Democrats vs Republicans

Democrats: We are so scared of blacks getting killed by the police, even though the odds of a black person dying from the police is .1% in their lifetime.

Me: You both are so scared of things that are so rare.  Can't we focus on bigger things like the US debt, which effects every American and will be solved easier with opening America's borders(since it quadruples America's population and therefore quadruples our GDP), or the single motherhood epidemic, which negatively impacts 70% of African American children and 40% of American children?  Lets not focus on super rare incidents and focus on things that impact significant portions of the country.  Make America Great Again(by great, I mean where we don't focus on rare but sensationalized events).

I think straw manning others is a good  way to feel morally and intellectually superior. 

Oddly you have somehow managed to mischaracterize both republicans and democrats in the same paragraph.

Nobody opposed illegal immigration because of the rare murderer that comes through. Not does anyone even really oppose legal immigration. In fact a part of Trump's platform called for increasing legal immigration.

Democrats also usually aren't overly concerned about the one in a million chance a black person is shot by a cop. They are concerned about systematic discrimination and police just happen to be the first person that the community sees and thinks of because let's face it they are goons for the rich white liberals who create policies that cause a ton of crime and poverty and then pay police to keep that stuff from view. Us democrats hate limousine liberals even more than conservatives do. Trust me.

theres tons more than just illegals murdering

Republican minorities care alot more about losing jobs than getting killed.

Do you even realise that privatized prisons have financial motive to engineer fights and turmoil inside of prisons to keep meeting their bottom line (sentence extensions)? There's so much wrong with how America's justice system treats the poor first of all but on top of the capitalism aspects, which include completely underfunded and undertrained public defendants being up against extremely rich law firms (that's true in other nations at times but at the very least the speaker inside the courtroom tends to be decent if they're public defendant/barrister).

When you talk about dying to violent cops, that doesn't begin to understand how differently a black gets treated when pulled over for speeding, than a caucasian, there is documented proof (if you trust anecdotal evidence and don't assume they're all lying) of a pattern of being more aggressive and actively suspicious in both stop-and-search activities as well as how readily and harshly a cop pulls over and punishes someone for driving slightly above the limit. Even in general, blacks get mandhandled much more aggressively, almost like a ragdoll (as happened with George Floyd) with their face pressed hard against the ground or window, while caucasians in particular (there are other races and mixes than just those two) get treated passively and politely. This has to be fixed and runs throughany different layers/levels of law enforcement and bias, including even the sentence harshness itself, which is the most documentable and irrefutable proof that blacks gets harsher punishment for the same crimes, consistently. This was in fact the first and foremost thing BLM could argue from a concrete and undeniable statistics angle rather than anecdotes, which kept getting unfairly doubted and dismissed. There is also the unforgivable aspect in reverse, where when blacks are victims, especially if they're killed and/or assaulted in a 'rough area', justice is rarely pursued far enough to get convictions even when it's blatant who did it, but the evidence is often circumstancial. It is actually this side of BLM that enabled LGBT who weren't racially discriminated against to unite and see parallels. This gave the left-wing in all nations a big boost and is a huge reason why in all highly developed nations except the US, a shift towards the left wing and liberalism was seen from the 80s towards early 2000s then somehow as things approached 2012, some nations had their alt-right trick people with propaganda into bullshit like Brexit in the UK and Trump and all he stood for, in the US but it didn't succeed until the next election (for either). It's unclear what exactly caused this because immigration was already happening but only became a big deal because of domestic terrorists who claimed to be Muslim happened to be wrongly associated with immigrating refugees (which literally didn't commit a single act of terror, to my knowledge). This lled to a ton of fake news and dosgustingly racist undertones in right wing propaganda that has led to somehow anti-racism being seen as the villainous movement. It's not just stupid, it's quite frankly disgusting. The OP in this thread and the past two you've made are all pretty childish and morally reprehensible. You don't have a clue how much worse the right wing is because you haven't spent a damn good minute of your life researching why BLM and LGBT claim to be victims and what it's been like fighting for their rights vs what there used to be and even still is, in terms of prejudice.

So you think Republicans only care about illegal immigration because illegal immigrants occasionally murder people?

Seems to me that Democrats use the police shootings just like they use school shootings or any other tragedy. You can easily rile people up and emotionally manipulate them easier from showing a policeman kneeling on some criminal than you can from citing academic disparity studies.

Easiest way to get power and money.

Corporate america just pulling the strings of liberals by controlling the direction of their anger. The longer corporate america can force identity issues the more they can all get us to avoid looking towards class warfare

I certainly agree that the corporate-run media will use whatever means necessary to divert attention from their increasing control over our lives to other, less relevant issues that don't threaten their rule or in fact strengthen their rule (ie. feminism since the 60s)

However, I think we are divided by much more than class. I don't really see how solving class conflict issues will unite traditionalists and those who wish to live in a society without social standards. We are an atomized nation.

In America, in particular, you can't distract one away from the other since racial lines of conflict are also linked to classist lines of conflict. The fact that poor caucasians are naive enough to vote into power the party that hates them the most (Republicans) is something that is largely their own fault via wilful ignorance. I've never come across a working-class caucasian in a highly developed caucasian-dominant nation whom votes the right-wing party of their nation, that doesn't display many signs of being unwilling to learn about politics and history of their nation (let alone the world).

I am of course speaking in hyperbole, there probably are a few exceptions to the rule, however the general rule is more down to them than the media they choose to ignore and call 'evil brainwashing'.

Even if those people vote for corporate owned democrats instead of corporate owned republicans it is still a problem. Even if they weren't ignorant than the other option is still bad. I guess the question is how do we get both sides to stop being low IQ and push for marxism instead?

We can unite. We fight degeneracy like the right wing wants, while simultaneously fighting the establishment (large corporations and government) like us left wingers want

Like in the recent GME thing, they sided with the corporations because they didn’t want to side with “mUh NaZiS”

So you're a Marxist?

Populist voters care about that, populist politicians care ONLY about keeping the rich rich (but they are simply selective about which 'rich'). I've never see a populist who doesn't end up absolutely corrupt and benefitting an elite group of rich and powerful sociopaths. If you find me one, just one, I will reconsider what I think populism is.

Yes, very marxist

There was literally a populist in cambodia that killed all rich people in his killing fields. You are definitely wrong about that. When is the last time an establishment politicians had killing fields dedicated to all educated and rich people.

You did admit being a populist can go with genocide. The Cambodian case is an extremely left-wing mutation of populism and if you support Cambodian Communism, you've made my case for me about which of us is the delusional one.

I think I've addressed all the concerns with open borders in the flowchart below:

Milton Friedman stated that the only desirable immigration is illegal immigration when you have a welfare state.

That's why I want to open the borders and build a wall around the welfare state.

As a rule almost all known Populists in the past that aren't rabid Communist Tyrants are typically disguising pushing for the interests of their donors (and only their donors, sometimes with a racist agenda attached) as being 'revolutionary anti-establishment' non-sellouts.

I hope this clears things up for you.

As time progressed, Populists became more moderate in general but still follow this pattern of behaviour and ethos. I'm sure there are exceptions, they are rare.

i cant access it, can you summarize your points

It would be hard to summarize, since it's around 10 arguments against open borders and their rebuttals.  Summarizing that would consist of me writing like 10 paragraphs.

just use bullet points for your main sentence

Why should we have open borders

Do you think that saving the lives of hundreds of Americans is something that should be considered or ignored when making policies?

That's the kind of bullshyte that causes problems in the first place. What you characterize for convenience of argument as a Muslim ban is misreading the EO that you think launched your ban. CNN [and others] reported the full text of Trump's EO. CNN said of it: "The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law  concerning immigration visas as 'countries of concern.'" The text of the EO never once mentions "Muslims." It identified countries, not religions, or any other group of people by which they might self-identify other than by nationality. Further, note that the Oba'a adminstration identified the same countries, and no one, not one pitiful cancel culturist called him a racist against Muslims. So, why Trump? Because you have an agenda, but not one against Oba'a?

You're the problem, my friend.  https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html