Slashdot Mirror

Google, Microsoft, and Adobe Systems seem to be competing to see which can be most abusive.

Don't invent excuses. Those companies are extremely ABUSIVE, in my opinion.

The U.S. government allows abuse. The rich get whatever they want. The U.S. has a habitual liar for a president. This is the 14th year of continuous war by the U.S. government. War is extremely profitable for some, and extremely expensive for citizens. The U.S. government increases its debt every year.

Why not link direct to Pew?

strict immigration restrictions, few geopolitical concerns, and with little diversity.

You just can't stop lying, can you?

Statistics Canada projects that, by 2031, almost one-half of the population over the age of 15 will be foreign-born or have at least one foreign-born parent.[24] The number of visible minorities will double and make up the majority of the population of cities in Canada.

Canada admitted 35,700 Syrian refugees. That's almost 3x the US number.That's a heck of a lot better than the US's 12,486

Also, don't forget the province of Quebec - the second-largest province in the country - mostly french. Canada has 2 official languages.

Canada is more diverse than the US

A comparison of the Harvard and Goren maps show that the most diverse countries in the world are found in Africa. Both maps also suggest that the United States falls near the middle, while Canada and Mexico are more diverse than the US.

It's why I chose the US; it's pretty much the only major country that still operates that way.

Look at your last election. The rest of the world is laughing at you. Sad little man.

strict immigration restrictions, few geopolitical concerns, and with little diversity.

You just can't stop lying, can you?

Statistics Canada projects that, by 2031, almost one-half of the population over the age of 15 will be foreign-born or have at least one foreign-born parent.[24] The number of visible minorities will double and make up the majority of the population of cities in Canada.

Canada admitted 35,700 Syrian refugees. That's almost 3x the US number.That's a heck of a lot better than the US's 12,486

Also, don't forget the province of Quebec - the second-largest province in the country - mostly french. Canada has 2 official languages.

Canada is more diverse than the US

A comparison of the Harvard and Goren maps show that the most diverse countries in the world are found in Africa. Both maps also suggest that the United States falls near the middle, while Canada and Mexico are more diverse than the US.

It's why I chose the US; it's pretty much the only major country that still operates that way.

Look at your last election. The rest of the world is laughing at you. Sad little man.

You seem to willfully ignore the statements in their holy books, the statements of their clerics, and the actually beliefs of a majority of Muslims.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
schnellmann.org/how-islam-will-dominate-the-world.html
www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/ultimate_goal.htm

and way too many more to link to...google it yourself.

Of course first generation immigrants in the US (both illegal and legal) are significantly less likely to commit crimes (outside of illegal immigration in the case of illegal immigrants obviously) than native born citizens.

To site just a few, easy to find, sources...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Not that I think such a pesky thing as reality will change your mind as "racial purity" is a system of belief that inherently doesnt allow foriegn views.

Your comment, and the attitude it exhibits, is a perfect example of the reasons why so many Americans chose to vote for President Trump.

Almost all of those people would have voted for Trump or whatever the republican candidate was if he was running against Hitler reincarnated. Hillary lost because of two reasons - 1) gerrymandering and 2) the fact that she wasn't especially charismatic so not enough of her base turned out. She actually won the popular vote but that didn't matter because of gerrymandering.

Republicans aren't "anti-science".

How many democrats do you see trying to teach creationism in the science classroom? It's true that not all republicans are anti-science but a HUGE number of them very much are, particularly those who are religiously motivated or have economic self interest incompatible with scientific evidence. Now to be fair the democrats have their share of anti-science loonies too (different topics but still wrong) but let's not pretend that republicans over the last 20 years have been even remotely pro-science. Ironically many of our best science accomplishments came under republican administrations - prior to the Reagan administration and the rise of the religious right.

What they are upset about is poorly done science that's driven by biased politics and ideology instead of the objective and impartial scientific method. Climate "science" is a good example of this, with data that's "corrected"/"massaged" and predictions that prove to be wildly inaccurate, decade after decade. Republicans don't like "science" like that.

Science didn't bring the politics to that debate. Republicans with an economic self interest did that. The climate science work stands on its own. It is apolitical. The republicans aren't arguing against it with facts and evidence because they don't have facts or evidence to support their position. They are employing a "god of the gaps" strategy claiming that the evidence isn't conclusive (even when it is) and that we need to keep studying it. They are trying to defund government research of the problem. They have fossil fuel energy companies funding "studies" to prove that dumping carbon into the atmosphere isn't having an effect. The science isn't "wildly inaccurate" despite your claims and there is a mountain of credible evidence. The problem is that dealing with climate change goes against the economic self interest of a good portion of the republican party base and so they have turned objective facts into a political debate.

As for religion, many Republicans aren't religious at all. Yes, there are some Republicans who are Christians. In fact, there are Republicans who practice Islam. There are Republicans who practice Hinduism. There are Republicans who practice Buddhism. It's absurd for you to label all Republicans as Bible-thumping idiots, when that just isn't the case.

Sure there are some aethiest republicans. Are you seriously arguing that the vast majority of the republican party isn't christian or that the the evangelical christian religious right isn't a very powerful force within the party? You can find examples of any minority you want within the party but I'm not about to pretend that it isn't primarily a party controlled by white christians or that christian sects don't lean strongly republican. There is a reason over 90% of black people vote democrat. There is a reason most minorities do not vote republican. You'll find that most christian religious groups tend to vote republican unless they are a minority and most everybody else tends to vote democrat. Atheist, agnostics, hindus, muslims, jews, etc all vote overwhelmingly democrat. Some like the catholic church reflect approximately the same composition as the overall voting population.

Here is the Truth ;)

Since the inception of Social Security. The excess funds paid in to Social Security Trust Fund each was diverted to other spending and balanced out by placing US TBills in the Social Security Accounts

Basically, the federal government has always used the trust fund as a huge slush fund.

The Social Security Administration started cashing in those US TBills a few years ago, Because the in coming contributions no longer covered the out going payments.

And a US TBill is a call on current year tax revenue in the year it is cashed in

The Social Security Trust Fund no longer has positive cash flow! And the account excess is dropping fast.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/
Note number 4
But since 2010, Social Securitys cash expenses have exceeded its cash receipts.

Looks like it is around 90% of people who know about government spying , 50% of are angry about it and 50% of it think it is a good thing.

http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

Whoa there dude. Practically everything in that paragraph has something wrong with it.

I don't think that's a supportable opinion.

Did you mean viable? Because plenty of people hold and support that position.

If religions were not useful for propagating a people and culture into the future we wouldn't have so many religions that have endured for thousands of years.

By that logic addictive substances wouldn't have endured for thousands of years and we wouldn't have so many. People have been using and abusing opium for a long time, but you have to do some pretty serious libertarian-grade mental gymnastics to say that opium dens are a net gain.

And areligious people tend to not have children, so their culture dies out.

So the Mormons and Muslims are going to inherit the world? I understand the concept of outbreeding the competition... but that doesn't seem like the best solution in today's modern world with the whole lack of resources thing and limited fossil fuel situation.

Indeed, having fewer kids seems to be the consensus among developed nations. Religion or no. I'd even go so far as to say that's the rational viewpoint. Especially when your retirement plans aren't "hope one of the children feed you".

Religion must have been a net positive (even if locally negative for those who don't conform to the predominant religion) because otherwise, the areligious would have had an evolutionary advantage over the religious and would have dominated and killed them off millennia ago. Instead just the opposite happened.

It's not a gene. It's not something you inherit from your parents. You could be talking about how much people appreciate Shakespeare. Do you think that gives people a evolutionary edge to out-compete the rest?

"The opposite happened"? Care to name an areligious group of people that were killed off by a religious group 1000+ years ago? PLENTY of examples of two religions making war upon each other, but I don't think that's helping your case.

Furthermore, if you're talking about evolutionary time-scales, and ideas rather than gene-pools, the decline of religious participation indicates that it might be on it's way out. But I doubt it will ever completely disappear.

You can certainly argue that religion was or is a net gain for society. And there are plenty of valid points to that effect. But all of these arguments are just plain bad.

Has this statement been verified by the Pew Research Center?

Why are you feigning ignorance in this mater, Dareth Vadeer?

Has this statement been verified by the Pew Research Center?

So, if anyone tries explaining anything, it can be ignored because of Islam's "beating black heart"?

It's not explaining anything by ignoring the big picture and making excuses. Islam is authoritarian, violent, and expansionist, and that's reflected across the globe. Blaming US foreign policy doesn't cut it. But then I'm sure we've had this conversation before.

I know some Muslims around here who have no desire to install Sharia law.

Wow, I'm so relieved! I guess there's nothing to worry about then, because you know some Muslims who express that opinion. However, there are other Muslims who think otherwise.

In the US, I'm much more worried about fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their authoritarian beliefs which they claim were drawn from the bible.

In the US, you can have displays of "Piss Christ" and countless criticisms of Christianity without anybody getting killed, despite the United States being 70% Christian, but if you try to draw Mohammad you'll be attacked with guns, despite Muslims only being about 1% of the population.

Moreover, I do know some history, and there was a time when the most vibrant and very tolerant society was Muslim.

That's "McHistory", peddled by liberal professors and media. What they don't tell you is that society was formed by conquering, and that non-Muslims were second-class citizens. And by today's standards, fundamentalist Islamic countries are completely regressive and authoritarian.

The practice of Islam has changed since then, but it shows that Islam is not inherently evil or backward.

No, that's willful ignorance speaking. Islam is fundamentally authoritarian, violent, and expansionist. If anything, Islam is changing to get with modern times, even though useful idiots like the Southern Law Poverty Center like to brand reformers as "anti-Muslim extremists".

Then I'm sure you can cite some of this research? The actual fact is that in recent decades, firearms accidents and murders by firearm have both decreased while the number of guns in private hands has increased.

Now, if you don't like guns, that's fine; like abortions, if you don't like one, don't have one. But if you're going to talk about an "overwhelming amount of research" about crime, you'd better be able to cite some criminology papers.

... mistake to assume that anyone who is susceptible to rhetoric is 'uneducated' ...

Think that over a bit:

In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%.

You're wrong of course. Hispanic immigration is not some special event that defies all historic precedent in the US.

Companies are spending a lot of time and money trying to tap into this changing demographic

http://hmc.comm.fsu.edu/blog/d...

And Hispanics even start becoming criminals at the same rate as any other American when they start to acculturate

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Just to put out a few examples of what should be obvious.

Maybe you should consider that what you're suggesting has been widely suggested of every wave of immigrant to the US and each time it was proven wrong. Evey time they said "this time we're right!"

No, I wasn't.

You absolutely were, but let's continue.

I'm suggesting that people everywhere value American values, like basic human rights

Pew survey. As one example, 91% of Iraqis responded that Sharia should be the law of the land. Just how much free speech and other rights cherished by the West do you think you're going to have in a country dominated by Sharia law?

they come here in search of them because it's pretty hard to demand your basic human rights when the government is busy dropping an exploding barrel on you from a helicopter

Well, sure, lots of people would prefer to escape a warzone. That doesn't mean they share the same values as the West.

So what? Is that a reason to shit your pants when you see a Muslim?

That's a reason to not import more of a hateful, intolerant, and violent ideology.

They can threaten all they want, if they commit a crime they'll get punished for it.

You don't understand chilling effects. Many newspapers would not reprint the Danish cartoons out of fear. Even South Park backed down from airing an illustration of Muhammad.

They can threaten all they want, if they commit a crime they'll get punished for it. It's not a crime to draw a picture here, let them bluster all they want.

You think people should have to risk their lives and be murdered in the street by voluntarily importing a hateful, violent, and authoritarian ideology with values incompatible to the West?

If it's not illegal, who gives a shit? If it's illegal, enforce the law.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Maybe that's because they've been living in a state of near-constant warfare for the majority of their lives.

Because Islam is a war-loving religion with a conquering warlord for a prophet.

Yes but salaries have been flat for decades and many of the new jobs are still targeted for removal.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

http://www.powerretail.com.au/...

Service jobs are on the chopping block in increasing numbers.
http://www.powerretail.com.au/...

The median annual salary for a customer service representative was $31,720 in 2015. That's not enough to live in several states.

Is this what the majority wants?

The majority seems to want to have a temporary "Muslim ban":

http://thehill.com/policy/defe...

Admission of refugees has usually been opposed by strong majorities:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Did you not notice the large numbers who voted for Trump who did so because he wasn't Hillary and not because they actually like Trump?

Both candidates were disliked, but Trump's personal unfavorability was even higher than Hillary's. That is, if anything, people voted for Hillary more because of identity and personality, whereas they voted for Trump more on issues.

Or what about noticing that Trump didn't actually get a majority of votes?

Popular vote tells you nothing about what the majority of voters want.

In this case, because of high unfavorability ratings for both candidates, Republican voters in secure states like California could simply express their dislike for Trump by not voting; if the same voters were transported into a swing state, they probably would have supported him. And Hillary's entire popular vote margin is accounted for by coastal California. (In fact, many Republican voters in California don't even bother voting at all anymore because it's a waste of time.)

What speech codes? Like treating people with respect? And which words or phrases are now criminalized?

Not using people's "right" pronouns could get you fined in NY
In Canada it's basically illegal to insult anyone or say or do something they don't like: "A teenager was later arrested for growling and woofing at two Labrador dogs in public, a café owner was investigated for showing biblical passages on a TV screen, and an LGBT group was arrested under section 5 for protesting anti-gay persecution in the Middle East. While one would hope such a law would only be used in extraordinary circumstances, it's actually very common."
40% of millenials are OK with making "offensive" speech illegal
The overwhelming majority of college staff are leftists and colleges overwhelmingly limit speech on campus
EU is banning anything that is politically sensitive: "To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, hate speech means just what those in power choose it to mean – neither more nor less. And now, continent-wide censorship has been forced upon us by the powerful, and they will decide what the rest of us can and cannot say and can and cannot hear, all with the aim of dictating what we can and cannot think."

I could go on...

Unfortunately I can only read the abstract of the actual study but the article seems like crap. They state a bunch of opinions as fact. For example:

"Remember, a low-ball estimate says there are at least 11 million to 12 million illegals in the U.S., but that's based on faulty Census data. More likely estimates put the number at 20 million to 30 million."

What more likely estimates? What is your source? There are a number of different agencies and groups that estimate about the same numbers, some of whom have a vested interest in inflating the number (like the DHS). From Wikipedia:

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has estimated that 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States in January 2012. According to DHS estimates, "the number of illegal immigrants peaked around 12 million in 2007 and has gradually declined to closer to 11 million." The DHS estimate "is in the same ballpark as several independent organizations that study illegal immigration, including Pew Research Center (11.3 million); the Center for Migration Studies (11 million), which studies migration and promotes policies that safeguard the rights of migrants, and the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for low levels of legal immigration (11–12 million)."

"Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too."

The data from Pew indicates that the number has either stayed level or gone down (at least in the years they are citing). Again - what is your source of this data?

"Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time"

Which "leftist" groups? What did they say? This might have happened but it seems foolish just to take this on faith, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I couldn't find too much relevant on Google (search terms "groups encouraging illegal voting california"), other than the claim (easily debunked) that Obama encouraged illegals to vote.

"Heck, even the liberal fact-checking site FactCheck.org says so."

What is your evidence that that the site is "liberal"? Is it just because they said something that disagrees with your narrative? According to their about page, We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. and publicly list all sources of their funding here.

In summation, the article seems quite bogus with a number of seemingly false or unsourced claims. This is a great example of the biased news that the site seems to rail against, but only if they are biased to the left.

The Washington Post calling out anybody on alternate facts is dubious at best. Downright scandalous at worst. And MSNBC plainly state they are an opinion station not a news agency. I want to know where anybody is getting "official" numbers for any of the inaugurations since they stopped taking headcounts years ago. All counts you see put forth as fact are actually guesstimations based on a photo of the event. The numbers can be close but never verified. The inauguration is harder to count because no aerial photography is allowed (No fly zone). Add to that rioters blocking the entrance to the Mall preventing attendees from actually entering and numbers become even more irrelevant. I didn't want to believe the media had gone completely partisan but the more they publish hearsay and innuendo the more it looks like they have.

"Perhaps most importantly, this does not mean we believe that polling is no longer accurate enough to be used to predict election results." http://www.pewresearch.org/201...

Facebook's problem isn't only with misinformation. Their filters are likely responsible for the increased partisanship in America and around the world.

I personally feel fixing the filters would do a great deal to stop the spread of fake news.

From The Telegraph, Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is no longer an atheist:

The Facebook founder [...] said he believed religion was "very important". It comes after a year in which Zuckerberg, who was raised Jewish, met the pope and [...] praised the Buddhism of his wife Priscilla Chan, posting a photo of himself praying during a visit to a pagoda in Xi'an.

Last week, Zuckerberg posted a message on his own Facebook page wishing followers a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. In response to a comment asking if he was atheist, he said: "No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

This makes perfect sense for a wannabe politician: A 2012 Gallup poll concluded that potential voters were more likely to refuse to vote for an atheist candidate (43%) than a candidate that was Muslim (40%), gay/lesbian (30%), Mormon (18%), or Jewish (6%). Similar results were found in a 2014 Pew survey that found 53% of those surveyed would reject an atheist presidential candidate, leading "never held office" (52%), age 70-80 (36%), adulterers (35%), and gay/lesbian (27%). Both polls concluded that being atheist was among the least positive aspects as well (Gallop had atheists at the bottom of the list with 54% positive, beating Muslims (58%) and gay/lesbians (68%), while Pew had atheists as tied with gays/lesbians at 5% positive, with the only less supported group being adulterers (2%).

The Gallup poll also tracks favorability of these traits over time, demonstrating that support for an atheist presidential candidate is very slowly improving from 1978's 40% to 1999's 49% to 2012's 54%. Contrast that to the support for a Jewish presidential candidate, which has grown from 82% to 92% to 91% in the same respective polls. They also break these figures down by political party: Republican voters care more about these sorts of things, and their atheist/Jew favorability gap (48% vs 95%) is far greater than the Dems' (58% vs 92%). The GOP's 95% willingness to vote for a Jew is even larger than their willingness to vote for a woman (92%).

Zuck may milk the Jew+Businessman stereotype for personal gain but he is also showing his diversity through the aforementioned visit with the pope. Expect to see similar press-friendly stories on his 50 state tour, whose primary objectives will probably be publicity and then research for where he wants to align his political platform.

are no different from what mainstream Muslims follow, and specifically, do NOT disown. There have been surveys of Muslims worldwide that pretty much reinforce this.

What the hell? Did you even read the article on the other end of your own link?
It says exactly the opposite of what you claim.

How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?

Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.

Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.

More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq. In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.

In a few countries, a quarter or more of Muslims say that these acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 40% in the Palestinian territories, 39% in Afghanistan, 29% in Egypt and 26% in Bangladesh.

In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said earlier this year they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013

Furthermore, in the US the religious group (including atheists) least likely to support terrorism (violence by small groups or individuals against civilians) are muslims.

Your worldview is toxic and destructive. Stop trying to drag us all into war because of your bigotry.

Islam IS Radical Islam. There ain't separate Qurans, or Hadiths, or Tafseers, or Siras that 'Radical Muslims' follow that are different from what other Muslims follow. All the things that ISIS, al Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Lashkar e Toiba, Jemiah Islamiah, Boko Haram, et al swear allegiance to are no different from what mainstream Muslims follow, and specifically, do NOT disown. There have been surveys of Muslims worldwide that pretty much reinforce this

As for Turks being Jihadists, they are remarkably close. First of all, since Erdogan came to power, Turkey has steadily dismantled all the anti-Islamic influences that the army held over the country. Turkey has also been very supportive of ISIS, which is why anybody who wants to join ISIS goes via Gaziantep. Turkey has also been supportive of Saudi-Qatari attempts to oust Assad, and they have opposed blanket condemnations of Jihad. Calling them Jihadists is by no means far fetched

because it demonstrates a significant lack of appreciation for the text, spirit, or values enshrined in the Constitution

Overall, I find the lack of appreciation for same by the other party to be far more discontenting. It is the Democrats, who wish to:

• Illegalize "hate speech", contrary to the First Amendment;
• Illegalize weapons — from knives and brass knuckles to firearms, contrary to the Second Amendment;
• promote Affirmative Action — contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment;
• abolish Electoral College and otherwise diminish the role of the member-States in the Union;

But those threats to the Constitution do not worry you, only Christianity does?..

the survey you cited includes no evidence that American Muslims agree with Sharia Law

Seriously? Are you that dense? The article I linked to is called (emphasis mine) "Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world". What does it tell you, that, while it has Sharia-support figures for about 20 other countries — and even a graphic showing same — the figures for the US are omitted? Ok, maybe, my growing up in the USSR gave me the ability to read between the lines, that the blissfully naive Americans do not possess. Fine. Let's look for other sources:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

and:

nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Now, these results are politically inconvenient to the still-prevailing dogma, so, as could be expected, the study is denounced (such as here) as "deeply flawed". But what better rebuttal could there be, than offering results of your own study contradicting those of the "flawed" one? And yet, none of the critics could cite their own numbers. Does that not tell you something?

a completely made up story

Once again, it is not "made up" at all — and certainly not completely made up. It is a real problem, and not just in the US (for which we, curiously, do not establishment-blessed figures at all), but also in Canada, UK, and Norway...

Quit denying it — makes you look stupid. You'll get better mileage out of arguing, "it is nothing to worry about" instead.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

Be it as it may, large portions of them want Sharia. That alone should make a country — any country — wary of them. An American President, in particular, swears to uphold the Constitution. Keeping track of who is likely to want to abolish it is not at all outrageous — the government keeps track of even of the vehicle-owners, a trait far less dangerous to the Constitution...

Okay, I normally like to stay out of these discussions so I can moderate instead, but this is ridiculous.

1. First, unless you want to start a mercantilism-esque trade war, "make Mexico pay for it" isn't really feasible. Second, more people are going to Mexico from the US than are coming to the US from Mexico. Building a wall would be a rather pointless waste of resources. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

2. Catch-and-release was used because it costs a great deal of money to imprison, house, try, and deport illegal immigrants. You need to do due process to avoid violating the constitution. In America, you're innocent until proven guilty - and that applies to people suspected of being in the country illegally. You cannot strip the rights of somebody because you *think* they don't have them, otherwise those rights are meaningless. If you want to end catch-and-release entirely, be prepared to spend a lot more money on law enforcement and the INS.

3. There are constitutional reasons why you can't compel the state law enforcement to do things. Also, DACA/DAPA (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to "Obama's deadly policies") didn't allow criminals to stay; if you had any serious convictions (any felony, any serious misdemeanor, or 3 misdemeanors of any kind) you weren't eligible.

4. Again: Constitutional issue. We preserve the right of law enforcement agencies to enforce laws as they see fit; "sanctuary city" is simply an extension of that. Sanctuary cities aren't "safe havens" for illegal immigrants. They're simply cities where the *local* law enforcement will not assist with matters that consist only of immigration status violations. The federal government is welcome to conduct their own operations, as is its right.

5. Sure, you can revoke DACA/DAPA - but be specific, it wasn't amnesty, it was an executive order to provide a temporary stay of enforcement. Amnesty is a different word that has a very different meaning.

6. We... already do? Visas aren't issued blindly, and their requirements are based on nation of origin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

7. This is a concern only with a few nations (mostly in the middle east) and I actually agree.

8. This would cost tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to set up and operate. We're not Israel; we don't have a single major point of air entry and a few heavily controlled land entry points. It would also not be terribly useful, because unless you're willing to track people once inside the country (and that opens up a whoooole different can of worms) it's not going to do a whole lot. You know person with X biometric data entered the country, great. Now what? They've moved and dropped off the radar. Good luck catching them.

9. The only way to make it not attractive to work here is to lower how much American companies pay, and I for one do not approve of dragging our standard of living down into the mud in order to accomplish that. You can punish companies more harshly for using illegal immigrants as labor, but making it objectively less attractive to work here isn't really feasible.

10. Which historic norms? Immigration's been pretty steady for the last twenty five years, give or take, so immigration as a function of population size has actually *dropped.*

America's problems (well, most of them) aren't because of immigrants. The real issues facing American workers stem from the ruination of unions in the 90s, the increased automation of the last 50+ years, and the willingness of other countries to not offer high standards of living for workers. The problem isn't going away, and blaming immigrants for it isn't going to fix the issue - especially when we have a ticking time bomb in the form of driverless trucking no more than a decade away.

Trucking employs about 1.8 million people, and contributes about

and you can't ignore the interests of minority small states.

And I'm sure you'd feel the same way if small states were black and hispanic majority and it was your "team" that lost elections about it.

No wait I forgot, you're a massive hypocrite who would be outraged because you're so obsessed with winning you'll reach out at any dubious justification that gives you an advantage.

Just like I'm sure you think every voter needs to show ID, to combat the virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud. But you think accessibility is really important so you have no issue with mail-in ballots.

We traditionally define minority in terms of race, religion, or sexuality, precisely because those groups are typically discriminated against.

Hrm. Let's shelve that dubious tradition for a moment, and focus on what minority means in the sense of a democratic government where each proposition that passes has a majority (or plurality) support, and a minority that opposes it.

Yes, lets shelve what people actually mean when they talk about protecting minorities so you can confuse the debate by talking about a different concept that happens to share the same word.

I know Muslims you racist piece of shit, they are some of my best friends and some of the absolutely nicest and most peaceful people I know.

I call bullshit. If you know muslims, you know they're not a race, they're a religion.

Sorry, you're a bigoted piece of shit.

You know precious little about your best friends if you think muslims are a "race".

You're a pretentious moron if your positions are so facile that you need to reject the popular definition of a word in favour of a ridiculously pedantic definition and then claim intellectual superiority.

Secondly, if your muslim friends don't disavow sharia law

Do your Christian friends disavow biblical law? Do you tell them to fuck off if they don't?

(which, my muslim friends do,

Somehow I'm doubtful your "Muslim friends" know your real views.

If your holy book insists that you create earthly governments that subjugate women, or kill gays, you can kindly do that barbaric shit somewhere else.

Blah blah, applies to christians too.

The most devout guy I knew was best friends with a lesbian. News flash, a lot of people don't actually follow their holy books.

You should walk up to some of the Muslims I know, good people who helped me get through tough times, people with whom I talked about religion, people I went to parties with, played sports with, guys with whom I talked about girls, people who moved to your country and I dearly miss.

Ask them if they support sharia law.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should apply to non muslims.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should override the constitution.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

If they really are good people, the aren't "good" muslims.

Looks like your party would be quite at home.

I'm not going to claim that Muslims in general are as liberal as Christians. But to say the that anyone who considers themselves a devout Muslim is somehow a terrorist sympathizer looking to subjugate non-Muslims is ignorant and bigoted.

That's a pretty odd definition for "minority", you're not even properly selecting for rural vs urban, you're just giving a disproportionate of power to people who happen to live in small states.

Well, in my definition, it encompasses the rural versus urban, as well as the small state vs. large state.

tl;dr - you can't ignore the interests of minority rural areas, and you can't ignore the interests of minority small states.

We traditionally define minority in terms of race, religion, or sexuality, precisely because those groups are typically discriminated against.

Hrm. Let's shelve that dubious tradition for a moment, and focus on what minority means in the sense of a democratic government where each proposition that passes has a majority (or plurality) support, and a minority that opposes it. As in "majority leader" and "minority leader" of the House or Senate.

I hope they do, but I have little faith considering how awful a job they did during the election.

I agree. Wikileaks showed them as effectively campaign staff for Clinton.

I know Muslims you racist piece of shit, they are some of my best friends and some of the absolutely nicest and most peaceful people I know.

I call bullshit. If you know muslims, you know they're not a race, they're a religion. I know muslims from pakistan, the philippines, and the middle east (both shia and sunni). You know precious little about your best friends if you think muslims are a "race".

Secondly, if your muslim friends don't disavow sharia law (which, my muslim friends do, because they're not terrorist sympathizers, and understand how muslims across the globe are regularly oppressed by islam and islamic law), then frankly, FUCK THEM. If your holy book insists that you create earthly governments that subjugate women, or kill gays, you can kindly do that barbaric shit somewhere else.

You should walk up to some of the Muslims I know, good people who helped me get through tough times, people with whom I talked about religion, people I went to parties with, played sports with, guys with whom I talked about girls, people who moved to your country and I dearly miss.

Ask them if they support sharia law.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should apply to non muslims.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should override the constitution.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

If they really are good people, the aren't "good" muslims.

when he thinks that "you all wanted to be spied on by us" is going to get much agreement from the public.

Yeah, the scary thing is that while the majority of Americans disagree, polls consistently show a rather huge number of people DO agree with the spying. Pew research found 42% of Americans approve of government collection of personal data, and when you ask a more generic question, like whether our anti-terrorism policies have "not gone far enough" vs. "gone too far restricting civil liberties," you'll see the majority of Americans saying we haven't gone far enough.

Of course, part of this has to do with how you frame the questions, and MOST of it has to do with how ignorant the American public still is about what this spying really entails. As John Oliver famously showed during his process of interviewing Edward Snowden last year, if you ask people, "Should the government be allowed to see nude pictures of you" sent by email or phone or whatever, we'd probably get near 100% agreement against the NSA policies. But it's not generally framed in those terms.

(By the way, whatever you think of Snowden or John Oliver for that matter, you should watch this interview. It's scary how quickly the American public has completely forgotten about Snowden, completely misunderstands what he did and what the surveillence program is actually about, etc.)

when he thinks that "you all wanted to be spied on by us" is going to get much agreement from the public.

Yeah, the scary thing is that while the majority of Americans disagree, polls consistently show a rather huge number of people DO agree with the spying. Pew research found 42% of Americans approve of government collection of personal data, and when you ask a more generic question, like whether our anti-terrorism policies have "not gone far enough" vs. "gone too far restricting civil liberties," you'll see the majority of Americans saying we haven't gone far enough.

Of course, part of this has to do with how you frame the questions, and MOST of it has to do with how ignorant the American public still is about what this spying really entails. As John Oliver famously showed during his process of interviewing Edward Snowden last year, if you ask people, "Should the government be allowed to see nude pictures of you" sent by email or phone or whatever, we'd probably get near 100% agreement against the NSA policies. But it's not generally framed in those terms.

(By the way, whatever you think of Snowden or John Oliver for that matter, you should watch this interview. It's scary how quickly the American public has completely forgotten about Snowden, completely misunderstands what he did and what the surveillence program is actually about, etc.)

Provable, eh? So, tell me how a middle class white guy is more privileged than Obama. How is a white family in a trailer park more privileged than Jonathan Butler?

If there is privilege, wouldn't Asians be the top of the list of privileged? They make more money and are better educated than any other demographic in the USA. Where is the Asian privilege?

You know why 'race/gender/orientation' privilege is bullshit? It takes complex socioeconomic circumstances an individual may experience and reduce them down to a single attribute to be extrapolated to a group that shares that attribute. Where is that same logic applied anywhere else that isn't thoroughly rejected as bullshit?

Racists and sexists use that bullshit to justify racist behavior. Like this cunt or this bitch.

When is statistical disparity not indicative of racism? Or is the NBA and NFL just a bunch of racists because of black privilege in sports.

You mean besides it getting worse? How's that threat to democracy working out for you guys? And it's a trend? And it's a trend that continues to be constant or increasing. FYI you can find the actual poll data very easily.

Here's why: http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_...

This chart doesn't show bias by the news outlets, it shows bias of the audience. Saying the news outlet is biased biased on its audience's bias is a fallacy.

If you gave me ten guys from a random selection in a line-up and asked who's here the ex-con, the best guess would probably be the black guy. Not because I'm racist, but because of the makeup of the US prison population compared to the general population.

You seem to have a hard time understanding math.

There are actually more white people with felony convictions(3.2M) than there are black people(2.8M). That's because the lower conviction rate is balanced out by the larger population.

Voting age population by race:
156M (69%) white
  27M (12%) black
  27M (12%) hispanic
  16M ( 7%) everybody else

Number of people with felony convictions by race:
white 2.1% x 156M = 3.2M
black 10.5% x 27M = 2.8M

So given a line-up of 2 randomly chosen people, one white and one black, there is essentially equal chance that either one is an ex-con. And if you have a line up of more than 2 people, one that is racial proportional to the general population, say 7 white guys, 1 hispanic guy, 1 black guy and one ethnically ambiguous-maybe-asian, then the chance that at least one of the white people is a felon is about 7x higher than the chance that the black guy is a felon.

Now, just because you are bad at math does not make you racist. But in my experience everybody who is racist is also really bad at math when they think about race. And that is why "Big Data" is not color-blind. The algorithms literally hardcode the assumptions of the people designing them. And if those people are bad at math the same way racists are bad at math, then the end results are algorithms that implement racism and do so under the false cover of being objectively neutral.

Wages will go up so I cna afford to buy more crap. By some estimates I am making half of what I should be making. See this citation for a discussion of the matter.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Here's why:
http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_...

The only mainstream media to the right is Fox News. Breitbart is even further right, and that's one of the only other alternatives. However if you look to the left, there are a dozen news organizations (including PBS, which just seems wrong somehow, being government funded).

So what this means is that FB users that identify with the liberal news organizations have their "interactions" divided across those dozen news organizations on the left (CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, Washington Post, on and on). Whereas those with conservative views only had a couple of options to choose from. Thus those couple options on the right got more interactions because they were not diluted across so many news choices.

Wikipedia isn't reliable. Try here a newspaper with editorial staff subject to corrections, or here a christian research organization which confirms an estimated 19.44% chinese population vs global.

when people trust the "news" articles on their Facebook feeds more than the vetted stories published by the mainstream media. I don't know that this is a problem that the media itself can deal with, but it's a problem for the country.

For example, we've taken it for granted that illegal immigration has been out of control during the Obama administration. These stories are on everybody's Facebook feeds. The actual numbers tell a different story. The number of illegal immigrants has been flat since 2009.

I'll be happy if he: ...
3. Puts 10,000 troops spread across a 2000 mile border until Mexico decides to build a wall.

Why, to stop undocumented workers from going home? You do realize more unauthorized immigrants have left the U.S. than entered it since 2007, right?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Not possible. If Hillary gets in she grants amnesty...

Yeah it doesn't work like that. Do you what Congress is?

Plus she ramps up the importation of millions of more semi-retarded 3rd worlders.

Trump currently has the retard vote by a landslide. So yeah, wrong again...

This is a war of the top against the middle using poor people from authoritarian cultures with high corruption tolerance as pawns to stuff the ballot boxes, starting with the Immigration Act of 1965. This is the last stand. It's Trump or slavery. Your choice.

Trump is the 1% you goose. The very thing you despise has tricked you into thinking he will save your sorry ass.
This is why Trump polls well with stupid people, they haven't developed the critical thinking skills necessary to see past the bullshit catchphrases.

10-25% support use of terrorist tactics

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

and 2/3rds would not speak up if they knew of a terrorist plot. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4730825.ece

Source for the BS statistic: the arse of the bigot known as Pamela Gellar.

Ah, yes, I too wish, we had something more reliable. But we don't. Pew Research, for example, has very detailed information about world-wide Muslims' preference for Sharia. They cover many different countries but, for some reason, not the US — their detailed, 8-page collection of statistics about American Muslims does not contain the one particular bit, which they have for so many other countries.

It is almost as if Pew wished to hide something...

But, hey, if your only objection is to the source of data, which you suspect of bias, what is your ball-park estimate? Say, it is not 51%, but only 40%... Does that change anything I said above?

Really? Slashdot is usually pretty well focused on science. Perhaps a poll done in a scientific manner would be good. For examples, refer to any of these polls which will give a sample size, the questions, demographics, and a description of the process used to survey. Real Clear Politics aggregates various polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.c... and Pew Research: http://www.pewresearch.org/ conducts many polls, then details the results.

Baloney, I live in California, effective tax rate is over 50% on middle class. (28% federal, 10% state, 10% sales, 15% medi/ss me&employer + $10k property tax - deductions). That is higher than many EU countries.

Take it from Pew research: you are wrong.

And your ignorance about taxes is quite staggering. If you actually paid 28% in federal income tax, you make upward of $300k/year, not exactly middle class. Ditto for 10% state tax. Sales (actually VAT) taxes in Europe are 20-25%. And many Europeans pay for medicare, retirement, etc. separately from their income taxes as well.

who could be elected president. His fan base are white racists - they have no other options.

It's clear there is a section of his support base for whom this is true, but if that were all he had, or even most of what he had, he'd have no chance. No, much more of his support comes from people who deeply oppose globalization and people who are just mad at the establishment and want anything else.

I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is, sadly, much larger than I thought it could be.

A simpler theory is simply that "leaned Republicans" (in Pew Polling terminology, self identifying Republicans plus Republican leaning "independents") will vote as they always have, pulling the lever for the "R" regardless of how qualified or unqualified that person might be. 85% of all "leaned Republicans" plan on voting for Trump. Evangelical Republicans support Trump at a rate of 94%, they constituted nearly half of all the votes Romney got.

The fact is that America is no longer a conservative country. For example, for the first time in history there are more "nones" (people with no religious affiliation) than any other voting block. That statistic is never going to go back down, ever. That's clearly not the sign of a conservative country.

I'm not sure that this is the best metric of a "conservative country," but where do you get this data from??

Here's the history of Gallup polls on religion for example. According to them, in 2015, 38% of people identified as Protestant, 23% as Catholic, 9% as other Christian... that's 60% Christian right there. The "None" only accounted for a measly 17%. Pew polls put the number more at 70% Christian in 2014, with only 23% unaffiliated.

Moreover, when you start looking down that Gallup Poll list, you find stuff like, "Do you believe in God?" 1944 - 96%, 2016 - 89%. A downtick for sure, but hardly the sign of lack of religious belief.

"Do you believe in heaven?" 1968 - 85%, 2011 - 85%
Hell - 1968 - 66%, 2011 - 75%

Belief in angels is still up there in 2016 at 72%, which is a little lower than it was in the early 2000s, but about the same as it was back in the 1970s.

And heck, 73% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, including about 1/3 of your "unaffiliated" no-religion group.

Now, there are other polls that put the numbers a little lower. The Harris Poll for example only puts belief in the virgin birth at 57%, with 68% saying he is the Son of God.

Religious belief and attendance is down more than ever before in history. There are fewer churches and places of worship in this country than ever before in history. Religion is dying off here, both figuratively and literally.

Is church attendance down? Yes. And the percentage of folks who say religion is "very important" in their lives is down (though still the MAJORITY of Americans, according to polls). But given that the majority of Americans still seem to strongly subscribe to religious beliefs, including significant numbers of your "unaffiliated" folks, I'd hardly say it's "dying off" yet.

I have absolutely no idea where you get your idea that there are more "nones" than any other voting block. It may be true that the majority of Americans no longer attend church every week, but it's still a highly religious country.

the fact is that America is slowly but steadily moving towards more liberal social and political systems, not away from them. It's been doing this since the late 50's, but has sped up a bit considerably the last decade or so.

I agree with this, though to go back to your previous point -- the number of people identifying as "Evangelical Christians" has been fairly constant over the past few decades. It hasn't even declined as much as the other general religion numbers. So... it's not like the true "conservatives" (in terms of religion) are going away... it's more like the people in the middle are becoming less concerned about religious values holding sway over their lives. But there's still a rather huge contingent of people with far right values (certainly larger than your "none" contingent), and that block isn't going away anytime soon.

Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states with more coming (count on it). That's not the sign of a conservative country.

We MIGHT just be getting back to the level of acceptance of recreational/medicinal drug use enjoyed in the 1900-1930 era or so. If that's "liberal" and "progressive" to you... well, gosh, that's great!