|
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 July 05 2018 04:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 04:35 NewSunshine wrote:On July 05 2018 04:22 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 23:40 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 22:40 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 22:37 Mercy13 wrote:On July 04 2018 22:31 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 22:29 Mercy13 wrote:On July 04 2018 22:22 Introvert wrote:
isn't it interesting how when someone says "abolish ICE" we are supposed to k ow that they don't want open borders, but that they just mean "abolish and replace because it's too rotten to be saved." If a conservative says "the EPA is a classic power hungry bureaucracy that likes to crush those too small to fight" the automatic assumption is that one wants no environmental regulations at all. Excellent example of how some people won't even offer someone the benefit of the doubt. Just assume the person on the right is a bad person, and your arguments are much easier!
Now, I suspect that "abolish ICE" is just some good old fashioned dumb hyperbole (not a smart one but whatever). Just like "abolish the EPA" is. There are people who mean these literally, but if you are on the left you stress that "abolish ICE" isnt open borders to most people, but if it's about the EPA you assume that it means "have no regulations whatsoever!" Conservatives have control of the EPA currently, and they are taking the slash and burn approach rather than putting different regulations in place so I think it’s safe to say what they actually want is the slash and burn approach. Also ICE is a garbage agency and it’s objectively a good idea to abolish it. I don’t support open borders, and abolishing ICE doesn’t mean we will have open boarders, but having open borders would be preferable to an unaccountable secret police force with no regard for the rule of law. Maybe the EPA can't be saved! You literally just did what I was taking about. Maybe you slightly misunderstood me. Maybe I do support getting rid of the EPA, who knows! But the assumption of good intentions only goes one way. I’m confused by your response. Conservatives have the ability right now to remake the EPA into something better. They aren’t doing that. They’re tearing it down without putting anything else in its place. Or do you have examples of new/better regulations the current administration is supporting? I'm not talking about reform, I'm talking about the discussion about abolishing agencies. Maybe the EPA is full of zealots, and the entire agency is rotten! (the ICE parallel). This isn't about reform, though I think that's what most people want, not abolishment. The EPA is filled with scientists set on keeping our natural resources clean and testing them for safety reasons. Water supplies can get toxic agents in them naturally. They are here to collect scientific data and give it to the public free of charge. ICE is an agency that has a single purpose, to round up illegal immigrants and deport them. That attracts a single type of person. They have had a series of scandles that involves high level people stealing the identities of immigrants and knowingly detaining lawful residents, including citizens. 19 officers in ICE wrote a letter to congress calling for ICE be dissolved and replaced. So maybe one of those two is completely rotten to the core? I'm sorry, P6, you're going to need to help me out here. I ran what you said through my American translator plug in and it came out with: The EPA is full of liberal wishy-washy traitors who hate America and want businesses to fail and ICE is full of hard-working American patriots who just want to keep the borders safe and prevent other patriots being raped by Mexicans. Your translator needs an update. But I'll use this post because it's such an excellent distillation of what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing about whether either agency should exist. For the sake of this conversation I intentionally hedged on that! I'm pointing out a phenomenon the right knows well and the left perpetuates where we can take two similar starting points but go nowhere. because everyone on the right is a Bad Person, a statement like "abolish the EPA" is extrapolated to mean "there should be no environmental regulations!" while "abolish ICE" is taken to mean "get rid of the agency and replace it with the Sweet Butterfly Patrol." We aren't arguing the merits, and we can't because the Bad Person assumption is already enforced. And that's exactly what you did! lol. This is why I find discussions about things like "reaching out" or "civility" so hilarious from the left. When your own side is so high on this assumption, what makes you think you were actually exemplars of the virtues you are saying "got us nowhere"? Fascinating. There's a fault in your premise which makes all your conclusions about "the Left" mean very little. The argument is that ICE is a deeply troublesome agency that 1) is unnecessary, and thus doesn't need replacing, and 2)actively does harm to both immigrants and citizens alike. It could be abolished tomorrow and the country would be better off. What's more, given what I've said already, people who argue for abolishing ICE aren't arguing for open borders. That's just a patently absurd position that no one is taking. Just like you're not going to find a proponent for women's abortion rights saying that we might as well just kill everyone and get it over with. That's not why they hold the position they do. And finally, many people who argue the EPA must be dissolved do actually think we'd be better off without any environmental regulations whatsoever. There are still people who think global warming is a hoax, and that this is all much ado about nothing, and a conspiracy to destroy small businesses and "civil liberties". I don't find the parallel you're trying to draw all that valuable. Good heavens it's like you didn't read a thing I said since this morning. Try again but leave your feelings about ICE or the EPA out of it. In fact a few things you said there I alluded to in this past chain. In fact, I agreed that most people who say abolish ICE aren't arguing for open borders. Just like how most people who want to get rid of the EPA don't want the wild west in terms of environmental laws. I'll check in again later to see if this is registering with anyone. The assumption is so strong we're still talking merits, too.
I'm gonna say citation needed, because I don't think I've seen that kind of a plan put forward anywhere by anybody at a high, consistently level of public view.
I think the problem you have with getting this point across is the issues presented. I think gun laws would be a better example for a "left" issue. As for the right, I honestly don't know. A lot of what I see seems hyperbolic even from the source, so I'm open to suggestions.
|
On July 05 2018 08:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 05:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 05 2018 04:22 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 23:40 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 22:40 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 22:37 Mercy13 wrote:On July 04 2018 22:31 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 22:29 Mercy13 wrote:On July 04 2018 22:22 Introvert wrote:
isn't it interesting how when someone says "abolish ICE" we are supposed to k ow that they don't want open borders, but that they just mean "abolish and replace because it's too rotten to be saved." If a conservative says "the EPA is a classic power hungry bureaucracy that likes to crush those too small to fight" the automatic assumption is that one wants no environmental regulations at all. Excellent example of how some people won't even offer someone the benefit of the doubt. Just assume the person on the right is a bad person, and your arguments are much easier!
Now, I suspect that "abolish ICE" is just some good old fashioned dumb hyperbole (not a smart one but whatever). Just like "abolish the EPA" is. There are people who mean these literally, but if you are on the left you stress that "abolish ICE" isnt open borders to most people, but if it's about the EPA you assume that it means "have no regulations whatsoever!" Conservatives have control of the EPA currently, and they are taking the slash and burn approach rather than putting different regulations in place so I think it’s safe to say what they actually want is the slash and burn approach. Also ICE is a garbage agency and it’s objectively a good idea to abolish it. I don’t support open borders, and abolishing ICE doesn’t mean we will have open boarders, but having open borders would be preferable to an unaccountable secret police force with no regard for the rule of law. Maybe the EPA can't be saved! You literally just did what I was taking about. Maybe you slightly misunderstood me. Maybe I do support getting rid of the EPA, who knows! But the assumption of good intentions only goes one way. I’m confused by your response. Conservatives have the ability right now to remake the EPA into something better. They aren’t doing that. They’re tearing it down without putting anything else in its place. Or do you have examples of new/better regulations the current administration is supporting? I'm not talking about reform, I'm talking about the discussion about abolishing agencies. Maybe the EPA is full of zealots, and the entire agency is rotten! (the ICE parallel). This isn't about reform, though I think that's what most people want, not abolishment. The EPA is filled with scientists set on keeping our natural resources clean and testing them for safety reasons. Water supplies can get toxic agents in them naturally. They are here to collect scientific data and give it to the public free of charge. ICE is an agency that has a single purpose, to round up illegal immigrants and deport them. That attracts a single type of person. They have had a series of scandles that involves high level people stealing the identities of immigrants and knowingly detaining lawful residents, including citizens. 19 officers in ICE wrote a letter to congress calling for ICE be dissolved and replaced. So maybe one of those two is completely rotten to the core? I'm sorry, P6, you're going to need to help me out here. I ran what you said through my American translator plug in and it came out with: The EPA is full of liberal wishy-washy traitors who hate America and want businesses to fail and ICE is full of hard-working American patriots who just want to keep the borders safe and prevent other patriots being raped by Mexicans. Your translator needs an update. But I'll use this post because it's such an excellent distillation of what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing about whether either agency should exist. For the sake of this conversation I intentionally hedged on that! I'm pointing out a phenomenon the right knows well and the left perpetuates where we can take two similar starting points but go nowhere. because everyone on the right is a Bad Person, a statement like "abolish the EPA" is extrapolated to mean "there should be no environmental regulations!" while "abolish ICE" is taken to mean "get rid of the agency and replace it with the Sweet Butterfly Patrol." We aren't arguing the merits, and we can't because the Bad Person assumption is already enforced. And that's exactly what you did! lol. This is why I find discussions about things like "reaching out" or "civility" so hilarious from the left. When your own side is so high on this assumption, what makes you think you were actually exemplars of the virtues you are saying "got us nowhere"? Fascinating. I think this is just a human trait. Everyone on both sides loves a strawman. After all, Doug Jones become a radical abortionist with a history of supporting full-birth abortion with one terrible response to a question about specific legislation in front of congress pushing forward the trimester date, and Hillary Clinton became a hater of all Trump supporters because of a quote from a speech specifically about how some Trump supporters have legitimate opinions and grievances we should care about. Neither side takes the other side uniformly figuratively or literally, but that being the burden of "the left" and "the right" seems odd. Everyone perpetuates it become simplicity and strawmanning are tremendously potent weapons in politics, which the right realized even before the left. We'd be better off if neither side does it, but it's pretty hard for either side to disarm unilaterally. Especially when the current de facto leader of one side (Trump) will go so far as to completely fabricate things the other side supports. There is much to agree to here, but the problem is that the Bad Person assumption has fans in the media and culture. If someone says "you all just want to abolish borders!" you'll be deluged with "no! We just want to get rid of ICE and replace it with a humane agency." And of course the reverse is true with "abolish the EPA." But in that case, you get supposedly serious people telling us how conservatives want to allow Koch Industries to dump millions of gallons of waste upstream from a bunch of frolicking children or whatever. It isn't even about taking people literally, in the case of the EPA. It's actually much worse than that. What happens is that the EPA is treated as the One True Environmental Agency, and getting rid of it means you want no regulations at all. And for the record, I don't hold any government agency to be God's gift, as I mentioned to earlier. Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 06:00 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 05 2018 04:22 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 23:40 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 22:40 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 22:37 Mercy13 wrote:On July 04 2018 22:31 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 22:29 Mercy13 wrote:On July 04 2018 22:22 Introvert wrote:
isn't it interesting how when someone says "abolish ICE" we are supposed to k ow that they don't want open borders, but that they just mean "abolish and replace because it's too rotten to be saved." If a conservative says "the EPA is a classic power hungry bureaucracy that likes to crush those too small to fight" the automatic assumption is that one wants no environmental regulations at all. Excellent example of how some people won't even offer someone the benefit of the doubt. Just assume the person on the right is a bad person, and your arguments are much easier!
Now, I suspect that "abolish ICE" is just some good old fashioned dumb hyperbole (not a smart one but whatever). Just like "abolish the EPA" is. There are people who mean these literally, but if you are on the left you stress that "abolish ICE" isnt open borders to most people, but if it's about the EPA you assume that it means "have no regulations whatsoever!" Conservatives have control of the EPA currently, and they are taking the slash and burn approach rather than putting different regulations in place so I think it’s safe to say what they actually want is the slash and burn approach. Also ICE is a garbage agency and it’s objectively a good idea to abolish it. I don’t support open borders, and abolishing ICE doesn’t mean we will have open boarders, but having open borders would be preferable to an unaccountable secret police force with no regard for the rule of law. Maybe the EPA can't be saved! You literally just did what I was taking about. Maybe you slightly misunderstood me. Maybe I do support getting rid of the EPA, who knows! But the assumption of good intentions only goes one way. I’m confused by your response. Conservatives have the ability right now to remake the EPA into something better. They aren’t doing that. They’re tearing it down without putting anything else in its place. Or do you have examples of new/better regulations the current administration is supporting? I'm not talking about reform, I'm talking about the discussion about abolishing agencies. Maybe the EPA is full of zealots, and the entire agency is rotten! (the ICE parallel). This isn't about reform, though I think that's what most people want, not abolishment. The EPA is filled with scientists set on keeping our natural resources clean and testing them for safety reasons. Water supplies can get toxic agents in them naturally. They are here to collect scientific data and give it to the public free of charge. ICE is an agency that has a single purpose, to round up illegal immigrants and deport them. That attracts a single type of person. They have had a series of scandles that involves high level people stealing the identities of immigrants and knowingly detaining lawful residents, including citizens. 19 officers in ICE wrote a letter to congress calling for ICE be dissolved and replaced. So maybe one of those two is completely rotten to the core? I'm sorry, P6, you're going to need to help me out here. I ran what you said through my American translator plug in and it came out with: The EPA is full of liberal wishy-washy traitors who hate America and want businesses to fail and ICE is full of hard-working American patriots who just want to keep the borders safe and prevent other patriots being raped by Mexicans. Your translator needs an update. But I'll use this post because it's such an excellent distillation of what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing about whether either agency should exist. For the sake of this conversation I intentionally hedged on that! I'm pointing out a phenomenon the right knows well and the left perpetuates where we can take two similar starting points but go nowhere. because everyone on the right is a Bad Person, a statement like "abolish the EPA" is extrapolated to mean "there should be no environmental regulations!" while "abolish ICE" is taken to mean "get rid of the agency and replace it with the Sweet Butterfly Patrol." We aren't arguing the merits, and we can't because the Bad Person assumption is already enforced. And that's exactly what you did! lol. This is why I find discussions about things like "reaching out" or "civility" so hilarious from the left. When your own side is so high on this assumption, what makes you think you were actually exemplars of the virtues you are saying "got us nowhere"? Fascinating. Despite most of this being true when applied to "the left," I don't feel like this is a political phenomenon only limited to one side of the aisle; in fact, I would say that the Republican Party's grande strategy revolves around assuming that the other side is made up of "bad" or "misguided" individuals. There are not a lot of attempts that I remember (my bad memory might play a part in this, but I'm reasonably comfortable with my statement here) where Republicans reached out to Democrats for an attempt at legislation instead of using brute force and only red votes to pass laws. I would also say that people like Joe Manchin should not be counted as reaching out by Republicans; he changed in response to the views of his constituents, and he always switched without Republican action targeted at him (although, they certainly approve of this shift). The assumption that "the right" is the victim here is quite concerning, as it allows you to brush off "calls for civility" instead of saying that both sides need to work on their attitudes (our current president is a symptom of this); why was "If you'll be civil, we will too. Stop assuming we're willing to destroy the country to advance the interests of the capital class and we'll start considering what you say and drafting more moderate legislation" not the Republicans' response to this? Essentially, where is your high ground? You created one for yourself, but I see it crumbling away. In short, I understand the thrust of your argument, but disagree with the statement that this is perpetuated solely by "the left." Edit: the tea party does make it very difficult to reach out, considering that they have much more of a visible impact on Congress than the "hard leftists." My above reply applies here too. In addition to that, I'm not even counting very obvious political power moves. not supporting something because you how the game is played if you go along with it is actually not terribly offensive to me. It IS utterly absurd when we apply to supposed concentration camps on the border, but for everyday back and forth I don't mind it too much. + Show Spoiler +
This is kind of a side note and I'll spoiler it cause I wrote it, but I think it could become thing everyone responds to.
As for civility, I will remind you which party it was that treated Bush and Romney as moral monsters, while every time someone said something slightly untoward to Obama you could find 153534 Republicans tripping over themselves to disassociate from it. I suspect many disagree with me, but to shield myself I will remind the thread of how many times I've criticized Trump and his rhetoric. I just don't think the left, broadly speaking, has a leg to stand on. If they think they were being civil at the time... I can't want to see what they end up doing now.
And the media dominance I referenced above should also be food for thought. When almost the entire "neutral" media is placing the status of bad personhood upon one party, maybe one should be closely reevaluating if you were really as civil and nice as you thought you were.
But what flagrant abuses of power has the EPA wrought that would justify calling for the abolishment of the agency the way people are calling for ICE to be dismantled?
|
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator.
|
On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator.
As with almost everything you want to play this game of gotcha with, your point kind of putters out with proper context.
The DHS, and by extension ICE, are fairly new organizations created in (over)reaction to 9/11. Unlike when you say "abolish the police", but actually mean a complete clean-out and restructuring while still maintaining a law enforcement branch that is still a police force, the sentiment is that ICE should be actually abolished in preference of the system before their establishment (and associated power).
|
On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator.
I expect it has something to do with the other things which the two organisations respectively contribute to the country.
If you're not following that but want a respectful conversation on the topic, I expect somebody could give you one. If you do understand that and you're just spoiling for a fight I for one am not particularly interested.
|
I mean if the argument is the police are worse but more ingrained into society that's not beyond understanding. It's just not a very impressive argument imo either.
|
On July 05 2018 16:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean if the argument is the police are worse but more ingrained into society that's not beyond understanding. It's just not a very impressive argument imo either.
The argument is that you keep using the word abolish under your own definition.
Meanwhile everyone else uses the word abolish with the standard meaning.
So comparison is rather pointless.
|
On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator.
You don't want to abolish the police though. From the way you explained it before, you seem to want to totally transform the police into something different. That's not the same.
When people say abolish ICE, they want rid of them because what they do is pointless and cruel, and they only exist for the cruelty, so without them things are better.
The same isn't true of the police.
|
On July 05 2018 16:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator. You don't want to abolish the police though. From the way you explained it before, you seem to want to totally transform the police into something different. That's not the same. When people say abolish ICE, they want rid of them because what they do is pointless and cruel, and they only exist for the cruelty, so without them things are better. The same isn't true of the police.
I'm actually totally on board with completely abolishing the police, it's the rest of you that want to replace them.
EDIT: To be clear that's what the democrat politicians are calling for (regardless of what threadgoers are advocating).
I suppose I should mention something about not understanding what ICE is, was (before it was called ICE) or what they do or why people want them to exist.
|
On July 05 2018 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 16:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator. You don't want to abolish the police though. From the way you explained it before, you seem to want to totally transform the police into something different. That's not the same. When people say abolish ICE, they want rid of them because what they do is pointless and cruel, and they only exist for the cruelty, so without them things are better. The same isn't true of the police. I'm actually totally on board with completely abolishing the police, it's the rest of you that want to replace them.
Dude, you've said that what you're calling for is actually police reform. Explicitly.
If you're going to use a separate dictionary from everyone else, at least post it somewhere so everyone else can reference it.
|
On July 05 2018 16:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator. You don't want to abolish the police though. From the way you explained it before, you seem to want to totally transform the police into something different. That's not the same. When people say abolish ICE, they want rid of them because what they do is pointless and cruel, and they only exist for the cruelty, so without them things are better. The same isn't true of the police. I'm actually totally on board with completely abolishing the police, it's the rest of you that want to replace them. Dude, you've said that what you're calling for is actually police reform. Explicitly. If you're going to use a separate dictionary from everyone else, at least post it somewhere so everyone else can reference it.
Reform implies that any of the current structures or employees would be retained. You're confusing my trying to tone it down for the liberals (they freaked out at the prospect) with being against abolition. I'm not.
The Democratic party is fully against abolition of ICE so I don't know who you guys are talking about anyway?
EDIT: When I say abolish ICE I mean "Abolish ICE", same goes for the police.
|
On July 05 2018 16:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 16:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 05 2018 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator. You don't want to abolish the police though. From the way you explained it before, you seem to want to totally transform the police into something different. That's not the same. When people say abolish ICE, they want rid of them because what they do is pointless and cruel, and they only exist for the cruelty, so without them things are better. The same isn't true of the police. I'm actually totally on board with completely abolishing the police, it's the rest of you that want to replace them. Dude, you've said that what you're calling for is actually police reform. Explicitly. If you're going to use a separate dictionary from everyone else, at least post it somewhere so everyone else can reference it. Reform implies that any of the current structures or employees would be retained. You're confusing my trying to tone it down for the liberals (they freaked out at the prospect) with being against abolition. I'm not. The Democratic party is fully against abolition of ICE so I don't know who you guys are talking about anyway?
"The police" refers to a government empowered body of people to enforce laws. "The police" do not have a mailing address, a business card, or an office. If you abolish "the police", that means you are putting an end to law enforcement as empowered by the government. This is how words work. If you ever want to communicate your thoughts on "abolishing the police" in a more fruitful manner, you might consider wording harder.
This is also not a thread that the Democratic party tends to respond to. I'm not sure why you're attempting to talk to them here, or why you think they told you your thoughts on abolishing the police was ridiculous. I assure you that was people in this thread, and not the Democratic party.
|
On July 05 2018 16:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 16:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 05 2018 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator. You don't want to abolish the police though. From the way you explained it before, you seem to want to totally transform the police into something different. That's not the same. When people say abolish ICE, they want rid of them because what they do is pointless and cruel, and they only exist for the cruelty, so without them things are better. The same isn't true of the police. I'm actually totally on board with completely abolishing the police, it's the rest of you that want to replace them. Dude, you've said that what you're calling for is actually police reform. Explicitly. If you're going to use a separate dictionary from everyone else, at least post it somewhere so everyone else can reference it. Reform implies that any of the current structures or employees would be retained. You're confusing my trying to tone it down for the liberals (they freaked out at the prospect) with being against abolition. I'm not. The Democratic party is fully against abolition of ICE so I don't know who you guys are talking about anyway? "The police" refers to a government empowered body of people to enforce laws. "The police" do not have a mailing address, a business card, or an office. If you abolish "the police", that means you are putting an end to law enforcement as empowered by the government. This is how words work. If you ever want to communicate your thoughts on "abolishing the police" in a more fruitful manner, you might consider wording harder. This is also not a thread that the Democratic party tends to respond to. I'm not sure why you're attempting to talk to them here, or why you think they told you your thoughts on abolishing the police was ridiculous. I assure you that was people in this thread, and not the Democratic party.
The police do have all of those those things?
I'm guessing you guys aren't familiar with what ICE is.
ICE is essentially "the police" but focused on immigrants (and "customs", which is basically their entrance to drug enforcement).
fyi, ICE aren't really the primary "family splitters" you've been hearing about lately. They are just the people who, when the bureaucrats say someone is breaking the law, are the ones to go to the scene. Since "the police" aren't actually allowed to enforce immigration law.
|
Canada11279 Posts
I love that people are all about "abolishing homeopathy" but abolishing the medical doctors is totally ridiculous.
False equivalence. Not the same thing, not by half if you consider how long the professional police force has been around. sergeant de ville. Or heck, constables, sheriffs and reeves. But hooray for cycling this argument back into currency.
|
On July 05 2018 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 16:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 05 2018 16:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 05 2018 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator. You don't want to abolish the police though. From the way you explained it before, you seem to want to totally transform the police into something different. That's not the same. When people say abolish ICE, they want rid of them because what they do is pointless and cruel, and they only exist for the cruelty, so without them things are better. The same isn't true of the police. I'm actually totally on board with completely abolishing the police, it's the rest of you that want to replace them. Dude, you've said that what you're calling for is actually police reform. Explicitly. If you're going to use a separate dictionary from everyone else, at least post it somewhere so everyone else can reference it. Reform implies that any of the current structures or employees would be retained. You're confusing my trying to tone it down for the liberals (they freaked out at the prospect) with being against abolition. I'm not. The Democratic party is fully against abolition of ICE so I don't know who you guys are talking about anyway? "The police" refers to a government empowered body of people to enforce laws. "The police" do not have a mailing address, a business card, or an office. If you abolish "the police", that means you are putting an end to law enforcement as empowered by the government. This is how words work. If you ever want to communicate your thoughts on "abolishing the police" in a more fruitful manner, you might consider wording harder. This is also not a thread that the Democratic party tends to respond to. I'm not sure why you're attempting to talk to them here, or why you think they told you your thoughts on abolishing the police was ridiculous. I assure you that was people in this thread, and not the Democratic party. The police do have all of those those things? I'm guessing you guys aren't familiar with what ICE is. ICE is essentially "the police" but focused on immigrants.
"The police" is not a singular body or organization. You could abolish the NYPD, and replace them with a newly structured law enforcement agency. By virtue of that new agency being a government empowered law enforcement group, they are "the police".
Abolishing the police means abolishing law enforcement, which you've repeatedly said is not what you meant. So again, words and definitions.
ICE is an organization, with specific jurisdiction and legal powers. You can, in fact, abolish ICE alongside their jurisdiction and legal powers.
|
On July 05 2018 17:07 Falling wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing homeopathy" but abolishing the medical doctors is totally ridiculous.
False equivalence. Not the same thing, not by half if you consider how long the professional police force has been around. sergeant de ville. Or heck, constables, sheriffs and reeves. But hooray for cycling this argument back into currency.
I don't think the dependence on "the police" by liberals is any different than the dependence on ICE by Republicans. You're both tied to a belief that without them them civil society would collapse and they are comparably ridiculous in my view.
|
On July 05 2018 17:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 05 2018 16:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 05 2018 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 16:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 05 2018 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love that people are all about "abolishing ICE" but abolishing the police is totally ridiculous. I can assure everyone that the police are guilty of far more and far more heinous crimes against not just immigrants but citizens which I'm told are given more rights by their creator. You don't want to abolish the police though. From the way you explained it before, you seem to want to totally transform the police into something different. That's not the same. When people say abolish ICE, they want rid of them because what they do is pointless and cruel, and they only exist for the cruelty, so without them things are better. The same isn't true of the police. I'm actually totally on board with completely abolishing the police, it's the rest of you that want to replace them. Dude, you've said that what you're calling for is actually police reform. Explicitly. If you're going to use a separate dictionary from everyone else, at least post it somewhere so everyone else can reference it. Reform implies that any of the current structures or employees would be retained. You're confusing my trying to tone it down for the liberals (they freaked out at the prospect) with being against abolition. I'm not. The Democratic party is fully against abolition of ICE so I don't know who you guys are talking about anyway? "The police" refers to a government empowered body of people to enforce laws. "The police" do not have a mailing address, a business card, or an office. If you abolish "the police", that means you are putting an end to law enforcement as empowered by the government. This is how words work. If you ever want to communicate your thoughts on "abolishing the police" in a more fruitful manner, you might consider wording harder. This is also not a thread that the Democratic party tends to respond to. I'm not sure why you're attempting to talk to them here, or why you think they told you your thoughts on abolishing the police was ridiculous. I assure you that was people in this thread, and not the Democratic party. The police do have all of those those things? I'm guessing you guys aren't familiar with what ICE is. ICE is essentially "the police" but focused on immigrants. "The police" is not a singular body or organization. You could abolish the NYPD, and replace them with a newly structured law enforcement agency. By virtue of that new agency being a government empowered law enforcement group, they are "the police". Abolishing the police means abolishing law enforcement, which you've repeatedly said is not what you meant. So again, words and definitions. ICE is an organization, with specific jurisdiction and legal powers. You can, in fact, abolish ICE alongside their jurisdiction and legal powers.
Police departments have all of those things, we're abolishing them.
I seriously don't think you guys understand what ICE does.
They don't do anything that any other agency doesn't do, except have people who can kick down doors and throw handcuffs on people (you know, the exact same thing police do for different but equally stupid laws).
|
Let's clear this up for the sake of the 20 other discussions that will continue throughout the next several years:
Do you want to remove all government empowered bodies of law enforcement within the United States and not replace them with anything?
- If yes, you can continue to say "abolish the police" all you like. And other people can ask you to defend your opinions as such.
- If no, please stop using the word "abolish", unless you are willing to explain to everyone who questions you on it that no, you do not actually mean abolish.
|
On July 05 2018 04:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 23:40 iamthedave wrote:On July 04 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 22:40 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 22:37 Mercy13 wrote:On July 04 2018 22:31 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2018 22:29 Mercy13 wrote:On July 04 2018 22:22 Introvert wrote:
isn't it interesting how when someone says "abolish ICE" we are supposed to k ow that they don't want open borders, but that they just mean "abolish and replace because it's too rotten to be saved." If a conservative says "the EPA is a classic power hungry bureaucracy that likes to crush those too small to fight" the automatic assumption is that one wants no environmental regulations at all. Excellent example of how some people won't even offer someone the benefit of the doubt. Just assume the person on the right is a bad person, and your arguments are much easier!
Now, I suspect that "abolish ICE" is just some good old fashioned dumb hyperbole (not a smart one but whatever). Just like "abolish the EPA" is. There are people who mean these literally, but if you are on the left you stress that "abolish ICE" isnt open borders to most people, but if it's about the EPA you assume that it means "have no regulations whatsoever!" Conservatives have control of the EPA currently, and they are taking the slash and burn approach rather than putting different regulations in place so I think it’s safe to say what they actually want is the slash and burn approach. Also ICE is a garbage agency and it’s objectively a good idea to abolish it. I don’t support open borders, and abolishing ICE doesn’t mean we will have open boarders, but having open borders would be preferable to an unaccountable secret police force with no regard for the rule of law. Maybe the EPA can't be saved! You literally just did what I was taking about. Maybe you slightly misunderstood me. Maybe I do support getting rid of the EPA, who knows! But the assumption of good intentions only goes one way. I’m confused by your response. Conservatives have the ability right now to remake the EPA into something better. They aren’t doing that. They’re tearing it down without putting anything else in its place. Or do you have examples of new/better regulations the current administration is supporting? I'm not talking about reform, I'm talking about the discussion about abolishing agencies. Maybe the EPA is full of zealots, and the entire agency is rotten! (the ICE parallel). This isn't about reform, though I think that's what most people want, not abolishment. The EPA is filled with scientists set on keeping our natural resources clean and testing them for safety reasons. Water supplies can get toxic agents in them naturally. They are here to collect scientific data and give it to the public free of charge. ICE is an agency that has a single purpose, to round up illegal immigrants and deport them. That attracts a single type of person. They have had a series of scandles that involves high level people stealing the identities of immigrants and knowingly detaining lawful residents, including citizens. 19 officers in ICE wrote a letter to congress calling for ICE be dissolved and replaced. So maybe one of those two is completely rotten to the core? I'm sorry, P6, you're going to need to help me out here. I ran what you said through my American translator plug in and it came out with: The EPA is full of liberal wishy-washy traitors who hate America and want businesses to fail and ICE is full of hard-working American patriots who just want to keep the borders safe and prevent other patriots being raped by Mexicans. Your translator needs an update. But I'll use this post because it's such an excellent distillation of what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing about whether either agency should exist. For the sake of this conversation I intentionally hedged on that! I'm pointing out a phenomenon the right knows well and the left perpetuates where we can take two similar starting points but go nowhere. because everyone on the right is a Bad Person, a statement like "abolish the EPA" is extrapolated to mean "there should be no environmental regulations!" while "abolish ICE" is taken to mean "get rid of the agency and replace it with the Sweet Butterfly Patrol." We aren't arguing the merits, and we can't because the Bad Person assumption is already enforced. And that's exactly what you did! lol. This is why I find discussions about things like "reaching out" or "civility" so hilarious from the left. When your own side is so high on this assumption, what makes you think you were actually exemplars of the virtues you are saying "got us nowhere"? Fascinating.
The funny thing about this is that you don't even understand why I'm mocking you.
Republicans have consistently indicated that they want the EPA abolished, not replaced with something better. In fact I can't recall any interview with any Republican government official that I've ever seen where they discussed a more efficient replacement for the EPA. It's all 'the EPA is an evil tyrannical organisation that hurts businesses'. Yes, I see a limited selection of such content, so if there is a detailed plan to replace the EPA with a superior organisation I'm all ears to hear it. But I see nothing from the American left wing posters here that tells me I'm missing an important part of the puzzle concerning reformation of the EPA, and the right wing posters never come in with something substantial on the topic, so I'm working off the assumption that the material doesn't exist, since nobody who should know about it seems to know that it does.
You're attempting to have a discussion which your side concluded years ago. Come at us with your vision of a replacement agency and we can have that talk. Nobody on the left has the beginnings of a reason to assume you're being genuine because your side's political ideology has been to DESTROY the EPA, not improve it, and it has been for a long time, and making Scott fucking Pruitt the head of the EPA is the evidence that such is the intent.
Where's the legislation you could currently be passing because you have the government? Where are Trump's new betterer yugely super good environmental protection regulations for a better EPA?
They're nowhere. They don't exist.
ICE on the other hand is doing its job really badly, damaging American social cohesion and essentially kidnapping children.
Do I really need to go on to explain where the case for abolishing ICE arises?
If ICE ceases to exist, the American border still exists, and there is still a patrol there keeping an eye on people crossing, and still legislation that deals with immigration. Abolish ICE = Open borders is utter nonsense.
As for the other strand, as GH loves to point out, most Republican legislation and cabinet picks during this Presidency have passed with Democratic votes. I think they all have, actually.
Doesn't matter. The narrative is the same. WHY WON'T YOU DEMONCRATS MEET US IN THE MIDDLE???
At the same time the President literally blames Democrats for unpopular things he's done.
You can't behave this way consistently for a year and a half then turn around and start whining because the left is getting belligerent. Sure, the left is getting belligerent. And it's going to get worse unless y'all on the right stop driving the situation into the gutters. And you're beyond the point where you can blame Democrats. You have the power right now. Obama tried to reach across the aisle consistently during his Presidency and was rebuffed consistently. It's not his fault Congress refused to play ball. This Congress isn't even making the attempt, unless it's as a completely farce in order to immediately blame Democrats for not playing ball, while making 'deals' they would be stupid to go along with.
Every Presidency is a chance to reset. Y'all on the right chose this direction. The Democrats tried to play ball several times, occasionally still do. Every single time they get punched in the face. After a certain point it just becomes stupidity to even make the attempt.
Republicans have had the Presidency and majority control of both houses of Congress for a year and a half, and somehow it's still the Democrats' job to maintain basic civility in political dialogue?
How does that even work in your head? When are Republicans - the alleged party of personal responsibility - going to take some fucking responsibility?
|
On July 05 2018 17:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Let's clear this up for the sake of the 20 other discussions that will continue throughout the next several years:
Do you want to remove all government empowered bodies of law enforcement within the United States and not replace them with anything?
- If yes, you can continue to say "abolish the police" all you like. And other people can ask you to defend your opinions as such.
- If no, please stop using the word "abolish", unless you are willing to explain to everyone who questions you on it that no, you do not actually mean abolish.
How about I tell you what I mean by "police"?
First, I don't mean any social mechanism developed to encourage adherence to agreed upon social conventions. What I do mean is any agency or individual that would self identify as "the police". As to how we go about encouraging adherence to agreed upon social conventions, I wouldn't call or develop anything like what you or others mean when they say police.That's sufficient for me to call it abolition.
If I understand correctly, the premise is: I mean reform, you mean abolition.
What actual functions of ICE are you or whoever this "Pro ICE abolition/anti-police abolition" crowd is actually calling for being abolished?
EDIT: To put it more plainly
What aspects of immigration and customs enforcement are you calling for the abolition of? presumably all of it right? or what you want is reform?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
