Can the Democrats in Congress become an effective opposition party ?

[lawtig02]

I've also read many articles about how this is a bad idea.

It’s a great idea if the goal is to keep anyone outside the top 5% from getting credit cards.

 

[evrheel]

Let Trump be Trump. He lost the House and the Senate in short order last time. He'll do it again.
BTW He's already turned the economy around, despite all the damage the dems did, just like last time.

 

[ZenMode]

Why are you connecting immigration to terrorism? How many people who have committed terror attacks in the US were here illegally? I can’t think of any. Immigration and terrorism are separate issues.

Why are you connecting immigration to terrorism? How many people who have committed terror attacks in the US were here illegally? I can’t think of any. Immigration and terrorism are separate issues.

My post wasn't intended, at least right now, to link legal immigration and terrorism. My post was about labeling as racists anyone who is concerned about people sneaking into the country illegally.

The other part of the post was more related to political correctness.

In reality, while I wasn't bringing it up directly, there is a connection between immigration and terrorism, unless you believe that taking in 200,000 immigrants from Norway and 200,000 immigrants from Pakistan has equal risks of terrorism. I don't think anyone could honestly say that.

By the way, this is something that superrific has indirectly acknowledged in the past when he agreed that having an open border between the US and Mexico was feasible, while having an open border between the US and Iran, if it took Mexico's place, is not.

 

[lawtig02]

My post wasn't intended, at least right now, to link legal immigration and terrorism. My post was about labeling as racists anyone who is concerned about people sneaking into the country illegally.

The other part of the post was more related to political correctness.

In reality, while I wasn't bringing it up directly, there is a connection between immigration and terrorism, unless you believe that taking in 200,000 immigrants from Norway and 200,000 immigrants from Pakistan has equal risks of terrorism. I don't think anyone could honestly say that.

By the way, this is something that superrific has indirectly acknowledged in the past when he agreed that having an open border between the US and Mexico was feasible, while having an open border between the US and Iran, if it took Mexico's place, is not.

But why do you say that? We have roughly 600,000 people of Pakistani origin living in the US today. Not a one of them has engaged in terrorist activities to my knowledge. My guess is you’re basing your conclusion entirely on the religious profile of Pakistani immigrants, and I’m having a hard time understanding how that’s not fundamentally bigoted.

 

[superrific]

I haven't seen any exit polling that shows Americans being concerned about immigrants eating pets. Is that really what you believe is concerning to Americans as it relates to the border?I don't know. Maybe stop labeling as racist anyone who expresses a concern about people sneaking into the country illegally?


Do you really think that there is equal risk between Norwegians and Arabs/Muslim? Are Norwegians flying 747s into our skyscrapers? Are Norwegians detonating explosives during the Boston Marathon? How many stories have you read talking about norwegian's covering their bodies and explosives and blowing themselves up in a crowd?

By the way, if the Democratic Party continues to play these types of political correctness games, there's a good chance you'll be talking about "what can we do as an opposition party" beyond the next four years.

There's no "political correctness" in my posts. If you don't like the characterization of racism, then stop being racist. The border hysteria is a signature example of paranoid racism at work. It's not different than the hysteria whipped up by the KKK. Have you noticed that the MAGA folks always try to present this as migrants posing a grave threat to women? And are you aware that racists have been using this exact same trope -- dark skinned invaders coming to harm women -- for centuries?

The fact is that the vast majority of people who froth themselves up about "the border" have no connection to it. The effect of migrant labor on their lives has been unambiguously positive. Why was Kristi Noem sending SD national guard troops to the border. Is it because SD is getting overrun and can't afford the social services or any of those excuses? Of course not. It's because punching down on dark skinned people is now a feature of the GOP and doing so rarely has any political cost. And I don't want to hear, "oh minorities voted for Trump." Yeah, minorities can hate each other and frequently do. Black Americans are no more immune to xenophobia than white Americans.

As for Norwegians, there are 21K Norwegian nationals living in the US. There are millions of Muslims. So yeah, you wouldn't expect the Norwegians to be in the news as often. And before you laud the virtues of these nordic white people, consider that black metal -- a form of extreme metal prominently featuring Satanic and Nazi themes -- is more or less headquartered in Norway. And sometimes those black metal folks do pretty bad things, like the guitarist who might have eaten the dead singer of his band and definitely made jewelry out of his skull. If the people so concerned about the evil teachings of the Koran knew about black metal, they would lose their fucking minds.

Euronymous - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh, and Norway was victim to one of the largest terror attacks in history, non-US edition, when the white nationalist went to an island and killed like 70 children. That was after he had killed several people with car bombs (which you said that Norwegians don't do)

Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Per capita, Norway has as much terrorism as Islam. It just doesn't have supportive authoritarian states propped up by the west.

But sure, Norwegians are superior to Muslims. Keep going with that and find out where it gets you.

 

[superrific]

By the way, this is something that superrific has indirectly acknowledged in the past when he agreed that having an open border between the US and Mexico was feasible, while having an open border between the US and Iran, if it took Mexico's place, is not.

I said that an open border between the US and Iran was impossible, because the US and Iran do not share a border. They do not remotely share a border. It is, in fact, somewhat difficult for two Northern hemisphere countries to be further apart geographically than Iran and the US. So talking about an open border with Iran is beyond idiotic and your suggestion about that was incredibly weak even by your standards.

I mean, you really expect me to engage with an idiocy like whether we could have an open border with a country 6000 miles away?

 

[ZenMode]

But why do you say that? We have roughly 600,000 people of Pakistani origin living in the US today. Not a one of them has engaged in terrorist activities to my knowledge. My guess is you’re basing your conclusion entirely on the religious profile of Pakistani immigrants, and I’m having a hard time understanding how that’s not fundamentally bigoted.

Of course it's based on the religious profile. That's not saying, by any means, that a high percentage of Muslims are terrorists or are even inclined to terrorism. It's simply acknowledging the fact that there is a higher risk of terrorism with Muslims because of their religious beliefs.

 

[superrific]

But why do you say that? We have roughly 600,000 people of Pakistani origin living in the US today. Not a one of them has engaged in terrorist activities to my knowledge. My guess is you’re basing your conclusion entirely on the religious profile of Pakistani immigrants, and I’m having a hard time understanding how that’s not fundamentally bigoted.

And their skin color profile too.

 

[superrific]

Of course it's based on the religious profile. That's not saying, by any means, that a high percentage of Muslims are terrorists or are even inclined to be terrorism. It's simply acknowledging the fact that there is a higher risk of terrorism with Muslims because of their religious beliefs.

There is a considerably lower risk of terrorism with Muslims than with MAGA. MAGA is less than ten years old and look at how many mass shootings it has created, inspired and carried out. It even created a presidential assassin who almost succeeded.

There is no large political movement in any Western country that even rivals MAGA's use of and acceptance of violence.

 

[ZenMode]

I said that an open border between the US and Iran was impossible, because the US and Iran do not share a border. They do not remotely share a border. It is, in fact, somewhat difficult for two Northern hemisphere countries to be further apart geographically than Iran and the US. So talking about an open border with Iran is beyond idiotic and your suggestion about that was incredibly weak even by your standards.

I mean, you really expect me to engage with an idiocy like whether we could have an open border with a country 6000 miles away?

That wasn't our conversation. You didn't say impossible, you said it wasn't desirable. Why wasn't it desirable?

S

Politics Post in thread 'Why are borders important?'

Nov 19, 2024

Absolutely free movement of people sounds good in principle and would probably work in more areas of the world than not. It really depends on the cultures involved.

With some minor stipulations, a fully open border between US and Canada? Sure. With some stipulations in place, a fully open border between Mexico and the US? Sure. I don't think our cultures are significantly different.

Flip-flop Mexico and Iran and have a fully open border between the US and Iran? Not realistic even if it is viewed as "right" philosophically.

I confess that I have never given any thought to...

• superrific

• 

 

[ZenMode]

And their skin color profile too.

Idiotic comment. I would say exactly the same thing in regard to taking in 200,000 immigrants from Mexico and 200,000 immigrants from Pakistan. The risk of terrorism from the 200,000 immigrants from Mexico would be lower. Why? Because Mexico isn't full of people who, to varying degrees, believe they are ensuring an eternity of bliss by killing infidels and blasphemers.

 

[lawtig02]

Idiotic comment. I would say exactly the same thing in regard to taking in 200,000 immigrants from Mexico and 200,000 immigrants from Pakistan. The risk of terrorism from the 200,000 immigrants from Mexico would be lower.

If the concern is minimizing the risk of terrorism, shouldn’t we screen immigrants by political ideology rather than race or religion and exclude the right wingers, regardless of where they originate or what they look like?

 

[superrific]

Idiotic comment. I would say exactly the same thing in regard to taking in 200,000 immigrants from Mexico and 200,000 immigrants from Pakistan.

Those two groups have similar skin color profiles, so you've only managed to confirm the point.

Anyway, I put zero stock in anyone protesting they aren't racist because they would say something different than what they have said. All you demonstrate with idiotic protests like that is that you are dishonest and/or you don't understand racism at all.

The best way to avoid being thought of as a racist is not to say racist things. I don't care if you claim to have a black friend or one time you banged an Asian chick. What you write is straight up racism and it's not even a close call. Not everything you write, but you have this attachment to an "opinion" which is fundamentally misinformed and reflects an obsession with ethnicity that mirrors the one you have with genitalia. When you're the person trying to keep people of color out of the country and cite bullshit and lies as the justification, that's a sign of being racist.

When you compare a group of white people to a group of brown people, and deem the white people to be less dangerous without any data or awareness of the actual history (look up Hell's Belle), and oh yeah those white people just happen to have been held up for a century as having such remarkable genetic intelligence, then you're being racist.

 

[ZenMode]

If the concern is minimizing the risk of terrorism, shouldn’t we screen immigrants by political ideology rather than race or religion and exclude the right wingers, regardless of where they originate or what they look like?

Of course we should screen and we do. As events like 9/11 have shown, screening isn't perfect.

Again, if you do ideological and theological screening for 200,000 people from Mexico and 200,000 people from Pakistan, the risk difference for terrorism does not change.

I'm not the one bringing skin color into this. You all are. I'm bringing up theology/ideology.

 

[ZenMode]

Those two groups have similar skin color profiles, so you've only managed to confirm the point.

Anyway, I put zero stock in anyone protesting they aren't racist because they would say something different than what they have said. All you demonstrate with idiotic protests like that is that you are dishonest and/or you don't understand racism at all.

The best way to avoid being thought of as a racist is not to say racist things. I don't care if you claim to have a black friend or one time you banged an Asian chick. What you write is straight up racism and it's not even a close call. Not everything you write, but you have this attachment to an "opinion" which is fundamentally misinformed and reflects an obsession with ethnicity that mirrors the one you have with genitalia. When you're the person trying to keep people of color out of the country and cite bullshit and lies as the justification, that's a sign of being racist.

When you compare a group of white people to a group of brown people, and deem the white people to be less dangerous without any data or awareness of the actual history (look up Hell's Belle), and oh yeah those white people just happen to have been held up for a century as having such remarkable genetic intelligence, then you're being racist.

I only referenced white people, Norwegians, because that was the group that you referenced.

I will make this as simple as possible, while taking skin color out of the equation. Do you think the risk of terrorism is equal with 200,000 Catholic Mexicans and 200,000 Muslim Pakistanis?

 

[superrific]

I only referenced white people, Norwegians, because that was the group that you referenced.

I will make this as simple as possible, while taking skin color out of the equation. Do you think the risk of terrorism is equal with 200,000 Catholic Mexicans and 200,000 Muslim Pakistanis?

This was a thread about the Democratic Party and I won't derail it any further after a brief response.

I have no idea about the risk of terrorism between those two groups. Neither do you. One difference between us is that you think it's a good thing to ask questions that cannot be answered on an informed basis and thus invite answers based entirely in bias and prejudice. I do not think that's a good thing to do. I don't invite bigotry under the cloak of "just asking questions." The questions are loaded, and they are loaded with nativist bias.

Also, it gets to be exhausting keeping track of your varying positions. On the one hand, Mexican cartels are incredibly evil people who have killed tens of thousands of Americans. We have to keep them out to protect our people! This was your original point, remember: we should be opposed to people sneaking across our southern border. But now they are sweet innocent Catholics who wouldn't even think of terrorism.

 

[ZenMode]

This was a thread about the Democratic Party and I won't derail it any further after a brief response.

I have no idea about the risk of terrorism between those two groups. Neither do you. One difference between us is that you think it's a good thing to ask questions that cannot be answered on an informed basis and thus invite answers based entirely in bias and prejudice. I do not think that's a good thing to do. I don't invite bigotry under the cloak of "just asking questions." The questions are loaded, and they are loaded with nativist bias.

Also, it gets to be exhausting keeping track of your varying positions. On the one hand, Mexican cartels are incredibly evil people who have killed tens of thousands of Americans. We have to keep them out to protect our people! This was your original point, remember: we should be opposed to people sneaking across our southern border. But now they are sweet innocent Catholics who wouldn't even think of terrorism.

"I have no idea about the risk of terrorism between those two groups. "

Well, it's that kind of political correctness, when combined with other things like labeling as racists everyone who says "I don't like that we don't know who is coming into the country", that is likely to keep Democrats asking what they can do as an opposition party.

See how I brought that back on topic. That was just for you, buddy. Happy New Year!

 

[BlueSmoke]

How do you measure being an effective opposition Party? In two ways I suppose. (1) By stopping bad things the GOP wants to do and (2) By winning in two years.

Its helpful to both objectives to build up popularity and judiciously point out the flaws on the other side. Flaw Pointing works on the stuff that has "legs" as to a narrative. Beyond that, the Flaw Pointing can be distracting. Flaw Pointing is what opposition Parties do. Republicans have it down to a science.

For the next two years, each Democrat will have to meet their own voters where their voters are. We saw a version of this where numerous Democrats won in states that the top of the ticket lost.

 

[superrific]

"I have no idea about the risk of terrorism between those two groups. "

Well, it's that kind of political correctness

Who knew that choosing not to broadcast ignorance, and asking for data before jumping to conclusions, was political correctness?

This is one of the problems with you. You think it's a good thing to spout off when you have no idea what you're talking about, relying instead on your own subjective and biased impressions based on God knows what. I think that's a bad thing. I think data is the way we prevent bigotry from infecting our views.

 

[ZenMode]

Who knew that choosing not to broadcast ignorance, and asking for data before jumping to conclusions, was political correctness?

This is one of the problems with you. You think it's a good thing to spout off when you have no idea what you're talking about, relying instead on your own subjective and biased impressions based on God knows what. I think that's a bad thing. I think data is the way we prevent bigotry from infecting our views.

My subjective and biased impressions? You honestly think that it is subjective and biased to say that terrorism due to Muslim extremism is more common and more likely than terrorism due to Catholic extremism?