US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2531

President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."

"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.

Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.

Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.

Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.

But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.

Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values.

On November 18 2015 19:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What makes a value "Judeo-Christian" anyway? Didn't America only become a "Judeo-Christian" nation because of people wanting to squash the tides of anti-semitism running through a lot of Europe in the 1930s? Freedom of thought is valued just as much in Islam as Christianity, just look at the golden age of the Middle East from the 8th century to the 13th century and compare it to what was going on in Europe; that was no less "real Islam" than the Islam practiced by violent extremists today (and I would argue that it was more in accord with what I've read of Muhammad's life). Wonder if they debated spreading "Islamic" values to Europe at the time?

But why spread values like "freedom of thought" and "freedom of expression" when we can just call them all "Judeo-Christian" and make the people we're targeting and trying to help have even more ammunition to whip people into a frenzy about religious imperialism?

+ Show Spoiler +

On November 18 2015 09:11 Plansix wrote:
Outrage media at its finest. "We found some mean black people being mean. Here is a video, be outraged and confirm your own belief system so we can make money. Real news would be hard."

On November 19 2015 00:06 hunts wrote:


So when one white person does that "all white people are racist" but when one black person does that "its only one example?" Is that what I'm getting from you here?

On November 19 2015 00:06 hunts wrote:


So when one white person does that "all white people are racist" but when one black person does that "its only one example?" Is that what I'm getting from you here?

On November 19 2015 00:16 ZasZ. wrote:


I don't always agree with Plansix but if you could point me to where he said that all white people are racist it would be much appreciated.

On November 18 2015 19:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What makes a value "Judeo-Christian" anyway? Didn't America only become a "Judeo-Christian" nation because of people wanting to squash the tides of anti-semitism running through a lot of Europe in the 1930s? Freedom of thought is valued just as much in Islam as Christianity, just look at the golden age of the Middle East from the 8th century to the 13th century and compare it to what was going on in Europe; that was no less "real Islam" than the Islam practiced by violent extremists today (and I would argue that it was more in accord with what I've read of Muhammad's life). Wonder if they debated spreading "Islamic" values to Europe at the time?

But why spread values like "freedom of thought" and "freedom of expression" when we can just call them all "Judeo-Christian" and make the people we're targeting and trying to help have even more ammunition to whip people into a frenzy about religious imperialism?

+ Show Spoiler +

Interest rate hikes are coming. Most members of the Federal Reserve now believe the US economy could sustain a historic rise in interest rates as soon as December.

Minutes of Fed policymakers latest meeting, which were released on Wednesday, showed that “most” participants felt that economic conditions to allow a rate rise “could well be met by the time of the next meeting”. The next Fed meeting is on 16 December.

The minutes of the last meeting, which was on 27-28 October, said that “[w]hile no decision had been made, it may well become appropriate to initiate the normalization process at the next meeting”. They also showed that only “a couple” members raised concerns that raising rates in December could be premature.

“The US financial system appeared to have weathered the turbulence in global financial markets without any sign of systemic stress,” the minutes said. “Most participants saw the downside risks arising from economic and financial developments abroad as having diminished and judged the risks to the outlook for domestic economic activity and the labor market to be nearly balanced.”

At the last meeting, policymakers voted to leave rates at 0-0.25% – where they have been for the seven years since the financial crisis – but pointed towards the possibility of raising rates in December.

Since the October meeting, a number of Fed officials have publicly said that a December rate hike is on the table.

On November 19 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
I agree in general that ISIS and WBC shows some of the problematic elements of both religions. The problem I have is when people try to connect specific people or instructions to ISIS or WBC. Individual Muslims and Christians have the right to say “I am not associated with those people, they don’t represent who I am,” just like every other demographic.

On November 19 2015 07:02 Falling wrote:

Not just individuals, but entire religious bodies. "We declare x teaching to be anathema" used to be a thing. The over application of 'no truescotsman' denies the agency of religious bodies to regulate their own teachings. As long as someone somewhere says they are a part of that religion, then the entirety of that individual's beliefs and practices transfers to the religion in question, regardless of how contrary those beliefs and practices are from orthodoxy.

The United States cut a deal yesterday with wealthy countries to curb public financing for coal plants, an agreement the White House called a “major step forward” ahead of U.N. climate change negotiations in Paris this month.

The deal agreed to by members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) marks the first time a large number of nations have set common standards for coal subsidies. The White House estimated yesterday that about 80 percent of coal technology in the current export credit agency pipeline would become ineligible for financing because of the agreement.

“This is a landmark agreement that is the culmination of a long process,” a senior Obama administration official said.

The agreement, obtained by ClimateWire, comes just two weeks before leaders from nearly 200 countries meet in Paris to negotiate a new global climate change accord. Coal restrictions won’t be part of that deal, but many do hope it will set a long-term goal defining how countries will meet a previously stated goal of keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.

Environmental activists applauded the agreement but said they were disappointed by changes from an earlier proposal that they argue weakened it.

Made at the behest of Australia and South Korea—which for months fought against any restrictions whatsoever—the final version allows financing for somewhat more efficient coal technology known as supercritical to countries with an electrification rate of less than 90 percent. That, according to International Energy Agency data, includes almost every country in Africa and most of Asia, including coal-hungry India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan.

“I would describe it as a signal that coal is not welcome in a climate-safe future. But I do think that it’s been severely weakened by Australia and South Korea,” said Alex Doukas, a senior campaigner with Oil Change International.

He and others also noted that the agreement goes into effect in 2017 and won’t be revised for four years, something they called worrisome.

On November 19 2015 05:53 ZasZ. wrote:


I agree with you but would argue that the state of Islam now is a lot more relevant than the state of Islam almost a thousand years ago. While I don't condone vilifying Islam as a religion, I think arguing that ISIS aren't "real Muslims" is pointless and semantic. They do what they do in the name of Islam. That sucks for the vast majority of Muslims on the planet, just like it sucks for "real" Christians that the WBC is a thing. IMO both sides should worry less about whether or not we are at war with Islam and worry more about actually stopping ISIS.

US lawmakers are to decide whether to ban personal care products containing microbeads – minuscule pieces of plastic considered harmful to the environment – after proposed legislation was approved by a bipartisan committee.

Microbeads, typically under 5mm in size, are used as abrasive exfoliants in products such as toothpastes and facial cleaners. They often evade water filtration systems and flow into rivers, lakes and streams, where they can be mistaken for food by fish. Pollutants can bind to the plastic, causing toxic material to infect fish and, potentially, the humans that consume them.

The US House energy and commerce committee has unanimously approved the Microbead Free Waters Act of 2015, which was introduced by Frank Pallone, a Democrat, and Fred Upton, a Republican who acts as committee chairman.

The bill would start the phaseout of microbeads from products in the US from 1 July 2017. The federal legislation, if passed, will follow action taken by several states. Last month, California finalised a bill that phases out microbeads from 2020. This follows action taken by Illinois last year, which became the first state to ban the production, manufacture or sale of personal care products containing microbeads.

“Most people buying these everyday products are unaware of the damaging effects they are having on the environment,” said Pallone. “However, they are being washed down the drain and reaching our waterways, so we must make sure that these soaps and toothpastes don’t contain synthetic plastic that will ultimately contaminate our environment.”

Upton added that microbeads are “big time pollution” and that he was concerned about their impact upon the Great Lakes, which contain 20% of the world’s freshwater. Research conducted in 2013 by the State University of New York found that the lakes were riddled with microbeads, with Lake Ontario containing an estimated 1.1m plastic particles per square kilometer.

Separate research by Oregon State University found that a stunning 8tn microbeads a day are being emitted into bodies of water in the US. This plastic adds to the vast quantity of plastic floating throughout the world’s oceans, with a recent study finding that up to 90% of the planet’s seabirds have pieces of plastic in their guts.

On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:

The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants.

However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society.

Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed.

I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it?

On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:

The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants.

However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society.

Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed.

I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it?

On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:

Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue.

On November 19 2015 10:36 Nyxisto wrote:
or maybe we don't take up only women and children because human rights apply to men too? Is this a serious proposal? If you want to help women and children organize legal channels through which they can get here. Refugees are mostly male because the trip is dangerous and they can use family re-unification laws, it isn't rocket science.

On November 19 2015 10:27 Plansix wrote:
I would link the articles from the 1938 where we sent the Jewish refugees back to the Nazis for the same reasons and fears, but people would just claim it's totally different this time. Just like the mayor who said it was justified not accepting them by citing the Japanese internment camps as a good decision.