|
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 June 27 2019 02:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On June 27 2019 01:33 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2019 01:09 IyMoon wrote:So to get back to a fun subject The concentration camps cost about 775 a day per detainee to run. This is only for temporary shelters though, for the permanent ones, its a nice low 256 per day. That is 256 a day WITHOUT enough soap or blankets. The average hotel room in the US is 129 a night. We could just rent out ever motel 6 on the boarder, give everyone their own room and put guards around the outside to make sure nobody comes in our out and save a shit ton of cash. Good thing we got rid of that program that cost 40 bucks a day per family and had a 90% success rate at getting people to show up to their hearings.... that was such a bad program https://www.gq.com/story/trump-detention-camps-cost You can't really make estimates of cost difference if the "per room fee" is compared against a cost involving administration, guards, medical, supplies, inspectors. This is the government here. You couldn't even guarantee the cost difference would be in favor of the current, overcrowded detention centers. ESPECIALLY with the temporary surge, nothing worked out beforehand with motels (are you tagging the detained seekers, screening every motel guest, forcing the motel to get rid of its current guests, guards outside every door?), and the rest. I wouldn't even mention the cost, I'd go for arguing that even if it costs double, it's worth it to relieve overcrowded facilities, and demand funding from Congress. On June 27 2019 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:On June 27 2019 01:09 IyMoon wrote:So to get back to a fun subject The concentration camps cost about 775 a day per detainee to run. This is only for temporary shelters though, for the permanent ones, its a nice low 256 per day. That is 256 a day WITHOUT enough soap or blankets. The average hotel room in the US is 129 a night. We could just rent out ever motel 6 on the boarder, give everyone their own room and put guards around the outside to make sure nobody comes in our out and save a shit ton of cash. Good thing we got rid of that program that cost 40 bucks a day per family and had a 90% success rate at getting people to show up to their hearings.... that was such a bad program https://www.gq.com/story/trump-detention-camps-cost I still don't understand why they don't just drive the people into Mexico and dump them. This is far and away the most inhumane thing this administration has done. It does not matter what the context is, an adult should never knowingly cause a child to suffer. It is unreal to me that people in this thread have justified harming children. Truly reprehensible. I don't care what the issue is, it is never ok to knowingly harm children. For the fact that it would be illegal to do so. Then they need to be dumping more money into the camps so that stuff like this doesn't happen: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-family-separation-constantin-mutu-2019-6?utm_source=reddit.comA kid's life is being ruined by the US government. He will have developmental problems his entire life. If we are going to separate families, then we owe it to the children to provide child care services and schooling. In no circumstance should we make a child suffer. The blood is on OUR hands once they make it over the border. Whether the parents put the kids in the situation or not, it becomes our responsibility once they are on our soil. Choosing to let children rot is beyond immoral, it is downright terrible. This may be an unpopular sentiment, but do you think the Romanian dad was undertaking a risk paying a cartel smuggler to get them to the US-Mexico border? That’s a dangerous trip in itself. They were accidentally separated on the journey. Surprise surprise the Border patrol didn’t have a Romanian language guy to verify that they were father-son. What Romanian father takes a 4 month old with him to take the dangerous trip to be smuggled into the country, not speaking English. This is quintessential reason we need to make legal immigration much easier and quicker, and publish that asylum seekers with no legitimate reason to claim asylum will not get to stay in America anyways. I spread the blood onto the hands of people supporting catch and release policies, encouraging this reckless behavior that overwhelms under equipped systems. The government is sclerotic. I’d like times of under a month to under three months for determining parents and reuniting families to be detained awaiting a hearing, then returned early in the process when no legitimate claim can be made. This will likely mean an increase of spending in the hundred of billions of dollars. Until then, I don’t see any administration stopping families from slipping through the cracks, like a non-English non-Spanish speaker with a 4 month old showing up at the US-Mexico border. I’m speaking about sex traffickers and single adults stealing children that must be screened in facilities by competent ICE/CBD officials. With something like 70+ countries represented, I don’t see another way around massive spending increases. Mohdoo, assuming this was instead handled correctly, are you fine with ICE raids finding and deporting this family unit when their asylum court process fails and if they do not show up willingly for final deportation? Fine with news stories of ICE rounding up thousands or tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers (and those who didn’t bother to apply), and putting them on transports out of the country?
Any risk taken by the father or parents is completely irrelevant because children are not extensions of their parents. They are individuals who are uniquely unable to care for themselves or make decisions. Children are purely vulnerable beings who will suffer throughout their lives if things go poorly as children. It is absolutely imperative that children be treated as entirely different things than adults.
If a child had stupid parents, and the child ends up in US custody, it is now 100% our collective responsibility. If it is on our soil, and it is a child, we have a moral imperative to treat it as well as possible so that it can grow and learn without issues. Simply put, children are way too vulnerable and too much growth/learning is going on as children. We let a human be ruined when we don't properly care for children.
If it costs massive amounts of money, so be it. Assuming 500B and 329,053,135 US citizens, if we were to impose a "don't ruin a shit load of kids" tax, that would be $1500/person. Lets say the richest 5% of Americans paid 90% of that, $150 per person. I'd sign up for that
"Mohdoo, assuming this was instead handled correctly, are you fine with ICE raids finding and deporting this family unit when their asylum court process fails and if they do not show up willingly for final deportation? Fine with news stories of ICE rounding up thousands or tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers (and those who didn’t bother to apply), and putting them on transports out of the country? "
Yes, 100%. So long as the family is kept together and then evicted, it makes sense. The one time I find myself agreeing with republicans is the shitty logic people on the left use with letting families stay once they make it here. It needs to be legal for us to just place them on the other side of a fence and drive away. We should be permitted to make the situation as it was the moment before they stepped over the boarder.
If we can determine what border the person/family crossed, our first objective should be to return the whole unit to that country. If we can't, I honestly don't know the right thing to do. But while all of that is happening, all children should be cared for as if they were US citizens. Not made to be US citizens, but afforded every single other protection we would ever afford a native-born child. No matter what, every single child to somehow end up in the US needs to be treated no differently than a citizen. Children suffer way, way too much from inadequate socializing/teaching/exercise/hygiene. They are too weak, too vulnerable and too much of a variety of other things that make it downright immoral to do anything except reach out to care for them.
|
On June 27 2019 04:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 04:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 27 2019 04:11 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2019 04:04 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 26 2019 12:04 Danglars wrote:On June 26 2019 10:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 26 2019 10:17 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
from CNN (i dont know how to post twitter screenshots lol)
"Special counsel Robert Mueller agrees to testify publicly before two House committees on July 17"
Anybody want to take any guesses as what Trump will do from now until then? Kind of surprising tbh. I'll bet he was threatened with a subpoena. Oh he was actually subpoena’d all right. That’s the news. He’s complying with the subpoena to appear before the House. So much for the warnings he gave in the press conference. Unlike the majority of people subpoenaed from the trump administration, Mueller will actually show up because he doesn't have anything to hide. Unlike trump officials, appearing in front of a committee for investigation won't require Mueller to commit perjury in order to testify without incriminating himself. Mueller has said that his testimony would be what the report said, implying he won't say anything other that what the report says, but I welcome the testimony, if that's the case so let it be, and let it be in front of the world. I welcome the ability of both sides to ask questions to gain clarity here. The report brought up more questions due to lack of clarity, that is Mueller's fault, lack of clarity in the report demanded he be subpoenaed. Unlike the other subpoenas, Mueller is not a senior presidential advisor. Executive branch lawyers have argued that those advisors are immune from congressional subpoenas for over 50 years. It’s a very silly thing to argue to overturn 5 decades of legal analysis, or else you’re hiding something. Legal opinion is nothing more than opinion. These subpoenas are given according to the current law. I also don't see how having anyone testify openly on either side is hiding something. It’s the prevailing understanding of the law until a challenge is brought and the Supreme Court gives a ruling. The length of standing without challenge and ruling gives it its weight. To claim otherwise, you must come up with some pretty infowarsy-story on why it’s stood for 50 years despite being only some opinion to be easily discarded. I’m all ears. If it’s just legal opinion, nothing more, why was it affirmed by lawyers from Nixon and Reagan and Clinton and Obama and Trump? The executive branch has regularly ignored congressional subpoenas, and have succeeded for this very reason.
I'm not a lawyer, so I absolutely could be wrong.
How come the subpoenas aren't being challenged by the republicans, who challenge basically everything?
|
On June 27 2019 04:31 IgnE wrote:
@dood and shambhala
if you have to substitute other words for the literal words in the quotation in order to build your case that somebody “really meant” something else then your case is generally not as strong as you think it is — to wit he doesnt actually say “mccain,” “death/dying,” or “hell” at all. does the use of the plural not trouble your interpretations at all? i don’t really have any interest in convincing you that my interpretation is better, my aim was to show you that many people in this country could reasonably interpret what he said to be something fairly innocuous
I find it hard to believe that McCain, death and hell did not come into your mind when you read the tweet. By now we should all know that trump says certain things without directly saying them. No need to pretend that we dont recognize it.
|
On June 27 2019 04:31 IgnE wrote:
@dood and shambhala
if you have to substitute other words for the literal words in the quotation in order to build your case that somebody “really meant” something else then your case is generally not as strong as you think it is — to wit he doesnt actually say “mccain,” “death/dying,” or “hell” at all. does the use of the plural not trouble your interpretations at all? i don’t really have any interest in convincing you that my interpretation is better, my aim was to show you that many people in this country could reasonably interpret what he said to be something fairly innocuous
It couldn't be more obvious what he was saying. Even some news stations who are falling over their dicks to not make any mistake about Trump so that they don't get attacked said that this was "probably" what he meant.
|
On June 27 2019 04:31 IgnE wrote:
@dood and shambhala
if you have to substitute other words for the literal words in the quotation in order to build your case that somebody “really meant” something else then your case is generally not as strong as you think it is — to wit he doesnt actually say “mccain,” “death/dying,” or “hell” at all. does the use of the plural not trouble your interpretations at all? i don’t really have any interest in convincing you that my interpretation is better, my aim was to show you that many people in this country could reasonably interpret what he said to be something fairly innocuous
Implied meaning is a very important part of human communication, and it happens all the time.
"Passive aggressiveness" in communication is a way in which people push for a particular intention or outcome, without actually saying it literally. Manipulation is the same thing, saying something with the intention of creating a not so obvious outcome.
People are always reading into what other people are saying, it happens on these threads all the time. Trump spoke in a very vague way on purpose to imply a thing, that if he outright said, would be much more easily condemned. Because he stated it vaguely, people like you can try to defend it.
https://nypost.com/2019/02/18/roger-stone-posts-photo-of-judge-next-to-crosshairs-after-gag-order/
In the above example, roger stone states "help me fight for my life at... (some website)" while also tweeting a picture of the judge presiding over his trial next to a set of crosshairs. Just because, he didn't directly say "shoot her" he implied it.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/21/705655672/florida-man-pleads-guilty-to-charges-of-mailing-bombs-to-trump-critics
In this example a man sends actual bombs to democratic leaders, all of the people in the list he mailed bombs to were people mentioned negatively by trump.
But in regard to what some people said, about things in forum.
It's the same rhetoric, and to think that SOME people aren't BRIGHT enough to comprehend such things... like the fact that people might act on the implied meanings of what trump says... those people (if there are any) are some low IQ people... and naive... very naive... they might even be present here in this forum... who knows? But if they are here... I think maybe or definitely they are not very bright... I've might have even talked to some people recently... who might be them... and they were dim... it was sad truly sad... or might have been.
But never mind all that, because I didn't say it literally (see what I did there  ).
|
well i guess you guys all know that Trump just delights in death for its own sake. maybe i should look into this thing, “implication”
|
On June 27 2019 07:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 04:31 IgnE wrote:
@dood and shambhala
if you have to substitute other words for the literal words in the quotation in order to build your case that somebody “really meant” something else then your case is generally not as strong as you think it is — to wit he doesnt actually say “mccain,” “death/dying,” or “hell” at all. does the use of the plural not trouble your interpretations at all? i don’t really have any interest in convincing you that my interpretation is better, my aim was to show you that many people in this country could reasonably interpret what he said to be something fairly innocuous I find it hard to believe that McCain, death and hell did not come into your mind when you read the tweet. By now we should all know that trump says certain things without directly saying them. No need to pretend that we dont recognize it.
I see you are new to this forum.
God this thing on the borders is horrific. I wonder how many Conservatives realise that history will condemn them for this. It's not as if they don't have precedent to look back on.
On a purely political level I wonder if the camps will become an election issue. The conditions are bad now, they're going to get worse and there's no indication of movement on what to actually do to make it better that I'm aware of. I think there's spending bills in the works, but that seems like a plaster at best. They need an actual plan down there, not more camps.
|
On June 27 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 02:50 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On June 27 2019 01:33 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2019 01:09 IyMoon wrote:So to get back to a fun subject The concentration camps cost about 775 a day per detainee to run. This is only for temporary shelters though, for the permanent ones, its a nice low 256 per day. That is 256 a day WITHOUT enough soap or blankets. The average hotel room in the US is 129 a night. We could just rent out ever motel 6 on the boarder, give everyone their own room and put guards around the outside to make sure nobody comes in our out and save a shit ton of cash. Good thing we got rid of that program that cost 40 bucks a day per family and had a 90% success rate at getting people to show up to their hearings.... that was such a bad program https://www.gq.com/story/trump-detention-camps-cost You can't really make estimates of cost difference if the "per room fee" is compared against a cost involving administration, guards, medical, supplies, inspectors. This is the government here. You couldn't even guarantee the cost difference would be in favor of the current, overcrowded detention centers. ESPECIALLY with the temporary surge, nothing worked out beforehand with motels (are you tagging the detained seekers, screening every motel guest, forcing the motel to get rid of its current guests, guards outside every door?), and the rest. I wouldn't even mention the cost, I'd go for arguing that even if it costs double, it's worth it to relieve overcrowded facilities, and demand funding from Congress. On June 27 2019 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:On June 27 2019 01:09 IyMoon wrote:So to get back to a fun subject The concentration camps cost about 775 a day per detainee to run. This is only for temporary shelters though, for the permanent ones, its a nice low 256 per day. That is 256 a day WITHOUT enough soap or blankets. The average hotel room in the US is 129 a night. We could just rent out ever motel 6 on the boarder, give everyone their own room and put guards around the outside to make sure nobody comes in our out and save a shit ton of cash. Good thing we got rid of that program that cost 40 bucks a day per family and had a 90% success rate at getting people to show up to their hearings.... that was such a bad program https://www.gq.com/story/trump-detention-camps-cost I still don't understand why they don't just drive the people into Mexico and dump them. This is far and away the most inhumane thing this administration has done. It does not matter what the context is, an adult should never knowingly cause a child to suffer. It is unreal to me that people in this thread have justified harming children. Truly reprehensible. I don't care what the issue is, it is never ok to knowingly harm children. For the fact that it would be illegal to do so. Then they need to be dumping more money into the camps so that stuff like this doesn't happen: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-family-separation-constantin-mutu-2019-6?utm_source=reddit.comA kid's life is being ruined by the US government. He will have developmental problems his entire life. If we are going to separate families, then we owe it to the children to provide child care services and schooling. In no circumstance should we make a child suffer. The blood is on OUR hands once they make it over the border. Whether the parents put the kids in the situation or not, it becomes our responsibility once they are on our soil. Choosing to let children rot is beyond immoral, it is downright terrible. This may be an unpopular sentiment, but do you think the Romanian dad was undertaking a risk paying a cartel smuggler to get them to the US-Mexico border? That’s a dangerous trip in itself. They were accidentally separated on the journey. Surprise surprise the Border patrol didn’t have a Romanian language guy to verify that they were father-son. What Romanian father takes a 4 month old with him to take the dangerous trip to be smuggled into the country, not speaking English. This is quintessential reason we need to make legal immigration much easier and quicker, and publish that asylum seekers with no legitimate reason to claim asylum will not get to stay in America anyways. I spread the blood onto the hands of people supporting catch and release policies, encouraging this reckless behavior that overwhelms under equipped systems. The government is sclerotic. I’d like times of under a month to under three months for determining parents and reuniting families to be detained awaiting a hearing, then returned early in the process when no legitimate claim can be made. This will likely mean an increase of spending in the hundred of billions of dollars. Until then, I don’t see any administration stopping families from slipping through the cracks, like a non-English non-Spanish speaker with a 4 month old showing up at the US-Mexico border. I’m speaking about sex traffickers and single adults stealing children that must be screened in facilities by competent ICE/CBD officials. With something like 70+ countries represented, I don’t see another way around massive spending increases. Mohdoo, assuming this was instead handled correctly, are you fine with ICE raids finding and deporting this family unit when their asylum court process fails and if they do not show up willingly for final deportation? Fine with news stories of ICE rounding up thousands or tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers (and those who didn’t bother to apply), and putting them on transports out of the country? Any risk taken by the father or parents is completely irrelevant because children are not extensions of their parents. They are individuals who are uniquely unable to care for themselves or make decisions. Children are purely vulnerable beings who will suffer throughout their lives if things go poorly as children. It is absolutely imperative that children be treated as entirely different things than adults. If a child had stupid parents, and the child ends up in US custody, it is now 100% our collective responsibility. If it is on our soil, and it is a child, we have a moral imperative to treat it as well as possible so that it can grow and learn without issues. Simply put, children are way too vulnerable and too much growth/learning is going on as children. We let a human be ruined when we don't properly care for children. If it costs massive amounts of money, so be it. Assuming 500B and 329,053,135 US citizens, if we were to impose a "don't ruin a shit load of kids" tax, that would be $1500/person. Lets say the richest 5% of Americans paid 90% of that, $150 per person. I'd sign up for that
Any system that persuades parents that don't qualify for asylum to go pay the Mexican drug cartels thousands of dollars to smuggle them into the US to apply for asylum is fundamentally immoral. In a working system, it's all risk and no reward.
Approximately 80,000 family units and 11,000 unaccompanied alien children showed up in May. The totals to the end of may are 332,981 family units and 56,278 unaccompanied alien children. Simultaneous to treating such a flood of humanity with care and efficiency is the forces that encourage non-asylees to pay the cartels and try their hand at staying. The family in question got separated. The four month old was taken on an extremely long and risky trip and was at the mercy of a foreign criminal organization. Nobody said they were facing persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, or politics back in their home country. These people are routinely raped and trafficked en route, according to reporting in the national newspapers. I don't see how this change in illegal immigration is also not subject to similar responsibility (for the people arguing for collective responsibility), if you're supporting catch and release policies (the bait) and particularly those with no followup expensive deportation roundups.
It's incredibly damaging to the 13% that say they have a credible fear of persecution, but are swept up in the 87% that have no cause for seeking asylum. They just want to live and work in America, and the asylum process is the ticket in. Last year, the backlog was around 700,000 cases. This year will put it past a million. That's way beyond the limit of 20 days holding for minor children and unaccompanied children. The family is by law released. Time to come to terms with both sides of responsibility, the current need to vastly expand resources and administration to take care of all asylum seekers, and the current and future need to change asylum law so economic migrants are forced to apply for citizenship and American citizens set open borders or caps via their representatives.
Show nested quote +
"Mohdoo, assuming this was instead handled correctly, are you fine with ICE raids finding and deporting this family unit when their asylum court process fails and if they do not show up willingly for final deportation? Fine with news stories of ICE rounding up thousands or tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers (and those who didn’t bother to apply), and putting them on transports out of the country? "
Yes, 100%. So long as the family is kept together and then evicted, it makes sense. The one time I find myself agreeing with republicans is the shitty logic people on the left use with letting families stay once they make it here. It needs to be legal for us to just place them on the other side of a fence and drive away. We should be permitted to make the situation as it was the moment before they stepped over the boarder. If we can determine what border the person/family crossed, our first objective should be to return the whole unit to that country. If we can't, I honestly don't know the right thing to do. But while all of that is happening, all children should be cared for as if they were US citizens. Not made to be US citizens, but afforded every single other protection we would ever afford a native-born child. No matter what, every single child to somehow end up in the US needs to be treated no differently than a citizen. Children suffer way, way too much from inadequate socializing/teaching/exercise/hygiene. They are too weak, too vulnerable and too much of a variety of other things that make it downright immoral to do anything except reach out to care for them.
I thank you for your honesty here. I know the headlines of massive execution of removal orders of failed asylum claims (just take 16% times tens of thousands of applicants) would frighten people that are very committed to compassion from start to finish. It just feels wrong.
I agree on the standard of care of treatment. I wish I had high hopes of my government successfully processing 80,000 100,000 or 120,000 claims a month, detained in spacious facilities with food medical and toiletries, and removed should they be fraudulent claims. I'm talking about even including the most bleeding-heart liberal running the executive, and ICE CBP USCIS EOIR DOJ. The failures of Veteran Affairs stand out in my mind; bipartisan failures and scandals. I don't see any long-term success for such numbers of people claiming asylum with current law, but I do see legal changes that could assure the numbers fall from fewer fraudulent seekers.
|
On June 27 2019 08:21 IgnE wrote:
well i guess you guys all know that Trump just delights in death for its own sake. maybe i should look into this thing, “implication”
And so it's clear, my apologies if any of something that anyone said at sometime was taken personally... by someone, really anyone... but also... possibly people in this forum... maybe... but not that anyone in this forum would take what I or really anyone said personally. If they did I wouldn't blame them, but I might also want them (or anyone really) to know it wasn't meant personally.
Other than trying to drive home a point, I (or really anyeone) would never say anything negative about any person that might be in this forum at some time, or you know... in any forum. It would be truly sad if I did mean something personally (which I never would)... but if I did it would be truly sad... very sad.
That some person in a forum might take anything personally at all is sad, the saddest thing ever...
|
On June 27 2019 02:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 02:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Here's Trump saying that hes glad McCain is dead, and he hopes McCain went to hell. I'm confused why this isn't garnering headlines.
probably because that’s not what he said. he did not say he “hoped” mccain was in hell. we just had someone in this thread explicitly wish that Duncan Hunter fall into a volcano and now you are criticizing Trump for being “glad that [McCain is] gone.” it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead per se
I agree, the tweet did not have Trump saying that he hoped mccain, or anyone, was in hell (even though he did choose to explicitly mention the possibility).
Trump is an elected representative with a huge amount of power and influence, not a semi-anonymous person ranting on a web forum. It's a LITTLE different when he says something expressing happiness at someone's death.
I agree, it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead, in general. And it can even be possible to communicate this. What is emphatically not possible is that a tweet that basically reads They're gone. Dead. Possibly to hell. I'm so glad they're gone is not communicating happiness at the death thing. The whole death bit, and deliberate choice to mention the hell possibility, removes the possibility entirely. A kid who has just processed why their goldfish mysteriously changed shape and colour one morning could figure out that the death and happiness bits of the tweet were connected.
Unless you are just mentioning that last sentence of possibility for lulz. Like I'm sure Trump mentioned the less green pastures for lulz.
The whole pretending context doesn't matter shtick gets old really fast, and is not a good look.
|
Is anyone even planning on watching the debate tonight or just waiting for the main card tomorrow?
|
On June 27 2019 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is anyone even planning on watching the debate tonight or just waiting for the main card tomorrow?
Oh, I'm definitely watching tonight. I look forward to hate-watching every second of this shit show. It's going to be glorious.
|
United States24757 Posts
I'm going to watch until I get tired and then go to bed. I'm curious to see if Elizabeth Warren can stand out as the serious contender of the group, and if Beto can bring the energy from his recent campaign.
|
On June 27 2019 06:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 06:13 JimmiC wrote:
Considering the people who own Reddit are likely super rich I would even suggest it is likely that they vote Republican. Or at least that it is no slam dunk that they are Dems. This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. Do you know nothing of Silicon Valley culture?
Have you ever been to Silicon Valley? As some one who has worked with multiple billion dollar enterprise, a lot of them vote to enrich themselves... you must think that minority’s and homeless are treated like kings?... well they’re not, they live in literal shit. People can’t afford rent there, Silicon Valley is the epitome of Capitalism.
|
You guys are completely missing the point about Silicon Valley and it’s culture. It’s the rabid social progressivism that causes it to be so biased against conservatives. Economic policy has nothing to do with it.
|
On June 27 2019 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is anyone even planning on watching the debate tonight or just waiting for the main card tomorrow?
I really wish I could be watching because I want a better opinion of Warren, sadly a contractor is leaving today and a restaurant is making a whole pig in his honor.... I can't pass that up, its a whole god damn pig
|
On June 27 2019 09:01 xDaunt wrote:
You guys are completely missing the point about Silicon Valley and it’s culture. It’s the rabid social progressivism that causes it to be so biased against conservatives. Economic policy has nothing to do with it.
Lol... it’s not biased, people choose to not work with others that agree putting child in cages is right.
|
Canada3485 Posts
I do wonder which person will drop out of the primaries first after these debates. I could see Beto and a couple others doing so if polling doesn't turn around for them. The most positive thing I've seen said about Beto recently is that it would be much better for him to drop out of the presidential race and instead go for Senate again.
|
On June 27 2019 06:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 06:13 JimmiC wrote:
Considering the people who own Reddit are likely super rich I would even suggest it is likely that they vote Republican. Or at least that it is no slam dunk that they are Dems. This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. Do you know nothing of Silicon Valley culture?
Stanford found that 80% of tech millionaires overwhelmingly donate to Democrats over Republicans. 2017 study. But these are not fact-based guesses, these are ideologically based. The evil rich Republicans must, simply must, apply to the tech sector too!
|
United States43675 Posts
On June 27 2019 08:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On June 27 2019 02:50 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:On June 27 2019 01:33 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2019 01:09 IyMoon wrote:So to get back to a fun subject The concentration camps cost about 775 a day per detainee to run. This is only for temporary shelters though, for the permanent ones, its a nice low 256 per day. That is 256 a day WITHOUT enough soap or blankets. The average hotel room in the US is 129 a night. We could just rent out ever motel 6 on the boarder, give everyone their own room and put guards around the outside to make sure nobody comes in our out and save a shit ton of cash. Good thing we got rid of that program that cost 40 bucks a day per family and had a 90% success rate at getting people to show up to their hearings.... that was such a bad program https://www.gq.com/story/trump-detention-camps-cost You can't really make estimates of cost difference if the "per room fee" is compared against a cost involving administration, guards, medical, supplies, inspectors. This is the government here. You couldn't even guarantee the cost difference would be in favor of the current, overcrowded detention centers. ESPECIALLY with the temporary surge, nothing worked out beforehand with motels (are you tagging the detained seekers, screening every motel guest, forcing the motel to get rid of its current guests, guards outside every door?), and the rest. I wouldn't even mention the cost, I'd go for arguing that even if it costs double, it's worth it to relieve overcrowded facilities, and demand funding from Congress. On June 27 2019 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:On June 27 2019 01:09 IyMoon wrote:So to get back to a fun subject The concentration camps cost about 775 a day per detainee to run. This is only for temporary shelters though, for the permanent ones, its a nice low 256 per day. That is 256 a day WITHOUT enough soap or blankets. The average hotel room in the US is 129 a night. We could just rent out ever motel 6 on the boarder, give everyone their own room and put guards around the outside to make sure nobody comes in our out and save a shit ton of cash. Good thing we got rid of that program that cost 40 bucks a day per family and had a 90% success rate at getting people to show up to their hearings.... that was such a bad program https://www.gq.com/story/trump-detention-camps-cost I still don't understand why they don't just drive the people into Mexico and dump them. This is far and away the most inhumane thing this administration has done. It does not matter what the context is, an adult should never knowingly cause a child to suffer. It is unreal to me that people in this thread have justified harming children. Truly reprehensible. I don't care what the issue is, it is never ok to knowingly harm children. For the fact that it would be illegal to do so. Then they need to be dumping more money into the camps so that stuff like this doesn't happen: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-family-separation-constantin-mutu-2019-6?utm_source=reddit.comA kid's life is being ruined by the US government. He will have developmental problems his entire life. If we are going to separate families, then we owe it to the children to provide child care services and schooling. In no circumstance should we make a child suffer. The blood is on OUR hands once they make it over the border. Whether the parents put the kids in the situation or not, it becomes our responsibility once they are on our soil. Choosing to let children rot is beyond immoral, it is downright terrible. This may be an unpopular sentiment, but do you think the Romanian dad was undertaking a risk paying a cartel smuggler to get them to the US-Mexico border? That’s a dangerous trip in itself. They were accidentally separated on the journey. Surprise surprise the Border patrol didn’t have a Romanian language guy to verify that they were father-son. What Romanian father takes a 4 month old with him to take the dangerous trip to be smuggled into the country, not speaking English. This is quintessential reason we need to make legal immigration much easier and quicker, and publish that asylum seekers with no legitimate reason to claim asylum will not get to stay in America anyways. I spread the blood onto the hands of people supporting catch and release policies, encouraging this reckless behavior that overwhelms under equipped systems. The government is sclerotic. I’d like times of under a month to under three months for determining parents and reuniting families to be detained awaiting a hearing, then returned early in the process when no legitimate claim can be made. This will likely mean an increase of spending in the hundred of billions of dollars. Until then, I don’t see any administration stopping families from slipping through the cracks, like a non-English non-Spanish speaker with a 4 month old showing up at the US-Mexico border. I’m speaking about sex traffickers and single adults stealing children that must be screened in facilities by competent ICE/CBD officials. With something like 70+ countries represented, I don’t see another way around massive spending increases. Mohdoo, assuming this was instead handled correctly, are you fine with ICE raids finding and deporting this family unit when their asylum court process fails and if they do not show up willingly for final deportation? Fine with news stories of ICE rounding up thousands or tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers (and those who didn’t bother to apply), and putting them on transports out of the country? Any risk taken by the father or parents is completely irrelevant because children are not extensions of their parents. They are individuals who are uniquely unable to care for themselves or make decisions. Children are purely vulnerable beings who will suffer throughout their lives if things go poorly as children. It is absolutely imperative that children be treated as entirely different things than adults. If a child had stupid parents, and the child ends up in US custody, it is now 100% our collective responsibility. If it is on our soil, and it is a child, we have a moral imperative to treat it as well as possible so that it can grow and learn without issues. Simply put, children are way too vulnerable and too much growth/learning is going on as children. We let a human be ruined when we don't properly care for children. If it costs massive amounts of money, so be it. Assuming 500B and 329,053,135 US citizens, if we were to impose a "don't ruin a shit load of kids" tax, that would be $1500/person. Lets say the richest 5% of Americans paid 90% of that, $150 per person. I'd sign up for that Any system that persuades parents that don't qualify for asylum to go pay the Mexican drug cartels thousands of dollars to smuggle them into the US to apply for asylum is fundamentally immoral. In a working system, it's all risk and no reward. Approximately 80,000 family units and 11,000 unaccompanied alien children showed up in May. The totals to the end of may are 332,981 family units and 56,278 unaccompanied alien children. Simultaneous to treating such a flood of humanity with care and efficiency is the forces that encourage non-asylees to pay the cartels and try their hand at staying. The family in question got separated. The four month old was taken on an extremely long and risky trip and was at the mercy of a foreign criminal organization. Nobody said they were facing persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, or politics back in their home country. These people are routinely raped and trafficked en route, according to reporting in the national newspapers. I don't see how this change in illegal immigration is also not subject to similar responsibility (for the people arguing for collective responsibility), if you're supporting catch and release policies (the bait) and particularly those with no followup expensive deportation roundups. It's incredibly damaging to the 13% that say they have a credible fear of persecution, but are swept up in the 87% that have no cause for seeking asylum. They just want to live and work in America, and the asylum process is the ticket in. Last year, the backlog was around 700,000 cases. This year will put it past a million. That's way beyond the limit of 20 days holding for minor children and unaccompanied children. The family is by law released. Time to come to terms with both sides of responsibility, the current need to vastly expand resources and administration to take care of all asylum seekers, and the current and future need to change asylum law so economic migrants are forced to apply for citizenship and American citizens set open borders or caps via their representatives. Show nested quote +
"Mohdoo, assuming this was instead handled correctly, are you fine with ICE raids finding and deporting this family unit when their asylum court process fails and if they do not show up willingly for final deportation? Fine with news stories of ICE rounding up thousands or tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers (and those who didn’t bother to apply), and putting them on transports out of the country? "
Yes, 100%. So long as the family is kept together and then evicted, it makes sense. The one time I find myself agreeing with republicans is the shitty logic people on the left use with letting families stay once they make it here. It needs to be legal for us to just place them on the other side of a fence and drive away. We should be permitted to make the situation as it was the moment before they stepped over the boarder. If we can determine what border the person/family crossed, our first objective should be to return the whole unit to that country. If we can't, I honestly don't know the right thing to do. But while all of that is happening, all children should be cared for as if they were US citizens. Not made to be US citizens, but afforded every single other protection we would ever afford a native-born child. No matter what, every single child to somehow end up in the US needs to be treated no differently than a citizen. Children suffer way, way too much from inadequate socializing/teaching/exercise/hygiene. They are too weak, too vulnerable and too much of a variety of other things that make it downright immoral to do anything except reach out to care for them. I thank you for your honesty here. I know the headlines of massive execution of removal orders of failed asylum claims (just take 16% times tens of thousands of applicants) would frighten people that are very committed to compassion from start to finish. It just feels wrong. I agree on the standard of care of treatment. I wish I had high hopes of my government successfully processing 80,000 100,000 or 120,000 claims a month, detained in spacious facilities with food medical and toiletries, and removed should they be fraudulent claims. I'm talking about even including the most bleeding-heart liberal running the executive, and ICE CBP USCIS EOIR DOJ. The failures of Veteran Affairs stand out in my mind; bipartisan failures and scandals. I don't see any long-term success for such numbers of people claiming asylum with current law, but I do see legal changes that could assure the numbers fall from fewer fraudulent seekers.
The assumption that the Romanian family is making a rational decision based on an informed understanding of the US immigration system is flawed. Human traffickers generally misinform their clients because they face no repercussions for doing so. Individuals crossing the Mediterranean are routinely sold non seaworthy craft and told that Italy is just out of eyesight, for example. The lucky ones end up picked up by the coastguard and put in camps until they can be returned back to where they came from, but most drown.
While it is entirely possible that this person was encouraged to come to the US seeking asylum by lax immigration protocols and the promise of generous benefits and free healthcare for illegal immigrants that does not mean that either of those ever existed. Making conditions worse for migrants is not likely to work because they're not making a rational and informed decision.
For what it's worth the Mediterranean also serves as a clear example for why the wall will fail. Europe effectively has a moat hundreds of miles wide and completely flat with nowhere that people can hide. Illegal immigrants entering Europe get essentially no benefits (beyond those that come with the land such as refuge from war) and don't even have a monopoly on cheap migrant labour due to the EU expansion into the Balkans. And yet still they attempt the trip. It's far worse than "show me a 10 foot wall and I'll show you an 11 foot ladder". It's "show me a moat hundreds of miles wide with regular storms, constantly surveiled by satellites, intercepted by some of the biggest cargo shipping lanes in the world, and patrolled by multiple navies from first world countries and I'll show you some empty barrels roped together into a raft".
You're not going to stop people attempting to enter a first world country. By far the best fix is not to fuck up where they used to live. The migrants crossing the Mediterranean, for example, are a direct result of the breakdown of states across North Africa. Making the Mediterranean wider or the camps less humane wouldn't help, foreign aid might.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
