Author Topic: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion  (Read 8823 times)

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #100 on: September 28, 2017, 06:07:18 AM »
On the subject of immigration (I seem to have stunned everybody into silence with my long boring list posts) here is a fascinating article about the Wall.
https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/

Takeaway:
Quote
A network investigation of public records found that walling the border in this wide-open area could require disrupting or seizing nearly 5,000 parcels of property.

jordanread

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6634
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Live Long, Live Free, Drop Dead
    • Frugal FIRE Show
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #101 on: September 28, 2017, 06:55:01 AM »
LOL. You didn't stun me into silence. Just haven't had time to break it.

One thing that you did do, and that I appreciate, is write a well thought out and in depth post, one that requires a well thought out response. I should respond soon (I still need to get some of my fundamental views expressed appropriately). I think Sunday at the latest.
Join the cycling challenge!
Get in shape in 2018!
Frugal FIRE - Episode 2

"Mustachians rarely sit back and let things happen to them. Mustachians go out and happen to things."

CM*TO

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #102 on: September 28, 2017, 08:04:17 AM »
Looking forward to it!  No pressure though... everyone is busy.

As you can see, I'm trying to formulate an opinion on the best way to reform immigration. I actually have no opinion right now, because I know that I don't know enough to have a valid opinion. I will venture that it is impossible to form a valid opinion on what is most effective in the absence of hard numbers and studies, but at least it's a starting point where we can use our own senses of ethics to impose an order on which solutions would be preferred.

For instance, I find that my ethics call for the rescuing of human lives over all. So I have to put humanitarian forces first. On the other hand, I find that consumer desire to have good things cheap at the expense of others is not part of my ethos, so that goes on the bottom. Fear of cultural dilution is not part of my makeup either. Dislike of crowding/competition is probably the top force opposing my ethical obligation to take in strangers. Likewise, I am looking at all the solutions and asking whether they are ethical, whether they are expensive, and whether they are effective.  Unfortunately I don't know the answers to the second two questions, though of course I can guess. Maybe that ridiculous sounding wall is actually the most effective and kind solution. I just don't know.

Reality also has to impose itself. Maybe the number of genuine refugees far exceeds the number of immigrants that the US could absorb in comfort. If there were 100 people on the street in danger for their lives, I'd of course let them into my house. For maybe a day or two.  But after that, I'd totally want to look into ways of making the street safe again so I could get them out.  Yet am I the person who would knowingly throw them out into danger again, once they were safe in my house? I guess I wouldn't.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 08:12:02 AM by Poundwise »

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #103 on: September 28, 2017, 08:50:54 AM »
At the moment it's not politically feasible. The hard-right of the GOP is opposed to anything that smells like amnesty and they have too much influence in the House.

Maybe in 2019 if the Dems retake the House and the GOP maintains Senate control. I am not sure Donnie would sign off on immigration reform, but he might just to say he's the guy who "solved" it.

Just saying that it probably doesn't behoove anyone to think too much about the specifics of a policy at the moment. Maybe float some trial balloons and that's it. There's no feasible immigration plan that's going to deport 10 million people, but no plan that's NOT that would pass the House right now. So it's all academic at the moment.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 08:54:26 AM by A Definite Beta Guy »

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #104 on: September 28, 2017, 09:52:27 AM »
I would rather not have to think about it at all, but with Schumer possibly ready to trade funding for a wall in return for DACA hostages... feel like I need to know what I support.  In this area there are people living in fear... ICE has been coming to public schools to inquire about 4th graders, etc.  It seems a more pressing issue now than it was last year, and maybe this is a chance to open up the discussion while people are paying attention. Plus there isn't that much time until 2019... a year is hardly long enough to educate oneself on an issue of this complexity.

Is a wall that may cost at least  $15 billion (GOP estimate) and possibly $67 billion (Dem estimate), or more, a good use of our resources to solve the problems that immigration presents?  Obviously I'm biased against the wall but I'm not ready to discount it altogether. Seems impractical, but kinder than deportation.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 09:55:34 AM by Poundwise »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1217
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #105 on: September 28, 2017, 10:13:57 AM »
I would rather not have to think about it at all, but with Schumer possibly ready to trade funding for a wall in return for DACA hostages... feel like I need to know what I support.  In this area there are people living in fear... ICE has been coming to public schools to inquire about 4th graders, etc.  It seems a more pressing issue now than it was last year, and maybe this is a chance to open up the discussion while people are paying attention. Plus there isn't that much time until 2019... a year is hardly long enough to educate oneself on an issue of this complexity.

Is a wall that may cost at least  $15 billion (GOP estimate) and possibly $67 billion (Dem estimate), or more, a good use of our resources to solve the problems that immigration presents?  Obviously I'm biased against the wall but I'm not ready to discount it altogether. Seems impractical, but kinder than deportation.

Are you against deportation of any in this country illegally or just some them?

Are you against the wall because you don't think it will work, is wholly unfeasible, or are you just against the concept of immigration control?

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #106 on: September 28, 2017, 03:18:21 PM »
I would rather not have to think about it at all, but with Schumer possibly ready to trade funding for a wall in return for DACA hostages... feel like I need to know what I support.  In this area there are people living in fear... ICE has been coming to public schools to inquire about 4th graders, etc.  It seems a more pressing issue now than it was last year, and maybe this is a chance to open up the discussion while people are paying attention. Plus there isn't that much time until 2019... a year is hardly long enough to educate oneself on an issue of this complexity.

Is a wall that may cost at least  $15 billion (GOP estimate) and possibly $67 billion (Dem estimate), or more, a good use of our resources to solve the problems that immigration presents?  Obviously I'm biased against the wall but I'm not ready to discount it altogether. Seems impractical, but kinder than deportation.

Are you against deportation of any in this country illegally or just some them?
I'm not against every deportation.  My gut feeling on it is very conditional and along a continuum. 

Things to consider would be how long they had been in the country and how old when they came here, criminal record, etc.  For instance, I favor deportation of violent and repeat criminals. But what about the guys who came here because they were adopted as babies, but the paperwork wasn't properly processed by their adoptive parents?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/world/asia/south-korea-adoptions-phillip-clay-adam-crapser.html
Of course those seem to be extreme cases but there ought to be room for an exception.

But, suppose that we had a great immigration system where every family had a chance to be reunited within, say, 2 years. Suppose we were able to accommodate at least every endangered child refugee and an adult caretaker for at least a 5 year period during which time hopefully their home country would be stabilized with the help of the international community.  Suppose we streamlined the process for employers to sponsor workers to fill true gaps in the labor force, and these workers would have equal pay and rights to native workers, until they were sent home at the end of the labor shortage. 

Then in this ideal-ish world, that would leave only adult refugees and recent economic migrants come to work under the table. Then I think I would be okay with deporting adults who had lived here less than, arbitrarily, 7 years. Maybe the time scale could be more lenient for adults from dangerous countries. For immigrants who had been there longer, I think I'd favor some sort of amnesty with a sliding scale of fees maybe by wage garnishment to penalize them for line jumping, as well as any unpaid taxes, but not so much as to ruin them entirely. But of course designing a fair, watertight system would be as hard as building a secure 2000 foot wall.

I think the advantage of a pay-for-amnesty solution is that it would hopefully pay for itself or even become a source of revenue for the US, unlike the wall. The thing I don't like about this plan is that it would either favor richer immigrants (if a flat fee) or would incentivize people to hide wealth (kind of like taxes.) I'm sure there would be tons of loopholes and the poor slobs of life would lose out as always.

Quote
Are you against the wall because you don't think it will work, is wholly unfeasible, or are you just against the concept of immigration control?
From what I have heard about the existing barriers, the wall doesn't sound like it will provide a good value. Most people are flying in anyway and overstaying their visas. It might work to some extent but basically a good ladder will render it useless unless it's manned, so that would be a repeating cost.  Drug dealers will just dig tunnels. Suppose we also do a better job of tracking overstayed visas.  Then how about the Canadian border? Will we have to build a wall there, too?

There are other reasons to dislike a wall, too. Effect on wildlife, and also the optics of it.  I remember when the Berlin Wall was still standing.  It and the DMZ were such symbols of distrust and basically, failure.  I also remember when the Berlin Wall came down and the joy and hope everyone had at the time (and I would guess that most Germans today would say it was a good thing.)

But no, I'm not against all immigration control.  I don't want everyone who wants two cars and a flat-screen TV to flood into the US. But my intuition is that if we don't want people coming over here to stay illegally, it would be more effective to work on the reasons why. I mean, what if we spent the wall money to create jobs (infrastructure?) and to train/move US citizens to where the jobs are, or enforce legal employment?  If there weren't the jobs, the economic immigrants wouldn't come.

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #107 on: September 28, 2017, 03:25:48 PM »
One more point. I read somewhere that when the borders were tightened, laborers from Mexico who used to come when there were jobs, and leave when there weren't,  began to settle down in the US. So in some ways, more immigration was caused by making the cost of crossing the border so expensive.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1217
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #108 on: September 29, 2017, 10:23:36 AM »
Poundwise:

I'm going to respond to a few of your points.  FWIW, it's difficult to respond point by point to such a long post.

Wall - I'm undecided.  If it were and effective and feasible deterrent, I would be all for it.  I'm not sure it will be.

Refugees/Etc - You seem to set out a plan to allow any refugee and their caretaker into this country.  While I feel for the plight of these people, we don't have the resources to allow everyone in.  In addition, once in the US, they will never leave as your post intends.

Amnesty/etc - I feel for the DACA people who are here and productive.  If they are college educated or in the military, we can talk about them staying.

Long time in US illegally/Amnesty - The US does a terrible job of deporting and tracking those to be deported.  If we tell you to leave, it may take 10 years or more to get to the deportation stage.  I'm feeling a lot less generous about these situations but understand the humanitarian implications.

Employers/current policy - We need to crack down on employers hiring these people.  This is a nice start. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/asplundh-treee-undocumented-workers-montco.html 

Finally - Before we talk about amnesty at all, we need to stop the current inflow.  In addition, if we consider amnesty, I think their extended family's should move to the bottom of the list for immigration.  They and their family's should not be rewarded for jumping the line any more than they already have. 

Michael in ABQ

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 192
    • Military Saints
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #109 on: September 29, 2017, 02:14:44 PM »
One more point. I read somewhere that when the borders were tightened, laborers from Mexico who used to come when there were jobs, and leave when there weren't,  began to settle down in the US. So in some ways, more immigration was caused by making the cost of crossing the border so expensive.

The father of one of my best friends growing up in Oregon had a small business installing and maintaining sprinklers/irrigations systems. His job involved a lot of digging ditches. He said that over the years every time he tried to hire a white guy they would quit within a day or two. He usually had a couple of Mexican guys working for him as they were willing to do that hard labor at probably pretty minimal wages ($10-12/hour? I don't really know for sure but this was 15-20 years ago). They would come north and work for part of the year then go back to their families in Mexico and live the rest of the year off the money they had earned. However, after 9/11 when border security tightened up the cost of a coyote to get across the border went from something like $500 - $1,000 to $2,000 - $3,000. Pretty soon they stopped going back to Mexico and instead brought their families up to live with them. I imagine this scenario repeated itself many times over across the country.
Trade stocks with zero commissions on Robinhood. Use my referral code and we each get a free share of stock. http://share.robinhood.com/michaes3703

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #110 on: September 29, 2017, 05:26:07 PM »
Poundwise:

I'm going to respond to a few of your points.  FWIW, it's difficult to respond point by point to such a long post.


Completely understood, I'm throwing a lot out there because it is such a vast subject and I'm thinking out loud.

Quote
Refugees/Etc - You seem to set out a plan to allow any refugee and their caretaker into this country.  While I feel for the plight of these people, we don't have the resources to allow everyone in.  In addition, once in the US, they will never leave as your post intends.

Well, if I were queen of the world, there would be no war and all children would be well cared for.  Since that is not the case, could the US at least let in all the kids fleeing war zones, plus someone to take care of them? I looked it up, and Unicef estimates about 28 million children are fleeing active conflict in the world:
https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/emergencies/child-refugees

In fiscal year 2016, the US officially took in only 84,995 refugees (both adult and child)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/

You may be right that they will never return. Although traditionally refugees are different than migrants in that they are forced to leave their homes rather than choosing to do so, looking at the Vietnamese, it seems like reverse migration has been rare even after peace.
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-vietnamese-americans-return-20150430-story.html
On the other hand, IOM says that about 1 million Iraqis out of 3.2 million displaced have returned home.
https://www.iom.int/news/million-iraqis-return-home-iom-displacement-tracking-matrix

How many immigrants could/should the US absorb, total?
I don't know, though the following article gives us a ballpark about how many immigrants would be needed for a growth economy: 18 million over the next 18 years (though I think ultimately growth economies are a pyramid scheme).
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/immigration-projected-to-drive-growth-in-u-s-working-age-population-through-at-least-2035/

If we stopped letting in family and economic migrants, we could take in a lot of refugees.  That won't happen.

How many should we take? Assuming the US has a population of 323.1 million out of 1.2 billion people total in the developed world,  our fair share of the care of the endangered refugee children would be 28 million * 0.269 = roughly 7,539,000 children. Ugh.  Fortunately for us, I believe most of them are still milling around their war-torn countries, and the rest are stuck in Turkey, Iran, Chad and such.
http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/videos/2017/2/58b3f4714/which-countries-host-the-most-refugeesquest.html

No, you're right. We can't (won't) take in all the children. But we could take in more.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 05:35:29 PM by Poundwise »

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #111 on: September 29, 2017, 05:28:27 PM »
Quote
Amnesty/etc - I feel for the DACA people who are here and productive.  If they are college educated or in the military, we can talk about them staying.
  I keep thinking about that poor guy from Korea who was adopted as a toddler (but too old to be eligible for DACA)... adopted, abused, then abandoned, bounced around from foster home to foster home, living a life of petty crime, reformed, applying for a green card, then deported to the country that didn't want him in the first place. Just one case but I'm soft-hearted and probably anybody could talk me round.

Quote
Long time in US illegally/Amnesty - The US does a terrible job of deporting and tracking those to be deported.  If we tell you to leave, it may take 10 years or more to get to the deportation stage.  I'm feeling a lot less generous about these situations but understand the humanitarian implications.
Yes, a significant percentage are detained (effectively, jailed) for over 6 months, and some have even been detained for 4+ years, with poor food, medical care, etc. I read that longer stays have been associated with legal nonresidents who never should have been detained, while their legal cases percolate through.  Some detainees have even have been forced to work for no pay (enslaved) in privately held detention centers.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2017/0301/Forced-to-work-60-000-undocumented-immigrants-may-sue-detention-center

One issue I have with deportation is that it is so black and white, plus it is expensive (over $10K/deportation according to http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2017/04/28/deportation-costs-illegal-immigration/99541736/). 

I think we might all be happier with a pay-to-stay option. It feels to me like illegal immigration is an economic wrong. Indeed it is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. I think it could be fixed with money.  I don't think amnesty should be free. Those who have benefited unfairly from jumping the line, can pay some percentage of their gains to smooth the way for people legally in line, and to compensate citizens for administrative expenses and drop in quality of life. Plus money is not so black and white as detention... you can adjust fees according to situation. Not a perfect solution but probably better than detention in many cases.

Quote
Employers/current policy - We need to crack down on employers hiring these people.  This is a nice start. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/asplundh-treee-undocumented-workers-montco.html 

Agree. Employers need to pay a living wage.  Not sure how this will play out for landscapers and restaurants... restaurants especially seem to function on very thin margins.  It personally does not affect me as we do our own landscaping and rarely eat out, but I would guess that a crackdown would seriously affect many. But perhaps it would work with programs to bring in workers from high unemployment areas from the US, and increased access to worker visas if not enough labor could be found.

Quote
In addition, if we consider amnesty, I think their extended family's should move to the bottom of the list for immigration.  They and their family's should not be rewarded for jumping the line any more than they already have.

Agree. 

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #112 on: September 29, 2017, 05:31:30 PM »
So my trial balloon for immigration reform clearly has a lot of problems.  But there is tremendous room for improvement in the current system.

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #113 on: November 28, 2017, 08:06:54 AM »
Wow, I really killed this discussion with my long boring posts on immigration, didn't I? Well, at least it got me to really do some research and form an opinion.  One strange side effect of the whole Trump thing is that I've been steadily moving left all year.  A lot of positions where I think I used to be more conservative, like guns and immigration, were due to my not having paid much attention. Also the GOP has left me on fiscal policy, which they used to be more responsible about.

On another subject, MonkeyJenga wrote:
Quote
Voting in my own election was surprisingly difficult. It took me over three hours of travel round-trip to get to the Board of Elections. New York has pretty terrible election laws. Any NY'ers interested in helping improve our electoral system, sign up with Easy Elections NY.

MJ, I'm all for Easy Elections except for the electronic pollbooks. In voting, as far as I'm concerned, the more paper, the better.  Being green is great and all, but we waste paper on so many unimportant things... let's save paper for an important thing like voting.  Electronic devices are too easy to hack. But I did read that the electronic pollbooks would only supplement the paper ones, in which case, maybe it's not so bad. I just think that they would be hard to secure, would require expensive upgrading frequently, and training the election workers (who trend elderly) would be difficult.

jordanread

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6634
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Live Long, Live Free, Drop Dead
    • Frugal FIRE Show
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #114 on: November 28, 2017, 09:18:01 AM »
Poundwise, you didn't kill the discussion, so don't worry about that. I am still in the midst of figuring out all of my thoughts, and yes, things have shifted in my thinking as well. It's just that so much is going on these days, it's hard to do a deep dive on one thing, when so many issues deserving of attention crop up weekly at least, daily usually.

Shit, I have barely been in the forums at all recently, and I freaking love it here. I will choose to set some time aside to get my thoughts down and coherent by tomorrow the a weekend.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 07:46:57 AM by jordanread »
Join the cycling challenge!
Get in shape in 2018!
Frugal FIRE - Episode 2

"Mustachians rarely sit back and let things happen to them. Mustachians go out and happen to things."

CM*TO

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 322
  • Age: 25
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #115 on: November 28, 2017, 09:39:30 AM »
Wow, I really killed this discussion with my long boring posts on immigration, didn't I? Well, at least it got me to really do some research and form an opinion.  One strange side effect of the whole Trump thing is that I've been steadily moving left all year.  A lot of positions where I think I used to be more conservative, like guns and immigration, were due to my not having paid much attention. Also the GOP has left me on fiscal policy, which they used to be more responsible about.

On another subject, MonkeyJenga wrote:
Quote
Voting in my own election was surprisingly difficult. It took me over three hours of travel round-trip to get to the Board of Elections. New York has pretty terrible election laws. Any NY'ers interested in helping improve our electoral system, sign up with Easy Elections NY.

MJ, I'm all for Easy Elections except for the electronic pollbooks. In voting, as far as I'm concerned, the more paper, the better.  Being green is great and all, but we waste paper on so many unimportant things... let's save paper for an important thing like voting.  Electronic devices are too easy to hack. But I did read that the electronic pollbooks would only supplement the paper ones, in which case, maybe it's not so bad. I just think that they would be hard to secure, would require expensive upgrading frequently, and training the election workers (who trend elderly) would be difficult.

A note on electric polling machines. I worked for Illinois elections for a while and the machines we used were a pain, but they had the benefit of printing everything out on paper as well as on the computer. A voter selected all the choices and then a printout shows what they voted for. They had to say yes or no for accuracy. At the end of the day, a worker (me :P) had to count the total number of ballots and compare to the electronic count to confirm it worked properly. It's not completely foolproof, but since the paper ballots are sent electronically to be counted anyway it's basically the same thing. It is slightly greener since the paper to print on was receipt-sized and thin instead of full legal sheets often used for punch voting.

When I moved states and voted I was very displeased to see that not everyone has that paper copy.
See my journal

jordanread

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6634
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Live Long, Live Free, Drop Dead
    • Frugal FIRE Show
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #116 on: December 13, 2017, 07:50:41 AM »
So my massive immigration post draft is on my other computer, but I realized that the entire point of this board (in my mind) is to challenge and be challenged, and investigate different views. So I'll probably post bits and pieces instead of waiting until it's all polished. After all, the point is to have it ripped apart, flaws exposed, etc. It doesn't need to be perfect for that. In the meantime though, I just posted something in my journal, related to the political atmosphere currently, and some fears I have. Here it is:

Well, looks like Alabama has a Democratic Senator. Cool. The margin for error on both sides is super slim now, which I think is good for bipartisan cooperation. If you can't depend on your party to back your bill, you might have to make a decent one to get it passed. That's an ideal. I also haven't seen any really good legislation that has come down, and since it seems I do more due diligence (you know, reading the proposed legislation), I almost wonder if rooting for some of these things to fail is similar to Mitch McConnell's stupid goal of blocking all legislation from Obama. I know that was more of a sound bite, but I think it was something he took seriously. These elected positions are too important, too powerful, and too influential globally to stick to party lines. There was stuff that GWB put forward that I liked, and stuff that Obama put forward I didn't. What the hell is the big deal with making an informed decision? This is an interesting time to be following politics. I just found out that a candidate for Governor of Colorado in the gubernatorial race did a reddit AMA, which is awesome. I like it when responses are something based on thought instead of a form letter (which is what I get from Gardner, Hickenlooper, Bennet) when I contacted them about legislation. And can I say how much I love term limits? I can? Awesome. I love term limits.

One additional thing that came out during the celebration of Jones' win was a tweet, that I think is a horrible stance.



Quote from: Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
I am grateful to the women who had the courage to come forward. Because of them and so many others like them, we are seeing meaningful change. I look forward to finding opportunities to work with Doug Jones in the Senate to support middle-class families. -SB

As I typed out the quote, I realized the comment was a touch more generic, but my initial gut reaction was
"Congrats Mr. Brown! With your timing of this tweet, and combining two issues, you just managed to politicize sexual misconduct."
I will admit that I haven't looked too much into the details of the #metoo movement, as I focus more on the national conversation more than specific movements. I will say that the movement, and the sudden shift away from stigma of the 'victim' is creating an environment that creates a space for people to come forward instead of remaining silent. While I'm pleased that Roy Moore lost, I have a bit of a fear that reporting inappropriate behavior will come to be looked at as a political move, and less of a simple report of inappropriate behavior allowing all involved to make the world a better place. I think things will be better if people realize that people on both sides of the aisle (not just elected) deal with this. By politicizing it, I feel like anytime a Republican gets assaulted or harassed, they have to weigh the political repercussions of reporting, and could very well choose to bury it for political reasons, allowing the people who engage in these kinds of behavior to keep doing it, whether out of maliciousness or ignorance.

What say you?
Join the cycling challenge!
Get in shape in 2018!
Frugal FIRE - Episode 2

"Mustachians rarely sit back and let things happen to them. Mustachians go out and happen to things."

CM*TO

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #117 on: December 13, 2017, 08:37:42 AM »
Hello jordanread,

On the subject of immigration, I originally liked proposals during the GWB administration to create a guest worker program. One of the biggest sticking points there, of course, was effects on citizen workers and unions.  However maybe with sector protections, enforced worker protections, and requirement that citizen or union employees be considered first for jobs, it could have improved things?
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/bush-proposes-new-temporary-worker-program

As for #Metoo.  Many rape and abuse victims have expressed fears that their more serious claims will lose impact and credibility. Although it seems good that the US have a "broken windows" environment where pinching and groping are seen as unacceptable, you are right about the politicizing.  I think the fair thing to do, going forward, is to limit the consequences to the individual, not the party.  For instance, if a legislator is accused of criminal acts, he should undergo investigation and if guilty, fired and disciplined according to law. However, there is no reason why his party should lose a seat, unless his actions were somehow a result of systemic misbehavior by the party. Does that make sense? If somebody in my place of employment commits a crime, there's no reason to punish the company unless it somehow encouraged or benefited by the criminal behavior.

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2498
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #118 on: December 13, 2017, 08:45:42 AM »
Hello jordanread,

On the subject of immigration, I originally liked proposals during the GWB administration to create a guest worker program. One of the biggest sticking points there, of course, was effects on citizen workers and unions.  However maybe with sector protections, enforced worker protections, and requirement that citizen or union employees be considered first for jobs, it could have improved things?
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/bush-proposes-new-temporary-worker-program

As for #Metoo.  Many rape and abuse victims have expressed fears that their more serious claims will lose impact and credibility. Although it seems good that the US have a "broken windows" environment where pinching and groping are seen as unacceptable, you are right about the politicizing.  I think the fair thing to do, going forward, is to limit the consequences to the individual, not the party.  For instance, if a legislator is accused of criminal acts, he should undergo investigation and if guilty, fired and disciplined according to law. However, there is no reason why his party should lose a seat, unless his actions were somehow a result of systemic misbehavior by the party. Does that make sense? If somebody in my place of employment commits a crime, there's no reason to punish the company unless it somehow encouraged or benefited by the criminal behavior.

Pawn Al Franken would not have been toppled by his party if he were not in a clearly liberal state. He will be replaced with another of his kind. The Dems took him out as a sacrifice to their long game's end, taking down the President.

I dont think it was right to hound Franken for his fairly unimportant transgressions. Bring them up, publicize them, but keep the Democratic politicians out of it. Like my Senator
Claire Bear, for instance, who was very vocal about Franken due to her highly qualified status in this. Her qualifications are, of course, she is female.

I would like to see the voters of Minnesota decide his fate in the Senate and not the Claire
 Bears of the world.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 08:50:14 AM by iris lily »

jordanread

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6634
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Live Long, Live Free, Drop Dead
    • Frugal FIRE Show
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #119 on: January 07, 2018, 08:27:09 AM »
So the Cole memo. What do you all think about the use (recreational and medicinally) of weed, the role of federal, state, and county governments? How about this decision from Sessions? What do you think about H.R. 1227 (Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017)? Support or not support? Why?
Join the cycling challenge!
Get in shape in 2018!
Frugal FIRE - Episode 2

"Mustachians rarely sit back and let things happen to them. Mustachians go out and happen to things."

CM*TO

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #120 on: January 08, 2018, 11:21:45 AM »
I think pot is a non-issue. My one concern is keeping people from smoking it and driving. I have no interest in using the stuff.

To me pot is the same as drinking. Smoke pot often? Lifestyle consequences. Drink often? Same side effects.

Some people will develop a dependence, some people will waste a pile of money on it, some people will manage it just fine.

I've never understood why some conservatives accept recreational alcohol but are on a lifetime Holy Crusade over pot. I have to wonder if there isn't a cultural war behind their beliefs. Can't let the dirty, hippies win anything. A carry over from the 60s and 70s.

Tons of lives wasted in jail over pot. Millions (billions?) of dollars spent on the war on drugs. Just get over it. Legalize it. Let's move on to more pressing matters.

Again prosecute the DUI drivers hard. Especially the ones that take other people's lives in the process.

jordanread

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6634
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Live Long, Live Free, Drop Dead
    • Frugal FIRE Show
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #121 on: January 08, 2018, 11:54:10 AM »
Do you mean its a non-issue for you personally, or are you saying from a political perspective all of this is B.S.? I'm leaning towards the former, just want to make sure.
Join the cycling challenge!
Get in shape in 2018!
Frugal FIRE - Episode 2

"Mustachians rarely sit back and let things happen to them. Mustachians go out and happen to things."

CM*TO

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #122 on: January 08, 2018, 02:53:17 PM »
Not really inclined to feel one way or another. I'd prefer it be decriminalized at the very least, but the enforcement regime is not rigorous enough against people I know to really feel strongly about it.

I'm concerned about the growing opioid epidemic than I am with whatever marijuana is getting used.

jordanread

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6634
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Live Long, Live Free, Drop Dead
    • Frugal FIRE Show
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #123 on: January 08, 2018, 03:43:55 PM »
Not really inclined to feel one way or another. I'd prefer it be decriminalized at the very least, but the enforcement regime is not rigorous enough against people I know to really feel strongly about it.

I'm concerned about the growing opioid epidemic than I am with whatever marijuana is getting used.

I've got stuff. But what you said struck a nerve (and not in a bad way). You said above that "the enforcement regime is not rigorous enough against people I know". I love that you phrased it in this honest way. I think you touched on something fundamental. If things affect people you know, people you deal with day to day, one takes action.
Is that a good thing? Is that avoidable?


I'm not going to post references, as I think it's a good thing when people do their own research.  Have you looked into weed as a potential treatment of opiod addiction?
Join the cycling challenge!
Get in shape in 2018!
Frugal FIRE - Episode 2

"Mustachians rarely sit back and let things happen to them. Mustachians go out and happen to things."

CM*TO

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #124 on: January 08, 2018, 03:53:10 PM »
The war on drugs is one of the biggest tragedies in modern American history, especially combined with the rise of the for-profit prison industry. I can think of few things more likely to drastically reduce gun deaths in the US than ending that senseless crusade.

GettingClose

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #125 on: January 10, 2018, 01:18:42 PM »
Quote
I can think of few things more likely to drastically reduce gun deaths in the US than ending that senseless crusade.

How would that work? 

soccerluvof4

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3172
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #126 on: January 10, 2018, 01:31:36 PM »
I think pot is a non-issue. My one concern is keeping people from smoking it and driving. I have no interest in using the stuff.

To me pot is the same as drinking. Smoke pot often? Lifestyle consequences. Drink often? Same side effects.

Some people will develop a dependence, some people will waste a pile of money on it, some people will manage it just fine.

I've never understood why some conservatives accept recreational alcohol but are on a lifetime Holy Crusade over pot. I have to wonder if there isn't a cultural war behind their beliefs. Can't let the dirty, hippies win anything. A carry over from the 60s and 70s.

Tons of lives wasted in jail over pot. Millions (billions?) of dollars spent on the war on drugs. Just get over it. Legalize it. Let's move on to more pressing matters.

Again prosecute the DUI drivers hard. Especially the ones that take other people's lives in the process.


As probably one of the few conservatives on here I couldn't agree with you more! We are weak on DUI's rules should apply the same for pot! And it does seem hypocritical one is legal and the other not.

Opioids is what we need to get busy on and in a hard way! And all those involved from Doctors, trainers to Dealers. Having kids in sports the shit scares the hell out of me. We talk about this subject often but you never know and I know several people whos kids have gotten messed up on this.
" In life you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate"

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #127 on: January 10, 2018, 02:22:06 PM »
Quote
I can think of few things more likely to drastically reduce gun deaths in the US than ending that senseless crusade.

How would that work?

Many ways. A significant number of gun homicides are gang/drug related (certainly way more people die from drug related gun crime than mass shootings). Many people in prison are there for victimless crimes related to drugs, which both increases their own likelihood of recidivism, if not escalation after they get out, and the number of children being raised in single/no parent households, which in turn creates many issues, that can be linked to gang participation, additional drug related crime, violence, etc. For profit prisons lobby for harsh drug laws because that gets them more inmates. The entire thing is disgusting and a stain on American history.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 01:47:10 PM by Lagom »

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #128 on: January 11, 2018, 09:01:41 AM »
Excellent post Lagom. I agree completely. Yes the opioid problem is a far bigger problem. Also heroin.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #129 on: January 11, 2018, 10:03:44 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-halts-evidence-based-205758273.html

Trump administration halts ‘evidence-based’ program that evaluates behavioral health therapies

Oh, this should help with the opioid crisis.  ::rolls eyes::
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX