|
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 |
Wow, I was just fanboying over the Ocasio-Cortez website, and I read her policy on ICE:
It’s time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights. Unlike prior immigration enforcement under the INS, ICE operates outside the scope of the Department of Justice and is unaccountable to our nation’s standards of due process. Now we see the consequences: young children are being ripped from their parents and kept in detention centers without due process and without accountability to Congress.
It's like she's reading my mind. *Swoon*
|
That part of her platform is getting traction with some Democrats now that the “short comings” of ICE are front and center for the public. And Republicans see it as a HUGE win for them, since they can say the Democrats want open borders and to let criminals into the country.
NPR wrote about it:
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625507824/4-questions-about-the-call-to-abolish-ice
Democrats who use the phrase say it doesn't mean they want no enforcement at the border at all. But Republicans are making a big push to convince voters that's exactly what Democrats do mean when they call for abolishing ICE.
Over the weekend and into this week, Trump tweeted about it repeatedly, saying Democrats want to get rid of ICE so they can have open borders and more crime. He tweeted Tuesday, "When we have an "infestation" of MS-13 GANGS in certain parts of our country, who do we send to get them out? ICE! They are tougher and smarter than these rough criminal elelments [sic] that bad immigration laws allow into our country. Dems do not appreciate the great job they do! Nov."
This is the president's No. 1 message for the midterms: Republicans are tough on the border and strong on crime, and Democrats are weak and will let hordes of immigrants come in illegally and "infest" our country. In an interview with Fox News that aired Sunday, Trump said he was thrilled that some Democrats were adopting this new rallying cry and signaled he would use it against them as often as possible. "I think they'll never win another
Why are Democrats divided about abolishing ICE?
Until this past weekend, immigration was largely a political problem for Republicans. The GOP was badly divided over Trump's policy to end deportation protection for DREAMers — immigrants in the country illegally who were brought to the U.S. when they were children — and his now-reversed practice of separating children from their parents at the border. The majority of the country sides with Democrats on immigration in general. A Pew Research Center poll from June showed that Democrats had a 14-point advantage in handling immigration — and that was before the family separation issue exploded. A recent Gallup poll showed that 75 percent of Americans thought immigration was a good thing for the country. A majority of voters have consistently supported giving DREAMers a path to citizenship.
Many Democrats think that turning the debate away from Trump's immigration policies and back to a fight over which party is stronger on border security is a loser for Democrats. It's why so many Democratic lawmakers refuse to jump on the "Abolish ICE" bandwagon. Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dodged the question, saying only that he wanted to "create policies that deal with immigration in a rational way." Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth said abolishing ICE wouldn't accomplish anything, since even without the agency, Trump would still be setting immigration policy. Although Warren and Gillibrand sided with the "Abolish ICE" push, California Sen. Kamala Harris, another possible 2020 contender, did not. Harris said she wanted to "critically re-examine ICE and its role." Many Democratic strategists were asking why — just when the Democrats were winning the immigration debate — they should adopt a slogan that could backfire on them going into the midterm elections.
Is the debate over ICE's existence worth having?
Yes.
ICE is a massive law enforcement agency, created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It employs more than 20,000 people. It's responsible for homeland security investigations and the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Last week The Texas Observer reported that 19 special agents in charge at ICE's Homeland Security Investigations unit wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen calling for the agency to be reorganized. The agents reportedly said that ICE is supposed to track down drug cartel leaders, child pornographers and human traffickers, but instead, the letter said, agents are spending time and resources going after undocumented immigrants, and the agency is becoming a "political pawn." The letter calls for splitting the agency in two — one part for homeland security, the other for deportations.
It's hard to imagine such a proposal would go anywhere, however, in a political atmosphere in which immigration issues get oversimplified and weaponized.
This last part is the part that I am afraid of. The Republicans are the master of weaponizing pushes for change/reform like this one. You can see it in this thread. And this country has not really shown itself to be that sensible when it comes to agencies that clearly need to be fix/destroyed/remade.
|
On July 07 2018 05:00 a_flayer wrote:Wow, I was just fanboying over the Ocasio-Cortez website, and I read her policy on ICE: Show nested quote +It’s time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights. Unlike prior immigration enforcement under the INS, ICE operates outside the scope of the Department of Justice and is unaccountable to our nation’s standards of due process. Now we see the consequences: young children are being ripped from their parents and kept in detention centers without due process and without accountability to Congress. It's like she's reading my mind. *Swoon*
Yeah, kind of wonder if GH would understand this if it was said by a politician he (I assume) agrees with.
ICE is not "immigration enforcement" as an all encompassing concept. It's a specific organization with a huge scope of jurisdiction, with powers granted from 9/11 reactionary laws.
|
The smartest thing she and other democrats that agree with her did was frame it like saying “abolish the IRS,” which several Republicans, including Teddy Cruz, have thrown around.
|
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation.
|
On July 07 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:00 a_flayer wrote:Wow, I was just fanboying over the Ocasio-Cortez website, and I read her policy on ICE: It’s time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights. Unlike prior immigration enforcement under the INS, ICE operates outside the scope of the Department of Justice and is unaccountable to our nation’s standards of due process. Now we see the consequences: young children are being ripped from their parents and kept in detention centers without due process and without accountability to Congress. It's like she's reading my mind. *Swoon* Yeah, kind of wonder if GH would understand this if it was said by a politician he (I assume) agrees with. ICE is not "immigration enforcement" as an all encompassing concept. It's a specific organization with a huge scope of jurisdiction, with powers granted from 9/11 reactionary laws.
Unless it's a crater, it's not going far enough for GH. That generally applies to everything that currently exists in the social order.
|
On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation.
It's a little bit early to be anointing a 28-year-old the savior of the democrat party.
|
On July 07 2018 05:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. It's a little bit early to be anointing a 28-year-old the savior of the democrat party.
Her main contribution right now is shining a light on Justice Democrats and their races, cause that wasn't going to happen otherwise obviously ("leftwing media" ><). It'll be interesting to see if she can improve the (already pretty good, sorry Wulfey) stats of the progressives.
|
On July 07 2018 05:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. It's a little bit early to be anointing a 28-year-old the savior of the democrat party.
I think its accurate. Democrats being incompetent at these things aside having momentum at this moment means shes worth her weight in platinum. She can do insane things at the moment like campaign in other peoples races to drum out votes among the disenfranchised progressives. Plus shes too young to run for president so she can be used as a shining star for a few months and then fade into the background without a slight on her for it.
|
On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation.
that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho.
it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy.
what metric of importance are you using btw?
oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all?
|
On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all?
Stardom and getting things done are directly connected. Its why the current generation of leadership in the democratic party is such an anathema to getting anyone excited or getting anything done. The ability to Marshall public opinion on an issue is the core measurement of success for a politician. Hollywood thinks they have this power but they almost never use it well.
TLDR: Ronald Reagan?
|
On July 07 2018 05:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all? Stardom and getting things done are directly connected. Its why the current generation of leadership in the democratic party is such an anathema to getting anyone excited or getting anything done. The ability to Marshall public opinion on an issue is the core measurement of success for a politician. Hollywood thinks they have this power but they almost never use it well. TLDR: Ronald Reagan?
directly connected to what degree? I can agree there's some positive correlation, but there's alot of other factors.
I do see your point though.
I stand very much by the point that it doesn't lead to good policies.
perhaps I used too vague a definition of getting stuff done instead of emphasising it should be about getting good and thoughtful things done in a sound manner. or just used a different word choice.
|
On July 07 2018 05:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all? Stardom and getting things done are directly connected. Its why the current generation of leadership in the democratic party is such an anathema to getting anyone excited or getting anything done. The ability to Marshall public opinion on an issue is the core measurement of success for a politician. Hollywood thinks they have this power but they almost never use it well. TLDR: Ronald Reagan? directly connected to what degree? I can agree there's some positive correlation, but there's alot of other factors. and I stand very much by the point that it doesn't lead to good policies. perhaps I used too vague a definition of getting stuff done instead of emphasising it should be about getting good and thoughtful things done in a sound manner. or just used a different word choice.
The good or bad politics is illrelevent when the only way to get policy is through star power. If you don't win elections you don't win power and without power you can't do anything.
|
On July 07 2018 05:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:55 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 05:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all? Stardom and getting things done are directly connected. Its why the current generation of leadership in the democratic party is such an anathema to getting anyone excited or getting anything done. The ability to Marshall public opinion on an issue is the core measurement of success for a politician. Hollywood thinks they have this power but they almost never use it well. TLDR: Ronald Reagan? directly connected to what degree? I can agree there's some positive correlation, but there's alot of other factors. and I stand very much by the point that it doesn't lead to good policies. perhaps I used too vague a definition of getting stuff done instead of emphasising it should be about getting good and thoughtful things done in a sound manner. or just used a different word choice. The good or bad politics is illrelevent when the only way to get policy is through star power. If you don't win elections you don't win power and without power you can't do anything.
that's ignoring my point though. my point being that getting stuff done through star power is a bad mechanism.
as such it's highly relevant.
|
On July 07 2018 05:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. It's a little bit early to be anointing a 28-year-old the savior of the democrat party.
Her as an individual, I am not super concerned with. I don't think she's particularly great and I would cringe if she ran for president.
However, it is more about what she represents. She is more of a Ted Cruz than a Dennis Kucinich, in my opinion. It is more about the type of candidate, the nature of her rhetoric, and the goals of her platform that are important. The ways Democrat leadership deal with her exposive entry to the national stage will play a huge role in determining whether energetic democrats show up in November. We need her energy and we need her "fuck this shit" attitude. It is the entire reason the right came to grow and eventually led to Trump.
"Fuck this shit" is the best way to get people to vote.
|
On July 07 2018 05:10 Plansix wrote:That part of her platform is getting traction with some Democrats now that the “short comings” of ICE are front and center for the public. And Republicans see it as a HUGE win for them, since they can say the Democrats want open borders and to let criminals into the country. NPR wrote about it: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625507824/4-questions-about-the-call-to-abolish-iceShow nested quote +Democrats who use the phrase say it doesn't mean they want no enforcement at the border at all. But Republicans are making a big push to convince voters that's exactly what Democrats do mean when they call for abolishing ICE.
Over the weekend and into this week, Trump tweeted about it repeatedly, saying Democrats want to get rid of ICE so they can have open borders and more crime. He tweeted Tuesday, "When we have an "infestation" of MS-13 GANGS in certain parts of our country, who do we send to get them out? ICE! They are tougher and smarter than these rough criminal elelments [sic] that bad immigration laws allow into our country. Dems do not appreciate the great job they do! Nov."
This is the president's No. 1 message for the midterms: Republicans are tough on the border and strong on crime, and Democrats are weak and will let hordes of immigrants come in illegally and "infest" our country. In an interview with Fox News that aired Sunday, Trump said he was thrilled that some Democrats were adopting this new rallying cry and signaled he would use it against them as often as possible. "I think they'll never win another
Why are Democrats divided about abolishing ICE?
Until this past weekend, immigration was largely a political problem for Republicans. The GOP was badly divided over Trump's policy to end deportation protection for DREAMers — immigrants in the country illegally who were brought to the U.S. when they were children — and his now-reversed practice of separating children from their parents at the border. The majority of the country sides with Democrats on immigration in general. A Pew Research Center poll from June showed that Democrats had a 14-point advantage in handling immigration — and that was before the family separation issue exploded. A recent Gallup poll showed that 75 percent of Americans thought immigration was a good thing for the country. A majority of voters have consistently supported giving DREAMers a path to citizenship.
Many Democrats think that turning the debate away from Trump's immigration policies and back to a fight over which party is stronger on border security is a loser for Democrats. It's why so many Democratic lawmakers refuse to jump on the "Abolish ICE" bandwagon. Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dodged the question, saying only that he wanted to "create policies that deal with immigration in a rational way." Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth said abolishing ICE wouldn't accomplish anything, since even without the agency, Trump would still be setting immigration policy. Although Warren and Gillibrand sided with the "Abolish ICE" push, California Sen. Kamala Harris, another possible 2020 contender, did not. Harris said she wanted to "critically re-examine ICE and its role." Many Democratic strategists were asking why — just when the Democrats were winning the immigration debate — they should adopt a slogan that could backfire on them going into the midterm elections.
Is the debate over ICE's existence worth having?
Yes.
ICE is a massive law enforcement agency, created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It employs more than 20,000 people. It's responsible for homeland security investigations and the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Last week The Texas Observer reported that 19 special agents in charge at ICE's Homeland Security Investigations unit wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen calling for the agency to be reorganized. The agents reportedly said that ICE is supposed to track down drug cartel leaders, child pornographers and human traffickers, but instead, the letter said, agents are spending time and resources going after undocumented immigrants, and the agency is becoming a "political pawn." The letter calls for splitting the agency in two — one part for homeland security, the other for deportations.
It's hard to imagine such a proposal would go anywhere, however, in a political atmosphere in which immigration issues get oversimplified and weaponized.
This last part is the part that I am afraid of. The Republicans are the master of weaponizing pushes for change/reform like this one. You can see it in this thread. And this country has not really shown itself to be that sensible when it comes to agencies that clearly need to be fix/destroyed/remade.
It depends on if the American public is smart enough to process a three step argument that goes: 1. ICE was founded very recently 2. It has demonstrated that it abuses its power and mistreats immigrants 3. There should be some sort of progressive immigration reform in general.
Because I agree that #abolishICE as a slogan is not sufficiently self-explanatory and invites the “open borders” slander by conservatives, which no Democrat would ever agree with. So it all depends on if the Democrats can make their case for reform without giving in to their instincts of being ineffectual losers afraid to make a simple moral point.
Personally I think it’s a pretty good slogan. I thought Bernie Sanders’ equivocating answers on whether ICE should be abolished were disappointing in that regard. He shouldn’t overthink this and should just add to the chorus and call for #abolishICE now that they have so much bad press.
|
On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all?
Getting stuff done and thoughtful policy isn't a useful skill so long as you lose your election. Voters want energy, passion, and to feel like the person they are electing is just as mad as they are. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is so important. There is a swath of people just waiting to be energized. She is our ticket to that. Democrats need to embrace it and realize whiteboard discussions of policy aren't relevant in elections. Save that stuff for post-election. Until then, it is rah rah rah.
I would likely switch to unaffiliated, but maybe SDA if only to send a message.
|
You guys need to stop caring about whether a slogan invites criticism by the republicans, it's not like they're going to stop criticizing you if you're precise enough in your elocution. It's more important to project strength and create energy.
|
On July 07 2018 06:06 Nebuchad wrote:
You guys need to stop caring about whether a slogan invites criticism by the republicans, it's not like they're going to stop criticizing you if you're precise enough in your elocution. It's more important to project strength and create energy.
Inspiring your own people to vote seems to be 99999999x as important as tip-toeing around the opposition.
|
On July 07 2018 05:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. It's a little bit early to be anointing a 28-year-old the savior of the democrat party.
By far most of the older Democratic politicians are deeply compromised and desperately need to be replaced by better candidates. If only a few dozen Dems could be unseated by progressive challengers, the party would become much healthier for it. It would be a great start if people are serious about demanding universal health care and other important policies.
Also, AOC has a lot of charisma and good politics. It is not that she is perfect, but that she sets an example others should follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
