Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:52 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And again, if you are in the 62%, you may find it galling to share the party with us 38 percenters. But purging us leaves you with a few House seats, very few Senate seats or governorships, and certainly no presidents, ever. Would that really not be too great a price to pay for moral purity?
What price is it worth to sell out everyone but Whites in order to pander to that 38%? You are arguing that we need to be a country where both parties only worry about white people. That seems pretty problematic. If that isn't what you are recommending, then I don't really know what you are recommending.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #302  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:53 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
Stay away from “wypipo suck” political messaging. Don’t advocate unpopular stances like free health care for illegal immigrants. Don’t push for racial quotas in education or hiring. Stuff like that. Obviously you still stand up for equal protection under the law. And you certainly call Trump out for his racist tweets.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-30-2019 at 02:54 PM.
  #303  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:12 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,843
Which presidential candidates are running on the "wypipo suck" platform? I haven't seen that.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #304  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:12 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Stay away from “wypipo suck” political messaging. Don’t advocate unpopular stances like free health care for illegal immigrants. Don’t push for racial quotas in education or hiring. Stuff like that. Obviously you still stand up for equal protection under the law. And you certainly call Trump out for his racist tweets.
AFAIK, no one is advocating "free health care for illegal immigrants". What you may hear is Medicare for all (which isnt free, btw) and not checking peoples "papers' before you treat them. Because, well, they are people.

Or would you like to be bleeding out in the ER and they say, "Well, before we can treat you, can you prove you are a US Citizen?"

I can just see it now, in every hospital a man in a black leather trenchcoat and a armband "Papers, please".

Last edited by DrDeth; 07-30-2019 at 03:14 PM.
  #305  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:13 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,843
It's also better for society to treat people rather than let them run around spreading infectious disease.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #306  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:18 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Don’t advocate unpopular stances like free health care for illegal immigrants.
Trump's race baiting with prominent Black people on twitter is gladiatorial politics, but it's not really going to help or hurt him politically. I'd argue it might even slightly hurt him in the short-run in that it makes him look like he's being a prick just for the sake of being a prick. It won't hurt him, though, because people who love it are going to love it, people who hate him for it will continue to do so, and the 5-10% of white voters in the middle will eventually move on once he stops tweeting and just chalk it up to Trump being Trump.

But if there's one issue where progressives and the Democratic party may fall into a trap it is in dealing with undocumented immigrants. There's no question that the detainment camps are atrocious and must end -- all Democrats and even many independents probably agree with that. But fair or not, helpful or not, taking the position that we should: offer free healthcare to undocumented immigrants; allow them to remain in the country to pursue higher ed; support the idea of sanctuary cities; and dismantle border patrol and ICE - these are risky ideas that are outside the mainstream. To be sure, we need to have more human policies toward how we treat undocumented immigrants but openly embracing some of the things that Julian Castro advocated in the last debate (and others nodded their heads in agreement with) is a recipe for disaster with white independents in Rust Belt states.
  #307  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:18 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
From the notorious right wing rag the L.A. Times:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...709-story.html
Quote:
With a sharp left turn, Democrats are risking a backlash on an issue of raw emotional and political sensitivity: providing government healthcare to millions of people in the country illegally.

And Airbeck, you are missing the point. This isn’t about a sober technocratic assessment of efficiency in public health policy. It’s about political optics.
  #308  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:22 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,843
It's about scare mongering and hate. I guess that's just who we are as a country now. Who can pander most to fear and hate. It would be nice of one of our parties didn't do that.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #309  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:26 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
A CNN poll earlier this month finds that providing health care for undocumented immigrants is opposed by 59% and supported by 38%. That is a political LOS-AH!

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/0...healthcare.pdf
  #310  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:29 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,843
At one point in our history slavery was supported by the majority too. Didn't make it the right thing to do.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #311  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:36 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
I think what matters is how Democrats talk about it. I don't think reasonable people would object to saying "We need to enforce our borders, but we're going to treat people while they're here, just like we would tourists, or homeless people, or anyone in need of care." But trying to race to the left with ideas such as decriminalizing illegal crossings is risky. Again, how a president enforces illegal crossings once they actually get the office is one thing, but they have to get the office first and I don't think they do that by embracing the ideas of someone like Castro.
  #312  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
At one point in our history slavery was supported by the majority too. Didn't make it the right thing to do.
Well, no. The Northern states were anti-slavery from the signing of the Constitution, and earlier. And more people, unless you counted the "3/5ths".

At the start of the Civil war the North had more than TWICE the population of the South.

Of course a few northerners were pro-slavery and a few southerners anti. And of course many were not strongly inclined either way.

The South did try, very hard, to make sure that the humber of pro and anti STATES were equal.
  #313  
Old 07-30-2019, 04:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
A CNN poll earlier this month finds that providing health care for undocumented immigrants is opposed by 59% and supported by 38%. That is a political LOS-AH!

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/0...healthcare.pdf

Well, that's fine as AFAIK, no one supports that. What they support is healthcare for all people, which indeed: Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if
this would require higher taxes?
about 60% of American want.

What is proposed is that they don't check for citizenship status before giving health care. Which of course is the right thing to do. Do you carry your passport and birth cert everywhere you go? "Papers please!" "But I am having a heart attack!" "Nothing for you unless you can prove you are American!".

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...ll-health-care
Seventy percent said they supported providing "Medicare for all,"
  #314  
Old 07-30-2019, 04:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, that's fine as AFAIK, no one supports that. What they support is healthcare for all people, which indeed: Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes? about 60% of American want.I]
At one point in history slavery was supported by the majority too. Didn't make it the right thing to do.
  #315  
Old 07-30-2019, 04:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
At one point in history slavery was supported by the majority too. Didn't make it the right thing to do.
Man, just two posts up I refuted that.



Well, no. The Northern states were anti-slavery from the signing of the Constitution, and earlier. And more people, unless you counted the "3/5ths".

At the start of the Civil war the North had more than TWICE the population of the South.

Of course a few northerners were pro-slavery and a few southerners anti. And of course many were not strongly inclined either way.

The South did try, very hard, to make sure that the humber of pro and anti STATES were equal.
  #316  
Old 07-30-2019, 04:56 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Man, just two posts up I refuted that.
Not very persuasively though, unless you're equating the claim "at one point in history slavery was supported by the majority" with the claim "at one point in history after the signing of the Constitution a majority of US states advocated legal slavery".
  #317  
Old 07-30-2019, 05:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Not very persuasively though, unless you're equating the claim "at one point in history slavery was supported by the majority" with the claim "at one point in history after the signing of the Constitution a majority of US states advocated legal slavery".

No, at all points in history after the signing of the Constitution a majority of US citizens were anti-slavery.


Pretty much at no time in the History of America as a nation (as we know it) was "slavery was supported by the majority".
  #318  
Old 07-30-2019, 05:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, at all points in history after the signing of the Constitution a majority of US citizens were anti-slavery.


Pretty much at no time in the History of America as a nation (as we know it) was "slavery was supported by the majority".
We couldn't know this for sure (no accurate polling through most of that period), but I doubt it. At the very least, the majority of American citizens (at the time -- meaning white Americans) tolerated slavery. If they didn't, they would have ended it much earlier.
  #319  
Old 07-30-2019, 05:18 PM
Scumpup is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We couldn't know this for sure (no accurate polling through most of that period), but I doubt it. At the very least, the majority of American citizens (at the time -- meaning white Americans) tolerated slavery. If they didn't, they would have ended it much earlier.
If his version of it can't be known for sure, then neither can yours.
  #320  
Old 07-30-2019, 05:23 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We couldn't know this for sure (no accurate polling through most of that period), but I doubt it. At the very least, the majority of American citizens (at the time -- meaning white Americans) tolerated slavery. If they didn't, they would have ended it much earlier.
By the time of the signing of the Constitution, all Northern states had or were passing* laws banning slavery. Yes, some allowed for a gradual process, but the North was solidly antislavery by 1887. And the North held like 2/3 of the population.

But Ok, "At one point in history slavery was supported by the majority too"- cite? Can someone show we that at any time after 1787 a majority of Americans supported slavery?

* NewYork was deadlocked due to the point of whether or not free slaves shoudl be allowed to vote. But there was near unanimous support to ban the practice, but just (as pointed out in 1776 "John Hancock:
Mr. Morris, [pause, then shouts] WHAT IN HELL GOES ON IN NEW YORK?

Lewis Morris:
I'm sorry Mr. President, but the simple fact is that our legislature has never sent us explicit instructions on anything!

John Hancock:
NEVER? [slams fly swatter onto his desk] That's impossible!

Lewis Morris:
Mr. President, have you ever been present at a meeting of the New York legislature?

[Hancock shakes his head "No"]

Lewis Morris:
They speak very fast and very loud, and nobody listens to anybody else, with the result that nothing ever gets done. [turns to the Congress as he returns to his seat] I beg the Congress's pardon.

John Hancock:
[grimly] My sympathies, Mr. Morris."
  #321  
Old 07-30-2019, 05:27 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Man, just two posts up I refuted that. .[/I]
I was just kidding but I did snip out the word "our" thus sidestepped your America centric refutation.

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-30-2019 at 05:28 PM.
  #322  
Old 07-30-2019, 05:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
If his version of it can't be known for sure, then neither can yours.
Fair enough.
  #323  
Old 07-30-2019, 06:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
At one point in our history slavery was supported by the majority too. .
Cite? What time after the signing of the constitution was slavery supported by the majority?
  #324  
Old 07-30-2019, 06:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I was just kidding but I did snip out the word "our" thus sidestepped your America centric refutation.
It's a bad meme that's been going around.
  #325  
Old 07-30-2019, 07:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Cite? What time after the signing of the constitution was slavery supported by the majority?
In his defense, he's probably ignoring black people's opinions on slavery at the time. Oh wait, that's not a defense.
  #326  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:24 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
You guys are shifting the goalposts. This isn’t about whether someone with a grievous injury or life-threatening illness is turned away from the ER. The question was this:

“Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.”

Everyone raised their hand IIRC.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-30-2019 at 08:25 PM.
  #327  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:45 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You guys are shifting the goalposts. This isn’t about whether someone with a grievous injury or life-threatening illness is turned away from the ER. The question was this:

“Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.”

Everyone raised their hand IIRC.
It seems to me, they were saying that undocumented immigrants would be paying into the system and by being part of the system would mean less "free" emergency room visits.

Eta: if you're saying that's way too nuanced to get into a soundbite so drop it, meh maybe.

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-30-2019 at 08:47 PM.
  #328  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:56 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
“Provide coverage” would clearly mean they could make an appointment to get medicine for their seasonal allergies or fund an expensive sleep study and CPAP machine for their sleep apnea...etc.
  #329  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You guys are shifting the goalposts. This isn’t about whether someone with a grievous injury or life-threatening illness is turned away from the ER. The question was this:

“Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.”

Everyone raised their hand IIRC.
The plan would cover everyone, what's wrong with that?

See, the issue here is that the MAGA folks are putting this as ONLY Illegals get health benefits- and that they are free. Both are wrong.
  #330  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It seems to me, they were saying that undocumented immigrants would be paying into the system and by being part of the system would mean less "free" emergency room visits.....
Yeah, and those visits to County ER cost more than general health care to us Taxpayers.

Its just cheaper and more effective to have medicare for ALL.
  #331  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:19 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The plan would cover everyone, what's wrong with that?

See, the issue here is that the MAGA folks are putting this as ONLY Illegals get health benefits- and that they are free. Both are wrong.

No one who is gettable thinks that.

And it might be cheaper and more effective, but it’s not good politics, as David Axelrod is explaining right now.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-30-2019 at 10:21 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017