|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign | |||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
(a friend just told me this, and I am not sure if he is accurately quoting what Axelrod just said during post-debate commentary on CNN)
Apparently, Axelrod just said that Democrats have to drop "the decriminalization card" because "Democrats need to face the fact that even many Democrats simply don't agree with decriminalization". The truth is that only 67% of Republicans will say illegal immigrants should be criminals for crossing the border without papers. (33% are unsure or think it should result in a fine as opposed to getting a criminal charge -felony or misdemeanor) Right now, illegal border crossers are charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense. If it is the first time getting caught anyway. (62% overstay a VISA, mind you, and that is the same thing as somebody who lacks papers when they initially come over) Amazing that the much maligned Koch-brothers have made it clear they will support pro-trade, pro-immigration Democrats over Trump Republicans for every federal office, yet Axelrod says Democrats should drop pro-immigration policies to win those voters who are politically on the margins (swing voters). Amazing that only 41% of Americans start off with a position supporting criminal charges against (what are currently ILLEGAL status) illegal immigrants for their border. Axelrod wants Democratic candidates to drop decriminalization as an election issue, so they can be salable to the electorate. Democratic candidates could, actually, fight for making migrants SAFE FROM CRIMINAL CHARGES, and the fight - ALONE - would hold those who support criminally charging migrants into a territory that is below 50% (or no worse than the low-mid 50's percentage PRESENTLY, with further progress in eroding the anti-immigration support in future years beyond 2019/2020). Fight for just public policy, and let the political winds blow as they may. I don't care if there is a narrow loss TODAY, when 2-4 years down the road there will be support. I just heard Axelrod (11:13 PM Central talk crap to Senator Warren LIVE) say the Americans don't agree with her on decriminalization. My friend is correct on the general report he gave me. I think he might have fudged the "card" use by Axelrod, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
The government will need $1.7 trillion per year under a no co-pay (like Sanders seems to have) plan, or about $1.1 trillion under a plan where people pay 20% co-pays. (Medicaid is generally free, so that will be a no co-pay plan)
Then the $400-$500 billion savings in eliminating the insurance companies becomes vital in cost analysis. The Sanders plan has a real cost of about $1.2 trillion a year, not $3-3.5 trillion, like the media keeps harping. The others have a cost of about $600-$700 billion per year. (Medicare-For-All with 20% co-pays) I suspect Sanders plan would require a 10% flat tax, which would be roughly in-between the 6% ObamaCare tax for the Bronze plan, or 12% for the Gold (or Silver) plan. The 6% plan has a deductible of about $5000 a year, and only 60% coverage of covered costs. The 12% plan covers 80% of covered costs and has a much smaller deductible. But on to the drug issue.
quote: Banks earn more profits per year than drug companies. Banks earned $67 billion in profits last year. Pharmaceutical companies have a profit margin of less than 20% (more like 15% I think) Even assuming, every last penny in profits will be taken, that will only be a 1.5-2% dent in total healthcare costs. And it will have a major effect (very negative for us all) on drug development. (unless the government agrees to take up the cost of R & D like never before) How about taking bank profits instead of pharmaceutical profits? (perhaps they can be used for the poorly devised & ruinous price control schemes Democrats and Donald Trump are pushing?) Why can't Donald Trump and the Democrats understand the value of industries and professions relative to one another?
quote: Democrats (and Trump) want to avoid funding health care coverage for prescription drugs, but want to nickle and dime the pharmaceutical industry to the point of cutting all of our throats. Why are banks a sacred cow? What do banks do? What innovation do they bring?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Democratic candidates often want to use people for votes. The 2 anti-decriminalization Colorado candidates are examples of that (Hickenlopper, to his credit, is pro free-trade, unlike the worthless & dishonest Bennett) Others candidates are more sincere in putting their political butts on the line to defend immigrants. Booker and Warren come to mind. Decriminalization means there is lots of border control (like Castro pointed out tonight), but those who make it past the border get fined for the civil violation. Americans feel paperless (the law actually says "paperless" though we call them illegal immigrants) immigrants should be put on a pathway to citizenship. Biden opposed decriminalization and supports paperless immigrants being charged as criminals and then (possibly) deported, as we saw him say tonight. 20% of Republicans support charging illegal immigrants in civil court (thus the immigrants will not be criminally "illegal"), and 13% of the grand old party is undecided. 24% of Democrats support charging the immigrants as criminals. Only 67% of Republicans want to make the "illegal" immigrants criminals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Decriminalize the Border? Obviously. But Then What?
Part of the article.
quote: The immigration controls started in 1924, but immigration was not a crime until 1929. The "crime" was not effectively charged that way until 2004. The 1929 law was almost unused for 75 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
250 18 to 34 year-olds
260 35 to 49 year-olds 280 50 to 64 year-olds 210 65+ year olds The results: 317 said "Face civil fines" 413 said "Be subject to criminal prosecution" A 9.6% gap in favor of making migrants criminals. But 27% were undecided https://thehill.com/...il-fines-for-illegal-border-crossings BUT LOOK AT THE RESULTS FOR THOSE UNDER 50 The 250 18 to 34 year-olds answered the poll saying: 141 (or 56%) said there should only be a fine, while 61 (24%) said there should be criminal charges, and 48 (19%) were undecided. There were 260 35-49 year olds polled. They said: 69 said fine ( 27%). 110 said it should be a crime (42%). 81 were not sure (31%). That is 510 under 50, and 210 to 171 supported decriminalization, with 129 not sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Think Texas, for starters.
There was a "white invasion" of lands that Mexicans, Native Americans, and (racially mixed) Spanish already lived in. This was not peaceful migration, but an outright military invasion. What is so wrong with an "open border", if it is peaceful migration? The truth is that the United States is a young nation, and it did not exist 250 years ago. And the whole of today's United States did not simply drop from the sky 230-245 years ago. It swallowed up non-white lands bit by bit. Texas was not in the United States till the mid 19th century. About 100 years before Nixon was Vice President. The South was just Virginia at the end of the 18th century. Just as El Paso was invaded in the middle of the 19th century, a white nationalist invaded the town today (a legal travel, from 10 miles away, in a town that was not part of the United States 200 years ago). This boy did not like Hispanics in the United States, so he attacked a Frontier town. But it is ONLY today seen as a crossing point from one country to the next. From the non-white country to the - "white country" - United States. It was Hispanic long before the white United States took it by force in the mid-19th century. This young country expanded and swallowed up non-white people, like in El Paso. It was violent. Now: What is wrong with "open borders"? What is wrong with peaceful "open borders", anyway? What is wrong with peaceful migration, free of (racist ignorance or other ignorance) ignorance and artificial borders?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
It is near Dallas.
But that was swallowed up by the white United States around the same time as El Paso. Whites were not planted there like Adam in the Garden of Eden. It is all artificial. And opposition to Open Borders is a feature of the ignorant. Democrats have their ignorant folks too. That does not make the opponents, of open borders, correct. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Most Democrats Want Border-Crossings Decriminalized, Poll Says | HuffPost Latest News
quote: I should point out that I skipped over a dozen paragraphs. See the link. There were seven more paragraphs after I stopped pasting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
He did say that we need a heck of a lot more than 1 million legal immigrants per year. The cap needs to be lifted.
His position might be the best one, because, as the above post (Huffington Post, that is)shows, Democrats are trying to water down the meaning of decriminalization to the effect that it almost will be "nothing different from what happens today". Might as well go for increasing public support for 2 to 3 million legal immigrants a year, because: 1: Open Borders has been completely trashed by professional Democrats (despite growing support among registered Democrats) 2: (Even) Decriminalization is being torn to worthless bits by professional Democrats, as well. I almost want Biden to win the nomination, as it looks like the professional Democrats will reduce the meaning of "decriminalization" to miserable levels, while claiming to support the idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: There was only 1 poll EVER that I have ever seen that asked about support or opposition to "open borders". I have a thread which I started (back in early July 2018) on the issue and the poll. EvC Forum: Lots of big Public Opinion polls on immigration. "Open Borders" is even polled. There was support from 36% of Democrats, but the poll did not break down party support by age. Overall (all Americans), those over 64 were 89% to 11% opposed, but those under 50 were about 66% to 34% opposed. Those (all Americans not just Democrats) 18 to 34 were only 57% opposed and 43% supportive. About 74.5% to 24.5% opposition among everybody. But 64% to 36% opposition among Democrats. I would assume that over 45% of Democrats under 50 were supportive of "open borders". (The only caution is the polling data I saw in the poll that showed 66% opposition to decriminalization. See my above posts for that link. I will link it again, below. That poll also had a breakdown by age, and younger folks did not seem so disproportionately supportive of decriminalization relative to older folks) (See Below) This first link shows the 66% opposition poll that got the lion's share of attention in every aspect of the United States media. Scroll 70% down, in THE LINK BELOW, to see results. See page 26 in actual scan (it says 28/39 in bar) http://maristpoll.marist.edu/...Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3 But the 41% opposition to decriminalization poll shows sharp age division on par with the Open Borders poll. https://thehill.com/...il-fines-for-illegal-border-crossings Now, the MARIST POLL was the one with 66% opposition to decriminalization. The poll seems to have age demographic opinions which seem out of step with the other 2 polls. See page 26 in link.
quote: Now see my link for detailed Open Border support by age (and other) demographics. I totally changed the format and typed it manually (it would not paste at all, and the massive document made it extremely difficult for people to find) Here: EvC Forum: Lots of big Public Opinion polls on immigration. "Open Borders" is even polled. Now the decriminalization poll that has consistent age opinions: Here is text from another post, of my own, on the 41% opposition poll.
quote: The Marist poll (the 66% opposition to decriminalization poll) just seems out of sync when opinions by age are looked at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: The fact that professional Democrats oppose open borders supports my post 166. The fact that you dismiss the 36% support (and "growing" due to the younger folks being so supportive), among registered Democrats, speaks volumes. I hear you, loud and clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Theodoric took issue with my "growing" part:
quote: If you would read my (rejected by EvC staff as a promoted topic) thread posts, you will see what I am talking about. EvC Forum: Lots of big Public Opinion polls on immigration. "Open Borders" is even polled. I was simply pointing out that the 90% opposition, to open borders, among 64 & older Americans means that the strongly opposed side is the same side that will be passing away, generally. They are, more often than not, the age group that dies. The youngest age group (18-34) is almost 50% supportive of open borders. This group is the least likely to die, infact its gets newer members every day, plus the oldest members of this group move into the 35-49 age group. The poll was back in June of 2018. This is August of 2019. The fact that many of the 65+ group have died since then, means the group is getting replaced by the most supportive age group. Thus "growing" support.
quote: Actually I was lamenting the fact that the professional Democrats are giving "open borders" a bad odor due to endless propaganda against the idea. I am sure that could erode support among Democrats, but I am not entirely sure. I am pretty sure many minority groups and immigrants have been intimidated against supporting "open borders" They probably feel their patriotism demands opposition, because the Democrats told them so.
quote: I am glad you can read people's minds when they are asked polling questions. You need to consider WHEN the poll was asked, before forming an opinion. I think the Marist/NPR/PBS NEWSHOUR poll (the one with 66% opposition to decriminalization that we heard so much about) might have had a lot of people interpret the question in a way that might have - AT THE TIME OF THIS CHRONOLOGICALLY EARLY POLL - made the question & answer seem like an "open border's" issue. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/...Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3 Again, the professional Democrats have effectively trashed Open Borders since the poll came out. Heck, the professional Democrats seem to want to bitch about the Hill-HarrisX poll, which actually showed fairly underwhelming opposition to illegal immigrants simply receiving a fine. (41%) https://thehill.com/...il-fines-for-illegal-border-crossings Why do I say the professional Democrats are attacking the idea of genuine decriminalization? See this again:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I managed to miss this one when it came out.
I can not access the poll (it requires a subscription), but it actually can be interpreted as only 53% of Americans opposing a type of Open Borders (not exactly open borders because it does involve checks), with 39% supporting. Here I will have to try to link our way to an understanding, since I do not have the actual poll before me. It came from Rasmussen Reports
quote: Here is the way I can present the poll, by quoting the ultra-conservative source celebrating the results.
quote: Democrats have been attacking Open Borders so much lately, that there will probably be a retreat from this ONCE momentous movement toward much higher immigration. Only 53% opposed! Wow. That was EARLY 2019. Those were the days. (Democrats seem to be against making the case to change people's minds and would rather join Republicans in the smear)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Who is "we"? I never know if you are talking about opinions of those polled, or my view? I better wait for a clarification from you. (I can't even talk about Democratic primary issues without you finding all sorts of views to plaster me with) (Theodoric is good at pulling stuff out of his a$$ and then launching the sticky (?) stuff at his target)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Run from any and all attempts to respond to you.
You said, in the other thread, that I would ignore the links you gave me. You then bragged that they had links to the source material, which you said I would ignore. I went to your links. Then: I actually found the source material. (I have been searching the internet to get all the relevant information, relative to the discussion, in your other topic)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024