|
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 |
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On June 26 2019 00:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 21:56 Jockmcplop wrote: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.
Democracy has always done that. Its about choosing who is exempt from authoritarianism, that's all. This seems like a very hollow statement unless you are an anarchist who believes any structure other than the self is authoritarian.
No not really. I believe that in my democracy, most people born in this country can rely on having a life free of massive authoritarian influence. If your family came here from abroad, you might be detained indefinitely in a concentration camp. That's authoritarianism. I'm exempt because my family is from the UK.
To be more specific, if the laws by which you enforce laws do not apply to a certain group or in certain circumstances, that is authoritarian.
|
On June 26 2019 01:12 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 00:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2019 23:21 IyMoon wrote:On June 25 2019 23:18 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. 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 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. So this is bullshit https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/facts-not-fear-heres-what-doj-stats-say-about-asylum-seekers-and-court-datesOn the low end (first article) you have 60% showing up, On the high end(second article) You have something like 90% of asylum seekers showing up So giving you the benefit of the doubt here and going with the low numbers. You're really really fucking off. Giving that, would you like to revisit your idea that Trumps making the right call?
Well, let's get the latest and greatest data right from the horse's mouth:
The acting Homeland Security secretary gave lawmakers a glimpse Tuesday into just how many asylum seekers skip their hearings after being released into the United States -- telling a Senate panel that a recent program found 90 percent miss their court dates.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan how many asylum seekers coming across the southern border show up for their hearings.
“It depends on demographic, the court, but we see too many cases where people are not showing up,” he said, telling Graham that DHS recently conducted a pilot program with family units.
“Out of those 7,000 cases, 90 received final orders of removal in absentia, 90 percent,” he said.
“90 percent did not show up?” Graham asked.
“Correct, that is a recent sample from families crossing the border,” McAleenan clarified.
Source.
And let's very clear on who McAleenan is. He's the guy who leaked Trump's ICE deportation plan for last weekend. I highly doubt that he's prone to exaggeration on the stats.
|
United States44449 Posts
On June 26 2019 01:12 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 00:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2019 23:21 IyMoon wrote:On June 25 2019 23:18 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. 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 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. So this is bullshit https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/facts-not-fear-heres-what-doj-stats-say-about-asylum-seekers-and-court-datesOn the low end (first article) you have 60% showing up, On the high end(second article) You have something like 90% of asylum seekers showing up So giving you the benefit of the doubt here and going with the low numbers. You're really really fucking off. Giving that, would you like to revisit your idea that Trumps making the right call?
It’s a Trump-ism. His ideology is built on a bunch of oversimplifications of problems that boil every issue down to “the ivory tower elitists with their fancy educations and actual understanding of issues are missing the obvious because they’re not as smart as me and you Cletus”.
My favourite was when he boiled down the US being stuck in the middle east to ivory tower elitist generals not being familiar with the element of surprise which is the most important key to victory in any conflict. “Of course those stupid generals haven’t won” echoes his supporters, “how can sectarian violence in a collapsed state be resolved without incorporating surprise”.
Trump never offers any evidence for these things because evidence isn’t what he’s selling. It’s not about solving the problem, it’s about selling an idea that the world is simple and the reason you can’t pay your bills on a blue collar job is because dumbasses aren’t using their common sense. Immigration is reduced to not having a wall. Economics is somehow also reduced to not having a wall (made of tariffs). The environment is reduced to “the air looks clean so why are you complaining”. The entire post WW2 network of alliances and relationships is reduced to “America number 1”.
Trump concluded the system didn’t work because it sounded very plausible to him and therefore would sound very plausible with the idiot demographic. That’s part of why he’s been so successful in politics. He has a built in filter where he only says things that a complete moron would think sound good and that means that complete morons never feel looked down on by him. Other people can affect a folksy charm but they always give themselves away as secret elitists when they start using long words or facts or logic. But Trump will never do that to them because he doesn’t believe in facts and he doesn’t know any long words. Everything he says is pitched at a 3rd grade “well it stands to reason” level.
|
On June 25 2019 22:19 farvacola wrote:
Don’t forget that these concentration camps are mostly privately owned and operated at a premium. I’m sure one can easily guess who the beneficiaries of that arrangement are.
Oh God, like our prisons.
|
On June 25 2019 23:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
There where reports of WMD's in Iraq, reports don't always mean something.
Asylum is a legal thing. There is no crisis. The only argument for immigrants being a crisis is that they are taking jobs from Americans, which they are not. Our companies are happy to ship our jobs out to the countries they are leaving, because people in those countries will work for less.
Period. That's what's happening.
Locking people up at the boarder hasn't changed anything for anyone at the border, other than immigrants are being tortured and dying. No American person's life has improved as a result of locking immigrants up.
Locking people up at the border stokes a fear that there is a problem, it feeds an old storyline which was born in the Republican party, that race is to blame for job loss in America. Objectively, it is not true.
But it provides a nice cover story for the corporations that ship jobs to other countries. And it leverages fear which is the (arguably) oldest and most potent motivating emotion.
|
|
|
On June 26 2019 02:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 00:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 25 2019 21:56 Jockmcplop wrote: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.
Democracy has always done that. Its about choosing who is exempt from authoritarianism, that's all. This seems like a very hollow statement unless you are an anarchist who believes any structure other than the self is authoritarian. I also don't like the equivalence between China forcing a million people into re-orientation camps and the US housing immigrants in camps with inhuman conditions. One is the result of people doing their jobs well, and the other of people doing their jobs poorly. There's no necessity to group them just because both are camps. Who are the people doing their jobs well? What is the job that is being done well?
I assume the chinese officials who use these re-orientation camps to combat unwanted minorities, and acquire lots of organs to sell at the same time? Just because the goals are horrific doesn't mean that they are not pursued competently.
|
Surveillance of Uyghurs seems to be getting done pretty well.
@kwark
so are you using “common sense” to mean an idiot’s sense? you seem to be making two lines of argument: 1) trump is appealing to “common sense” nonsense and 2) anyone with “common sense” could have administered this better
|
|
|
for the record I do think that border management is a more difficult problem that most people appalled by concentration camps in this thread seem to think.
i did not know that the camps were privately run and operated though. that would seem to be a serious problem. it is no wonder at all that privately run facilities looking for profit did not speculatively build extra capacity
|
On June 26 2019 02:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 02:14 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 02:08 JimmiC wrote:On June 26 2019 00:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 25 2019 21:56 Jockmcplop wrote: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.
Democracy has always done that. Its about choosing who is exempt from authoritarianism, that's all. This seems like a very hollow statement unless you are an anarchist who believes any structure other than the self is authoritarian. I also don't like the equivalence between China forcing a million people into re-orientation camps and the US housing immigrants in camps with inhuman conditions. One is the result of people doing their jobs well, and the other of people doing their jobs poorly. There's no necessity to group them just because both are camps. Who are the people doing their jobs well? What is the job that is being done well? I assume the chinese officials who use these re-orientation camps to combat unwanted minorities, and acquire lots of organs to sell at the same time? Just because the goals are horrific doesn't mean that they are not pursued competently. By the same logic the american camps are competent, store the most people the cheapest and keep them contained.
yes, exactly. they are
why didn’t obama de-privatize them?
|
On June 26 2019 02:19 IgnE wrote:
for the record I do think that border management is a more difficult problem that most people appalled by concentration camps in this thread seem to think.
i did not know that the camps were privately run and operated though. that would seem to be a serious problem. it is no wonder at all that privately run facilities looking for profit did not speculatively build extra capacity
That would be a feature not a bug if they still get paid for all the overcrowded people. Why build a larger facility when you can shove five times the capacity?
|
|
|
On June 26 2019 02:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 02:21 IgnE wrote:On June 26 2019 02:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 26 2019 02:14 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 02:08 JimmiC wrote:On June 26 2019 00:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 25 2019 21:56 Jockmcplop wrote: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.
Democracy has always done that. Its about choosing who is exempt from authoritarianism, that's all. This seems like a very hollow statement unless you are an anarchist who believes any structure other than the self is authoritarian. I also don't like the equivalence between China forcing a million people into re-orientation camps and the US housing immigrants in camps with inhuman conditions. One is the result of people doing their jobs well, and the other of people doing their jobs poorly. There's no necessity to group them just because both are camps. Who are the people doing their jobs well? What is the job that is being done well? I assume the chinese officials who use these re-orientation camps to combat unwanted minorities, and acquire lots of organs to sell at the same time? Just because the goals are horrific doesn't mean that they are not pursued competently. By the same logic the american camps are competent, store the most people the cheapest and keep them contained. yes, exactly. they are why didn’t obama de-privatize them? I'm guessing because a vast majority of Americans think private is better for everything. But I'm not a Obama expert or a Democrat. I also don't even know if the president has the power to make anything de-privatized. If he did he should have, along with all the prisons and healthcare.
Nah, the privatization issue tends to align with typical partisan divides.
|
United States44449 Posts
On June 26 2019 02:18 IgnE wrote:
Surveillance of Uyghurs seems to be getting done pretty well.
@kwark
so are you using “common sense” to mean an idiot’s sense? you seem to be making two lines of argument: 1) trump is appealing to “common sense” nonsense and 2) anyone with “common sense” could have administered this better
I’m saying Trump is pitching complex problems as having simple common sense solutions. Common sense does exist but it’s better applied to stuff like “if she cheats with you she’ll cheat on you” than strategies for reversing global macroeconomic trends.
My assertion regarding administrative failures is that it should be within the capacity of an educated and experienced group of career professionals with the resources of the United States government. I’m not asserting that there’s a simple solution that any idiot could have told them. I’m asserting that it’s their job to find the complicated solutions to problems like “how many detention centers will we need”. There isn’t a common sense solution to the total failure of the DHS AND it shouldn’t have happened. This is because I expect a little more of the US government than just whatever sounds like it might work.
|
United States44449 Posts
On June 26 2019 02:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 02:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 26 2019 02:14 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 02:08 JimmiC wrote:On June 26 2019 00:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 25 2019 21:56 Jockmcplop wrote: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.
Democracy has always done that. Its about choosing who is exempt from authoritarianism, that's all. This seems like a very hollow statement unless you are an anarchist who believes any structure other than the self is authoritarian. I also don't like the equivalence between China forcing a million people into re-orientation camps and the US housing immigrants in camps with inhuman conditions. One is the result of people doing their jobs well, and the other of people doing their jobs poorly. There's no necessity to group them just because both are camps. Who are the people doing their jobs well? What is the job that is being done well? I assume the chinese officials who use these re-orientation camps to combat unwanted minorities, and acquire lots of organs to sell at the same time? Just because the goals are horrific doesn't mean that they are not pursued competently. By the same logic the american camps are competent, store the most people the cheapest and keep them contained. yes, exactly. they are why didn’t obama de-privatize them?
I recall him ordering that they be phased out before he left office only to have the new administration reverse that. These things take time, at least as long as it would take to find somewhere else to imprison people.
|
On June 26 2019 02:19 IgnE wrote:
for the record I do think that border management is a more difficult problem that most people appalled by concentration camps in this thread seem to think.
i did not know that the camps were privately run and operated though. that would seem to be a serious problem. it is no wonder at all that privately run facilities looking for profit did not speculatively build extra capacity
What they are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders. Secure borders are critical elements of national integrity. Specifically, what must be understood is that government and its institutions are fundamentally reflections of the values of the people. If we imported half a billion Muslims from the Middle East into the US, it wouldn't be long before our laws and institutions began reflecting Muslim values. The land that makes up the US doesn't magically convert people into Americans who share common American values. For this reason, one of the most important roles of the government is to responsibly manage the borders and immigration into the country so as to preserve national identity. Our current crop of politicians is largely derelict in this duty, which I frankly consider to be treasonous.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 26 2019 02:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 02:19 IgnE wrote:
for the record I do think that border management is a more difficult problem that most people appalled by concentration camps in this thread seem to think.
i did not know that the camps were privately run and operated though. that would seem to be a serious problem. it is no wonder at all that privately run facilities looking for profit did not speculatively build extra capacity What they are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders. Secure borders are critical elements of national integrity. Specifically, what must be understood is that government and its institutions are fundamentally reflections of the values of the people. If we imported half a billion Muslims from the Middle East into the US, it wouldn't be long before our laws and institutions began reflecting Muslim values. The land that makes up the US doesn't magically convert people into Americans who share common American values. For this reason, one of the most important roles of the government is to responsibly manage the borders and immigration into the country so as to preserve national identity. Our current crop of politicians is largely derelict in this duty, which I frankly consider to be treasonous.
No one but you is talking about open borders. That is a conservative bogeyman that no one is actually in favor of, but something that you act as if everyone who doesn't agree with you on how refugees or asylum are handled is in favor of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
