Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:05 PM Oct 2015

Can we have an actual POLICY discussion?

Look, let's be honest here everybody.
The vitriol here in DU has gotten very bad between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. Awful.
I'm guilty of it, Hillary supporters are guilty of it, Bernie supporters are guilty of it.
We're ALL guilty of it.

I'd like to have an actual discussion on policy between Hillary and Bernie.
I'd also like to put the fingerpointing, snide comments, snarkyness and sarcasm aside and have this thread be a place where we can actually act like adults. (If that happens remains to be seen)

So, I'll start this off, ok?

Alright Hillary supporters. An honest question.

How do you feel about Hillary's stance when it comes to immigration? Her call to deport children migrants was incredibly bothersome to me personally. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-child-migrants_55d4a5c5e4b055a6dab24c2f What is your opinion as a Hillary supporter about this?

Personally, my POV is that the system is indeed broken on multiple fronts. I personally believe we need a system which addresses many things and not just one aspect. Having married a German (later divorcing one) I have seen how the system works on a much to intimate level. There is a massive amount of red tape and that is part of the problem. I think we should take both RW aspects and LW aspects and come up with a plan which addresses many things. (I know, I'll probably get hell for mentioning RW ideas with that but there is a reason why)

I don't believe in an open door policy & yes, security is a concern for that considering that there's a war going on across the border from Brownsville, Texas in Metamoros. Most of this stuff is never covered on national news and it flies completely under the radar. Yes, Cartels have infiltrated the police departments in the Rio Grande Valley (why this isn't national news, beats me) but it is happening. In fact, Rolling Stone did an excellent article on this http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/americas-dirtiest-cops-cash-cocaine-texas-hidalgo-county-20150105 and it's very opening.

I personally think those who are here should be able to stay here but I also think border security has to be a concern. I also think that we should do things where people can leave the country and come back (my x wife wasn't allowed to leave for 36 months once we filed and with elderly parents, that wasn't a reality) It took literally 20 minutes for me to gain my residency visa in Germany and I could travel anywhere throughout Europe. 20 minutes. They ran me through Interpol, took my photo and fingerprinted me.

I'd love to see an "actual" discussion and not a rage fest.
Who's game?

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can we have an actual POLICY discussion? (Original Post) pinebox Oct 2015 OP
This Hillary supporter is not interested leftofcool Oct 2015 #1
Well because pinebox Oct 2015 #4
I tried and ohheckyeah Oct 2015 #29
Well not crickets pinebox Oct 2015 #32
No showering ohheckyeah Oct 2015 #35
There are undecided voters left you could convince. nt BlueCheese Oct 2015 #45
The Zeal To Elect A Female President Has Overshadowed The Good Judgement Of Many cantbeserious Oct 2015 #2
This is your mantra for the day? treestar Oct 2015 #6
Ridicule - The First Sign Of Nothing Better To Say cantbeserious Oct 2015 #16
Repeating the same thing over is another form of little to say treestar Oct 2015 #26
Ad Hominen Attacks - First Sign Of Nothing To Say cantbeserious Oct 2015 #28
If you intended that, why not make your question about a policy treestar Oct 2015 #3
Ok I'll edit it then pinebox Oct 2015 #5
I appreciate your sentiment mcar Oct 2015 #7
I updated it pinebox Oct 2015 #12
A very close family member supports Clinton ardently. truedelphi Oct 2015 #8
One word for your family member about the "Hillary"......... Armstead Oct 2015 #10
SLAP TO FOREHEAD! How did I overlook truedelphi Oct 2015 #13
Depends on the intent. procon Oct 2015 #37
Ok, thanks and interesting pinebox Oct 2015 #14
I support Bernie - truedelphi Oct 2015 #20
ahhh ok pinebox Oct 2015 #23
I am a little older than Hillary. You mention that she was jwirr Oct 2015 #41
The question you're asking isn't about policy. DanTex Oct 2015 #9
Actually it is, go read it again :) I updated it. pinebox Oct 2015 #15
OK. On that particular issue, as I read about it now, I disagree with her. DanTex Oct 2015 #18
Ok fair enough Dan pinebox Oct 2015 #22
Fair enough. DanTex Oct 2015 #25
Ok pinebox Oct 2015 #27
It's probably going to be Hillary vs Jeb, maybe Rubio. DanTex Oct 2015 #31
Yes and no pinebox Oct 2015 #43
Well, I guess we see it differently. DanTex Oct 2015 #47
A person can only be okay with where the Clintons and Obama stand truedelphi Oct 2015 #17
I find that the opposite is true. DanTex Oct 2015 #19
taxes on the middle class were much higher under the last clinton presidency questionseverything Oct 2015 #34
Of course, nine million households did not get foreclosed under Bill Clinton's truedelphi Oct 2015 #40
no we didn't have the huge numbers of foreclosures in clintons term questionseverything Oct 2015 #42
Are we talking Historically ? War, Trade,Same sex marriage, Tax burden, She is adroit orpupilofnature57 Oct 2015 #11
To answer your question Chitown Kev Oct 2015 #21
I'm very much ohheckyeah Oct 2015 #24
Interesting pinebox Oct 2015 #33
My husband and ohheckyeah Oct 2015 #39
Thanks! pinebox Oct 2015 #44
You're welcome.. ohheckyeah Oct 2015 #46
Immigration HassleCat Oct 2015 #30
The argument is between the greedy right and the 99% ... Trajan Oct 2015 #36
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ N/T truedelphi Oct 2015 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author olddots Oct 2015 #38

leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
1. This Hillary supporter is not interested
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:09 PM
Oct 2015

I am still voting for her. You are voting for Bernie, so why the need for more discussion?

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
4. Well because
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:12 PM
Oct 2015

I'd like to have a talk on policy is why. Put the whole fingerpointing aside and act like adults for once.

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
29. I tried and
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:35 PM
Oct 2015

actually answered your specific question without bashing anyone - crickets. So did you really want to discuss immigration?

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
32. Well not crickets
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:55 PM
Oct 2015

I'm right here The shower though needed to have a discussion lol

Let me respond down below to you.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
3. If you intended that, why not make your question about a policy
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:11 PM
Oct 2015

rather than accusations against Hillary for the same old stuff?

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
8. A very close family member supports Clinton ardently.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:16 PM
Oct 2015

This person is in her late thirties. She feels that at the time that Hillary came of age, things were tough on women.

She feels that Hillary Clinton was a trail blazer.

She supports Hillary Clinton in part because she thinks it is unfair that people have referred to Hillary as Hillary. ("They wouldn't refer to a man by his first name - that shows the prejudice she has faced.&quot Of course, with Trump in the race,not sure that is a valid point any mroe, as Trump as been called "TheDonald" by the media for close to a decade.

This person also is in the banking business. One of her earlier goals in life was to serve on the Federal Reserve.

This relative has a total blind eye to most of the evilness inherent in the banking system, but then it has been her bread and butter since the moment she left the university system. She does understand and detest racial polices that the Big Banks employed, like red lining, but she doesn't disapprove of the way that the Economic Collapse was handled by Geithner and Bernanke. After all, those two are "smart men" and knew what they were doing. She is also unaware of the fact that whenever a dollar in profit is made inside the USA, 49 cents of that profit goes to someone inside Big Banking or Big Financial Services. Even back in Reagan's two terms, that figure was only 8 to 9 cents out of every dollar. Like many people who remained employed during the most recent "recession" she thinks it was only a recession!

####

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
13. SLAP TO FOREHEAD! How did I overlook
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:28 PM
Oct 2015

That the guy I am supporting is referred to by first name as well!

Thanks for yr quick response.

procon

(15,805 posts)
37. Depends on the intent.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:12 PM
Oct 2015

In the workplace, men can often be heard to address women by their given names and men by their surnames. Men are also more like to get the respectful 'Mr.' title added, whereas such courtesy is often omitted for women. Watch the news and note how men are addressed vs a woman.

Using a given name can be a term of fond endearment, but it can also be used as a putdown to belittle and disrespect someone.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
14. Ok, thanks and interesting
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:29 PM
Oct 2015

Hmm how to phrase this....

I am guessing that her ties with donors then (big banks and such) doesn't bother you and you see that as perhaps a plus?

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
20. I support Bernie -
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:52 PM
Oct 2015

My entire discussion was relating to how a relative who is an ardent Clinton supporter feels, and it is she who is employed by banks and never thinks about such things such as lobbyists and donors. (Or if she does, she would dismiss any of my concerns as "Well, this is just how business is done inside the USA."

I thought my post might shed light on the thinking of such supporters.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
41. I am a little older than Hillary. You mention that she was
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 06:51 PM
Oct 2015

such a trail blazer. I took part in the women's movement in the 60-70s and I do not remember her being our leader. Can anyone tell me about this trail blazing - how was it different than what any of the rest of us did?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
9. The question you're asking isn't about policy.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:17 PM
Oct 2015

If you want to see where she stands on policy, check her website. Her platform is strong.

What you are asking is, why do people supporter her despite the fact that she has changed her mind on a few issues.

And the answer, for me, is that I don't care very much about catching people in "flip-flops", I care about the future of the country. Overall, she's about the same as Obama on the political spectrum, maybe slightly to his left domestically and slightly to the right in foreign policy. And that's fine with me. The important thing is keeping the WH in Dem control, and I think she's the most likely candidate to accomplish that, by quite a bit. The difference between the Dems and the GOP is a hundred times larger than the difference between Bernie and Hillary.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
18. OK. On that particular issue, as I read about it now, I disagree with her.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:44 PM
Oct 2015

On the immigration issue overall, she favors a path to citizenship for currently undocumented immigrants, and is generally pro-immigration. I don't know her rationale for this particular decision, and I'm sure there are other decisions she's made that I disagree with. And that goes for everyone else, too. Big picture, I agree with her general political worldview, I agree with her on most issues, and whatever shortcomings she has, they are trivial compared to what would happen if the GOP won the White House.

If I can ask a counter-question, it would be this. I can completely understand people preferring Bernie to Hillary on policy. I can somewhat understand people who think that Bernie is more electable than Hillary, though I disagree, and I think some of that is wishful thinking. What I can't understand is people who will not vote for Hillary (or Biden or O'Malley) in the general if Bernie doesn't win the primary. This seems completely illogical to me. What are your thoughts about that?

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
22. Ok fair enough Dan
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:01 PM
Oct 2015

Funny, I just answered part of your question here about her about being electable vs Bernie in a general http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=694516 and that explains why I don't see her electable in a general.

As far as the second part goes.....

I'm an indy voter myself. I'm not a Dem and I tend to lean far left than the Dem establishment on many issues. Personally speaking, I don't trust her myself. I feel that many of her policy's are hawkish in nature and many of her ideas simply don't go far enough. One such policy is her plan for college. It would still make it where kids have work a minimum of 10 hours a week in order to qualify. To me, this harkens back to the company store train of thought. It also makes zero sense to me because my son lives in Germany and is going to college there (he has dual citizenship) and it costs him absolutely nothing. Nada. Ziltch.

If they can do it, we can do it and many people are waking up to this now with the age of the internet and realizing that America isn't all it's cracked up to be and they're pretty upset that they've been lied to all these years when they find out that their friends in other parts of the world aren't owing their asses to student loan debt.

This is one reason why.

For me, personally, she doesn't represent me and in many areas, she is actually more conservative to me than say Rand Paul. To me, they are about the same as far as my personal score card goes, just different issues. I know I'll catch shit for that but I'll explain.

Drones, NSA spying, patriot act, wars, military spending.....these are things which Bernie supporters like myself are worried about and things which Bernie would work across the aisle for. If you take those issues and give a pro-Hillary stance on things Rand Paul doesn't support but Hillary does, you end up with a "net zero". One cancels out the other. That's why I see them as both a no go for me.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
25. Fair enough.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:14 PM
Oct 2015

The electability question isn't about policy, it's just about assessment of political reality. So we have different views about what is plausible and what is likely. It happens.

Regarding the second part, are you saying that you would sit out the general if Hillary gets the nomination? If so, I don't get it. At all.

First of all, it doesn't matter whether you are a registered Dem or not. If you have a remotely progressive worldview, the gulf between any of the leading Dems and any of the leading Reps is enormous.

Second, Rand Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee. Whoever it is is going to be significantly worse on issues like the NSA, wars, patriot act, etc. than Hillary.

And even if it is Rand Paul, sure, he doesn't like the NSA, but besides that, the guy is a total lunatic. He wants to drastically cut taxes for rich people and also destroy the social safety net. He's a climate denier. He wants to get rid of the Civil Rights act. And so on.

Next November, there's going to be a choice between a Dem, probably Hillary, and a Rep, who will be a crazy right-winger whoever it is. Whatever difference there are between Hillary and Bernie are nothing compared to the choice we have at that point.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
27. Ok
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:26 PM
Oct 2015

Ok, I don't think I'd sit out but I'd vote for who best represents my self interests. That means voting for the Justice Party candidate or the Green Party candidate. (most aren't aware of the Justice Party) Will they win? Of course not but I know that I'm voting for someone who best represents me personally. I'm ok with that really.

I know Rand Paul won't be the nominee. However I do know he'll still be a senator. Whomever is elected as the Dem nom will need to work with Republicans and I simply don't see Hillary being able to do that because they hate her with a heck of a lot of passion. In that
sense, Bernie would be the guy to get stuff through. In fact, just a few days ago, Trump actually said he agrees with Bernie on the trade issue. Republicans will never agree with Hillary on anything and they don't.

I'm aware Rand Paul is a freak but what I'm saying is that there ARE common issues we can work on.

Honestly, I don't see a lot of differences between Jeb and Hillary. To me, a liberal republican and a conservative dem are basically the same who just sit on other sides of the aisle. The problem? There's not a whole lot of Bob Dole era Republicans left these days.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
31. It's probably going to be Hillary vs Jeb, maybe Rubio.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:54 PM
Oct 2015

If you look at what either Jeb or Rubio are advocating, it's the usual right-wing stuff: huge tax cuts for the rich, cutting the safety net, climate denial, etc. There's a world of difference between that and what Hillary stands for.

I don't see much difference between voting third party and not voting. It accomplishes nothing. The country is going to go one of two ways, period. My first election was 2000, and the same "no difference" rhetoric was going around. I would have thought that W's presidency would have ended that once and for all. If it were up to me, we would have instant runoff voting, or even a parliamentary party-slate system, so you could vote for a third party without throwing away your vote. But we don't have that, and with the system we have in place, a third party presidential vote is the same as a no-vote.

This also ties into an observation I made earlier, which is that, as polls show, Bernie supporters are actually wealthier on average than Hillary supporters. Why? One reason is that people who actually stand to suffer from a GOP presidency, for example by having their social security cut, or unemployment, or whatever, can't afford to chase ideological crusades and ignore reality.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
43. Yes and no
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:15 PM
Oct 2015

Yes Jeb and Rubio certainly do that, without question but the way that I see them, they also have very similar ties with donors as far as Wall Street goes, both are against gay marriage just as Hillary was up until a year ago and they're both against legalizing pot, Hillary says we need more "research" before we legalize it. In terms of anything that isn't a social issue, they're all very similar, especially as far as foreign policy is concerned. All are very staunch supporters of Israel and their hawkish stances to me are the same.

Voting third party to me, when there isn't a candidate who represents me, allows me to express my frustration with the system and how both parties in many ways are both corporately owned. This is one of the very big differences between many Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters; we're sick and tired of the 2 parties and both have sold us out. An example would be the 89 Dems in congress who voted to cut SNAP http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/29/1273428/-These-89-Democrats-Voted-to-Cut-8-7-Billion-from-Food-Stamps
There's more examples than just that too. Another is well, honestly, I simply don't trust Hillary because on every single issue I find important, she has changed her mind. Each and every single one. That to me says she has no integrity at all. I want someone who is completely concrete in their stances and I know what I'm getting.

As far as who's wealthier, I'm not concerned about that. One can be wealthier but their polices are very much on touch with those who aren't. Case in point; Hillary's college tuition ideas to end student loans vs Bernies. Also she is anti-single payer and supports Obamacare fully. Single payer would be a far better choice that saves people a lot more money. Not to mention from the way it sounds, Hillary has social security on the table.

What I really wish would happen is that we'd have one candidate come right out and say that all student loan debt that is 10+ years old is forgiven. They bailed out the banks and now it's time the American people were.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
47. Well, I guess we see it differently.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 01:35 PM
Oct 2015

I see a huge gulf between Hillary and Jeb/Rubio. On practically every issue. Maybe pot is a counterexample, I haven't looked into that much, but its not high on my list. Across the board, though, the difference between Hillary and either of those others, both economically and socially, is immense. Not to mention SCOTUS. Even if Hillary moves to the center from her current platform, she would still be enormously better than Jeb.

I've seen two presidencies as an adult. Bush and Obama. The differences were huge. And would have been even bigger if not for congress hitting the brakes, in both cases. I don't see Jeb as very different from W, and I don't see Hillary as very different from Obama, which tells me that again the difference between Hillary and Jeb will be huge.

About the wealth, I agree but you missed part of my point. Yes, people can be wealthy and still have progressive values, and vice versa. This is one of the reasons why the whole "rich Wall Street donors" thing is so overblown. Not only does only a small fraction of Hillary's campaign money (3.4% last I checked) come from bankers, but also, not all finance people are the same. There are liberals like Soros and Steyer, who contribute to Dems, and then there are right-wingers like Steve Schwarzman who contribute to the GOP. Like you said, what matters is policy, not wealth.

My point about Bernie supporters being wealthier on average than Hillary's was not that this fact makes him more conservative than her. He's further left than Hillary on most issues, this is clear. My point was that being wealthier means that a person is more able to survive a GOP presidency. Like you said, voting third party is basically about making a statement, expressing your frustration. Problem is, elections aren't blog posts, they have real consequences. People who stand to suffer in material ways from a GOP presidency care less about making a statement and more about what actual policies come out of the government. This is why the well-to-do are more likely to risk a GOP presidency for the sake of an ideological crusade or to make a statement.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
17. A person can only be okay with where the Clintons and Obama stand
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:43 PM
Oct 2015

With regards to the economic policies if they are uninformed about economic matters.

These economic matters are condemning the middle class to a failing life style.

A job is not obtainable without college. And college costs a fortune. (But in other nations, that college education is free. Why is that?) With that education being paid for through a significant loan program, young people often cannot get a job because their credit rating is in the toilet due to that educational loan! And older people, who co-signed on those loans, might find themselves facing a lifetime of answering credit collection calls from Sallie Mae.

Taxes are way too much a burden on middle incomed people. And not a burden at all on major corporations. (For instance, Verizon paid nary a cent in taxes these past few years.)

Health care remains a mess, as mandating health insurance premium payments is not the same as having sensible health policies. We remain paying 250% more than citizens of other nations, for less care, (and treatments we often have to fight the insurers for!) and our care is less effective when we get it. Medical bankruptcies are proceeding at just about the same rate as before the ACA was instituted.

I find that usually people thinking the policies adopted by Bill Clinton and by Barack Obama are adequate (or even exemplary) manage to feel that way only because over the last three decades, they personally have had an okay time of it.

They remain unaware that due to the handling of the economic situation, specifically with regards to Glass Steagal being destroyed by the Bank Modernization Act, we as a nation are perpetually set up for economic collapse after economic collapse.

In our nation, each time one dollar of profit is generated, 49 cents of that dollar goes off to the Biggest Banks and Biggest Financial Investors. Back in Reagan's time, that figure was eight to nine cents.

I find that when friends who think I am some sort of racist anti-Obama nut job,** well, when they hit rock bottom, due to loss of their job, or a foreclosure, or medical bankruptcy, they suddenly have the time to spend on the internet and find out that what is being said by the more progressives is the truth, and the Big Bankster-loving politicians need to go.

It will happen either through a free election, or through pitchforks!

**If Harry Bellafonte - a true activist in every sense of the word - had won the WH back in 2008, I would have been insanely happy these past years.




DanTex

(20,709 posts)
19. I find that the opposite is true.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:48 PM
Oct 2015

People who blame Obama for all the problems we face don't understand that congress is controlled by the GOP. They also don't understand the mess that Bush left us in.

Take one issue you brought up: healthcare. People who can't see that Obamacare was a huge improvement over what was there before are simply blind. And people who think that Obama could have gotten more out of congress are also blind.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
34. taxes on the middle class were much higher under the last clinton presidency
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:58 PM
Oct 2015

one of the best things obama did was getting taxes raised on the higher earners while keeping the bush tax cuts for lower incomes

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
40. Of course, nine million households did not get foreclosed under Bill Clinton's
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 05:02 PM
Oct 2015

Administration, while that did happen under Obama. While he gave the economy away to the Big Bankers and Financial People.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
42. no we didn't have the huge numbers of foreclosures in clintons term
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:16 PM
Oct 2015

but that is where the downhill slide began or at least was exasperated

nafta was horrid policy and even china entering the wto was set up by clinton,although it was finalized during bushs term

when bad policy is put in place sometimes it takes a decade to show

bernie or bust

 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
11. Are we talking Historically ? War, Trade,Same sex marriage, Tax burden, She is adroit
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:23 PM
Oct 2015

at having the exact views, the proof is the fact Republicans are the only ones she indicts, and they are one of many reasons Bernie lists as enemies to our health and well-being . Factual data shows the difference in their policies , and how they Vote as opposed to the platitudes they spew, Campaign reform one chimes in with the rest , the other shows how to actually do it .

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
24. I'm very much
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:13 PM
Oct 2015

against her stand on the issue of deporting minors. I lived 7 miles from the Arizona/Mexico border and I found Mexicans as a whole to be delightful people. The minors from South and Central America are desperate for a better life.

I'm very conflicted about immigration and border security. About the time we left Arizona things were getting really bad. The normal immigrants weren't a real problem but the cartels and Mexican Federales were. It wasn't unusual for the Federales to be seen in the Arizona desert.

I don't know what the answer is but I know what it isn't. The idea of a wall across the southwest terrain is ridiculous. It can't be done. How do you wall off all of the washes that carry the water out of the high desert and mountains? One big cloudburst and the wall is washed out or if it does hold up to all the debris including the boulders that get washed down you have flooding.

So, to answer your question, I don't like her stance on this issue one bit. I disagree with many Americans about the issue.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
33. Interesting
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:58 PM
Oct 2015

I had not heard that about the AZ border with Federales and the environment down there. I can't really speak much about AZ as I only really know about the Texas border. It's a very tricky issue to say the least. Where there is a will though there is a way. We have some incredible technology and some incredible engineers and if we could all put our collective noggins together, we could do something. The problem is that this is such a polarizing issue.

That blows my mind about Federales.

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
39. My husband and
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:21 PM
Oct 2015

his best friend would take their dogs out to remote desert areas for the dogs to run and they often saw the Federales out there. Fortunately, the Federales were leery of big dogs which I find fascinating. They had big, shiny guns but were afraid of a Rottweiler and a pit bull.

Seriously, a wall isn't going to work. I've seen the washes after a cloudburst and it can be a raging torrent of water and boulders. Something else has to be done. Cameras would probably work best if they are protected properly. My husband and I just shake our heads when we hear about a wall. I suggest any politician that supports that should hike the desert like we did.

I'm not saying nothing can be done. More patrol officers isn't the answer. They end up sleeping in their patrol vehicles parked in the desert. That's a common sight, too. And making Americans go through checkpoints 25 miles north of the border just pisses Americans off. I got sick of that crap going to work every day. I don't know how many people they thought I was hiding in my little convertible. Most people don't know you have to exit the interstate and stop at a checkpoint in the U.S. Same thing they used to do in the Florida keys.

So maybe sophisticated cameras or drones, as much as I hate the idea of drones.

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
46. You're welcome..
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:31 PM
Oct 2015

It is a mess. As much as I love and miss the topography of Arizona, I'm glad to be back in the mountains of Virginia.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
30. Immigration
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:39 PM
Oct 2015

I have family members from a variety of countries. Without exception, they want to severely limit immigration in the future, closing the door behind them. They are somewhat sympathetic to letting in more people from their home countries, people like themselves, but they're particular about making sure they're the "right kind of people," meaning educated, not criminals, etc. My Japanese relatives think it would be OK to admit more Japanese, but not Mexicans. My Mexican relatives don't exactly share that view. So I have a collection of relatives, all of whom came here from other countries, not wanting to admit any more foreigners, except for a few people like themselves. This does not appear to be much different than how many sixth and seventh generation European-Americans feel about immigration.

This is exactly the wrong way to think about immigration, but it's the way most of us look at it. We tend to distrust people not like ourselves, people the wrong religion, the wrong nationality, the wrong color. People similar to ourselves are OK. What we need to do is look at what we need as a nation, not as individuals projecting our fears and sympathies onto the problem. If we need to end birthright citizenship, we need to end it. Or not. It depends on what we need, not on how we feel about it.

Yes, we need enforcement. Maybe we don't need a wall on the Mexican border (or the Canadian border) but we need a quick, efficient way to kick people out who don't belong here, and give them incentive to stay out. I personally know two individuals who are scamming the "political persecution" thing, and they will be here for years while their cases are being decided. Since they are being coached by religious organizations, they will probably be granted permanent resident status. They're both very nice people, but neither is educated or skilled, so they depend on the kindness of others. They're here under false pretenses. The same system that will likely admit them will turn right around and expel someone who really does suffer religious persecution. It makes no sense.

Anyway, you are correct. Immigration is one of those issues that never gets dispassionate consideration. People are too wrapped up in ideas about Real Americans, patriotism, religious affiliation, racial identification, and much, much more.

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
36. The argument is between the greedy right and the 99% ...
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:08 PM
Oct 2015

We already know where Bernie and Hillary stand on that divide ... Bernie is the ONLY real choice for people in the 99% ....

As far as I am concerned, Hillary stands with the Greedy Right ... She will NOT get my primary vote, and THAT is a sure thing ....

Response to pinebox (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Can we have an actual POL...