EPTThere are a finite number of countries on this planet, so going through them one by one to eliminate stuff like this isn't impossible.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 296
| 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 | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
There are a finite number of countries on this planet, so going through them one by one to eliminate stuff like this isn't impossible. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 16 2018 12:13 mierin wrote: Is whataboutism the new legal standard? Oh, Israel may be committing human rights violations, but X other country is too? How about we come down hard on Israel now, and once that is finished worry about the other countries? We need to come to a consensus that human rights violations are bad, and look into all instances of that. If Israel needs to be the "example" to the rest of the world, so be it. There are a finite number of countries on this planet, so going through them one by one to eliminate stuff like this isn't impossible. I think the linked article and her op ed (wapo) lay out the basic rationale well enough. If I made an example of you for the next twenty years or so, you also might suspect this is more about you than warning others. | ||
|
PeTraSoHot
0 Posts
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/1-995-children-separated-families-border-under-zero-tolerance-policy-n883716 "Separating parents from children was rare under the Obama administration and in the early part of the Trump administration..." On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote: The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. That is why Sessions and Kelly pushed plan and also changed the rules for asylum so gang violence no longer qualified. And no one will stop them. This is the current state of our immigration system. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44503514 "Fact-checkers say that the only thing that has changed is the Justice Department's decision to criminally prosecute parents for a first-time border crossing offense. Because their children are not charged with a crime, they are not permitted to be jailed together. Under a 1997 court decision known as the Flores settlement, children who come to the US alone are required to be released to their parents, an adult relative, or other caretaker. If those options are all exhausted, then the government must find the "least restrictive" setting for the child "without unnecessary delay". The case initially applied to unaccompanied child arrivals, but a 2016 court decision expanded it to include children brought with their parents. According to the New York Times, the government has three options under the Flores settlement - release whole families together, pass a law to allow for families to be detained together, or break up families." Their story sounds different. Can you clarify your argument? Also, I can't tell if you are using the expression "asylum seeker" broadly to include anyone who was caught crossing the border illegally (and possibly later claiming they need asylum). The article says this is about border crossings. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 16 2018 14:13 PeTraSoHot wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/1-995-children-separated-families-border-under-zero-tolerance-policy-n883716 "Separating parents from children was rare under the Obama administration and in the early part of the Trump administration..." "...usually reserved only for cases where the safety of a child was in question." Why did you cut out the rest of that paragraph? On June 16 2018 14:13 PeTraSoHot wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44503514 "Fact-checkers say that the only thing that has changed is the Justice Department's decision to criminally prosecute parents for a first-time border crossing offense. Because their children are not charged with a crime, they are not permitted to be jailed together. Under a 1997 court decision known as the Flores settlement, children who come to the US alone are required to be released to their parents, an adult relative, or other caretaker. If those options are all exhausted, then the government must find the "least restrictive" setting for the child "without unnecessary delay". The case initially applied to unaccompanied child arrivals, but a 2016 court decision expanded it to include children brought with their parents. According to the New York Times, the government has three options under the Flores settlement - release whole families together, pass a law to allow for families to be detained together, or break up families." Their story sounds different. Can you clarify your argument? Also, I can't tell if you are using the expression "asylum seeker" broadly to include anyone who was caught crossing the border illegally (and possibly later claiming they need asylum). The article says this is about border crossings. From the article you linked: "The "zero-tolerance" policy he announced last month sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry." "Mr Sessions said those entering the US irregularly would be criminally prosecuted, a change to a long-standing policy of charging most of those crossing for the first time with a misdemeanour offence." "Fact-checkers say that the only thing that has changed is the Justice Department's decision to criminally prosecute parents for a first-time border crossing offense. Because their children are not charged with a crime, they are not permitted to be jailed together." | ||
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Our allies legit hate us right now. He is setting back foreign relations decades. People complained about Obama's "apology tour," but the next president is def going to have to go on one. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11798 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8056 Posts
| ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6035 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22209 Posts
On June 16 2018 15:35 On_Slaught wrote: The previous tour worked because it was a 'sorry' for a (mostly) first time slip up in a long while.Apparently at the G7 Trump told Japan he could show the dangers of migration by sending 25million Mexicans to Japan and it would put Abe out of a job. Then, during a discussion on terrorism, he said, in front of Macron, that Paris was full of terrorists, or something like that. What a masterful diplomat... Our allies legit hate us right now. He is setting back foreign relations decades. People complained about Obama's "apology tour," but the next president is def going to have to go on one. When you need to do an apology tour every other President it starts to feel a little disingenuous. Bush was an anomaly, its starting to become a pattern. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8056 Posts
On June 16 2018 16:58 riotjune wrote: Americans were giving Obama shit when he bowed way down to greet the Japanese Emperor, saying "The president of the United States shouldn't bow down to anyone!" So yea, the US president shouldn't apologize to anyone either, that will just make us look like fools. That's almost as bad as saluting a North Korean general...oh wait. That macho bullshit “never back down, never recognize you are wrong, never apologize, never appear weak etc...” is imho the number one reason the US is fucked up on so many levels and why someone with such colossal emotional immaturity such as Trump can be even considered for anything more than holding a hot dog stand. Still think that what the country really suffers from is a crisis of toxic, misplaced masculinity. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23844 Posts
But he was just a TV star and guy that hung out at fundraisers and signed checks for politicians so it wasn't really a problem let alone an international one. This country didn't think he should run a hotdog stand. In this country he's what it takes to be one of the wealthiest/most influential people in the country (or at least not have anyone prove you aren't). | ||
micronesia
United States24768 Posts
On June 16 2018 17:36 oBlade wrote: What is the normal protocol for when foreign military salutes the CinC? What's the reaction supposed to be? I'm not a commander in chief but sometimes I get saluted when I'm not permitted to salute back and, I'll tell you, it's quite awkward. I usually nod my head, end the conversation by saying thank you, and move on. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 16 2018 17:36 oBlade wrote: What is the normal protocol for when foreign military salutes the CinC? What's the reaction supposed to be? Apparently there isn't one. I looked it up and Ronald Reagan was apparently the first CinC to return salutes, and he did so for that reason. Up until then they just... didn't. Or offered a handshake, or a regional appropriate greeting custom, depending on their own instincts (bowing whatever). But it might be that after Reagan every President has done so. In this particular instance the reaction is supposed to be 'NK obviously blatantly wants footage of the US President saluting its generals for obvious reasons don't let us be seen doing that don't let us be seen doing that for god's sake don't let us be seen doing that'. As it is they get a twofer; not only is Trump saluting, but it looks like he's affording the NK general more respect than the general is, because the general is just offering a handshake. Visually. As other posters have said it was a bit of visual sleight of hand. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43868 Posts
On June 16 2018 17:36 oBlade wrote: What is the normal protocol for when foreign military salutes the CinC? What's the reaction supposed to be? The same as when domestic military does, nothing at all. He’s part of the civilian government. There is no requirement to return salutes. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17440 Posts
On June 16 2018 16:58 riotjune wrote: Americans were giving Obama shit when he bowed way down to greet the Japanese Emperor, saying "The president of the United States shouldn't bow down to anyone!" So yea, the US president shouldn't apologize to anyone either, that will just make us look like fools. That's almost as bad as saluting a North Korean general...oh wait. Remember when Bush vomited and fainted and fell face first into that other world leaders lap at some big world meeting. All these world leaders sitting in a circle and it looks like Bush is giving some world leader a blow job. LOL. That is probably the worst i've ever seen. That Obama thing was small potatoes. There are so many 20 year olds living on twitter and other social media who are "prisoners of the moment"; they blow every small thing that happens way out of proportion. Lots of access to communications technology and zero life experience... and then to top it all off... after bitching, whining and moaning in 1000s of social media posts... they don't vote. LOL. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
| ||
