|
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 April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders.
They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants.
|
On April 14 2019 07:19 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 03:34 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2019 02:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 23:56 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 15:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 13:53 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 09:27 Danglars wrote:
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out. No he isn’t, he’s just the only one who’s aggressively pushed ‘everyone is lying but me’ and had it stick. Which is patently, 100% obvious to actual moderates and independents. Name another Republican candidate who even got close. I do think moderates would be happier with another guy who sits and takes it. Republicans are useful when they back down at the first sign of a fight. On April 13 2019 10:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 13 2019 09:27 Danglars wrote:
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out. What's exhausting is this hypocritical morality play from the right. The literal majority of the facts Trump states are verifiable lies, yet you're here praising him for pushing back on "false" stories. Did I say he never misses? Did I make an absolute statement or a comparative? Still no takers on the point of the post. Moderates don’t especially like fighting, unless someone is just consistent in fighting for their principles or consistent. Which really isn’t a charge one can lay at Trump’s door. Also why the Dems continually attacking him in the way they do is stupid, there’s really no need to be so partisan there’s more than enough to work with. If Trump pushed back at the problems of the media, or politics in general in a way that didn’t solely benefit him and even vaguely went down swamp draining route he’d be pretty popular, at least way more so than he is now with moderates. Neither institutions poll particularly well at present in trust and whatnot. That’s your perspective and I think you need to step back and examine it from other ones. Politics is full of mixed bag politicians that do a lot for their constituents, while pursuing and expanding their power. From yours, a lot of “but he lies/no part of it is fairly considered pushing back against false narratives.” From the right, part of it is “he isn’t speaking to your experience.” You’ve never been called deplorable, clinging to guns and religion, or called racist when you wanted America to control America’s immigration policy. Furthermore, you can’t even advance to the real question because you have problems with the foundations. How else will you get the message out that right-of-center immigration policy and America-first foreign policy are things you support, but nobody fights for them? Nobody even looks at the record of the party WHEN ASKED to look at it. The easiest point to make is politicians for multiple decades promised in campaign platforms or speeches to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Trump did it. He pushed back on the narrative that it would incite imminent violence and won (more paper tigers). You may not accept the “good” in his actions because it’s surrounded by so much “bad,” but maybe in time you’ll see the point to it all. It sure as hell beats the racism and deception narrative for why he was elected and why he enjoys a base of support today. I actually largely agree with you though, although I've been called much worse than deplorable for the record. The thing is, it's Trump, whose platform I largely disagree with, although I thought there might be some unintentional side benefits if he did get in. Way I see it establishment political orthodoxy thrives on a lack of ambition, or that x thing isn't viable to do and people get worn down and thus that becomes the reality. If you do break through that glass ceiling, or capture lightning in a bottle as Trump did, you absolutely have to nail it, because your shtick of being anti-establishment, if you fail will be the rationale to return back to establishment norms. I don't have much skin in the game, not much I particularly support about his platform. Trump's brand is both his (or yours) Achilles heel if he done goofs. Want to discuss Wikileaks and what they do, indepdent of Julian Assange? Good luck with some people, because to many Julian Assange is Wikileaks (which is his fault), so hence his own foibles subsequently are a stick to beat the entire organisation with. Which IMO will come to bite people in the ass, and actually the people who care about these issues because of Trump's flaws, who IMO doesn't even particularly care about any of them. We shall have to say how it plays out, I think people who may have voted for him, but aren't part of his loyal base, by and large can see through his bullshit more and more and that'll play out down the line. This does work both ways though, many positions considered of the left poll better as single issues than a lot of Trump's basic platform does and hit the exact same kind of roadblocks. It's largely why I'm critical of Corbyn a lot over in the UK and annoy my leftie friends, because I don't think his platform matters at all if he doesn't get elected, so get elected. Re-nationalising elements of our public infrastructure like rail has been in the 'impossible to do' column for decades, I think that will be exposed as absolutely wrong to those who aren't already left wing if we actually do it and it works, but if we don't seize the appetite for it and actually do it while there's a bit of a surge of popularity for traditional left wing things, then it'll be shoved back into the 'impossible can't do it' box if we return to more of a business as normal climate. I don't particularly value loyalty all that much over pragmatism, my loyalty is to what I want done in a policy sense. I'm happy to say, not call people wanting to leave the European Union racist as I think it's often wrong anyway, also it entrenches people more and it drags out resentful 'screw you' turnout, most of my fellow travellers at the time said I was wrong and variants of 'you have to call out x when you see it' and I said we'd lose that vote, which we did. Clinton's deplorables comment was much in the same vein and completely idiotic to do. You can basically only lose votes doing what she did, people who agree, already agree anyway, and there will be floating voters feeling alienated by such an association. I think people should apply the same vague standard to Trump on his bullshit, his weird skillset will eventually become way more of a liability than an asset. Let me first say that you have a debatable perspective. Trump has many negatives so it's worth considering that maybe they're simply so bad that they universally outweigh the good. If Trump is not Trump and is instead the GOP, maybe the brand suffers like Assange and Wikileaks (assuming there's something core about the organizational infrastructure apart from the "idea" of having a publisher of leaked government secrets. I like having organizations that track hate groups, but the SPLC uses its crusade contrary to those ends, and needs replacement). The example closer to you might be future suffering of the conservatives because they chose Cameron and then May to represent their party. That's a huge risk. I'll let you know about another argument in this vein. One version of it has won me over, though a full exposition is probably too long. Let's say Corbyn is pretty bad, and the vein of his successors would be even worse. There's an argument for letting him win a couple, because the politically potent opposition has its own steep negatives. On the other side, maybe the damage done to the country in the meantime is bad enough that it's better to rush in with who you have to seize victory, though it's only half a victory and won at great cost. There's no guarantee that the next anti-Corbyn figure is any more principled and courageous as the last guy, indeed he or she could just adopt 75% of Corbyn's platform and call himself a great moderate reformer, whereas the policies you think are good for the country include 0% of his platform. This was roughly the central thesis behind The Flight 93 Election. I hope you've read it. It's very important for people that oppose Trump's political platform (to the extent he cleaves to one) to understand the perspective of people that steadfastly support a Republican Platform (to the extent it actually believes and implements it) against the Democratic one. Trump's opposition is a mix of the general revulsion of traditionally Republican principles of religious liberty, strong borders, support of Israel, America-first foreign policy, and revulsion at the man himself and his speech and his way of doing things. For the principles, they're opposed for being purely discriminatory, inhumane, anti-Palestinian, and isolationist. For the verbal and written expression of the opposition, the same class has been leveled at every candidate before Trump, who universally were called racist and sexist and anti-poor. You may understand that I'm less worried about what people scream about Trump when they've done the same thing for 20 years, and will do the same thing for another 20, if not until we're all dead and buried. You may remember, I didn't seek to put Trump on a pedestal on the post you responded to. I ranked him on a dimension compared to our last candidates and the party in general. It's only in a time of great internal party corruption that Trump actually is called for (and I thought we had a couple better choices in the primary and didn't support Trump until it was him or Hillary). It's also only in a time of great political bitterness and division that Trump is necessary. You want to say whiteness is the big problem, and tight borders are racist, and one group gets handouts and the other gets active discrimination? Here's the guy that will throw it back in your face. You can say Republicans are literally causing the deaths of millions, and that's not incitement, but Trump's attacks on a craven media are inciting violence? Here's a guy that understands the double standard at work and will punish you for it. You may be the little guy, and he's a very poor fit for a champion of the little guy, but he's still out there amplifying your voice of opposition. Frankly, that was missing from past candidates who courted media favor and wanted to raise the discourse above binders-of-women-style attacks. If it had worked and politics functioned in that way, then I'm the first one behind you.The high road when people chant "Blood for Oil" and McCain ads were "crypto-racist" or "deliberately and deceptively racist," and "binders of women" and "Romney paid zero taxes. It turns out that passivity in the face of such assaults from the left discourages voters from rallying against it (weak leader won't fight back) and discourages voters from crossing over (he deserves it, just look at how he has nothing to say). Populists rarely make good in-roads after one victory bucking the establishment. I give you that, and I think it's baked into Republican democracy and the democratic tradition since at least the ancient greeks (see, for example Hanson's Dueling Populisms). They function as a very crude relief valve against elites operating for their own benefit, both in moral satisfaction and power. Trump will pass. He's limited to a maximum of two terms. What sticks with us is a media and DNC that will still say they aren't inveterate liars and fabricators, all the while paying for Russian gossip to shop to their friends in the FBI for useful spying operations. I'm willing to give a very blunt instrument a strike against that organization, even knowing it's diminished by the skill of the wielder and his grasp of the situation. That's at least an overview of the calculus. I also grant you that it is tough to see the argument if you think the platform and policy ideas are rubbish to begin with. I don’t disagree but I don’t think we’re discussing it from the same starting position at all. Your position seems to be that Trump is doing what his base wants, and most of your critiques of establishment problems are solely from the perspective of actualising what his base wants. My position is that that is true, but that Trump’s base isn’t big enough to do anything meaningful in scourging the establishment, and that brand Trump is too toxic to push outside of the base. What utility I felt he might have outside his platform (that I don’t like, obviously) in shifting norms hasn’t happened because to paraphrase Duke Nukem, Trump isn’t an ‘Equal opportunity ass kicker.’ So yes, fake news is a problem, but if you’re shredding certain outlets but using Fox as your personal pulpit, kinda doesn’t fly with people. Unlike many on the vague left I was inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and see if some good came of it, even if it was unintentional on the Donald’s end. Unlike many who started from holy apocalypse Batman to begin with, my opinions on Trump had the sufficient room to move way, way downwards over his term. I don’t like the Democrats particularly, I dislike identity politics and largely my vague dalliances outside of the left were directly due to that exasperation. I dislike partisan politics and I dislike politics as a zero sum game, both trends the Dems are happy to use for their own ends. On the other hand Trump isn’t any kind of antidote to that whatsoever, he’s the equivalent of throwing gasoline on an already pretty sizeable fire.
It's only natural that we have different starting positions. I'm talking about what to do given my analysis of the GOP and the direction of the country for several decades. Of course Trump's the furthest thing from a presidential choice if everything's hunky dory, we're only another election away from a restoration of journalism and debate on ideas and racial quiescence. Trump can self-immolate for all I care, provided he lasts long enough to show that the emperor has no clothes--that his critics are absolute clowns ready to lie and attack to get their own ends.
You may remember, I used comparatives for Trump, and your response questioned the basis for making the comparative. You've never taken it upon yourself to examine the history to see if it's true. I was perfectly happy to elaborate on some points of difference, but I'm not giving my magnum opus on Trump's toxic brand in a vacuum of history. That point matters on the scales of balance. If you were born yesterday, Trump's just pushing people away that could be won over to the GOP with less brashness. I'm sympathetic to that view given that precondition. He wasn't my first, second, or third choice to lead the fight for the 2016 election. Sadly, they had all suspended their campaigns when my state voted in the primary. Shit luck.
We simply disagree on Trump's function on the "pretty sizeable fire." His opponents are setting themselves on fire trying to tear him down. The visibility of this is very useful. If you thought big government did a good job despite the politicians, maybe hearing Clapper, Comey, and Brennan making absolute fools of themselves will set you free. You can see my previous post for my views on the split between policy debate and personality debate.
Watch carefully and see if "some good c[omes] of it, even if it was unintentional on Donald's end." I'm quite happy with what he's done with Israel. We got pro-business tax cut, and a small tax cut across the board. He's taken back the GOP immigration debate from what kind of amnesty implemented at what time. We have judges that examine the constitutional limits on the power of the State, and a resistance to last-minute smear jobs by craven politicians. Right to try laws, criminal justice reform, opioid legislation. Tough stance towards Russia and China, including lethal weapons to Ukraine and sanctions. Cancellation of the disastrous Iran Deal (but now I'm venturing more into policy ideas that you might disagree with). I'm more optimistic today than before the election, when I had no idea whether or not the long-time liberal Democrat donor would appoint bad justices and betray his campaign promises soon after election.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants.
Well they say that, equally they’re really not too ballsy on industries that profit on paying migrant workers less than natives. Which also tends to be linked to the main right wing concerns about immigration, or general concerns.
They want their cake on this issue and fully intend to eat itS
|
On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants.
What is the "just" in your post mean? Surely all the talk of "undocumented" immigrants makes this false, no?
On April 14 2019 09:43 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants. Well they say that, equally they’re really not too ballsy on industries that profit on paying migrant workers less than natives. Which also tends to be linked to the main right wing concerns about immigration, or general concerns. They want their cake on this issue and fully intend to eat itS
The Democrat party intends to sit on its hands for as long as possible on immigration, either in terms of legislation or in acknowledging the crisis at the border. The status quo works to their benefit, so what they do is deflect and ignore.
|
On April 14 2019 08:26 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 03:34 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2019 02:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 23:56 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 15:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 13:53 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 09:27 Danglars wrote:
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out. No he isn’t, he’s just the only one who’s aggressively pushed ‘everyone is lying but me’ and had it stick. Which is patently, 100% obvious to actual moderates and independents. Name another Republican candidate who even got close. I do think moderates would be happier with another guy who sits and takes it. Republicans are useful when they back down at the first sign of a fight. On April 13 2019 10:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 13 2019 09:27 Danglars wrote:
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out. What's exhausting is this hypocritical morality play from the right. The literal majority of the facts Trump states are verifiable lies, yet you're here praising him for pushing back on "false" stories. Did I say he never misses? Did I make an absolute statement or a comparative? Still no takers on the point of the post. Moderates don’t especially like fighting, unless someone is just consistent in fighting for their principles or consistent. Which really isn’t a charge one can lay at Trump’s door. Also why the Dems continually attacking him in the way they do is stupid, there’s really no need to be so partisan there’s more than enough to work with. If Trump pushed back at the problems of the media, or politics in general in a way that didn’t solely benefit him and even vaguely went down swamp draining route he’d be pretty popular, at least way more so than he is now with moderates. Neither institutions poll particularly well at present in trust and whatnot. That’s your perspective and I think you need to step back and examine it from other ones. Politics is full of mixed bag politicians that do a lot for their constituents, while pursuing and expanding their power. From yours, a lot of “but he lies/no part of it is fairly considered pushing back against false narratives.” From the right, part of it is “he isn’t speaking to your experience.” You’ve never been called deplorable, clinging to guns and religion, or called racist when you wanted America to control America’s immigration policy. Furthermore, you can’t even advance to the real question because you have problems with the foundations. How else will you get the message out that right-of-center immigration policy and America-first foreign policy are things you support, but nobody fights for them? Nobody even looks at the record of the party WHEN ASKED to look at it. The easiest point to make is politicians for multiple decades promised in campaign platforms or speeches to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Trump did it. He pushed back on the narrative that it would incite imminent violence and won (more paper tigers). You may not accept the “good” in his actions because it’s surrounded by so much “bad,” but maybe in time you’ll see the point to it all. It sure as hell beats the racism and deception narrative for why he was elected and why he enjoys a base of support today. I actually largely agree with you though, although I've been called much worse than deplorable for the record. The thing is, it's Trump, whose platform I largely disagree with, although I thought there might be some unintentional side benefits if he did get in. Way I see it establishment political orthodoxy thrives on a lack of ambition, or that x thing isn't viable to do and people get worn down and thus that becomes the reality. If you do break through that glass ceiling, or capture lightning in a bottle as Trump did, you absolutely have to nail it, because your shtick of being anti-establishment, if you fail will be the rationale to return back to establishment norms. I don't have much skin in the game, not much I particularly support about his platform. Trump's brand is both his (or yours) Achilles heel if he done goofs. Want to discuss Wikileaks and what they do, indepdent of Julian Assange? Good luck with some people, because to many Julian Assange is Wikileaks (which is his fault), so hence his own foibles subsequently are a stick to beat the entire organisation with. Which IMO will come to bite people in the ass, and actually the people who care about these issues because of Trump's flaws, who IMO doesn't even particularly care about any of them. We shall have to say how it plays out, I think people who may have voted for him, but aren't part of his loyal base, by and large can see through his bullshit more and more and that'll play out down the line. This does work both ways though, many positions considered of the left poll better as single issues than a lot of Trump's basic platform does and hit the exact same kind of roadblocks. It's largely why I'm critical of Corbyn a lot over in the UK and annoy my leftie friends, because I don't think his platform matters at all if he doesn't get elected, so get elected. Re-nationalising elements of our public infrastructure like rail has been in the 'impossible to do' column for decades, I think that will be exposed as absolutely wrong to those who aren't already left wing if we actually do it and it works, but if we don't seize the appetite for it and actually do it while there's a bit of a surge of popularity for traditional left wing things, then it'll be shoved back into the 'impossible can't do it' box if we return to more of a business as normal climate. I don't particularly value loyalty all that much over pragmatism, my loyalty is to what I want done in a policy sense. I'm happy to say, not call people wanting to leave the European Union racist as I think it's often wrong anyway, also it entrenches people more and it drags out resentful 'screw you' turnout, most of my fellow travellers at the time said I was wrong and variants of 'you have to call out x when you see it' and I said we'd lose that vote, which we did. Clinton's deplorables comment was much in the same vein and completely idiotic to do. You can basically only lose votes doing what she did, people who agree, already agree anyway, and there will be floating voters feeling alienated by such an association. I think people should apply the same vague standard to Trump on his bullshit, his weird skillset will eventually become way more of a liability than an asset. This was roughly the central thesis behind The Flight 93 Election. I hope you've read it. It's very important for people that oppose Trump's political platform (to the extent he cleaves to one) to understand the perspective of people that steadfastly support a Republican Platform (to the extent it actually believes and implements it) against the Democratic one. Trump's opposition is a mix of the general revulsion of traditionally Republican principles of religious liberty, strong borders, support of Israel, America-first foreign policy, and revulsion at the man himself and his speech and his way of doing things. For the principles, they're opposed for being purely discriminatory, inhumane, anti-Palestinian, and isolationist. For the verbal and written expression of the opposition, the same class has been leveled at every candidate before Trump, who universally were called racist and sexist and anti-poor. You may understand that I'm less worried about what people scream about Trump when they've done the same thing for 20 years, and will do the same thing for another 20, if not until we're all dead and buried. Surprising that people still look to the Flight 93 election article as some sort of sensible justification for 2016. It's nothing more than a feel good piece for conservatives who want to shoehorn morality into their politics while still supporting immoral politicians. It doesn't matter if it was Bernie instead of Hillary in 2016, or even another 4 years of Obama. 2020 is going to be another flight 93 for conservatives So will be the election after that, and after that, because the justification used in that article isn't a defense of Trump, it's an attack on liberal opponents.The plane is always in danger of crashing, and the threat is never going to fade.
You could still use this critique if you never read the article, but read the title and heard it that it tried to justify Trump. You fail to appreciate or consider the gap in policy preference. It's just a one-liner on the piece extended to several sentences.
I would think someone that frequently talks about people voting against their own interests, and extends belief in Trump conspiracy theories, would pause before accusing others of using explanations that always justify whatever action they seek. I really should make a prediction about what comes next after Trump-Russia. Maybe it's Israel or secretive White Power groups.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On April 14 2019 09:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 07:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 03:34 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2019 02:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 23:56 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 15:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 13:53 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 09:27 Danglars wrote:
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out. No he isn’t, he’s just the only one who’s aggressively pushed ‘everyone is lying but me’ and had it stick. Which is patently, 100% obvious to actual moderates and independents. Name another Republican candidate who even got close. I do think moderates would be happier with another guy who sits and takes it. Republicans are useful when they back down at the first sign of a fight. On April 13 2019 10:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 13 2019 09:27 Danglars wrote:
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out. What's exhausting is this hypocritical morality play from the right. The literal majority of the facts Trump states are verifiable lies, yet you're here praising him for pushing back on "false" stories. Did I say he never misses? Did I make an absolute statement or a comparative? Still no takers on the point of the post. Moderates don’t especially like fighting, unless someone is just consistent in fighting for their principles or consistent. Which really isn’t a charge one can lay at Trump’s door. Also why the Dems continually attacking him in the way they do is stupid, there’s really no need to be so partisan there’s more than enough to work with. If Trump pushed back at the problems of the media, or politics in general in a way that didn’t solely benefit him and even vaguely went down swamp draining route he’d be pretty popular, at least way more so than he is now with moderates. Neither institutions poll particularly well at present in trust and whatnot. That’s your perspective and I think you need to step back and examine it from other ones. Politics is full of mixed bag politicians that do a lot for their constituents, while pursuing and expanding their power. From yours, a lot of “but he lies/no part of it is fairly considered pushing back against false narratives.” From the right, part of it is “he isn’t speaking to your experience.” You’ve never been called deplorable, clinging to guns and religion, or called racist when you wanted America to control America’s immigration policy. Furthermore, you can’t even advance to the real question because you have problems with the foundations. How else will you get the message out that right-of-center immigration policy and America-first foreign policy are things you support, but nobody fights for them? Nobody even looks at the record of the party WHEN ASKED to look at it. The easiest point to make is politicians for multiple decades promised in campaign platforms or speeches to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Trump did it. He pushed back on the narrative that it would incite imminent violence and won (more paper tigers). You may not accept the “good” in his actions because it’s surrounded by so much “bad,” but maybe in time you’ll see the point to it all. It sure as hell beats the racism and deception narrative for why he was elected and why he enjoys a base of support today. I actually largely agree with you though, although I've been called much worse than deplorable for the record. The thing is, it's Trump, whose platform I largely disagree with, although I thought there might be some unintentional side benefits if he did get in. Way I see it establishment political orthodoxy thrives on a lack of ambition, or that x thing isn't viable to do and people get worn down and thus that becomes the reality. If you do break through that glass ceiling, or capture lightning in a bottle as Trump did, you absolutely have to nail it, because your shtick of being anti-establishment, if you fail will be the rationale to return back to establishment norms. I don't have much skin in the game, not much I particularly support about his platform. Trump's brand is both his (or yours) Achilles heel if he done goofs. Want to discuss Wikileaks and what they do, indepdent of Julian Assange? Good luck with some people, because to many Julian Assange is Wikileaks (which is his fault), so hence his own foibles subsequently are a stick to beat the entire organisation with. Which IMO will come to bite people in the ass, and actually the people who care about these issues because of Trump's flaws, who IMO doesn't even particularly care about any of them. We shall have to say how it plays out, I think people who may have voted for him, but aren't part of his loyal base, by and large can see through his bullshit more and more and that'll play out down the line. This does work both ways though, many positions considered of the left poll better as single issues than a lot of Trump's basic platform does and hit the exact same kind of roadblocks. It's largely why I'm critical of Corbyn a lot over in the UK and annoy my leftie friends, because I don't think his platform matters at all if he doesn't get elected, so get elected. Re-nationalising elements of our public infrastructure like rail has been in the 'impossible to do' column for decades, I think that will be exposed as absolutely wrong to those who aren't already left wing if we actually do it and it works, but if we don't seize the appetite for it and actually do it while there's a bit of a surge of popularity for traditional left wing things, then it'll be shoved back into the 'impossible can't do it' box if we return to more of a business as normal climate. I don't particularly value loyalty all that much over pragmatism, my loyalty is to what I want done in a policy sense. I'm happy to say, not call people wanting to leave the European Union racist as I think it's often wrong anyway, also it entrenches people more and it drags out resentful 'screw you' turnout, most of my fellow travellers at the time said I was wrong and variants of 'you have to call out x when you see it' and I said we'd lose that vote, which we did. Clinton's deplorables comment was much in the same vein and completely idiotic to do. You can basically only lose votes doing what she did, people who agree, already agree anyway, and there will be floating voters feeling alienated by such an association. I think people should apply the same vague standard to Trump on his bullshit, his weird skillset will eventually become way more of a liability than an asset. Let me first say that you have a debatable perspective. Trump has many negatives so it's worth considering that maybe they're simply so bad that they universally outweigh the good. If Trump is not Trump and is instead the GOP, maybe the brand suffers like Assange and Wikileaks (assuming there's something core about the organizational infrastructure apart from the "idea" of having a publisher of leaked government secrets. I like having organizations that track hate groups, but the SPLC uses its crusade contrary to those ends, and needs replacement). The example closer to you might be future suffering of the conservatives because they chose Cameron and then May to represent their party. That's a huge risk. I'll let you know about another argument in this vein. One version of it has won me over, though a full exposition is probably too long. Let's say Corbyn is pretty bad, and the vein of his successors would be even worse. There's an argument for letting him win a couple, because the politically potent opposition has its own steep negatives. On the other side, maybe the damage done to the country in the meantime is bad enough that it's better to rush in with who you have to seize victory, though it's only half a victory and won at great cost. There's no guarantee that the next anti-Corbyn figure is any more principled and courageous as the last guy, indeed he or she could just adopt 75% of Corbyn's platform and call himself a great moderate reformer, whereas the policies you think are good for the country include 0% of his platform. This was roughly the central thesis behind The Flight 93 Election. I hope you've read it. It's very important for people that oppose Trump's political platform (to the extent he cleaves to one) to understand the perspective of people that steadfastly support a Republican Platform (to the extent it actually believes and implements it) against the Democratic one. Trump's opposition is a mix of the general revulsion of traditionally Republican principles of religious liberty, strong borders, support of Israel, America-first foreign policy, and revulsion at the man himself and his speech and his way of doing things. For the principles, they're opposed for being purely discriminatory, inhumane, anti-Palestinian, and isolationist. For the verbal and written expression of the opposition, the same class has been leveled at every candidate before Trump, who universally were called racist and sexist and anti-poor. You may understand that I'm less worried about what people scream about Trump when they've done the same thing for 20 years, and will do the same thing for another 20, if not until we're all dead and buried. You may remember, I didn't seek to put Trump on a pedestal on the post you responded to. I ranked him on a dimension compared to our last candidates and the party in general. It's only in a time of great internal party corruption that Trump actually is called for (and I thought we had a couple better choices in the primary and didn't support Trump until it was him or Hillary). It's also only in a time of great political bitterness and division that Trump is necessary. You want to say whiteness is the big problem, and tight borders are racist, and one group gets handouts and the other gets active discrimination? Here's the guy that will throw it back in your face. You can say Republicans are literally causing the deaths of millions, and that's not incitement, but Trump's attacks on a craven media are inciting violence? Here's a guy that understands the double standard at work and will punish you for it. You may be the little guy, and he's a very poor fit for a champion of the little guy, but he's still out there amplifying your voice of opposition. Frankly, that was missing from past candidates who courted media favor and wanted to raise the discourse above binders-of-women-style attacks. If it had worked and politics functioned in that way, then I'm the first one behind you.The high road when people chant "Blood for Oil" and McCain ads were "crypto-racist" or "deliberately and deceptively racist," and "binders of women" and "Romney paid zero taxes. It turns out that passivity in the face of such assaults from the left discourages voters from rallying against it (weak leader won't fight back) and discourages voters from crossing over (he deserves it, just look at how he has nothing to say). Populists rarely make good in-roads after one victory bucking the establishment. I give you that, and I think it's baked into Republican democracy and the democratic tradition since at least the ancient greeks (see, for example Hanson's Dueling Populisms). They function as a very crude relief valve against elites operating for their own benefit, both in moral satisfaction and power. Trump will pass. He's limited to a maximum of two terms. What sticks with us is a media and DNC that will still say they aren't inveterate liars and fabricators, all the while paying for Russian gossip to shop to their friends in the FBI for useful spying operations. I'm willing to give a very blunt instrument a strike against that organization, even knowing it's diminished by the skill of the wielder and his grasp of the situation. That's at least an overview of the calculus. I also grant you that it is tough to see the argument if you think the platform and policy ideas are rubbish to begin with. I don’t disagree but I don’t think we’re discussing it from the same starting position at all. Your position seems to be that Trump is doing what his base wants, and most of your critiques of establishment problems are solely from the perspective of actualising what his base wants. My position is that that is true, but that Trump’s base isn’t big enough to do anything meaningful in scourging the establishment, and that brand Trump is too toxic to push outside of the base. What utility I felt he might have outside his platform (that I don’t like, obviously) in shifting norms hasn’t happened because to paraphrase Duke Nukem, Trump isn’t an ‘Equal opportunity ass kicker.’ So yes, fake news is a problem, but if you’re shredding certain outlets but using Fox as your personal pulpit, kinda doesn’t fly with people. Unlike many on the vague left I was inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and see if some good came of it, even if it was unintentional on the Donald’s end. Unlike many who started from holy apocalypse Batman to begin with, my opinions on Trump had the sufficient room to move way, way downwards over his term. I don’t like the Democrats particularly, I dislike identity politics and largely my vague dalliances outside of the left were directly due to that exasperation. I dislike partisan politics and I dislike politics as a zero sum game, both trends the Dems are happy to use for their own ends. On the other hand Trump isn’t any kind of antidote to that whatsoever, he’s the equivalent of throwing gasoline on an already pretty sizeable fire. It's only natural that we have different starting positions. I'm talking about what to do given my analysis of the GOP and the direction of the country for several decades. Of course Trump's the furthest thing from a presidential choice if everything's hunky dory, we're only another election away from a restoration of journalism and debate on ideas and racial quiescence. Trump can self-immolate for all I care, provided he lasts long enough to show that the emperor has no clothes--that his critics are absolute clowns ready to lie and attack to get their own ends. You may remember, I used comparatives for Trump, and your response questioned the basis for making the comparative. You've never taken it upon yourself to examine the history to see if it's true. I was perfectly happy to elaborate on some points of difference, but I'm not giving my magnum opus on Trump's toxic brand in a vacuum of history. That point matters on the scales of balance. If you were born yesterday, Trump's just pushing people away that could be won over to the GOP with less brashness. I'm sympathetic to that view given that precondition. He wasn't my first, second, or third choice to lead the fight for the 2016 election. Sadly, they had all suspended their campaigns when my state voted in the primary. Shit luck. We simply disagree on Trump's function on the "pretty sizeable fire." His opponents are setting themselves on fire trying to tear him down. The visibility of this is very useful. If you thought big government did a good job despite the politicians, maybe hearing Clapper, Comey, and Brennan making absolute fools of themselves will set you free. You can see my previous post for my views on the split between policy debate and personality debate. Watch carefully and see if "some good c[omes] of it, even if it was unintentional on Donald's end." I'm quite happy with what he's done with Israel. We got pro-business tax cut, and a small tax cut across the board. He's taken back the GOP immigration debate from what kind of amnesty implemented at what time. We have judges that examine the constitutional limits on the power of the State, and a resistance to last-minute smear jobs by craven politicians. Right to try laws, criminal justice reform, opioid legislation. Tough stance towards Russia and China, including lethal weapons to Ukraine and sanctions. Cancellation of the disastrous Iran Deal (but now I'm venturing more into policy ideas that you might disagree with). I'm more optimistic today than before the election, when I had no idea whether or not the long-time liberal Democrat donor would appoint bad justices and betray his campaign promises soon after election.
I don’t think we disagree, largely speaking, again I don’t care for the Dems anyway.
I don’t think we’re an election away from restoring journalism at all, I think the destruction of trust in that is hard to repair. Which I don’t believe actually, as of now I think it’s actually impossible to put the cat back in the bag.
I don’t really care outside of my own vague principles. If the new ground is veracity doesn’t matter and zero-sum, you lose. I don’t personally want one, if the post-truth world is purely lacking a centre and it’s a matter of getting your base you, you’ll get left wing Trump sooner or later.
Issue specific polling goes that way, demographics go that way, Trump’s own precedent goes that way.
Again I’d prefer a less partisan political environment myself. If he establishes a precedent that you can do what you want as long as you can get elected and fuck your non base, the country continues moving how it is has the base shift on current trends, you get left wing Trump at some point.
It’s preposterously naive to give your guy a pass and just ignore the erosion of general political norms. If your opponent is hugely partisan in your worldview and you ignore the possibility your partisan opponents don’t just copy your tactics, with policies that poll better.
I mean if you want to give you apparent political enemies a new paradigm in which they’ll win, go ahead. Their politics more reflect mine.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
It expands outwards, if you establish precedent where bullshit is fine. Other people can play that game.
I like AOC, think her heart is in the right place. Also think she’s wrong all the time, makes mistakes or doesn’t have considered policy positions.
In my left circles people just don’t care about that, at all. She’s left, don’t criticise her or you’re the enemy, oh she makes the odd mistake but her end goal is good, etc etc
So for some of our opposition to Trump, where bullsjit doesn’t matter apparently, you’ll eventually end up with an AOC whose base doesn’t care if she bullshits, but they outnumber you.
A post-truth world won’t roll your own way for very long on current trends. Trump is establishing a short term precedent and is so concerned with ‘winning’ in the short term, when he doesn’t care for politics, or your concerns, or anyone’s and he’s opening the door for people on the left to do the same., with a country that demographically will suit them, and with policies that are pretty popular to boot.
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 14 2019 09:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants. What is the "just" in your post mean? Surely all the talk of "undocumented" immigrants makes this false, no? Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 09:43 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants. Well they say that, equally they’re really not too ballsy on industries that profit on paying migrant workers less than natives. Which also tends to be linked to the main right wing concerns about immigration, or general concerns. They want their cake on this issue and fully intend to eat itS The Democrat party intends to sit on its hands for as long as possible on immigration, either in terms of legislation or in acknowledging the crisis at the border. The status quo works to their benefit, so what they do is deflect and ignore.
I’m not sure there even is a crisis at the border, or at least not one other than the one caused by putting children in cages and keeping them drugged. Somehow the discussion has moved to the Dems being too lax on the horde of barbarians battering down the gates of American civilization when their inaction is far better explained by there being no horde.
This is the problem when the political discussion is dominated by alternative facts. The lies become the narrative. There’s nothing wrong with the border that couldn’t be fixed by hiring enough immigration judges and funding sufficient facilities. The existing system worked just fine, people were given a date to show up for their hearings and they showed up for them, despite Trump’s lies about the efficacy of that program. Trump is proposing decisive action, albeit completely absurd actions, in the face of an imaginary crisis while the opposition are getting viewed as soft on imaginary hordes through their refusal to build a giant wall.
|
On April 14 2019 10:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 09:44 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants. What is the "just" in your post mean? Surely all the talk of "undocumented" immigrants makes this false, no? On April 14 2019 09:43 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants. Well they say that, equally they’re really not too ballsy on industries that profit on paying migrant workers less than natives. Which also tends to be linked to the main right wing concerns about immigration, or general concerns. They want their cake on this issue and fully intend to eat itS The Democrat party intends to sit on its hands for as long as possible on immigration, either in terms of legislation or in acknowledging the crisis at the border. The status quo works to their benefit, so what they do is deflect and ignore. I’m not sure there even is a crisis at the border, or at least not one other than the one caused by putting children in cages and keeping them drugged. Somehow the discussion has moved to the Dems being too lax on the horde of barbarians battering down the gates of American civilization when their inaction is far better explained by there being no horde.
I never quite understood this. The whole idea of there being a crisis at the border, by definition, is predicated on the idea that folks seeking to immigrate to the US by coming to the border, which is what you do when you want to emigrate anywhere, is necessarily something that threatens the US. And I have a hard time imagining any real scenario where calling migrants a threat is not racist AF, not to mention that kind of rhetoric has proven deadly throughout history.
|
On April 14 2019 10:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 09:44 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants. What is the "just" in your post mean? Surely all the talk of "undocumented" immigrants makes this false, no? On April 14 2019 09:43 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2019 09:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 10:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. I see both you and Nettles say this. Can you please explain to me which polices of theirs are open borders and massive benefits for illegals? Unless anyone can show proof of the above I think from now on we should consider it gas lighting and not do it here. The only response was exactly about how the dems are against open borders so lets stop. Open borders sure, massive benefits for illegals not so much. At least in UK parlance where benefits is our word for welfare. US Democrats are not advocating for open borders. They just want a sensible path to citizenship for legal immigrants. Well they say that, equally they’re really not too ballsy on industries that profit on paying migrant workers less than natives. Which also tends to be linked to the main right wing concerns about immigration, or general concerns. They want their cake on this issue and fully intend to eat itS The Democrat party intends to sit on its hands for as long as possible on immigration, either in terms of legislation or in acknowledging the crisis at the border. The status quo works to their benefit, so what they do is deflect and ignore. I’m not sure there even is a crisis at the border, or at least not one other than the one caused by putting children in cages and keeping them drugged. Somehow the discussion has moved to the Dems being too lax on the horde of barbarians battering down the gates of American civilization when their inaction is far better explained by there being no horde. This is the problem when the political discussion is dominated by alternative facts. The lies become the narrative. There’s nothing wrong with the border that couldn’t be fixed by hiring enough immigration judges and funding sufficient facilities. The existing system worked just fine, people were given a date to show up for their hearings and they showed up for them, despite Trump’s lies about the efficacy of that program. Trump is proposing decisive action, albeit completely absurd actions, in the face of an imaginary crisis while the opposition are getting viewed as soft on imaginary hordes through their refusal to build a giant wall.
Hmm, a fun discussion! Alternative facts vs none at all.
We could go with the Former head of DHS under Obama:
Former Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson on Thursday echoed the Trump administration’s language to describe the influx of immigrants at the southern border, calling it a “crisis.”
“By any measure, 4,000 arrests in a day, 100,000 in a month ― that’s the population of the city of Albany, N.Y. ― that suddenly shows up on our southern border in one month is a crisis,” Johnson said on Fox News. “It’s a crisis because it overwhelms our Border Patrol and our immigration officials’ ability to deal with it, and it’s a crisis because you have to absorb that population somehow into southern border towns.”
Johnson, who led DHS for the last three years of the Obama administration, said he had guided U.S. border authorities through a similar but smaller migrant crisis in 2014, by promoting the message that the journey to the border is dangerous, seeking the Mexican authorities’ cooperation in stemming the flow of migrants, and expanding U.S. detention capabilities for family units, the last of which was controversial.
“I know what a thousand a day looks like,” Johnson said. “I cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like. It must overwhelm the system.”
The former secretary’s remarks came amid President Trump’s purge of DHS leadership this week, which Trump has said is designed to move the department in a “tougher direction.” Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen was forced out over the weekend, and the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ron Vitiello, resigned Wednesday after Trump pulled his nomination to lead the agency on a permanent basis last week.
The crisis “emanates” from Central America, which is “the most violent region of our world right now,” Johnson said. “We have got make the long-term investment in addressing the poverty and violence in those nations. It can be done. A lot of people don’t want to hear that. They want quick, easy answers. They want some legal lever to pull.”
“I think we have to get away from Democrat vs. Republican, crisis vs. no crisis,” he concluded, saying the answer is “inevitably is bipartisan” and “requires a change in law.”
Apprehensions at the southern border spiked in March as a record number of families were intercepted crossing into the country. A total of 92,607 individuals were apprehended at ports of entry last month.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/obama-dhs-secretary-border-is-in-crisis-by-any-measure/
But then again, he lead DHS during an administration that put kids in cages, so we can probably ignore his racist person.
Let's go to a nice long NYT article instead. It's titled The U.S. Immigration System May Have Reached a Breaking Point
For years, there have been warnings that America’s immigration system was going to fail. That time may be now.
SAN YSIDRO, Calif. — It was never like this before.
The migrants come now in the middle of the night or in the bright light of day. Men and women arrive by the hundreds, caked with dirt, with teens and toddlers in tow. They jump the small fences in remote parts of Texas, and they gather on the hot pavement at the main border crossing in California. Tired and fearful, they look for the one thing that they pray will allow them to stay in the United States, at least for a while: a Border Patrol agent.
Gone are the days when young, strong men waited on the Tijuana River levees for their chance to wade across the water, evade capture and find work for the summer. These days, thousands of people a day simply walk up to the border and surrender. Most of them are from Central America, seeking to escape from gang violence, sexual abuse, death threats and persistent poverty. The smugglers have told them they will be quickly released, as long as they bring a child, and that they will be allowed to remain in the United States for years while they pursue their asylum cases.
The very nature of immigration to America changed after 2014, when families first began showing up in large numbers. The resulting crisis has overwhelmed a system unable to detain, care for and quickly decide the fate of tens of thousands of people who claim to be fleeing for their lives. For years, both political parties have tried — and failed — to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, mindful that someday the government would reach a breaking point.
That moment has arrived. The country is now unable to provide either the necessary humanitarian relief for desperate migrants or even basic controls on the number and nature of who is entering the United States.
The immigration courts now have more than 800,000 pending cases; each one takes an average of 700 days to process. And because laws and court rulings aimed at protecting children prohibit jailing young people for more than 20 days, families are often simply released. They are dropped off at downtown bus stations in places like Brownsville, Tex., where dozens last week sat on gray metal benches, most without money or even laces on their shoes, heading for destinations across the United States.
At the current pace of nearly 100,000 migrants each month, officials say more than a million people will have tried to cross the border in a 12-month period. Some of those arriving today will have a strong legal case to stay under international refugee treaties and federal asylum laws, but most won’t have a formal asylum hearing until 2021.
The flow of migrant families has reached record levels, with February totals 560 percent above those for the same period last year. As many as 27,000 children are expected to cross the border and enter the immigration enforcement system in April alone. So crowded are border facilities that some of the nearly 3,500 migrants in custody in El Paso were herded earlier this month under a bridge, behind razor wire.
In recent days, officials have grasped for ever-more-dire ways to describe the situation: “operational emergency”; “unsustainable”; “systemwide meltdown.”
One top official said simply: “The system is on fire.”
The article goes on. We can add this to the list of mainstream new sources I've posted here over the months documenting how our system is completely overwhelmed. But because they literally aren't showing up with guns on their backs that doesn't count as a crisis (Silly! the cartels use these people so they can move with guns in other places.)
On top of all this the Democrat party doesn't say anything, they just balk when Trump tries to get a handle on it. Democratic presidents wouldn't put up with this if for no other reason than their pride and trying to avoid attacks, hence Obama's DHS putting kids in cages. But when they have literally nothing to lose by sitting there, that's exactly what they do. How many judges do you need for four thousand people a day?
edit: and none of that above requires me to argue that many of these asylum claims are in bad faith (which could be done, I would do). I posted that video a few weeks ago of all those people who cut through the barrier in San Diego, tried to avoid the BP, and when they were caught claimed asylum. That's not even relevant here.
|
United States42260 Posts
The article you quoted states the problem, the two year backlog in hearing asylum claims. Insufficient immigration judges and facilities, exactly as I said. $10b to build a wall in a desert won’t address the issue.
It’s manufactured by the Trump administration.
|
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady.
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady.
I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way.
Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration.
The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's costing hundreds of billions in lost lives, lost productivity, crime, medical emergencies, law enforcement response etc. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. It's fundamentally changing the nature of American policing and the relationship citizens have with the police. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad.
|
On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad.
Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Instead you parrot the line many of them use that it's not a crisis at all. Good luck with that, and with four more years of Trump.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress.
Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country?
|
On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country?
Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges."
Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
Maybe if most media, judges, many moderates or unaligned folks all disagree with what your guy does, it might be because your guy is bad?
I mean I hate to Occam’s Razor it but come on. The alternative is Trump is actually right, despite his appalling record on being right on basically anything
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a House of Congress.
Fortunately I'm not the one presenting it as an immediate existential threat, it's the conservative politicians describing it as a literal invasion who are doing that. If you wish to attack that rhetoric then go ahead, but it's not my rhetoric.
I'm just trying to nail down what you view as a crisis because to me it's less severe than the KFC crisis, which I'm sure felt like an absolute crisis to the people of Great Britain at the time (who responded by calling the police, writing to their MPs, trying to forcibly enter KFCs etc).
I certainly don't wish to suggest that the people working day to day at the facilities are responsible for the strategic planning mistakes, no more than I would suggest that the KFC line employees are responsible for the lack of chicken. But I didn't suggest that they were fucking up the handling of it, I said that the government was.
Asylum seekers seeking asylum is the kind of mundane, routine, day to day business that it is their job to deal with. It's not meant to be front page news, it's meant to be one of those things where the taxpayers pay their taxes and the government takes care of it. That's literally what they're for. If they can't do that then what good are they.
If the logistics people at KFC UK suggested building walls around KFC to resolve the chicken supply crisis I'd call them a bunch of idiots. They knew how many chickens KFC customers wanted to buy, their job was to ensure that the right number of chickens were available, that's literally what they're paid to do. The border crisis is a comparable situation, albeit considerably less serious.
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem.
He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads.
Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You can't just suck at your job, call it an unfixable crisis, and demand that the taxpayers fund a wall between you and the backlog of admin you should have taken care of years ago.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem.
Are we talking about the same crisis? The one that was an issue but Trump made a crisis and now it’s everyone Else’s fault for being critical of his stance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
