EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1113
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On February 12 2019 22:58 JimmiC wrote: My big take away from the whole shut down is while people are trying to figure out who "won". The reality is the whole country lost billions over a dick measuring contest that amounted to a whole bunch of nothing! I would be careful of the phrasing because it sounds too much like "both sides are to blame". What the shutdown was about was a wall that started as a mnemonic device for Trump to remember to mention immigration on the campaign trail. It was not to be a literal wall. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/04/where-the-idea-for-donald-trumps-wall-came-from/#5899b82d4415) A majority of the American people don't want it and legislators of the President's* own party don't want a literal wall either. (http://fortune.com/2018/12/12/trump-border-wall-poll/) So it's inaccurate to try to portion out the blame 50/50. It is arguable that the Dems have taken the position that represents the majority of America on most, if not all, major issues. And that makes sense if you consider Trump's approval rating and the fact that we are being ruled by a minority at the moment. Also, it is worth noting that the "border crisis" was orchestrated by the Trump administration. They literally created a humanitarian and security crisis on purpose. (https://medium.com/@SenJeffMerkley/merkley-reveals-secret-trump-administration-plan-to-create-border-crisis-f72a7c3de2bd) | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10534 Posts
On February 12 2019 22:48 Plansix wrote: Even the term economic migrant is loaded. It is meant to evoke someone that is only coming to the country to increase their wealth. But often reality is the migrant left their country because there is no work to sustain them. And a complete lack of employment doesn’t just exist in a vacuum. There are other risks and problems created by mass unemployment. At least here economic refugee is "THE" right wing talking point. Its easy to argue the "they take our jobs" line, its not so easy to argue that you should let people be bombed/lynched/whatever to dead. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On February 12 2019 23:32 Velr wrote: At least here economic refugee is "THE" right wing talking point. Its easy to argue the "they take our jobs" line, its not so easy to argue that you should let people be bombed/lynched/whatever to dead. The conservatives love to bash the Schrodinger's poor. They both are too poor to own a second house, yet rich enough if they have a fridge and a smart phone. Must hang out with Schrodinger's illegal, who is both too lazy to work (and therefore siphons off the welfare teat), yet also miraculously stealing all of the jobs. It's the foil of Schrodinger's Patriot, who's both mad at Big Hair Football Man no stand for Sky Freedom Cloth, but also stockpiling guns for their imaginary insurrection against the gubernment. Also known to cover everything with US flag stickers, whilst sporting their "I'd rather be Russian than Democrat" XXXL t-shirt. The dissonance is so loud I can hear people's heads buzzing walking through Wal-Mart. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11695 Posts
On February 12 2019 22:58 JimmiC wrote: My big take away from the whole shut down is while people are trying to figure out who "won". The reality is the whole country lost billions over a dick measuring contest that amounted to a whole bunch of nothing! It's pretty clear that the Democrats won. I wish they'd given absolutely nothing, and they could probably have gotten away with that, but we're already in the winning territory. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 12 2019 22:48 Plansix wrote: Even the term economic migrant is loaded. It is meant to evoke someone that is only coming to the country to increase their wealth. But often reality is the migrant left their country because there is no work to sustain them. And a complete lack of employment doesn’t just exist in a vacuum. There are other risks and problems created by mass unemployment. isn't that part of the entire american dream thing where people come here in search of a better life? give me your tired your poor your huddles masses or something. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:01 ticklishmusic wrote: isn't that part of the entire american dream thing where people come here in search of a better life? give me your tired your poor your poor huddles masses or something. Of course. The problem is that the US isn’t doing anything for its huddled masses and politicians deflecting the blame by point to immigrants and asylum seekers. The classic tactic of the rich and powerful is to have the poor fight each other. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:04 Plansix wrote: Of course. The problem is that the US isn’t doing anything for its huddled masses and politicians deflecting the blame by point to immigrants and asylum seekers. The classic tactic of the rich and powerful is to have the poor fight each other. "I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." LBJ Never more true than today. Trump voters would give the shirts off their backs to him because he's just like them and wants to help them. Especially if it helps in the battle against "the browns". It's nothing short of astounding. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4662 Posts
| ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:30 Silvanel wrote: It shouldnt be that surprising that for many people there are issues more important than their own economical wellbeing. Be it: unborn babies, keeping country "clean", sticking it to the corporations, rights for minorties or whatever. Not everyone votes with their wallet. It's not just the wallets for one side though. It's consistently voting against their own interests in every arena. Their own right to choose, making the country filthy via deregulation, giving corporations tax breaks and further aforementioned deregulation, keeping minorities out of the country (and likely many who could contribute to our society), hurting their own tax returns, fucking up their own healthcare, damaging their own manufacturing and farming industries, harming their children and grandchildren via "lol climate change" or "lol vaccines" or "lol clean water". The list is pretty much endless. If it were just their wallets, that would be almost understandable. Everyone has principles that they will stand up for over everything else. But this list is fucking insanity. And it's only the tip of the crazy iceberg. | ||
Falling
Canada11173 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:01 ticklishmusic wrote: isn't that part of the entire american dream thing where people come here in search of a better life? give me your tired your poor your huddles masses or something. Yes... for legal immigration. But the idea was never that you could just show up on the border and let yourself in. At least as far as I can tell. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41470 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:44 Falling wrote: Yes... for legal immigration. But the idea was never that you could just show up on the border and let yourself in. At least as far as I can tell. That’s literally how America, and Canada for that matter, were created. People just showing up on boats. Literally all that changed is where the people were coming from and what they looked like. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21157 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:44 Falling wrote: Wasn't that what the Irish did for example? They just showed up by the boat load and let themselves in?Yes... for legal immigration. But the idea was never that you could just show up on the border and let yourself in. At least as far as I can tell. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11695 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:30 Silvanel wrote: It shouldnt be that surprising that for many people there are issues more important than their own economical wellbeing. Be it: unborn babies, keeping country "clean", sticking it to the corporations, rights for minorties or whatever. Not everyone votes with their wallet, hell i would wager that more people vote with their emotions rather with mind. That's interesting because I do find it surprising. From your post it looks like you're not saying it makes sense, but rather that it's not surprising that people do that because people often do stuff that doesn't make sense, correct me if I'm wrong? In this specific case I would argue that more often than not, when people do that, it's because they're being tricked or because they aren't offered an alternative. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And finally, asylum seekers showing up at the border are trying to immigrate legally. That is literally the legal process for seeking asylum. The first step is to arrive in the US. It is on the government's instructions on how to apply for asylum. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4662 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote: That's interesting because I do find it surprising. From your post it looks like you're not saying it makes sense, but rather that it's not surprising that people do that because people often do stuff that doesn't make sense, correct me if I'm wrong? In this specific case I would argue that more often than not, when people do that, it's because they're being tricked or because they aren't offered an alternative. Why is that is a mixture of different factors: people are generally emotional, people are easily deceived, people are shortsighted and often connect cause and effect -especially so when it involves them or their relatives, people are uninformed, some are simply mistaken etc. Still because of those many factors i dont find it surprising that many people passionately support positions which are objectively harmful to their economical wellbeing. | ||
|
franzji
United States580 Posts
People hate change. People hate change. People hate change, there is nothing wrong with not wanting mass immigration here, or any country really. It's not about hating other cultures, but being more comfortable in how they live and interact with others right now. "But America was built on people coming here!!! yeah, over 200 years ago. "But they will integrate with others!!!. not exactly... | ||
|
Falling
Canada11173 Posts
On February 13 2019 00:47 KwarK wrote: That’s literally how America, and Canada for that matter, were created. People just showing up on boats. Literally all that changed is where the people were coming from and what they looked like. Alright, my mistake for saying 'never'. This is, I guess, why I always need to write in paragraphs. If I could back up and start again- yes US began with open immigration. However, that doesn't mean that the US is locked into open immigration for all of time. For the last hundred years, the US has been interested in limiting immigration numbers (Great Depression era, it more or less shut down) and for the last fifty years, restricting numbers with no respect to ethnicity. And that last hundred years, those words have carried the meaning of legal immigrants, which is what my original reply was about. This follows as an understandable trajectory, given initially there was a lot of land and not much labour, but after a century or so, the demand for labour is no longer unrestricted. So I guess we could say the statue's meaning is morphed from 'give me' (implied all) to 'give me some'. But that's okay- one need not be locked into an implied all due to a poem in a statue. The words still have meaning even if it's not literally all anymore and hasn't been for a century. I mean, even the context of 'give me (implied all)' has changed population-wise- 1.5 Billion when those words were written, compared to 7.5 Billion now and the means of travel have never been easier. Of course the application of those words will be different now compared to then. | ||
| ||
