A "liberal" argument in one panel

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by BaldiMac, Mar 15, 2017.

  1. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #1
    Tom the Dancing Bug with a fantastic single panel comic summing up the "liberal" argument against current Republican immigration and health care policies in the name of protecting Americans.

    Trump Protects Americans
     
  2. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #2
    That was awesome. Loved it. Thanks for posting. Would be really funny if not so sad.
     
  3. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #3
    But so inaccurate.

    I can't wait for revamping of the EPA. Anyone who has had to deal with them knows they have become a mess of an organization. Things that took 2 weeks for approval now take over 6 months and even longer. This is for minor stuff. I can't imagine people who have to deal with major changes.

    With healthcare I think most of us agree that Obama care does not work, so something has to be done, but I admit...I don't like his plan at all though. Cartoon really stretching it. I don't think Trump is really wanting people to die of heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer, etc. But after all don't we need to pass the bill before we know if it is a disaster :)

    The heck with protecting our borders. We don't need no fence to keep people out. People should be able to come and go as they please. Illegal immigrants are not causing any issues. Ohhh.... I forgot the very nature of them being here shows that 100% of them are breaking the law. Also, you can search Google and find many stories of deaths, rapes, kidnapping, etc. that would not have happened if we had better control of people coming into the USA. But who cares about that? Not to mention the car accident I personally had where that person was at fault and if not here illegally would not have happened. Per the police the person was here illegally, and had no insurance. So money has to come out of my pocket, or from my insurance which would increase my premiums. I chose not to file with insurance, but why do the criminals always get the sympathy from the left?
     
  4. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    You are statistically more likely to die from X than Y so why are you angry that I support increasing your chance of dying from Y?

    What kind of logic is that?
     
  5. BaldiMac thread starter macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #5
    So inaccurate? What, a couple exaggerated opinions in a speech bubble? Perhaps you could try and understand the point of the comic instead of defaulting to "Fake News".

    I'm sure that will have no consequences for the environment. The only thing to care about is reducing bureaucracy.

    Most of us don't agree with that.

    Ahhh... the old "make up a crazy argument and pretend that it's the other side's position". Liberals aren't for unfettered immigration. Anecdotes are not data. Context is important.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 15, 2017 ---
    The kind of logic that takes into account the targeting of limited resources.
     
  6. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #6
    Yeah! Gun violence isn't even mentioned!
    --- Post Merged, Mar 15, 2017 ---
    Statistics plz. ... And about your accident that does suck, uninsured drivers are not necessarily all illegal immigrants and your insurance company is should be there to protect you.
     
  7. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
  8. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #8
    Interesting snip, because this statement is before that polifact list:
    ... and here's the statement after your list:
    Here's where I took a look at the the stats at a federal level. (If you follow the thread from there there's a complete database file for anyone wishing to do a deeper analysis.)
     
  9. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    So let me get this straight, as long as it's not a violent crime they get a pass? Even though just being here in and of itself, is illegal? Who cherry picks the laws?
     
  10. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #10
    No I'm not giving them a pass on illegal immigration, I'm just saying that that particular crime is something an American can be convicted of and is not a violent crime like the others.
     
  11. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    Yes. We go to jail. We pay fines. We get our fingerprints taken. We have a a whole barrage of ways to be punished.

    If I break the law, I risk the consequences. If they do, it means they're doing it for a "better life!". Even if that means they work under the table, don't have any identification, flee from crimes to avoid deportation, etc. How is that right?
     
  12. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #12
  13. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    Really? A lot of immigrants look like white people. Hispanics from certain countries have blond hair and blue eyes. Also, racial profiling (unfortunately) affects the African American population too. I'd say a large majority of them are citizens.
     
  14. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #14
    I think you might have missed my point, an American can't be charged for being in the country illegally. It has nothing to do with punishment, but the type of crime committed. The reasoning behind the crime can be nuanced too, again I'm not excusing the behaviour, but pointing out the flaws in comparison of rates.

    Also you stumbled on another favourite part of mine on the illegal immigration phenomena... if there's such a willingness to punish illegals, I feel an equal amount of willingness to punish should be directed those that employ them.
     
  15. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #15
    Because they aren't breaking the law. They are Americans. That includes immigrants who went through proper channels.
    The drug charges are the biggest front runners that bother me. Living in Texas and having met a lot of people who buy drugs, it's almost always from Mexico.

    I agree. You hire them, you lose your business license or another equally compelling action to dissuade them.
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Well ... I'm almost with you on this one. But it's a similar argument that I have not accepted in other cases.

    The argument boils down to there being more pressing problems based on the number of deaths. And while that is a compelling argument, it is possible to address multiple problems simultaneously. We do this all the time. Humans aren't limited to solving the biggest problem first before moving down the line to solving other problems. The biggest problems might be as big as they are because they defy solutions. In that way, one could make things worse by focusing on bigger problems that can't be solved while ignoring smaller problems that could be.

    That doesn't mean I agree with trump, or his propensity for focusing on (what I consider to be) the wrong issues. But from a strictly logical perspective I want to caution against the idea that solving problems should be an unwavering progression from biggest to smallest. There is more flexibility that can and should be applied to problem solving. The real reason I care about quibbling over such minutiae, is that similar arguments have been used against things like gun control, i.e, "why are you so worried about 13,000 firearm homicides when so many more people die from X, Y and Z."
     
  17. BaldiMac thread starter macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #17
    I think you are speaking in generalities here, and I certainly understand that argument. But I would bet that we'd save the lives of a whole lot more people if we took the amount of money we spend fighting terrorism and apply it to health care or environmental issues.

    Obviously, I'm not advocating eliminating anti-terrorism efforts, but simply making a point about the priorities involved.
     
  18. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    On that point I agree.
     
  19. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #19
    2 deaths per year by jihadis? That's grossly inaccurate.
     
  20. BaldiMac thread starter macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #20
    That's not what it says.
     
  21. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #21
    No it doesn't. It's wording is twisted just enough to be misleading without being wrong.
     
  22. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #22
    Source, please.
     
  23. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
  24. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
  25. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #25
    What counts as an official source? Can you disprove any of the data provided?
     

Share This Page