Prelude to the Apocalypse

[BulletMagnet]

If we take their poor we get welfare dependents and replace our low skill natives in the workforce. If we take their "best and brightest" we're engaging in another form of resource plundering.

If these are the only outcomes you can picture (that's not to say they're not accurate/plausible ones, though I would submit that others are possible with a bit of effort), then the only "third way" is, well, isolationism, or something close to it; realistically, though, how far along such a path do you think we're likely to get, considering the massive shifts - and enormous costs, monetary and otherwise - required to even begin to shut ourselves off from the rest of the world, even if you (somehow) stick exclusively to immigration?

I'm not concerned with the ways people choose to live in their own countries.

If you're concerned enough about homeland security that you'd align yourself with a politician/party whom you otherwise have no affinity for based on that issue alone, then you probably also ought to be, at the very least, concerned about what precisely makes people elsewhere want to come here, whether in hopes of a better life or to blow themselves up.

When even Americans with college degrees can't find good work, what chance does a low skill newcomer who can barely speak or read English have?

Heaven knows I could go on for awhile on this issue (likely getting less and less coherent the longer I'm allowed to fume), but if there's one area in which efforts to assist even one struggling group will likely have positive effects for multiple such groups, it'd be this one; as has been pointed out by others, the reason why little real action is ever taken when it comes to immigration reform is that our "job creators" not only want cheap foreign labor for its own sake but have become incredibly adept at using it to fragment and weaken domestic labor, undoing the decades upon decades of gains its members literally fought and died to earn. Somehow, though, when it comes to the two sides of the equation needed for foreign and/or illegal hiring to occur, only one of them ever seems to merit anyone's attention, and it's not the one holding the reins.

[BryanM]

The classic example is how putting up fencing on the border uses undocumented Mexican labor, which is in turn quickly overcome by hedge clippers. It's an exquisite ouroboros of money laundering.

In Trump land... what's everyone's opinions on the odds Sessions and/or Mueller gets fired? Priebus just got shit canned. Is the next three years just everyone in the administration getting fired over and over again like a merry go round? (Except for Christie, who never even gets one turn on the ride kek)

[Rob]

If these are the only outcomes you can picture (that's not to say they're not accurate/plausible ones, though I would submit that others are possible with a bit of effort),

Two statistically likely outcomes that are costing us in many ways. I don't think it's worth destroying American communities (especially black communities) for the chance that an occasional poor and unskilled immigrant amounts to something. We should stick to a smaller number of skilled immigrants from culturally compatible areas.

For the people still engaging Rob because they don't seem to realise just how much of a lost cause he is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor

I can't believe I missed this visitation by the thought police. Realise? Not in my America.

[ED-057]

In the end, people have to think for themselves, be adults in this world and make healthy (or not) choices.

The problem is, people can only do so much thinking for themselves when they haven't been educated on (or, worse, have been deliberately misinformed concerning) the matters they're supposed to be thinking about, and can only make so many meaningful choices when time and/or financial constraints lock them out of most of the options before them.

Yes, this is a problem. For democracy to work, the people have to be capable, in some form or fashion, of governing themselves. How can people govern themselves (collectively) if they can't even govern themselves (individually)? We expect that there will always be a few crazies and clowns in the mix, but hope that they will be the minority. When you find that 51% or more seem to fall into the derp camp, it becomes cause for concern. But if you like the idea of Democracy (I do, since I haven't managed to become king/dictator/emperor yet) then you should avoid taking the easy route of using the power of the nanny state keep people in line, but instead go after the issues that you mentioned: lack of education, ubiquitous misinformation, being boxed into poor options, etc. I, for one, blame the corporate media for all of these ills.

[ED-057]

This whole healthcare thing is really baffling to me. I'm not very good with figures and "facts" but I was under the impression that somehow USAians pay more for healthcare than most random people from countries with universal healthcare. But I might have got that wrong. What I find weird is the idea that people don't want their countrymen to have healthcare. No one likes paying more than they have to, but this is life or death!

Most of the debate here is not about healthcare, it is about health insurance. Two different things. In theory, everyone can already get healthcare. They just need to be able to pay for it, which they can't because it is insanely expensive. Of course, if you follow the money you will find that it goes to some people, and these people would like to continue getting this money. Therefore, we can't talk about the fact that healthcare is insanely expensive, because it will hurt their feelings.

Instead we have to talk about health insurance, or in other words "who pays for my healthcare?" As it happens, a lot of people are in favor of their bills being paid by "someone else" for instance, the government. While this is a reasonable idea which has proven to be workable in other countries (and one which I am not opposed to) it does make some folks uncomfortable. This might be because of purely selfish reasons. It might be because they glanced at GoFundme and saw the endless horde of sob stories and crushing medical bills and found it to be too depressing. It might be because they are married to a small-government ideology.

Or I can think of one other possibility, namely the "death" part of your "life or death!" As long as everyone pays for their own healthcare, we don't have to worry about that part as much, since it is their problem and not ours. But if someone else pays for your healthcare, then pretty soon we start to notice that not dying is expensive. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we could spend 99% of GDP on healthcare and quite a few of us would still die some day. In order to have government pay for everyone's healthcare we would need to be able to discuss the issue of managing costs past the point of diminishing returns. This is currently impossible because the political scene here is ruled by misinformation, false dichotomies, and emotional partisan bullshit. There is no adult supervision. Parties with an interest in doing so can immediately, irreparably sabotage the debate by throwing out something about "rationing" or "death panels."

[ED-057]

60% of the population supports a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics.

I think you are underestimating the scale of the problem. Money is not "in" politics. Money clubbed politics over the head and dragged it back to its lair, where it has been helplessly manipulated from outside its small cage for at least a century.

Bankers bestowed upon themselves the power to print unlimited dollars and dole them out at their pleasure, a power which our supposedly sovereign country does not itself wield (what's that federal debt up to now? $20,000,000,000,000?)

When you realize this, along with the fact that our foreign policy revolves around ensuring that those dollars stay pegged to valuable commodities so the Fed's printing press doesn't lose its magic, you see that the problem is bigger than a simple over-abundance of easily bought politicians.

[BryanM]

I think you are underestimating the scale of the problem.

Nah, just understating it. I'm the guy that posts music videos about guillotines unironically, remember.

As we've established people are cows and cows respond to tone. You have to be gentle and use a trail of breadcrumbs before you unleash Xenu/guillotines on people, you don't drop those bombshells in the introductory course.

I learned all this from the Ghostbusters commentary track - how you have to slowly wear away the suspension of disbelief. Tomorrow we'll have Medicare, the day after that, we'll seize the means of Wal-Marting.

When you realize this, along with the fact that our foreign policy revolves around ensuring that those dollars stay pegged to valuable commodities so the Fed's printing press doesn't lose its magic

One of the more doomsier of the doomsday predictions is that one of the next recessions will come with a large bubble or two popping (such as student loans) at the same time the petrodollar crashes as gasoline is phased out.

Then again, money could just be an imaginary human construct not really backed by anything besides faith and the desperation of being able to make rent every month.

In Star Trek Fantasy Communism, everyone just gets energy rations directly so it's a lot less mysterious.

[ED-057]

Let's keep it simple, relegated to the specific topic that started this whole thing off: are the problems inherent to Islam so intractable and detrimental that we should restrict a vast majority of them from setting foot in the USA

Islam is a bit of a red herring. US citizens can (via the democratic process) decide to restrict everyone who isn't a US citizen from setting foot in the USA. We aren't obligated by the Constitution or anything else to have open borders, which we don't. What we do have is the customary bureaucratic labyrinth of arbitrary restrictions. Targeting a certain demographic based on some factor related to Islam is just one more restriction thrown atop the existing pile.

IMO restrictions based specifically on religion are not necessary or helpful. In the context of the individual, a religion is just a label. Many Americans call themselves "Christian" whether or not they attend religious services or read the bible or worship money instead of Jesus. Someone who calls himself "Muslim" may or may not be willing to respect the laws and customs of a Western country. You can't determine this just by reading the label. Other factors need to be considered.

[Zen]

For whatever it's worth I'm not attempting to "think positive" for its own sake; as I said earlier, it's a matter of what works. Heaven knows there are plenty of legislative and/or educational initiatives that have gone down in flames, but in cases where at least some good has resulted why not at least attempt to build on that, as opposed to refusing to go beyond "it falls into category xyz, and thus must be a bad idea"?

I'm not for giving up on the problem, just thought it redundant to point out that you can not help some one who will not help themselves not to mention the horror of socially forced remedies that more and more resemble insect ecology.

I would counter-suggest (...is that a real thing?) that what counts as "diminishment", let alone "consumption", vary very widely from person to person...based on what I've seen of your previous posts methinks your definition of both is quite different from mine.

I suspect that you are right, which is not to say that the idea that we are all ultimately connected, affected and therefore responsible for each other is lost on me.

However;

as has been pointed out by others, the reason why little real action is ever taken when it comes to immigration reform is that our "job creators" not only want cheap foreign labor for its own sake but have become incredibly adept at using it to fragment and weaken domestic labor, undoing the decades upon decades of gains its members literally fought and died to earn.

Serious social concerns for sure. What would your concern level be if that sentence read as;

"as has been pointed out by others, the reason why little real action is ever taken when it comes to immigration reform is that our "Governments" not only want cheap foreign labor for its own sake but have become incredibly adept at using it to fragment and weaken race, undoing the decades upon decades of gains its culture literally fought and died to earn."?

Do you feel that race and culture are ultimately just restricting constructs, holding us, all of us, back rather than allowing us to progress?

Let's keep it simple, relegated to the specific topic that started this whole thing off: are the problems inherent to Islam so intractable and detrimental that we should restrict a vast majority of them from setting foot in the USA, and/or restrict the rights of the vast majority of the ones already here?

Who am I to say. One thing I can answer though; if the megaphone-minority and their handlers over in America have their way yet again, then like Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France you will find out the answer to your question soon enough. Good luck.

[BulletMagnet]

I don't think it's worth destroying American communities (especially black communities) for the chance that an occasional poor and unskilled immigrant amounts to something.

The thing is, we don't just have to hope, assuming we're willing to invest in educating and employing them; obviously there's only so large-scale such an effort can get (so long as we're unwilling to divert billionaires' aforementioned subsidies, anyway, but I digress), but as I said in a previous post this is precisely the sort of effort which can boast a ripple effect that pays dividends both at home and abroad down the road. At the very least it's assuredly cheaper than pumping even more into the military/national security alternative.

I, for one, blame the corporate media for all of these ills.

Unfortunately, once again, all anyone hears is how frothingly liberal every single one of these millionaires is because someone under them occasionally does straight reporting.

Most of the debate here is not about healthcare, it is about health insurance. Two different things.

Different, but very much related; the reason medical care is so expensive is that we insist upon treating it like every other commodity, insisting that "uninhibited" market forces will take care of everything (mind you, the free market is much like democracy insofar as it requires an informed and empowered consumer base to function, yet we also have no problem allowing corporations to obfuscate and distort as much as they possibly can to keep consumers from making educated purchasing decisions, but that's a whole other topic), when it isn't like every other commodity since you don't get to shop around when your chest starts to contract (assuming you're even still conscious by the time the ambulance arrives). Insurance, government-provided or otherwise, is an effort to spread the costs around and make them more manageable, though as the links I provided earlier suggest some approaches to this end have had much more pronounced effects than others.

I'm not for giving up on the problem, just thought it redundant to point out that you can not help some one who will not help themselves not to mention the horror of socially forced remedies that more and more resemble insect ecology.

True, but there's no way to know whether or not a person will make good use of the help he's offered unless you're willing to offer at least some help to him in the first place.

What would your concern level be if that sentence read as;

I'd say the altered statement is accurate, at least to to a far larger extent than it ought to be, since so many of our elected officials are openly in service to moneyed interests over those of the general public; the follow-up I'd offer is, a large part of the public is okay with this, because they've been told for years, with very little pushback, that "(non-corporate) government is always the problem" and that all we need to do to fix every one of our problems is privatize and deregulate anything and everything. So if their congressman is showering favors onto billion-dollar corporations while refusing to have the roads fixed, well, obviously he just doesn't want to "punish success", and anyway, once those corporations inevitably use that extra money and regulatory rollback to hire and invest (instead of sitting on it and letting everyone else rot, which obviously never happens) we'll be so awash in cash that we can just pour molten gold into all the potholes.

This is precisely the sort of thing that I would kill to see a concerted education-oriented effort deployed to address; when a majority of our citizenry has no idea how the flow of money actually works or the results it has, this is the sort of disgraceful nonsense that goes on unchecked for decades on end.

Do you feel that race and culture are ultimately just restricting constructs, holding us, all of us, back rather than allowing us to progress?

I can only speak for myself on this one, but I would say that they can be used in this way, but don't necessarily have to be. I sometimes hear the isolationist crowd complain that globalism/multiculturalism/whatever's end goal is to "turn us all into gray blobs" and/or "refuse to acknowledge the differences between us" - again, only speaking for myself, when I express doubts concerning isolationist policy this isn't what I'm aiming for. I don't believe that our differences ought to go completely unacknowledged, nor do I believe that saying "there are parts of this culture/religion/whatever that I don't approve of" out loud is inherently bigoted - nobody is going to love everyone equally, it's part of being human and, in some cases, part of having a moral compass (once you get to "I'm willing to use the things I don't like as justification to dismiss and/or mistreat [almost] every single member of this group by default", however, you're encroaching on different territory).

I guess the best way to sum up my feelings on this sort of thing is that every group, like every individual, has something to teach every other one, and also possesses inherent shortcomings but not inherent solutions to them all, hence the need to occasionally look outward. It's seldom an easy process, but I don't think anyone, or any group, has to abandon all sense of identity to keep at least a somewhat "open" attitude towards people or customs that might initially rub you the wrong way. Should anyone feel obligated to take a mandated, conciliatory attitude towards every single thing that they find objectionable? Of course not, that's the very definition of stupid and self-destructive. But, I would also advise folks to be very, very wary of philosophies which paint the issue in broad strokes and demand drastic, cathartic action, as opposed to a genuine accounting of the complexities and contradictions inherent to every single human being on the planet, which, IMO, is what civilized society exists to accomplish in the first place.

One thing I can answer though; if the megaphone-minority and their handlers over in America have their way yet again, then like Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France you will find out the answer to your question soon enough.

I don't keep up with whoever's bellowing what on Twitter (and whenever someone posts a screencap of somebody expressing a fringe view on there or elsewhere, I invariably ask myself "...who is this, again?") but from where I'm sitting most non-isolationist folks seem to lean less towards the "let everyone in" camp, insofar as that even exists in the USA, than the "it already takes two years to gain approved refugee status, do we really need to restrict things even further?" camp.

[Rob]

The thing is, we don't just have to hope, assuming we're willing to invest in educating and employing them;

We already have many very poor (by American standards) Americans that could use a better/any education and employment.

[BulletMagnet]

We already have many very poor (by American standards) Americans that could use a better/any education and employment.

Heaven knows I wasn't advocating leaving them out of the equation; heck, if you wanted to give them some measure of priority over new arrivals, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that; as I said earlier, I'm pretty well convinced that any such genuine effort is destined to improve things for pretty much everyone. The main hurdle we need to overcome, in my estimation, is our obsession with ensuring that not a single potentially "undeserving" or "beyond help" person manages to slip through the cracks, no matter how many others get turned away in the process; which, in turn, is why I'm questioning the notion that large numbers of folks are all but doomed to fall into such a category from the day they're born, since said notion plays directly into the hands of those who would much prefer anyone poorer than them, regardless their origin, remain barefoot and ignorant.

[Rob]

The main hurdle we need to overcome, in my estimation, is our obsession with ensuring that not a single potentially "undeserving" or "beyond help" person manages to slip through the cracks, no matter how many others get turned away in the process

I think the thing we need to overcome is our obsession with saving the (third) world. They should be able to help themselves, like our ancestors helped themselves when they were surrounded by death and had nothing. We don't owe anyone citizenship. Our communities should not be used as civilization training centers.

I'm questioning the notion that large numbers of folks

We have no need for "large numbers of folks". We have 320 million.

[BulletMagnet]

I think the thing we need to overcome is our obsession with saving the (third) world. They should be able to help themselves, like our ancestors helped themselves when they were surrounded by death and had nothing.

Even setting aside any acknowledgements, including your own, that part of the reason our ancestors were (and we are) able to advance as they did was at the direct expense of others, let alone any compulsion to attempt to do good within one's power for its own sake, this isn't about "saving the third world", it's about making a genuine effort to address the root causes of foreign terrorism and other such threats in a more effective manner than "attempt to squish every single ant that crosses our path". More accurately, before even getting that far, it's inquiring why the mindset for addressing our own culture's "home-grown" problems ought to be any different than when taking a critical look at anyone else's.

We have no need for "large numbers of folks". We have 320 million.

Tell that to the "quiverfull" crowd.

[ED-057]

I think the thing we need to overcome is our obsession with saving the (third) world.

If saving the world ever was the goal, we have been going about it all wrong.

Poor people are a renewable resource (not to say that humans are a "resource" but it's an analogy so bear with me). A wealthy country can import as many as they like and it will not cause poor countries to run out of them. Import enough and the wealthy country can become poor too.

We can help the world. Step one in helping the world is to stop actively damaging it.

If we were to end the self-destructive idiocy that is the War on Drugs, the drug cartels could lose power, Mexico could stop being a war zone, and fewer refugees/smugglers would have incentive to try and cross the border. Win-win.

If we were to stop propping up dictatorships and theocracies, and selling weapons to everyone and their camel, maybe even the middle east could stop being a warzone, and fewer refugees/terrorists would have incentive to escape/blow stuff up. Win-win.

Instead of dropping bombs, drop birth control.

[Mischief Maker]

Communist.

[Rob]

that part of the reason our ancestors were (and we are) able to advance as they did was at the direct expense of others,

That's how it works, and I'm thankful Europeans weren't sniveling cowards at some point in time. We need to get some of that back. Being a whiteness-deconstructing doormat is a good way to let others advance at our expense, and I don't believe descendants of the people who made/let it happen will be thankful.

[BulletMagnet]

That's how it works, and I'm thankful Europeans weren't sniveling cowards at some point in time. We need to get some of that back.

I've done my best to keep a decent dialogue going, but if you truly feel that the brutal methods and scorched-earth mindset which societies - European and otherwise - used to advance themselves in the past are not only justifiable, but both desirable and sustainable in the modern world, methinks we're just about out of common ground here.

[BryanM]

Steve Bannon is like the perfect example of that guy in the Rules for Rulers video that gets purged immediately after the New King takes power, right before the New King links up with the old regime. Those who are necessary for gaining power aren't necessarily necessary after you have it, indeed.

Reminder that Trump decided to push the racist Bernie Sanders angle originally only after he was denied funding from his fellow billionaires. He consulted with Some Rich Guy in his office one day, asking on advice on how to solve this problem. Knowing that there was no way his zillionaire bosses would back someone so unvetted, and wanting to get out of the room as fast as possible, Some Rich Guy threw out what he thought was a dumb bullshit idea - maybe not getting their donations wasn't a problem. Maybe it was a strength. Trump actually has a speck of an idea of how real people think, so he saw the value in this immediately. That's when he started to point out the obvious - his opponents were all puppets, stuffed with cash.

Bannon was instrumental in driving this angle home during the campaign, getting things like this on the air. Thanks to this and their opponent's help, when you adjust for population growth, they were able to sustain the same numbers Romney got in 2012. Despite demographic trends being against them. Clinton managed to get less than Obama did.

But now he's a Milton-esque style weirdo wandering the White House all alone, mumbling that we should raise taxes slightly on super duper uber mega millionaires. So now he has to go.

I hope they give him a nice stapler in his severance package.

methinks we're just about out of common ground here.

Those who fight the culture war and those who fight the class war have no common ground, they live in parallel universes.

David Brooks will argue until the sun burns out that it is the personality "capital" that leads to those less predisposed to divorce to have higher salaries, and that it totally isn't the other way around. It's impossible in his mind that marriages are a little more stable if you have more money. It's some magical imaginary bullshit power of the soul, or something.

Your energies get a better return on a war against the powerful, not as much their war against the powerless.

[BryanM]

Greg Valentino's rant about Arnold and how society works was always erudite imo.

[Zen]

That's how it works, and I'm thankful Europeans weren't sniveling cowards at some point in time. We need to get some of that back.

I've done my best to keep a decent dialogue going, but if you truly feel that the brutal methods and scorched-earth mindset which societies - European and otherwise - used to advance themselves in the past are not only justifiable, but both desirable and sustainable in the modern world, methinks we're just about out of common ground here.

Though I imagine I would be diametriacllay positioned in regards some of your broader outlooks on resolutions, BulletMagnet, I hope you never give up on common ground. The alternative, a place where we are all being pushed towards again, is not an option.

[Zen]

Greg Valentino's rant about Arnold and how society works was always erudite imo.

Greg rants for a living. He is a talented manipulator. Chris Bell, the director and writer of that film is either the biggest rube born to mankind, or a self deluded liar of epic proportions.
Either way, both these "commentators on the corruption within society" are living examples of it. Their biggest issue is not with corruption and the "lie" that is Arnold or the"american dream". Their gripe is a genetic one and they are prepared to lie to all and sundry about it.
I know the point you are making, BryanM but "Innocent" Chris bell and "tell it like it is" Valentino, are very bias individuals to make it with, in my opinion.

[Rob]

but both desirable and sustainable in the modern world,

Peace is desirable. This is where we are getting our wires most crossed - I see what you support (mass immigration) resulting in not so much peace. No "scorched-earth mindset" is required to not select the conditions for societal collapse.

[Rob]

Reminder that Trump decided to push the racist Bernie Sanders angle

I don't recall this. Did it have something to do with Bernie Sanders moving from Brooklyn and finding his forever home in the whitest region in America? Seems to be the natural thing for well-off liberals. Jill Stein lives in a city with a black population of 1.5%, and here she is lecturing whites on racism and calling for reparations. Really powerful stuff.

[BryanM]

At least we'll have Kid Rock to play the electric guitar on the floor of congress when the bombs start dropping. ... .. he... [/i]can play the guitar, right??[/i]

<time lapse>

Wikipedia says he can, so that's reassuring. Yes we can!

[Rob]

Those who fight the culture war and those who fight the class war have no common ground, they live in parallel universes.

What you don't seem to understand is that these things are interlinked.

Made me rewatch this funny interview. A few highlights:

The best system in the world.

ELI5: The wealth gap.

[Mischief Maker]

Scaramucc is loose!

I miss him already.

He wasn't the communications director Trump needed, but he was the communications director Trump deserved.

[BulletMagnet]

Peace is desirable. This is where we are getting our wires most crossed - I see what you support (mass immigration) resulting in not so much peace. No "scorched-earth mindset" is required to not select the conditions for societal collapse.

If you believe that not just competing with but subjugating and/or exploiting other nations is simply "how it works" for any society not composed of "sniveling cowards" I'm not sure where peace is supposed to fit into the equation - and "make sure the resultant complaints from overseas are filtered out so nobody in the homeland is inconvenienced by them" doesn't count.

Moreover, as I've previously said, I don't support "mass immigration", at least in any meaningful sense of the term, and frankly doubt that very many others do. Rather, I propose that our current immigration policies - which, as they stand, are still pretty restrictive compared to places you could ostensibly attach the term "mass immigration" to - are not a primary threat to our national security when it comes to foreign terrorism and the like, and that our time and resources would be much better spent attempting to alleviate the conditions in other countries which render their populations especially vulnerable to radical rhetoric. Or, y'know, at least keep the State Department running.

[Mischief Maker]

Or, y'know, at least keep the State Department running.

That might be asking a bit much from the brilliant businessman who mastered The Art of the Deal.

[BryanM]

Or we could just nuke North Korea and see what happens.

Senator Kid Rock will hopefully have a wicked guitar solo ready for this exciting historic event.