Joe Biden: U.S. President

Is it?
Blanket solutions for complex problems do not work. And back to the original point, the centerpiece of his campaign was a wall not overstays. Nuance is always less sexy and less effective red meat for the base.

Was that the best place to focus all of our attention and best way to solve this problem?

Conservatives are so easily appeased with lip service, yet hold no accountability for leaders on actual results (build the wall, N Korea, Iran, China etc. etc.) “Build that wall” is enough because it appeals to fear mongering and race baiting. Whether or not it’s an effective solution, doesn’t seem to matter.

Lol. Liberals are the exact same. Every election time they tell us poor minorities how they’ll help us and end racism. Their cities are the most violent and racist cities full of poverty. Give me a break. I’m done with that BS.

Almost all cities are run by liberals so that argument is a red herring. As more people congregate, and education levels increase they become more liberal. So what? I could just as easily say that Mississippi is proof that conservative policies don’t work.

Instead of admitting that the focus of a campaign on a wall is an ineffective and ridiculous idea, you fall back on liberals running cities and never doing anything for minorities. What does that have to do with anything? That indicates to me that you are more invested in tribalism and ideology that actual policies and actual results. I don’t think any solution that a “liberal” brought to the table would ever convince you. You are too invested in identity politics.

Fine. Back to the topic. How have democrats been tackling the issues you think needs to addressed. Have they been willing to stop illegal immigration?

Speak for yourself. Don’t insult me. You’re the one who threw in the generalizing statement in with none issues.

Don’t get on me for being up other issues when you did it first! It’s right there for you to see.

Start first with what is the most effective means of stopping illegal immigration. You appear to be starting with the assumption that a wall or other deterrents are the most effective way. The alternative approach from Democrats is to reform the system by including legal pathways that remove the incentive to do things illegaly. A wall does not address systemic issues while Democrats are focused on structural reforms. That may not be as sexy, but the results will be more effective. And as Obama has shown, Democrats are very effective on immigration. Let’s not fall into the trap of chest-thumping feel good lip service geared towards the lowest common denominator, and focus on what actually works. It’s very easy to fall into the pattern of “Democrats want to create legal pathways, so they want open borders” when in reality an incentive is more effective than the deterrent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/506942-democrats-see-immigration-reform-as-topping-biden-agenda%3Famp

You went straight into Hannity/Tucker Carlson parroting of liberal cities. Completely irrelevant. Next you will be arguing gun violence in Chicago when it’s not even the most violent city. The motive seems to be to oversimplify and drive narrative for the purpose of reinforcing identity politics than actually discussing real world solutions.

You are the one who brought up other issues…as i’ve pointed out for you to see. Guess you’ll just ignore it. keep at the hypocrisy. Give me a break on your BS of Tucker Carlson parroting. I’ve literally said I don’t like the guy over and over again on this forum. It’s telling that’s how your brain lights up even though you are the first to bring up a whole bunch of issues not related to the topic.

I;ll post it again so you can see it clearly again. Here it is :wink:

No…I don’t. Just to be clear. So take that argument off the table. I said it’s 1 way. I’m happy with others as I’ve already said.

They’ve barely mentioned it, it’s all “lip service” as you’ve said so far with them. They’ve done nothing since 2008.

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal , or any variation of it, at all.

Honestly, I tried to have a nice civil debate with you. But you can’t do that when someone starts saying things like

This should have gave me the hint you’re not interested in anything I have to say and have made up your mind. I can’t argue against you if that’s your starting position with me.

Not to mention the tucker Carlson parroting.

I’m done with this. Idk what’s up with you but I’m not going to engage like this.

My brain lights up when regurgitate the same talking point from right wing media regardless of who it comes from. Liberals running cities is an asinine and gross over simplification for the sole purpose of pushing a BS narrative based on identify politics. As much as conservatives complain about identity politics, I don’t see the left pushing as the centerpiece of their campaign like the right does.

There are many things you could call effective. Minute men volunteering at the border might also stop one or two people. But is it effective enough to warrant being the center piece of campaign, and effective enough to divert billions in military spending? It’s a joke that you have trouble admitting.

That’s called an example of a trend. That is different than ignoring the entire point of the conversation which is that walls are ineffective and waste orlf resources.

No you know that’s not true when Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president and also initiated DACA reform. If you want or prefer is deterrents, threats, travel bans over structural reform then just say it. Don’t BS everyone by trying to change history and say Democrats have done nothing. That is just not true.

The liberal cities comment and refusing to admit that most illegal immigrants are overstays thus a wall is ridiculous to make the centerpiece of immigration policy. That just indicates you are not interested in empirical discussions. So just as you are making assumptions on my statements, I am making assumptions on yours.

I have not refused to admit it…I’ve no problems with tackling the issue on all fronts.

What a load of BS. I’m out. I was until you pulled out your clear stance on mine that I don’t want to have one. How can I talk to a person who has already made up his mind about my stance that wont change? Why did you even continue to talk to me if that’s your belief? IDK why you’ve become this way. It’s rude and not productive to a conversation.

Ok then answer this honestly. If tackling an issue on all fronts, is a wall the most effective of all those methods? Does it warrant being the centerpiece of immigration policy and diverting most resources to that end?

I think we all know the answer to this. And efficacy is not the goal. No, the wall serves an entirely different purpose than that. Curtailing illegal immigration is not the reason the wall is the centerpiece.

You can interpret what I say however you wish. My purpose is to present a balanced argument not to convince you. And when others see you are relying on identity and bumper sticker politics, such as cities are bad because they’re run by liberals, then hopefully they will see through that. If someone resorts to those tactics, then yes of course I would have assumptions about where they are coming from. It’s the same if you use MSM, TDS, Deep State etc. We all know those words are meant to push an agenda of identity politics and are not rooted in the much more complex and nuanced real world. So if you can stick to facts, policy etc. then you won’t be offended by anything I have to say.

You do the same.

This is a liberal talking point so not sure why you get to make it and try to excuse it when I threw some back you went full YOURE PARROTING TUCKER! on me.

I don’t know, I’ve mentioned I have my doubts previously. Not to you, but I’ve said it. But I stand by the effort to make illegal border crossings more difficult with a wall. I really do. It doesn’t mean I don’t think other methods shouldnt be tried and other areas should be tackled.

As for 2008 and Obama, yes, I misspoke on the timeline. It’s more like 2012 once DACA rolled in. I think Obama had some real push back on his deportation, and the democrats knew they needed the latino vote. I don’t necessarily have an issue with path to citizenship plan. But answer me this since I answered your question, has the democrats been willing to push hard core deterrents of illegal immigration? I don’t see it, they almost protect it with things like sanctuary cities.

I would support a pathway to citizenship plan if it came with a plan to make illegal immigration down to zero (obviously not possible like any illegal activity, but that should be the goal) I’ve yet to seen the democrats come out and push that line on immigration. I don’t think they will, they won’t win the latino vote they depend on this year.

I am commenting on a trend with conservative voters accepting whatever Trump says because it feels good at the time and not following through when he doesn’t deliver. He is not held accountable. That is different than saying something is terrible simply for the fact thats it run by conservatives. That’s using ideology as your sole lens to interpret the world. Its a gross over simplification with the intent of scoring political points.

N Korea
There’s a reason we don’t hug dictators - because it’s ineffective. They are now more emboldened than they were before.

Iran
What did the threats do? Felt good at the time but we are in a worse spot with Iran now than when we started.

Mexico
Building a wall surely sounded good. But is that really the best way to use our resources? You said you don’t know but we all know. It’s obvious.

No they have not and I don’t expect them to. The approach with Trump is what I criticize most. For someone who claims to be a master negotiator, threatening and yelling are not the most effective means. Incentives work better than deterrents in my opinion.

Same thing for trade. Have Democrats been tough on China by threatening them with a trade war? No instead they focus on leveraging our allies against China rather than empty threats. In my opinion that is more effective. The smarter way is not always the easiest to put on a bumper sticker. Something that conservatives are good at and Democrats are terrible at.

Another example of an attempt to divide cities vs rural, left vs right. It’s so blatant yet seems to be encouraged.

Putting families in cages will certainly not make them break for Trump. I don’t think “what have you go to lose?” will work here.

1 Like

How is this a divide? Sanctuary cities are the opposite of being tough on illegal immigration, which was my point. Nothing to do with cities or rural.

Same reason the wall is meant to create division. Is focusing on sanctuary cities the best use of our time? There is no evidence to show that sanctuary policies have any effect on crime and sanctuary cities perform better economically than non-sanctuary cities.

Yet how much time do conservatives spend on this issue even though there is no impact on crime? Why single out cities and threaten to remove federal funding? Hint: Identity politics!

Let’s pit urban vs. rural, right vs. left, and anything and everything negative that happens in a city we can reinforce that narrative of division by saying “See it’s because cities are run by liberals!” As you just did.

What? I didn’t say any of this…this has nothing to do with city vs rural or identity. I think you are so fixed on the idea I must be rooted in identity politics thats all you see now when I say something. I never made the connection between sanctuary cities increase crime or whatever you said.

I said sanctuary cities (some of them are not really like metropolitan cities) are the opposite of being tough on illegal immigration. That is all I said about them. If it makes you feel happier, I meant to encompass states and counties as well. This has nothing to do with cities vs rural. Some of the counties do not have “cities”.

Really? Ok then what’s the point of calling out one city in a country of 300M people? How is that relevant? You called out cities being run by liberals and cities not being tough on immigration. So there’s no connection?

I never heard the term sanctuary city prior to Trump. There are clear motivations to divide by focusing on this so much. Whether or not you acknowledge it doesn’t matter, since it is clear why conservative media spends so much time talking about sanctuary cities.

It’s not one city, there are states and counties.

I said some of the cities ran by democrats, not all cities, have issues. I didn’t mention immigration when I said that.

And I said cities that are sanctuary cities (as I’ve said I meant to encompass states and counties) are the opposite of being tough on immigration.

Again, this has nothing to do with city vs rural…I just said it doesn’t if it wasn’t clear. So why do you keep insisting my intent, it’s now becoming rude.

I can only make assumptions based on what you tell me. Why do we have to ignore common sense in order to have a discussion? Is there really any question as to how the GOP is using “sanctuary cities” to create further division? Is there any doubt that there are other motivations behind making a wall the centerpiece of a campaign since it’s so clear it would not be the most effective?

Whether or not you have the same intent is up to you, but you can’t fault me for assuming that is your intent when you so willingly use the same loaded terms and stereotypes conservative media does.

I just told you 2x I didn’t mean it as city vs rural. This is the 3rd. I’m not sure why you keep insisting. I can understand if that’s what you thought as communication mistakes happen, but I made it clear now.