The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #1

Post by AgnosticBoy »

I want to discuss the validity of the independents and their effect on the elections.

The effect of independent voters
According to Gallup, 42% of Americans identify as an 'independent' voter, while 30% identify as Republican and 27% as Democrat. This shows that most Americans are not fully committed to either party since the majority are independents. If I broke these stats down state-by-state (as opposed viewing the national average), then this majority stat goes away because registered independents are not heavily concentrated in any state (except New Hampshire). Instead, you'll find states with a big concentration of Democrats or majority of Republicans, with independents occupying some percentage across all or most states. While there is no heavily "independent" party state, but here's where or when these voters will make a difference:
1. In swing states the population of Republicans and Democrats tend to be close in number. For example, the state of Florida has about 5 million registered Democrats and 5 million Republican voters BUT it also has about 3.5 million independent voters (no party affiliation). Here it is easy to see the effect of independent voters if or when the majority of them flocks to one party over the other.

The validity of the Independent voters

I should say that independent voters do not belong to any party. The rationale behind many independent voters is that the main parties have become corrupt, extreme, and too partisan. Being an independent gives you the freedom of mind to agree with and praise a politician like Trump when he's right and to condemn him when he's wrong. To be in any party, it seems you have to remain in a straight jacket and accept the entire political platform of ideas from your party, and then be against all of the ideas of the other party. If you don't believe me then try being a registered Democrat, especially one running for office, and acknowledge anything good from Trump and see the reaction you'll get.

As an independent, you don't necessarily have new views as a third party would. Instead, you can adopt the "good" views from BOTH parties while also coming up with your own views.

For the record, I was a lifelong Democrat, and I'm honestly considering voting for Trump. He seems less extreme compared to the competition. He is the lesser of two evils, imho.

For debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree that independent voters have big effect on elections?
2. Is the thinking behind the independent voter valid? Is it reasonable to remain unaffiliated?
3. Will the number of independent voters continue to increase ?

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #31

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 28 by AgnosticBoy]
AgnosticBoy wrote:That would depend on how much of our money the government wants. No one would be happy if it's a high amount that keeps increasing with no end in sight. The government may as well control all of your money at that point.
The Federal reserve loans the government money, which the Fed doesn't actually have, and the government hands bonds to the Fed to cover the loan which must be paid back with interest. Thus, every dollar you own is a debt that can, and will, never be repaid. What generates real wealth is the value generated by labor. So, the Fed, a consortium of private banks, already controls all your money. You owe it all to them, and all your labor, with interest.
AgnosticBoy wrote:Another issue is government spending. That can't be left unchecked because eventhough the government has unlimited ideas that they want to put money towards but money and taxes are limited. If taxes and money were unlimited then we would be helping every single poor and homeless person in America, providing them with food, shelter, college education, and healthcare. That isn't the case. And of course, there are things that people don't want the government spending money on, like paying for "illegal" immigrants.
We spend trillions on planes that have a hard time flying, like the F-15, and on tanks that spend their whole existence rusting and rotting in the desert. We pay farmers not to grow, so that prices will remain high, instead of feeding the world. There is not profit in that endeavor, at least not profit that will find itself speedily in the hands of the 1%.
So, some folks, AgnosticBoy, who actually do understand the economic principles of which you seem to be agnostic, do want to welcome immigrants, feed them, house them, provide them with health care and jobs, because if we quit wasting wealth on planned obsolescences and overspending on military weapons, overpriced drugs and health care, and most of all, contributing to the increasingly outrageous wealth of the plutocrats, we can still do that.

:study:

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #32

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Gracchus wrote: [Replying to post 28 by AgnosticBoy]
AgnosticBoy wrote:That would depend on how much of our money the government wants. No one would be happy if it's a high amount that keeps increasing with no end in sight. The government may as well control all of your money at that point.
The Federal reserve loans the government money, which the Fed doesn't actually have, and the government hands bonds to the Fed to cover the loan which must be paid back with interest. Thus, every dollar you own is a debt that can, and will, never be repaid. What generates real wealth is the value generated by labor. So, the Fed, a consortium of private banks, already controls all your money. You owe it all to them, and all your labor, with interest.
Despite all you're saying, i still have opportunity to spend my money. Not every cent of it is going towards taxes. Now if you increase the tax rate, which is one way the government pays its bills, then you're going to start making some people unhappy.
Gracchus wrote: We spend trillions on planes that have a hard time flying, like the F-15, and on tanks that spend their whole existence rusting and rotting in the desert. We pay farmers not to grow, so that prices will remain high, instead of feeding the world. There is not profit in that endeavor, at least not profit that will find itself speedily in the hands of the 1%.
So, some folks, AgnosticBoy, who actually do understand the economic principles of which you seem to be agnostic, do want to welcome immigrants, feed them, house them, provide them with health care and jobs, because if we quit wasting wealth on planned obsolescences and overspending on military weapons, overpriced drugs and health care, and most of all, contributing to the increasingly outrageous wealth of the plutocrats, we can still do that.

:study:
Before you start giving me some pipe dream of being able to feed the world, first prove that you can feed, house, educate , and provide healthcare for the poor of your country. Also show you can do this without significantly raising my taxes.

I'm sure if you had an actual cost, along with details of how we'd pay for it, then more would follow. I certainly don't see any Democrat candidate promising all of that.

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #33

Post by Athetotheist »

AgnosticBoy wrote:But in all cases (even the ones where the interviewer doesn't believe you), especially when children are involved, you are detained in the US for further processing. This shows that you do enter the US, although detained in detention centers, based on password asylum and of course American taxpayers are paying for it. These are the same detention centers that popped up across the country and the ones the mainstream media attacked president Trump for (before he started detaining asylum seekers in Mexico).
According to the DHS, ICE removed over 267,000 persons in FY 2019. There's a difference between getting in and staying in.
AgnosticBoy wrote:This is why I advocate for asylum seekers to stay in their own countries until approved.
You're forgetting about the aforementioned difficulty of securing U.S. attorneys from the other side of the border.
AgnosticBoy wrote:So you sneak into the country (without going through ports of entry),
You mean like drug smugglers have been doing by tunnelling under Trump's Big Beautiful Wall?
AgnosticBoy wrote:Meanwhile, the taxpayers are paying for all of this when you request government assistance. Yep, no one will abuse this one!
Nothing worse than having all those pesky, economy-draining asylum seekers in the country.

Except that....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/busi ... onomy.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g ... 8C6ED89000

koko

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #34

Post by koko »

[Replying to post 1 by AgnosticBoy]




1. Do you agree or disagree that independent voters have big effect on elections?
2. Is the thinking behind the independent voter valid? Is it reasonable to remain unaffiliated?
3. Will the number of independent voters continue to increase ?


I do agree that indy voters like myself do have a considerable impact on elections and have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Why remain this way? Because many of us think independently and do not like to have anyone attempt to use us like puppet strings. Whenever anyone asks me of my political affiliation I mention the following from Governor Livingston of New Jersey:


William Livingston, "Of Party Divisions," Independent Reflector (1753).


[William Livingston was a lawyer and a member of one of the dominant political families in the colony of New York. Livingston published his political philosophy in a series of essays during the 1750s, entilted The Independent Reflector.]


Of PARTY-DIVISIONS

Factions amongst great Men, they are like Foxes; when their Heads are divided, they carry Fire in their Tails; and all the Country about them goes to Wreck for it.

FROM the Moment that Men give themselves wholly up to a Party, they abandon their Reason, and are led Captive by their Passions. The Cause they espouse, presents such bewitching Charms, as dazzle the judgment; and the Side they oppose, such imaginary Deformity, that no Opposition appears too violent; nor any Arts to blacken and ruin it, incapable of a specious Varnish. They follow their Leaders with an implicit Faith, and, like a Company of Dragoons, obey the Word of Command without Hesitation. Tho' perhaps they originally embark'd in the Cause with a View to the public Welfare; the calm Deliberations of Reason are imperceptibly fermented into Passion; and their Zeal for the common Good, gradually extinguished by the predominating Fervor of Faction: A disinterested Love for their Country, is succeeded by an intemperate Ardor; which naturally swells into a political Enthusiasm; and from that, easy is the Transition to perfect Frenzy. As the religious Enthusiast fathers the wild Ravings of his heated Imagination, on the Spirit of God; and is ready to knock down every Man who doubts his divine Inspiration; so the political Visionary miscalls his Party-Rage the Perfection of Patriotism; and curses the rational Lover of his Country, for his unseasonable Tepidity. The former may be reduced to his Senses, by shaving, purging, and letting of Blood; as the latter is only to be reclaim'd by Time or Preferment.

Next to the Duty we owe the Supreme BEING, we lie under the most indispensible Obligations, to promote the Welfare of our Country. Nor ought we to be destitute of a becoming Zeal and Fortitude, in so glorious a Cause: We should shew ourselves in earnest, resolute and intrepid. We cannot engage in a nobler Undertaking; and scandalous would be our Languor and Timidity, where the Sacrifice of our Lives, is no extravagant Oblation. Replete with such illustrious Examples, are the Annals of Antiquity, when the great Men of those heroic Ages, with a kind of glorious Emulation, exerted their Talents in the Service of their Country; and were not only contented, but pleas'd to die for the Common-Weal. . . . But in vain doth Party-Spirit veil itself with the splendid Covering, of disinterested Patriotism: In vain usurp the Robe of Honour, to conceal its latent Motives. The Disguise may fascinate the Multitude; but appears transparent to the Unprejudiced and judicious. With all the Eulogiums due to the Advocates for Liberty, without Success doth the self-interested Projector attempt to impose on Men of Sense, with that respectable Appellation. A Zeal for our Country is glorious, but a Spirit of Faction infamous. . . .

When I see a Man warm in so important an Affair as the common Interest, I either suspend my judgment, or pass it in his Favour. But when I find him misrepresenting and vilifying his Adversaries, I take it for a shrewd Sign, that 'tis something more than the laudable Motive he pretends, which impels him with such Impetuosity and Violence.

The great, as well as the little Vulgar, are liable to catch the Spirit of Mobbing; and cluster together to perpetrate a Riot, without knowing the Reason that set them in Motion. The genuine Consequence this, of Party-Rage and Animosityl For when once we suppress the Voice of Reason, by the Clamour of Faction, we are toss'd like a Vessel stripp'd of Sails and Rudder, at the Mercy of Wind and Tide: But 'tis a Solecism in Nature, that the best End in the World is to be attain'd by the worst Means; or that we cannot be Patriots, till we are fit for Bedlam.

A Man of this Turn, is not half so intent upon reforming the Abuses of his own Party, as discerning the Errors of his Enemies. To view the Virtues of the Side he espouses, he uses the magnifying End of the Perspective; but inverts the Tube, when he surveys those of his Adversaries. Instead of an impartial Examination of the Principles he acts upon, or the Regularity of his Progress, he contents himself with exclaiming against the real or suppositious Faults of his Antagonists. In short, 'tis not so much the Goodness of his own Cause, as the exaggerated Badness of the other, that attaches him to his Leaders, and confirms him in his Delirium. Like a Set of Pagans, he makes the Spots in the Sun, a Reason for adoring the Moon.

. . . A Man who would be overlook'd, or despis'd in times of universal Tranquility, may have a Quantum of Lungs and Impudence, to make himself seem necessary when the Publick is agitated with Storms, and thrown into Convulsions. Nay, a Fellow who has deserved to be hang'd by all Laws human and divine, for his Conduct in private Life, will spring up into an important Champion at the Head of a Party.

"There is a particular Maxim among Parties (says a fine Writer) which alone is sufficient to corrupt a whole Nation; which is to countenance, and protect the most infamous Fellows, who happen to herd amongst them. It is something shocking to common Sense, to see the Man of Honour and the Knave, the Man of Parts and the Blockhead put upon an equal Foot, which is often the Case amongst Parties. The Reason is, he that has not Sense enough to distinguish right from wrong, can make a Noise; nay, the less Sense, the more Obstinacy, especially in a bad Cause; and the greater Knave, the more obedient to his Leaders, especially when they are playing the Rogue." Unspeakably calamitous have been the Consequences of Party-Division. It has occasioned Deluges of Blood, and subverted Kingdoms. It always introduces a Decay of publick Spirit, with the Extinction of every noble and generous Sentiment. The very Names of Things are perverted. On Fury and Violence it bestows the Appellation of Magnanimity and Opposition, and stiles Resentment and Rancour, Heroic Ardor, and Patriot-Warmth. Nor is it ever at a Loss for Pretences to bubble the Mob out of their Wits, and give its wildest Ravings a plausible Colour. . . .

Thus as the designing Party-Man always appears in the Mask of publick Spirit, and conceals the most selfish and riotous Disposition, under the venerable Pretext of asserting Liberty, and defending his Country; so the ministerial Scribbler, taking Advantage of this frequent Prostitution, gives a sinister Turn to the most laudable Views, and stigmatizes every Man who opposes the Encroachments of the Court. Hence the Necessity of our greatest Caution in siding with either Party, till by a watchful observation in the Conduct of both, we have plainly discovered the true Patriot from the false Pretender.

Almost all the Mischiefs which Mankind groan under, arise from their suffering themselves to be led by the Nose, without a proper Freedom of Thought and Examination. Upon this Priestcraft has erected its stupendous Babel, and Tyranny rear'd her horrible Domination. And indeed, well may we expect, as the righteous Punishment of our Guilt, to be abandon'd by Heaven to Delusion and Error, if instead of obeying the Directions of that sacred Ray of the Divinity, in Virtue of which we claim kindred with the highest Order of Intelligences, we blindly surrender ourselves to the Guidance of any Man, or Set of Men whatever. And yet I have known Persons of good Sense, and Lovers of Liberty, so infatuated with Party, as to put a whole City and Country in Alarm, and struggle, as if it had been pro uris et focis to lift a Creature into a Post, who, after all the Bustle made on his Account, was fitter to guide the Tall of a Plough, than to fill an Office of Skill and Confidence: But their Breasts were inflamed with Party-Spirit, and had the Candidate been a Chimney-Sweep, or a Rope-Dancer, they would have exerted an equal Zeal and Activity. . . .


Source: William Livingston, The Independent Reflector (February 22, 1753). *Some of the Latin quotations have been removed to protect the innocent.




Please note that this satirical but sagacious essay is PUBLIC DOMAIN.



Based on other online discussions I've participated in, I do believe that we will see more indy voters in the future.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #35

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Athetotheist wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote:But in all cases (even the ones where the interviewer doesn't believe you), especially when children are involved, you are detained in the US for further processing. This shows that you do enter the US, although detained in detention centers, based on password asylum and of course American taxpayers are paying for it. These are the same detention centers that popped up across the country and the ones the mainstream media attacked president Trump for (before he started detaining asylum seekers in Mexico).
According to the DHS, ICE removed over 267,000 persons in FY 2019. There's a difference between getting in and staying in.
And who do you have to thank for that 2019 stat and for even finding ways to detain them in Mexico so they want enter our country to begin with? The answer is a Republican administration.

Keep in mind, at one point, Central American immigrants were forming large groups, sometimes numbering in the thousands, and were trying to enter our country. Reading some of the Liberal views here, like Gracchus, and seeing how Democrats aid and abet illegal immigrants (through sanctuary cities, wanting to abolish ICE, etc), I have little doubt that all of these large groups would've been flooding into our country. And more would've followed, and so on, and so on.

But back to my original claim. I never said that once the immigrants get in that they'll stay in the US indefinitely. My point was to show that our immigration laws can be abused, especially by drug cartels and people who lie, and the US taxpayers have to pay for them during the time they're here.

While you're trying to make a big deal out of the immigrants not "staying in" the country, but the damage is still done when you have 12,000,000 undocumented immigrants and a big percentage have been here for 10 or more years. So it's not as if we're getting them out right away as your comment suggests. Here's a source:
Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015
Pg. 3
An estimated 12.0 million illegal aliens were living in the United States on January 1, 2015, compared to an estimated 11.6 million on January 1, 2010.
…
pg. 4
Of the 12.0 million illegal aliens in 2015, nearly 80 percent had been in the United States for longer than 10 years, whereas only six percent had entered within the last five years.
Athetotheist wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote:Meanwhile, the taxpayers are paying for all of this when you request government assistance. Yep, no one will abuse this one!
Nothing worse than having all those pesky, economy-draining asylum seekers in the country.
My plan is about VERIFYING that they are indeed asylees before letting them into our country. That seems smart so that drug cartels, terrorists (national security reason!!), and others don't make it into our country. My plan is also about saving the tax payers money. Ideally, we need to find ways to speed up the asylum process so that there's no long wait in their country.

koko

Post #36

Post by koko »

AB said,
who do you have to thank for enforcing the law by not letting them stay in the US and even finding ways to detain them in Mexico so they want enter our country to begin with? The answer is a Republican administration.

The record clearly shows it was Republicans Reagan and Bush who allowed entry of illegals and who tried to grant amnesty. Reagan succeeded but Bush failed. And while many call Democrat Obama a liberal, it was he who deported more illegals than anyone else.

Interestingly, NYC (my previous home town) has tens of thousands of draft dodgers from Israel and Russia. While many right wing objected to having Americans escape to Canada to avoid the draft, they have absolutely no objection to these illegal immigrants entering our shores for the purposes of avoiding service to their countries of origin. If illegals of Latino origin are to be exported then it follows that all illegals regardless of race and origin should be treated exactly the same. However, I see no effort on the part of the government to deport those people. None whatsoever.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Post #37

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote:
AB said,
who do you have to thank for enforcing the law by not letting them stay in the US and even finding ways to detain them in Mexico so they want enter our country to begin with? The answer is a Republican administration.

The record clearly shows it was Republicans Reagan and Bush who allowed entry of illegals and who tried to grant amnesty. Reagan succeeded but Bush failed. And while many call Democrat Obama a liberal, it was he who deported more illegals than anyone else. [/quote

Interestingly, NYC (my previous home town) has tens of thousands of draft dodgers from Israel and Russia. While many right wing objected to having Americans escape to Canada to avoid the draft, they have absolutely no objection to these illegal immigrants entering our shores for the purposes of avoiding service to their countries of origin. If illegals of Latino origin are to be exported then it follows that all illegals regardless of race and origin should be treated exactly the same. However, I see no effort on the part of the government to deport those people. None whatsoever.
Point taken.

Keep in mind that I am an independent. While many want to bash Trump, I'm stuck explaining why the Democrats are not necessarily any better and immigration is just one example I've used to make the point. Voting for me is nothing more than choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The way I see it now is we have an immigration problem. One or two liberals here have tried to make it seem as if we don't so I've been using facts and reason to show otherwise. While this immigration problem did not begin with just Democrats, but they aren't making it any better. Trump has taken action to deter illegal immigrants, he stopped the large caravans from entering our country. Some of his tactics were good and of course some were bad. The Dems. simply attacked him, and did NOT agree with his good tactics, and offered NOTHING of their own to address the large caravans that tried to enter the country. When you combine their blanket attacks, inactions, with the policies their advocating for, like sanctuary cities, abolishing ICE, etc, that shows how terrible and weak they would be at deterring illegal immigrants.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #38

Post by Purple Knight »

Gracchus wrote:The Federal reserve loans the government money, which the Fed doesn't actually have, and the government hands bonds to the Fed to cover the loan which must be paid back with interest. Thus, every dollar you own is a debt that can, and will, never be repaid. What generates real wealth is the value generated by labor. So, the Fed, a consortium of private banks, already controls all your money. You owe it all to them, and all your labor, with interest.
I disagree with the "can never be repaid" bit, specifically when used with the you bit. No, the national debt can never be zero, and in fact, it can only ever increase.

However, disproportionately hard workers could theoretically pay off their portion.

This is how banks work too, except that they have to have 10% of what they "print". Banks don't literally print money, but they do create money (which is fine because most dollars are not physical dollars; they're balances in bank accounts). If a bank has $10 on hand, they may loan out $100. They just created $90. They now want it back, with interest. Not everyone can repay (because they now want $99, and they only gave out $90, so somebody loses that game of musical chairs), but some people can repay.
Gracchus wrote:We spend trillions on planes that have a hard time flying, like the F-15, and on tanks that spend their whole existence rusting and rotting in the desert. We pay farmers not to grow, so that prices will remain high, instead of feeding the world. There is not profit in that endeavor, at least not profit that will find itself speedily in the hands of the 1%.
So, some folks, AgnosticBoy, who actually do understand the economic principles of which you seem to be agnostic, do want to welcome immigrants, feed them, house them, provide them with health care and jobs, because if we quit wasting wealth on planned obsolescences and overspending on military weapons, overpriced drugs and health care, and most of all, contributing to the increasingly outrageous wealth of the plutocrats, we can still do that.

:study:
I note that none of this is an argument for taking in more people we can't feed before these other adjustments are made, which is what it always has been.

I would vote for any plan that says, "Alright, we will take in 200,000 migrants, and we will cut the military budget to pay for it," if I didn't know for a fact that they won't cut anything and we'll be taking the immigrants anyway.

How many times now have we given blanket amnesty in exchange for stricter border protection and not gotten the stricter border protection?

When the things you suggested are already done, then it is time to concede and have more immigration.

koko

Post #39

Post by koko »

AgnosticBoy wrote:



Point taken.

Keep in mind that I am an independent. While many want to bash Trump, I'm stuck explaining why the Democrats are not necessarily any better and immigration is just one example I've used to make the point. Voting for me is nothing more than choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The way I see it now is we have an immigration problem. One or two liberals here have tried to make it seem as if we don't so I've been using facts and reason to show otherwise. While this immigration problem did not begin with just Democrats, but they aren't making it any better. Trump has taken action to deter illegal immigrants, he stopped the large caravans from entering our country. Some of his tactics were good and of course some were bad. The Dems. simply attacked him, and did NOT agree with his good tactics, and offered NOTHING of their own to address the large caravans that tried to enter the country. When you combine their blanket attacks, inactions, with the policies their advocating for, like sanctuary cities, abolishing ICE, etc, that shows how terrible and weak they would be at deterring illegal immigrants.


- lesser of two evils -

Agree 100%


- we have an immigration problem -

Most would agree. I don't know of anyone who said we don't.


- Dems attacked Trump ... offered nothing to address caravans -


Let's set the record straight. First, more illegals have entered or attempted to enter under the Republicans. Democrats did offer a solution by arguing that the government should prosecute those who hire illegals. This solution has been ignored by the Republican run Department of Justice. Illegals would not be attempting to venture here if they knew there were no jobs to go to. Prosecute those Republican businesses and farmers, then throw them in jail, and the problem of illegal immigrants would be solved overnight.


- sanctuary cities -

Yes, it is true that these are mostly run by Democrats. But let us also be honest and admit that many of these illegals are political refugees running away from ultra right wing governments such as in Honduras which are committing mass genocide against Indigenous peoples. Political sanctuary is required under biblical law. Thus, these liberal run cities are largely in compliance with Judeo-Christian teaching.


The USA under Republicans bombed Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of 'regime change' in order to stop (among other things) political repression of certain minority groups. But the same government has looked the other way when minorities have been repressed in Central America. By the way, in Guatemala Native Americans are actually the majority and they have been subjected to mass genocide as well.*

I am not advocating that the USA government invade Central America. But we certainly could help stop such repression by boycotting those governments just as we do with Cuba. That would stop a large part of the illegal immigration here.



Bottom line is that you are largely correct that the Democrats could do more to solve this problem. But the fact is that Republicans could do FAR more to solve the problem - a problem they created.






* and why is it that only migrants from Central America are stopped at the border? why not all those East Africans and Southeast Asians that we have here in the Twin Cities? why not all those illegal Russians and Israelis as well???

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Post #40

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote: - we have an immigration problem -

Most would agree. I don't know of anyone who said we don't.
There are 1 or 2 liberals forum members that I know of who think there is no immigration problem. I spent my last 5 or more posts showing Athetotheist that there indeed is an immigration problem.
koko wrote:- "Dems attacked Trump ... offered nothing to address caravans" -

Let's set the record straight. First, more illegals have entered or attempted to enter under the Republicans. Democrats did offer a solution by arguing that the government should prosecute those who hire illegals. This solution has been ignored by the Republican run Department of Justice. Illegals would not be attempting to venture here if they knew there were no jobs to go to. Prosecute those Republican businesses and farmers, then throw them in jail, and the problem of illegal immigrants would be solved overnight.
Perhaps past Republican ran institutions and presidents were soft on immigration but President Trump is not. If anything, I'd say he's too extreme on immigration. Meanwhile, the Dems. have worked to grant illegal immigrants driver's licenses, free healthcare, sanctuary cities, and even abolish ICE. At least, under President Trump presidency, it seems the Democrats have done more bad towards immigration than Trump has.
koko wrote: - sanctuary cities -

Yes, it is true that these are mostly run by Democrats. But let us also be honest and admit that many of these illegals are political refugees running away from ultra right wing governments such as in Honduras which are committing mass genocide against Indigenous peoples. Political sanctuary is required under biblical law. Thus, these liberal run cities are largely in compliance with Judeo-Christian teaching.
If you are an "undocumented" immigrant, then we don't know for sure why you are in the United States. Many may "claim" to be asylum seekers, while not truly being such.
koko wrote:The USA under Republicans bombed Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of 'regime change' in order to stop (among other things) political repression of certain minority groups. But the same government has looked the other way when minorities have been repressed in Central America. By the way, in Guatemala Native Americans are actually the majority and they have been subjected to mass genocide as well.*
Trump was against the Iraq war. I don't consider Trump to be a conventional Republican.
koko wrote: * and why is it that only migrants from Central America are stopped at the border? why not all those East Africans and Southeast Asians that we have here in the Twin Cities? why not all those illegal Russians and Israelis as well???
If I had it my way, every single one of them would have to wait in their countries while they go through the asylum process. Little do people know it isn't just Central Americans coming across our Southern Border. There are also Africans, Indians, etc.

Post Reply