In fact, I think you have to be a racist to not support Trump. Do you think poor immigrant enclaves and predominantly black ghettos are happy that there is so much crime, gangs, drugs, no jobs, and barely functioning public schools, hospitals, and other social programs in their communities? They are some of the worst places in the country to live and I'm amazed Trump has repeatedly talked at length, articulating many ignored socioeconomic problems and targeted policy proposals to help the poorest Americans. He calls shows like MSNBC's Morning Joe every day and talks for an hour straight about this stuff but you only hear MEXICANS ARE RAPISTS! soundbites from 4 months ago on every website and pundit piece.
Why do you think Trump is bitching that the media isn't treating him fairly? They are ignoring like 99.9 percent of what his campaign is about, yellow journalism race-bait fear-mongering to deceive voting Americans, simply because Trump isn't taking their money.
tpaine posted:this is gay
We don't consider gay an insult here. Feel the icy burn of a one week probation.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
"Suppose one of these “outsider” candidates actually wins and/or becomes a part of the government? The answer to that seems all too simple: We have seen such parties become the government (Hungary) or part of the government (Norway). Not all that much changes. If an anti-immigrant party does well, there is some tightening on the entry of migrants and some tightening of welfare state expenditures for the poorest sectors of the population. There is some increased anti-minority violence within the country. These are all negatives. But in the end neither the geopolitics of the country nor the middle-run economic options of the country seems to have changed. Why do we assume that this would not be true of the United States in 2016?"
http://iwallerstein.com/u-s-presidential-elections/
Anyone got a Reader's Digest version?
In 1996, Sanders voted against H.Amdt.934 to H.R.2854, which "sought to phase out the sugar price support program over five years."
http://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_agricultural_subsidies
lol...
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121752/trade-deals-give-corporations-power-intimidate-tiny-countries
RedMaistre posted:OP: The question of who is should be included within a community is conceptually prior to the question of the distribution of wealth within said community. When people reject Donald Trump because of his positions about walling off the border, ending birth-right citizenship, etc, they may do so in ignorance about his positions about healthcare or taxation, but they are not being irrational.
The Catechism does not actually support amnesty for illegals or birth-right citizenship. It says that political authorities "may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption" and that, regarding the host country, immigrants are obligated "to obey its laws".
RBC posted:i don't understand any of these posts that read like word salad. you're all schizophrenic and should probably seek help.
Thanks, I got the help I needed and turned my life around because of this post
Agnus_Dei posted:RedMaistre posted:OP: The question of who is should be included within a community is conceptually prior to the question of the distribution of wealth within said community. When people reject Donald Trump because of his positions about walling off the border, ending birth-right citizenship, etc, they may do so in ignorance about his positions about healthcare or taxation, but they are not being irrational.
The Catechism does not actually support amnesty for illegals or birth-right citizenship. It says that political authorities "may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption" and that, regarding the host country, immigrants are obligated "to obey its laws".
let's all move to the vatican
Please continue to trumpet the Trump
Agnus_Dei posted:RedMaistre posted:OP: The question of who is should be included within a community is conceptually prior to the question of the distribution of wealth within said community. When people reject Donald Trump because of his positions about walling off the border, ending birth-right citizenship, etc, they may do so in ignorance about his positions about healthcare or taxation, but they are not being irrational.
The Catechism does not actually support amnesty for illegals or birth-right citizenship. It says that political authorities "may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption" and that, regarding the host country, immigrants are obligated "to obey its laws".
The Church certainly does not advocate Open Borders; but then again, pace Bernie Sanders, neither do the Koch Brothers, or, for that matter, any other major public voice in the American immigration debate. States have a right to manage their borders, but this legitimate function is ultimately subordinate to ensuring the global conditions of general human flourishing, not simple national interest:
The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Just as the right of the starving to food trumps the rights of private possession (see #2408 of the Catechism), the rights of illegal migrants tend to trump the regulations of the state; for among "man's personal rights we must include his right to enter a country in which he hopes to be able to provide more fittingly for himself.," and this claim to access, being rooted in individual need and our shared human nature, is not dependent on legal membership to any particular polity.
This is reflected both in the official pronouncement of the hierarchy and in the activities of American Catholic organizations.
tpaine posted:good or bad none of it is based on any kind rational or deliberative thought process.
I see ur finally writing a forward for ur "book"
"Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries in huge factories and mines in America, Germany, and so forth(From "Capitalism and Workers’ Immigration" by Lenin ."
Furthermore, the United States, unlike many other countries, has the advantage of having had birthright citizenship in place for a long time. Removing it would require as much an upset of our institutions and legal traditions as it would to suddenly establish birthright citizenship in jus sanguinis states like Japan. Not only would its abolishment require a substantial increase in the interference of the state to confirm people's legal status (with wealthy predictably getting special treatment), it would also inevitably lead to an increase in the number of stateless persons trapped in a legal limbo, not on their own account but because of the choices of their parents.
RedMaistre posted:The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
By just saying "the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin", the author is allowing a lot of debate and disagreement. Has the Vatican released detailed instructions on how to process and investigate immigrants, to ensure their status and goals? What constitutes an unacceptable degree of security and livelihood? When do we say that one cannot find that degree of security and livelihood; up to which point does the foreigner have a duty to improve his homeland before abandoning it?
Lykourgos posted:RedMaistre posted:The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
By just saying "the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin", the author is allowing a lot of debate and disagreement. Has the Vatican released detailed instructions on how to process and investigate immigrants, to ensure their status and goals? What constitutes an unacceptable degree of security and livelihood? When do we say that one cannot find that degree of security and livelihood; up to which point does the foreigner have a duty to improve his homeland before abandoning it?
These guidelines do allow for a great deal of debate and disagreement, because it is meant to outline general principles, not provide a detailed instruction manual blessed with magisterial authority for how to apply said principles within the various individual states and communities.
That, in the case of first world countries, ecclesiastical authorities and catholic lay groups have, overwhelmingly, tended to overtly support refugees and workers without papers is a testament to how evident to ordinary human reason are the needs of those demanding protection combined with a recognition of the vast resources that the US and Europe have to meet them
RedMaistre posted:Lykourgos posted:RedMaistre posted:The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
By just saying "the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin", the author is allowing a lot of debate and disagreement. Has the Vatican released detailed instructions on how to process and investigate immigrants, to ensure their status and goals? What constitutes an unacceptable degree of security and livelihood? When do we say that one cannot find that degree of security and livelihood; up to which point does the foreigner have a duty to improve his homeland before abandoning it?
These guidelines do allow for a great deal of debate and disagreement, because it meant to outline the general principles, not provide a detailed instruction manual blessed with magisterial authority for how to apply said principles within the various individual states and communities.
That, in the case of first world countries, ecclesiastical authorities and catholic lay groups have tended to be very overtly in support of refugees and workers without papers is a testament to how evident to ordinary human reason are the needs of those demanding protection combined with a recognition of the vast resources that the US and Europe have to meet them
So are you saying that the Vatican hasn't released a detailed account of what that statement means, or are you just ignoring the question?
You raise a new question, though: why would the support of ecclesiastical authorities and catholic lay groups be proof that something is "evident to human reason"? Just to begin with, reason involves standards, but as far as I know the Vatican hasn't drafted any such standards.
Lykourgos posted:RedMaistre posted:Lykourgos posted:RedMaistre posted:The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
By just saying "the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin", the author is allowing a lot of debate and disagreement. Has the Vatican released detailed instructions on how to process and investigate immigrants, to ensure their status and goals? What constitutes an unacceptable degree of security and livelihood? When do we say that one cannot find that degree of security and livelihood; up to which point does the foreigner have a duty to improve his homeland before abandoning it?
These guidelines do allow for a great deal of debate and disagreement, because it meant to outline the general principles, not provide a detailed instruction manual blessed with magisterial authority for how to apply said principles within the various individual states and communities.
That, in the case of first world countries, ecclesiastical authorities and catholic lay groups have tended to be very overtly in support of refugees and workers without papers is a testament to how evident to ordinary human reason are the needs of those demanding protection combined with a recognition of the vast resources that the US and Europe have to meet themSo are you saying that the Vatican hasn't released a detailed account of what that statement means, or are you just ignoring the question?
I just said that it hasn't, because the application of such general principles has to be tailored to various national conditions, and this requires local judgment and debate.