Trump

[Mightysword]

I value that. It informs me. It educates me. And I enjoy it. Even when I disagree with whatever somebody may have said.

And it will be great if everyone can follow that etiquette the way you do, but well, as you can clearly see above, that's not the case.

I think your argument about internet anonymity has a great deal of merit. But I am not sure it works here, on Egosoft's forum. Many of us old-timers have years of contributions to this place, years of personality, position and perspective on display. They go a very long way in terms of defining who "we" are.

The thing is that "old timers" is a privilege that doesn't exist in other places, and even on here it's still a privilege that is only available to perharp more than a handful of us. As mentioned before I'm someone who share very little common with Masterbarger, I can still respect him as a "well-behave" forum posters. Unlike you him being here long doesn't matter to me, but I can't really remember when was the last time he received a warning from a moderator despite all the attack he often gets. On the other hands, the few people who regularly attacked him and called himself all sort of nasty while parade themselves with a laundry list of highly regards moral characters are the one repeatedly receive infraction and warning for crossing the line.

Edit: and here is a small question for you - that privilege can only came after a long time being here, time that you had decided "worthwhile" to be here. My point here is that if this forum is managed in the same manner of other places, you may not have the opportunity to even develop the very bonds you just mentioned.

And like I said that's what make a difference on this forum comparing to other places on the internet. I exists here as the same person I am on reddit, yet you will never see me make these kind of posts on reddit simply because it's not the environment for it. And while I know some people may find my often overly long-winded posting style annoying, I still consider it's worth while to do it here. The point I was trying to make here is that the things that makes this forum "good" also exist in other place, and what makes other forums "bad" also exists here. We see the difference simply due to how well this forum is moderated. It's not just about people like Masterbarger and those who in direct confrontation with him, but I believe in only by allowing this diversity that people like you can find merits that I will requote:

I value that. It informs me. It educates me. And I enjoy it. Even when I disagree with whatever somebody may have said.

[Masterbagger]

Not quoting anyone in particular but something related to what's been discussing: do you notice that outside of the internet, you don't see a lot of people willing to engage in political discussion? May I ask that how many of you here engage in political argument in the same insensitivity you dedicate to this very thread almost daily or weekly? And why is that? I think the short and simple answer because the safety of anonymity the internet offer, but the long answer is 'what does that implies'?

I'd think I'd argue that survivor bias (even if only in terms of the people who contribute are the people who are interested ) and good moderation plays a very large part.

Personally I engage in debate, of all kinds, with many people on a regular basis. Do I do it (political discussion) with "the same insensitivity"? Now that's a good question.

And the answer is yes.

If, say, Masterbagger and me get in a political disagreement here, on Egosoft, I know, roughly, how far I can go with him in argument without the argument itself becoming a problem. Similarly I go round to an old lady neighbour of mine almost every day, have a coffee with her, talk about stuff, and do some shopping for her. She's very religious. I am very not religious. It doesn't stop us being friends, or caring for one another, or allowing each other the space to disagree. In spite of the fact that some of her beliefs are completely antithetical to my own.

I've known her for years. I've "known" Masterbagger for years.

Would I be quite so robust in my discussions with somebody I didn't "know" so well? No, I wouldn't be (unless they said something flagrantly stupid, ignorant or... I was going to say evil but I will settle for.... nasty).

I think your argument about internet anonymity has a great deal of merit. But I am not sure it works here, on Egosoft's forum. Many of us old-timers have years of contributions to this place, years of personality, position and perspective on display. They go a very long way in terms of defining who "we" are.

I value that. It informs me. It educates me. And I enjoy it. Even when I disagree with whatever somebody may have said.

I acknowledge that we have the ability to mutually disagree. We can get away with a lot of personal poking when we've been doing this for so many years when we understand that for most of us there isn't malice behind it or the targeted party finds that malice simply amusing. Mighty has a really good point though and I am glad he referenced reddit. You can't go to the politics reddit and do anything but parrot liberal talking points. There is no discussion there. It is an echo chamber. It really is special that we have a years long continuous discussion of politics. There is a lot of worth in clicking back to page 1 and refreshing what the discussion was like back then. You in particular own the second post of this thread and you nailed why Trump was on his way to a victory. We went a long time before we started involving emotionally fueled confrontation. That is way better than most places on the internet.

The thing is that "old timers" is a privilege that doesn't exist in other places, and even on here it's still a privilege that is only available to perharp more than a handful of us. As mentioned before I'm someone who share very little common with Masterbarger, I can still respect him as a "well-behave" forum posters. Unlike you him being here long doesn't matter to me, but I can't really remember when was the last time he received a warning from a moderator despite all the attack he often gets. On the other hands, the few people who regularly attacked him and called himself all sort of nasty while parade themselves with a laundry list of highly regards moral characters are the one repeatedly receive infraction and warning for crossing the line.

Edit: and here is a small question for you - that privilege can only came after a long time being here, time that you had decided "worthwhile" to be here. My point here is that if this forum is managed in the same manner of other places, you may not have the opportunity to even develop the very bonds you just mentioned.

And like I said that's what make a difference on this forum comparing to other places on the internet. I exists here as the same person I am on reddit, yet you will never see me make these kind of posts on reddit simply because it's not the environment for it. And while I know some people may find my often overly long-winded posting style annoying, I still consider it's worth while to do it here. The point I was trying to make here is that the things that makes this forum "good" also exist in other place, and what makes other forums "bad" also exists here. We see the difference simply due to how well this forum is moderated. It's not just about people like Masterbarger and those who in direct confrontation with him, but I believe in only by allowing this diversity that people like you can find merits that I will requote:

I wanted to reply to you directly to say that I agree with the gist of what you are saying. I don't mind confrontation and I don't take disagreement personally. I didn't want to end up being the only majority right wing viewpoint on this forum. I'm not a perfect representative of that side even if I support the main views there concerning upholding individual liberty. I think you are in a similar situation where you are not holding yourself to a platform that falls completely under either party. I've seen you get the same sort of flak I have for doing that from the same sources. But as you say this isn't reddit and you can say what you think. I don't want you to stop.

[Vertigo 7]

It's not just about people like Masterbarger and those who in direct confrontation with him, but I believe in only by allowing this diversity that people like you can find merits that I will requote:

I value that. It informs me. It educates me. And I enjoy it. Even when I disagree with whatever somebody may have said.

Diversity doesn't mean tolerating or accepting bigotry and racism. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Here's the thing... the question that's been avoided by the cultists. Why this guy? There's no other republican that can be president without the racism and sexual misconduct? There's no republican that can actually embody the morals the GOP was supposed to represent? There's no republican that can condemn David Duke, Steve King, Roy Moore and the like? There's no republican that can manage to live without diddling kids or being associated with those that do? There's no republican that's unwilling to sell out to Russia?

The laundry list of things that make Trump a despicable human being, not just a despicable president, grows by the day, but these guys cheer him on. Not a peep of condemnation against him for all the shit he does. But a democrat president lied about having an affair? Oh no... we're gonna bring that up. The last president was black? We're gonna bring that up and refer to him as "The Kenyan". Ban the Muslims! Put Mexican children in cages! We'll tell people it's cuz we want security, but I'm not gonna pay attention to the amount of murders American citizens commit on other Americans. No... blame the foreigners for all of our problems! Why? Cuz Trump said so and it makes me feel good!

I'll repeat, for the record. I voted for Bush. At the time, I felt he was going to help this country move forward. I also voted for Obama. I did not vote for Hillary or Trump. I saw nothing but a train wreck out of either one of them and damned if I wasn't right. Point is, I don't care who is republican or who is a democrat. But I do want a president who will take their oath of office seriously and obey the constitution, at a minimum. Preferably, one who doesn't throw a temper tantrum when they're called out for being wrong; and they call liberals snowflakes... lol

[Observe]

Diversity doesn't mean tolerating or accepting bigotry and racism. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Sounds simple enough I agree...until you start defining bigotry, or racism. One man's bigotry is another man's sense of rightness. For example, a conservative thinker might not agree with the ethics of transgender procedures that didn't exist until modern surgeries and medical hormones etc. Such a person may not agree with transgenders having access to the bathroom of their choice. Don't heterosexuals get a say? Does this make that person a bigot? Should they be derided and have stones thrown at them? Another example is women's right to abortion. A conservative person may say that the man should also have a say in the matter, or that abortion is a sin. Does this mean that person is against equality for women and should be labeled as a dinosaur, or a crackpot?

The list of examples goes on, where issues appear clear, but opposite views exist. We have to find a way to navigate changing times and attitudes, without casting each other aside as scum, merely because we disagree.

[fiksal]

This is not simply my own observation, over the years this trends have been reported widely by media on BOTH side of the spectrum. The left use it to demonstrate their (false) sense of majority, while the right use it as a rally symbol of oppression.

Does it mean you imply that global world is by in large "leftist"? Or do we just mean US?

Then if we are talking symbology (MAGA hats or Obama hats), maybe next question be of the image that symbol invokes. Maybe there's a problem there.

This is not about you or me, this is about "reality". You are free to take its meaning however you wish, but you can't deny its existence when it's already acknowledge by all sides of the argument.

The examples are still too broad for my liking. I see the incidents isolated and grouped by people and places.

- For some reason you seem to take this up as a competition, I didn't intend it to be. There is nothing wrong to use personal experience as part of the argument, like you said I use it plenty. But the question is whether one experience is inline with reality, or being used to construct a false sense of it. In another word, parity is important.

Reality is a big place. I've lived in several countries where those are different.

I didn't remind you of why Trump win, I am reminding you why his win was considered a "surprise".

We have already discussed it I think. I remember.

[Mightysword]

For example, a conservative thinker might not agree with the ethics of transgender procedures that didn't exist until modern surgeries and medical hormones etc. Such a person may not agree with transgenders having access to the bathroom of their choice. Don't heterosexuals get a say? Does this make that person a bigot? Should they be derided and have stones thrown at them?

That's actually one of the best example. I remember that argument from a few years back and I'll be honest I was scared, I was scared that liberal/LGBT would win that argument. I had voted to grant and recognize LGBT equal rights under the law each time they appeared on the ballot. But even then I can't help but feel dismayed at the bathroom argument back then, and the toxic/uncompromising stance the LGBT community took during that part. Sure, there are still a large squat of the population that hold contempt against LGBT for BS reasons, but one have to admit that when "parents" went against the bathroom argument out of concern that it can be exploitative, that's a valid concern no matter how you swing it. But in those arguments, those "parents" were basically hold in the same group as the bigots. Thanksfully after a while that argument died down and the cooler head prevail with the compromise, most public place I visited these day have a "third" bathroom type.

And like you said it's a pattern that can be seen across pretty much any topics. There are people who are truly racist and xenophobic, but there are also people who have lawful concern and valid skepticism about immigrant. But what difference does that make in politic? The left hold both in the same contempt under the same label. Which kinda push the question if you are already considered the same anyway, an alliance of convenience seems to be natural, yes? I do believe that the "CORE CORE" supporter of Trump is not that big, and by that I mean the group that would still vote for Trump even if he shoots someone in the middle of the street. I would say a good chunk of support for Trump are coming from people who for the last decade were terrified by the forcefulness and self-righteous of the left, while not idea, they probably see Trump as the temporary ward against the 'greater' evil. You actually put it quite eloquently in the previous post

They couldn't care less whether their standard barer is a pompous egomaniac or the next Saint. To them, liberals spell anathema to everything holy and decent about American life.

I don't know if you were being sarcastic when you said that, but objectively I think what you said there is very true. And while I think the far left would consider those with such thought as "Trumpanzees" and bigot, they also remain oblivious to the fact it were their action that push a good number of people into that line of thinking.

[RegisterMe]

I use Reddit quite a lot. It's an interesting "place". Some communities are really helpful, constructive, and polite. My experience of political subs (limited, I admit, to US and UK) is not as positive.

/r/politics is not really "politics". It's completely taken over by liberals and Dems. That having been said it's good for sources, and occasionally some of the commentary is interesting and constructive. The discussion, however, rarely is.

I also drop in on /r/republicans from time to time, just for the sake of balance. It's not as good as /r/politics for sources, is just as biased, only from the other direction, and interesting commentary is rare (which is saying something given how rare it is on /r/politics), but it can be found occasionally. /r/republicans isn't my cup of tea but it's not completely crazy.

/r/the_donald is... vile.

We have a much better discussion going on here than I've seen on any politics sub, ever.

EDIT: I think there's a good rationale for renaming /r/politics /r/democrats.

[Vertigo 7]

Diversity doesn't mean tolerating or accepting bigotry and racism. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Sounds simple enough I agree...until you start defining bigotry, or racism. One man's bigotry is another man's sense of rightness. For example, a conservative thinker might not agree with the ethics of transgender procedures that didn't exist until modern surgeries and medical hormones etc. Such a person may not agree with transgenders having access to the bathroom of their choice. Don't heterosexuals get a say? Does this make that person a bigot? Should they be derided and have stones thrown at them? Another example is women's right to abortion. A conservative person may say that the man should also have a say in the matter, or that abortion is a sin. Does this mean that person is against equality for women and should be labeled as a dinosaur, or a crackpot?

The list of examples goes on, where issues appear clear, but opposite views exist. We have to find a way to navigate changing times and attitudes, without casting each other aside as scum, merely because we disagree.

The thing is, though, there's no basis in facts for those arguments and is driven by nothing but fear and ignorance. Case in point, even the professor said he was afraid. And the same people that want to claim transgenders will harm their children in X circumstance, without supporting evidence, are the same ones that threaten them with violence and harass them, etc. The very same people that rail against people of color.

And then the moment you start bringing religion into the argument is the moment you're starting to impose your religion on others, whether they chose to follow your doctrines or not. I'm absolutely fundamentally against using religion as an excuse to impose your will on others. These people wouldn't tolerate Muslim doctrine being imposed on them, why should any christian doctrine be imposed? So am I labeling them as a dinosaur or a crackpot? No. But I am labeling them a hypocrite. And not just for their closed minded views, but because they're cherry picking their religion to suit their own sense of righteousness.

Thing is, I'm not even saying these people have to like whoever it is they're choosing to rail against. But there are lines they're crossing every day that endanger the safety and well being of others, and that's something I will not ever think is okay. Whether it's someone who is pro or against those arguments. But, the sad truth is, it tends to be the ones that are anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, etc. that are quick to violence or provoke violence, all stemming from fear and ignorance.

[Mightysword]

The bathroom debate was also a great example for the need to take a step back, take a deep breath and look at all angle to "understanding of all side", and not simply tunnel vision on the us vs them.

While there are always someone who feel comfortable sharing the bathroom with trans, that issue is actually simple and probably can be resolved overtime. But the bulk of the bathroom debate backthen wasn't about being comfortable sharing with transgender or not, an especially not about "transgender gonna harm my children". The concern from the parents was not about having their child sharing bathroom with a 'legit' trans, but it will create the ambiguity that enable perverts to pose as trans and pray on their children. If a child coming out of a public bathroom telling their parents they just had someone of their (perceived) opposite gender entering when they were doing the deed, I figure most parents will react the same way regardless of their stand on transgender itself. It's not unreasonable to react as such now, I don't see how it would be even if after such a law is passed. So how you're going to deal with that 'risk'? Asking the trans to "prove" they can legally be there every time a false alarm are raised? I can't imagine that would be comfortable for the trans people themselves. Or you can bluntly tell the heterosexuals to just suck it up and shoulder the burden of risk on their own? I'm sure that not reasonable either.

And that's even before actual incidents happen, and they will happen giving the state of certain part of society (read: child pornography is not rare, and neither perverts - also read: this is not about trans). At that point, most people won't simply let the trans community to simply wash their hand and say "but those perverts are not trans, it has nothing to do with us!", they will be hold accountable at least partially that it was their demand that leads to that situation. Even from a support of transgenders POV, I'm glad they didn't win that argument. Because it would be just a small short term victory but the friction it would create would do more harm to their image in the long run.


I have a spare room in my house and as such, from time to time I have acquaintances asking if they can rent it out. For reasons that has "nothing" to do with the people asking, I turn down every offers. Most are reasonable and simply accept the "no" answer without asking further. But I did get some who simply can't accept it. They're giving me money, I have a room to spare, it's win win so why would refuse? Oh I must be a selfish person. Worse, I must have some distrust about them, then they go on and get offended by themselves as if I just insult their integrity by not renting the room to them - disregarding the fact I'm not renting it out for anyone. I brought this up because the "intolerance" people somehow strike me as very similar. They can not accept any external reasons outside of their construct, they also treat any disagreement as a direct violation of their belief regardless whether the reasons are about them or not.

[Observe]

Thing is, I'm not even saying these people have to like whoever it is they're choosing to rail against. But there are lines they're crossing every day that endanger the safety and well being of others, and that's something I will not ever think is okay. Whether it's someone who is pro or against those arguments. But, the sad truth is, it tends to be the ones that are anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, etc. that are quick to violence or provoke violence, all stemming from fear and ignorance.

At the same time, most people who are not comfortable with LGBTQ, abortion, immigration etc., are not the violent types you refer to.

There are complexities in the subtleties. Take LGBT which became LGBTQ and sometimes LGBTTQQIAAP. It is possible to be OK with lesbians and gays, but not OK with transgenders. Even among the LG community, there is an element of resentment toward T's. Trouble comes when someone doesn't accept all the letters in the latest acronym, they get labeled as something ugly. Such people will naturally come to hate liberals who they see as the ones foisting unwelcome social changes upon their beloved nation or whatever. Such people will vote for Trump any day of the week.

Take abortion. There are long-standing philosophical, ethical, physical and religious causes for concern. No one really likes the idea of abortion. It is always a tragic situation. Conservatives, see their tax dollars going to fund free abortion clinics, they see their children being told that a woman has the right to choose whether to hold a pregnancy to term, or to abort it; even if the reason for aborting, is that the child might cramp the woman's selfish little lifestyle, or something like that. Such people will vote for Trump any day of the week.

Take immigration. There are legitimate legalities and procedures for immigrating to any country. It is not difficult to see why some people will resent the idea of being "invaded" by illegal immigrants, having to foot the bill for their welfare and then being told by liberals, that these "criminals" should be given a primrose path to citizenship, or something like that. Such people will vote for Trump any day of the week.

In other words, Conservatives are as mad as hell at the progressive liberal agenda and they will vote for Trump en masse. Most of them are not violent people. They think of themselves as good people. Do I agree with such people? Generally no. I do however try to see where they are coming from and what motivates them. Sometimes I even change my opinion as a result.

[Axeface]

Take immigration. There are legitimate legalities and procedures for immigrating to any country. It is not difficult to see why some people will resent the idea of being "invaded" by illegal immigrants, having to foot the bill for their welfare and then being told by liberals, that these "criminals" should be given a primrose path to citizenship, or something like that. Such people will vote for Trump any day of the week.

Genuine question, coming from someone that isnt from the US. How can these people think that they are 'footing the bill' when the US doesnt have a national health service?

For context I know people that were illegal immigrants in the US about 15 years ago, and one of their family members had to stay in hospital for about 8 months with a serious condition (constant dialysis), he got a bill for over a million dollars and the family could not pay it - an organisation (private, probably church) told them that there is a charity that helps people in this situation, and they applied for help. The bill got paid by this charity (and he died soon after) NOT by the government.

Again, perhaps im missing something or this case is special - but how can illegal immigrants take tax dollars for health care unless they pay their taxes? (the illegals I know payed their taxes...) Is this sentiment from something later like 'obama care' (i know nothing about it).

[Observe]

Take immigration. There are legitimate legalities and procedures for immigrating to any country. It is not difficult to see why some people will resent the idea of being "invaded" by illegal immigrants, having to foot the bill for their welfare and then being told by liberals, that these "criminals" should be given a primrose path to citizenship, or something like that. Such people will vote for Trump any day of the week.

Genuine question, coming from someone that isnt from the US. How can these people think that they are 'footing the bill' when the US doesnt have a national health service?

It's difficult for me to fairly answer your question, because I tend to be rather liberal in my views and in many ways, I lean toward progressive. I expect Masterbagger or one of the other conservative-leaning members, could give you an answer better reflecting the general Republican take on the subject.

Your question is a valid one. The answers will vary as shades of grey; with threads of inconsistency, hypocrisy, emotions and programmed conditioning all the way to outright bigotry, with a few sprinkles of legitimate concerns thrown in for good measure. Some people simply find those of a different color or culture to be disgusting. Those people will usually try to latch on to some more socially acceptable reason to justify their feelings. It's a mixed bag. Many people are afraid to openly discuss their real feelings on these subjects, for fear of being outcast. It is never a good thing when people fall into silent rage.

[Axeface]

Well thats why I asked about Obama care specifically, as things might have changed since the time when the people I know intimately were 'illegals' in the US? Maybe illegals do get some kind of welfare now?
As a Brit I know about people complaining about immigrants using the health service, which would be a legitimate complaint if it wasnt subjectively irrelevant/incorrect. But for people from the US to say it is baffling considering that their health care system is infamous.

[Observe]

Well thats why I asked about Obama care specifically, as things might have changed since the time when the people I know intimately were 'illegals' in the US? Maybe illegals do get some kind of welfare now?
As a Brit I know about people complaining about immigrants using the health service, which would be a legitimate complaint if it wasnt subjectively irrelevant/incorrect. But for people from the US to say it is baffling considering that their health care system is infamous.

I only used healthcare as an example of some of the rhetoric I have heard from those opposed to illegal immigration. Another expressed concern is immigrants taking jobs from Americans. As a liberal, I have a ton of arguments to counter practically every Republican talking point - starting with that most of their fears are unfounded. Nevertheless, I cannot flippantly denounce as invalid, the genuine feelings that people have that are different from mine and I won't throw anyone who has a conservative opinion, into the most disgusting and vile basket of deplorables.

[Mightysword]

Well, the most simple answer would be health care is not only "benefit" in this context, for example under the law K-12 education is guarantee regardless of their legal status.

However what make your question most difficult to answer clearly - outside of all that ambiguity that Observe mentioned - is the governance structure, and what exactly do people mean by "tax" money. The US is a federation, and governance is shared between the Federal government and each state, including tax collection and distribution of social benefit. While illegal immigrant may be barred from receiving most Federal benefit barring some exception like the case above, each state can grant different benefit from education, health care, worker compensation ...etc... regardless of their residency status. Next you may ask "so what's the problem, if California decided they want to pay for illegal immigrant why someone from Texas have problem with it, not their money right?" For once, even if a state decided on the issue, that doesn't necessary represent the idea of the entire state. Secondly, even if it's not the case now, some feel that if they don't fight it and liberal success at the Federal level either by legalize illegal immigrant (thus make them eligible for all assistant) or pass a law that make illegal immigrant eligible for Federal assistant, then the thing you asked even if it's not true now, would be true then.

And there is the issue of fraud. Most social program in the US is plague by fraud and that's a fact that neither side of the political spectrum can deny. You mentioned illegal immigrant paid tax and I believe you. But technically, outside some extreme limited case under specific business model, illegal immigrant can't pay tax. Suffice to say most illegal immigrant working the average job can't pay tax without using some soft of loophole/fraudulent process (usually fake or using someone else social security). The fact is a lot of them do kinda show how easy it is to get around such restriction, including when obtaining benefit. Someone on here probably gonna jump on this chance sayings something like "oh so you're ok taking their fraudulent tax but have problem with providing benefit, HYPOCRITES!", I just pre-emtively point out that's not what I'm talking about. I merely point out how easy it is to get around the system in both cases. This compound by the hierarchy of such matter, only the Federal agency that authorized by Homeland Security can determine the legal status of any person, and I can tell you those people normally don't seat in the social service offices. In another word, the clerk who receive and working on benefit application only need to see "proof" of eligibility, and it's not their place nor job to determine if it's fraudulent or not. You can challenge some argument "on a technical level", but reality is a different ball game.

Now, what is the extend of it, is it a net gain or net loss ...etc... is when all kind of shade of gray entering the picture. Naturally, expect people to cherry picking on the detail, inflating statistic that work in their favor while equally being dismissive toward details that do not. Most importantly one should be reminded that it's likely the average person operates on some basic or form of truth,and not lies or malice.


That's why it's more important to point out that if we believe (good) people making their decision base on wrong premise and not because they are some "insert degenerative noun" here. Without being dismissive, you can change their opinion provided you make the attempt to understand and resolve their reason. You mentioned you're a brit? Well I don't think it's that different than the whole Brexit things you had really when you guys talk about the benefit and drawback of staying in the EC

[Vertigo 7]

Well, the most simple answer would be health care is not only "benefit" in this context, for example under the law K-12 education is guarantee regardless of their legal status.

However what make your question most difficult to answer clearly - outside of all that ambiguity that Observe mentioned - is the governance structure, and what exactly do people mean by "tax" money. The US is a federation, and governance is shared between the Federal government and each state, including tax collection and distribution of social benefit. While illegal immigrant may be barred from receiving most Federal benefit barring some exception like the case above, each state can grant different benefit from education, health care, worker compensation ...etc... regardless of their residency status. Next you may ask "so what's the problem, if California decided they want to pay for illegal immigrant why someone from Texas have problem with it, not their money right?" For once, even if a state decided on the issue, that doesn't necessary represent the idea of the entire state. Secondly, even if it's not the case now, some feel that if they don't fight it and liberal success at the Federal level either by legalize illegal immigrant (thus make them eligible for all assistant) or pass a law that make illegal immigrant eligible for Federal assistant, then the thing you asked even if it's not true now, would be true then.

And there is the issue of fraud. Most social program in the US is plague by fraud and that's a fact that neither side of the political spectrum can deny. You mentioned illegal immigrant paid tax and I believe you. But technically, outside some extreme limited case under specific business model, illegal immigrant can't pay tax. Suffice to say most illegal immigrant working the average job can't pay tax without using some soft of loophole/fraudulent process (usually fake or using someone else social security). The fact is a lot of them do kinda show how easy it is to get around such restriction, including when obtaining benefit. Someone on here probably gonna jump on this chance sayings something like "oh so you're ok taking their fraudulent tax but have problem with providing benefit, HYPOCRITES!", I just pre-emtively point out that's not what I'm talking about. I merely point out how easy it is to get around the system in both cases. This compound by the hierarchy of such matter, only the Federal agency that authorized by Homeland Security can determine the legal status of any person, and I can tell you those people normally don't seat in the social service offices. In another word, the clerk who receive and working on benefit application only need to see "proof" of eligibility, and it's not their place nor job to determine if it's fraudulent or not. You can challenge some argument "on a technical level", but reality is a different ball game.

Now, what is the extend of it, is it a net gain or net loss ...etc... is when all kind of shade of gray entering the picture. Naturally, expect people to cherry picking on the detail, inflating statistic that work in their favor while equally being dismissive toward details that do not. Most importantly one should be reminded that it's likely the average person operates on some basic or form of truth,and not lies or malice.


That's why it's more important to point out that if we believe (good) people making their decision base on wrong premise and not because they are some "insert degenerative noun" here. Without being dismissive, you can change their opinion provided you make the attempt to understand and resolve their reason. You mentioned you're a brit? Well I don't think it's that different than the whole Brexit things you had really when you guys talk about the benefit and drawback of staying in the EC

Swing and a miss. https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa ... -benefits/


First off, if someone is fraudulently using a social security number for employment, they are paying taxes in most cases. Ever filled out a W4? Even if you lie your ass off on it, your employer will still deduct taxes. Whether or not its the correct amount, who knows. But chances are if they're smart enough to steal someone's identity, they'll fill it out properly to avoid attention from the IRS and will most likely not file for a tax refund. Ask Trump. He employed many undocumented workers at his resorts. But guess what? The likelihood of them turning around and getting social security benefits is practically non-existent. A) They're not going to be able to prove their identity to the Social Security Administration, and B) It's further unlikely that the fraudulent identity they're using will accrue enough credits to be eligible for benefits.

So there's some that get paid under the table that avoid all tax liabilities. Guess what? For every 1 immigrant that does that, there's probably 10 US Citizens that do that. How many divorcees out there take jobs that pay in cash only so they don't have to pay child support? How many that have no drive or ambition for a meaningful career take these kinds of jobs? Hell, Trump is under investigation for tax fraud. Where's the crowd railing about taxes on immigrants getting their shout on at Trump? Furthermore, how many of the 1%'rs out there play shell games to hide their money overseas to avoid taxes?

Here's the gotcha - Chances are that someone who is being paid under the table isn't earning minimum wage. If they loose the job, they can't get unemployment benefits. They can't argue any kind of discrimination case if it were to occur. If there's any kind of workplace accident, they can't file for compensation. Those are some pretty damn big negatives that discourage that kind of employment, not to mention the legal ramifications to the business if they get caught.

Anyway, at the federal level, immigrants, legal or not, are only entitled to education, food stamps, and basic healthcare. After 5 years of residency, with few exceptions, they are eligible for more benefits, and then, of course, if they become a citizen they get the full package.

[Observe]

Anyway, at the federal level, immigrants, legal or not, are only entitled to education, food stamps, and basic healthcare. After 5 years of residency, with few exceptions, they are eligible for more benefits, and then, of course, if they become a citizen they get the full package.

Thank you for clarifying that part of the law regarding immigrants (legal or not). Some would say, that those protections are basic human decency. Others would say we shouldn't accord any benefits at all to those many who are here illegally. Therein lies the rub.

[Masterbagger]

Well, the most simple answer would be health care is not only "benefit" in this context, for example under the law K-12 education is guarantee regardless of their legal status.

The cost of providing education to the children of illegal aliens is massive. I read it was somewhere around the 50 billion mark. It is way more than the cost of illegal aliens receiving healthcare the government gets billed for or other benefits like food stamps once they create an anchor baby. Our own system is so rewarding to illegal aliens that we create all of the incentive they need to violate the border.

Thank you for clarifying that part of the law regarding immigrants (legal or not). Some would say, that those protections are basic human decency. Others would say we shouldn't accord any benefits at all to those many who are here illegally. Therein lies the rub.

How you view illegal immigration depends if you want to stop the entry the entry of illegal aliens or not. As long as the illegal can profit by it they will come. Any kind of benefit is a magnet. What you might call decency is the source of the problem and making it worse.

[Mightysword]

@Vertigo 7 This will be the first time I directly response to you since the last "incident" many months ago. You may have noticed I had ignore all your attempts at engage a conversation since. People deal with confrontation in different way, some take it in the chin like, some escalate it to the point the moderator have to step in, and for me I simply I make a point to completely disengage. Now enough time had passed, as an act of good will I will take it you want to engage in meaningful/respectful discussion I will properly response to you again. I will ask of you the samething I asked last time - that all arguments are taken in good faith, disagreement can be made but must be kept respectful. If at any point our conversation lead to degenerative name calling again, I will once more ignore your posts and this time will be for good.

Swing and a miss. https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa ... -benefits/

Not sure what you meant by that. I read through that document and didn't find anything contradictory to what you quoted me saying?

First off, if someone is fraudulently using a social security number for employment, they are paying taxes in most cases. Ever filled out a W4? Even if you lie your ass off on it, your employer will still deduct taxes.

Yes I know that, I think you took what I said the wrong way. I simply pointed out that outside of certain limited condition, it's not possible for illegal immigrant to pay tax even if they wanted to.

- You need a social security number to pay tax. Illegal immigrant don't have one.
- There are limited way for people to pay tax without a SSN#, like with a H1-B or DACA.
- Another way to do is via an ITIN number, which some of the more resourceful immigrant uses, it let you pay tax without a SSN#, but I think you have to be self-employed paying yourself to do it.

My previous post wasn't an accusation that illegal immigrant are doing something shade to avoid or paying less tax (which you seem to take it that way). I was stating they are jumping through hoops so they can pay tax, not to avoid it. Why would they do that? Most likely due to hopeful myth such as S.744 that envision citizenship for illegal immigrants that had showed a history of good will (not unsimilar to the military service for citizenship policy in some country), and a history of paying tax can be used as proof for that. As far as I know that bill never passed or signed into law, didn't stop it becoming a hopeful myth though. I was simply explaining to Axeface WHY I do believe illegal immigrant want to pay tax.

So there's some that get paid under the table that avoid all tax liabilities. Guess what? For every 1 immigrant that does that, there's probably 10 US Citizens that do that.

I don't think this matter much in light of what I just clarify. But to emphasize: this is not a competition of "these people are doing this, but these are doing it more". A poster was making factual inquiry, so I was just giving information to the best of my knowledge, and I did also said "Now, what is the extend of it, is it a net gain or net loss ...etc... is when all kind of shade of gray entering the picture." There are so many distortion out there and I am not educated enough on the subject matter to make a claim either way. All I can say is the things that was asked does exist.

I do say this however, as an immigrant myself and one that can use English it's not rare for me to be asked to help with paperwork of this nature. I take people to social offices both state and federal level from time to time. Things in the document you post are usually pasted all over the walls, and given the fact I'm usually stuck there 2-3 hours each time I went to those place, there are plenty of time to read them. Also I probably know more people working under the table then I do people working normally among my native community. So yes I have fairly good idea of what you are saying


--------------------------------------------------

Anyway, at the federal level, immigrants, legal or not, are only entitled to education, food stamps, and basic healthcare.

That's actually news to me, and I would love to see a proper source for that. Because that's NOT what the document you just posted are saying. Right there on the first paragraph:

Generally no. Undocumented immigrants, including DACA holders, are ineligible to receive most federal public benefits, including means-tested benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, sometimes referred to as food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and are prohibited from purchasing unsubsidized health coverage on ACA exchanges.

---------------------------------------------------------
I think you had the wrong impression/understanding of the second paragraph in that document:

Undocumented immigrants may be eligible for a handful of benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, such as emergency Medicaid, access to treatment in hospital emergency rooms, or access to healthcare and nutrition programs under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Those benefit are not what I would call "basic benefit" in the way most people think in term of welfare. Like the Special Supplemental is more like a short term emergency ration so a vulnerable person don't die rather something to sustain a family like the actual food stamp. It is more correct to say the little benefit available to illegal immigrant is not even specifically meant for them. Rather they are beneficiary of more general laws that applied to the whole populate, in the sense to avoid a situation where people may die.

- The K-12 things wasn't because there is a law saying illegal immigrant can have it, but it because the supreme court in the 80' uphold that every children in the US are entitle to basic education, full stop.
- Just like in term of healthcare all hospital are required to give treatment to life threatening injury or women in labor without exception. That's why that paragraph specifically mention emergency room treatment, (but they are not entitled to continued care, so I wouldn't call that basic.

But outside of those, illegal immigrant get nothing from the Federal level. I want to point out one simple logical reason for it is : most illegal immigrant avoid contact with Federal government at the risk of deportation, so saying they can get something at that level is basically contradictory. Once you reach out to those limited benefit listed in the 2nd paragraph to stop whatever crisis you're facing, the next thing await you after the Fed saved you from dying is deportation, you won't be waiting for the 5 years to get your residency upgrade status. As state further down in the document:

Are legal immigrants eligible for federal public benefit programs?

Only those with lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, but not until they have resided as a legal resident for five years. LPRs – sometimes referred to as green card holder

Pretty much everything state in the documents are inline with what I know on the subject matter, but not to what you are claiming. I would advise you to read through it again carefully, the document you posted does not mean what you think it means. Illegal immigrant is only refereed to in the first section, the rest of that document apply to only legal immigrant. I think you were mistaking in thinking that whole document applied to both illegal and legal immigrant, that is not the case.


----------------------------------------------------

Anyway, at the federal level, immigrants, legal or not, are only entitled to education, food stamps, and basic healthcare. After 5 years of residency, with few exceptions, they are eligible for more benefits, and then, of course, if they become a citizen they get the full package.

Thank you for clarifying that part of the law regarding immigrants (legal or not). Some would say, that those protections are basic human decency. Others would say we shouldn't accord any benefits at all to those many who are here illegally. Therein lies the rub.

I'm fairly certain the part that also applies to illegal immigrant is not correct, if you follow the links he posted you can see it fairly easily, albeit it's easy to be mistaken if not read carefully. Think about it, Democrat have been trying for years to create a "path way to citizenship" for illegal immigrant, they wouldn't have to if one already exist.

In fact, I'm quite positive he is describing the process that applied to "legal" immigrant. I recognize it because I went through it. Upon arrival you receive an I-94, with this you can be legally issued a SSN# but still considered an alien. After 3 years you can apply for a green card which upgrade your status to permanent residence, then after 5 years you can apply for citizenship. At each level your access to Federal benefit increase, but that pathway is only available to legal immigrant. While I'm not an expert on the statistic, my community works do keep me up to date in term of policy. If I am wrong, I'll be willing to stand corrected. After all I don't want to give people wrong counsel or worse, risking liability.

He may also be looking at state benefit, which like I mentioned vary from state to state, and they can do whatever they want with the welfare system as long as they can foot the bill. For example when the DREAM Act went snafu last year several institutions in my state coordinates to shield our vulnerable students from its effect, from providing counseling to exploring legal mean so they can continue. I was part of that effort, and it was strictly local.

[Grim Lock]

For something different,

The Dutch company ASML is the world's leading manufacturer of chip-manufacturing machines, they have sold one out of a an expected thirty they will make to a china based company, but the license to export this product is beeing held back. Although our government may or may not decide to grant this license, it's becoming clear that the US government is trying to pressure and blackmail our government to not grant this license.

The US should really get out of our face and stop meddling in affairs they have no business meddling in, if they are afraid of the Chinese getting an edge over American based chip-manufacturers they should simply DO better themselves instead of trying to cripple the competition. Free-market capatalists my ass.