Fair, I am open to discussion, I just find the constant back and forth moral litigation of politicians to be a waste of time when I believe that being a politician is itself a likely indicator of moral rot.

I'm not a huge fan of politicians, but what you're saying strikes me as overly cynical and a kind of moral cowardice. In my life, I've seen good and bad politicians and politicians don't seem to me to be any worse than anyone else from some other similar walk of life. Doesn't saying they're all corrupt (or almost all) make it easier then to justify voting for someone you know you shouldn't be voting for?

I'm not a huge fan of politicians, but what you're saying strikes me as overly cynical and a kind of moral cowardice. In my life, I've seen good and bad politicians and politicians don't seem to me to be any worse than anyone else from some other similar walk of life. Doesn't saying they're all corrupt (or almost all) make it easier then to justify voting for someone you know you shouldn't be voting for? — RogueAI

When you make politics a career - that is the problem.

When you make politics a career - that is the problem. — Harry Hindu

Why is that a problem? Lincoln made it a career and I think he was awesome.

Why is that a problem? Lincoln made it a career and I think he was awesome. — RogueAI

Why do you think America limited the number of Presidential terms to two? I wonder why Congress doesn't do the same for themselves. They can easily write laws to control the other branches of government but can't seem to write ones that control themselves.

I disagree. While admittedly it's unlikely that EVERY politician is irrdeemably evil, I actually find it freeing, as the constant moral litigation of upper echelon politicians is largely a distraction from the actual issues, I find. (Local politics are much more likely to have decent people, for instance). Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. Either way you pick evil, but I'm interested in end result over moral purity.

Why do you think America limited the number of Presidential terms to two? I wonder why they don't do the same for themselves. They can easily write laws to control the other branches of government but can't seem to write one's that control themselves. — Harry Hindu

I think it strikes people as kind of dictatorial and goes against the example Washington set.

But you said it's a problem to have career politicians. What was the problem with FDR? FDR's best moments happened well into his 3rd term. He was a great wartime president. As long as the person has to keep getting elected, why is it bad to keep them in office?

Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. — MrLiminal

There are other options on the ballot. In 2020, the argument was that you don't want to vote for the racist, DT. But Biden is also racist. There were non-racists on the ballot if that was really one's concern.

The fact that the other options didn't have a chance in that election was due more to people being uninformed of the other options. When independents outnumber Democrats or Republicans why are we not seeing equal representation in the media during the political campaigns?

Agreed. But 3rd parties are rarely what I would call effective at winning. I think this is a problem and at least partially due to suppression from the two major parties, but it's the reality we've been dealt. I was big into Bernie in 2016, and we saw how that went, and he wasn't even technically a 3rd party candidate.

I think it strikes people as kind of dictatorial and goes against the example Washington set.

But you said it's a problem to have career politicians. What was the problem with FDR? FDR's best moments happened well into his 3rd term. He was a great wartime president. As long as the person has to keep getting elected, why is it bad to keep them in office? — RogueAI

Because having power over others makes it easier to keep that power by controlling the media and establishing long-term relationships with lobbyists. With new people coming in, deals would need to be renegotiated.

Agreed. But 3rd parties are rarely what I would call effective at winning. I think this is a problem and at least partially due to suppression from the two major parties, but it's the reality we've been dealt. I was big into Bernie in 2016, and we saw how that went, and he wasn't even technically a 3rd party candidate. — MrLiminal

Which is why I say that the answer isn't a third, fourth, or even a fifth party, but no parties. I think the best way to obtain that is to simply stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. That would allow people like Bernie free of the group-think and the power of the heads of the party. The media would become less biased. Citizens would be forced to educate themselves about the candidates rather than looking for Ds and Rs next to people's names.

And to tie this into the subject of the thread, having no parties means that we would be less inconsistent with our concern over the inappropriate application of power when your party is in power vs the other party (selective outrage).

Because having power over others makes it easier to keep that power by controlling the media and establishing long-term relationships with lobbyists. With new people coming in, deals would need to be renegotiated. — Harry Hindu

That's certainly a concern!

Agreed again, I just don't see a realistic way forward for that to happen.

This situation is an example of a problem, particularly acute in the US, but seemingly at issue across developed nations, of legislatures being unable to govern. The issue of immigration should have been settled by Congress. But, because any action would have been unpopular, and non-action allowed for a solution that was preferable to the most important classes, nothing was done (i.e. it increased the labor supply, bringing down wages and disrupting unions, and increased the number of renters, while creating a large population who could not challenge employers and landlords on their rights, and who also would not be eligible for welfare state benefits, keeping taxes down).

Immigration has often been a top issue for voters, so it is hardly that it was a low priority for the populace. Rather, inaction and lawlessness became preferable to any difficult action.

Because lawlessness is allowed, the executive ends up having ultimate discretion over policy, because they decide whether or not to enforce the laws, now that doing so is optional (e.g., not making marijuana legal, but simply refusing to enforce existing laws).

Both Biden and Trump won fairly close elections with unclear mandates. Trump didn't even win a majority of all votes cast. Yet both now had the authority to make massive shifts on immigration. Biden massively increased immigration as the pandemic waned, allowing for more net migration in the last two thirds of his term than Obama and Bush had in their two terms. Trump radically reversed this.

Certainly, events since Trump took office give lie to the idea that it was simply impossible to deter border crossings.

There is a broader sort of issue here where, unfortunately, where if one keeps to certain principles, one will invariably be taken advantage of. People will game these principles. You can see this in the way the Houthis will attack international shipping despite being incredibly reliant on aid shipments to feed their population. They know the West will keep sending aid even if they destroy some of their ships and murder their citizens. Likewise, Iran is comfortable firing mortars on US bases in Iraq because it knows it won't engage in dramatic responses.

So too, pro-migration groups are pretty out in the open about following caravans and telling people exactly the sort of stories they need to tell to qualify for asylum claims. Have gangs really been going up to families and saying: "we plan on killing your baby unless you flee the country!" Maybe, although it's not the sort of things criminal organizations normally do. But that these sorts of claims have become so common seems to have more to do with what sorts of stories qualify for asylum.

The Biden administration, rather than seeking for a change in the laws, used the asylum program as a way to increase migration, which caused applications to jump from 170,000 in Obama's last year to almost a million by 2023. This was a shift started under Obama and which continued under Trump. Claims were already up 10 fold by from 2009 to 2016 (and stable before that). There is little relationship between violence rates in Latin America and this giant increase.

This is simply gaming the laws, and whatever the good intentions of people who pushed in this direction, it's obviously jeopardizing the program.

Of course, those in favor of dramatic expansion don't see an issue with this because it's the right thing to do. People living in developing countries have a right to move to developed ones, on humanitarian grounds, or on a historical view that all the problems in developing countries are ultimately attributable to developed ones. Regardless of the merits of this, in practice, it seems to imply something like: "lawlessness for me, and not for thee."

Previously, this wasn't an acute issue because the GOP had neoliberal attitudes towards migration and was happy to use it as a political issue and then ignore actually doing anything about it. Now with Trump's second term, they are turning to the same lawlessness to pursue an opposite policy. Lawlessness begets lawlessness.

One party wants to not enforce immigration law. The other wants to not enforce environmental regulations, etc. Local governments openly state they won't enforce federal laws, and will indeed actively use resources to inhibit federal law enforcement in lawful activities. Apparently, as long as you think you're right, you can do what you want.

Obviously, duty to the law (including its spirit) is not absolute, but neither should it become negligible, with the law merely becoming an instrument in power battles. The pardoning of all January 6th rioters, even those on video commiting obvious crimes, who communicated their intent prior to the event, is another great example.

Nature abhors a vacuum, so when legislatures cannot give laws when needed, we either get an all powerful executive (against the principles of modern constitutions) or else lawlessness.

Agreed. Part of my frustration and eventual break with the Democrats is that I have been pulling my hair out since 2016 trying to make them realize they are creating their own monster. Now that it has happened, I can't say I feel much sympathy. Hopefully they get their act together soon, but I highly doubt it.

Obviously, duty to the law (including its spirit) is not absolute, but neither should it become negligible, with the law merely becoming an instrument in power battles. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If an immigrant's only crime is coming here illegally, I don't have a problem with people breaking the law to shield them from deportation, as long as it's done peacefully. Ours is a monstrous system that ruthlessly exploits these people to keep prices down and then turns on a dime and scapegoats them when things get "tough" (coddled Americans think a five cent increase in gas prices is "tough"). Sometimes the law is unjust and shouldn't be followed.

If an immigrant's only crime is coming here illegally — RogueAI

The argument is some people's definition of an "oppressive regime" is one that punishes criminals for their criminality.

There is no world government computer to look up someone's name (which can be changed) or their DNA to determine the exact nature of their crimes, if any.

It's taking a gamble with human nature. And unless you're a stranger to it, you'd know that is one of the most foolish things one can ever do. Near suicide.

The argument is some people's definition of an "oppressive regime" is one that punishes criminals for their criminality.

There is no world government computer to look up someone's name (which can be changed) or their DNA to determine the exact nature of their crimes, if any. — Outlander

But that's also true when the Nazis ask you where the Jew is hiding. You lie to the Gestapo, right? But it's possible the Jew is a serial killer or some other monstrous criminal and he really should be taken in. You still break the law and try and shield him, because the odds are he's not.

You have a point if we're talking about single males, but this doesn't apply to families with children. The children are moral innocents and should not have their lives turned upside down.

It's taking a gamble with human nature. And unless you're a stranger to it, you'd know that is one of the most foolish things one can ever do. Near suicide.

This isn't clear to me.

You lie to the Gestapo, right? — RogueAI

Ideally, one should not bow to the wicked (immoral, excuse me). Of course, in practice, just as you mention in the example, people have children and they care about them and their well-being (allegedly, it's a psychological attachment, children die every day and no tears are shed but for one's own, so) and so in the end ultimately act on what's best for their own well-being and that of their family, whether it's right or not (ie. obeying authority who can take everything from you, regardless).

Say you're starving, your kids are starving, you see a loaf of bread that clearly doesn't belong to you. Do you take it, or do you die on a moral hill with your children clinging to you in tears in their last moments? It may not be an easy choice for many, but it damn sure is a consistent one. People look out for #1. Always. Never fails.

You have a point if we're talking about single males, but this doesn't apply to families with children. The children are moral innocents and should not have their lives turned upside down. — RogueAI

I've heard reports that the smugglers do in fact lie to people and say "oh everything's fine, you can do this, they won't do anything" when they in fact know it to be a lie. So yes, innocent people were misled by terrible people. And unfortunately these terrible people are outside of the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. government and so cannot be captured or killed. For now.

In short, I don't think an earnest father or mother would willingly put their kids in danger and turmoil, despite the fact they have. It wasn't their fault. That we can agree on.

But one thing, an unpopular fact, must be noted. Reproducing is literally the easiest, cheapest thing any living being can do. It's second nature. An immoral man who has convinced (or perhaps forced) a woman into spawning offspring does not make him any different than what he was before, an immoral man who is undesired by moral society. So what. Should we take their children and give them a better life? Will you invest your time and money to raise them? You can, you know. Some of us are busy with our own lives. Life is cruel. Life is indeed cruel. But like I mentioned before, people like to grandstand, but at the end of the day, when the cameras aren't rolling, you can bet the bank #1 is looked out for above any other living being or soul.

Life is indeed cruel. But like I mentioned before, people like to grandstand, but at the end of the day, when the cameras aren't rolling, you can bet the bank #1 is looked out for above any other living being or soul. — Outlander

"Self" is a dominant interest in human affairs. I was going to call "self" an "overriding interest", but that is too extreme. If, indeed, people only looked out for #1, life would be a lot crueler than it already is. Maybe not often enough, but many people sacrifice a percentage of self interest--smaller & larger--for those they love or for causes to which they are deeply committed.

I understand migrants move to improve their lives, but migrating from one country to another is an inherently risky project -- even under very good circumstances. Migrating and entering illegally, migrating with the help of human traffickers, coyotes (guides), migrating through hazardous terrain (Darian Pass, deserts, mountains, etc.), and so on puts children at risk. Being here illegally with an "anchor baby" (child born in the US to illegal immigrants) places the child at risk of future disadvantages and the possibility of their parents being removed.

But moving from a place where opportunities are minimal to another place where they are more plentiful is a gamble. Many of our decisions in life are gambles; more often we lose than we win. If we're lucky, we don't lose too much too often!

But one thing, an unpopular fact, must be noted. Reproducing is literally the easiest, cheapest thing any living being can do. It's second nature. An immoral man who has convinced (or perhaps forced) a woman into spawning offspring does not make him any different than what he was before — Outlander

Reproducing is relatively cheap for the man. That's true pretty much across the biological board. I don't know for what percentage of pregnancies sex was not at least somewhat agreed by the woman. Humans like sex--men and women both -- especially when it's done well. That doesn't mean we like raising children.

Agreed again, I just don't see a realistic way forward for that to happen. — MrLiminal

Well, being pessimistic about it - sure you won't see a realistic way forward.

I don't see a realistic way forward on many, if not most, philosophical issues, but we keep coming here and discussing them.

The realistic way forward for any philosophical idea is to actually start practicing it by not voting for Democrats and Republicans and to make your arguments to open-minded people you meet. I think that if an Independent had a decent showing in an election many people will start to jump on the bandwagon, as voting against the two-party system would be the new Progressive "call to arms".

I might have agreed before 2016, but the powers that be have shown they will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.

I might have agreed before 2016, but the powers that be have shown they will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening. — MrLiminal

The powers that be are not preventing you from pulling the lever for an alternate candidate nor preventing you from speaking your mind to others. The only way they could interfere with that is to control the elections and the internet - in which case we don't live in a democracy or representative republic, but an oligarchy that controls the flow of information.

The only way they could interfere with that is to control the elections and the internet - in which case we don't live in a democracy or representative republic, but an oligarchy that controls the flow of information. — Harry Hindu

I believe this to be the case.

Illegal immigrants usually get caught when attempting to enter the US. As everybody knows how hostile Trump is to immigration, the illegal immigration attempts have decreased radically. Hence in the previous Trump administration, Trump simply wasn't capable of deporting anywhere close as other president. And that looks... actually as incapable he is and how dysfunctional as a leader he actually is. Because he is no leader, he is just a populist orator for the stupid people. Yeah, not much eloquent speech with historical quotes coming from Trump, hence the MAGA-people understand this demagogue.

And thus this is the result. Stephen Miller has had to frantically push ICE to do everything possible to create the image that somehow the Trump administration is truly deporting the millions of illegal immigrants as TACO has promised. And attempt to federalize the Nation Guard.

The good thing is that I'm seeing a lot of US Flags in the "No Kings" demonstrations. That's a good thing, and a way to fight TACO Trump and cut the nonsense nativist and racist arguments their wings off.

It's notable that there has already been a modification to the mass arrests and deportation strategy, due to the indisputable importance of undocumented migrant labour in agriculture and hospitality.

The Trump administration has abruptly shifted the focus of its mass deportation campaign, telling Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to largely pause raids and arrests in the agricultural industry, hotels and restaurants, according to an internal email and three U.S. officials with knowledge of the guidance.

The decision suggested that the scale of President Trump’s mass deportation campaign — an issue that is at the heart of his presidency — is hurting industries and constituencies that he does not want to lose.

The new guidance comes after protests in Los Angeles against the Trump administration’s immigration raids, including at farms and businesses. It also came as Mr. Trump made a rare concession this week that his crackdown was hurting American farmers and hospitality businesses. — Trump Shifts Deportation Focus, Pausing Most Raids on Farms, Hotels and Eateries

That didn't take long to surface. If ICE pulled the entire migrant workforce it would have massive economic downsides.

The Democrats and Republicans are both complicit in the surge of migrants that illegally crossed the border. Both parties understand that a declining population means that it is going to be more difficult to fund social security in the future and the population needs an infusion of new tax-payers to continue to prop up these government subsidies. In a racist communist country, like China, they would rather use government power to influence baby-making rather than importing non-Asians.

Agreed, though this seems incredibly short sighted on their part imo with the looming automation and AI revolution currently happening around us. We're headed for great depression style unemployment in the next few decades, and they're actively making the problem worse. How I wish we weren't ruled by clueless octogenarians.

The Democrats and Republicans are both complicit in the surge of migrants that illegally crossed the border. Both parties understand that a declining population means that it is going to be more difficult to fund social security in the future and the population needs an infusion of new tax-payers to continue to prop up these government subsidies. In a racist communist country, like China, they would rather use government power to influence baby-making rather than importing non-Asians. — Harry Hindu

That's not why Biden essentially allowed an open border to fester. The Biden admin wasn't that strategic. Many Democrats had come to believe the Trump admin's border policies were racist, and this led the online far left to reflexively oppose ANY immigration enforcement on Biden's part. The Biden admin thought they couldn't risk losing this segment of the party, so they let it define immigration policy, which turned out to be a mistake.

Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. — MrLiminal

Hits hard.

I think the idea that we should taken politicians seriously, morally, is a joke. Absolute joke. It leads to the types of discussions going on in the lounge with several members here clearly losing their rationality on the subject.