Democrats SHOULD build the wall - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14976158
Should Democrats build the wall? Well, not really. Just giving up on creating the pull factors would be quite sufficient. Or if they want to go one better, Democrats could find a nice high cliff and throw themselves off it. I mean, they want to do the best thing for they country, right? I don’t think Democrats need to build walls.
#14976163
You should totally listen to the video Because you basically bring nothing to the argument against it. Not to mention I'm very liberal I don't know where you are politically but I think it's an interesting perspective on a liberal is agreeing with Trump. Watch the Video...

[youtube]RfAyx26ilyQ[/youtube]

Watch the Video... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
#14976164
Even if successfully built......maybe it'd produce a 1% dent in illegal immigration from the border with Mexico. Easier to simply deport those already in the USA right now, and would only take a few months.

We can begin with the illegal immigrants Trump employs, including his illegal immigrant wife!
#14976166
KentJones wrote:You should totally listen to the video Because you basically bring nothing to the argument against it. Not to mention I'm very liberal I don't know where you are politically but I think it's an interesting perspective on a liberal is agreeing with Trump. Watch the Video...

[youtube]RfAyx26ilyQ[/youtube]

Watch the Video... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:



I don’t care about the video. I don’t care about the argument. I just want Democrats to jump of a cliff.

Now, if it were that you feel I should reconsider my position, then Democrats would have to do a number of things:

1/ accept criticism

2/ face up to the fact they are supporting the war machine

3/ be honest and admit they support corporate interests exclusively

4/ confess to political correctness being a system of belief aimed at dominance

5/ acknowledge they have been undermining the rule of law

6/ atone for their sins by jumping off a cliff



That’s all I am asking.
#14979925
The only thing that matters to the Democrat Party is winning elections, and for every 10 that cross the border, 7 vote for the Dems, and that is ALL that MATTERS to the Democrats.

They will never support the wall.

Even if it costs LESS than the four BRIBES Obama used to pass Obama Care....
#14980040
redcarpet wrote:Even if successfully built......maybe it'd produce a 1% dent in illegal immigration from the border with Mexico. Easier to simply deport those already in the USA right now, and would only take a few months.

We have been deporting criminal illegal immigrants for years and they just come back in because they know where there is no wall and where it is easy to get in. Many have been deported five or six times. One of these illegals, who was let out of jail in a sanctuary city in California, was in the news a couple years ago for shooting and killing a young woman walking with her father, and the jury decided the killing was an accidental shooting, even though the gun he had was stolen. He claimed he found it under a bench.
#14980044
Now, if it were that you feel I should reconsider my position, then Democrats would have to do a number of things:


If I were a democrat, I would not give one rats ass what your opinion is not to mention try to change it.



1/ accept criticism


From who? The minority of Americans who want the wall? Why would a political party do that. Trump is ignoring the majority of Americans. It seems the democrats are right where they should be. In case you forgot, they won the popular vote in 2016 by a sizeable majority.

2/ face up to the fact they are supporting the war machine


You don't even know what this means. Nonsensical.

3/ be honest and admit they support corporate interests exclusively


You mean like Trump doesn't. :lol: How far did you get in school?

4/ confess to political correctness being a system of belief aimed at dominance


Of whom? People who want to call black people and gay people names? These people need dominance. They deserve an ass whipping.

5/ acknowledge they have been undermining the rule of law


By what? Democracy? It is a pain when people pull shit like the constitution on you isn't it. :roll:

6/ atone for their sins by jumping off a cliff


Troll. Pipe down now or I will tell your mother you are on the computer after your bed time.
#14980055
Drlee wrote:The minority of Americans who want the wall? Why would a political party do that. Trump is ignoring the majority of Americans. It seems the democrats are right where they should be. In case you forgot, they won the popular vote in 2016 by a sizeable majority.

The United States Presidency is won by the majority of the electoral college which is fair to all states, large or small. Besides, the majority of the people are not always right. The President's main job is to defend the United States of America, meaning our citizens, not illegal immigrants.
#14980122
The United States Presidency is won by the majority of the electoral college which is fair to all states, large or small. Besides, the majority of the people are not always right. The President's main job is to defend the United States of America, meaning our citizens, not illegal immigrants.


The electoral college is a leftover of slavery. Nothing more. It is not fair to all voters. It is decidedly unfair to you for example. Your vote is about 1/10th the value of a vote from someone living in liberal Road Island.

The president should protect the citizens. That is why he should be working on amnesty and workplace enforcement rather than making up trouble on the border. I live practically on the border. We do not have a crime problem here. In fact, crime in immigrant communities is much less than among citizens.

You are incapable of considering the facts. Sad.
#14980128
Drlee wrote:The electoral college is a leftover of slavery. Nothing more.


Where do you get these weird ideas? The electoral college was created out of fear of ‘tyranny of the majority’. It had nothing to do with slavery.
#14980139
Anybody but a person ignorant in American History would know this:

So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.



:roll:
#14980143
Fact is, without the electoral college, rural representation would be crushed in a way not seen since the 17th Amendment.

You would never have a Trump again, which is the point of course.

Essentially, at this point, there is a desire to guarantee a democratization of American politics; one of majoritarian tyranny.

This is a scary prospect for someone living in the applachian region of the United States, as city folks have no fucking idea how we live and what we need out here.
#14980159
Fact is, without the electoral college, rural representation would be crushed in a way not seen since the 17th Amendment.

You would never have a Trump again, which is the point of course.

Essentially, at this point, there is a desire to guarantee a democratization of American politics; one of majoritarian tyranny.

This is a scary prospect for someone living in the applachian region of the United States, as city folks have no fucking idea how we live and what we need out here.


Nonsense. You would still be over represented in the Senate. The Electoral College is an idea that needs to go away and we need to move to one-person-one-vote.
#14980164
Drlee wrote:Nonsense. You would still be over represented in the Senate.


Did the 17th Amendment increase the power of urban majorities over Congress, Yes or No?

Drlee wrote:The Electoral College is an idea that needs to go away and we need to move to one-person-one-vote.


Without the electoral college would the rural peoples of the USA ever be able to elect a president contra the urban population (like Trump), Yes or No?
#14980167
Drlee wrote:Anybody but a person ignorant in American History would know this:




:roll:


I see you did not include a source. You are taking one part of an overall decision making process and saying ‘this was all that mattered’. The entire makeup of our government is based upon fear of ‘tyranny of the majority’. So is the electoral college. The counting of slaves was an issue with or without the electoral college. It was a separate issue.
#14980191
Did the 17th Amendment increase the power of urban majorities over Congress, Yes or No?


No.



Without the electoral college would the rural peoples of the USA ever be able to elect a president contra the urban population (like Trump), Yes or No?


Of course they could. Why Trump though? Are you somehow making the case that rural people should appoint the president based solely on their whim? The president represents all people. He/she should be elected by each person equally.

Bad question. Back at you. Why should the rural voter's vote count more than an urban vote? The only fair way to do it is one-person-one-vote.

But the problem is not urban versus rural. The hackneyed argument that city people can't understand farmers (for example) is ridiculous. The have been supporting farm bills for decades. All people have the right to make their case before the voters. They can do that. Besides. Their local interests should be handled by the state. Not the federal government.

What is happening is that one political party (republican) has decided to exploit rural people and drive a frequently racist wedge between rural voters and urban voters. What are the issues? They are most certainly not the issues of farmers or widely spaced hospitals. The issues revolve around racialism, religion, sexual orientation and other social distinctions.

So. If rural people wish to support candidates who are not sexist, racist, homophobic, creationist, etc they ARE what you would call "urban" voters. The problem is that these easily exploited rural people get more attention than they ought to because their vote counts more.
#14980195
Drlee wrote:So. If rural people wish to support candidates who are not sexist, racist, homophobic, creationist, etc they ARE what you would call "urban" voters. The problem is that these easily exploited rural people get more attention than they ought to because their vote counts more.


Hitler would be proud of you. Label, demonize, remove their political power. Why should you tolerate these inferiors who refuse to believe what you tell them to believe? How dare they not recognize your superiority.
What right does Montana have to 3 votes in the electoral college to California’s 55? What could be more unfair?
How do you convince yourself this hypocrisy makes sense?
#14980203
Clearl OD. You do not believe in the concept of one-person-one-vote. I do. Why is this hard for you to understand?

Then, because you have a reading comprehension problem, you said I posted an unsourced argument.

But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.


Now do you see the source?

:roll:
#14980205
Drlee wrote:No.



Oh good, please explain this to me.

Especially given these FACTS:

1. Prior to the 17th Amendment: The Legislatures of each state chose the represenative, both rural districts (usually the majority in any state) and urban districts having representatives voting in these state legislatures.

Hence a senator elected prior to the 17th amendment was far more likely to have been elected with a rural bias.

2. After the 17th amendment
: Senators become chosen in state wide elections where the majority of the populace in any state is almost aways urban.

Hence, contrary to the old way; now the largest population group or majority (the urban) in a state now has the power to determine its state's senators.

The issue is not state representation irrespective of national majoritarianism (Senate v. House); but whether or not urban majoritarianism has overcome rural represenation. There is no possible way to construe that urbanism was not advanced agaisnt the rural in the 17th amendment.

Drlee wrote:Of course they could. Why Trump though? Are you somehow making the case that rural people should appoint the president based solely on their whim? The president represents all people. He/she should be elected by each person equally.


No, i'm only saying that rural people voted overwhelmingly for Trump while urban people overwhelming voted for Clinton and had there been no electoral college, Trump would not have won (which is why we are even having this stupid conversation). In fact, in any case where the electoral college is abolished, rural peoples polarizing against the urban will only ever result in the rural peoples losing elections. That is, they will have lost some of their representation and electoral power via the abolition of the electoral college.

This is a fact of numbers.

Drlee wrote:Bad question. Back at you. Why should the rural voter's vote count more than an urban vote? The only fair way to do it is one-person-one-vote.


We are not a democracy, we have always balanced minority rights with the majoritarian principle; and rural representation was a major concern of the founders against urbanism; especially for men like Jefferson who despised urbanism and industrialization and believed that a republic could only be preserved if it were agrarian and decentralized (contra Hamilton's vision).

One-person one-vote would make us a democracy ruled by the urban people with urban values, but it would not make us a republic with fair representation for both the rural and the urban. Abolishing the electoral college will do for the presidential election what it did to the election of senators on the state-level.

Drlee wrote:But the problem is not urban versus rural. The hackneyed argument that city people can't understand farmers (for example) is ridiculous. The have been supporting farm bills for decades.


You think "farm-bills" is evidence of a pro-rural attitude? :lol:

The urban solution to the rural crisis has been to lecture high-school drop-outs on how they should learn to program software for a new economy that hasn't shown up and their solution to the opioid crisis has been to import methadone clinics and require OD victims to be revived ad infinitum. all policies which are universally despised out here, Or else we are told to move to the cities and abandon the people and values we've held to for hundreds of years and are very protective of and are told we are hateful for challenging this.

For instance, though I lived in the city when I got my Masters degree, I moved back after graduation and live within 5 minutes from where my ancestors built their homesteads twenty years before the American Revolution, my family has lived in this same area for almost 300 years. The very soil of this place is in my blood and these people are all kindred of a common faith. There are almost no homosexuals here, i'm only 29 but more than half of the women I knew growing up were stay-at-home moms in a culture that revered that role. If you were bad, you got your ass beat and your neighbor might even beat your ass if caught you doing something stupid. People's property was sacrosanct, welfare was despised as an insult to one's ability as a man and this is in spite coming from a place where the median income right now is $20K, one of the poorest counties in Pennsylvania and one of the most ethnically isolated places in the nation (second only to Montana). These values and this past is revered

So don't sit there and tell me that urban people understand the rural people, they don't. The cosmopolitan values espoused by the cities are insulting and disgusting to many rural peoples. Most don't actually "hate" anyone, but they certainty don't feel comfortable with their community getting "darker" with more blacks and minorities. Most people over 50 here oppose interracial marriage, most overrall think homosexuality is a terrible sin, more than half probably never heard of transgenders and would probably quip that such need taken out back and shot. Anytime a mainline church gets a woman pastor you'd think there was going to be a riot. This isn't because of "bigotry," its because tradition is valued at a very high premium.

When the mines shut down and the factories went overseas; lots of this having to do with taxes and regulations, the towns went belly-up and we've lost a whole generation to the big cities or heroin. The churches are full of old people, and i make the most money in my entire family at $18/hr. My mom brags about my income because its considered big money in our area. Most of us hunt and garden for a supplemental source of food, I grew up eating squirrel, rabbit, trout, deer, and even bears; whatever we could kill, plus canned fruits and vegetables, all which account for 50% of most peoples food in the area.

Now, what was that about urban people understanding us?

Give me a fucking break.

This is also why your remarks about rural people on "wedge issues" is foolish, the people do actually value these things more than hospital spacing and debates over growing corn for ethanol. They want their jobs back, but more than that they want their golden age back, they want their children back, they want their prosperous and peaceful mayberry back along with all of its backward views and beliefs. If you think these values are steeped ignorance, well for them ignorance is bliss.

Drlee wrote:So. If rural people wish to support candidates who are not sexist, racist, homophobic, creationist, etc they ARE what you would call "urban" voters. The problem is that these easily exploited rural people get more attention than they ought to because their vote counts more.


Is there a rebuttal here? Because it basically sounds like a concession; namely, if rural peoples want a president like themselves (what you would likely considered racist, homophobic, sexist, and religious) then they should basically get fucked and let big city folks tell whats right and wrong.

Very American.

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]