|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 01 2019 09:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 09:32 JimmiC wrote:On January 01 2019 09:23 Introvert wrote:On January 01 2019 05:49 Falling wrote:America doesn't allow for unlimited immigration or open borders. If you want to talk about having a legitimate debate about immigration, don't imply that anyone wants unlimited immigration. Because no one is advocating for that and frankly many people are really tired of hearing it. Just briefly because one of my points you have misunderstood. I was not actually accusing anyone one have wanting open borders. I was rhetorically establishing that limiting immigration does not equal anti-immigration because short of open borders everything else is a limit to immigration, by definition. It was intended as making a base line point of agreement (or else flushing out if there were any open border advocates). Once that is established, then we can argue that what we are talking about is a matter of degrees, not necessarily a matter of pro- or anti- immigration. I hope that clears up what I was doing. The rest I'll have to respond to later. You are having a hard time in this discussion because the people on the left you are talking to have no coherent view of immigration themselves. They aren't open borders, but they are anti-enforcement at most levels. Wall? No. Changing asylum laws? No. E-Verify? No. Move to a points based system? No. They don't want to make it physically more difficult and they don't want to remove the incentives either.Asylum claims have skyrocketed in the past few years, which helps the apprehension stats, because word has got round that if you make it across and claim asylum you are probably going to be released. The incentives are perverse. This is something the Democrats will have deal with in 2020 too; Trump may not get his wall but his stance is much easier to understand than the mush being offered up opposite of him. ("No illegal immigration, those seeking asylum should stay in Mexico or in US custody until their cases can be evaluated."). Recall that when we were having the family separation fiasco most people, including most Democrats, supported keeping the whole family in custody rather than releasing them into the county (according to one poll). We pretend that the populace as a whole is closer to the left-wing activist position than they really are. But remember, these same people denounced Trump's ridiculously generous DACA deal as racist. They are not acting in good faith. I don't think anyone thinks illegal immigration is a problem. I'm not sure that anyone with critical their critical thinking hat on thinks that the wall will solve or even slow down the problem. Rather that it is a HUGE waste of money and time even talking about it. And it is hard to have a reasonable conversation when someone acts as if the wall is a good idea. As for your comments about everyone on the "left" I think you need to be more specific because it is a wide net if you are calling everyone left of Trump the left. It makes like 30-40% of Republicans on the left. And like 90% of the rest of world. Is your first sentence missing a word? There are most certainly people who think it's not a problem. Also, 25 billion (or 5 like Trump wants now) is a pittance. You kind of flew over my main point. What are the one or two mainstream Democrat positions today on immigration? I can tell you what the 2 or 3 mainstream Republican ones are. **** Also, a friendly reminder that no one cares about shutdowns. When it's over we'll forget it happened. Well most people will, the base of either party won't, but all the leaders have to do is convince their bases that they fought as hard as they could. How many shutdowns without consequences do we need to have?
The Tea Party's government shutdown over Obamacare was remembered and openly touted as something that hurt the party in elections around then.
|
Republicans have long considered the federal workforce unreachable, but pretending that they literally don't matter whatsoever is a new low. The same can be said for the notion that any of the shutdowns have been "without consequences"; one can only assume that someone who thinks that has literally no idea how the federal government works or what it does.
Edit: That said, I'm all in favor of legislation that would require a shutdown be total when it happens again. Send literally everyone except legislators and the president home and deny politicians pay until a resolution is reached. Not only does that simplify things, it would get rid of this banal "partial shutdowns don't really do anything" garbage that has become in fashion.
|
On January 01 2019 22:40 farvacola wrote:
Republicans have long considered the federal workforce unreachable, but pretending that they literally don't matter whatsoever is a new low. The same can be said for the notion that any of the shutdowns have been "without consequences"; one can only assume that someone who thinks that has literally no idea how the federal government works or what it does.
Edit: That said, I'm all in favor of legislation that would require a shutdown be total when it happens again. Send literally everyone except legislators and the president home and deny politicians pay until a resolution is reached. Not only does that simplify things, it would get rid of this banal "partial shutdowns don't really do anything" garbage that has become in fashion.
Denying politicians pay does nothing but makes those who aren't swimming in money play ball to survive.
|
I have to say this is impressive drunken tweet quality for a sober man.
He also made another historic comment on why the wall is needed.
Remember this. Throughout the ages some things NEVER get better and NEVER change. You have Walls and you have Wheels. It was ALWAYS that way and it will ALWAYS be that way!
Yep. The wheel. Never got better. Chariots in rome used michelin's for sure. And every city still has walls and gates and moats. Next president should be minimum required to have played an age of empires title imo.
|
On January 01 2019 23:02 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 22:40 farvacola wrote:
Republicans have long considered the federal workforce unreachable, but pretending that they literally don't matter whatsoever is a new low. The same can be said for the notion that any of the shutdowns have been "without consequences"; one can only assume that someone who thinks that has literally no idea how the federal government works or what it does.
Edit: That said, I'm all in favor of legislation that would require a shutdown be total when it happens again. Send literally everyone except legislators and the president home and deny politicians pay until a resolution is reached. Not only does that simplify things, it would get rid of this banal "partial shutdowns don't really do anything" garbage that has become in fashion. Denying politicians pay does nothing but makes those who aren't swimming in money play ball to survive.
Imho, send whitehouse staff home too. I hope Melania likes to cook (or at least, get deliveroo to bring Mr. President a McDonalds Happy Meal).
|
|
|
*headdesk*
That.. the wheel never improved... Why did I come here on New Year's Day? I should have known I'd be assaulted by something idiotic said by that thing.
|
On January 02 2019 01:03 JimmiC wrote:
With that body Trump is for sure rocking at least the double Quarter pounder meal upsized. Maybe the double bigmac.
I do like the idea of staffers having to go. The politicians need to feel some of the pain of the shutdown.
I like the idea of politicians having to go..
Seriously, if you can't govern the country, you should move aside for someone who can.
|
How funny would it be if the US worked like several other Western Democracies and failing to pass major legislation would result in new elections?
Congress having to actually govern, the thought alone...
|
yeah, parliamentary democracy is looking pretty attractive these last few years.
|
On January 02 2019 03:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, parliamentary democracy is looking pretty attractive these last few years.
Careful what you wish for. Imagine what life would be like if Trump was elected into a parliamentary system. He would have so many fewer checks on his power. It low-grade terrifies me to think what would happen if we got a Trump on our hands in the Canadian federal government. It's bad enough having a fat imbecilic thug with the IQ of kelp as a provincial premier here in Ontario.
|
it might be trading one problem for another, but trump wouldn't have gotten anywhere if the US had a parliamentary system.
|
United States42959 Posts
On January 02 2019 03:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, parliamentary democracy is looking pretty attractive these last few years.
Look at the UK. Our government is refusing to govern because it knows it can’t pass legislation.
|
On January 02 2019 04:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2019 03:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, parliamentary democracy is looking pretty attractive these last few years. Look at the UK. Our government is refusing to govern because it knows it can’t pass legislation.
Ours is a very weak parliamentary system, though, because we don't have enough strong parties. Really you need a minimum of three strong parties for parliament to work, so that coalitions are a genuine threat, and when they happen the parties have to compromise, rather than what happened with the Lib Dems where the Conservatives just ran roughshod all over them and let them take the blame.
|
Coming back to the whole "Federal shutdowns are not bad, and those who are affected [are] morally responsible for it because they chose government jobs" talking point, the people who will feel it hardest are the poorest in the country, the people in Indian territory. It will hit the sickest of those in the poorest of places, yet none of them are government employees who should have [known] better. But please, I can't wait for more spinning about how those lazy government employees deserve this because they chose this line of work.
+ Show Spoiler +
SAULT STE. MARIE, Mich. — For one tribe of Chippewa Indians in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, the government shutdown comes with a price tag: about $100,000, every day, of federal money that does not arrive to keep health clinics staffed, food pantry shelves full and employees paid.
The tribe is using its own funds to cover the shortfalls for now. But if the standoff in Washington continues much longer, that stopgap money will be depleted. Later this month, workers could be furloughed and health services could be pared back. “Everything,” said Aaron Payment, the chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, “is on the table.”
For many Americans who are not federal workers or contractors, a shutdown is a minor inconvenience. A trip to a national park may be canceled. A call to a government office may go unanswered. But for Native American tribes, which rely heavily on federal money to operate, a shutdown can cripple their most basic functions.
All across Indian Country, the federal shutdown slices deep. Generations ago, tribes negotiated treaties with the United States government guaranteeing funds for services like health care and education in exchange for huge swaths of territory.
“The federal government owes us this: We prepaid with millions of acres of land,” said Mr. Payment, who also criticized the shutdown on Monday from the stage at his tribe’s New Year’s powwow. “We don’t have the right to take back that land, so we expect the federal government to fulfill its treaty and trust responsibility.”
On the Navajo Nation, a mostly rural reservation of red rock canyon that spans parts of New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, the government shutdown has already been difficult, said Russell Begaye, the Navajo Nation’s president.
|
On January 01 2019 22:28 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 09:57 Introvert wrote:On January 01 2019 09:32 JimmiC wrote:On January 01 2019 09:23 Introvert wrote:On January 01 2019 05:49 Falling wrote:America doesn't allow for unlimited immigration or open borders. If you want to talk about having a legitimate debate about immigration, don't imply that anyone wants unlimited immigration. Because no one is advocating for that and frankly many people are really tired of hearing it. Just briefly because one of my points you have misunderstood. I was not actually accusing anyone one have wanting open borders. I was rhetorically establishing that limiting immigration does not equal anti-immigration because short of open borders everything else is a limit to immigration, by definition. It was intended as making a base line point of agreement (or else flushing out if there were any open border advocates). Once that is established, then we can argue that what we are talking about is a matter of degrees, not necessarily a matter of pro- or anti- immigration. I hope that clears up what I was doing. The rest I'll have to respond to later. You are having a hard time in this discussion because the people on the left you are talking to have no coherent view of immigration themselves. They aren't open borders, but they are anti-enforcement at most levels. Wall? No. Changing asylum laws? No. E-Verify? No. Move to a points based system? No. They don't want to make it physically more difficult and they don't want to remove the incentives either.Asylum claims have skyrocketed in the past few years, which helps the apprehension stats, because word has got round that if you make it across and claim asylum you are probably going to be released. The incentives are perverse. This is something the Democrats will have deal with in 2020 too; Trump may not get his wall but his stance is much easier to understand than the mush being offered up opposite of him. ("No illegal immigration, those seeking asylum should stay in Mexico or in US custody until their cases can be evaluated."). Recall that when we were having the family separation fiasco most people, including most Democrats, supported keeping the whole family in custody rather than releasing them into the county (according to one poll). We pretend that the populace as a whole is closer to the left-wing activist position than they really are. But remember, these same people denounced Trump's ridiculously generous DACA deal as racist. They are not acting in good faith. I don't think anyone thinks illegal immigration is a problem. I'm not sure that anyone with critical their critical thinking hat on thinks that the wall will solve or even slow down the problem. Rather that it is a HUGE waste of money and time even talking about it. And it is hard to have a reasonable conversation when someone acts as if the wall is a good idea. As for your comments about everyone on the "left" I think you need to be more specific because it is a wide net if you are calling everyone left of Trump the left. It makes like 30-40% of Republicans on the left. And like 90% of the rest of world. Is your first sentence missing a word? There are most certainly people who think it's not a problem. Also, 25 billion (or 5 like Trump wants now) is a pittance. You kind of flew over my main point. What are the one or two mainstream Democrat positions today on immigration? I can tell you what the 2 or 3 mainstream Republican ones are. **** Also, a friendly reminder that no one cares about shutdowns. When it's over we'll forget it happened. Well most people will, the base of either party won't, but all the leaders have to do is convince their bases that they fought as hard as they could. How many shutdowns without consequences do we need to have? The Tea Party's government shutdown over Obamacare was remembered and openly touted as something that hurt the party in elections around then.
by what measure? They gained House seats and took over the Senate in 2014.
edit: however this outrage on behalf of the federal workforce is great fun to read. You can all keep pretending that I'm trashing federal workers if it makes you feel better.
edit2: below post is exactly what I'm talking about lmao
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United States24701 Posts
Your willingness to handwave away people who are missing paychecks and/or forced to work without pay to keep their jobs is very telling about how much you care about the well being of others. I'm sure the severe inconvenience and cost associated with having to cancel your holiday-time vacation because your leave has been suddenly cancelled due to the shutdown doesn't even register for you. You can argue that federal workers should expect this, but that's just excusing the ridiculous system we currently have in place and exposes a lack of concern for the quality of the federal workforce.
|
Only swing states matter in elections. States that have a lot of federal workers already vote democratic. It only starts to matter when federal workers get treated so badly, that people in swing states put the needs of federal workers above their own.
So yeah, apparently congress doesn't even need Trump for them to fund the government. They don't need to give Trump the wall. They can just write up a bill and pass it with 100% of the votes and Trump cannot veto it. Yes, they have to compromise, but they won't have to give Trump his wall. So who really 'owns' the shutdown? What is important enough to keep the government unfunded for weeks so that such a deal cannot be reached?
Also, why is this type of shutdown even possible in a first world country? Why can this even be a bargaining chip in the game of politics? Are there even other countries like that?
UK is a bad example to follow, of course. But imagine Trump being forced to defend his ideas like May is. That gives so so much more transparency and control. You are just out there, naked. Trump just puts out a tweet and then it is chaos, and then he blames others in a second tweet, and that's it.
But the UK is bad example because for the last 10 years, real wages dropped over there because of austerity. And the conservative government successfully blamed the EU for that. Conservatives completely mismanaged their economy, so they needed a scapegoat, and that was the EU. So the people were really mad and a lot of them believed it was the EU's fault. So they had to pick between going along with Cameron, who had been in charge of this economic mismanagement, or give Cameron the middle finger. They decided to give Cameron the middle finger.
And now both parties want to leave the EU. The first past the post system is so so terrible. And they actually voted in a referendum to keep it, which is beyond me. In the UK, the older generations really completely fucked over the younger one. I hope all the young educated people fee ship while they still can.
|
On January 02 2019 08:43 Automedon wrote:In the UK, the older generations really completely fucked over the younger one. I hope all the young educated people fee ship while they still can. This happened in America, too.
|
As someone from a country that doesn't do these weird government shutdowns, i have a few questions:
Who doesn't get paid, and who decides that? Do military people get paid? Does ammunition still get bought? What about the police? Firefighters? The tax office?
And of course: Why do you constantly have this problem? It seems like something that might happen once, but then people realize it sucks and put in some measures to prevent it from happening again. Is there actually a point to this or is this just another one of these weird legacy things in the american system that never seem to get fixed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
