a few [TOTALLY NOT RULES THAT OP JUST MADE UP but hey they aren't so bad so we'll roll with it -- WN] rules

- this is about politics and world events. nobody cares about your life or whatever song youre listening to on youtube. dont use it as your diary

- little/no trump. take it elsewhere. he's awful but it's rarely interesting anyway

- it's perfectly fine to just post a link to an interesting article or developing story with little actual comment. go for it

- keep it short. nobodyWell Named wants to read paragraphs upon paragraphs from you orand hear your philosophical takes

I was ambivalent about having an LC thread, but I think given the way things are going so far I'm not as worried about it as I was. So we'll just roll with this then.

In other news, everyone in my house has or will soon have the flu.

Oh ****, this isn't supposed to be my diary. Oh well, **** it.

lol, amazing

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/o...core-ios-share

the changes to the thread title and op are so ****ing dumb. when the low content thread was working it was easily the best part of the old forum. why are you trying to ruin it?

it’s not sound bytes. it’s sharing interesting updates on what’s happening in the world. it’s the valuable thing this place can do

I would answer that question but it would probably involve violating my own forum rules. :P

I agree though, the title is bad. I blame DayQuil. Lets workshop a better one. "Low Content Thread" is so drab. Any thoughts?

Low Content / Fewer Overlord Deletions Thread

Redacted content thread

that has some promise.

“Trump” seems like a pretty good title for a low content thread.

Suzzer, i thought one of most interesting threads in the old forum was when newoldguy debated climate change when jman broke it out into a separate thread from a discussion with Mason.

You have been holding your own against the influx of the previously banned conservative posters. You should pick a topic and debate it. Maybe something like "My proposed US Immigration policy to deal with the southern border" or "How the Dems beat Trump."

"My proposed US Immigration policy to deal with the southern border" is pretty simple - just do what we've been doing because there is no national emergency. This country can handle some asylum seekers.

This only became a huge national issue when Republicans realized it was a winning issue for them and turned it into one late in Obama's presidency.

This goes back to the group psychology issues I brought up in the other thread, but from a pragmatic perspective this attitude is simply untenable IMO.

It presupposes misconceptions about human nature and group psychology.

I would love a Democratic contender to come up with a comprehensive satisfactory policy. The fact that no one has said much of anything other than criticizing trumps actions (at least as far as I can tell) I think indicates how daunting a problem it is.

Democrats have had the same basic ideas about immigration for a while. A path to citizenship for current illegal immigrants, strong border security (although the Trump administration is making this less popular among Democratic voters), and bring in more high-skilled immigrants. The problem is that the GOP isn't willing to go along with this package and can't agree on an alternative plan, so nothing changes.

For instance, the Gang of Eight bill proposed by Chuck Schumer in 2013 lays out these basic priorities. This bill passed the Senate with all 52 Democrats and 14 Republicans voting for it, was supported by Obama, but ultimately didn't even come up for a vote in the Republican controlled House.

It's super unclear why we need to do anything at all about immigration (except stop doing the bad things). Sign me up for the suzzer plan.

Don't agree at all. There are over 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. About 2/3 of those have lived in the US for more than 10 years. We should provide some way for these people and their children to become legally recognized members of our society.

More immediately, we currently have a huge backlog of asylum claims and clearly need more immigration judges.

Eh, yes, I agree with both of these things. I wasn't clear, but I meant we don't need to do anything to try to prevent further immigration, including illegal immigration (although I'd like to prevent that by making it easier for the same people to immigrate legally).

Not sure what all that means - but yes we all know the bottom line is it's easy to scare the masses with fantasies about brown hordes streaming across the border to sell drugs to their sons and rape their daughters.

The litmus test for this is when they start talking about illegals and welfare - even though illegals barely use welfare. To me that big of a disconnect can only be driven by irrationality. So yeah that's going to be tough to overcome. Or my Trumpfan buddy from HS talking about the Puerto Ricans next door to him making anchor babies. This dude is a politics junkie and I literally had to remind him that Puerto Ricans don't need to make anchor babies. That's what kind of a wall fear puts up in the brain. Rational thought goes out the window.

But still I'm not really into making policy to mollify easily-terrified white people who probably never come into contact with a latino immigrant in an average week.

I think this is overly simplistic as others have noted- we have 10 year illegals, their kids, and, at a minimum, an administrative nightmare at the southern border. Illegals use emergency medical care, school resources, etc... If South America continues to implode, we may have a ongoing issue beyond the current backlog of cases. But my main point was pick a subject and see what the response is - the DS threads are not burning up the carts.

Illegals also work their asses off doing jobs no one else wants to do. I'd like to see some kind of proof that they're a net drain on our resources. I don't buy it.

I would be less concerned with net drain and more concerned with how illegal immigration affects resource distribution. I don't know how accurate this argument is, but there is an argument that illegal immigration facilitates funneling of resources into the capitalist class at the expense of the working class. Before he became cowed by the woke crowd, Bernie Sanders himself used to express this sentiment. I remember when Koch was a bad word he would say something to the effect of "The Koch brothers want illegal immigration and open borders."

i dont get why youre trying to make everything about yourself. it's not. just stop

anyway, i thought this was really good on "political correctness" and related issue https://medium.com/@seanjones11kbw/b...e-3194780dcc8d

Mueller wrote to Barr about his summary

But I was assured that Barr would never mischaracterize the Mueller Report

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.ee8e926269f1

Cool.