(09-23-2018 03:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

Actually, 'open borders' means 'we want to import an entire assemblage of people that we know will vote for us.' That is the core reason for mainstream Democratic support, lets not kid one another on that.

And yes, the 'abolish ICE' movement is rooted in the ideal of such open border philosophy. Lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.

I am sure that for some abolishing the Department of Energy or the Department of Education also has some fringe rationale that is pervasive within the right, probably racist or social justice based. I just havent heard of those.

All I have heard is that these are examples of Departments that are believed to be superfluous to the operating of the Federal government. If one thinks that these are core, central tenets of the operation of Federal system, I could see why they might also be deemed 'fringe' policies that made it into the mainstream. I dont see that they are such, and, to be blunt, kind of pale in terms of Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce etc. (and to boot, each of the three listed has a specific root in the Constitutional power of the Federal Government, but I digress)

If you can point to other 'fringe based' reasons for the issue of the removal of those two Departments I will think your example a tad more relevant or on point. But the ones discussed in the paragraph above simply highlight the differences of viewpoints in the roles of the Federal government that exist between the conservative and progressive philosophies.

Your last comment makes my point perfectly - these ideas really only seem fringe because you disagree with the underlying premise. Both parties have equally “crazy” type ideas to those in the other party because they do not agree with a lot of the fundamental ideas driving those policy positions.

Im not the person saying 'Abolish ICE' doesnt mean 'Abolish ICE', am I? Sorry that is the jig you are dancing right now....

I’m not dancing a jig and not suggesting that people saying abolishing ICE doesn’t result in ICE being abolished. I’m using my reading comprehension skills to evaluate statements made by Democratic lawmakers that explain what abolishing ICE would do, and how many, if not all, of ICE’s responsibilities would be transferred elsewhere.

I’m actually looking past the first sentence and recognizing that the majority of lawmakers advocating for that position include an explanation of what that would mean. I’m surprised to see such a critical thinker stop so short in this instance.

Anyways, as I said in another post, I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I do have a strong opinion that we should read pst the tag line.