|
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 21 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 06:22 Plansix wrote:
It also took two years to impeach him. It was a very slow process and the Republicans in congress did not take it seriously until Nixon forced the AG and Deputy AG to resign. And even after that, they still needed to hear the tapes.
You folks should listen to the podcast Slow Burn about the Water Gate investigation. The Nixon administration pulled some real shit trying to cover up that investigation, including kidnapping a woman and drugging her for an extended period of time. It is amazing it took two years to get him out of office considering what they are pulling. Are you being contrarian for the sake of it or do you genuinely still think Trump is going to get impeached (removed forcibly or stepping down) before 2020? I was saying that Nixon’s approval rating never went below 40% nationwide, so they are a poor metric to gauge the health of an administration. I lack sufficient information to form an opinion on the likelihood of impeachment before 2020. Call me in January, 2019.
I would say typically approval isn't a great metric but it's representing that Republican voters support him overwhelmingly and save a few specific seats you can't win a primary opposing Trump (at least not outright).
If you can't win your seat opposing him there's nothing that could come out that would make impeaching him better. The idea is 100% dead in the water. Why it would take you most of his term being over to come to that conclusion boggles my mind a bit.
Hell, Manchin (D) might be endorsing the guy, he's not going to get on board with impeaching him.
|
On June 21 2018 05:06 PhoenixVoid wrote:I can't find this anywhere else in the thread and it's relatively recent. Trump reverses course, signs order to keep families togetherShow nested quote +President Donald Trump on Wednesday reversed his debunked argument that he had no authority to stop separations of undocumented immigrant families at the border, signing an executive order to keep parents and kids together. "We're signing an executive order. I consider it to be a very important executive order. It's about keeping families together, while at the same time being sure we have a very powerful, very strong border," Trump said. Trump's climbdown came after he faced intense pressure from across the political spectrum and from religious, political and world leaders to halt the separations, which produced days of heartrending news coverage of crying children -- some of whom were kept in cage-like detention centers. The President claimed, though, that he isn't backing down. "The border is just as tough. But we do want to keep families together," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We are keeping the family together." Earlier Wednesday after a frenzied morning in which he huddled with Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other key officials, Trump first flagged his reversal saying, "I'll be doing something that's somewhat preemptive and ultimately will be matched by legislation I'm sure." ... https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/trump-separation-action-immigration/index.html He backs down and compromises for now, but it's not over. I'd guess the fear of an extended battle and an abundant source of sound bites for the Dems when the November midterms come by got to him?
A highly embarrassing about-face. There's no other way to interpret it.
|
On June 21 2018 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 06:22 Plansix wrote:
It also took two years to impeach him. It was a very slow process and the Republicans in congress did not take it seriously until Nixon forced the AG and Deputy AG to resign. And even after that, they still needed to hear the tapes.
You folks should listen to the podcast Slow Burn about the Water Gate investigation. The Nixon administration pulled some real shit trying to cover up that investigation, including kidnapping a woman and drugging her for an extended period of time. It is amazing it took two years to get him out of office considering what they are pulling. Are you being contrarian for the sake of it or do you genuinely still think Trump is going to get impeached (removed forcibly or stepping down) before 2020? I was saying that Nixon’s approval rating never went below 40% nationwide, so they are a poor metric to gauge the health of an administration. I lack sufficient information to form an opinion on the likelihood of impeachment before 2020. Call me in January, 2019. I would say typically approval isn't a great metric but it's representing that Republican voters support him overwhelmingly and save a few specific seats you can't win a primary opposing Trump (at least not outright). If you can't win your seat opposing him there's nothing that could come out that would make impeaching him better. The idea is 100% dead in the water. Why it would take you most of his term being over to come to that conclusion boggles my mind a bit. Hell, Manchin (D) might be endorsing the guy, he's not going to get on board with impeaching him.
You should check out the 1972 election results. Look at an electoral map, it’s pretty stunning. And remember that guy forced to resign 2 years later. The world changes fast. Public opinion is a fickle bitch.
|
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age.
|
On June 21 2018 06:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 06:22 Plansix wrote:
It also took two years to impeach him. It was a very slow process and the Republicans in congress did not take it seriously until Nixon forced the AG and Deputy AG to resign. And even after that, they still needed to hear the tapes.
You folks should listen to the podcast Slow Burn about the Water Gate investigation. The Nixon administration pulled some real shit trying to cover up that investigation, including kidnapping a woman and drugging her for an extended period of time. It is amazing it took two years to get him out of office considering what they are pulling. Are you being contrarian for the sake of it or do you genuinely still think Trump is going to get impeached (removed forcibly or stepping down) before 2020? I was saying that Nixon’s approval rating never went below 40% nationwide, so they are a poor metric to gauge the health of an administration. I lack sufficient information to form an opinion on the likelihood of impeachment before 2020. Call me in January, 2019. I would say typically approval isn't a great metric but it's representing that Republican voters support him overwhelmingly and save a few specific seats you can't win a primary opposing Trump (at least not outright). If you can't win your seat opposing him there's nothing that could come out that would make impeaching him better. The idea is 100% dead in the water. Why it would take you most of his term being over to come to that conclusion boggles my mind a bit. Hell, Manchin (D) might be endorsing the guy, he's not going to get on board with impeaching him. You should check out the 1972 election results. Look at an electoral map, it’s pretty stunning. And remember that guy forced to resign 2 years later. The world changes fast. Public opinion is a fickle bitch.
You think Democrats even want to run against anyone other than Trump in 2020? This whole Schumer thing should tell you otherwise.
|
On June 21 2018 06:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age.
For defining moments, Trump Brexit and the european migrant crisis (if you have to put a moment, then Merkel's original decision to open the border) all supersede Snowden. It's still of moderate to high importance.
|
On June 21 2018 07:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 06:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age. For defining moments, Trump Brexit and the european migrant crisis (if you have to put a moment, then Merkel's original decision to open the border) all supersede Snowden. It's still of moderate to high importance.
My point is that Trump and Brexit are a result of Snowden. The leaks made it clear that our governments (at the time) are against us, not representatives of us, and that they view their people as a threat.
Immediately after this, people started working on dismantling long held political assumptions.
|
On June 21 2018 07:16 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 07:13 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 06:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age. For defining moments, Trump Brexit and the european migrant crisis (if you have to put a moment, then Merkel's original decision to open the border) all supersede Snowden. It's still of moderate to high importance. My point is that Trump and Brexit are a result of Snowden. The leaks made it clear that our governments (at the time) are against us, not representatives of us, and that they view their people as a threat. Immediately after this, people started working on dismantling long held political assumptions.
Brexit has nothing to do with Snowden. Literally nothing.
We've always had issues with being in the EU, and the Conservative Party especially didn't like being in the EU. Nigel Farage + Daily Mail blitz on the issue gradually ramped up the pressure on already existing divisions, until the vote became inevitable under a Conservative government, because the issue was on the verge of tearing the party in half.
|
On June 21 2018 07:22 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 07:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 21 2018 07:13 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 06:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age. For defining moments, Trump Brexit and the european migrant crisis (if you have to put a moment, then Merkel's original decision to open the border) all supersede Snowden. It's still of moderate to high importance. My point is that Trump and Brexit are a result of Snowden. The leaks made it clear that our governments (at the time) are against us, not representatives of us, and that they view their people as a threat. Immediately after this, people started working on dismantling long held political assumptions. Brexit has nothing to do with Snowden. Literally nothing. We've always had issues with being in the EU, and the Conservative Party especially didn't like being in the EU. Nigel Farage + Daily Mail blitz on the issue gradually ramped up the pressure on already existing divisions, until the vote became inevitable under a Conservative government, because the issue was on the verge of tearing the party in half.
Brexit is an anti-establishment movement, far more thank a racist one (I assume that is what you are getting at). You could look at it in a very simple way, and just say that Brexit is a result of Farage, but if we analysed everything without looking at the deeper causes we would never get anywhere. Nuclear weapons weren't a result of Hitler, but Oppenheimer, right?
The rise in anti-establishment movements all across the West happened at exactly the same time. Are you saying that it was all Farage, or just refusing to look at the context and simply seeing Trump, Brexit and all the other simultaneous populist movements as coincidental individual occurrences with no deeper cause at all?
|
On June 21 2018 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 07:22 iamthedave wrote:On June 21 2018 07:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 21 2018 07:13 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 06:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age. For defining moments, Trump Brexit and the european migrant crisis (if you have to put a moment, then Merkel's original decision to open the border) all supersede Snowden. It's still of moderate to high importance. My point is that Trump and Brexit are a result of Snowden. The leaks made it clear that our governments (at the time) are against us, not representatives of us, and that they view their people as a threat. Immediately after this, people started working on dismantling long held political assumptions. Brexit has nothing to do with Snowden. Literally nothing. We've always had issues with being in the EU, and the Conservative Party especially didn't like being in the EU. Nigel Farage + Daily Mail blitz on the issue gradually ramped up the pressure on already existing divisions, until the vote became inevitable under a Conservative government, because the issue was on the verge of tearing the party in half. Brexit is an anti-establishment movement, far more thank a racist one (I assume that is what you are getting at). You could look at it in a very simple way, and just say that Brexit is a result of Farage, but if we analysed everything without looking at the deeper causes we would never get anywhere. Nuclear weapons weren't a result of Hitler, but Oppenheimer, right? The rise in anti-establishment movements all across the West happened at exactly the same time. Are you saying that it was all Farage, or just refusing to look at the context and simply seeing Trump, Brexit and all the other simultaneous populist movements as coincidental individual occurrences with no deeper cause at all?
Maybe consider how the increased numbers of refugees and migrants from the middle east helped anti-immigrant sentiment grow, which empowered nationalist movement across Europe. Because the common thread has been "We need to stop the immigrants," a lot more than "the government is the enemy." The movement isn't populism, it's nativism. And it had very little to do with Snowden and a whole lot more to do with the way the US fucked up a bunch of Muslim majority nations and set the stage for ISIS and the simultaneous and possibly connected push back against autocracies usually referred to collectively as the Arab Spring.
The two combined led to a large swell of migrants and refugees from Muslim majority nations at the same time as Europe and the US was dealing with intermittent terrorism connected to ISIS. Nativists jumped all over connecting the migrants and refugees to terrorist attacks, which is why the big gains for "populist" movements has been among nativist far-right parties.
|
On June 21 2018 07:40 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 21 2018 07:22 iamthedave wrote:On June 21 2018 07:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 21 2018 07:13 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 06:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age. For defining moments, Trump Brexit and the european migrant crisis (if you have to put a moment, then Merkel's original decision to open the border) all supersede Snowden. It's still of moderate to high importance. My point is that Trump and Brexit are a result of Snowden. The leaks made it clear that our governments (at the time) are against us, not representatives of us, and that they view their people as a threat. Immediately after this, people started working on dismantling long held political assumptions. Brexit has nothing to do with Snowden. Literally nothing. We've always had issues with being in the EU, and the Conservative Party especially didn't like being in the EU. Nigel Farage + Daily Mail blitz on the issue gradually ramped up the pressure on already existing divisions, until the vote became inevitable under a Conservative government, because the issue was on the verge of tearing the party in half. Brexit is an anti-establishment movement, far more thank a racist one (I assume that is what you are getting at). You could look at it in a very simple way, and just say that Brexit is a result of Farage, but if we analysed everything without looking at the deeper causes we would never get anywhere. Nuclear weapons weren't a result of Hitler, but Oppenheimer, right? The rise in anti-establishment movements all across the West happened at exactly the same time. Are you saying that it was all Farage, or just refusing to look at the context and simply seeing Trump, Brexit and all the other simultaneous populist movements as coincidental individual occurrences with no deeper cause at all? Maybe consider how the increased numbers of refugees and migrants from the middle east helped anti-immigrant sentiment grow, which empowered nationalist movement across Europe. Because the common thread has been "We need to stop the immigrants," a lot more than "the government is the enemy." The movement isn't populism, it's nativism. And it had very little to do with Snowden and a whole lot more to do with the way the US fucked up a bunch of Muslim majority nations and set the stage for ISIS and the simultaneous and possibly connected push back against autocracies usually referred to collectively as the Arab Spring. The two combined led to a large swell of migrants and refugees from Muslim majority nations at the same time as Europe and the US was dealing with intermittent terrorism connected to ISIS. Nativists jumped all over connecting the migrants and refugees to terrorist attacks, which is why the big gains for "populist" movements has been among nativist far-right parties.
The big gains haven't just been for nativist movements though. Corbyn in the UK and Sanders in the US are anything but nativist, and they were popular enough to cause real worries for the neolibs.
I'll agree that nativist movements are also on the rise. I don't think you can separate the causes of Trump and Sanders that easily though. Many of the things that Trump supporters hate about Clinton are also things that Sanders supporters hate about Clinton.
The far left and far right are both making huge gains, at the expense of the centrist political establishment. I'm just trying to think of the causes of this, and yeah, the migration crisis is a part of it, but I think the fallout from the 2008 crash and revelations of the scale of governments treating their own populations as hostile are huge factors.
|
On June 21 2018 06:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age.
I don't think it mattered much for trump; the issues that led to trump predated snowden substantially, and there's a clear and long timeline for them, as well as a pattern of getting continually worse, so if snowden had an effect it was fairly small. Don't know enough about the others to comment on timing effects.
this is setting aside the questionable claim of the establishment being the "enemy"; at least compared to the alternatives.
|
On June 21 2018 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2018 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 06:22 Plansix wrote:
It also took two years to impeach him. It was a very slow process and the Republicans in congress did not take it seriously until Nixon forced the AG and Deputy AG to resign. And even after that, they still needed to hear the tapes.
You folks should listen to the podcast Slow Burn about the Water Gate investigation. The Nixon administration pulled some real shit trying to cover up that investigation, including kidnapping a woman and drugging her for an extended period of time. It is amazing it took two years to get him out of office considering what they are pulling. Are you being contrarian for the sake of it or do you genuinely still think Trump is going to get impeached (removed forcibly or stepping down) before 2020? I was saying that Nixon’s approval rating never went below 40% nationwide, so they are a poor metric to gauge the health of an administration. I lack sufficient information to form an opinion on the likelihood of impeachment before 2020. Call me in January, 2019. I would say typically approval isn't a great metric but it's representing that Republican voters support him overwhelmingly and save a few specific seats you can't win a primary opposing Trump (at least not outright). If you can't win your seat opposing him there's nothing that could come out that would make impeaching him better. The idea is 100% dead in the water. Why it would take you most of his term being over to come to that conclusion boggles my mind a bit. Hell, Manchin (D) might be endorsing the guy, he's not going to get on board with impeaching him. You should check out the 1972 election results. Look at an electoral map, it’s pretty stunning. And remember that guy forced to resign 2 years later. The world changes fast. Public opinion is a fickle bitch. You think Democrats even want to run against anyone other than Trump in 2020? This whole Schumer thing should tell you otherwise.
If the push for impeachment becomes a reality, they won’t have a choice. Nixon was impeached because the majority of the public would no longer tolerate him in office, not because congress came to some grand revelation.
|
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"?
|
On June 21 2018 07:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 07:40 Kyadytim wrote:On June 21 2018 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 21 2018 07:22 iamthedave wrote:On June 21 2018 07:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 21 2018 07:13 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 06:56 Jockmcplop wrote:
A bit of a random question:
Everyone has talked alot about the rise of populism and far left/right groups, but I was wondering how important the Snowden leaks were if you look at the timings and context.
It seems to me like this event was a tipping point for many Western countries, and really drove home the realization that the current neoliberal establishment is our enemy, not our friend.
Ever since Snowden, things seem to have escalated extremely quickly with Brexit, Trump, Italy, eastern Europe etc.
In my opinion, the Snowden leaks will go down as one of the defining moments of the current political age. For defining moments, Trump Brexit and the european migrant crisis (if you have to put a moment, then Merkel's original decision to open the border) all supersede Snowden. It's still of moderate to high importance. My point is that Trump and Brexit are a result of Snowden. The leaks made it clear that our governments (at the time) are against us, not representatives of us, and that they view their people as a threat. Immediately after this, people started working on dismantling long held political assumptions. Brexit has nothing to do with Snowden. Literally nothing. We've always had issues with being in the EU, and the Conservative Party especially didn't like being in the EU. Nigel Farage + Daily Mail blitz on the issue gradually ramped up the pressure on already existing divisions, until the vote became inevitable under a Conservative government, because the issue was on the verge of tearing the party in half. Brexit is an anti-establishment movement, far more thank a racist one (I assume that is what you are getting at). You could look at it in a very simple way, and just say that Brexit is a result of Farage, but if we analysed everything without looking at the deeper causes we would never get anywhere. Nuclear weapons weren't a result of Hitler, but Oppenheimer, right? The rise in anti-establishment movements all across the West happened at exactly the same time. Are you saying that it was all Farage, or just refusing to look at the context and simply seeing Trump, Brexit and all the other simultaneous populist movements as coincidental individual occurrences with no deeper cause at all? Maybe consider how the increased numbers of refugees and migrants from the middle east helped anti-immigrant sentiment grow, which empowered nationalist movement across Europe. Because the common thread has been "We need to stop the immigrants," a lot more than "the government is the enemy." The movement isn't populism, it's nativism. And it had very little to do with Snowden and a whole lot more to do with the way the US fucked up a bunch of Muslim majority nations and set the stage for ISIS and the simultaneous and possibly connected push back against autocracies usually referred to collectively as the Arab Spring. The two combined led to a large swell of migrants and refugees from Muslim majority nations at the same time as Europe and the US was dealing with intermittent terrorism connected to ISIS. Nativists jumped all over connecting the migrants and refugees to terrorist attacks, which is why the big gains for "populist" movements has been among nativist far-right parties. The big gains haven't just been for nativist movements though. Corbyn in the UK and Sanders in the US are anything but nativist, and they were popular enough to cause real worries for the neolibs. I'll agree that nativist movements are also on the rise. I don't think you can separate the causes of Trump and Sanders that easily though. Many of the things that Trump supporters hate about Clinton are also things that Sanders supporters hate about Clinton. The far left and far right are both making huge gains, at the expense of the centrist political establishment. I'm just trying to think of the causes of this, and yeah, the migration crisis is a part of it, but I think the fallout from the 2008 crash and revelations of the scale of governments treating their own populations as hostile are huge factors.
I don't know enough about UK politics to talk about Corbyn, but given what Sanders talked about while campaigning, I feel comfortable saying that Sanders was a result of the 2008 crash and the changing face of the economy, which combined have caused young people, the demographic he did best with, to deal with substantially more financial insecurity and financial obstacles than their parents or grandparents generally did.
I don't think the Snowden revelation really had any impact. He didn't reveal governments treating their citizens as hostile, he revealed that the US government was collecting data on everyone just because it could. And people don't care about having data collected on them, as evidenced by the success of facebook, foursquare, and a host of other apps and services that let people give their privacy and personal data away to companies that will sell it in exchange for minor conveniences.
Also, I'm not really sure what you mean by neoliberals.
|
On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"?
I think he also asked the court to reconsider the case forbidding children from being detained for more than 20 days so that he can then point to the court and say "They're making us move the children out of the prisons their parents are in, its not our fault we're separating them, blame that court."
|
On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"?
Yes. The zero tolerance policy pretty much assured that this problem will persist indefinitely. Congress can’t write a law that allows children to be detained for more than 20 days in prison, it is already illegal.
The order does nothing of substance expect let Trump say he fixed a problem he created by doing nothing.
Throwing asylum seekers in prison is really stupid and this is why.
|
On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"?
How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision.
Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children.
Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages.
|
On June 21 2018 08:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"? How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision. Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1000791238864404480Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages.
Crossing the border illegally is a minor crime. Letting asylum seekers remain in the country and wear a tracking device had a 98% success rate. They attended their hearings and were either granted asylum or were deported. So saying law breaker law are going free isn’t an accurate description of what was happening prior to this/
So why is this happening again? Why are we jailing people for a minor crime when the old system worked super well?
Oh yeah, it’s to deter immigration, legal and otherwise. It’s to make us look like an unfriendly, racist country that hates immigrants.
|
On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"?
The EO may lock Trump into catch and release w/ ankle bracelets after 20 days rather than family separation. I believe that is what has to happen under the text of the EO. Assuming that the administration is going to stick to not separating families, they'll have to release the whole family after 20 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
