we recognize that the current immigration system is broken.
More than 11 million people are living in the shadows, without proper documentation. The immigration bureaucracy is full of backlogs that result in U.S. citizens waiting for decades to be reunited with family members, and green card holders waiting for years to be reunited with their spouses and minor children. The current quota system discriminates against certain immigrants, including immigrants of color, and needs to be reformed to the realities of the 21st century. And there are real questions about our detention and deportation policies that must be addressed.
Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system—which tears families apart and keeps workers in the shadows—and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country. We should repeal the 3-year, 10-year and permanent bars, which often force persons in mixed status families into the heartbreaking dilemma of either pursuing a green card by leaving the country and their loved ones behind, or remaining in the shadows. We will work with Congress to end the forced and prolonged expulsion from the country that these immigrants endure when trying to adjust their status.
We must fix family backlogs and defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants. Those immigrants already living in the United States, who are assets to their communities and contribute so much to our country, should be incorporated completely into our society through legal processes that give meaning to our national motto: E Pluribus Unum.
And while we continue to fight for comprehensive immigration reform, we will defend and implement President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans executive actions to help DREAMers, parents of citizens, and lawful permanent residents avoid deportation. We will build on these actions to provide relief for others, such as parents of DREAMers. We will support efforts by states to make DREAMers eligible for driver’s licenses and in-state college tuition. We will invest in culturally-appropriate immigrant integration services, expand access to English language education, and promote naturalization to help the millions of people who are eligible for citizenship take that last step.
We believe immigration enforcement must be humane and consistent with our values. We should prioritize those who pose a threat to the safety of our communities, not hardworking families who are contributing to their communities. We will end raids and roundups of children and families, which unnecessarily sow fear in immigrant communities. We disfavor deportations of immigrants who served in our armed forces, and we want to create a faster path for such veterans to citizenship.
We should ensure due process for those fleeing violence in Central America and work with our regional partners to address the root causes of violence. We must take particular care with children, which is why we should guarantee government-funded counsel for unaccompanied children in immigration courts. We should consider all available means of protecting these individuals from the threats to their lives and safety—including strengthening in-country and third-country processing, expanding the use of humanitarian parole, and granting Temporary Protected Status.
We will promote best practices among local law enforcement, in terms of how they collaborate with federal authorities, to ensure that they maintain and build trust between local law enforcement and the communities they serve. We will also vigorously oversee any programs put in place, to make sure that there are no abuses and no arbitrary deportation programs. We will establish an affirmative process for workers to report labor violations and to request deferred action. We will work to ensure that all Americans— regardless of immigration status—have access to quality health care. That means expanding community health centers, allowing all families to buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges, supporting states that open up their public health insurance programs to all persons, and finally enacting comprehensive immigration reform. And we will expand opportunities for DREAMers to serve in the military and to then receive expedited pathways to citizenship.
We will fight to end federal, state, and municipal contracts with for-profit private prisons and private detention centers. In order to end family detention, we will ensure humane alternatives for those who pose no public threat. We recognize that there are vulnerable communities within our immigration system who are often seeking refuge from persecution abroad, such as LGBT families, for whom detention can be unacceptably dangerous.
We reject attempts to impose a religious test to bar immigrants or refugees from entering the United States. It is un-American and runs counter to the founding principles of this country. Finally, Democrats will not stand for the divisive and derogatory language of Donald Trump. His offensive comments about immigrants and other communities have no place in our society. This kind of rhetoric must be rejected.
Nothing about giving all illegal immigrants citizenship.

You want to talk about permanent electoral majority and power plays? Let's look at what the Republicans have been doing:
Jerrymandering districts to ensure Republican districts.
Voter suppression on all sorts of levels
Blocking Democratic judicial nominees while ramrodding Republican nominees who are not qualified to be judges (this is not including the latest Supreme Court nominee)
 
I watched the video and there are a number of inaccuraces.

While Cesar Shavez was opposed to illegal immigration, it was because the growers were using illegals as strike-breakers. He himself was non-violent, preferring to follow the examples of Gandhi and would fast in protest.

It was Cesar's cousin Manuel who led violence against strikebreakers.

As for the claim that wages fell in 1980 after the Mariel boatlift, the review of the data does not support that and the view is that Borjas' analysis is flawed.

Tom Lahrer, mathematician and songwriter, phrased it correctly in his 1965 song about George Murphy: Should Americans pick crops? George says "no," cause only a Mexican would stoop so low.

The truth is Americans do not want to do the hard work involved in harvesting. In 2013, the Associated Press reviewed 6-months of California farmer posted ads looking for 1,160 farm working positions for US citizens and legal residents. Only 233 people in those categories applied. One farmer paid $10.25 per hour to foreign workers.

The Yale study claiming 22 million illegal immigrants, which doubles the usually accepted estimate of 11 million illegal immigrants, has been rejected by both pro and anti-immigration advocates, including the Pew Research Center, the Center for Immigration Studies and the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.

Here is the 2016 DNC Platform plank about Fixing our Broken Immigration System:

Nothing about giving all illegal immigrants citizenship.

You want to talk about permanent electoral majority and power plays? Let's look at what the Republicans have been doing:
Jerrymandering districts to ensure Republican districts.
Voter suppression on all sorts of levels
Blocking Democratic judicial nominees while ramrodding Republican nominees who are not qualified to be judges (this is not including the latest Supreme Court nominee)
Wonderful post! However I doubt that someone who watches Tucker Carlson propaganda pieces on YouTube cares much about "facts".........A lot of his facts also are from the late 1970s and 80s. Things change.
 
I watched the video and there are a number of inaccuraces.

While Cesar Shavez was opposed to illegal immigration, it was because the growers were using illegals as strike-breakers. He himself was non-violent, preferring to follow the examples of Gandhi and would fast in protest.

It was Cesar's cousin Manuel who led violence against strikebreakers.

As for the claim that wages fell in 1980 after the Mariel boatlift, the review of the data does not support that and the view is that Borjas' analysis is flawed.

Tom Lahrer, mathematician and songwriter, phrased it correctly in his 1965 song about George Murphy: Should Americans pick crops? George says "no," cause only a Mexican would stoop so low.

The truth is Americans do not want to do the hard work involved in harvesting. In 2013, the Associated Press reviewed 6-months of California farmer posted ads looking for 1,160 farm working positions for US citizens and legal residents. Only 233 people in those categories applied. One farmer paid $10.25 per hour to foreign workers.

The Yale study claiming 22 million illegal immigrants, which doubles the usually accepted estimate of 11 million illegal immigrants, has been rejected by both pro and anti-immigration advocates, including the Pew Research Center, the Center for Immigration Studies and the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.

Here is the 2016 DNC Platform plank about Fixing our Broken Immigration System:

Nothing about giving all illegal immigrants citizenship.

You want to talk about permanent electoral majority and power plays? Let's look at what the Republicans have been doing:
Jerrymandering districts to ensure Republican districts.
Voter suppression on all sorts of levels
Blocking Democratic judicial nominees while ramrodding Republican nominees who are not qualified to be judges (this is not including the latest Supreme Court nominee)

Never said the Republicans aren't pricks. They are.
Never said Trump wasn't a prick. He is.
Just said that calling Trump a racist for opposing immigration is the pot calling the kettle black.

Honestly, as of 2019*, I don't think either side wanted to eliminate illegal immigrants. Our unemployment rate was 3%, and we had more jobs going begging than there were workers to fill them. No businessman (and Trump is just that) is going to remove workers under those conditions.
The Republicans, powered by big business, wanted there here but wanted them to remain marginalized. They provide cheap labor, after all.
The Democrats wanted them here but wanted them to gain a path to citizenship, for the reasons presented in the video.
For one side, it's about money. For the other, it's about power. "Securing our borders" and "protecting immigrant families" are just spin.

*The Covid19 depression may have changed things. Or not. There are fewer jobs of course, but the need to cut production costs has never been greater.
 
Never said the Republicans aren't pricks. They are.
Never said Trump wasn't a prick. He is.
Just said that calling Trump a racist for opposing immigration is the pot calling the kettle black.

Honestly, as of 2019*, I don't think either side wanted to eliminate illegal immigrants. Our unemployment rate was 3%, and we had more jobs going begging than there were workers to fill them. No businessman (and Trump is just that) is going to remove workers under those conditions.
The Republicans, powered by big business, wanted there here but wanted them to remain marginalized. They provide cheap labor, after all.
The Democrats wanted them here but wanted them to gain a path to citizenship, for the reasons presented in the video.
For one side, it's about money. For the other, it's about power. "Securing our borders" and "protecting immigrant families" are just spin.

*The Covid19 depression may have changed things. Or not. There are fewer jobs of course, but the need to cut production costs has never been greater.
The financial elite have been destroying this country for years. While the unemployment rate had fallen, most workers are toiling a jobs that do not pay a living wage and workers are forced to work multiple jobs to just make it. Manufacturing jobs have been moved overseas for lower wages and automation has reduced the need for the numbers to sustain a proper middle class. While workers' productivity has soared, their wages have remained stagnate so the rich gets richer.

Production costs don't need cutting, excessive profits do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top