| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 26 2019 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote: Depends on whether you believe the Pentagon when they tell you the conditions at Guantanamo are/were compliant with the Geneva Convention or not? Right, so I'd love to see the official rules of Guantanamo and how they compare to an athlete (soccer of all sports) losing 23 pounds. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24048 Posts
On July 26 2019 10:03 Mohdoo wrote: Right, so I'd love to see the official rules of Guantanamo and how they compare to an athlete (soccer of all sports) losing 23 pounds. It's (or just the other stuff we know about) definitely criminal, but we can't even hold ourselves accountable, so there's no one to hold us accountable globally. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12471 Posts
On July 26 2019 08:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: 26 pounds in three weeks is starvation level of weight loss if he was anywhere near a normal sized person.The numbers have to be wrong (not everyone weighs themselves often so he maybe misjudged?)...if they are a not,then a lot of the people working there should be in jail. Assuming the numbers aren't wrong, an interesting information is the percentage of republican commentators that will change from "This is fine because they aren't concentration camps" to "This is still fine for some other reason". | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9060 Posts
/s | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16123 Posts
On July 26 2019 09:25 KwarK wrote: It's odd that your objection isn't to the horrifying conditions of the camps but rather that an American (born to Mexican parents, is he somehow less deserving of that treatment than the rest of his family) was subjected to them. What protects him from inhumane treatment shouldn't be a piece of paper that says that he's a special individual exempted from inhumane treatment, it should be that he's human. Oh but we're so past that now with Republicans. Every comment thread or twitter feed I see about these camps I see the same comment liked and upvoted. "If they are really that bad they should just go back where they came from." It's sickening. We're already past the point where the propoganda has got people seeing Brown people as less than human and not deserving of any kind of compassion. We're way past that point. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 26 2019 10:57 Vindicare605 wrote: Oh but we're so past that now with Republicans. Every comment thread or twitter feed I see about these camps I see the same comment liked and upvoted. "If they are really that bad they should just go back where they came from." It's sickening. We're already past the point where the propoganda has got people seeing Brown people as less than human and not deserving of any kind of compassion. We're way past that point. Yup. I'm surprised at the naivety of some of the American posters in here. Just glance at social media right now. You can see the mood. If it's happening to an immigrant, there's a worryingly large segment of the population who'll justify it on those grounds alone. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16123 Posts
On July 26 2019 11:49 iamthedave wrote: Yup. I'm surprised at the naivety of some of the American posters in here. Just glance at social media right now. You can see the mood. If it's happening to an immigrant, there's a worryingly large segment of the population who'll justify it on those grounds alone. It's not just to an immigrant, it's to BROWN immigrants. Central and South Americans. There's been a figure floating around my Facebook feed for the last week that there are over 500,000 European (white) immigrants in this country currently here illegally. I don't know what the actual figure is but I'm sure there are at least some. I can guarantee you, you won't find a single one of them held in one of these camps. It's not just about "immigrants" that's just a code word for "Spanish Speaking Brown Person," when it comes to the rhetoric and the way the policies are actually enforced. I can guarantee you no one is stopping a group of Germans or Dutch people at Gas Stations and demanding to know if they are here illegally or not. It's not about immigration policy, it never has been. It's always been about LATIN AMERICAN immigration policy. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24048 Posts
On July 26 2019 10:57 Vindicare605 wrote: Oh but we're so past that now with Republicans. Every comment thread or twitter feed I see about these camps I see the same comment liked and upvoted. "If they are really that bad they should just go back where they came from." It's sickening. We're already past the point where the propoganda has got people seeing Brown people as less than human and not deserving of any kind of compassion. We're way past that point. While Republicans have been especially heinous about all this, the Democrat plan was/is to send them back and let them fight for their lives while waiting for our dreadfully inadequate immigration/asylum system to catch up. Send them back to the country where in order to get asylum they have to demonstrate it threatens their life just to be there. It's not as graphically horrid as the many children neglected and sitting in their own excrement (less of that happened under Obama), unless you have cameras back in the countries we send them and we see the horrific violence (in no small part a result of bipartisan US interference in their country) Democrats want to send them back to. Here's Schumer basically making the same argument Trump did a while back about "why not just have them apply from their dangerous countries?" Schumer said that it would be more “fair and a lot easier” to allow people to apply for asylum in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. He acknowledged the need for more immigration judges and ways to deal with gang violence, but said addressing asylum issues is “much better of a solution than what we saw here.” www.politico.com That's what the "better than Trump" crowd will get ya (his old positions before they got even more deplorable). | ||
Falling
Canada11557 Posts
The main thing I like is that you need to apply from Mexico or a home country, not the US. The big problem it seems is that the facilities are simply not adequate to the volume of people trying to get through. This breaks the system because they simply cannot process in time, which forces officials to release families after 20 days. In a perverse way, this creates the unintended consequences of simply getting to the border with a child, any child and try to force the system to release you, plus it creates a giant market for bad actors in the human smuggling business. So requiring to apply from outside the US, you immediately get rid of the ticking time bomb of the terrible holding conditions and you don't need to waste money expanding holding facilities. And then you cut out the market for human smugglers that might just abandon their 'cargo' to suffocate or die of dehydration because they can't pay enough. As a result, Graham wants to add 500 new immigration judges which would expedite the waiting lines and then he's willing to negotiate on sending aid to South American countries as a bone for Democrats/ maybe helping with some of the economics push factors that generates the desire to emigrate out. Seems like a good idea to me. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24048 Posts
On July 26 2019 13:13 Falling wrote: I personally like Lyndsey Graham's solution, although it looks like Democrats are blocking the ability to vote on it for now. The main thing I like is that you need to apply from Mexico or a home country, not the US. The big problem it seems is that the facilities are simply not adequate to the volume of people trying to get through. This breaks the system because they simply cannot process in time, which forces officials to release families after 20 days. In a perverse way, this creates the unintended consequences of simply getting to the border with a child, any child and try to force the system to release you, plus it creates a giant market for bad actors in the human smuggling business. So requiring to apply from outside the US, you immediately get rid of the ticking time bomb of the terrible holding conditions and you don't need to waste money expanding holding facilities. And then you cut out the market for human smugglers that might just abandon their 'cargo' to suffocate or die of dehydration because they can't pay enough. As a result, Graham wants to add 500 new immigration judges which would expedite the waiting lines and then he's willing to negotiate on sending aid to South American countries as a bone for Democrats/ maybe helping with some of the economics push factors that generates the desire to emigrate out. Seems like a good idea to me. Except for the part about asylum seekers fleeing those countries because both terrible economic conditions and rampant violence that threatens them or the children they brought. If the US can't handle them, it's pretty ridiculous to expect much poorer countries to do it instead imo. Adding judges is a good idea, though I doubt 500 is nearly adequate. EDIT: Kwark probably worded it better. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44122 Posts
On July 26 2019 13:13 Falling wrote: I personally like Lyndsey Graham's solution, although it looks like Democrats are blocking the ability to vote on it for now. The main thing I like is that you need to apply from Mexico or a home country, not the US. The big problem it seems is that the facilities are simply not adequate to the volume of people trying to get through. This breaks the system because they simply cannot process in time, which forces officials to release families after 20 days. In a perverse way, this creates the unintended consequences of simply getting to the border with a child, any child and try to force the system to release you, plus it creates a giant market for bad actors in the human smuggling business. So requiring to apply from outside the US, you immediately get rid of the ticking time bomb of the terrible holding conditions and you don't need to waste money expanding holding facilities. And then you cut out the market for human smugglers that might just abandon their 'cargo' to suffocate or die of dehydration because they can't pay enough. As a result, Graham wants to add 500 new immigration judges which would expedite the waiting lines and then he's willing to negotiate on sending aid to South American countries as a bone for Democrats/ maybe helping with some of the economics push factors that generates the desire to emigrate out. Seems like a good idea to me. Requiring people to apply for asylum outside of the US defeats the point of asylum. Their ability to wait wherever it is they're waiting for their case to be heard essentially disproves their case. Asylum is for people facing genuine and immediate danger. An asylum system that does not protect those people is no asylum system at all. More immigration judges and facilities is the solution. These peoples' asylum claims are going to be rejected because most claims are, and the successful claims are typically those with organized legal support such as Christians fleeing persecution aided by religious groups. It's a pretty basic bottleneck problem and the solution is to widen the bottleneck, not cut off the flow. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11557 Posts
On July 26 2019 13:17 GreenHorizons wrote: Except for the part about asylum seekers fleeing those countries because both terrible economic conditions and rampant violence that threatens them or the children they brought. If the US can't handle them, it's pretty ridiculous to expect much poorer countries to do it instead imo. Adding judges is a good idea, though I doubt 500 is nearly adequate. 500 more is substantially better than the current state. I doubt wherever they are coming from, they are in packed to the gills holding facilities, so that seems better to me. But the big thing is cutting out the human trafficker middle man/ getting rid of the incentive to just hoof it across the border and die in some farmers field because they've been operating without water. Disincentivizing a very hazardous journey also seems a win in my book. Volume creates a cascading problem that incentivizes greater volume to stress out the system due to a crisis of overcrowding, which means there just is never enough time to process. Keeping the process at arm's length prevents a crisis within the US and allows more resources to go to processing rather than holding so that those needing asylum can get through quickly. Win-win. Edit. But that presupposes every one of those trying to cross actually qualify for asylum, rather than their country is not very great and they'd prefer a better life in America. Great. Get in line. But you actually need time to sort that out otherwise it just incentivizes absolutely anyone to claim asylum and beat the system. It need not be from their home country- Mexico is allowed as well. So if they fled to Mexico, they would presumably not be in the immediate danger from whichever home country they originated. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24048 Posts
On July 26 2019 13:31 Falling wrote: 500 more is substantially better than the current state. I doubt wherever they are coming from, they are in packed to the gills holding facilities, so that seems better to me. But the big thing is cutting out the human trafficker middle man/ getting rid of the incentive to just hoof it across the border and die in some farmers field because they've been operating without water. Disincentivizing a very hazardous journey also seems a win in my book. Volume creates a cascading problem that incentivizes greater volume to stress out the system due to a crisis of overcrowding, which means there just is never enough time to process. Keeping the process at arm's length prevents a crisis within the US and allows more resources to go to processing rather than holding so that those needing asylum can get through quickly. Win-win. I mean we can just let it get worse, then how it is now will also be "substantially better than the current state", and we don't have to do anything about it and it's cheaper than building facilities, hiring judges, and reduces the incentive (knowing you might not even live through your custody as a result of neglect or murder). I think the problem is the inhumanity of both of those positions regardless of whether yours looks better than mine (though mine is just Trumps). Trump just let the situation deteriorate (helped a bit too) and now the "compromise" position is Trump's old position that Democrats called idiotic for the reasons Kwark is pointing out. But apparently you're saying Democrats are balking at doing that too (I haven't followed that particular reporting). But that presupposes every one of those trying to cross actually qualify for asylum, rather than their country is not very great and they'd prefer a better life in America. Great. Get in line. But you actually need time to sort that out otherwise it just incentivizes absolutely anyone to claim asylum and beat the system. It need not be from their home country- Mexico is allowed as well. So if they fled to Mexico, they would presumably not be in the immediate danger from whichever home country they originated. kwark already addressed why that's essentially nonsensical and I agree. I can respect if you don't though. What you're basically saying is that the US should push a burden (we literally asked for) we can't manage onto a poorer country with even less potential to handle it. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11557 Posts
What you're basically saying is that the US should push a burden they can't manage onto a poorer country with even less potential to handle it. Not really the motivation, but sure. The US cannot save the world. Life sucks in the world and then you die. Life sucks less in the US- I think the best they can do is not create a crisis within their own borders and focus all their energy on speeding up the asylum processing. I think as it currently stands, increasing holding facilities does not end gangs trafficking humans which causes even more suffering/ deaths. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24048 Posts
On July 26 2019 13:51 Falling wrote: Not really the motivation, but sure. The US cannot save the world. Life sucks in the world and then you die. Life sucks less in the US- I think the best they can do is not create a crisis within their own borders and focus all their energy on speeding up the asylum processing. I think as it currently stands, increasing holding facilities does not end gangs trafficking humans which causes even more suffering/ deaths. I think it's an inhumane and unethical position, but so long as one leans on the horrific conditions we already allow, it's potentially less so than the status quo (which continues to degrade). That's just still woefully inadequate to be considered humane and ethical imo. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11557 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24048 Posts
On July 26 2019 13:59 Falling wrote: I don't see how it is an inhumane and unethical position. Are we gods? We cannot end human suffering, the best we can do is alleviate some without generating much of our own. We can do a lot better than your suggestion offers is my position (kwark's suggestion for example), therefor making the position of (potentially) reducing suffering some with your plan inhumane and unethical from my perspective. Not that we're gods who can end human suffering. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 26 2019 13:13 Falling wrote: I personally like Lindsey Graham's solution, although it looks like Democrats are blocking the ability to vote on it for now. The main thing I like is that you need to apply from Mexico or a home country, not the US. The big problem it seems is that the facilities are simply not adequate to the volume of people trying to get through. This breaks the system because they simply cannot process in time, which forces officials to release families after 20 days. In a perverse way, this creates the unintended consequences of simply getting to the border with a child, any child and try to force the system to release you, plus it creates a giant market for bad actors in the human smuggling business. So requiring to apply from outside the US, you immediately get rid of the ticking time bomb of the terrible holding conditions and you don't need to waste money expanding holding facilities. And then you cut out the market for human smugglers that might just abandon their 'cargo' to suffocate or die of dehydration because they can't pay enough. As a result, Graham wants to add 500 new immigration judges which would expedite the waiting lines and then he's willing to negotiate on sending aid to South American countries as a bone for Democrats/ maybe helping with some of the economics push factors that generates the desire to emigrate out. Seems like a good idea to me. It shouldn't just be our local continents helping. If we have a humanitarian refugee crisis, we should be asking other big countries to help. Maybe I'm missing something, but once you transport an immigrant somewhere, isn't it the same as being in the US? If we sent like 5k people to each of like 30 countries, it would help a lot. Totally worth the price of transportation. My preference is the US handles it because we have available wealth. But if we're not, it's not like it's required to be physically connected. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44122 Posts
On July 26 2019 14:02 Mohdoo wrote: It shouldn't just be our local continents helping. If we have a humanitarian refugee crisis, we should be asking other big countries to help. Maybe I'm missing something, but once you transport an immigrant somewhere, isn't it the same as being in the US? If we sent like 5k people to each of like 30 countries, it would help a lot. Totally worth the price of transportation. My preference is the US handles it because we have available wealth. But if we're not, it's not like it's required to be physically connected. The US has a pretty low asylum cap for its population and wealth. It'd be wrong to think that other countries aren't doing their fair share. The US is doing very little, and somehow still failing at it. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4422 Posts
On July 26 2019 02:20 ShambhalaWar wrote: Again, in light of the restatement of the election attacks and the republicans blocking security measures to secure our elections... I'm curious to hear from danglers and daunt. What's the inspiration level for you guys right now, how inspired do you feel by your leader who refuses to secure our election systems? Relative to the inspiration you felt from the 4th of july event (I remember how inspired you were then), how inspired do you feel now? Did you elect him to not secure our elections from attacks? https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/republican-senators-block-election-security-legislation/index.html Why are Dems so worried about the security of elections yet also against voter ID? If India (far more discriminatory due to caste system https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/an-african-american-illustrates-how-india-is-the-most-racist-country-1228956.html )can do voter ID then you can. USA is bizarre. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
The PondCast
Douyu Cup 2020
Oliveira vs Trap
Jieshi vs XY
soO vs FanTaSy
TY vs Coffee
OSC
Douyu Cup 2020
Neeb vs Impact
MacSed vs Cyan
Scarlett vs Kelazhur
INnoVation vs Dear
Douyu Cup 2020
Maestros of the Game
herO vs Classic
Maru vs Serral
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
Douyu Cup 2020
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
