The Next President of the United States: IV

Agreed Mufasa. And they will either have to be bailed out or the people receiving benefits will have some modification in how they’re received. Either way, not exactly to plan.

Most private companies are doing 401k now instead of pensions. I don’t know enough to say ONLY, but that seems to be the norm for US private companies now.

There is a difference between welfare and pensions. Max is talking about pensions, which are from public workers who were promised retirement benefits based on their work. That is vastly different than a welfare recipient in the way that term welfare is normally used. Maybe I’m a realist but I don’t see retired school teachers/cops/firefighters/etc storming every city, but feel free to take it to the extreme, seems to be your MO.

I know but social security plays a role in the national debt

Drew,

The point I was trying to make is, with immigrant people voting Democrat by a 70-30 margin, the end game is that Democrats will be able to do whatever they want.

For example, despite outcry from many people, my city council just passed a resolution to put Los Angeles on a path to get it’s energy from 100% renewable energy (which means none by coal). The vote was 12-0, not a single Republican or moderate sits on the council. When asked what the cost to ratepayers would be, the council answered with a unanimous shrug.

I brought this up as an example of how one party rule can be so detrimental, I would add that I would not want Republicans to have one party rule either.

Duh, that is why I argue for that issue and want more attention brought to it. But just like both presidential candiates we aren’t talking about social security or welfare (although I’m more than happy to).

And I think you have a very valid point regarding one party rule and the evidence of how democratic fiscal policies bankrupt themselves over time. Where you lose me is I don’t think is that immigrants are the only reason California is the democratic strong hold it is. There are other border states that have immigration but don’t have the same politics, yielding very different results (I believe mufasa was making this point).

Absolutely, there has to be balance.

Agreed.

If the general consensus is to flee and not fight, eventually you run out of places to flee to. The states that are progressive hell holes were not always this way.

3 Likes

How many sanctuary cities are in Arizona or Texas versus California?

I’ll bite and guess, but I factualy do not know. Very little vs a lot.

I believe that empahisizes that the politics/policy are the problems that are leading to the situation in California.

I have done none of that. And frankly, I find your characterization
of them as poor little “victims” of racist American citizens
distasteful.

Never said they were poor little “victims” and never even brought racism into it, if they made it into America than they are fortunate just like anyone born here. I stated that the fact that they are here illegally enables people to pin their problems on them which is not only inaccurate it’s counterproductive in us finding real solutions.

No, they are not. At least with legal folks there is some sort of a
vetting; at the very minimum, the patience and perseverance that it
takes to get through the process helps to sort out the worst of them
(gang members, etc.). And even if you were right, the answer would be to simply limit immigration from that region.

Which is why I said the debate surrounding border security would be boring, people could pretty easily agree on a need to increase security at the border. Then we could realistically exclude bad actors from entering the country via the southern boarder. Instead the Trumpkins get a hard on over the fantasy of deporting 10 million people and building a glorious wall to keep them out for good. All this is again counterproductive to making some actual commonsense and effective immigration reform.

Having lived overseas for 2 and a half decades, I can tell you that people from other countries find it laughable.

Yes, sort of like our affinity for the 2nd amendment is often laughed at. We’re different in America, we’ve always had lax immigration policies primarily because we previously didn’t have to worry about an undue burden on the nanny state. We also haven’t typically shared the same cultural insecurity or felt the need to protect it from migrant influences. This however digresses from the debate we’re having with regard to legal/illegal status. My original argument was directed at the fact that the blame being directed(not necessarily by you) at illegal immigrants was more generally implied for all immigrants from that region.

That is nothing but PC bullshit. They are in the country illegally.
The concept of sovereign borders is universally accepted the world over.
They are illegal immigrants, and no more “undocumented immigrants” than a car thief is an “unregistered automobile owner.”

It’s semantics, just the same as I may call an unregistered firearm unregistered instead of illegal

Personally I don’t care what phrase is used as I use either depending on the context, as much as PC safe spaces are being abused a little discretion with how you phrase an argument can go a long way in getting what you want.

2 Likes

I wasn’t disagreeing with you. California’s demise is based more on their progressive politics and one party rule than immigration. The point being though, unlike states with firmer enforcement, their openness to illegal immigration has created a perpetual cycle that breeds more progressive policy and in turn, more immigration. Death spiral.

1 Like

I’ve spent a lot of time making the case that immigration greatly exacerbates the national debt.

This ruling bolsters @MaximusB point of how illegal immigrants can effect legal citizens.

1 Like

I didn’t take it that way (sorry if it came off like that), more of the fact that I didn’t know the answer and was guessing. I could’ve easily been wrong.

Again, I don’t think immigration is sole issue. There are cities and states that have fiscal problems that have very little immigration. There are also super progressive places that have very little immigration. You can have immigrants in your state and still have fiscal sanity.

Seems to me as a life long Californian, that one begets the other.

What that more immigrants create the nanny state or that the nanny state brings in more immigrants?

You mean stuff like this?

1 Like

He was complaining about far more than illegals. Look, no one is saying he has to go anywhere. But California isn’t going to change. And if Max truly believes immigration plus all of the other political evils are going to result in the unraveling of civilization, why stick around if there are other options?

There’s no need to go in circles on this. But it doesn’t add up - if the circumstances are as dire as Max insists they are, it makes no sense to stay.

I won’t leave for the same reason you won’t leave if Trump wins. As far as civilization unraveling, make enough bad decisions and it will happen. If you choose to base your life on foolish behaviors, it is only a matter of time before that catches up with you. Reckless immigration is not the only player, but it’s a considerable catalyst in the equation.

3 Likes

Moving states is not the same as moving to a different country.

There are still viable reasons to stay and fight.

1 Like