The Border Wall or Fence

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That wasn't my intent. You was bolded simply for emphasis. I wasn't sure why you put my "properly addressed" in quotes ...like it was some code for something. I wanted to know what it meant to you and asked in that manner.

The examples were how I see the right and left extremes (plus Trump) addressing concerns coming from the other side. Not very helpful IMO.

 

"Properly address" was on qoutes because I do not understand what you mean. I am still awaiting an explanation. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

"Properly address" was on qoutes because I do not understand what you mean. I am still awaiting an explanation. 

You acknowledge their concerns. You tell them, as honestly and precisely as you can, which ones you feel are legitimate and why.  You tell them which ones you don't feel are legitimate and why you hold that position. You listen to their responses and reply as best you can, and tell them you will look into any new information that comes up, or anything you are uncertain about. You then follow up as best you can. All the while you assume the best in their intentions and concerns consistent with what they are telling you.

Maybe you persuade them. Maybe you don't, but perhaps assuage at least some of their concerns. Maybe you learn something.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My point is properly addressing concerns of those that might feel disadvantaged by immigration. Do you want immigrants to feel welcomed by a few, or do you want them to feel welcomed by the vast majority?

 

....and who specifically is that; are they a singular group? 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You acknowledge their concerns. You tell them, as honestly and precisely as you can, which ones you feel are legitimate and why.  You tell them which ones you don't feel are legitimate and why you hold that position. You listen to their responses and reply as best you can, and tell them you will look into any new information that comes up, or anything you are uncertain about. You then follow up as best you can. All the while you assume the best in their intentions and concerns consistent with what they are telling you.

Maybe you persuade them. Maybe you don't, but perhaps assuage at least some of their concerns. Maybe you learn something.

 

I still don't understand as you are using pronouns. You say to be addressing the concerns of those who feel disadvantage but have provided no definition for who those individuals are.

Do you feel disadvantage by immigrants? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

....and who specifically is that; are they a singular group? 

I still don't understand as you are using pronouns. You say to be addressing the concerns of those who feel disadvantage but have provided no definition for who those individuals are.

Some may feel they could take their job, or lower their competitiveness, commit crimes, buy up land they wish to own or make it less affordable, put stress on our health care system etc etc. any number of things...

 

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do you feel disadvantage by immigrants? 

Not really. I think we have it pretty good, feel obligated to share it to some extent, and to a good degree we need them.

I could become concerned if immigration levels could not be maintained peacefully.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some may feel they could take their job, or lower their competitiveness, commit crimes, buy up land they wish to own or make it less affordable, put stress on our health care system etc etc. any number of things...

...and you feel that you properly addressing those people's (whomever and where ever they are/I am still not sure) concerns? 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not really. I think we have it pretty good, feel obligated to share it to some extent, and to a good degree we need them.

I could become concerned if immigration levels could not be maintained peacefully.

You don't have the same concerns that the people you are properly addressing the issue have. So how do you know you are properly addressing how they feel? 

I think this conversation would be simplier if we both just just to speak for ourselves. 

[CharonY]

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It means your posted explanation was much more solid. One I would agree with.

It would stand up where the assumption in the other clearly would not. 

As it seems I misunderstood you, could you clarify which one is the one and which one is the other? My rant is mostly because in similar discussions on this board, I do see quite often that provided data is often brushed away which does cause some annoyance. As it does not seem what you mean, I apologize for that. However, it would help if you contextualize what you mean. One example would be the quoted sentence that I obviously misunderstood another one is perhaps what you mean with properly address. What would you consider a proper approach? 

If showing data that e.g. they commit less crime does not help, what does?

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As it seems I misunderstood you, could you clarify which one is the one and which one is the other? My rant is mostly because in similar discussions on this board, I do see quite often that provided data is often brushed away which does cause some annoyance. As it does not seem what you mean, I apologize for that. However, it would help if you contextualize what you mean. One example would be the quoted sentence that I obviously misunderstood another one is perhaps what you mean with properly address. What would you consider a proper approach? 

If showing data that e.g. they commit less crime does not help, what does?

I preferred the one you provided the data. I objected to the earlier one where you essentially said immigration does not bring crime, an overreaching claim. (despite the objection, I think I pointed out that I still agreed with the sentiment of that post)

I can be skeptical of some data, such as the estimates of illegal immigrants, but am satisfied with data that tends to indicate they (and legal immigrants) commit less crime than average. Not that I believe it without question, but it seems to be on pretty firm ground. Whether it is true in an absolute sense should not matter. It is enough to say it is not an issue and legal immigration should not be held up for that reason...the effort should be proper documentation and vetting. This would both protect our countries and help maintain current immigration levels long term. It certainly helps in assuaging the concerns of those against immigration...even if they are a minority I think that is important.

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I preferred the one you provided the data. I objected to the earlier one where you essentially said immigration does not bring crime, an overreaching claim. (despite the objection, I think I pointed out that I still agreed with the sentiment of that post)

I can be skeptical of some data, such as the estimates of illegal immigrants, but am satisfied with data that tends to indicate they (and legal immigrants) commit less crime than average. Not that I believe it without question, but it seems to be on pretty firm ground. Whether it is true in an absolute sense should not matter. It is enough to say it is not an issue and legal immigration should not be held up for that reason...the effort should be proper documentation and vetting. This would both protect our countries and help maintain current immigration levels long term. It certainly helps in assuaging the concerns of those against immigration...even if they are a minority I think that is important.

Right, but I wonder about that. So it appears that you think it is important to provide data for one side of the claim (i.e. neutral effect or even decrease on crime) to be taken seriously, whereas worries have to be taken at face value. While I do understand that a politician need to address it, I do wonder about the double standard.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Right, but I wonder about that. So it appears that you think it is important to provide data for one side of the claim (i.e. neutral effect or even decrease on crime) to be taken seriously, whereas worries have to be taken at face value. While I do understand that a politician need to address it, I do wonder about the double standard.

No. I think they need to be addressed though.

I think you and Ten oz seem to be working with a different definition of "addressed" than I am intending. 

I mean give it consideration and attention. It doesn't mean I will necessarily take on that perspective or support that side. Generally I would expect the opposite if I am addressing something I don't agree with.

While usually not, on this particular subject I believe there generally is a double standard...we are weighing in on the rights of citizens and non citizens.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. I think they need to be addressed though.

I think you and Ten oz seem to be working with a different definition of "addressed" than I am intending. 

I mean give it consideration and attention. It doesn't mean I will necessarily take on that perspective or support that side. Generally I would expect the opposite if I am addressing something I don't agree with.

While usually not, on this particular subject I believe there generally is a double standard...we are weighing in on the rights of citizens and non citizens.

I still do not fully understand whose perspective other than your own you believe you're taking? Are you addressing the concerns of people at the border, Republicans specifically, those who have been victims of crimes committed by immigrants, or who? I think it matter considering your questions about the specificity of the data. 

Again, I think it is best to just speak for ourselves. I was born and raised in a border state, lived in in a border city (San Diego) for several years, and have been to Mexico countless times. I do not pretend to be addressing anyone's beliefs or concerns other than my own. I certainly have thoughts  on how others feel but it really isn't my place to speak for them. So rather than us all going in circles because you feel the concerns of some group of people you have yet to specifically identify aren't being properly addressed how about you just plainly outline your thoughts.

[J.C.MacSwell]

28 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I still do not fully understand whose perspective other than your own you believe you're taking?

 I would have my own perspective. It could change, though that would not be my expectation.

30 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 Are you addressing the concerns of people at the border, Republicans specifically, those who have been victims of crimes committed by immigrants, or who?

My comments were with regard to addressing those I do not necessarily agree with. For example, in Canada this might be those who feel it is unfair to give so much to immigrants when we have people who are homeless. They would have a point, but I would not think that should override our treatment of immigrants, especially those genuinely seeking asylum.

42 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think it matter considering your questions about the specificity of the data. 

My question on the data with regard to the number of illegal immigrants was not directly related to the above line of thought, which was more about creating a more civil discourse.

I was trying to ascertain the numbers. Most of the time 12 million and 22 million seem to be referenced.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 Again, I think it is best to just speak for ourselves. I was born and raised in a border state, lived in in a border city (San Diego) for several years, and have been to Mexico countless times. I do not pretend to be addressing anyone's beliefs or concerns other than my own. I certainly have thoughts  on how others feel but it really isn't my place to speak for them. So rather than us all going in circles because you feel the concerns of some group of people you have yet to specifically identify aren't being properly addressed how about you just plainly outline your thoughts.

Instead of civil discourse much of the time, I hear accusations. I'm advocating civil discourse from both sides, and I generally have moderate views. It might not seem it here where I mostly question those who would generally be considered left of centre.

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My comments were with regard to addressing those I do not necessarily agree with. For example, in Canada this might be those who feel it is unfair to give so much to immigrants when we have people who are homeless. They would have a point, but I would not think that should override our treatment of immigrants, especially those genuinely seeking asylum

My question on the data with regard to the number of illegal immigrants was not directly related to the above line of thought, which was more about creating a more civil discourse.

I was trying to ascertain the numbers. Most of the time 12 million and 22 million seem to be referenced.

"Might be" does specifically identify whose concerns you are "properly addressing". You appear to just be playing Devil's Advocate on behave of groups you assume are probably out there. It isn't useful to this conversation. I too can come up with arguments I assume might be agreeable to some groups. It isn't useful though.

Right now my Govt is shutdown and 800k people are going without pay over the Border Wall. Now is the time for specificity based on the best data available and not Devil's Advocate arguments rooted in the date which doesn't exist. 

16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Instead of civil discourse much of the time, I hear accusations. I'm advocating civil discourse from both sides, and I generally have moderate views. It might not seem it here where I mostly question those who would generally be considered left of centre.

If by "both sides" you mean Democrats and Republicans than the moderate view would logically be for Trump to accept the Budget the Senate (which is majority Republican) already unanimously approved on Dec. 20th . I can't imagine what a person "moderate" with a moderate view would consider more civil and bipartisan than something unanimously agreed to. Can you please explain why Trump simply signing that budget isn't the obvious solution here?

[rangerx]

17 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Instead of civil discourse much of the time, I hear accusations. I'm advocating civil discourse from both sides, and I generally have moderate views. It might not seem it here where I mostly question those who would generally be considered left of centre.

While civil discourse is important in any discussion, you've admitted to intentionally targeting liberals. That's not moderation, it's bias.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

While civil discourse is important in any discussion, you've admitted to intentionally targeting liberals. That's not moderation, it's bias.

It's both actually. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's both actually. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It's not both. Moderation is the understanding of common ground and the validity of fact issues.

Bias ignores commonality and distorts or dismisses the fact issues.

Edited January 19, 2019 by rangerx

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, rangerx said:

It's not both. Moderation is the understanding of common ground and the validity of fact issues.

Bias ignores commonality and often ignores or dismisses the fact issues.

Under that definition I have no bias...but I assure you by proper definition I do.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Under that definition I have no bias...but I assure you by proper definition I do.

I'd believe that if you actually practiced what you preach, which is little more than bias. In this (and other) threads you represent the far right, while numerous others are infinitely more moderate or otherwise to the left.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

I'd believe that if you actually practiced what you preach, which is little more than bias. In this (and other) threads you represent the far right, while numerous others are infinitely more moderate or otherwise to the left.

I think a lot of Leftists might agree with that.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

If by "both sides" you mean Democrats and Republicans than the moderate view would logically be for Trump to accept the Budget the Senate (which is majority Republican) already unanimously approved on Dec. 20th . I can't imagine what a person "moderate" with a moderate view would consider more civil and bipartisan than something unanimously agreed to. Can you please explain why Trump simply signing that budget isn't the obvious solution here?

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think a lot of Leftists might agree with that.

Can you address the above question? You have called for civility and moderation. I think the question above is straight forward and civil.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Can you please explain why Trump simply signing that budget isn't the obvious solution here?

I don't think it is the obvious solution. I think Trump has somewhat painted himself into a corner, and I don't think the Democrats are very anxious to give him much room.

I have nothing against him simply signing off on it. I just don't think it will happen in that manner.

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think a lot of Leftists might agree with that.

Anyone with reading comprehension would agree with that. Only one with bias would frame it that way with that quote.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Anyone with reading comprehension would agree with that. Only one with bias would frame it that way with that quote.

I might agree with it as well. Maybe I do "represent" the far right to many here.

In Canada I am generally considered a Liberal, but have also vote Conservative  and a couple of times NDP.

While growing up, all 3 of these parties were considered Left of the US Democratic party.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't think it is the obvious solution. I think Trump has somewhat painted himself into a corner, and I don't think the Democrats are very anxious to give him much room.

I have nothing against him simply signing off on it. I just don't think it will happen in that manner.

If the Senate already unanimously supported it why isn't that the obvious answer? You are calling on both sides and moderation. A budget which already achieved unanimous support is as bipartisan as it gets. Four Republican Senators ( Collins, Graham, Alexander,  and Portman ) has signaled they support the proposal if McConnell allowed a formal vote. The 47 Democrats plus the 4 GOP Senators who openly support the proposal make up 51 votes. So the budget would pass. 

I believe McConnell should allow a vote. If is wins majority support Trump should sign it. If it fails then both sides should head back to the drawing board. Is that something you support?  

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In Canada I am generally considered a Liberal, but have also vote Conservative  and a couple of times NDP.

This thread is discussion a U.S. political issue. What you are considered outside the U.S. isn't relevant to anything. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If the Senate already unanimously supported it why isn't that the obvious answer? You are calling on both sides and moderation. A budget which already achieved unanimous support is as bipartisan as it gets. Four Republican Senators ( Collins, Graham, Alexander,  and Portman ) has signaled they support the proposal if McConnell allowed a formal vote. The 47 Democrats plus the 4 GOP Senators who openly support the proposal make up 51 votes. So the budget would pass. 

I believe McConnell should allow a vote. If is wins majority support Trump should sign it. If it fails then both sides should head back to the drawing board. Is that something you support?  

Yes. I'm less certain of the bold, but would agree.

I would also agree with the Democrats allowing some concessions to Trump, for the purpose of breaking the stalemate.

[rangerx]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

I might agree with it as well. Maybe I do "represent" the far right to many here.

In Canada I am generally considered a Liberal, but have also vote Conservative  and a couple of times NDP.

While growing up, all 3 of these parties were considered Left of the US Democratic party.

I'm Canadian and I don't consider you as liberal, especially given your devil's advocacy in disguise for ideology.

Like you, I have voted all three parties in my day too, but we are worlds apart in our alignment. What may be a supportive vote on my part may be a protest vote on your part, or vise versa. (and thank goodness for the three party system and the non-confidence vote)

If you're a moderate elsewhere, but intentionally not here, tells me you're just shit disturbing for the sake of doing so and little else.

Canadian conservatives lost their way when they dropped the "progressive" part from their title.

But that's another topic, back to the wall.