It's just that they are constrained by the fact that the truth never seems to fit with their needs or desires. So the only way to maintain their (and, at least for the grifters, more impirtantly) and their dupes "alternate reality" is to lie. Doctoring evidence being just one of many techniques for that.
1 week ago
GftNC -- he has enriched himself to the tune of $1.5 billion. Wow, brazen corruption in full view. It’s almost funny after the accusations about the Biden Crime Family:
Well, it's been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
1 week ago
lj -- I’m not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
I'm not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we've gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn't dispute that. He's definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I'd say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That's a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
1 week ago
russell -- I’d like to think we have somehow moved past the white supremacist legacy of our history, but I don’t think we have. I’m not sure if it’s a matter of re-remembering, I don’t think it ever went away. Trump just gives it permission to come back out in the light of day.
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say "as a nation" because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say "in the process." Still huge, but decreasing -- not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That's what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. "Inconceivable" is the word.
1 week ago
Edited a comment a second time, and got a note I was going to Spam/moderation. Sorry
[ed: been approved]
1 week ago
nous -- I do worry, however, that this simplification might obscure the degree to which economics and safety are entangled with climate.
Certainly true.
But at this point, we can do something about economics and safety relatively quickly. Not solve them completely by any means, but visibly start making progress. Having solid reasons to hope and expect things will get better, because they are already visibly improving -- that puts a big weight on the side of "I think I'll just stay where I am and work on doing better here." Most people don't like the idea of up and moving to an unfamiliar place, especially one with a different language and a different culture. Give them a reason to avoid it, and mostly they will.
Climate change, on the other hand, is something where we can, at most mitigate some of the damage. But, no matter what we do, it will continue to get worse before it gets better. We can manage "get worse more slowly" and "not get as much worse". But that's the most we can do at this point.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that's not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
1 week ago
Suppose (strictly for the sake of discussion!) that we're being reasonable when worrying about immigration**. (This addresses, but does not require, the Great Replacement Theory.) What's the most effective, the most cost-effective, (not to mention the most humane, because that's apparently of no importance to those worried about immigration) approach?
Answering that requires answering the motivation question: Why do they come? The simple answer: economics and safety. Not macroeconomic generalities, but the microeconomics of individuals. Combined with, and overlapping with, the legal environment. There are other motivations, such as moving to be near family members, or even climate. But those are tiny in comparison.
So, the obvious solution to the assumed problem, is to reduce the motivation. If there are abundant economic opportunities for individuals where they are, most people will not take on the emotional and financial cost to emigrating; basically, they'll stay home. If they can live without fear, of criminal, governmental, or other attacks, people will mostly stay home. TL;DR: remove, or even seriously reduce, the motivation, and your assumed immigration problem goes away.
So, the blindingly obvious answer has two parts: 1) improve the economies of the places your immigrants are coming from. 2) improve the governance, specifically the rule of law, of the places your unwanted immigrants are coming from. Reducing to push to move.
Are we doing anything like that? Not any more.
What we do seem to be doing instead is addressing those issues by trashing our own economy, and simultaneously trashing the rule of law. Removing the attraction. It is, after all, the difference in those which provides the motivation.
If I'm understanding correctly, one big advantage is that this "spends the money here, not elsewhere." At least in the economically ignorant view to those driving it. It's bad for us, too, but either they can't see that or they just assume it won't impact them personally.
Oh, yes. The other motivation for immigration, in some cases, is that other places are just too crowded. If you improve the economy, somewhere population growth drops, or even disappears altogether. We've seen that extremely consistently. When people get richer, they tend on average to have fewer children. Another reason to improve economies elsewhere.
** Immigration has been an enormous economic boon to this country. The people already here have consistently objected to whichever group is perceived as comprising the current bulk of the immigrants. But those immigrants built the country even so. Both physically and economically. Still do.
Oh, I think they could.
It's just that they are constrained by the fact that the truth never seems to fit with their needs or desires. So the only way to maintain their (and, at least for the grifters, more impirtantly) and their dupes "alternate reality" is to lie. Doctoring evidence being just one of many techniques for that.
Well, it's been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
I'm not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we've gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn't dispute that. He's definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I'd say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That's a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say "as a nation" because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say "in the process." Still huge, but decreasing -- not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That's what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. "Inconceivable" is the word.
Edited a comment a second time, and got a note I was going to Spam/moderation. Sorry
[ed: been approved]
Certainly true.
But at this point, we can do something about economics and safety relatively quickly. Not solve them completely by any means, but visibly start making progress. Having solid reasons to hope and expect things will get better, because they are already visibly improving -- that puts a big weight on the side of "I think I'll just stay where I am and work on doing better here." Most people don't like the idea of up and moving to an unfamiliar place, especially one with a different language and a different culture. Give them a reason to avoid it, and mostly they will.
Climate change, on the other hand, is something where we can, at most mitigate some of the damage. But, no matter what we do, it will continue to get worse before it gets better. We can manage "get worse more slowly" and "not get as much worse". But that's the most we can do at this point.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that's not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
Suppose (strictly for the sake of discussion!) that we're being reasonable when worrying about immigration**. (This addresses, but does not require, the Great Replacement Theory.) What's the most effective, the most cost-effective, (not to mention the most humane, because that's apparently of no importance to those worried about immigration) approach?
Answering that requires answering the motivation question: Why do they come? The simple answer: economics and safety. Not macroeconomic generalities, but the microeconomics of individuals. Combined with, and overlapping with, the legal environment. There are other motivations, such as moving to be near family members, or even climate. But those are tiny in comparison.
So, the obvious solution to the assumed problem, is to reduce the motivation. If there are abundant economic opportunities for individuals where they are, most people will not take on the emotional and financial cost to emigrating; basically, they'll stay home. If they can live without fear, of criminal, governmental, or other attacks, people will mostly stay home. TL;DR: remove, or even seriously reduce, the motivation, and your assumed immigration problem goes away.
So, the blindingly obvious answer has two parts: 1) improve the economies of the places your immigrants are coming from. 2) improve the governance, specifically the rule of law, of the places your unwanted immigrants are coming from. Reducing to push to move.
Are we doing anything like that? Not any more.
What we do seem to be doing instead is addressing those issues by trashing our own economy, and simultaneously trashing the rule of law. Removing the attraction. It is, after all, the difference in those which provides the motivation.
If I'm understanding correctly, one big advantage is that this "spends the money here, not elsewhere." At least in the economically ignorant view to those driving it. It's bad for us, too, but either they can't see that or they just assume it won't impact them personally.
Oh, yes. The other motivation for immigration, in some cases, is that other places are just too crowded. If you improve the economy, somewhere population growth drops, or even disappears altogether. We've seen that extremely consistently. When people get richer, they tend on average to have fewer children. Another reason to improve economies elsewhere.
** Immigration has been an enormous economic boon to this country. The people already here have consistently objected to whichever group is perceived as comprising the current bulk of the immigrants. But those immigrants built the country even so. Both physically and economically. Still do.