|
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 |
United States43960 Posts
On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this.
Why are closer countries more responsible for helping asylum seekers than further countries? Either there is responsibility, in which case the US could certainly do more, or there is not. There’s no inverse square law for morality.
|
On October 23 2018 06:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. Why are closer countries more responsible for helping asylum seekers than further countries? Either there is responsibility, in which case the US could certainly do more, or there is not. There’s no inverse square law for morality.
Because the whole point of asylum is extraterritoriality. If the problem is in Honduras, there's a number of countries that can take them in. If they made it all the way to the USA, they're not here for asylum. They're here for our gibs.
|
United States43960 Posts
On October 23 2018 07:11 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 06:02 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. Why are closer countries more responsible for helping asylum seekers than further countries? Either there is responsibility, in which case the US could certainly do more, or there is not. There’s no inverse square law for morality. Because the whole point of asylum is extraterritoriality. If the problem is in Honduras, there's a number of countries that can take them in. If they made it all the way to the USA, they're not here for asylum. They're here for our gibs.
Why is it the responsibility of the closest neighbor to assist? I can see why they might have more at stake, but not more responsibility. Imagine house #3 on a street catches fire. Should the people living in house #5, who are adjacent, help more than those in #4 across the road? They have more at stake for they do not want the fire to spread, but they have no greater moral obligation.
Asylum is a moral obligation, not a practical one. In practice Jordan has more obligation to Syrian refugees than the US because the fire is on their doorstep. But morally the US has far greater means, and also a lot of responsibility for setting the fire.
|
On October 23 2018 04:25 farvacola wrote:
Trump does indeed make issues binary, but that ploy only really works with people who are already inclined to do so. As godwrath hinted at above, there still exist a significant number of voters who are ambivalent, indifferent, or entirely undecided about a whole host of things, one of which happens to be immigration.
While I agree with this to an extent, I also believe Trump has made people more binary in their moral nature. The country is certainly more polarized than it once was and people are more polarized in their views than they used to be. And while you are right about people who are on the fence about immigration, from a purely "win the house" strategy perspective:
If we were to rank issues democrats can use to bring purple Wisconsin voters into the party, immigration is not the thing I would choose to do that. Immigration is not the reason Bernie and Trump both beat Clinton in Wisconsin. In my eyes, taking the elite down a few steps is what really resonates with these people. I think we are better served by focusing on unions, minimum wage, healthcare, and making a clear case for why Democrats can help eliminate government corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
In Oregon you go to a storefront and they have all sorts of edibles and variants of pot and whatever. TBD/ THC levels etc. You don't order from them government but you do show ID. People try to sell you stuff and then help you when you figure out what you want.
I can't speak to if its a good deal or what not, I've never smoked pot. Been to these store fronts a bit though with friends/roommate. I also work right next to a local distributor that distributes product to all these various stores.
|
On October 23 2018 08:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 04:25 farvacola wrote:
Trump does indeed make issues binary, but that ploy only really works with people who are already inclined to do so. As godwrath hinted at above, there still exist a significant number of voters who are ambivalent, indifferent, or entirely undecided about a whole host of things, one of which happens to be immigration. While I agree with this to an extent, I also believe Trump has made people more binary in their moral nature. The country is certainly more polarized than it once was and people are more polarized in their views than they used to be. And while you are right about people who are on the fence about immigration, from a purely "win the house" strategy perspective: If we were to rank issues democrats can use to bring purple Wisconsin voters into the party, immigration is not the thing I would choose to do that. Immigration is not the reason Bernie and Trump both beat Clinton in Wisconsin. In my eyes, taking the elite down a few steps is what really resonates with these people. I think we are better served by focusing on unions, minimum wage, healthcare, and making a clear case for why Democrats can help eliminate government corruption.
As a republican it's almost comical how the democrat party keeps shooting themselves on the foot right up to the midterms and how many of the posters here are totally oblivious to that. I agree with you that that SHOULD be the democrat message, instead of "indentity politics" (DNA tests, migration), abolish ICE, mobs protesting republican senators at restaurants and the whole host of insanity we have seen the last two weeks.
At this point I think Republicans are gonna pick 3-5 seats on the Senate and the House is not totally lost (we can disagree on this  )
|
On October 23 2018 08:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 07:11 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 06:02 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. Why are closer countries more responsible for helping asylum seekers than further countries? Either there is responsibility, in which case the US could certainly do more, or there is not. There’s no inverse square law for morality. Because the whole point of asylum is extraterritoriality. If the problem is in Honduras, there's a number of countries that can take them in. If they made it all the way to the USA, they're not here for asylum. They're here for our gibs. Why is it the responsibility of the closest neighbor to assist? I can see why they might have more at stake, but not more responsibility. Imagine house #3 on a street catches fire. Should the people living in house #5, who are adjacent, help more than those in #4 across the road? They have more at stake for they do not want the fire to spread, but they have no greater moral obligation. Asylum is a moral obligation, not a practical one. In practice Jordan has more obligation to Syrian refugees than the US because the fire is on their doorstep. But morally the US has far greater means, and also a lot of responsibility for setting the fire.
The closest neighbor is often more cultually compatible (Spanish language, same pre-independence origins, similar traditions). This is the case with Guatemala and Mexico.
You also rely on the disingenuous assumption that asylum seekers will go home. This has not been the case with Middle Eastern refugees in Europe and this will not be the case in the US, as many organizations, and both political parties, benefit from them remaining in the US. For most of the members of the caravan this is a one-way trip - if they go the other way, it probably won't be voluntary.
But furthermore we as Americans have no moral obligation to help, in the capacity of the American nation, anyone outside our borders. In fact, to extend your analogy, house #3 has been pretty flammable historically, and there's a good likelihood that if house #4 takes them in, a small fire might even erupt in house #4 in the future. Honduras, after all, is full of Hondurans, and we have no way of separating those who could inflict the problems of their home country in ours on a smaller scale from those who wouldn't.
The people with good intentions of the last generation thought it was our moral obligation to spread freedom and democracy around the world, and we entered Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and almost Syria on this premise.
|
On October 23 2018 08:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 04:25 farvacola wrote:
Trump does indeed make issues binary, but that ploy only really works with people who are already inclined to do so. As godwrath hinted at above, there still exist a significant number of voters who are ambivalent, indifferent, or entirely undecided about a whole host of things, one of which happens to be immigration. While I agree with this to an extent, I also believe Trump has made people more binary in their moral nature. The country is certainly more polarized than it once was and people are more polarized in their views than they used to be. And while you are right about people who are on the fence about immigration, from a purely "win the house" strategy perspective: If we were to rank issues democrats can use to bring purple Wisconsin voters into the party, immigration is not the thing I would choose to do that. Immigration is not the reason Bernie and Trump both beat Clinton in Wisconsin. In my eyes, taking the elite down a few steps is what really resonates with these people. I think we are better served by focusing on unions, minimum wage, healthcare, and making a clear case for why Democrats can help eliminate government corruption.
Which is nice and all, but we aren't discussing about talking points for a Wisconsin only scope.
Regardless, Republicans are going to run around like headless chickens yelling OPEN BORDERER! OPEN BORDERS! regardless if it's talked about or not.
|
On October 23 2018 09:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 08:15 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 07:11 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 06:02 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. Why are closer countries more responsible for helping asylum seekers than further countries? Either there is responsibility, in which case the US could certainly do more, or there is not. There’s no inverse square law for morality. Because the whole point of asylum is extraterritoriality. If the problem is in Honduras, there's a number of countries that can take them in. If they made it all the way to the USA, they're not here for asylum. They're here for our gibs. Why is it the responsibility of the closest neighbor to assist? I can see why they might have more at stake, but not more responsibility. Imagine house #3 on a street catches fire. Should the people living in house #5, who are adjacent, help more than those in #4 across the road? They have more at stake for they do not want the fire to spread, but they have no greater moral obligation. Asylum is a moral obligation, not a practical one. In practice Jordan has more obligation to Syrian refugees than the US because the fire is on their doorstep. But morally the US has far greater means, and also a lot of responsibility for setting the fire. The closest neighbor is often more cultually compatible (Spanish language, same pre-independence origins, similar traditions). This is the case with Guatemala and Mexico. You also rely on the disingenuous assumption that asylum seekers will go home. This has not been the case with Middle Eastern refugees in Europe and this will not be the case in the US, as many organizations, and both political parties, benefit from them remaining in the US. For most of the members of the caravan this is a one-way trip - if they go the other way, it probably won't be voluntary. But furthermore we as Americans have no moral obligation to help, in the capacity of the American nation, anyone outside our borders. In fact, to extend your analogy, house #3 has been pretty flammable historically, and there's a good likelihood that if house #4 takes them in, a small fire might even erupt in house #4 in the future. Honduras, after all, is full of Hondurans, and we have no way of separating those who could inflict the problems of their home country in ours on a smaller scale from those who wouldn't. The people with good intentions of the last generation thought it was our moral obligation to spread freedom and democracy around the world, and we entered Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and almost Syria on this premise.
This is the exact attitude the allowed anti Semitic clowns in the state department to send boat loads of Jews back to Nazi germany.
|
On October 23 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 09:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 08:15 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 07:11 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 06:02 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. Why are closer countries more responsible for helping asylum seekers than further countries? Either there is responsibility, in which case the US could certainly do more, or there is not. There’s no inverse square law for morality. Because the whole point of asylum is extraterritoriality. If the problem is in Honduras, there's a number of countries that can take them in. If they made it all the way to the USA, they're not here for asylum. They're here for our gibs. Why is it the responsibility of the closest neighbor to assist? I can see why they might have more at stake, but not more responsibility. Imagine house #3 on a street catches fire. Should the people living in house #5, who are adjacent, help more than those in #4 across the road? They have more at stake for they do not want the fire to spread, but they have no greater moral obligation. Asylum is a moral obligation, not a practical one. In practice Jordan has more obligation to Syrian refugees than the US because the fire is on their doorstep. But morally the US has far greater means, and also a lot of responsibility for setting the fire. The closest neighbor is often more cultually compatible (Spanish language, same pre-independence origins, similar traditions). This is the case with Guatemala and Mexico. You also rely on the disingenuous assumption that asylum seekers will go home. This has not been the case with Middle Eastern refugees in Europe and this will not be the case in the US, as many organizations, and both political parties, benefit from them remaining in the US. For most of the members of the caravan this is a one-way trip - if they go the other way, it probably won't be voluntary. But furthermore we as Americans have no moral obligation to help, in the capacity of the American nation, anyone outside our borders. In fact, to extend your analogy, house #3 has been pretty flammable historically, and there's a good likelihood that if house #4 takes them in, a small fire might even erupt in house #4 in the future. Honduras, after all, is full of Hondurans, and we have no way of separating those who could inflict the problems of their home country in ours on a smaller scale from those who wouldn't. The people with good intentions of the last generation thought it was our moral obligation to spread freedom and democracy around the world, and we entered Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and almost Syria on this premise. This is the exact attitude the allowed anti Semitic clowns in the state department to send boat loads of Jews back to Nazi germany.
What were we supposed to do with them? Keep in mind that by the time the Germans started killing them, we were already at war with Germany - can't really declare war a second time.
|
On October 23 2018 10:36 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:On October 23 2018 09:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 08:15 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 07:11 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 06:02 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. Why are closer countries more responsible for helping asylum seekers than further countries? Either there is responsibility, in which case the US could certainly do more, or there is not. There’s no inverse square law for morality. Because the whole point of asylum is extraterritoriality. If the problem is in Honduras, there's a number of countries that can take them in. If they made it all the way to the USA, they're not here for asylum. They're here for our gibs. Why is it the responsibility of the closest neighbor to assist? I can see why they might have more at stake, but not more responsibility. Imagine house #3 on a street catches fire. Should the people living in house #5, who are adjacent, help more than those in #4 across the road? They have more at stake for they do not want the fire to spread, but they have no greater moral obligation. Asylum is a moral obligation, not a practical one. In practice Jordan has more obligation to Syrian refugees than the US because the fire is on their doorstep. But morally the US has far greater means, and also a lot of responsibility for setting the fire. The closest neighbor is often more cultually compatible (Spanish language, same pre-independence origins, similar traditions). This is the case with Guatemala and Mexico. You also rely on the disingenuous assumption that asylum seekers will go home. This has not been the case with Middle Eastern refugees in Europe and this will not be the case in the US, as many organizations, and both political parties, benefit from them remaining in the US. For most of the members of the caravan this is a one-way trip - if they go the other way, it probably won't be voluntary. But furthermore we as Americans have no moral obligation to help, in the capacity of the American nation, anyone outside our borders. In fact, to extend your analogy, house #3 has been pretty flammable historically, and there's a good likelihood that if house #4 takes them in, a small fire might even erupt in house #4 in the future. Honduras, after all, is full of Hondurans, and we have no way of separating those who could inflict the problems of their home country in ours on a smaller scale from those who wouldn't. The people with good intentions of the last generation thought it was our moral obligation to spread freedom and democracy around the world, and we entered Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and almost Syria on this premise. This is the exact attitude the allowed anti Semitic clowns in the state department to send boat loads of Jews back to Nazi germany. What were we supposed to do with them? Keep in mind that by the time the Germans started killing them, we were already at war with Germany - can't really declare war a second time.
Not send them back to die? Help them? My town hosted refugees from Europe in the 1990s and they were just thrilled to not be living in the woods. Is this a trick question?
|
On October 23 2018 10:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 10:36 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:On October 23 2018 09:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 08:15 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 07:11 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 06:02 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. Why are closer countries more responsible for helping asylum seekers than further countries? Either there is responsibility, in which case the US could certainly do more, or there is not. There’s no inverse square law for morality. Because the whole point of asylum is extraterritoriality. If the problem is in Honduras, there's a number of countries that can take them in. If they made it all the way to the USA, they're not here for asylum. They're here for our gibs. Why is it the responsibility of the closest neighbor to assist? I can see why they might have more at stake, but not more responsibility. Imagine house #3 on a street catches fire. Should the people living in house #5, who are adjacent, help more than those in #4 across the road? They have more at stake for they do not want the fire to spread, but they have no greater moral obligation. Asylum is a moral obligation, not a practical one. In practice Jordan has more obligation to Syrian refugees than the US because the fire is on their doorstep. But morally the US has far greater means, and also a lot of responsibility for setting the fire. The closest neighbor is often more cultually compatible (Spanish language, same pre-independence origins, similar traditions). This is the case with Guatemala and Mexico. You also rely on the disingenuous assumption that asylum seekers will go home. This has not been the case with Middle Eastern refugees in Europe and this will not be the case in the US, as many organizations, and both political parties, benefit from them remaining in the US. For most of the members of the caravan this is a one-way trip - if they go the other way, it probably won't be voluntary. But furthermore we as Americans have no moral obligation to help, in the capacity of the American nation, anyone outside our borders. In fact, to extend your analogy, house #3 has been pretty flammable historically, and there's a good likelihood that if house #4 takes them in, a small fire might even erupt in house #4 in the future. Honduras, after all, is full of Hondurans, and we have no way of separating those who could inflict the problems of their home country in ours on a smaller scale from those who wouldn't. The people with good intentions of the last generation thought it was our moral obligation to spread freedom and democracy around the world, and we entered Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and almost Syria on this premise. This is the exact attitude the allowed anti Semitic clowns in the state department to send boat loads of Jews back to Nazi germany. What were we supposed to do with them? Keep in mind that by the time the Germans started killing them, we were already at war with Germany - can't really declare war a second time. Not send them back to die?
They weren't dying at that point.
Help them?
So we say "Everyone who's on the wrong side of political repression, get in!"? How many people do you expect to show up?
My town hosted refugees from Europe in the 1990s and they were just thrilled to not be living in the woods. Is this a trick question?
I don't see how it's our prerogative to have a large number of foreigners disappear within our country just because someone in a different country is mistreating them. Do you think our government is a charity?
|
Let me get this straight, you support the US government sending the Jews fleeing Nazi germany back?
|
On October 23 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Let me get this straight, you support the US government sending the Jews fleeing Nazi germany back?
Not right now. Give it another 100 pages and when FDR comes up and then we will hear all about how FDR was a closet anti-semite for turning away that ship that one time.
|
On October 23 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Let me get this straight, you support the US government sending the Jews fleeing Nazi germany back?
Knowing what we now know, absolutely not. It's a small number of people (900) that we can easily track and in the worst case (Nazi Germany keeps being Nazi Germany), integrate. If the entire Jewish population of Germany, millions strong, showed up at our front door, I would absolutely refuse to take all of them.
|
On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote:
I’ve seen and even heard a few equally uneducated, ignorant and uninformed commentaries on the subject. I have zero interest in the Democrats feeding that beast even a little bit. Just call Trump and the conservatives what they are: Hysterical fear mongers that are afraid of 7000 unarmed people walking across a desert. Last time a bunch of unarmed people crossed a desert a religion was born, so I understand the fear. Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. A. People are calling this an invasion and you have the balls to not call it fear mongering..? B. 7k Immigrants is 0.5% of all immigration that happens yearly in the US, and 17% of all asylum immigration. Compared to what you're already taking in this is not that massive of an increase. C. "Why should we do anything? It's not our problem that they're in a shitty position. Don't make it my problem!" D. What happened to the best country in the world mumbo jumbo you guys keep spewing? Is that just for show? Is it only best if no one else gets to participate?
This sort of angry self righteousness is unfortunately the norm nowadays. I'm sorry for posting that.
EDIT: Let me elaborate a little bit.
A) I'm not calling it an invasion. I specifically referred to it as a migration. I'm not beholden to whatever Fox news has to say about international issues.
B) This is the kind of information I was looking for. Thank you for providing it, but I don't appreciate your overall tone.
D) I am a lower class citizen in the US. I rent (can't afford a house and probably won't ever be able to), and the best health insurance options available to me are terrible and have high deductibles and don't provide me any assistance with cancer and other ailments. I think the US is downright horrible compared to what I hear about most EU nations.
C) I honestly don't have a response for.
I also almost always vote Democratic and for tax increases. If someone pretty liberal like me can't ask a question without meeting vitriol like this, I can't imagine what more conservative people think.
When writing posts like these, please keep in mind not every US citizen is a mustache-twirling billionaire.
|
On October 23 2018 11:09 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Let me get this straight, you support the US government sending the Jews fleeing Nazi germany back? Knowing what we now know, absolutely not. It's a small number of people (900) that we can easily track and in the worst case (Nazi Germany keeps being Nazi Germany), integrate. If the entire Jewish population of Germany, millions strong, showed up at our front door, I would absolutely refuse to take all of them.
Good, because we're only talking about 7k people in this caravan. Whats the dilemma here?
|
On October 23 2018 11:22 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 11:09 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 23 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Let me get this straight, you support the US government sending the Jews fleeing Nazi germany back? Knowing what we now know, absolutely not. It's a small number of people (900) that we can easily track and in the worst case (Nazi Germany keeps being Nazi Germany), integrate. If the entire Jewish population of Germany, millions strong, showed up at our front door, I would absolutely refuse to take all of them. Good, because we're only talking about 7k people in this caravan. Whats the dilemma here?
1. It isn''t the first
2. At this rate it won't be the last
3. They're blending in with illegal immigrants who claim asylum and bloat the system thanks to the NGOs who help them, meaning we couldn't track them like we could if 7000 people showed up on boat(s) out of the blue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
