| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On February 06 2017 00:06 farvacola wrote: Obama was Deporter in Chief, so try harder, genius. I'm glad he was, but I think we should really focus more on the peso. Once it's value gets high enough no one will want to come to the USA. In fact I think people might actually start immigrating to Mexico illegally! | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On February 06 2017 00:17 biology]major wrote: I'm glad he was, but I think we should really focus more on the peso. Once it's value gets high enough no one will want to come to the USA. In fact I think people might actually start immigrating to Mexico illegally! haha when Trump finally finishes the wall it will be Americans climbing over it due to him having fucked up the dollar | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 06 2017 00:06 farvacola wrote: Obama was Deporter in Chief, so try harder, genius. You're referring to a tongue in cheek ploy for when the definition of deportations was changed to include people stopped and turned away while crossing the border. LA Times, among others picked up on it, and it's now more of a measure for how much you believe fake news. It's a step down from Bush, and Clinton owns the record for single-year. But it's true that supporting immigration reform is mostly a sound bite for Democrats, just as more Republicans than not only pay lip service to the idea (see: Republican majorities in Bush years and nothing got done, not even a wall despite a bill passed authorizing the construction of a wall). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14102 Posts
On February 05 2017 23:51 biology]major wrote: Is that what dems mean when they keep saying "immigration reform" as a nebulous term that no one understands? To ignore our immigration process and it's weaknesses and to help other countries become great again so they don't even want to come to thtenUSA? Genius! You can't seriously mean this. Immigration reform means to reform the immigration process. Its the only thing government an reform in regards to immigration. You reference it as something bad that the government should reform and list reasons why it should be reformed in the very next sentence. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On February 06 2017 00:36 Sermokala wrote: You can't seriously mean this. Immigration reform means to reform the immigration process. Its the only thing government an reform in regards to immigration. You reference it as something bad that the government should reform and list reasons why it should be reformed in the very next sentence. "immigration reform means to reform the immigration process". Thanks for that clarification. I was referring to my distaste of policitians using that term whenever any question about immigration came up. No specifics, no solutions, just "comprehensive immigration reform". So I interpret it as lip service, that was one of the best things about Trump's run. He never said it, and just talked about a wall instead. Atleast a solution was proposed. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
We can all probably agree that the immigration system needs some reform, but that term means that any talk of "immigration reform" implies "more immigrants." | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28738 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
 | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On February 05 2017 23:49 a_flayer wrote: Regarding increasing radicalization: exactly the same can be said for doing things such as invading Iraq, droning & terrorizing families in Afghanistan, funding the "moderate" opposition in Syria, as well as NSA-hacking that resulted in a complete internet blackout (which was likely blamed on Assad by that same opposition), weaponizing extremist regimes that bomb the entire infrastructure of neighbouring countries (like in Yemen) whilst fuelling Wahhabi propaganda in other regions at the same time, or doing things such as pretending to vaccinate people as a cover-up to find terrorists (which fuels & legitimises the already radical conspiracy theories that float around in the Middle East). However, arguments such as "run[ning] the risk of stemming more radicalisation" didn't stop previous administrations from doing exactly these things with generally widespread support from both sides of the political aisle. To pretend that the so-called Muslim ban (which very clearly and obviously targets countries with ISIS presence, and has nothing to do with Trump's financial interests, or even Muslims in general) is somehow 'too much' or 'not in line with American values' is a fucking joke. The United States has been a joke for a long time, and it's extremist punchline after a several decades long build-up is Trump. Many of the things you mention may have increased radicalization but many were tough decisions. However, these are not all the same. I don't see any clear-cut, easy options for dealing with Syria, Yemen, the Taliban in Afghanistan. There were definitely pro's and con's and surely the impact on the radicalisation of communities in those countries and in the Muslim world were taken into account - maybe not in Iraq, nobody is defending the GWB legacy on this. This is completely different. There simply is no 'pro' in this decision other than a cynical appeal to its alt-right base. No security is being increased, no immigration or refugee vetting system seems to be enhanced. Not only that, it looks like the Steve Bannon worldview is to accept that there is a war against Islam and this ban works as a statement - the US showing its teeth against Muslims, asserting itself as a christian nation of the often referred bs judeo-christian tradition. Yes, this is too much and it makes no sense. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
I'd view it more as hurting the credibility of the (often weak) people in power that are trying to circumvent or handicap the extremists and work with the west, generally to line their own pockets. I mean, you can rail about the Iranian theocracy all you want, but they were the sane people (and fortunately the ones with real power) when Ahmadinejad was ranting about the great evils of the West and wiping Israel off the map. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28738 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 06 2017 00:50 biology]major wrote: "immigration reform means to reform the immigration process". Thanks for that clarification. I was referring to my distaste of policitians using that term whenever any question about immigration came up. No specifics, no solutions, just "comprehensive immigration reform". So I interpret it as lip service, that was one of the best things about Trump's run. He never said it, and just talked about a wall instead. Atleast a solution was proposed. It's quite possible that there are specifics and solutions presented, you just haven't heard about them. just like the last election, policy details are actually not covered in the news that much because they're very boring and few people read them, but they're generally available online if you look around a bit. that said they certainly use the soundbite a lot. it's also often the case that everyone agrees there are problems in the system and want to change it, but they can't agree on which changes to make. then there's also the inaction bias that occurs in democracy and bureaucracies. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12386 Posts
On February 06 2017 00:01 biology]major wrote: Im sure stories of their family members being killed in random drone strikes or propaganda from ISIS don't really do it for them. They really need us to declare radical Islam an enemy before they all of a sudden decide to join ISIS. Be serious please. I don't even know where to begin with this answer, either with the part where you're saying it's okay to double down on treating them like shit because we already do, or with the part where "stopping immigration from their country of origin" became "declaring radical islam an enemy". | ||
|
pmh
1399 Posts
On February 06 2017 00:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: haha when Trump finally finishes the wall it will be Americans climbing over it due to him having fucked up the dollar Nah not really. Obama fucked up the dollar as well by letting the fed print 3000+ billion and nothing did happen. Dollar went from parity to 1.40 for the euro and now its back again as Europe also felt the need to print 1000+ billion to bail out all the bond holders at negative interest. | ||
|
pmh
1399 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Donald Trump’s defense of Vladimir Putin’s homicidal history isn’t sitting well with fellow Republicans. Three Republican senators and several other conservatives were quick to condemn or distance themselves from the president seeming to put Putin on equal standing with the United States when it comes to killing. In a pre-taped Fox interview partially released on Saturday and set to air in full during the Super Bowl pre-game show, Bill O’Reilly pressed Trump on his warm relationship with Putin. Trump stressed that stronger U.S.- Russia ties could help defeat the Islamic State. But “Putin’s a killer,” O’Reilly said. “You got a lot of killers,” Trump shot back. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?” Trump’s repeated expressions of admiration for Putin was already a sore spot for Republicans who consider the Russian leader a threat to the post-WWII global order. The president's latest statement has put the breach right back in the spotlight. “He’s a thug,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said of Putin on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “The Russians annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine and messed around in our elections. No, I don’t think there’s any equivalency between the way the Russians conduct themselves and the way the United States does.” When host Jake Tapper responded that Republicans would have been in revolt if Barack Obama said something similar, McConnell, who’s made a point of not harshly criticizing Trump, made clear his opinion on the matter. “I’m not going to critique the president’s every utterance," the Senate leader said. "But I do think America is exceptional, America is different. We don’t operate in any way the way the Russians do. I think there’s a clear distinction here that all Americans understand and I would not have characterized it that way.” Was McConnell confident that Trump understood? Tapper asked. “I obviously don’t see this issue the same way he does,” McConnell replied. The Republican leader wasn’t alone in his discomfort. “When has a Democratic political activists been poisoned by the GOP, or vice versa? We are not the same as #Putin,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a Russia hawk, tweeted Sunday. Source | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
