Corporations and lobbyists hold the real power. Politicians are too dependent to have any kind of stance.

What's "out of touch" about the government is politicians depend more on campaign finance than public opinion to get elected. Or, they did, until Trump appealed to popular racism and showed you can still get away with outright sexism.



Lol. Advertising is good at advertising itself, but much advertising falls flat.

Who are Google's primary customers? They're really good at advertising their platform to people who want to buy advertising, i.e. people who think advertising their product will be a net profit. So of course they sell it as a science and blah blah blah.



This is where I think the "rationalizing self-maximizing" dogma of economics makes sense. Politicians are worthless to us because there's no incentive for them to be worth something to us.

The incentive for politicians is to be bootlickers to the people with power. Of course some politicians hold a bit of power, but most hold less than we're indoctrinated to think.



Well yeah, he was the conservative side of neoliberal politics.

So I'm actually watching Trump's Mississippi rally to see what he's appealing to. It turns out, Trump is appealing to his base by just saying wrong things over and over again. He claims they've replaced the awful NAFTA with a better deal, but all he's done is piss off the world and raise taxes on the middle class so much it probably cancels any wage increases.

~7:50ish is interesting. He says someone said to him: "my wife used to think I'm a loser, but now that my 401k is bigger she thinks I'm a great investor". Appealing to emasculated men?

9:00 Democrats are gonna "open the borders and let in drug dealers"

11:00 Democrats are just trying to sabotage Kavanaugh

13:30 Gorsuch wasn't put through the ringer like Kavanaugh.. no ****, dude, want to guess why?

I could type more later if I listen more, but the themes are consistent. It's just a bunch of nonsense repeated loudly. I don't think Trump even really appeals to people so much as Democrats fail to appeal. There's nothing to appeal to in Trump's speech but literally being too stupid to function.

I will say though, Trump is pretty good at getting the crowd interactive. He just asks them dumb questions and they all cheer or boo as he speaks. It's a kind of conditioning. It's something I use when teaching calculus all the time, except for, you know, the answers are intelligent.

It should be a little unnerving though that he's able to condition so many Americans by repeating lies in this context.

Even though I'm pretty vocal on the sort of taxation I prefer, I tend to be unconventional tax situations so like with Obamacare I'm fairly reserved. What policy are you referring to that has resulted in a tax hike for the middle class?



Self-deprecating humor, I suppose.



I mean, basically.



Uh, yeah.



Gorsuch was replacing a reliable Republican justice rather than an unreliable one?



Yeah, I kind of liken him to Ann Coulter whom, ironically, I pretty much wrote off with her enthusiastic support of Trump among others. He basically just says outlandish things that drive Democrats insane and that's the fun part of it. The not-so-fun part of it is being associated with his nonsense. Look, it's only six more years.

Actually, there are some things Trump does very well and even without a shred of eloquence. When he speaks in a sincere tone he says things and touches people in a way that people forgot a president could. Usually when he is pointing out the sacrifice of a hero or something in that regard.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

It's funny how you can tell things like which Democrat senator is up for reelection this year, even if you don't follow the news much anymore. I mean, I know there are more than one but I was pretty sure that I knew Senator Manchin was.

Tariffs: they're taxes. Trump's "trade war" with China is indirectly taxing the middle class.

Yes, we've all seen the Access Hollywood tape.

It's pretty yikes, either way..



And they say it's liberals who create lazy stereotypes of conservatives.

Are people taking notes?



Gorsuch didn't have a littany of rape accusations.



It's pathetic to base your perspective around the grief of others.

Like, that's part of what I don't get about Eversor's posting habits. He always wants to give a wide berth to conservative views. If you watch the Trump tape, literally half of it is just lazy stereotypes of Democrats. Stuff far dumber than what Democrats say about Trump. Democrats seem to get far more flak when they say lazy stuff though.

Yeah it's dumb and oversimplified but when you're the party that fights to not cooperate with enforcing immigration policies and have numerous examples of crimes committed by people that might have been prevented if they were processed according to their immigration status you kind of half to own it.



Unsubstantiated and questionable. I mean, now there's probably more evidence that Ford lied under oath than Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her. I hate to say it but I hope he did assault her because I don't want to know what sort of person she is if he didn't.



Well, it's pretty mainstream to grief Republicans so some people are going to enjoy it when it comes back around.



I still don't equate conservative views with supporting Trump. I might support Trump on a particular issue but I can't consider myself a Trump supporter. Then again, we don't agree on the term conservative and I'm not going to get wrapped up in that.



Okay, I don't like tariffs either.

Lots of crimes would be prevented if you deport citizens, too. As long as you have people you have crime.

It's so dumb, though, when people make that sort of argument.

Why's that?

I mean, if you consider studies done on this, the research I can find says stuff like this:



So, yes, deporting undocumented people will lower crime, in the same sense that genociding people or exiling whole populations will. The question is whether immigrants bring a bunch of extra crime with them, and the best answer people have come up with is no.

haha at 1:04:00 trump literally starts talking about collecting protection money

the self-parody, man

Deporting illegal immigrants, or imprisoning them I suppose, and specifically those discovered when apprehended by police will reduce the crimes those people commit. So if you have a party whose pandering requires them to oppose any legal action against any illegal immigrant then they can own the crimes those people commit when their policy is to not cooperate with any immigration enforcement. Comparing processing illegal immigrant criminals to genocide is beyond stupid.

Yes, and deporting or imprisoning citizens will reduce the crimes those people commit, and if the evidence is correct, this will be more effective at preventing crime.

You only seem to care about where the crime is coming from. "Immigration is bad because it's illegal, it's illegal because ????".

I didn't compare ICE to genocide, I said your argument is absurd because it's equally capable of being applied to such things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

To be fair though, Trump supporters probably do want this for "inner cities".

"Crime" is a broad category. Cheating in your taxes is a crime, exceeding the speed limit is a crime, drinking a beer while you walk around with your trick-or-treating kids is a crime, vandalism and burglary and drunk driving and murder are crime. What kind of crime are we talking about here?

Also, illegal immigration isn't the real cause of crime - that would be poverty. But it happens than most illegal immigrants (and gang bangers and drug users and drug dealers and vandals and thieves) tend to be dirt ass poor.

yeah but Republicans hate high skill legal immigration too, so

They do mention that, when immigrants do commit crimes, they tend to commit misdemeanors.

Talkin like a goose

Steppin like a goose

See, I don't ever understand this position because I literally never hear anyone making the argument that all immigration is illegal or causes crime. The only thing I ever hear is that when an illegal alien commits a crime and it is found out that some level of law enforcement chose not to properly process that individual that if they had cooperated with ICE then a tragedy could have been prevented. The asinine rebuttal is always something about how all immigrants aren't criminals and far more natural born citizens commit crimes. Yeah, no ****. This should be an example of where everyone can agree, if you have a criminal illegal alien and you can get that criminal off the streets due to his immigration status then follow the legal process and get them off the streets. Note, because I know reading comprehension can be a problem sometimes, I'm not saying that a person is a criminal solely due to their immigration status but I am applying this to someone suspected of committing a crime and it is discovered that they are here illegally.

What you said is already the standard for serious crimes. Unless you think victimless crimes are deport-worthy.

Hey Reid ever heard of a place called California

You think California doesn't deport violent immigrants?

Why do you think this is the case? Because it's not true.

Nobody is saying it doesn't occur. It just doesn't always occur. And regarding victimless crimes, they should still be referred to ICE. Why not? I'm not saying you lock 'em up. You just report the person to ICE. It's ICE's responsibility to follow up.

Do you have any numbers? It might be more convincing if you could put some numbers on these claims.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't just follow the law? Also, can somebody explain to me the difference between an illegal immigrant and an undocumented immigrant?

lol, wtf. I can't imagine what it must be like to be this brainwashed that you've broken your own understanding of the word immigration.

Can I "immigrate" to Canada? Australia? Will anybody care? I think they might.

No. To me it's not dependent on statistics. It's a philosophical issue. When I used to watch the news these cases were widely reported when they happened. Quick google search shows one of the more famous ones from a few years ago in San Francisco.

Well, the SJW take on it is that people aren't illegal so it's more PC to say "undocumented" which is why I won't use that terminology. They really hate "illegal alien".

because translocating people is expensive and disruptive for many people. duh?

so there's no widespread problem of violent offender immigrants getting away with crimes, but it still really bothers you, because philosophy?

That's true. Also, it apparently doesn't work so long as there are sanctuary cities that refuse to follow the law anyway:

[quote=Some conservative blog]
Take Francisco Sanchez, the confessed killer of Kate Steinle whom he shot as she strolled with her father on a San Francisco pier. Sanchez had been deported five times to Mexico, but said he returned to San Francisco because of its sanctuary policy.
[/quote]

https://www.limitstogrowth.org/articles/2016/11/20/san-franciscos-sanctuary-policy-caused-the-deaths-of-four-people-now-the-city-is-doubling-down-to-protect-it/

I mean if you think about things for longer than two seconds, you'd realize many immigrants have family and people who depend on them. Splitting up families over minor charges is ridiculous. Disregarding that, assuming they're completely alone, it's still pretty harsh?

Just imagine being forced to live in a new city in a new country after being jailed. Think it would be easy? When you consider the cost of it as well, it seems really obvious it should only be done when the person in question has done a serious crime.