American Politics Discussion Thread

[T-hawk]

Speaking as a moderator again: Bob, if you have a point to debate, make it, but this is the second time I've had to warn you about ad-hominem insults.

Speaking as a debate participant: Trump is such a fascist dictator that literally no one is afraid of speaking against him in any form of media whatsoever. The cancel culture is on the other side. Trump is no angel, but his party sides more with freedom and liberty than the alternative.

[Bobchillingworth]

Also speaking as a moderator: Stuff it, T-hawk. Insults are nothing new on RB; you yourself called me a "jackass" a couple weeks back, and before that implied several posters (and their friends and families) were "parasites". Don't start something you're not going to want to see through.


Agreed on no calls to violence though, that's hopefully common sense.

[MJW (ya that one)]

5 minutes 'till midnight (thread closed)

I would have least wait for mackoti to respond to GKC's attack before saying anything. If I were mod Bob's attack would be okay but NC's last now-deleted attack against ipecac wouldn't.

Edit: Cross-posted with Bob but don't feel like responding to that.

[Jowy]

Remember when Republicans tried to cancel Obama for wearing a tan suit? The whole snowflake and cancel culture rhetoric is projection. There's no-one easier to offend than a Trump supporter.

[Amicalola]

Is trump catching Covid the death knell for his campaign? Not only does it make him look foolish, he also can’t campaign for at least a week now, likely more.

[Amicalola]

Speaking as a moderator again: Bob, if you have a point to debate, make it, but this is the second time I've had to warn you about ad-hominem insults.

Speaking as a debate participant: Trump is such a fascist dictator that literally no one is afraid of speaking against him in any form of media whatsoever.  The cancel culture is on the other side.  Trump is no angel, but his party sides more with freedom and liberty than the alternative.

Do you honestly believe that a politician in favour of separating young families and locking thousands of people in detention centres for the ‘crime’ of seeking asylum is pro-freedom and liberty? Or are freedom and liberty only important for American citizens, not all humans?

[Bobchillingworth]

Nah, assuming he recovers (which seems very likely), the cultists will either claim that it's proof that he has superhuman fortitude and/or the virus was no big deal, or that he was saved via divine favor.


Normal people will know otherwise, of course, but the Republicans are clearly focused on "winning" the election via some combination of the electoral college, disenfranchising those using mail-in ballots, and intimidation or outright violence by neo-nazi paramilitary proxies, so having popular support was never a critical element of their calculations.

[T-hawk]

Do you honestly believe that a politician in favour of separating young families and locking thousands of people in detention centres for the ‘crime’ of seeking asylum is pro-freedom and liberty? Or are freedom and liberty only important for American citizens, not all humans?

This is a reasonable question and deserves a reasonable response.  The crime is being in the United States illegally.  There is a very very easy way to not have this happen to you: do not attempt to enter or remain in the United States illegally.

Freedom and liberty are important for all humans, but it is not the job of the United States to enforce that for people who are not citizens and taxpayers of the United States.  Friends of liberty everywhere but guardians of our own.

As for the families: yes, they get separated.  That is regrettable but that is the least-bad option.  The reality that you never see in the hysterical media reporting is that the authorities try every measure possible to place children of these criminals with some connection of family or friend or reputable foster care.  The facilities they end up in when that fails are the last resort when there's no other option.  What else are you going to do with them?  You can't incarcerate children with the parents for the parents' actions.  You can't deport children alone.  You can't free parents from illegal activity just because they brought a kid with them.

Finally: all this has been going on for many years, since the Obama administration if not before.  It only got noticed by the media as opposition to Trump's nationalist stance.  It's true some on the right glorify in sticking it to the brown people; I do not share that viewpoint.  I understand the regrettable outcomes as the lesser evil.

[Amicalola]

This is a reasonable question and deserves a reasonable response.  The crime is being in the United States illegally.  There is a very very easy way to not have this happen to you: do not attempt to enter or remain in the United States illegally.

What do you suggest people who cannot wait do? For example, I have worked as a volunteer with homosexual asylum seekers from Iran and Syria, who have been forced to seek asylum and move quickly, without the required paperwork, because they will be killed/imprisoned by either their government or local militias. Some of them are forced to leave partners, parents, or even their own children behind. It is a very difficult decision to leave these people, and asylum seekers would not do it if the danger was not real and imminent. Should they instead just accept their fate? I am sure there are similar situations in America, for example central-Americans fleeing powerful cartels.

Freedom and liberty are important for all humans, but it is not the job of the United States to enforce that for people who are not citizens and taxpayers of the United States.  Friends of liberty everywhere but guardians of our own.

What about countries in which the US' actions have negatively impacted citizen's freedoms, liberties, and quality of life? There are a lot of these. For example, in Operation Condor, the US officially backed and funded a series of right-wing coups and dictatorships that as a general rule significantly lowered the quality of life for their citizens, and were hugely repressive; political torture, no freedom of speech, etc. Does the US not have a responsibility, even indirectly, to care for the millions of people who were impacted and displaced by these coups? 

Furthermore, calling the US friends of liberty is patently absurd, at least in the last 50 years. Operation Condor barely scratches the surface of countries that have had democratically elected leaders overthrown by US-backed military coups. For more examples see Indonesia, much of south-east Asia, and the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region.

Finally: all this has been going on for many years, since the Obama administration if not before.  It only got noticed by the media as opposition to Trump's nationalist stance.  It's true some on the right glorify in sticking it to the brown people; I do not share that viewpoint.  I understand the regrettable outcomes as the lesser evil.

This is true, in some respects. American treatment of asylum seekers is appalling regardless of who's in charge and is one of the reasons I am not especially fond of the democrats either; your parties sometimes make even the Australian ones look reasonable. However, it is not true with regard to the separation of children from their families: that is an explicitly new practice that began in 2018, after Jeff Session's 'zero-tolerance' policy was announced, and is a purely Republican (or at least, Trumpian) policy.

As for the families: yes, they get separated.  That is regrettable but that is the least-bad option.  The reality that you never see in the hysterical media reporting is that the authorities try every measure possible to place children of these criminals with some connection of family or friend or reputable foster care.  The facilities they end up in when that fails are the last resort when there's no other option.  What else are you going to do with them?  You can't incarcerate children with the parents for the parents' actions.  You can't deport children alone.  You can't free parents from illegal activity just because they brought a kid with them.

Couldn't these children simply be kept with their parents? At least, if their parents were kept in remotely humane and international-legal conditions, couldn't these children be kept with their parents? Even if conditions are bad, how is keeping children separated from their families in appalling conditions better than keeping them with their parents in the same? 

A lot of the time these families have materially lost everything; that's often the reason they've fled their own country in the first place! A lot of the time, parents and siblings, the connections and bonds they share; this is all these children have left. Taking that away is never justifiable, under any circumstances.

[superdeath]

I dont see why we dont just have Open Borders. I could go thru a ton of arguments for it, but ill settle with a these: Americans stole the land from the natives, so it being "rightfully" ours and telling others they have to go thru a long + pain in the ass process to become a citizen is just absurd. "illegal" citizens is a funny concept to me, here we have a bunch of mostly hard workers that wont take money from social security/ect, they pay sales taxes, ect ect and do the jobs that others most of the time dont want to do. I just dont see why ( outside of racism ) for the USA to not have open borders. If im just ignorant of something major that kills the open borders idea, let me know.