Is The Gang Of Four Winning?

[MegaPoke]

@CowboyJD Setting aside your completely binary (accurate vs fake 100% of the time) account of "fake news," the above graph by the NYT is what I was referring to.

The left and right were closer in base ideology in 2008 than the left of 2008 is with the left of 2012. The left of 2016 is further left still. The "right" more or less stayed the same.

I think this is a case of you wanting to justify the middle instead of being genuinely critical of the relative swings to the right and left.

 

[CowboyJD]

What they have now is New York liberal with Obama's exact immigration policy. Would love to see an argument that Trump is to the right of Ronald Reagan.

I must have missed amnesty in place in Obama's immigration policy.

I must have missed end DACA in it too.

So not exactly exact.

 

[Syskatine]

I always enjoy seeing the atheists on the board quote the Bible, often out of context.

Turn the other cheek. "Out of context!"

Do violence to no man. "Out of context!"

Give your money away. "Out of context!"

Treat the vulnerable and least among us well. "Out of context!"

Enable a serial adulterer, liar, narcissist, greedhead to enact policies the ooposite of the above.... "He's God's instrument!"

 

[MegaPoke]

I must have missed amnesty in place in Obama's immigration policy.

I must have missed end DACA in it too.

So not exactly exact.

If you read transcripts of Obama's various speeches on illegal immigration in a Trump voice, @Pokeabear would cry.

 

[MegaPoke]

Pretty graph. Any actual explanation or source data available?

meh... it's an ok graph. Not that pretty. I would say more illuminating and narrative destroying than aesthetically pleasing.

NYT article

 

[MegaPoke]

Turn the other cheek. "Out of context!"

Do violence to no man. "Out of context!"

Give your money away. "Out of context!"

Treat the vulnerable and least among us well. "Out of context!"

Enable a serial adulterer, liar, narcissist, greedhead to enact policies the ooposite of the above.... "He's God's instrument!"

Sunday School teacher @Syskatine has returned! Everyone grab a chair.

@AC2017 get on the bus, because you are going to school!

 

[CowboyJD]

@CowboyJD Setting aside your completely binary (accurate vs fake 100% of the time) account of "fake news," the above graph by the NYT is what I was referring to.

The left and right were closer in base ideology in 2008 than the left of 2008 is with the left of 2012. The left of 2016 is further left still. The "right" more or less stayed the same.

I think this is a case of you wanting to justify the middle instead of being genuinely critical of the relative swings to the right and left.

It's not.

In fact, I haven't expressed an opinion on "relative swings".

I have merely challenged the notion that there has been no rightward swing with references to a particular area of policy.

 

[MegaPoke]

I must have missed amnesty in place in Obama's immigration policy.

I must have missed end DACA in it too.

So not exactly exact.

I would also argue that today's "right" consists of a lot fewer social conservative platform items than it used to. And the left wasn't pushing open borders under Bush and Reagan - at least not right out in the open like they do now. Context.

 

[CowboyJD]

meh... it's an ok graph. Not that pretty. I would say more illuminating and narrative destroying than aesthetically pleasing.

NYT article

From the article...

"The resulting scores capture how the groups represent themselves, not necessarily their actual policies."

Not exactly narrative destroying when we're talking about actual policy moves.

 

[MegaPoke]

It's not.

In fact, I haven't expressed an opinion on "relative swings".

I have merely challenged the notion that there has been no rightward swing with references to a particular area of policy.

Then I'm kind of unclear what we are even debating here. I'm not suggesting there hasn't been - just that the relative swings left and right aren't of equal distance.

And if you have dedicated yourself to remaining in the middle, by definition that means you've moved left with it.

 

[MegaPoke]

From the article...

"The resulting scores capture how the groups represent themselves, not necessarily their actual policies."

Not exactly narrative destroying when we're talking about actual policy moves.

Kinda narrative damaging.

 

[2012Bearcat]

That's a strawman argument that I haven't made. I didn't make or comment on your position at all. I haven't made any comment regarding the merits of the rights present position on immigration.

I have merely pointed out that the position of the right on immigration is more to the right than it was in the Reagan and Bush eras.

Let's engage in this thought process.

Would the right "naively" grant amnesty to 3.1 M illegal aliens if Congress promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform?

If not. They have moved further to the right.

If, as you say...the Bushes were basically open borders guys...and leaders of the Republican party at the time as President...sure you can see that they have moved further to the right from then.

Therefore, comparatively to those two eras, there has been a movement to the right.

Learning firsthand that Congress is a group of corrupt welchers and liars is a far right position? I thought that was a position held by all.
I know you are aware the border was supposed to have been secured and that our immigration system was to be reformed with the agreement with Reagan. Expecting the same today is not in any way a movement to the right. Bush in regards to illegal immigration was as bad as Obama but at least Bush didn't encourage it.

 

[Pokeabear]

If you read transcripts of Obama's various speeches on illegal immigration in a Trump voice, @Pokeabear would cry.

Quality

 

[CowboyJD]

I would also argue that today's "right" consists of a lot fewer social conservative platform items than it used to. And the left wasn't pushing open borders under Bush and Reagan - at least not right out in the open like they do now. Context.

1st sentence...I would completely disagree with it. Except for drug legalization, today's "right" is pushing just as hard or harder on social conservatism.

2nd sentence. Context indeed. Your second sentence is kind of an explanation for a swing to the right on immigration...push back to the left swing. All I have been saying is that there has been a swing to the right...no comment as to justification or not. We have a self proclaimed member of the right that called the Bush Presidency basically an open border guy...so there has clearly been a swing from that.

 

[CowboyJD]

Learning firsthand that Congress is a group of corrupt welchers and liars is a far right position? I thought that was a position held by all.
I know you are aware the border was supposed to have been secured and that our immigration system was to be reformed with the agreement with Reagan. Expecting the same today is not in any way a movement to the right. Bush in regards to illegal immigration was as bad as Obama but at least Bush didn't encourage it.

Can you imagine....under any circumstances...Trump granting amnesty.

If not, that's a swing to the right.

I haven't argued the merits or justification of any swing one way or the other, but my goodness man...your own posts establish a swing from Reagan and Bush.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Can you imagine....under any circumstances...Trump granting amnesty.

If not, that's a swing to the right.

I haven't argued the merits or justification of any swing one way or the other, but my goodness man...your own posts establish a swing from Reagan and Bush.

Why should we expect Trump to grant amnesty to more than the 3.5 million already granted amnesty? Congress broke it's promise to secure the border and reform our immigration laws directly leading to somewhere between 11 to 50 million illegal aliens living in this country.

As to granting amnesty to those that are here, absolutely not. We can provide a legal status but at no time should illegals be rewarded with citizenship, they broke they law. That would be like me going into rob a bank and being allowed to keep the money.

 

[MegaPoke]

Can you imagine....under any circumstances...Trump granting amnesty.

If not, that's a swing to the right.

The numbers of illegals are drastically different.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

The long-legged Mack Daddy was elementary in his message his mission was to fundamentally change America. He used small words. Gathering allies along the way, he laid the ground work for the creation of Blexit and Walkaway. November, 2020 will tell us the cost he and his socialist allies will pay.

 

[Medic007]

Would the right "naively" grant amnesty to 3.1 M illegal aliens if Congress promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform?

If not. They have moved further to the right.

Sorry man, that doesn't make them more "right." That's just being less gullible.

 

[CowboyJD]

Kinda narrative damaging.

Not even.

Measurement of how the sides portray themselves has little to no relevance to what policies and acts they actually pusue.

 

[CowboyJD]

Sorry man, that doesn't make them more "right." That's just being less gullible.

I said naively because that was the quote of the original poster. I think Reagan knew exactly what he was doing and what he was getting.

Any circumstances where the right would consider amnesty nowadays? If not, that is a more right position than Reagan.

 

[CowboyJD]

The numbers of illegals are drastically different.

Is that a no?

So let's make it the same number. Amnesty for 3.1 million illegals. Any circumstances where you can see the right agreeing to that?

You're focused on discussing justifications for such a swing in position.

I am merely pointing out that there has been a swing.

 

[CowboyJD]

Why should we expect Trump to grant amnesty to more than the 3.5 million already granted amnesty? Congress broke it's promise to secure the border and reform our immigration laws directly leading to somewhere between 11 to 50 million illegal aliens living in this country.

As to granting amnesty to those that are here, absolutely not. We can provide a legal status but at no time should illegals be rewarded with citizenship, they broke they law. That would be like me going into rob a bank and being allowed to keep the money.

Okay.

Again, you're justifying the swing...which I have no problem with....reasonable minds can disagree and all that....but it is movement to the right.

 

[Medic007]

I said naively because that was the quote of the original poster. I think Reagan knew exactly what he was doing and what he was getting.

Any circumstances where the right would consider amnesty nowadays? If not, that is a more right position than Reagan.

I don't know about the "right," but I'm not sure how it wouldn't be done. 12 million plus people is decades of deportations.

 

[CowboyJD]

Then I'm kind of unclear what we are even debating here. I'm not suggesting there hasn't been - just that the relative swings left and right aren't of equal distance.

And if you have dedicated yourself to remaining in the middle, by definition that means you've moved left with it.

I don't know that we are debating anything so much as engaging in some slightly witty, mostly meaningless banter because we haven't talked in a while.

Also, I am no way "dedicated to remaining in the middle"...never have been. I am dedicated to policy positions and actions that I believe are best for America. That is a completely different thing.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Okay.

Again, you're justifying the swing...which I have no problem with....reasonable minds can disagree and all that....but it is movement to the right.

You keep saying that like it's true but it's an outright falsehood. The position has been the same since, in my memory, Eisenhower or have you forgotten about "Operation Wetback". I would agree to just disagree but you threw this out there as proof the right has gone further right and as history has shown that is just flat out wrong. You have any other examples of the right going further right because your first example doesn't show it?

 

[CowboyJD]

Anyway...been fun fellas, but I'm headed to Chicago for a long weekend. No more time for you mopes.

 

[CowboyJD]

You keep saying that like it's true but it's an outright falsehood. The position has been the same since, in my memory, Eisenhower or have you forgotten about "Operation Wetback". I would agree to just disagree but you threw this out there as proof the right has gone further right and as history has shown that is just flat out wrong. You have any other examples of the right going further right because your first example doesn't show it?

You're the one that said Bush....the leader of the Republican party...was an open borders...was an open borders guy.

You will need to clarify your statement here as Reagans approach was much different than Bush's. Reagan naively trusted Congress to fulfill their promise of securing the border and reform our immigration system, in exchange for providing amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens living in the country at that time. Bush on the other hand was basically an open borders guy.

While I can not speak for others that lean towards the right my position is to follow the damn law and put a stop to those that are exploiting loopholes in the system to come into the country in front of those that are trying to immigrate into the country legally.

Not sure how the immigration policy of the right has been the same since Eisenhower if they've gone through an open border Presidenr to where they are now.

If you can't or won't see that as a swing to the right...I'm not really interested in bringing up any further just to hear a No True Scotsman type response.

 

[Medic007]

Anyway...been fun fellas, but I'm headed to Chicago for a long weekend. No more time for you mopes.

May your beer be warm and your pizza be shitty. Stay safe!

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

They've gone from immigration reform efforts of Reagan and the Bushes to what they have now.

For one.

SIAP... but can you explain the difference? Seriously, Trump extended to Nancy & Chuck pretty much the same as Reagan on DACA. But they backed off and refused to come to the table.

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

Nah dawg, I'm not a big fan of binary false dichotomies.

I'm neither "The left" or Trump.

I just find it weird when Trump supporters cite NYT or other fake news organizations to bolster their position and dismiss it as fake news when it suits them.

It's my belief that the NYT is a fat, large, big operation that houses journalists of vary degrees on liberal ideology. As such, some articles are way over the top and some are just over the top. Because of this, fake news does indeed exist on varying stories which makes them prime candidates to be called out as Fake News.

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

Here's a weird notion. Labeling the entire organization as fake news, an enemy of the state, etc. kinda forecloses the idea that you are evaluating those things on a case by case basis.

If it repeatedly reports false agendas and false news on even just a couple of stories per week then it can be labeled as Fake News un til said ownership and editors cease. That's business.

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

That's a strawman argument that I haven't made. I didn't make or comment on your position at all. I haven't made any comment regarding the merits of the rights present position on immigration.

I have merely pointed out that the position of the right on immigration is more to the right than it was in the Reagan and Bush eras.

Let's engage in this thought process.

Would the right "naively" grant amnesty to 3.1 M illegal aliens if Congress promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform?

If not. They have moved further to the right.

If, as you say...the Bushes were basically open borders guys...and leaders of the Republican party at the time as President...sure you can see that they have moved further to the right from then.

Therefore, comparatively to those two eras, there has been a movement to the right.

Amnesty was already granted on the promise the left would pass immigration reform... but reform was not passed.

 

[knoblock]

Get 'em @CowboyJD. Send them back to where they came from seems further right to me.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Trump would agree to amnesty tomorrow if he got the entire wall.

 

[MegaPoke]

Not even.

Measurement of how the sides portray themselves has little to no relevance to what policies and acts they actually pusue.

Still.... kinda.

 

[MegaPoke]

So let's make it the same number. Amnesty for 3.1 million illegals. Any circumstances where you can see the right agreeing to that?

Absolutely. Yes. There’s value in that because more illegals than that are already voting.

20 million? A bit different.

 

[MegaPoke]

I don't know that we are debating anything so much as engaging in some slightly witty, mostly meaningless banter because we haven't talked in a while.

Also, I am no way "dedicated to remaining in the middle"...never have been. I am dedicated to policy positions and actions that I believe are best for America. That is a completely different thing.

Missed you. Hope the new gig is a good one.

Same here

 

[HighStickHarry]

Trump would agree to amnesty tomorrow if he got the entire wall.

That’s the whole problem with all of this. Trump, from day one has been more likely to compromise on anything and everything than a real conservative and the libs would rather sink the whole ship than Make a deal with someone they only despise because he is as nasty as they are. So fvcking stupid.

Honestly in 2019 we should be up in arms because trump is such a pussy for making deals with these loons, but instead their immaturity keeps the daca kids in the shadows and the other illegals in a state of exploitation. With wall money he would give the whole cart and horse to them.

 

[knoblock]

That’s the whole problem with all of this. Trump, from day one has been more likely to compromise on anything and everything than a real conservative and the libs would rather sink the whole ship than Make a deal with someone they only despise because he is as nasty as they are. So fvcking stupid.

Honestly in 2019 we should be up in arms because trump is such a pussy for making deals with these loons, but instead their immaturity keeps the daca kids in the shadows and the other illegals in a state of exploitation. With wall money he would give the whole cart and horse to them.

Nope to you and N. Pappa.