|
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 29 2018 22:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:36 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way). My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise. but ICE exists to extract those who have crossed the borders, not some militaristic force AT the border. what good would that do? I want ICE to be a backstop to the border assets. It’s part of locking down the border.
it's a large mass of land to cover, the man power required won't occur. hence, build the wall.
|
On June 29 2018 22:45 SenorChang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:42 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 22:40 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. I'm not disagreeing with you. Drugs don't 'magically' appear in the US. They come from somewhere. a lot of central american countries are just stuffed up - yet the solution from 'humanitarians' are to allow the people fleeing into the US without fixing the underlying problems. The US don’t have any power over other nations beyond military force. And we are not going to fight a war with drug cartels because we would be funding both ends of the war. And people crossing the border is lower than it has been in a very long time. This isn’t the issue people are making it out to be. i'm not saying people crossing the border are the issue, I'm saying 'what' crosses the border is.
I don't think people have any idea what it would look like even if you could cut the US off of it's cocaine/heroin addiction overnight.
Cutting off cocaine from the US would make prohibition look like tea with the queen.
|
On June 29 2018 22:45 SenorChang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:42 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 22:40 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. I'm not disagreeing with you. Drugs don't 'magically' appear in the US. They come from somewhere. a lot of central american countries are just stuffed up - yet the solution from 'humanitarians' are to allow the people fleeing into the US without fixing the underlying problems. The US don’t have any power over other nations beyond military force. And we are not going to fight a war with drug cartels because we would be funding both ends of the war. And people crossing the border is lower than it has been in a very long time. This isn’t the issue people are making it out to be. i'm not saying people crossing the border are the issue, I'm saying 'what' crosses the border is. "What" crosses the border? if people aren't an issue in your own words, though you seem to think it is previously, then what exactly is your issue? Drugs? What does the ICE have to do with drugs?
|
On June 29 2018 22:44 SenorChang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:39 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? An agency rebuilt and refocused to a more transparent form of deportation, providing information to local law enforcement who they are taking and where they are taking them. A new system should be made to replace the ICE detainer that is legally sounds and doesn’t have states unlawfully enforcing the civil code through detaining people with deportation flags. Thought needs to be put into where ICE is willing to detain illegal immigrants and prohibitions need to be placed on detaining immigrants going to court, schools or other areas that even the police would be reluctant to arrest at. And there needs to be accountability to both local law enforcement and government officials. Right now ICE operates like the FBI did under Hoover, answering to no one and doing whatever they want. And acting like that is not sustainable. Local law enforcement and communities can’t have this agency snatching people at any given time, taking them away and providing no information on how to find the people ICE detained. deportation transparency... as if people are being disappeared?
Literally that is what happens. ICE is federal, they don’t’ answer to any local law enforcement. When ICE detains people, ICE often take to them different states for holding, often not providing any information to the family members. Sometimes they don’t even check that the person they detained don’t have kids. And sometimes they detain US citizens.
http://thehill.com/latino/385261-ice-wrongly-arrested-over-1000-us-citizens-in-recent-years-report
Sometimes for years.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-citizens-ice-20180427-htmlstory.html
And this is for citizenship. I could not “prove” I was a citizen on demand. Most Americans don’t carry around their birth certificate. ICE has also detained lawful residents and others. The agency operates under a detain first, ask questions later motto.
They are a dysfunctional in their current form agency that is not compatible with a nation that values due to process.
|
On June 29 2018 22:46 SenorChang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:36 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way). My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise. but ICE exists to extract those who have crossed the borders, not some militaristic force AT the border. what good would that do? I want ICE to be a backstop to the border assets. It’s part of locking down the border. it's a large mass of land to cover, the man power required won't occur. hence, build the wall.
the wall would do nothing useful. so not sure why you'd bring it up.
|
On June 29 2018 23:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:46 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:36 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way). My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise. but ICE exists to extract those who have crossed the borders, not some militaristic force AT the border. what good would that do? I want ICE to be a backstop to the border assets. It’s part of locking down the border. it's a large mass of land to cover, the man power required won't occur. hence, build the wall. the wall would do nothing useful. so not sure why you'd bring it up.
When the movie Pacific Rim came out, one of the largest complaints on TL was that the “Build a sea wall to keep out monsters” plan was too stupid and no one would get behind it. Yet here we are today.
|
On June 29 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 23:06 zlefin wrote:On June 29 2018 22:46 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:36 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way). My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise. but ICE exists to extract those who have crossed the borders, not some militaristic force AT the border. what good would that do? I want ICE to be a backstop to the border assets. It’s part of locking down the border. it's a large mass of land to cover, the man power required won't occur. hence, build the wall. the wall would do nothing useful. so not sure why you'd bring it up. When the movie Pacific Rim came out, one of the largest complaints on TL was that the “Build a sea wall to keep out monsters” plan was too stupid and no one would get behind it. Yet here we are today.
yeah but its to keep out mexicans not kaijus! what a false equivalence!
|
On June 29 2018 23:15 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 23:06 zlefin wrote:On June 29 2018 22:46 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:36 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way). My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise. but ICE exists to extract those who have crossed the borders, not some militaristic force AT the border. what good would that do? I want ICE to be a backstop to the border assets. It’s part of locking down the border. it's a large mass of land to cover, the man power required won't occur. hence, build the wall. the wall would do nothing useful. so not sure why you'd bring it up. When the movie Pacific Rim came out, one of the largest complaints on TL was that the “Build a sea wall to keep out monsters” plan was too stupid and no one would get behind it. Yet here we are today. yeah but its to keep out mexicans not kaijus! what a false equivalence!
The Maginot Line was very succeful at redirecting Germany through Belgium.
|
On June 29 2018 23:15 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 23:06 zlefin wrote:On June 29 2018 22:46 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:36 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way). My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise. but ICE exists to extract those who have crossed the borders, not some militaristic force AT the border. what good would that do? I want ICE to be a backstop to the border assets. It’s part of locking down the border. it's a large mass of land to cover, the man power required won't occur. hence, build the wall. the wall would do nothing useful. so not sure why you'd bring it up. When the movie Pacific Rim came out, one of the largest complaints on TL was that the “Build a sea wall to keep out monsters” plan was too stupid and no one would get behind it. Yet here we are today. yeah but its to keep out mexicans not kaijus! what a false equivalence!
Yeah. Mexicans are way more determined.
|
On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border.
What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right?
Also, Trump is clearly the 'next Chavez'.
|
On June 30 2018 00:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right? Also, Trump is clearly the 'next Chavez'.
Yeah but he's given them everything they want so he'll probably be lionised as one of the greatest Republican Presidents in history by the time it's all done. Much to his satisfaction.
|
If you want a wall to stop a substantial chunk of illegal immigration, it better have psychic powers and be able to teleport out the people overstaying their visas that constitute 2/3 of the undocumented people entering annually.
It's always a poor sign when the silver bullet to solve a problem was suggested in Arrested Development.
|
On June 30 2018 00:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right?
What, are you not paying to attention to the mess over in Europe? Yeah, the Europeans are clearly having a great time with the massive influx of refugees and migrants arriving at their shores.
Also, Trump is clearly the 'next Chavez'.
I expect better than this from you. Chavez murdered his country and Maduro is putting the final nails in the coffin. Comparing Trump to Chavez is simply retarded.
|
On June 30 2018 00:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2018 00:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right? What, are you not paying to attention to the mess over in Europe? Yeah, the Europeans are clearly having a great time with the massive influx of refugees and migrants arriving at their shores. I expect better than this from you. Chavez murdered his country and Maduro is putting the final nails in the coffin. Comparing Trump to Chavez is simply retarded.
Didn't Chavez completely turn Venezuala around and make it an incredibly successful country during almost his entire tenure? I mean... that's why he became famous, wasn't it? Because he made socialism work for a bit?
Found this from a basic article about Maduro, discussing his predecessor: "Under his rule, Venezuela’s unemployment rate halved, income per capita more than doubled, the poverty rate fell by more than half, education improved, and infant mortality rates declined"
Doesn't sound like 'murdering his country' to me.
If your argument is going to be about short-sighted, short term economic policy that wasn't sustainable... well... I'm not sure that's the path to take, given that's all the US has done recently.
|
What mess in Europe? Please provide statistics and how that is relevant to the US. We don’t really have any specific problems relating to immigration, legal or illegal. And the US already has a robust system to deal with asylum seekers and get them through the asylum process quickly for deportation or acceptance. I have not seen a lot of facts relating to this potential crisis. It sounds anti-immigration people being hysterical, like those crazy gun control people that want to end the 2nd amendment.
|
On June 30 2018 00:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2018 00:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right? What, are you not paying to attention to the mess over in Europe? Yeah, the Europeans are clearly having a great time with the massive influx of refugees and migrants arriving at their shores. I expect better than this from you. Chavez murdered his country and Maduro is putting the final nails in the coffin. Comparing Trump to Chavez is simply retarded.
You people keep citing "the mess in europe" yet people from europe are telling you there is no mess, and yet you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over, it's cute really. And if you don't think what trump is doing is trying to murder the country, then well, I don't know what to tell you.
|
On June 29 2018 20:20 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 12:39 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2018 10:04 zlefin wrote:On June 29 2018 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2018 08:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In 'Major Step' Toward Making Democratic Party More Democratic, DNC Votes to Roll Back Power of Superdelegates
"Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
In an important and long-overdue step toward making the Democratic Party more accountable to voters and less captive to the interests of establishment insiders, the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) Rules and Bylaws arm voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to drastically curtail the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot of the presidential nomination.
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action."
—Sen. Bernie SandersSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long criticized the party's superdelegate system as undemocratic, congratulated DNC chair Tom Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee for the move in a statement following the 27-1 vote, saying the "decision will ensure that delegates elected by voters in primaries and caucuses will have the primary role in selecting the Democratic Party's nominee at the 2020 convention."
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action," Sanders added.
Nomiki Konst, a Sanders appointee to the DNC's Unity Reform Commission, similarly praised the DNC's move to limit superdelegates' power in a series of tweets late Wednesday, attributing the nearly unanimous vote to a wave of grassroots activism that began during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when progressives recognized the way in which the system tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton over Sanders' insurgent campaign.
"This is a YUGE deal," Konst wrote shortly following the committee's vote. "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
The push by progressives to scale back the influence of superdelegates intensified in the wake of the heated 2016 Democratic primaries, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secured the support of hundreds of superdelegates before a single vote was cast.
"No candidate should have an accumulated lead, whether real or perceived, before a first ballot is cast," DNC chair Tom Perez said during a conference call about the new rule on Wednesday. "We have to make sure that we rebuild the trust among many who feel alienated from our party."
The Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to officially certify the new superdelegate restrictions next month before they are adopted by the full DNC in August. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/28/major-step-toward-making-democratic-party-more-democratic-dnc-votes-roll-back-power?amp Better late than never, I suppose. This is encouraging news, and a pretty big concession on the side of the DNC (assuming the power of the superdelegates truly is rolled back). It should be zero, but I will accept this. This is a step in the right direction and makes super delegates significantly weaker. The delegate count starting at +34235236 Clinton before any voting took place made the entire primary look like a joke. This still allows for the same shit to happen, just way less grotesquely. But fact remains, it should be zero. We should continue working towards zero, but be happy with this. You know super delegates were always very weak, right? and that the issue is more about optics than reality? Optics matter very, very, very much. It is the entire reason Trump won. I agree they matter alot (sadly). I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the facts on it. and I wouldn't say it's the entire reason; as there's so many factors involved it's hard to point to one as the entire reason. unrelatedly: Jock -> I and many others dispute some of your categorizations of Hillary of course. but no great need to get into it (unless you want to) since it's not pertinent to your argument with gh, and when you're arguing with him it makes sense to use his definitions.
I don't particularly want to get into it, but to explain myself a little...
Hilary is the epitome of establishment politics. While she may not be personally corrupted (I have no idea about her personally because I've not met her or spent any time around her), she is associated extremely heavily with people who are, she has been bought and paid for many times over, and symbolically she represents everything that anti-establishment politics hates.
I'm coming at this from a totally different pov than you though so I don't expect we would ever reach a point of agreement on the matter.
|
On June 30 2018 00:46 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2018 00:26 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2018 00:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right? What, are you not paying to attention to the mess over in Europe? Yeah, the Europeans are clearly having a great time with the massive influx of refugees and migrants arriving at their shores. Also, Trump is clearly the 'next Chavez'. I expect better than this from you. Chavez murdered his country and Maduro is putting the final nails in the coffin. Comparing Trump to Chavez is simply retarded. You people keep citing "the mess in europe" yet people from europe are telling you there is no mess, and yet you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over, it's cute really. And if you don't think what trump is doing is trying to murder the country, then well, I don't know what to tell you.
The mess in Europe is primarily a political one spawned by the inadequacy of the European Union and the European project as a whole to adapt to external and internal pressures e.g migration, problems in the eurozone, individual nations wanting different things etc. Somehow I don't think anyone is referring to the political mess when they transplant the issue to America, because America and Europe aren't comparable in that way.
|
|
|
Looks like trump is doing a good job of identifying who the enemies are. Reports are that he recently asked Macron to leave the EU, and when the leader of Sweden was informing him that Sweden is not in NATO, Trump responsed that maybe the US should take the same approach. All is well on the foreign policy front. Just look at North Korea - following trumps promise to discontinue military exercises, NK is upgrading its nuclear facilities.
- Following China granting trademarks to Trump, in a matter of days Trump reversed his stance that the US should end the One Hina Policy.
- Following China’s $500M investment in a Trump branded project in Indonesia, in a matter of days/weeks Trump retreated from his sanctions on a Chinese company, stating that it was disadvantaging Chinese workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
102
EPT
