|
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 October 23 2018 11:25 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 11:22 Gahlo wrote: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.
The illegal immigrants will just picked out during the asylum review process. Almost no asylum seekers skip out on the asylum hearings, so there is zero risk to letting them in.
|
It's stupid because the only reason this is national news is that they're all together. If it wasn't a mob, and instead all happened to trickle in to just add 7000 over the course of the year, no one would give two shits.
|
On October 23 2018 11:25 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 11:22 Gahlo wrote: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.
1. Neither were those Jews.
2. Neither were those Jews.
3. Other way around. Those supposed illegal immigrants are blending in with asylum seekers. The "catch and release"(ugh, shoot me) system we used for a while now had a 98% success rate. Maybe you're looking at it from the wrong end and look to expand the system that sustains it instead of closing all the tolls except one and hollering about the off ramps backing up.
|
On October 23 2018 11:37 Ryzel wrote:
It's stupid because the only reason this is national news is that they're all together. If it wasn't a mob, and instead all happened to trickle in to just add 7000 over the course of the year, no one would give two shits.
Pretty much. And they are only traveling together for personal safety.
|
Trump seems to be upping the brazenness of his lies in close proximity to the election. I suspect it's a fear mongering tactic to turn out the vote. He has made these claims in the past couple days:
- Nixing the arms deal with Saudi Arabia would result in the loss of 400,000 jobs. Then he went up to 1 million jobs.
- There are middle easterners in the caravan of migrants coming north.
- There are anti-immigrant riots going on in California.
All complete fabrications. It is very strange that anyone would believe what he says.
|
United States43251 Posts
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?
It's hard for me to comprehend that this is a serious question. The question of what to do with Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi controlled Europe isn't one of the great unsolvable problems. What you were supposed to do is not send them back to the Gestapo. There was room in America for Jewish refugees.
|
On October 23 2018 11:19 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote: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. 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.
This is fair. I sometimes make the mistake of grouping people together based on their answer, and I grouped you with red neck fox watching conservative who yells about freedom and patriotism while refusing to lift a finger to help anyone but yourself. It's sometimes difficult to understand context in writing, and I mistook your genuine question for a rhetorical one. I apologise.
That said I sincerely believe refusing to help others is a particular nasty belief to have, and will not sugar coat my answers to make people who actually think like this feel better about themselves.
Edit: Before anyone mistakes my post for me thinking everyone should have open borders: of course not. Immigration is a much more nuanced and complicated issue than that. But there's a far difference between discussing the nuance and refusing to participate because you don't feel an obligation to.
|
On October 23 2018 12:58 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 11:19 mierin wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote: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. 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. This is fair. I sometimes make the mistake of grouping people together based on their answer, and I grouped you with red neck fox watching conservative who yells about freedom and patriotism while refusing to lift a finger to help anyone but yourself. It's sometimes difficult to understand context in writing, and I mistook your genuine question for a rhetorical one. I apologise. That said I sincerely believe refusing to help others is a particular nasty belief to have, and will not sugar coat my answers to make people who actually think like this feel better about themselves. Edit: Before anyone mistakes my post for me thinking everyone should have open borders: of course not. Immigration is a much more nuanced and complicated issue than that. But there's a far difference between discussing the nuance and refusing to participate because you don't feel an obligation to.
Totally fair. I don't necessarily have an objection to taking in these people (I am in the northern half of the US, so I really don't have much "skin in the game"). I just wanted a breakdown of the pros and cons of letting this group in vs. potentially limitless others as well. I am all for helping out my fellow humans, I just wish that I as a human got something in return out of this (single payer healthcare for example).
|
That is an incredibly important exchange.
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.
On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote:
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?
On October 23 2018 11:19 mierin wrote:
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.
This really is the engine that drives everything shitty in politics today. Everyone blames Trump, but Trump is a chain reaction begun and topped up by polarising discourse like this.
The initial statement there is exactly the type of thing the proverbial disengaged swing voter might come out with. An issue has come to their attention, they want to talk about it, their initial reaction is right leaning. Regardless of the context in this case, these are the exact questions asked by the exact people you need to get on your side to win in the midterms and in 2020.
Going on a high-and-mighty rant right out of the gate can't be the play. That person is going go "well, that guy was a dick" and go on their way. Even worse, if they keep trying to engage, they're going to eventually hit an alt-righter, and now they've got recent personal experience when they start hearing about libtards and the leftist thought police. Suddenly, all you've done is drive them exactly where you hoped they wouldn't go.
I realise that you've backed down, but I really think this is worth looking at in a more than superficial way.
Yes, it's annoying to engage in good faith with some troll doing so in bad faith. But if you use the guise of "not sugar coating" to jump down the throat of anyone who expresses an opinion to the right-of-centre, you're doing irreparable damage to your own cause.
|
On October 23 2018 12:45 KwarK 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? It's hard for me to comprehend that this is a serious question. The question of what to do with Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi controlled Europe isn't one of the great unsolvable problems. What you were supposed to do is not send them back to the Gestapo. There was room in America for Jewish refugees.
For reference, the USA has 1/12th the populaton density of the Netherlands. States such as Wyoming, N/S Dakota, Nebraska and Montana have almost no one living there.
|
So, by the looks someone tried to blow up George Soros.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45949737
I don't know if it's political bias speaking, but i feel like i know what kind of guy that might've been. Soros isn't well liked amongst right wingers. To put mildly.
I'm not sure what else to say to this, i guess it's a new low.
|
United Kingdom20321 Posts
terrorism
noun
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
|
I honestly expect more of that to occur, particularly if Dems do well this election cycle. Things are gonna get worse before they get better, at any rate.
|
Given how Trump has convinced a large section of voters that the nation is under attack and illegal immigrants are going to start squatting in their vacation homes on the lake, I don’t expect it to get better either. More people are going to have to get hurt before politicians and citizens are willing to consider that fear mongering websites and networks are doing real harm. It is going to be a real dangerous time to be a reporter in the US.
|
On October 23 2018 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Given how Trump has convinced a large section of voters that the nation is under attack and illegal immigrants are going to start squatting in their vacation homes on the lake, I don’t expect it to get better either. More people are going to have to get hurt before politicians and citizens are willing to consider that fear mongering websites and networks are doing real harm. It is going to be a real dangerous time to be a reporter in the US. Lets not forget we already had an assassination attempt last year during congressional baseball practice.
This isn't a future possibility, its already reality.
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
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?
To address point D:
I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions."
It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist."
I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders.
|
On October 23 2018 23:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Given how Trump has convinced a large section of voters that the nation is under attack and illegal immigrants are going to start squatting in their vacation homes on the lake, I don’t expect it to get better either. More people are going to have to get hurt before politicians and citizens are willing to consider that fear mongering websites and networks are doing real harm. It is going to be a real dangerous time to be a reporter in the US. Lets not forget we already had an assassination attempt last year during congressional baseball practice. This isn't a future possibility, its already reality.
The part that impresses me is the delusion of some politicians. They are now getting harassed while going to dinner, but say nothing when the president cheers on a congress man body slamming a reporter. Rand Paul says that he is worried someone is going to get killed, but never considers changing his stance on anything that is happening in DC. Susan Collins gets mad because people raised money for whatever opponent runs against her if she doesn’t vote against Kav, but is happy to accept political donations for billionaires. Nazi and the KKK march, kill someone and politicians just hope they don’t do it again. Or at least wait until after the mid terms.
Congress is just filled with senators and house members that do not understand that they set the tone for the country. They can feed the anger or try to temper it. I don’t like Pelosi, but at least she understands that much. But I don’t think it is enough. This congress is incapable of dealing with the modern day media landscape and 20 different groups trying to create unrest in this country.
|
On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote: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. 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? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders.
Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that it gets criticized for?
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
On October 23 2018 23:34 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote: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. 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? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders. Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that gets criticized ?
I'm not claiming we have solved anything properly and made good decisions with international involvement in my lifetime. So there is definitely merit in wanting the USA to keep to itself. But my question still stands. Would there ever be any international acceptance for USA involvement in countries we have to accept refugees from?
|
On October 23 2018 23:39 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 23:34 Godwrath wrote:On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote: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. 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? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders. Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that gets criticized ? I'm not claiming we have solved anything properly and made good decisions with international involvement in my lifetime. So there is definitely merit in wanting the USA to keep to itself. But my question still stands. Would there ever be any international acceptance for USA involvement in countries we have to accept refugees from? Depends on the involvement. International relief and aid is rarely frowned upon.
If you mean military?
I don't think the world was any more eager for the EU to conquer northern Africa to stop the refugee crisis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
