US Presidential Election XII

[anitram]

Originally Posted by bono_212

What LN7 said. There are limits per country, for one thing, and while there are over a million people waiting on the list from Mexico, Canada doesn't even show up in the mid ten thousands of people:

The Canadian numbers are lower than Mexico's for sure but they are nowhere near as low as that number suggests. You are only looking at the wait lists for immigration visas. Most Canadians don't migrate to the US that way. Instead they will arrive on one of a number of available worker/employment visas (whether immigration or non-immigration) and then apply for PR after some time if they are in fact interested in that.

I went through this process some years ago - didn't stay in the US though - and I can tell you that out of the dozens of Canadians I met and socialized with, not a single one came to the US off that immigration wait list you were looking at.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Conspiracy !!!

No, just random Zoolander references.

[namkcuR]

I actually wrote a post about this immigration topic on another forum recently.

It is very difficult for unskilled, uneducated people with no familial connections to be here legally. Now, we should understand that citizenship is different from legal resident status. Legal resident status is what a green card gets you, what enables you to be here legally. Once you've been a legal resident for five or more years, then you can take the civics/social studies test(the one that probably a troubling percentage of natural citizens couldn't pass) to be a citizen. So far as I can, see the only things that citizenship gives you that you wouldn't already have as a legal resident, are the right to vote in elections, and the right to not be deported if you're convicted of a felony.

The point being that timelines for citizenship would all have to take into consideration the mandatory five year wait(and surely some would wait longer than that) after attaining a green card, which itself can be a years-long process.

Getting a green card not only can take a while, it is expensive. The mandatory fees alone can be in excess of $1000, and that doesn't take into consideration the cost of a medical examination if you need one, and the legal fees if you need a lawyer to help you navigate the process.

And as has been mentioned, you need a sponsor too. Employer or family. This is why green card marriages are a thing, and why such couples have to endure the interviews where someone attempts to verify that you're legit.

Look, there's an argument to be made that the legal immigration system has to be difficult and restrictive because if we made it really easy to be legal, there would be more people in the world from poor countries who would want to come here than we would have the resources to accommodate.

I think that there is some truth to that argument. My problem is that politicians aren't honest about the reality of the whole thing. Conservatives who are against amnesty always say, 'but we like legal immigration, our arms are open'. Politicians of all stripes like to pretend that our immigration system is still in line with this:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

But it's not. The reality is for decades now the system has been designed to make it more difficult for the poor and uneducated to come here, and easier for the educated, skilled, and connected to come here.

I just wish politicians would be honest about that, about the fact that it's actually not so easy for the types of immigrants who come here illegally to be here legally. And also that we would do what we can to make it easier without opening the gates to such an extent that the number of incoming immigrants would exceed our ability to accommodate them.

[Bluer White]

Very well said, namkcuR

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Very well said, namkcuR

I second


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Hypothetically speaking...

Let's say the third party share of the vote stays about the same as what we've seen in polling, ending up being around 10-15% of the electorate and preventing Trump or Clinton from reaching 50% of the popular vote.

Are the Clinton backers from the primaries seriously going to suggest if she loses that she was the Democrats' best shot? Or that she would have been a stronger choice than Bernie or Biden?

And I'm not bringing this up to open a can of worms or compare her to other candidates, but when you have a nominee as historically unlikable as Trump, and who would have to win the election with under 50% of the vote, it's clear that the argument can't be made that he's some truly strong candidate.

In fact, FiveThirtyEight argued today that two separate models of the economy would give the Democrat or Republican a slight edge depending on the model. In other words, Trump is trailing a generic Republican that would be slightly leading or barely behind at this point (for example, a Marco Rubio that wins the primaries would surely be leading Clinton in the polls right now given what we saw earlier in the year).

So, taking all of that into consideration, you're looking at a very flawed candidate in Hillary Clinton. And no, I'm not referring to her stances, personable issues, etc. I'm talking about her electability which is clearly terrible if she's been losing ground for the last month to Donald Trump of all people in spite of her built-in demographic and financial advantage.

So, maybe, just maybe, next time when some condescending assholes act like they know a thing or two about who has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee despite all the polling saying otherwise, we can call them out on their bullshit without even a need for a discussion. If Hillary Clinton somehow loses to Donald fucking Trump, every single one of her primary voters owes the rest of America a big apology.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Shit! I should have voted for Bernie afterall!

[BigMacPhisto]

Well, you get what you knew at the time of purchase. Clinton had unfavorables then and she has high unfavorables now. Why did people expect something to change the second she became the nominee?

But no, she's our best hope because she's the most famous! That's the same reason Republicans are stuck with The Donald.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Hypothetically speaking...

Let's say the third party share of the vote stays about the same as what we've seen in polling, ending up being around 10-15% of the electorate and preventing Trump or Clinton from reaching 50% of the popular vote.

Are the Clinton backers from the primaries seriously going to suggest if she loses that she was the Democrats' best shot? Or that she would have been a stronger choice than Bernie or Biden?

Bernie? Yes
Biden? Probably not, but he wasn't ready at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

So, the American people hearing the word "Socialist" bandied about would have sunk his numbers lower than Clinton's? Really? Clinton's numbers were garbage during the primaries and they're garbage now, why would you not think Sanders would have been able to keep up his? It's not like Clinton is really getting attacked by a major ad blitz or anything - people just don't like her.

Biden's choice had nothing to do with being ready. He didn't have a prayer once Bernie became a big thing and polling proved that time and again which is why he admitted he didn't join the race in the first place.

Now, the sad part is that Clinton supporters all would have been way better off with Biden. You'd have somebody in the same range politically with hardly any of the baggage. But they weren't willing to compromise on the dream of electing the first female President because it was her turn.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

So, the American people hearing the word "Socialist" bandied about would have sunk his numbers lower than Clinton's? Really? Clinton's numbers were garbage during the primaries and they're garbage now, why would you not think Sanders would have been able to keep up his? It's not like Clinton is really getting attacked by a major ad blitz or anything - people just don't like her.

Biden's choice had nothing to do with being ready. He didn't have a prayer once Bernie became a big thing and polling proved that time and again which is why he admitted he didn't join the race in the first place.

Now, the sad part is that Clinton supporters all would have been way better off with Biden. You'd have somebody in the same range politically with hardly any of the baggage. But they weren't willing to compromise on the dream of electing the first female President because it was her turn.

You can pretend all you want and remain in fantasy land, but the truth has been pointed out to you time and time again; Bernie was never really vetted nor put up against Republican voters. If you don't get that, you NEVER will.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Moonlit_Angel]

Just going to echo the to your post about immigration, namkcuR. Your posts in general in these political discussions have been very balanced and thoughtful and well-argued, and I very much appreciate that and wanted to let you know that .

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

You can pretend all you want and remain in fantasy land, but the truth has been pointed out to you time and time again; Bernie was never really vetted nor put up against Republican voters. If you don't get that, you NEVER will.

And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).

That's a pretty big fucking deal in my mind. Just the 3% of the vote on Election Day for Stein will be about 4 million votes. That's almost the margin between Romney and Obama last time alone - and virtually all of them would have voted for Sanders had he been the nominee.

You can come up with all of your vetting nonsense of which no facts can ever possibly exist since Sanders was never the nominee, but the only evidence we have are the match-up polls and favorability polls taken by the American people in which they really liked Mr. Sanders to a much greater degree. Maybe one day you'll come to the realization that a lot of this has to do with Mrs. Clinton and not some vast right wing conspiracy to discredit her. Trump has fuck all to do with millions of liberals being disgusted by Hillary Clinton, just as they were disgusted by Bill Clinton and gave Nader almost 3,000,000 votes at the turn of the century.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).

No, I do get its because they are the nominees. That's what you don't get, that's how poor of a candidate Sanders was, a better candidate with Sanders' platform slightly tweaked, AND actually had a plan on how to implement things would have cleaned house.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Maybe one day you'll come to the realization that a lot of this has to do with Mrs. Clinton and not some vast right wing conspiracy to discredit her.

It's simpleton assumptions like this that keep you from having a real conversation with the adults in here.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Yeah, because plans and policy details were so important among the Clinton primary voters who by a much wider margin couldn't even name a single policy plank of her platform. Not to mention that Sanders' supporters will leave this planet with college degrees by about a 2-1 margin over Clinton voters.

And then go and call the other poster a child because he blames Clinton's own actions for why people don't trust her. Insult the queen and BVS is always ready to jump in and declare "Heresy!"

Because those of us that have spent our entire political lives are being babies for not considering the Clintons as liberals despite them not being a key part of the civil rights movement, anti-free trade movement, anti-bank movement, anti-imperialist movement, environmental movement - and have usually worked in ways that are antithetical to such causes. Nor were they part of the policies supported by the far-left press over the last six decades or did Bill even do anything to help unions, the bedrock of liberal politics, during his tenure as President.

She is the one trying to suddenly wrap herself in the clothing of something she never was simply because it's the politically prescient thing to do and nearly half the Democratic primary voters saw through the charade and said otherwise. Her policies and actions do not have to be accepted by people that have lived their lives on the far-left nor were they forgiven at the ballot box by such people in 2000 or 2016 (if the Stein numbers even remotely hold up).

Call Clinton the leader of the Democratic Party or the only real option out of the current two choices or whatever else you want. But don't call her a liberal, or suggest that those that call themselves one are being childish, because it's really not a thought process based in reality. The liberal movement is something that has stood outside the confines of the Democratic Party organization and has accomplished a tremendous amount without their support (and often against their attacks, such as DOMA and the Iraq War vote). It does not need to fold itself under the banner of one individual simply because of an established party structure, nor should it be silenced for pointing out wrongs and hypocrisy because one party is considered less odious than the other.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).

I really struggle with the assertion that Sanders would play better among centrists than Hillary.

I say this as kind of a centrist myself. I'm socially pretty mainstream Democrat but economically close to dead center. And honestly the idea of Sanders as president scared me. I would have voted for him against Trump because Trump is uniquely apocalyptic. Or even against most of the Republican clown car (Kasich is the only one who would have made it a close call, I guess). But I substantially prefer being able to vote for Hillary because she's much closer to my views - as a centrist. And it's not hard to imagine someone a couple shades redder than me crossing the GOP line against Sanders more easily than I would have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[trojanchick99]

Won't someone think of the poor dead horse!

Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

And then go and call the other poster a child because he blames Clinton's own actions for why people don't trust her. Insult the queen and BVS is always ready to jump in and declare "Heresy!"

You really don't get it do you? I've stated several times that it's Clinton's actions. You're building a strawman so you can post another canned rant. I've stated time and time again that I'm not excited about casting my vote for Clinton, but that's how bad the choices were this campaign.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Axver]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees.

This is far too Americentric a view. The rise of minor parties as a challenge to the established party system (whether it be binary, trinary, whatever) is a wider phenomenon of Western liberal democracy in the past couple of decades. In Australia, we have between a quarter to a fifth of the vote going to minor parties at both state and federal elections, with that percentage consistently increasing from election to election (as recently as last decade the minor party share of the vote was just a tenth). In New Zealand, no party has had a majority in parliament for two decades - and this in a country where, off the top of my head, there had been majorities dating back to the 1890s.

Those are the two polities with which I have the best knowledge, but it's a trend mirrored in many other countries, with new insurgent parties stealing vote shares from the established parties. Europe is full of such examples. And often the candidates of the established parties are very talented and charismatic. The Greens in Australia, for example, achieved most of their gains against Kevin Rudd - who, as much as he is now a whipping boy, was at the time polling record popularity figures.

What I'm saying is that whoever the Democrats and Republicans nominated, we should expect to see an increase in the minor party vote. It would be remarkable if there weren't one, and we would need to ask why (because as much as the US system has its peculiarities, so does every polity; it usually fits into broader Western trends and, indeed, often sets them). Now, yes, the unpopularity of Clinton and Trump will quicken the drift to minor parties, but that drift would occur anyway.

I would also suggest your argument against Clinton is overblown, because Republicans are clearly choosing the Libertarians over Trump at a far greater rate than Democrats are going Green. To tell you the truth, I think Stein's figures are terrible. How the fuck is she only polling 3% in 2016? Especially if this apocalyptic unpopularity of Clinton is true?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by digitize

I really struggle with the assertion that Sanders would play better among centrists than Hillary.

I say this as kind of a centrist myself. I'm socially pretty mainstream Democrat but economically close to dead center. And honestly the idea of Sanders as president scared me. I would have voted for him against Trump because Trump is uniquely apocalyptic. Or even against most of the Republican clown car (Kasich is the only one who would have made it a close call, I guess). But I substantially prefer being able to vote for Hillary because she's much closer to my views - as a centrist. And it's not hard to imagine someone a couple shades redder than me crossing the GOP line against Sanders more easily than I would have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This is where the election will be won. Hillary can easily peel off the middle and even some right-leaning women. Bernie is enough out of the mainstream that he could easily cause some socially moderate supply siders -- terrified at the thought of higher taxes and socialized medicine -- to look at Trump and rationalize that "at least he'll surround himself with good people." And pull the lever.

The 1990s were a good time for most. Especially the affluent. Her husband's economic record bathes her in a good enough light for these folks.