|
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 26 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2018 07:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Well, he did argue that a baker have the right to refuse service due to political beliefs, so if a restaurant decides to exercise that same right, perhaps he should be happy for that political freedom? I'm under no delusions that there'd be plenty of people who'd refuse me service if I was a member of the Trump administration or otherwise a public, highly visible figure. I just want to stress that this is a more recent development and, per my previous comments, a reflection of the current shitiness of our society. Hell, it's a good thing that I'm married, because dating would be a pain in the ass with the new political litmus tests that women put out there, which is a completely foreign concept to me. And for those who are wondering, if I was going to describe the political leanings of my wife, she'd probably be a cross between Mohdoo and Igne with more than a dusting of Chinese totalitarianism thrown in. Actually I am quite interested to see the viewpoint and squaring of the circle from those who defend the baker, now are outraged when then a political figure is denied service. It's not hard. There's nothing inconsistent between arguing against the use of government power to force someone to do something, and then arguing for a civil society in which people do not discriminate in the marketplace based upon political, religious, or other divisions. You keep saying this but it doesn't make it true. What's new is that the type of "shitty society" you're describing has negatively impacted (albeit slight af) someone you think matters.
Of course this is something new. You can point to racial tensions all you want, but that's a different beast altogether.
|
Racial tensions are very different from what we are discussing today.
One is being judged by the color of their skin. The other is being judged by the quality of their character.
|
On June 26 2018 08:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 26 2018 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2018 07:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Well, he did argue that a baker have the right to refuse service due to political beliefs, so if a restaurant decides to exercise that same right, perhaps he should be happy for that political freedom? I'm under no delusions that there'd be plenty of people who'd refuse me service if I was a member of the Trump administration or otherwise a public, highly visible figure. I just want to stress that this is a more recent development and, per my previous comments, a reflection of the current shitiness of our society. Hell, it's a good thing that I'm married, because dating would be a pain in the ass with the new political litmus tests that women put out there, which is a completely foreign concept to me. And for those who are wondering, if I was going to describe the political leanings of my wife, she'd probably be a cross between Mohdoo and Igne with more than a dusting of Chinese totalitarianism thrown in. Actually I am quite interested to see the viewpoint and squaring of the circle from those who defend the baker, now are outraged when then a political figure is denied service. It's not hard. There's nothing inconsistent between arguing against the use of government power to force someone to do something, and then arguing for a civil society in which people do not discriminate in the marketplace based upon political, religious, or other divisions. You keep saying this but it doesn't make it true. What's new is that the type of "shitty society" you're describing has negatively impacted (albeit slight af) someone you think matters. Of course this is something new. You can point to racial tensions all you want, but that's a different beast altogether.
Nixon literally started a drug war to imprison his political opposition. Your position necessitates it's supporters to be grossly ignorant of the history of this country and such absurd contortions of reason and sensibility that I can't believe it's made in earnest.
|
On June 26 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:
Racial tensions are very different from what we are discussing today.
One is being judged by the color of their skin. The other is being judged by the quality of their character.
And how dare I ask are people judged for "the quality of their character"?
|
On June 26 2018 08:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 08:12 Plansix wrote:
Racial tensions are very different from what we are discussing today.
One is being judged by the color of their skin. The other is being judged by the quality of their character.
And how dare I ask are people judged for "the quality of their character"?
It is very hard without significant knowledge of the person. But be a public figure working for an administration that plans on separating up to 20,000 children from their families makes it easier. Or working for the organization that is doing the separating also makes it easier.
|
On June 26 2018 07:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 07:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Well, he did argue that a baker have the right to refuse service due to political beliefs, so if a restaurant decides to exercise that same right, perhaps he should be happy for that political freedom? I'm under no delusions that there'd be plenty of people who'd refuse me service if I was a member of the Trump administration or otherwise a public, highly visible figure. I just want to stress that this is a more recent development and, per my previous comments, a reflection of the current shitiness of our society. Hell, it's a good thing that I'm married, because dating would be a pain in the ass with the new political litmus tests that women put out there, which is a completely foreign concept to me. And for those who are wondering, if I was going to describe the political leanings of my wife, she'd probably be a cross between Mohdoo and Igne with more than a dusting of Chinese totalitarianism thrown in. Show nested quote +Actually I am quite interested to see the viewpoint and squaring of the circle from those who defend the baker, now are outraged when then a political figure is denied service. It's not hard. There's nothing inconsistent between arguing against the use of government power to force someone to do something, and then arguing for a civil society in which people do not discriminate in the marketplace based upon political, religious, or other divisions.
Its kinda funny seeing "if your a snowflake lib or if you are a trump supporter then leave". Just a shift where politics have shifted to be more an important metric in peoples mind for relationships. Used to be religious stuff (though its still up there). Politics definitely have risen sharply in priority now.
|
Rachel Maddow is saying she has undercover footage of inside the shelters holding children separated from their parents.
|
On June 26 2018 07:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 07:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Well, he did argue that a baker have the right to refuse service due to political beliefs, so if a restaurant decides to exercise that same right, perhaps he should be happy for that political freedom? I'm under no delusions that there'd be plenty of people who'd refuse me service if I was a member of the Trump administration or otherwise a public, highly visible figure. I just want to stress that this is a more recent development and, per my previous comments, a reflection of the current shitiness of our society. Hell, it's a good thing that I'm married, because dating would be a pain in the ass with the new political litmus tests that women put out there, which is a completely foreign concept to me. And for those who are wondering, if I was going to describe the political leanings of my wife, she'd probably be a cross between Mohdoo and Igne with more than a dusting of Chinese totalitarianism thrown in. Show nested quote +Actually I am quite interested to see the viewpoint and squaring of the circle from those who defend the baker, now are outraged when then a political figure is denied service. It's not hard. There's nothing inconsistent between arguing against the use of government power to force someone to do something, and then arguing for a civil society in which people do not discriminate in the marketplace based upon political, religious, or other divisions.
I can’t even imagine what cross political dating looks like nowadays for people in their 20s.
|
On June 26 2018 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 08:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 26 2018 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2018 07:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Well, he did argue that a baker have the right to refuse service due to political beliefs, so if a restaurant decides to exercise that same right, perhaps he should be happy for that political freedom? I'm under no delusions that there'd be plenty of people who'd refuse me service if I was a member of the Trump administration or otherwise a public, highly visible figure. I just want to stress that this is a more recent development and, per my previous comments, a reflection of the current shitiness of our society. Hell, it's a good thing that I'm married, because dating would be a pain in the ass with the new political litmus tests that women put out there, which is a completely foreign concept to me. And for those who are wondering, if I was going to describe the political leanings of my wife, she'd probably be a cross between Mohdoo and Igne with more than a dusting of Chinese totalitarianism thrown in. Actually I am quite interested to see the viewpoint and squaring of the circle from those who defend the baker, now are outraged when then a political figure is denied service. It's not hard. There's nothing inconsistent between arguing against the use of government power to force someone to do something, and then arguing for a civil society in which people do not discriminate in the marketplace based upon political, religious, or other divisions. You keep saying this but it doesn't make it true. What's new is that the type of "shitty society" you're describing has negatively impacted (albeit slight af) someone you think matters. Of course this is something new. You can point to racial tensions all you want, but that's a different beast altogether. Nixon literally started a drug war to imprison his political opposition. Your position necessitates it's supporters to be grossly ignorant of the history of this country and such absurd contortions of reason and sensibility that I can't believe it's made in earnest.
I thought that LBJ's the guy who started the "War on Drugs." As it turns out, he was a proponent of the "War on Crime" instead.
http://time.com/3746059/war-on-crime-history/
I think that the distinction to be made there is that politicians lie to the folks that got them elected and tell them what they want to hear. Their goal is to stay "on message" all the time without making any mistakes, not to be honest & chipper "beaver cleaver" types. The real story going on here is that racial tensions get people excited and tend to unite folks in industry to be "for the good guys" or "against the bad guys." That's why, for example, President Trump mentioned the wall even though there's a lot of liberal opposition to that because the Mexicans provide a lot of cheap labor to agricultural industries. C'mon, they don't really want to build a wall to block the Mexicans, they just want to get the opposition excited
|
Way back in 2012 a baker refused to serve joe Biden cookies while campaigning. Now, Biden did ask if he could stop by while campaigning and be baker refused. All fair and good. But then Paul Ryan decided that these bakers were sending a message to the administration and turned them into a feature at a campaign event.
This is a very similar event(though with key differences) that somehow remained civil and didn’t escalate. And standing up to Obama and the government was celebrated by Republicans. It was all cool until they were the ones in power and there is no longer an adult in the White House.
|
She has failed to live up to the hype before. I'll wait to see what she has before getting my hopes up that we got an uncensored view inside the camps.
|
Yeah the tax returns fiasco is still fresh in my mind as well. God knows she will probably spend 20 minutes talking it up before anything else.
|
I can't help but wonder how many of the 2000+ children that were originally separated from their families are actually going to be reunited with them again, and how many of them are going to stay in cages. For that matter, I also wonder what's going to happen to the families that have been detained since Trump had his "generous" change of heart, because after their 20 day periods are up, they can easily just start separating children from their parents again, and put them in cages.
|
On June 26 2018 09:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I can't help but wonder how many of the 2000+ children that were originally separated from their families are actually going to be reunited with them again, and how many of them are going to stay in cages. For that matter, I also wonder what's going to happen to the families that have been detained since Trump had his "generous" change of heart, because after their 20 day periods are up, they can easily just start separating children from their parents again, and put them in cages.
I agree. Let’s not put the kids in cages. Let’s reunite them with their families on an express flight out of the US.
|
On June 26 2018 09:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 09:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I can't help but wonder how many of the 2000+ children that were originally separated from their families are actually going to be reunited with them again, and how many of them are going to stay in cages. For that matter, I also wonder what's going to happen to the families that have been detained since Trump had his "generous" change of heart, because after their 20 day periods are up, they can easily just start separating children from their parents again, and put them in cages. I agree. Let’s not put the kids in cages. Let’s reunite them with their families on an express flight out of the US.
They are seeking asylum. Some of those families were fleeing violence or a volcano. Maybe let them finish their asylum applications with a nice tracking device.
|
On June 26 2018 10:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2018 09:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I can't help but wonder how many of the 2000+ children that were originally separated from their families are actually going to be reunited with them again, and how many of them are going to stay in cages. For that matter, I also wonder what's going to happen to the families that have been detained since Trump had his "generous" change of heart, because after their 20 day periods are up, they can easily just start separating children from their parents again, and put them in cages. I agree. Let’s not put the kids in cages. Let’s reunite them with their families on an express flight out of the US. They are seeking asylum. Some of those families were fleeing violence or a volcano. Maybe let them finish their asylum applications with a nice tracking device.
If they really wanted to seek asylum, they should have gone to one of the numerous US embassies on the way to the border. If they had, they would not be detained. No, these are illegal immigrants who got caught. Nothing more.
|
On June 26 2018 10:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 10:00 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2018 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2018 09:10 NewSunshine wrote:
I can't help but wonder how many of the 2000+ children that were originally separated from their families are actually going to be reunited with them again, and how many of them are going to stay in cages. For that matter, I also wonder what's going to happen to the families that have been detained since Trump had his "generous" change of heart, because after their 20 day periods are up, they can easily just start separating children from their parents again, and put them in cages. I agree. Let’s not put the kids in cages. Let’s reunite them with their families on an express flight out of the US. They are seeking asylum. Some of those families were fleeing violence or a volcano. Maybe let them finish their asylum applications with a nice tracking device. If they really wanted to seek asylum, they should have gone to one of the numerous US embassies on the way to the border. If they had, they would not be detained. No, these are illegal immigrants who got caught. Nothing more.
Crossing the border is basicly misdemeanor violation of the civil code. It’s a minor crime unworthy of prosecution unless you are Jeff Sessions and want to waste government resources that were being used for real crimes. Also the ports of entry that would normally be used have been “full” since the zero tolerance policy has been in place. Curious how that happened.
Asylum can be applied for from within the US, up to a year after arrival, illegal or otherwise. It says so on the government forms. It’s a perfectly valid way to apply.
https://www.uscis.gov/system/files_force/files/form/i-589instr.pdf?download=1
So no, they are asylum seekers and your attempt to frame them otherwise failed a cursory google search.
|
It’s the repeat offenders that are being jailed.
Edit: And the issue isn’t that you can’t seek asylum if you enter illegally. The issue is that there are consequences as a matter of law if you opt for that route.
|
On June 26 2018 10:35 xDaunt wrote:
It’s the repeat offenders that are being jailed.
That is factually inaccurate. Zero tolerance means everyone. Every border crossers is being detained. It increased the number of detained immigrants by 20,000 in the span of a couple months. The justice department has had to put cases of serious crimes, like drug smuggling, on hold to handle the new load.
|
On June 26 2018 10:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 10:35 xDaunt wrote:
It’s the repeat offenders that are being jailed. That is factually inaccurate. Zero tolerance means everyone. Every border crossers is being detained. It increased the number of detained immigrants by 20,000 in the span of a couple months. The justice department has had to put cases of serious crimes, like drug smuggling, on hold to handle the new load.
You’re right, I was conflating something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
