I gotta say if a law wasn't broken, then I don't give a ****. Republicans are going to be rounding up dreamers and sending them home and a ton of other ****ed up ****. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but I'm not for hamstringing D candidates because the political world ain't as pure as I wish it were.

This is interesting.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/08/medi...ner/index.html

I disagree at about 8/10 power level. This, imo, is why the range of discussion in the USA goes from bad to worse, from drones to invasion, from deporting 2 million to deporting 13 million, from "clean coal" to just plain coal.

And in this last cycle a lot of money was raised without big donors by someone.

But, even if you're worried about hamstringing vs. the Republicans, surely the Dems can agree not to use corporate and big donor money in the primaries. Of course they shouldn't have to agree on it. It should be a matter of principle for any candidate.

Getting politicians to turn down money. Good luck.

It should be a matter of integrity, but then also a matter of law. But, good luck every getting there if most people don't give a ****.

this thread rules cause it shows the absolute limitations of the two party system. people in here range from #resistance libs, to dsa leftist, to maoist third worldist. how the hell can we ever have a party that represents everyone? aint no tent that big.

What a terrible ****ing post

They can agree on it if they want to. I'd prefer it if they did, but if one candidate chooses not to that isn't a dealbreaker for me. Other issues matter too.

Of course other issues matter. That's why I voted for HRC against Trump.

Ugh, party loyalists are the worst.

This isn't any better than your last contribution. He told you that he voted on the issues.

By the way this guy who keeps on darkly hinting that Northam was FORCED to flip flop on immigration because of how racist Virginians are(evidence provided: two to three names of cities in Virginia)

You don’t see the irony there? He’s safe to assume that others are voting just based on the teams, but he himself, no, that could never be the case. He would only ever vote based off the issues, unlike the unwashed masses.

No, because his post, "party loyalists are the worst" seemed to be just after someone posting a tweet of party loyalists doing party loyalism. In any case microbet is more than capable of responding himself but I think you read too much into the original post and maybe kinda took it personally.

Idk I was in here last weekend complaining about Northam's weak response to Gillespie's racist campaign, but, given the result, I can totally buy that his tender footed tapping around white fragility was the pitch perfect response, and that anything more forceful would have been playing right into Gillespie's hands.

What dereds said. Duh.

Saying "Nor do we have to listen to 'progessives' who trash Democrats" is nothing like just voting for the one of two viable candidates you prefer.

That party loyalist asswipe's definition of the word 'progressive' is as a synonym for Democratic Party member.

Sorry to pile on, but this is a really dumb take, my dude. Why are you taking this legalist stance here--something I'm sure you wouldn't endorse in other contexts--to apologize for unethical behavior the effect of which was to lose the presidential election?

No they won't. Will they try and stop the next wave of dreamers from ever happening? I think that's what they are trying to do.

Yes they will.

Once the dreamers can't renew their permits, they will be the same as any other illegal immigrant and subject to deportation if caught. It's not like they're off the grid or anything like that either. They can be pretty easily found and deported since they were previously documented.

Not all of these people will go willingly either. You really believe that people are going to uproot their lives and be taken away from their family without a fight? There will be people who resist and they will need to be taken in by force. ICE will become America's version of the SS.

Some people make it out like everything was cool under the Dems and completely horrible under Trump, but deportations are down while arrests are up and particularly arrests of aliens who are not accused of any crime other than being here inside the US and not border crossings. Those are up 150%.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/arc...s-down/527103/

I suspect border return deportations are down because fewer people want to come to the US.

Trump is an order of magnitude worse, but the Obama admin was not great. ICE is basically awful and a big question is how much they are restrained or given license.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/beh...-of-criminals/

Hopefully the Democratic rank and file won't disappear on the issue after Trump loses in 2020.

From my understanding Obama did it as a sort of good faith gesture, to show that Democrats are willing to give on border security and by doing so allow the Republicans to give on amnesty. Then the Gang of 8 blew up and Republicans retreated back to pure deportation. I think the Democrats have wizened up and realized that there's no natural constituency for heightened border security + waiting on Republicans for amnesty.

And Obama got pilloried from the left for being the 'deporter-in-chief'

Not enough.

I get that most Democrats think that many of the undocumented should be deported. Ok. If that's the case don't pretend that your position is a compromise position, when it's really just your position. Dreamers can stay and no one else? Fine. But if that's not your position and more people should stay and you're just willing to live with the Obama compromise, then you should be pillorying Obama on it.

So what would be a compromise position?

I think the "send 'em all back"" is a stupid idea from about 50 different angles, but I have no problem with anyone being convicted of a felony involving violence being shipped out. Is there some line that is reasonable?

MM MD

I'm not sure what is reasonable because it depends on ones values quite a bit. But, there's a wide wide range of possibilities.

Adult here alone gets sent back?
Does it depend on how long they've been here? Have a job? Family? How far from the border?
Kids, elderly, criminal records and records of what type?

Deporting only undocumented violent felons is pretty close to the smallest step away from deporting no one at all for any reason. So, that's a compromise in the liberal direction for very few people. And it was hardly the US policy during the Obama administration. And it's a policy so liberal on migration that I don't believe even one person in congress would publicly support it.

Personally I'm ambivalent, and would probably not decide something like that in a vacuum, but look actually at what happens to violent felons, whether they've served their time, the cost-benefit of deportation, unintended consequences, and I may be very unusual in this, but I'd consider the welfare of the people in the country we are deporting someone to as well as the welfare of the people in the United States.

Regardless, from a policy and advocacy point of view, anyone who is so liberal on migration that this is where they make their stand should naturally ally with anyone who wants absolutely no restrictions on migration at all. They are both on the same side of the issue and a long way from even the majority of the Democrats. Allowing someone from the right to set the terms of the debate at violent felons is losing before you even get started.