US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6764

On February 03 2017 20:20 GreenHorizons wrote:


Someone is going to pull this type of tweet from some hard drive from some rubble pile one day and wonder how people could have not seen it all coming.

On February 03 2017 21:40 OtherWorld wrote:

So, you don't make any assumption, yet want to refuse access to your country to illegal immigrants and refugees, on the basis that you have a problem with incompatible value system regardless of their origins. Fair enough.

Now tell me, if you disregard the origins of immigrants and only want to put them out if they don't "contribute" to society, why do you refuse them access to your country before they get the opportunity to show you that they can contribute to society and share their values with yours ? Seems to me that, if origins are indeed of no importance to you and thus you judge immigrants on an individual basis and not on a race/nationality basis (which is fair and something I wholeheartedly agree with), it would be logical to give them the opportunity to prove themselves useful.

If we follow your logic of not making assumptions, then the policy to pursue would be the complete opposite of what Brexit leaders promised : more open borders, but harsher "punishments" (be it through deportation, less/no more State subsidies and help, etc) for those who don't "contribute", regardless of their origins.

LONDON — The European Union is accustomed to crises. But it is probably safe to say that none of the 28 leaders who are gathering in Malta on Friday expected the crisis that has overtaken the agenda: the United States of America.

Like much of the world, the European Union is struggling to decipher a President Trump who seems every day to be picking a new fight with a new nation, whether friend or foe. Hopes among European leaders that Mr. Trump’s bombastic tone as a candidate would somehow smooth into a more temperate one as commander in chief are dissipating, replaced by a mounting sense of anxiety and puzzlement over how to proceed.

If many foreign leaders expected a Trump administration to push to renegotiate trade deals, or take a tough line on immigration, few anticipated that he would become an equal opportunity offender. He has insulted or humiliated Mexico, Britain, Germany and Iraq; engaged in a war of words with China and Iran; and turned a routine phone call with the prime minister of Australia, a staunch ally, into a minor diplomatic crisis.

With the possible exception of NATO, where he has softened his tone, Mr. Trump has expressed disdain for other multilateral institutions such as the European Union. His praise has been reserved for populists and strongmen, like Nigel Farage, the former leader of the U.K. Independence Party, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and, of course, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

Mr. Trump is convinced that the United States has been played for a patsy by the rest of the world and is vowing to set things straight. “We’re taken advantage of by every nation in the world virtually,” he said on Thursday at a prayer breakfast. “It’s not going to happen anymore.”

Against this forbidding backdrop, some European leaders are urging their counterparts to recognize that Mr. Trump may represent a truly dire challenge, one that threatens to upend not only the 70-year European project of integration and security, but just about everything they stand for, including liberal democracy itself.

A European official, Donald Tusk, created a stir this week when he wrote a letter to 27 leaders of the bloc’s 28 member states suggesting that the Trump administration presented a threat on a par with a newly assertive China, an aggressive Russia and “wars, terror and anarchy in the Middle East and Africa.”

Intentionally, he left out Britain, because it has voted to leave the bloc and its prime minister, Theresa May, has rushed with what some Europeans consider unseemly rapidity to the side of Mr. Trump, who has derided the European Union and praised Britain’s withdrawal, or “Brexit,” saying, “I don’t think it matters much for the United States.”

In his letter, Mr. Tusk, a former Polish prime minister who is the president of the European Council, made up of the national leaders, wrote of “worrying declarations” from the Trump team, adding: “Particularly the change in Washington puts the European Union in a difficult situation, with the new administration seeming to put into question the last 70 years of American foreign policy.”

Stefano Stefanini, a former Italian ambassador working in Brussels, said that Mr. Tusk “is prone to exaggeration” and that he had a specific Polish fear of Mr. Trump’s apparent coziness with Mr. Putin.

On February 03 2017 19:00 Wegandi wrote:


This is a case of the boy who cried wolf. When have the Democrats in the last 40 years not called the majority of GOP primary candidates racists, let alone their nominee? You have idiots calling Rand and Ron Paul racists. Northeastern Rockefeller types racists (e.g. Romney). Buchanan the great evil one. Bush et. al. Reagan? Lol. I've been called racist for not supporting welfare, not supporting affirmative action, and not wanting to travel around places like south-side chicago or south st. pete (and the flip side I'm not keen on high crime rural areas like West Texas either). For saying that property rights are inviolate (because obviously if you're for property rights (like say the Goldwater objection to the Civil Rights Act - namely its impositions upon property owners, not the repealing of clearly racist Government laws), you're obviously racist) I've been smeared all sorts of epithets. So, really, as someone who can't stand the Duke's of the world "the left" levies the same slander to someone who wants to see minorities open carry and defend themselves, hates the police, is for open borders, etc. is just laughable imho.

I've heard this shit for the past 20 years (ugh I'm getting a little old). It's also hilarious coming from the people who preach minority dependence on their saviors in Government. So, yeah, it's more than "the right" pointing out the problem of using a term when it's not apt - it's the "left" crying wolf too damn much because they can't stand anyone who opposes their utopian vision.

On February 03 2017 21:59 bardtown wrote:

I cannot even fathom how you can be so ridiculous. Instead of accepting only those people who demonstrate they can contribute to society and share our values, we should accept everyone until they prove that they can't/don't? Shall we give them all welfare too, unless they prove that they don't need it? While we're at it let's give them all heart surgery unless they prove they're healthy.

On February 03 2017 17:33 bardtown wrote:

I am a direct recipient of this behaviour because I am a vocal supporter of Brexit. You cannot imagine how many times I have been called a racist in the past 6 months or so, and I see exactly the same behaviour in the US. Have you ever entertained the idea that racism might be much less widespread than you think, and that people simply don't like illegal immigration, incompatible value systems and violent crime - regardless of their source? Many of these people voted Obama for 8 years.

On February 03 2017 22:56 Danglars wrote:

It's heartening to know both sides of the lake got it just as bad. It's like fuel to the fire--if you want to play this way, we'll turn you out at the ballot box, and read all the "Racism Won" columns the next day.

Then we can settle down for a lovely game of "Who poisoned the debate first?"

Also, "you cannot imagine the number of people that have called me a racist in the past 6 months" is the inception of "the Left does this." It's hard to give credence to "we're not all like that" arguments when it features so prominently in anti-strong southern border debate. Only xenophobes and racists would support that (Mostly or primary driving force behind it, if you prefer). Pardon me, but is it (1) a true statement on its face or (2) something a small minority of the left believes? Yes, I've been called both dumb for not accepting (1) and trying to slander a giant movement for (2) and it gets confusing after a while.

On February 03 2017 21:53 oneofthem wrote:

maybe you should ask those people who wrote in bernie or mickey mouse in florida. they seem to be your people

On February 03 2017 23:25 ChristianS wrote:

A common characteristic of "ambiguous they" arguments is a focus on what the recipient has experienced without talking about who, specifically, is responsible. This is most easily done with the passive voice (I've been called...). The point is, sure, there are people who will say you're racist if you move into a cheap apartment in your city. But most people were talking about shit like "Mexicans are rapists" or the Central Park Five. Then people like you say because some people use them overbroadly, terms like "racist" just shouldn't be used. That's only a sensible response if actual racism ceased to exist in the world. It hasn't.

On February 03 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:

A lot of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism. It's probably tongue-in-cheek, or just meant to protest against PC culture, or something. Thus you get a serious dispute about whether or not the alt-right is racist despite r/altright regularly going full anti-miscegenation (As an aside, I was going to link to some racist r/altright posts as proof but apparently that subreddit got banned).

Another decent answer is that it did work in a sense – Donald Trump is the least popular winning candidate in history, after all. If both candidates are that unpopular, it seems reasonable to think both sides' mudslinging landed pretty well. I don't think most people heard much about DT's racism, and xenophobia is usually a bit too convoluted to make a very effective attack, but after the Access Hollywood tape I don't think anybody was about to argue Donald Trump didn't have a women problem. It just wasn't enough to stop his chances (I hesitate to even bring this up because I'm really tired of re-litigating this election, and if LL hears he'll come and say "electable" 20 more times).

If I had to guess, I'm guessing you don't think Donald Trump is a racist, and the sexism stuff is overblown. As for "xenophobia," you probably think that's just a pejorative to dismiss legitimate fears about the effects of immigrants on the country. But hey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel free to share your reasons why Donald Trump's apparent racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not legitimate reasons to dislike him.

On February 03 2017 23:36 Danglars wrote:

I'm trying to lay some groundwork here. Would a self-respecting thread leftist say the primary motivation for supporting a strong southern border/border wall is irrational xenophobia and racism? Or, more often than not, is this just GOP members trumping up regional or minority Democrat voices because it's nowhere a typical Left judgment (maybe a defining one tbh)? Now you're a little famous for attempting generalizations with explanations of what Trump voters say and do. So moving beyond the whos and hows of neutered racism/sexism language, do you impute irrational fear/hatred/"phobia" to the viewpoint and is the former just as fair a generalization as you feel your latest "Trumpists" and bad faith speech was?

On February 03 2017 23:45 Velr wrote:



Iirc (illegal)immigration from Mexico is on the decline and has basically halted, while 5X%+ get to the use by plane anway.
The wall is useless, stupid and can only be declared „sound policy“ if you count fear/xenophobia as an argument.
The Wall is a prime example of populist/racist/xenophobic policy.

On February 03 2017 23:52 Danglars wrote:

Thank you for your contribution. Laying aside your belief that it's been basically halted, I gather you'd still call it stupid and useless had it still been on the scale of low hundred-thousands annually.

On February 03 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:


First, let me just say that if I am inviting you to guess what I think on something, I'm clearly giving you license to do just that. So don't be shy.

As for your answers on the merits, I find it curious that you'd blame conservatives' reception of the charges and their nagging about the use of the charges as opposed to the people actually wielding the charges. I don't think that I have seen one interview of a Trump a voter where the voter said something corroborating your explanation for why the charges didn't work against Trump. What I have seen, however, are many, many interviews of Trump voters who said that they were tired of the Left throwing around the charges so freely and simply didn't care about them anymore. It's a simple case of the boy who cried wolf too many times.

President Donald Trump will begin work Friday dismantling the financial regulations enacted after the 2008 economic crisis, hours after the first major economic report of his administration is released.

Trump's executive moves won't have an immediate effect on Wall Street oversight. But they're likely to draw sharp criticism from Democrats and reform proponents who say the regulations that the President is looking to scrap could prevent another meltdown.

In two executive actions, Trump plans to direct his administration to evaluate regulatory action taken by his predecessor, Barack Obama, with an eye toward eliminating what his advisers say are burdensome rules on financial services firms and consumers.

He'll also force the delay of an Obama-era rule that required retirement advisers to act in their clients' best interests.

The midday moves will come after the Labor Department releases jobs figures from January. Hiring rebounded sharply under Obama following the financial crisis, but Trump has previously questioned the accuracy of the monthly reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

He'll sign his actions following a planned meeting with US chief executives, including bosses at JPMorgan Chase, Blackstone, IBM, Tesla and General Motors. The CEO of Uber said Thursday he wouldn't participate in the meeting since he opposes Trump's executive order on refugees and immigration.

In his first order, Trump will issue a broad directive meant to garner input from the heads of federal regulatory agencies on areas for reform. The move won't make any immediate changes to the agencies or their policies; rather, it will solicit recommendations for changes to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that was enacted in 2010.

"Everything is going to be looked at," said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to preview the order before it was signed.

The official conceded a complete gutting of the law would require Congress to act -- "This is not an attempt to undo Dodd-Frank" -- but identified areas where Trump could make unilateral changes, like placing his own directors at key regulatory bodies.

The official demurred if that meant Trump planned to fire the current head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren that's expected to be on Trump's chopping block.

On February 03 2017 23:59 Simberto wrote:


The main critique of the wall is not even about the goal it claims to achieve, but about it's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in achieving that goal.

There just does not seem to be any indication that building an incredibly expensive wall on the border of mexico is going to do anything to combat illegal immigration, which mostly does not occur through running over the border, but through overstaying visa, and even then you can just counter a 4m wall with a 4.5m ladder easily, unless it is guarded everywhere. Which is even more expensive, and if you already have those people everywhere, you don't even need the wall anymore anyways.

So the whole idea of a wall is utterly pointless and a waste of money.

On February 04 2017 00:05 Acrofales wrote:


And we're back where we started. Did "the left" really cry wolf too often, or did "the right" pick a few minority members out of a large crowd of "lefties" (and probably different minority members each time, see Christians' valid point about the "ambiguous they" argument) and repeatedly pointed at them to say "look, the left is crying wolf again"?

Because there are indeed fringe feminists who have gone off the deep end. And some of the people claiming allegiance to BLM have gone and done some stupid shit. And there are college kids rightfully being ridiculed for their safe spaces. But that doesn't mean "the left" as a collective holds any of those opinions, or has called mainstream conservative thought racist, sexist or xenophobic.