Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,630
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(08-28-2019 01:51 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Harris would be happy I think to accept the #2 under Biden. First off, who knows if he'd last 4 years? Secondly, the chances of him being in the White House for 8 is very, very slim.

Agree.
08-28-2019 01:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #22
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(08-28-2019 09:43 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  
(08-28-2019 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Preferences

Biden, the candidate whose entire platform is is "I can beat Trump", is also the diversity candidate now.

Who says the Democrats are not the Identity Party?

"Even before he officially joined the race, many Democrats who are supporting him expressed hope that he would pick a woman or person of color for the ticket."

Maybe Harris can be #2 if she is not #1. Checks all the important (to Democrats) boxes.

John McCain clearly thought it important to have someone other than a white male on the ticket.

Edit: I would be surprised if Harris would choose to be a VP under Biden (at least given her choice to devote part of her speaking time at the first debate to lambast Biden on an issue that few voters care about).

\I just think he saw her as a way to steal some Democratic votes, not that he thought it was important to have a female just to have a female.
08-28-2019 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 13,046
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 514
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #23
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(08-26-2019 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 01:31 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will comment on your points.

I won't comment on Trump, because I'm not a fan--except by comparison to the alternatives.
I appreciate the clarity your response provides. Would be interested in the same from, say Lad, among others, if they'd care to comment as you did. Thanks, Owl#s.
I'm not touching that list with a 10-ft pole. It's a bad-faith, incredibly biased request and you know it.
If you actually pull together a thoughtful list of proposals from Dem candidates, I'll respond. But when the first line of a list about what Democratic candidates want, starts with "Open Borders," continues with wanting to eliminate the 2nd amendment, includes "switch to socialism," I am not going to waste any mental capacity on it, because you obviously didn't either.

Why don’t you pull together what you believe to be a thoughtful list of what you believe democrat candidates want? I think some of Good Owl’s list may be a bit hyperbolic, and I so stayed where I felt that. You apparently think it’s totally off-base, so what do you think is on base?

It isn't totally off base. Some of the bolded items are generally held by the entire party. But plenty of it is either completely off base, only held by a few candidates in a loaded field (see UBI - haven't seen anyone outside of Yang propose it), an intentional misrepresentation of the position, or not even a position that is really agreed upon or held, but debated about.

I can understand your feelings are different on many of these points, but in my experience (and I do get out among a rather diverse group of people day-to-day) these are not as far off as you seem to think. This represents how many in America (and arguably most-the California nutcases and illegal voters notwithstanding) perceive today's Democratic Party: extreme extremists far left of the farthest left of yesteryear. Most people can't even relate to what the Party leaders and Presidential Candidates are talking about--re-read Owl#s comments. he admits he is not partisan republican and would be open to a Democrat who comes back from the cliff the Party is currently teetering on and seems hellbent on plunging over-trying to take the rest of mainstream America along down with it.

At the same time, while the president can be obnoxious and less-than diplomatic (mirroring the rhetoric from the opposition, in most cases being milder) the current President has actually delivered on many campaign promise (a rarity these days) and is working hard on others, all while lifting all boats. Look at minority employment, the "Jobs Available" and "Help Wanted" signs almost everywhere you go out. Unless you are living in a cave, how can you reasonably make the argument that the economy is not significantly better, and most people are doing far better than they were under the last regime? More importantly, why on earth would anyone want to pull the plug and go back to 15% and higher unemployment? How would that help anyone?

Both parties have paid lip service to the debt and deficit--no one has the upper hand on that when it comes to actions. But the Republicans have slowed the rate back from the obscenely historic deficits of the Obama years.
08-29-2019 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 13,046
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 514
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #24
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(08-26-2019 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 03:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.yang2020.com/blog/climate-change/
It's a long read. And you won't like it. There's a lot of radical stuff in there. But the basic five goals are
1. Build a sustainable economy by transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, upgrading our infrastructure, and improving the way we farm and use land. Public financing options will allow individuals to make the right decisions for their families.
2. Build a sustainable world. The United States, throughout history, has led the world in times of crisis. We’re the most entrepreneurial country in the history of the world. It’s time to activate the American imagination and work ethic to provide the innovation and technology that will power the rest of the world.
3. Move our people to higher ground. Natural disasters and other effects of climate change are already causing damage and death. We need to adapt our country to this new reality.
4.
Reverse the damage we’ve done. Research needs to be done on removing carbon from our atmosphere, cooling the planet and rejuvenating ecosystems.
5. Hold future administrations accountable. We need to pass a constitutional amendment that creates a duty on the federal and state governments to be stewards for the environment.

The lofty platitudes sound great. Who doesn't want a sustainable world?

But the devil is in the details. And the details are invariably ever greater intrusion of the government--specifically the federal government--in ways that have never, ever, in the history of the planet, worked.

Bottom line is it's fine for us to say that we will accept some economic degradation to accomplish minuscule improvement in the climate change arena. The problem is that for half the world's population, even minor economic degradation means they starve, or do without closing, or shelter, or all three. And it we don't get that half onboard with what we do, our efforts are worse than meaningless.

(08-26-2019 02:44 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  #1 on my wish list for any Democratic candidate is Climate Change. #'s won't like Yang's plan announced today because it does feature many of the same things in the Green New Deal. But you can easily search for it online if you want.

I sure would like to see Trump do something about Climate Change, other than ignore it and make fun of other people's plans. Or he can just skip meetings on it like he did today at G7. Getting out of the Paris Accord is not a plan.

The bolded in your comment may well be your opinion, but it appears to come off as almost completely unhinged in the face of other far more immediately pressing problems facing human beings in society today.

But I'll play a bit. I've bolded your points to make it easier to respond to:

1. Build a sustainable economy... I agree and think we are seeing a direct contrast in how sustainable a draconian, tax-everything, government iron-fist controlled by elite-o-crats economy sputters to a near halt versus an economy where the market and innovation decided what is best based upon actual wants and needs of the vast majority of people, not an oligarchical elite and detached few without real0-world experience in sustaining businesses that actually provide jobs and security to actual human beings versus theoretical thesis papers from government granted studies and conversations over bongwater. For the poor, fossil fuel combustion engines and older vehicles to drive are a lifeblood to improving their lot in life. Government programs like Cash-for-clunkers hurt poor people proportionally far more than they helped the environment almost to an infinite scale. Yet you propose to do the equivalent of it more and better. Experiment failure, but you double down? No thanks.

2. Build a sustainable world.... The world will not be sustained very long, at least not for humans, if the attitude is depersonifying and murdering them in the millions (and billions, worldwide) just because a few elites deem them expendable, or the byproduct of their selfish, uncontrolled desires. Ironic that you propose to strictly control peoples' desires with respect to the way they choose to live their lives, but you deny the self control of your own desires (or those who subscribe to your brand of groupthink) or the limitations on your own selfishness when it comes to other people's very human rights to existence itself. The hyposcrisy is mind-blowingly ignorant. The world can never be sustained by a people who institutionalize and codify the devaluing of sustaining life itself. Again, no thanks.

3. Move our people to higher ground.... Here I can find some common ground (ha, ha). I have no love or joy for those who build in flood plains or on beachfronts and then, when the inevitable disaster strikes, forcibly use the government to redistribute wealth so that they can make the same foolish mistake again, while other, more prudent people are forced to pay for their selfishness. How would I "move" people? Not forcibly, as I suspect is what you are directing. I would merely propose eliminating completely (100%) any and all government flood insurance. period. People are free to build and live where they want. But if a flood comes, it is on them and them alone to rebuild if they wish and are able. There is a reason no private insurance will cover them. When you take the market out of bad decisions, you hurt the country and the world by enabling waste and stupidity. Another benefit of my approach: less and smaller government and less and smaller taxation. Those who choose folly will sustain the repercussions.

4.[/b] Reverse the damage we’ve done....I don;t equate some extra carbon emission with CFC's, which did hurt our planet and needed to be removed. Unless you can explan to me how you are going to reliably prevent any more volcanic eruptions anywhere on the planet (not to mention how you're going to somehow regulate and enforce China, India and the other actual polluters and carbon emitters from doing so--which I must have missed in your posts) then this is a waste of time and a lie. Sky still standing up just fine. So, No Thanks.

5. Hold future administrations accountable.... Of course; the answer to every problem, real and imagined, i8s More governement and more taxes? Why does that not surprise me?
How about this instead: you and the handful of others like you are 'concerned" about these issues. So concerned that immediate action must be taken. So, I want to allow you to do so. I propose an opt-in set of additional taxes, worldwide, that the international community can impose to specifically target your areas of concern. Each tax would require a separate individual opt-in on a yearly basis. Those taxes collected would then be administered by a group of folks elected by those taxed in each country specifically for the purpose of "solving" these "problems." You and others would also be allowed to contribute more than the initial tax to any problem, to your heart's desire, up to and limited by your own personal individual wealth. You and others would never be allowed to infringe on the freedom of other people to not spend their money in such ways by compulsion. We could then all benefit from seeing who actually would be willing, individually, year after year, to apply their own economic sustenance to work on these , and thus gauge how serious they actually are. So, how much money can I put you down for from your own personal wealth for your proposals? Post a picture of your check for all to see, FBO, and we can go from there.

Now, let's get to work--with YOUR dollars, not mine.
08-29-2019 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #25
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(08-29-2019 12:56 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-26-2019 01:31 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I appreciate the clarity your response provides. Would be interested in the same from, say Lad, among others, if they'd care to comment as you did. Thanks, Owl#s.
I'm not touching that list with a 10-ft pole. It's a bad-faith, incredibly biased request and you know it.
If you actually pull together a thoughtful list of proposals from Dem candidates, I'll respond. But when the first line of a list about what Democratic candidates want, starts with "Open Borders," continues with wanting to eliminate the 2nd amendment, includes "switch to socialism," I am not going to waste any mental capacity on it, because you obviously didn't either.

Why don’t you pull together what you believe to be a thoughtful list of what you believe democrat candidates want? I think some of Good Owl’s list may be a bit hyperbolic, and I so stayed where I felt that. You apparently think it’s totally off-base, so what do you think is on base?

It isn't totally off base. Some of the bolded items are generally held by the entire party. But plenty of it is either completely off base, only held by a few candidates in a loaded field (see UBI - haven't seen anyone outside of Yang propose it), an intentional misrepresentation of the position, or not even a position that is really agreed upon or held, but debated about.

I can understand your feelings are different on many of these points, but in my experience (and I do get out among a rather diverse group of people day-to-day) these are not as far off as you seem to think. This represents how many in America (and arguably most-the California nutcases and illegal voters notwithstanding) perceive today's Democratic Party: extreme extremists far left of the farthest left of yesteryear. Most people can't even relate to what the Party leaders and Presidential Candidates are talking about--re-read Owl#s comments. he admits he is not partisan republican and would be open to a Democrat who comes back from the cliff the Party is currently teetering on and seems hellbent on plunging over-trying to take the rest of mainstream America along down with it.

At the same time, while the president can be obnoxious and less-than diplomatic (mirroring the rhetoric from the opposition, in most cases being milder) the current President has actually delivered on many campaign promise (a rarity these days) and is working hard on others, all while lifting all boats. Look at minority employment, the "Jobs Available" and "Help Wanted" signs almost everywhere you go out. Unless you are living in a cave, how can you reasonably make the argument that the economy is not significantly better, and most people are doing far better than they were under the last regime? More importantly, why on earth would anyone want to pull the plug and go back to 15% and higher unemployment? How would that help anyone?

Both parties have paid lip service to the debt and deficit--no one has the upper hand on that when it comes to actions. But the Republicans have slowed the rate back from the obscenely historic deficits of the Obama years.

See below. If Trump was the main reason for the current state of the economy, we would have been a change to the slope and it would have gotten steeper.

The economy was going in the right direction and Trump continued to push it in the right direction. Same thing with the stock market - we saw it go flat a bit in 2016 around election time - and when Trump took over it kept growing at a similar rate from 2008.

Trump has certainly not been a net negative on the economy, but there's no reason to think that he, and he alone, is the reason for the good economy if you won't give Obama credit for the post-2008 rebound and continued growth through 2016.

[Image: united-states-unemployment-rate.png?s=us...2=20191231]
08-29-2019 02:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #26
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
I wonder why that graph starts at 2010. Actually, no I dont.
08-29-2019 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #27
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(08-25-2019 11:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Democrat candidates actual proposals;
1) Open borders

(08-26-2019 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not touching that list with a 10-ft pole. It's a bad-faith, incredibly biased request and you know it.

If you actually pull together a thoughtful list of proposals from Dem candidates, I'll respond. But when the first line of a list about what Democratic candidates want, starts with "Open Borders," continues with wanting to eliminate the 2nd amendment, includes "switch to socialism," I am not going to waste any mental capacity on it, because you obviously didn't either.

I hardly ever bother coming into the Quad because of crap like this. Literally (not figuratively or metaphorically) not a single one of the serious democratic candidates has this position. The only thing it proves is that you get an F for oppo research and an A+ for living inside the far right bubble.

Engaging in constructive dialogue on issues can be intellectually stimulating. This kind of thing isn't that.
09-03-2019 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #28
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(08-25-2019 11:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Democrat candidates actual proposals;
2) Abolish ICE

I don't understand the furor with some people on the right over this one. ICE came into being as a government agency on March 1, 2003. It is 16.5 years old. It can't even vote yet! No democrat that I have heard of is saying to get rid of ICE without either creating a replacement or reassigning ICE's duties to other agencies. I assume at least Rick Perry would support this proposal, since that dude likes getting ride of government agencies. There have been plenty of federal agencies that were either renamed or became defunct.
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2019 11:55 AM by mrbig.)
09-03-2019 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #29
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-03-2019 11:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(08-25-2019 11:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Democrat candidates actual proposals;
2) Abolish ICE

I don't understand the furor with some people on the right over this one. ICE came into being as a government agency on March 1, 2003. It is 16.5 years old. It can't even vote yet! No democrat that I have heard of is saying to get rid of ICE without either creating a replacement or reassigning ICE's duties to other agencies. I assume at least Rick Perry would support this proposal, since that dude likes getting ride of government agencies. There have been plenty of federal agencies that were either renamed or became defunct.

As somebody who has been dealing with the border for over 70 years, I can guarantee that both immigration and customs enforcement have been around a long time. As a child I got checked often to determine my nationality. Not as often as some of my cousins, though.

BTW, when you go south into Mexico, beyond the frontier, you need to present ID.
09-03-2019 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #30
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-03-2019 12:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-03-2019 11:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(08-25-2019 11:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Democrat candidates actual proposals;
2) Abolish ICE

I don't understand the furor with some people on the right over this one. ICE came into being as a government agency on March 1, 2003. It is 16.5 years old. It can't even vote yet! No democrat that I have heard of is saying to get rid of ICE without either creating a replacement or reassigning ICE's duties to other agencies. I assume at least Rick Perry would support this proposal, since that dude likes getting ride of government agencies. There have been plenty of federal agencies that were either renamed or became defunct.

As somebody who has been dealing with the border for over 70 years, I can guarantee that both immigration and customs enforcement have been around a long time. As a child I got checked often to determine my nationality. Not as often as some of my cousins, though.

BTW, when you go south into Mexico, beyond the frontier, you need to present ID.

The agency ICE has not been around for 70 years... Prior to its formation, a lot of the areas ICE is responsible for were handled/managed by other organizations.
09-03-2019 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,176
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #31
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-03-2019 11:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(08-25-2019 11:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Democrat candidates actual proposals;
2) Abolish ICE
I don't understand the furor with some people on the right over this one. ICE came into being as a government agency on March 1, 2003. It is 16.5 years old. It can't even vote yet! No democrat that I have heard of is saying to get rid of ICE without either creating a replacement or reassigning ICE's duties to other agencies. I assume at least Rick Perry would support this proposal, since that dude likes getting ride of government agencies. There have been plenty of federal agencies that were either renamed or became defunct.

That’s not consistent with what I am hearing from democrats. I get the distinct impression that what many want is to do away with ICE’s functions. I still believe, based upon their actions, that many democrats see a steady stream of illegals as a steady supply of future democrat boters
09-03-2019 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #32
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-03-2019 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-03-2019 12:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-03-2019 11:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(08-25-2019 11:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Democrat candidates actual proposals;
2) Abolish ICE

I don't understand the furor with some people on the right over this one. ICE came into being as a government agency on March 1, 2003. It is 16.5 years old. It can't even vote yet! No democrat that I have heard of is saying to get rid of ICE without either creating a replacement or reassigning ICE's duties to other agencies. I assume at least Rick Perry would support this proposal, since that dude likes getting ride of government agencies. There have been plenty of federal agencies that were either renamed or became defunct.

As somebody who has been dealing with the border for over 70 years, I can guarantee that both immigration and customs enforcement have been around a long time. As a child I got checked often to determine my nationality. Not as often as some of my cousins, though.

BTW, when you go south into Mexico, beyond the frontier, you need to present ID.

The agency ICE has not been around for 70 years... Prior to its formation, a lot of the areas ICE is responsible for were handled/managed by other organizations.

yes, of course. But then what does abolishing ICE mean, if the functions are just to be continued by agencies using different acronyms? What would be the point? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, but with a different handle?

I take the abolish ICE movement and pledge by candidates to mean we will no longer be checking IDs and no longer deporting illegal aliens. The whole immigration thingie will be replaced by nothing. In fact, I take it to mean it will no longer be illegal to enter the US without proper authorization and documentation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ns/564752/

What do you take abolish ICE to mean?
09-03-2019 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #33
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-03-2019 03:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yes, of course. But then what does abolishing ICE mean, if the functions are just to be continued by agencies using different acronyms? What would be the point? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, but with a different handle?

I take the abolish ICE movement and pledge by candidates to mean we will no longer be checking IDs and no longer deporting illegal aliens. The whole immigration thingie will be replaced by nothing. In fact, I take it to mean it will no longer be illegal to enter the US without proper authorization and documentation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ns/564752/

What do you take abolish ICE to mean?

My take from the abolish ICE folks is that they think ICE as an agency has a toxic culture and that they can improve some of the intra-agency cultural problems by breaking apart the agency and reassigning ICE's core duties to other agencies. This would include moving ICE employees to sometimes similar roles in different agencies. As someone who has represented ICE employees in two tort/Bivens lawsuits, some of the ICE employees that I dealt with were very decent. A couple obviously didn't give two $h!its about the people they were dealing with and I was pretty horrified by their attitude and that they were law enforcement officers. So my personal experience has been a mixed bag. But the bad apples scared me more than the good guys.
(This post was last modified: 09-04-2019 09:45 AM by mrbig.)
09-04-2019 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #34
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-04-2019 09:43 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-03-2019 03:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yes, of course. But then what does abolishing ICE mean, if the functions are just to be continued by agencies using different acronyms? What would be the point? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, but with a different handle?

I take the abolish ICE movement and pledge by candidates to mean we will no longer be checking IDs and no longer deporting illegal aliens. The whole immigration thingie will be replaced by nothing. In fact, I take it to mean it will no longer be illegal to enter the US without proper authorization and documentation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ns/564752/

What do you take abolish ICE to mean?

My take from the abolish ICE folks is that they think ICE as an agency has a toxic culture and that they can improve some of the intra-agency cultural problems by breaking apart the agency and reassigning ICE's core duties to other agencies. This would include moving ICE employees to sometimes similar roles in different agencies. As someone who has represented ICE employees in two tort/Bivens lawsuits, some of the ICE employees that I dealt with were very decent. A couple obviously didn't give two $h!its about the people they were dealing with and I was pretty horrified by their attitude and that they were law enforcement officers. So my personal experience has been a mixed bag. But the bad apples scared me more than the good guys.

I relate this to the people on the other side who want to abolish the IRS. They don't want to replace it.

All those people cheering when AOC says "Abolish ICE", what do they think they are cheering? A renaming of the agency and new agencies carrying out the same duties of catching and deporting illegals?

IMO, no.

I have met good cops and bad cops. I am sure the same is true of every law enforcement agency.

I bet the bad ICE agents won't quit just because of a name change, nor will they be fired.

But most people in all the agencies are good. I think it unfair to characterize them as Hispanic-hating Nazis running concentration camps.

Maybe that is what the crowds think abolishing ICE means - closing concentration camps.

But if abolishing ICE just means doing the same things under another name, what's the point? OTOH, if it means we won't be enforcing our borders anymore, isn't that just open borders in sheep's clothing?
09-04-2019 09:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #35
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But most people in all the agencies are good. I think it unfair to characterize them as Hispanic-hating Nazis running concentration camps.

I mean, I had a case where ICE had deported a US citizen and the ICE employee in the best position to realize the guy was a citizen: (1) didn't do what he was supposed to do to make this determination; and (2) really, truly, honestly didn't care at all that he had a large role in deporting a US citizen to a country where the guy had not lived since he was a toddler. So that's kind of a disgusting problem. And quite a few people in the ICE totem pole didn't seem to care either. I was a bit disturbed.


(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I relate this to the people on the other side who want to abolish the IRS. They don't want to replace it.

All those people cheering when AOC says "Abolish ICE", what do they think they are cheering? A renaming of the agency and new agencies carrying out the same duties of catching and deporting illegals?

IMO, no.

Maybe that is what the crowds think abolishing ICE means - closing concentration camps.

But if abolishing ICE just means doing the same things under another name, what's the point? OTOH, if it means we won't be enforcing our borders anymore, isn't that just open borders in sheep's clothing?

I'm not sure most of the people chanting have thought it through in great detail. They believe ICE is a problem and that getting rid of ICE might help with a solution. Other agencies can carry out ICE's core duties without a lot of the negatives that have developed within ICE.

Again, it isn't something I'm advocating or supporting. But I don't think ICE as an agency should be sacrosanct. I also don't think any of the politicians who support the idea of abolishing ICE are for open borders or believe that ICE's core duties will be unfulfilled.
09-05-2019 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #36
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-05-2019 03:02 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But most people in all the agencies are good. I think it unfair to characterize them as Hispanic-hating Nazis running concentration camps.

I mean, I had a case where ICE had deported a US citizen and the ICE employee in the best position to realize the guy was a citizen: (1) didn't do what he was supposed to do to make this determination; and (2) really, truly, honestly didn't care at all that he had a large role in deporting a US citizen to a country where the guy had not lived since he was a toddler. So that's kind of a disgusting problem. And quite a few people in the ICE totem pole didn't seem to care either. I was a bit disturbed.


(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I relate this to the people on the other side who want to abolish the IRS. They don't want to replace it.

All those people cheering when AOC says "Abolish ICE", what do they think they are cheering? A renaming of the agency and new agencies carrying out the same duties of catching and deporting illegals?

IMO, no.

Maybe that is what the crowds think abolishing ICE means - closing concentration camps.

But if abolishing ICE just means doing the same things under another name, what's the point? OTOH, if it means we won't be enforcing our borders anymore, isn't that just open borders in sheep's clothing?

I'm not sure most of the people chanting have thought it through in great detail. They believe ICE is a problem and that getting rid of ICE might help with a solution. Other agencies can carry out ICE's core duties without a lot of the negatives that have developed within ICE.

Again, it isn't something I'm advocating or supporting. But I don't think ICE as an agency should be sacrosanct. I also don't think any of the politicians who support the idea of abolishing ICE are for open borders or believe that ICE's core duties will be unfulfilled.

Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?
09-05-2019 03:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #37
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:02 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But most people in all the agencies are good. I think it unfair to characterize them as Hispanic-hating Nazis running concentration camps.

I mean, I had a case where ICE had deported a US citizen and the ICE employee in the best position to realize the guy was a citizen: (1) didn't do what he was supposed to do to make this determination; and (2) really, truly, honestly didn't care at all that he had a large role in deporting a US citizen to a country where the guy had not lived since he was a toddler. So that's kind of a disgusting problem. And quite a few people in the ICE totem pole didn't seem to care either. I was a bit disturbed.


(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I relate this to the people on the other side who want to abolish the IRS. They don't want to replace it.

All those people cheering when AOC says "Abolish ICE", what do they think they are cheering? A renaming of the agency and new agencies carrying out the same duties of catching and deporting illegals?

IMO, no.

Maybe that is what the crowds think abolishing ICE means - closing concentration camps.

But if abolishing ICE just means doing the same things under another name, what's the point? OTOH, if it means we won't be enforcing our borders anymore, isn't that just open borders in sheep's clothing?

I'm not sure most of the people chanting have thought it through in great detail. They believe ICE is a problem and that getting rid of ICE might help with a solution. Other agencies can carry out ICE's core duties without a lot of the negatives that have developed within ICE.

Again, it isn't something I'm advocating or supporting. But I don't think ICE as an agency should be sacrosanct. I also don't think any of the politicians who support the idea of abolishing ICE are for open borders or believe that ICE's core duties will be unfulfilled.

Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

Not sure what your point is here. Other agencies were doing what ICE does prior to 2003. We could simply break up ICE back into those constituent pieces and quash the toxic culture that has fermented there.
09-05-2019 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #38
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-05-2019 03:40 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:02 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But most people in all the agencies are good. I think it unfair to characterize them as Hispanic-hating Nazis running concentration camps.

I mean, I had a case where ICE had deported a US citizen and the ICE employee in the best position to realize the guy was a citizen: (1) didn't do what he was supposed to do to make this determination; and (2) really, truly, honestly didn't care at all that he had a large role in deporting a US citizen to a country where the guy had not lived since he was a toddler. So that's kind of a disgusting problem. And quite a few people in the ICE totem pole didn't seem to care either. I was a bit disturbed.


(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I relate this to the people on the other side who want to abolish the IRS. They don't want to replace it.

All those people cheering when AOC says "Abolish ICE", what do they think they are cheering? A renaming of the agency and new agencies carrying out the same duties of catching and deporting illegals?

IMO, no.

Maybe that is what the crowds think abolishing ICE means - closing concentration camps.

But if abolishing ICE just means doing the same things under another name, what's the point? OTOH, if it means we won't be enforcing our borders anymore, isn't that just open borders in sheep's clothing?

I'm not sure most of the people chanting have thought it through in great detail. They believe ICE is a problem and that getting rid of ICE might help with a solution. Other agencies can carry out ICE's core duties without a lot of the negatives that have developed within ICE.

Again, it isn't something I'm advocating or supporting. But I don't think ICE as an agency should be sacrosanct. I also don't think any of the politicians who support the idea of abolishing ICE are for open borders or believe that ICE's core duties will be unfulfilled.

Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

Not sure what your point is here. Other agencies were doing what ICE does prior to 2003. We could simply break up ICE back into those constituent pieces and quash the toxic culture that has fermented there.

I don't think most of the Democrats think abolish ICE just means assigning their duties to other agencies and carrying on as before. I think most of them want to abolish the immigration function altogether.

But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2019 05:37 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
09-05-2019 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #39
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-05-2019 03:40 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:02 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But most people in all the agencies are good. I think it unfair to characterize them as Hispanic-hating Nazis running concentration camps.

I mean, I had a case where ICE had deported a US citizen and the ICE employee in the best position to realize the guy was a citizen: (1) didn't do what he was supposed to do to make this determination; and (2) really, truly, honestly didn't care at all that he had a large role in deporting a US citizen to a country where the guy had not lived since he was a toddler. So that's kind of a disgusting problem. And quite a few people in the ICE totem pole didn't seem to care either. I was a bit disturbed.


(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I relate this to the people on the other side who want to abolish the IRS. They don't want to replace it.

All those people cheering when AOC says "Abolish ICE", what do they think they are cheering? A renaming of the agency and new agencies carrying out the same duties of catching and deporting illegals?

IMO, no.

Maybe that is what the crowds think abolishing ICE means - closing concentration camps.

But if abolishing ICE just means doing the same things under another name, what's the point? OTOH, if it means we won't be enforcing our borders anymore, isn't that just open borders in sheep's clothing?

I'm not sure most of the people chanting have thought it through in great detail. They believe ICE is a problem and that getting rid of ICE might help with a solution. Other agencies can carry out ICE's core duties without a lot of the negatives that have developed within ICE.

Again, it isn't something I'm advocating or supporting. But I don't think ICE as an agency should be sacrosanct. I also don't think any of the politicians who support the idea of abolishing ICE are for open borders or believe that ICE's core duties will be unfulfilled.

Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

Not sure what your point is here. Other agencies were doing what ICE does prior to 2003. We could simply break up ICE back into those constituent pieces and quash the toxic culture that has fermented there.

And you overlook the open borders movement really didnt get going until 2012 or just a little bit afterwards. The Abolish ICE movement didnt start up until right about that time either.

Maybe we could simply break up the Open Borders movement into constituent pieces and quash the toxic culture that has fermented there.
09-05-2019 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #40
RE: 2020 Presidential Horse Race Thread
(09-05-2019 05:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:40 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:02 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But most people in all the agencies are good. I think it unfair to characterize them as Hispanic-hating Nazis running concentration camps.

I mean, I had a case where ICE had deported a US citizen and the ICE employee in the best position to realize the guy was a citizen: (1) didn't do what he was supposed to do to make this determination; and (2) really, truly, honestly didn't care at all that he had a large role in deporting a US citizen to a country where the guy had not lived since he was a toddler. So that's kind of a disgusting problem. And quite a few people in the ICE totem pole didn't seem to care either. I was a bit disturbed.


(09-04-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I relate this to the people on the other side who want to abolish the IRS. They don't want to replace it.

All those people cheering when AOC says "Abolish ICE", what do they think they are cheering? A renaming of the agency and new agencies carrying out the same duties of catching and deporting illegals?

IMO, no.

Maybe that is what the crowds think abolishing ICE means - closing concentration camps.

But if abolishing ICE just means doing the same things under another name, what's the point? OTOH, if it means we won't be enforcing our borders anymore, isn't that just open borders in sheep's clothing?

I'm not sure most of the people chanting have thought it through in great detail. They believe ICE is a problem and that getting rid of ICE might help with a solution. Other agencies can carry out ICE's core duties without a lot of the negatives that have developed within ICE.

Again, it isn't something I'm advocating or supporting. But I don't think ICE as an agency should be sacrosanct. I also don't think any of the politicians who support the idea of abolishing ICE are for open borders or believe that ICE's core duties will be unfulfilled.

Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

Not sure what your point is here. Other agencies were doing what ICE does prior to 2003. We could simply break up ICE back into those constituent pieces and quash the toxic culture that has fermented there.

And you overlook the open borders movement really didnt get going until 2012 or just a little bit afterwards. The Abolish ICE movement didnt start up until right about that time either.

Maybe we could simply break up the Open Borders movement into constituent pieces and quash the toxic culture that has fermented there.

I didn't understand your point with the 'pigs 67-74' comment other than that it seemed to suggest that ICE's directives could not be carried out if they were distributed among other federal agencies.

I pointed out that ICE was formed by consolidating directives previously under the umbrella of other agencies and argued that it could be returned to that structure and still do its job (subject to the whims of whatever admin is in power, as always).

I'm aware of an open borders movement and Abolish ICE. I do not see how their existence means that ICE's work couldn't be done if it were divided among other agencies. If that's not what you were suggesting with 'pigs 67-74,' please clarify for us.
09-05-2019 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: RiceLad15, 5 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.