https://twitter.com/MrFilmkritik/status/957429654863974400

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35266658)

"There is no other major US paper I'd say that about, BTW. There's no other major paper I'd encourage people to flat-out cancel. But if you have a conscience, and you value truth, cancel the NYT."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35266713)

of course he is a jew

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35266744)

take a look at this graph: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lzi_wo4ba0g-ppbtfvnasg.png

suddenly a huge percentage of democrats have flipped their position on immigration levels. have the facts changed? no. what's changed is the narrative and lib "positions"--even on fundamental questions--can be changed instantaneously no matter the facts.

if libs can be trolled into believing anything, at any time, how can we pretend to have a democracy? take the question of, say, whether one can be born physically male but later become a girl or a woman. All of recorded history and the scientific facts give one answer. Libs? just completely flipped on the not so minor question of mutilating children because they are trapped in the wrong gendered body.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/ito/files/gender_dysphoria_graph.jpg

if you ask libs, they'll tell you the world has *suddenly changed* in that we've just become "woke" to the "reality" that there's an epidemic of people whose gender differs from their body's apparent gender.

this is, quite frankly, one of the craziest things in the world to believe. but almost more important is that libs made this huge revolutionary shift on a fucking dime. just like that: no change in the physical world or our knowledge of the physical world, complete 180 in lib beliefs.

libs can be persuaded of anything and indeed will be persuaded of anything the lib narrative decides. the shift neednt be subtle or gradual because liberal beliefs are just an illusion; the facade and the narrative turn out to be the Thing Itself for libs.

Does this apply to reptiles? No. You may think Jesus didn't turn water into wine, but if cons believe it today then they'll believe it tomorrow because no new information about Jesus is coming out.

Because libs are fundamentally "unhinged" from any non-relativist framework of understanding, they don't believe in anything "come what may" other than hatred of the Other (conservaheroes). Its all on the table for libs: murder, child molestation, dissolving the United States, worship of invisible space aliens. Nothing can be ruled out on principles because they have none. And because they have no priors they also don't have any standards for altering their position on anything, don't know how they know anything or why they believe anything in the first place, etc.

Libs will ride whatever current they're given and never even figure out which way they've been going. But hey, tomorrow's always a new day. Who knows what will be true or right then?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35267413)

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35267911)

is

over

one word at the usual google mail center

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35274402)

I appreciate that xo is evenly split over whether I'm 180 or 120. that means I'm on the edge, where I need to be.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#36597002)

liberals have no principles but the search for power.

if overnight minorities started voting 75% GOP, think libs would still push diversity because it's a societal good?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35279470)

what changed is holy shit fuck trump and his white supremacist supporters, let's drown them out asap

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35281634)

Libs u r done here

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#36175409)

together we can make America great again

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#36567499)

Demonstrably false.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#38514498)

Miller is the White House’s point man for immigration policy (and for strange and strident encounters with the press). He is also an immigration restrictionist: He wants a policy that favors skills-based recruitment over extended families, and he wants a lower immigration rate overall. He says he’s concerned about assimilation and crime and native wages; his critics say he just wants to keep America as white as possible, and that by even bringing him to meetings Trump is making a deal impossible to reach.

The critics are right about this much: Having someone like Miller involved is a change from the way prior immigration negotiations have proceeded. As Jim Antle points out in a column for The Week, those negotiations have been consistently bipartisan, bringing together John McCain and Ted Kennedy, Marco Rubio and Chuck Schumer, now Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin — but “they have mostly taken place between people who are fundamentally in agreement on immigration,” who favor both amnesty for illegal immigrants and reforms that would probably increase immigration rates.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t represent the actual divisions in the country. Americans have become more pro-immigration since the 1990s, but there is still a consistent pattern when you ask about immigration rates: About a third of Americans favor the current trend, slightly fewer want higher rates, and about a third, like Miller, want immigration reduced.

And there are various reasonable grounds on which one might favor a reduction. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population is near a record high, and increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics. There are questions about how fast the recent wave of low-skilled immigrants is assimilating, evidence that constant new immigration makes it harder for earlier arrivals to advance, and reasons to think that a native working class gripped by social crisis might benefit from a little less wage competition for a while. California, the model for a high-immigration future, is prosperous and dynamic — but also increasingly stratified by race, with the same inequality-measuring Gini coefficient as Honduras.

Continue reading the main story

RECENT COMMENTS

Tager 14 hours ago

You are sounding like DT at Charlottesville. All sides are not equal. One side is moved largely by xenophobia and racism and is not...

William Case 14 hours ago

Current immigration policy isn’t making America less white. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States was 76.9 percent white in...

Lucy 14 hours ago

You write the same kind of stuff that has resulted in the total bigotry of the Republican Party. Over the years, it is columns like yours...

SEE ALL COMMENTS

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

With that said, illegal immigration has slowed over the last decade, and immigration’s potential economic and humanitarian benefits are still considerable. And it’s also clear that many immigration restrictionists are influenced by simple bigotry — with the president’s recent excrement-related remarks a noteworthy illustration.

This bigotry, from the point of view of many immigration advocates, justifies excluding real restrictionists from the negotiating table. You can give them a little more money for border security, some promises about reducing illegal entry. But you can’t let them play a large role in shaping policy. The limits of this strategy, though, are evident in the repeated failure of “comprehensive” immigration reform over the last decade and more, doomed each time by the gulf between the plans of Republican negotiators and the actual preferences of their voters.

The present view of many liberals seems to be that restrictionists can eventually be steamrolled — that the same ethnic transformations that have made white anxiety acute will eventually bury white-identity politics with sheer multiethnic numbers.

But liberals have been waiting 12 years for that “eventually” to arrive, and instead Trump is president and the illegal immigrants they want to protect are still in limbo. So maybe it would be worth trying to actually negotiate with Stephen Miller, rather than telling Trump that he needs to lock his adviser in a filing cabinet, slap on a “beware of leopard” sign, and hustle out to the Rose Garden to sign whatever Durbin and Graham have hashed out.

Especially since last week, Trump and Miller actually made an interesting offer: an amnesty and even a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and other Dreamers, more generous than what many restrictionists favor and with no promise of the new E-Verify enforcements conservatives often seek, in return for a shift (over many years) to a skills-based policy and a somewhat lower immigration rate.

If you’re committed to the view that restrictionists can and must be steamrolled, you’ll respond to this offer the way many Democrats have — call it a “white supremacist ransom note,” punt on policy, and use the issue to rally your base in 2018.

But if you think that lasting deals are forged when all sides are represented, you might consider making a counteroffer: for instance, the same rough blueprint but with more green cards for skilled immigrants, so that Miller gets his cuts to low-skilled immigration but the overall rate stays closer to the status quo.

I don’t know if there’s a deal to be had along those lines; restrictionists might rebel and Democrats might simply not want a grand bargain with this president.

But a bargain that actually reflects the shape of public opinion, not just the elite consensus, can only happen with someone like Stephen Miller at the table.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35266912)

http://www.koop.org/sites/default/files/news/IMG_3338.JPG

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35274571)

nadinevanderVelde

‏

*** you @nytimes for publishing this article on #HolocaustMemorialDay from me & from those in my family whose voices were silenced during the Holocaust.

Shame on you!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#35428736)

19 Amendment was a disaster

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874672&forum_id=2#36335642)