Quote:
That article was a review of Tucker Carlson's book. It contains many things Carlson said because it's quoting the ****ing book he wrote.
The quote doesn't contain anything Carlson says. I assumed article linked below the quote is just a source because that's a usual convention. If Carlson is as racist as you claim he is it should be very easy to link to what he wrote or what he said directly. I mean linking to an opinion piece when discussing someone's stance is pretty ****ty.
Quote:
The connection that Trump's bombast has with the differently abled is an underrated part of his success. Why is this guy capitalizing "WALL" like this while simultaneously praising it and conceding it won't work?
I've done it for fun. I was reading this discussion before and seen someone doing it. I hoped it wouldn't detract from the core of the argument. I think it's a funny way of writing it because of how Trump made it a winning slogan if his campaign and managed to push it despite it being ridiculously impractical.
Quote:
You used moral hazard because you didn't know what the phrase means but you thought it made you sound smart.
Man, seriously, how is it even relevant? I have enough reasons to think I am pretty smart. I would still argue the phrase fits as not enforcing immigration laws creates a situation where risk takers don't bear the consequences of the risk. Instead honest law abiding people do. It might not be perfect. I will use more descriptive phrase from now on.
Quote:
Why would illegal immigration make honest law-abiding people wait longer?
Because USA has a policy of accepting certain number of immigrants and how many are already there influences that. For many people the only choice is to stand in line which often means entering a lottery like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa
Obviously immigration is needed in US. If it weren't for illegal immigrants coming by the million it would be easier for people standing in line to get in as the pool of work visas or green cards would be higher. Here is a popular law professor explaining the concept:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Jky5Oj7ZErQ
Quote:
You don't get "good will" because you're extremely dishonest. Your actual concern with immigration, just like Carlson, is that you loathe non-whites and are terrified that immigration will make America less whit
It seems to me that you are not acknowledging an argument for deporting illegal immigrants at all and you don't see a problem of "line skipping". If that's the case it won't be possible to have any debate with you as the problem is objectively there, the only debate is about how sever it is and what we should do about it. This is acknowledge by about everybody on the left and right side. I mean even Obama and Clinton acknowledged it in their speeches specifically pointing to being tough as important part of the policy. It's obvious there is a problem and some way of dealing with it is needed.
The debate is about balancing the costs of enforcement (both economic suffering caused) and costs of not enforcing the law strongly enough (flipped incentives for honest law abiding immigrants, getting demographic you can't control, crime raising around border crossing etc.).
Quote:
That is the weird part. None of those defending/protecting/pretending about. Carlson watch him or seemingly are even a little bit familiar with him but they will go to the mat continuously to protect him. Of course they couch it in their desire to save society, but lol at that.
It's not that weird. When you see angry mobs harassing a political pundit it's a reason to be concerned no matter what the pundit's views are. I watched a few interviews conducted by Carlson but I don't watch that much TV and especially not Fox News outside the presidential election season. He always sounded very reasonable to me that's why I am surprised he gets so much hate here. Now I see that it's usual: doesn't agree with me -> racist, at least on this forum.
Quote:
Don't use this either because it's not true. You made it up.
Again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Jky5Oj7ZErQ
Or if you can do 7 minute video, here is Hillary Clinton:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/pol...migration.html
I mean, not acknowledging that there is a problem that allowing illegal immigrants creates in incentives for both law-abiding to-be immigrants as well as working class legal immigrants and citizens is a total loon territory. It's the simplest concept there is: if you can skip the line without consequences you hurt people waiting in that line. If there are illegal immigrants who work they create downward pressure on working class salaries.
It's so obvious even Bernie Sanders understands it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
Quote:
Literally half the article consists of direct quotes of his.
Again, I've read the quote and assumed the link is there to point to the source. That's a normal way of arguing. You don't quote a few lines of opinion and link to the huge wall of text with a few Carlson's quotes inside surrounded by big paragraph of pure opinion writing. After skimming to find Carlson's quotes I don't even see anything remotely controversial in there, let alone pointing to fascism. In fact I am surprised the few selected quotes point to him being concerned about working class issues. I think he wouldn't qualify to run a Republican with those views.
Quote:
the mere making a joke about burning down tuckers house brings out a ton of concerned observers and a ton of criticism. meanwhile, tucker and his crew are advocating for forcefully removing millions of non violent people and caging and separating families of ppl fleeing violence.
If you break the law intentionally then "peaceful" isn't an excuse to avoid violence if you don't want to reverse your actions when asked. Society accepted violence as a way of enforcing laws long time ago and it's not something commonly argued about. If I walk over to your house and camp in the living room with my buddies being totally non-violent you are justified in using violence removing me or calling for people who will do that for you.
What kind of hippy commune world would that be if we can't use violence to enforce laws. Paradoxially the only way to make it kinda work would be to build huge walls everywhere so totally non-violent - just camping here don't end up living for free in someone's house or feeding off someone's work.
It's against the law to cross the border without papers. If you are doing it you should be forcefully removed. This is acknowledge by ****ing everyone but the looniest fringe utopia believers.
Even Bernie Sanders wants to enforce the borders for **** sake.
Meanwhile I am still waiting for to an answer to:
Quote:
I would like to understand your views a bit more. Let's say a group of 100 people cross the border illegally. They are caught by police, ICE, whoever. What should we do with them? Grant citizenship? Deport? Keep in legal limbo for years and then grant citizenship? If it's anything but deport how do you reconcile the moral hazard that emerges from treating those who break the rules better than those who follow the law?
Do you even recognize the moral hazard of not doing anything about them or do you think it's not a problem at all?
Last edited by punter11235; 11-16-2018 at 12:19 PM.