noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0xfsut wrote
Reply to comment by CovfefeForAll in Our stated political beliefs are irrational when taken as a package – the don’t appear to form coherent wholes. But we should be skeptical about whether these irrational political beliefs are really beliefs by IAI_Admin
Although, off the record, arresting the hiring bosses and fining the corporations that illegally hire foreigners is really the right way to go about it. Neither Democrats nor Republicans actually want to fix the problem though. Offer green cards to anyone working there willing to flip on their boss and send them to prison. Between immigration, automation, and outsourcing, the gini-coefficient keeps on rising and the poor rural farmboys keep getting madder and madder.
Hot-damn though, average wage of an H-2A is $21.91 an hour. Like, legally, a place has to prove they can't find anyone local to work the job and there is no cap.
Like, none of your ideas are even bad. I do think environmentalism is a real thing. But you're a sane functioning member of society. Generally liberal. Whee. But any statement along the lines of "although", "while", "however", or anything with a "but" will be taken as a conflicting view. Irrationally wanting two opposite things simultaneously. Which is why any politician worth their salt avoids actually answering any questions.
CovfefeForAll t1_j0xvv6x wrote
> Although, off the record, arresting the hiring bosses and fining the corporations that illegally hire foreigners is really the right way to go about it.
It's really the only sustainable possible solution. We NEED to do it if we actually want to stabilize the lowest wages.
> I do think environmentalism is a real thing.
I really think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was distancing myself from the false dichotomy you put forward. We CAN try to put a very quick, very harsh damper on our pollution, and that would be neither of the 2 scenarios you put forward. The political issue is whether we have the political will to do the needful regarding environmental degradation and pollution. But yes, I do agree that environmentalism is not only real, but the only possibility if we want to ensure a future for humanity that goes beyond the 21st century.
> But any statement along the lines of "although", "while", "however", or anything with a "but" will be taken as a conflicting view.
Eh, I call it being realistic, not conflicting, but I can see how people might see that as backtracking or weakness. That's why I'm not a politician.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0y9zad wrote
> I was distancing myself from the false dichotomy you put forward.
Well you stepped right into the other two.
> We CAN try to put a very quick, very harsh damper on our pollution, and that would be neither of the 2 scenarios you put forward.
OH, if it's harsh enough, it's the first. If it's not harsh enough, it's the second. Currently, we're doing the 2nd, which is really the right choice.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments