US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1575

On June 25 2019 21:54 JimmiC wrote:
It is a scary world when the two most powerful countries in the world who claim to have opposing political view points both use camps to house undesirables. Now China's are trying to change peoples minds so perhaps that is worse, but you are really splitting hairs at that point. And I guess technically Murica is not doing it to their own people. But it still a very very shitty thing to do to humans. When a democracy is choosing to do shit that historically only authoritarians have been able to get away with it is a scary world. Here is hoping enough Americans are pissed off enough to vote the people saying this is an alright thing to do out of office.

On June 25 2019 20:37 Danglars wrote:

Your exasperation and hatred blind you to the fact that people don't want deplorable conditions in detention centers. You might not want to be called an ignorant European lightweight that think emotions power governments and two minutes of yelling at "fascists" really does a lot of good. It's for those reasons that

will just get you put at the kiddie table, or your room until the tantrum passes. We have scattered Antifa rallies in this country, made up of the same kind of rhetoric, convinced that their enemies are facists and nobody would want to "have a productive discussion with fascists."

On June 25 2019 20:37 Danglars wrote:

Your exasperation and hatred blind you to the fact that people don't want deplorable conditions in detention centers. You might not want to be called an ignorant European lightweight that think emotions power governments and two minutes of yelling at "fascists" really does a lot of good. It's for those reasons that

will just get you put at the kiddie table, or your room until the tantrum passes. We have scattered Antifa rallies in this country, made up of the same kind of rhetoric, convinced that their enemies are facists and nobody would want to "have a productive discussion with fascists."

On June 25 2019 18:53 Simberto wrote:
Just wanted to chime in to mention that i find KwarKs reasoning to be very reasonable, and don't quite understand why Introvert fights it so adamantly. The only point is that people are employed to predict the future, and that that is not impossible. Of course it gets harder to predict the further that future is out, but people still do it. And just because someone does not know all the details of how this specific prediction would work and which factors influence it doesn't mean that you can claim it is impossible.

I don't know all the details which go into maintaining a stable nuclear reaction and producing electricity from that, but i am pretty confident that the people whose job it is to design nuclear reactors do. I don't know all of the details which go into predicting the weather next week, but i still trust the weather report to be mostly accurate, because i assume that the professionals whose job it is to predict the weather know which data they need to do that.

And i would be very surprised if there was not someone or multiple someones in the DHS whose job it is to predict how many people want to enter the US. And if those people predicted the thing incorrectly, it is their failure. If they predicted it correctly, and people didn't react correctly to that prediction, that is those peoples failure. And if those people wanted to react correctly, but didn't get the money and resources necessary to do so, it is the failure of the people who didn't get them the money. At some point in this chain, someone failed at their job. Maybe at multiple points. And thus, it is very reasonable to call the thing an admin failure, because the apparatus designed to administrate this failed. Not everyone in it failed, but enough people failed at their job to make the whole thing fail.

On June 25 2019 23:18 xDaunt wrote:

Kwark's point is not reasonable because it disingenuously obfuscates who really bears responsibility for this mess. Kwark is blaming the bandaid (DHS) rather than the surgeon (Congress) who actually needs to come in and properly close the wound. Until Congress fixes loopholes in our asylum laws and otherwise provides adequate funding for border and immigration control, this problem is not going to get fixed. Yet Congress clearly has no desire to do these things. This idea that Congress hasn't been adequately briefed on the border crisis is absurd. There have been ample hearings and other reports on the border crisis. Democrats (and many republicans), until very recently, have refused to even consider it being a crisis. Remember all of the opposition to Trump declaring a national emergency at the border? Yeah. Democrats are more interested in playing politics than actually fixing anything.

On June 25 2019 23:18 xDaunt wrote:

Kwark's point is not reasonable because it disingenuously obfuscates who really bears responsibility for this mess. Kwark is blaming the bandaid (DHS) rather than the surgeon (Congress) who actually needs to come in and properly close the wound. Until Congress fixes loopholes in our asylum laws and otherwise provides adequate funding for border and immigration control, this problem is not going to get fixed. Yet Congress clearly has no desire to do these things. This idea that Congress hasn't been adequately briefed on the border crisis is absurd. There have been ample hearings and other reports on the border crisis. Democrats (and many republicans), until very recently, have refused to even consider it being a crisis. Remember all of the opposition to Trump declaring a national emergency at the border? Yeah. Democrats are more interested in playing politics than actually fixing anything.

On June 25 2019 21:56 Jockmcplop wrote:


Democracy has always done that. Its about choosing who is exempt from authoritarianism, that's all.

On June 25 2019 23:21 IyMoon wrote:


So let me get this straight.

Trump makes a problem, one he could fix with changing policy, and demands congress fixes it.

Democrats go, I will give you 1.3 billion for more security at points of entry, judges, and resources for handling the flow of people, but no wall.

Trump goes not good enough, we get nothing now.

And somehow this is the democrats fault?

I get the argument that congress needs to do something. It just is undercut by the fact that they did already and it was rejected

On June 26 2019 00:18 xDaunt wrote:


There's pretty much nothing accurate in your post.

No, Trump did not cause this problem. The root problems are migration from the third world to the US and the exploitation of a porous border and American immigration and asylum laws. All Trump has done is decide that these people need to be detained to the maximum extent possible rather than turned loose in the country. Given that 90-95% of asylum seekers simply disappear into the country rather than appear for their hearings, Trump's making the right call.

And the Democrat's offer of $1.3 billion wouldn't fix anything. If Trump accepted that funding, nothing would be fixed. They know it. Trump knows it. Trump didn't really have a choice but to turn it down.

On June 26 2019 00:32 ShoCkeyy wrote:
xDaunt, $1.3billion is still a lot of fucking money... Just cause you didn't get your wall with that, doesn't mean nothing can be done about border security with it. If anything $1.3billion still can help a lot more, but nah, apparently it's not enough to fill the pockets of those requesting it.

When Obama took the White House, immigration/border security finance was nearly doubled. Before that, we were sitting at around $6-8 billion. In 2014, we were already at $14.8billion in immigration and border security. It's crazy to think that people shitted on Obama about border security, when he actually improved our border security.

Also why do we need to put more money into Detention? We don't need more detention, we need better processes...

On June 26 2019 00:30 xDaunt wrote:
$1.3 billion in funding is inadequate for doing anything. It won't secure the funding. It won't provide adequate detention. It won't provide adequate judicial resources. Nor will it fix the underlying legal issues creating the problem in the first place. If Trump accepted it, Democrats would use it as an excuse to not give him anything further.

On June 26 2019 00:18 xDaunt wrote:


There's pretty much nothing accurate in your post.

No, Trump did not cause this problem. The root problems are migration from the third world to the US and the exploitation of a porous border and American immigration and asylum laws. All Trump has done is decide that these people need to be detained to the maximum extent possible rather than turned loose in the country. Given that 90-95% of asylum seekers simply disappear into the country rather than appear for their hearings, Trump's making the right call.

And the Democrat's offer of $1.3 billion wouldn't fix anything. If Trump accepted that funding, nothing would be fixed. They know it. Trump knows it. Trump didn't really have a choice but to turn it down.

On June 26 2019 00:18 xDaunt wrote:


There's pretty much nothing accurate in your post.

No, Trump did not cause this problem. The root problems are migration from the third world to the US and the exploitation of a porous border and American immigration and asylum laws. All Trump has done is decide that these people need to be detained to the maximum extent possible rather than turned loose in the country. Given that 90-95% of asylum seekers simply disappear into the country rather than appear for their hearings, Trump's making the right call.

And the Democrat's offer of $1.3 billion wouldn't fix anything. If Trump accepted that funding, nothing would be fixed. They know it. Trump knows it. Trump didn't really have a choice but to turn it down.