For some reason the phrase “thought experiment” makes me want to beat the shit out of the person who said it.
A thought experiment is a valid philosophical process though, it’s supposed to be theoretical and for the sake of the argument.
And here, it’s clearly not a thought experiment, because they’ll definitely go though if they can, he’s just being a racist shitbag using big words to appear smart to his electorate.
It’s like this shit manager I used to work under.
who once ambushed me coming into work with “we need to change the schedule” (to some whacky schedule because he didn’t want to hire more people.). he gave me all the five minutes he took to explain the schedule which and then promptly told me that if I had a problem with it, I would be removed from the account that this was coming from “the client” (contract security. For reference the security desk was five feet from the property manager… who, uh, was at her desk looking like she wanted to call his shit on things.)
told him I needed time to thing about it- which he insisted he needed to know ‘immediately’. so I told him I had to go get my normal stuff rolling and called his boss on the way over informing him I’d need to find a new account.
“what are you talking about?”
“Shtibag manager just pitched this whacky ass schedule that I can’t work. said if I didn’t like it I would be terminated. So I’m asking for a new account effective immediately.”
You’d be surprised how quickly that manager changed his tune to “Bro I was just floating the IDEA!” The thing was, this manager was a lying sack of shit and everyone under him was recording their conversations with him. Because he’s been pulling this shit with everyone.
this guy was the kind of manager who measured a manager’s worth by their ability to fuck over their underlings. he was also a racist, sexist shit
ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for ABC News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
A) we’re talking about the federal government creating camps and sticking millions of people in them. I want that to be very clear. That is a necessary prerequisite to move around millions of people. Remind you of any other period of time in history? Say… 1930s?
B) these are people that contribute positively to the economy. They
a) pay taxes without pulling from the system b) work jobs that Americans don’t want to do, leading to lower costs for businesses (and by extension, the consumers) c) stimulate local demand for goods and services by buying stuff from stores, going to restaurants, etc
C) these are people intertwined with the country. Many illegals have been here for years, majority of which have never committed any crime. The only reason their documents haven’t been normalized is because it’s impossible. The current US immigration system is broken and simply does not allow for the quantity and type of immigration that the economy needs. So the black market fills the void.
My opinion: we should take a page from Reagan and give the millions of illegals amnesty. At least the ones that haven’t committed crimes & have paid their taxes.
Then fix the broken immigration system by making it easier for people to come here legally.
We could get rid of illegals in a few months. The people in power don’t want that. Illegals are too useful as scapegoats for imaginary problems, and they are also too useful as cheap labor.
They will not actually get rid of illegals because labor price would shoot up which would lead to a massive inflation shock. We’re literally just repeating the 1930s. Economy goes to shit, people aren’t happy, what do you do?
Find a scapegoat. The problem is Republicans are playing with fire. They think they can control the flames they are fanning but it can pass a point of no return very quickly. I think it already has. Evidence being that even the Democrats are becoming anti-immigrant
A) No, I’m talking about deporting them and not imprisoning them. Bussing them back to their country of origin. No camp involved.
B) Yes, I’m quite aware that having a second class of workers that you can pay less and abuse is important to our economy, but it really shouldn’t be. And unless they are stealing SSNs, they are not paying income tax.
C) By definition, illegal immigrants have committed at least one crime.
We should secure the border and deport every single one of them. That’s how a functional country operates. You can’t have a country if you don’t defend your borders.
A) like I said it’s a prerequisite to move around millions of people. You need to first collect all of them, put them in camps. And then you would need something like 10% of all airline capacity working round the clock 24/7 for a year in order to move everyone out.
We would need camps. Deporting everyone would mean camps. Like I said- be very clear of what you’re suggesting.
B) us gov gives ITIN for people to pay taxes and illegals do. Hard to find a job when most places require i9 and participate in e-verify.
It’s easy to start a company, get an ITIN, and work as a subcontractor though. Believe me, vast swathes of our construction industry work in this manner.
C) it is not a criminal act, like getting a speeding ticket is not a criminal act. These people commit dramatically less crime than native-born Americans.
We should secure the border and deport every single one of them. That’s how a functional country operates. You can’t have a country if you don’t defend your borders.
That actually isn’t how the US functioned for most of its history. The “illegals” today would have been regular immigrants for the majority of this country’s history.
A functional country operates on what is best for the country. Normalizing their status and improving the immigration system is what would actually be done if our country was “functional”
I’m not convinced that the people having 8 kids are demonstrating the intelligence deserving of 8 extra votes.
Yeah, maybe instead he should be arguing for people without kids to have fewer votes. Maybe, just picking a number at random here, like they should get 3/5 of a vote.
/s
That thought experiment unleashes multiple cans of worms.
(Warning: “Quoted” bits are imaginary strawmen but I believe you will find Republicans holding these positions.)
“Life begins at conception”
Do pregnant women cast more votes? Is there going to be a pregnancy test at voting stations? Or ultrasound to check for twins?
“Parents have a bigger reason to care about future, as their kids will live in it.”
— Kids aren’t copies of their parents… why not decrease the voting age instead?
“No, older people know better”
The thing that chafes me more than these things is the fact that this automatically makes the votes of young people who should, by all accounts, not yet have kids, worth less than older people or people who who have kids at young age (and are probably in a worse position to take care of said kids), further disenfranchising young people from voting.
If you will be 18 during any elected official term you should be able to vote for them. This allows some kids to vote as young as 12 for senators and get to vote at 14 for president’s and congress people. Then at the worst thing 18 year old seniors can vote for school admin elections
