All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Mister Mets]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/polit...ica/index.html



Yikes.

This can work. The people who need asylum will get it in other countries. And there are exceptions for those who need it in the US.

There's more to be done here. The US should provide a lot of foreign aid to these countries so they don't shoulder the financial burden.

Your comments are informed by your conservative biases -- nothing more, nothing less. You ignore any facts that counter said bias -- such as actual Democratic leadership and legislation -- and instead focus on finding articles that support your preconceptions about the "left". Whether you don't see that or are just pretending not to see it is debatable, but it's obvious to anyone who sees you accusing others of making "ad hominem" attacks when they are providing actual statistics and documentation that disproves your rhetoric.

You spin Obama's actual record on immigration and deportation as you see fit and focus instead on "limiting principles" and "open borders" while ignoring your own party's illegal activities, family separation policies, and abuse of children at the border -- it's a transparently poor attempt to defend the indefensible at best.

It basically comes down to: "I can't comment on the criminal and immoral behavior of the Republicans and their cruelty towards immigrants because I think the Democrats would be worse on immigration even though I have no factual evidence to prove it -- in fact, though all evidence shows the opposite to be true, I'd rather make assumptions about the Democrats based on my preconceived biases than accept the data at face value."

If you've got articles suggesting how Democrats plan to address the current immigration problems, I'm interested in reading those.

Focusing on what the Obama administration did neglects the consensus that the party has gotten more radical on the topic, and often exaggerates the significance of things that are beyond Obama's control (a decline in immigration due to improved economic conditions in other countries) or misinterpreted (IE- counting people who were sent back without processing in earlier administrations as deported.)

[numberthirty]

Fair enough.

You choose to give them the benefit of the doubt while (based on their record) I don't.

Like Paul Ryan once said about Trump's Russian connections, it's all in the family.

It's more like "To actually buy into the assertion, I would have to accept that Republicans were all in on it and did the most 'Breaking Into The McCallister House...' version possible of executing it."

That, I have my doubts about.

[aja_christopher]

If you've got articles suggesting how Democrats plan to address the current immigration problems, I'm interested in reading those.

I've already posted the articles that show exactly how Democrats handled similar crises under Obama -- including the one that pointed out that Trump halved processing speed intentionally to worsen the immigration "crisis" -- and posited that actions, legislation and the actual Democratic record on immigration speaks much louder than opinion pieces from writers with regards to facts.

If you were interested in reading them, you would have read them already instead of pretending I haven't addressed it prior.

Instead, you went directly for the spin in response, which proves your lack of interest in viewing data objectively.

[JCAll]

There's a lot that can convince me otherwise.

There really isn't though. You've just said that you know what the Democrats really think and that they just can't say it for unpopular political reasons. Any article, and interview, and policy proposal can be completely written off with that logic. Anything that disagrees with what you think Democrats think, or what you want Democrats to think, can just be a lie that had to be told to get into office so they can set about their real agenda once they're in power.

[worstblogever]

Maybe Mets needs to realize that the policy positions of today's Democrats, perhaps with the exception of LGBTQ issues and on abortion... on most issues they're sitting about where Republicans were in the 1980s. And yes, that includes immigration and gun control.

[worstblogever]

In 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of Art Robinson, the former Chairman of the Republican Party of Oregon who going into 2016, had challenged Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio for the seat to represent Oregon’s 4th District three times, and was about to make it a fourth one. Even with the Tea Party wave working for him back in 2010, Robinson still lost by double digits, and since, he’s gotten blasted by twenty whole points. The key factor why might be that Art Robinson has some of the weirdest opinions on science of any member of the GOP we’ve ever profiled. Like mad scientist levels of weird. It would be one thing if he just denied climate change (which he does), but Art Robinson has argued that the dangerous banned pesticide, DDT, was wrongly discontinued by environmentalist “opportunists”, and suggested we dilute nuclear waste and sprinkle it in the ocean, or even over the mainland as a means of its disposal. He’s even suggested it should be added to the water supply, specifically, and that such an action would “hermetically enhance our resistance to degenerative diseases”. Robinson also denies the link between the HIV virus and AIDS, and that it’s just “a natural consequence of the gay lifestyle”. Robinson has said public schooling is “tax-financed socialism” and “child abuse”. He has also argued against diversity in universities, because “difficult, total-immersion training in science is an experience few women and blacks desire”. That last comment might make sense when you consider that Robinson is a self-professed fan of G.A. Henty, an author he recommends in his own home-schooling curriculum whose books tend to say things like the average intelligence of an adult of African descent equates to a 10 year old white person, or that the plight of American slaves wasn’t that bad. In 2014, Art Robinson also sent out mailers asking his district’s constituents for five years of urine samples, without much explanation of what he was going to do with them, scientifically.

Now, maybe Art Robinson would have a chance to knock off Bill DeFaizo, what with Oregon’s 4th only having a +2 Democratic lean in the Cook Partisan Voting Index… but on the other hand, DeFazio is a capable legislator, while Art Robinson is bats*** insane. The good people of Oregon’s 4th are well aware of that, thankfully, and Art Robinson keeps losing to Peter DeFazio. Robinson has been propped up by the conservative billionaire Mercer family, who you may also know as the biggest donors to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. And, after Trump won the presidency but Robinson lost his latest bid for Congress, they were recommending he be brought on to Trump’s administration as a science advisor, because the Cabinet of Horrors that Trump assembled wasn’t deliberately meant to destroy the agencies they were placed in charge of enough as it is. Thankfully, Robinson didn’t get the gig, and is kept… skulking about Oregon. And at the age of 76, would you believe the Mercers have propped up Art Robinson again as a candidate in 2018, when by all estimations, Democratic voter turnout is predicted to be at its highest in a decade, and his candidacy will truly be a lost cause?

And… the same result. Art Robinson won the GOP Primary for Oregon’s 4th District, and lost for the fifth straight election cycle, getting an ***-kicking courtesy of Peter DeFazio by double digits. The definition of insanity is considered by many to keep doing the same thing and expect different results, and at this point, Art Robinson’s persistence seems like one more point to prove he’s deranged. Think we’re joking? Art Robinson has already announced his intention to get his ass kicked by Peter DeFazio for a SIXTH consecutive time in 2020. It’s just a tradition, now.

[Mister Mets]

I've already posted the articles that show exactly how Democrats handled similar crises under Obama -- including the one that pointed out that Trump halved processing speed intentionally to worsen the immigration "crisis" -- and posited that actions, legislation and the actual Democratic record on immigration speaks much louder than opinion pieces from writers with regards to facts.

If you were interested in reading them, you would have read them already instead of pretending I haven't addressed it prior.

Instead, you went directly for the spin in response, which proves your lack of interest in viewing data objectively.

But you haven't addressed how they plan to tackle current problems, which was my question.

You imply they'll keep doing what they did before. I'm sure you believe that, but the left has changed its views on immigration policy, and the only applicable comparison for what Democrats would do with less restrictions is the four years since 1981 Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency, which is a rather small sample set, especially when dealing with something that has changed since 1994.

https://www.axios.com/democrats-immi...98183871a.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...istake/528678/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...entity-issues/

There really isn't though. You've just said that you know what the Democrats really think and that they just can't say it for unpopular political reasons. Any article, and interview, and policy proposal can be completely written off with that logic. Anything that disagrees with what you think Democrats think, or what you want Democrats to think, can just be a lie that had to be told to get into office so they can set about their real agenda once they're in power.

I don't know what Democrats (current and potential officeholders) really think. I'm curious in finding out.

My response was to ajachristopher's claim that if Democrats support something unpopular, they would openly support it through legislation that currently has no chance of passage.

I'm not suggesting Democrats are lying, but they don't seem to say anything on one of the most important policy questions (What limits should there be on legal immigration?)

[InformationGeek]

Ah-huh, sure dude. Totally meant that.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) insisted on Monday that President Donald Trump’s racist tirade about “progressive congresswomen” going back to where they came from was, in fact, not racist.

During a radio interview on WBAL NewsNow, host Bryan Nehman asked Harris if he believed Trump’s rant about the congresswomen was racist.

“No, they’re not. They’re obviously not racist,” Harris said. “But again, when anyone disagrees with someone now, you call them a racist and this is no exception.”

“Why’s it not racist when you say ‘Go back to where you came from’ when they’re Americans?” asked Nehman.

“Look, ask the President what he meant by it but clearly it’s not a racist comment,” the GOP lawmaker replied. “He could’ve meant go back to the district they came from, to the neighborhood they came from.”

Nehman asked incredulously, “Do you really believe he was talking about the district they came from?”

“Absolutely,” Harris said.

...

Harris notably had “a discussion” with Holocaust denier Chuck C. Johnson in January, though the congressman claimed he was “unaware” of Johnson’s “previous associations” at the time.

Oh boy.

[aja_christopher]

But you haven't addressed how they plan to tackle current problems, which was my question.

And I already told you a long time ago that you're just trying to distract from your party's behavior by asking hypothetical questions, and then formulating your own responses based on biased conjecture instead of accepting statistical facts and data provided regarding the Democrats record on immigration.

Now you're doing the same thing again -- deflecting to "Democrats" with biased assumptions rather than addressing the faults of your own party -- because it's the only way you know how to deal with the fact that your party is a corrupt, racist, criminal cabal that abuses children for votes.

Tami pointed out that this is a waste of time a long time ago and she's right -- I just wanted to expose your bias, not try to convince you that Democrats aren't for "open borders" because there's no point in trying to "convince" someone who chooses opinion over facts even in the face of solid data.

You're obviously more concerned about hypothetical "open borders" than having an actual Republican white nationalist in the office of the presidency so there's no point in trying to find "common ground" on the issue since it's also obvious that, like most Republicans, you support said president's agenda.

You and Trump can keep railing against the "radical left" and supporting inhumane and criminal behavior towards "minorities" if you want to -- just don't try to pretend you aren't his "base" when you do so.

Maybe Mets needs to realize that the policy positions of today's Democrats, perhaps with the exception of LGBTQ issues and on abortion... on most issues they're sitting about where Republicans were in the 1980s. And yes, that includes immigration and gun control.

That would require admission that the Democratic party is far more moderate than "radical" and he can't do that since his (and Trump's) goal is to paint them as such in order to convince people that Republican policies -- like family separation and denying children medical care -- are "reasonable" in contrast.

Fearmongering, lies, and distractions -- Mets acts like Trump was a fluke when in actuality he represents the Republican party at it's core.

[JackDaw]

Maybe Mets needs to realize that the policy positions of today's Democrats, perhaps with the exception of LGBTQ issues and on abortion... on most issues they're sitting about where Republicans were in the 1980s. And yes, that includes immigration and gun control.

As an outsider I find it baffling how far “right” Republican Party has drifted (or been driven by Tea Party??) and still remain very successful in elections.

Sadly my own knowledge of American culture is driven by a heavy consumption of Marvel and DC comics, topped up by seeing a few American TV shows and films.

These practically always display a love of fair play and champion humane values: “let’s trust people, whenever we can”....that is what I regard as typically American.

How can Republican Party move so far away from true spirit of America and still be electable?

[aja_christopher]

As an outsider I find it baffling how far “right” Republican Party has drifted (or been driven by Tea Party??) and still remain very successful in elections.

Sadly my own knowledge of American culture is driven by a heavy consumption of Marvel and DC comics, topped up by seeing a few American TV shows and films.

These practically always display a love of fair play and champion humane values: “let’s trust people, whenever we can”....that is what I regard as typically American.

How can Republican Party move so far away from true spirit of America and still be electable?

The "true spirit of America" that only (legally) desegregated a generation ago and prior to that didn't even let "minorities" vote -- and prior to that was built on slavery and genocide against non-whites?

I'm pretty sure that I've told you before that I lived in England for a while and the racial dynamics are completely different there than they are here in America. With that in mind, there's probably no way you can really comprehend the reality unless you live here as a person of color -- what you see in our entertainment is often a projection of an ideal rather than the far less respectable reality, the "skill" of "Celebrity Apprentice billionaire businessman" Trump being a perfect example of that.

What you're seeing is a battle for the "spirit" of America -- those who want to return to what it was (MAGA) versus those who want it to live up to it's promise of fair treatment towards all, American or otherwise.

-----
"There's a sobering truth to Trump's racist tweets that we don't like to admit"

"President Trump's critics may not like to admit it, but there's an element of truth in the racist tweets he sent this weekend.

Trump told four nonwhite Democratic congresswomen that they should "go back" to the "crime infested places" where they came from, even though three of the four were born in the US and the fourth is a naturalized citizen.

Critics pounced. But in some ways those four lawmakers -- Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley -- really do belong to another country.

In one America, people react with shock when a President issues vile racist tweets against women lawmakers. In the other America, people say nothing.

In one America, people speak out in protest after a President claims that African, Haitian, and Salvadoran immigrants come from "sh**hole" countries. In the other America, people nod in agreement.

In one America, people become outraged when administration officials snatch migrant children from their mothers' arms and detain them for weeks in filthy conditions with no repercussions. In the other America, people remain silent.

And in one America, people condemn a President for describing protestors alongside neo-Nazis as "very fine people." In the other America, people shrug.

Trump's tweets show a keen understanding of America

It's been said that Trump's comments about immigrants reveal that he really doesn't understand America. The US was built on the concept of a melting pot, and immigrants are making the nation stronger, some say.

But Trump's recent tweets could show that he understands America better than his critics realize.

These two Americas have long co-existed. One is the country represented by the Statue of Liberty, and its invitation to poor and tired immigrants "yearning to breathe free."

The other is the one that virtually wiped out Native Americans, enslaved Africans, excluded Chinese immigrants in the late 19th century and put Japanese Americans in concentration camps.

From the rarified perch of the White House, Trump's racist tweets tap into the id of this other America.

And here's what's so frightening about this: It is not a big stretch to say that when a leader uses the kind of language that Trump uses against minorities, it may increase the chances of violence being used against them."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/us/tr...ake/index.html

[aja_christopher]

"White Identity Politics Drives Trump, and the Republican Party Under Him"

"At the core of the strategy is Trump’s consistent drumbeat of equating the white European immigrant experience with the American ideal, setting those on his side of the divide against the politically-correct elites, outsiders, immigrants or nonwhites that he implies are unfairly threatening what is good about the country.

His strategy is sharply reminiscent of that waged by segregationist George Wallace in multiple presidential campaigns beginning in the 1960s. Republican candidates including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have since used milder variations of race-based politics to try to pry white voters from the Democratic Party.

But Trump has been notable for repeatedly saying out loud what earlier candidates merely hinted.

To try to excite his core voters, he continues to describe Latino immigration as a threat to the nation by arguing that “we don’t have a country” if borders are not enforced. More recently, he championed a failed effort to add a citizenship question to the U.S. census that would increase the political power of white voters by discouraging Latino participation in the count and allow states to draw legislative districts to exclude undocumented immigrants.

Asked Monday by a reporter if he was concerned that white nationalists were associating themselves with his argument, Trump did not back down.

“It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me,” he said.

The Trump strategy dates back to his earlier forays into politics, when he falsely accused Barack Obama of being an illegitimate president who was secretly born overseas. During the 2016 campaign, he circulated a false tweet that claimed that most killings of white people were committed by African Americans and he spread a false tale about Muslim celebrations in New Jersey after the World Trade Center was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001...

As he might have expected, few in his party have publicly contested such claims or criticized Trump for his behavior. Former House speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who called Trump’s critique of the Latino judge a “textbook definition of a racist comment” — but later avoided criticizing the president — has retired.

Trump’s current Republican detractors, by far the minority in the party, tend to be less direct. Only a handful of senators commented on Trump’s Sunday tweet. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) called the message “way over the line,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) requested “a higher standard of decorum and decency,” and Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) said the citizenship of the four members of Congress is “as valid as mine.”

Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.), the GOP’s only black senator, went further. He said the tweet was “racially offensive.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...im/2019/07/16/

[JackDaw]

The "true spirit of America" that only (legally) desegregated a generation ago and prior to that didn't even let "minorities" vote -- and prior to that was built on slavery and genocide against non-whites?

I'm pretty sure that I've told you before that I lived in England for a while and the racial dynamics are completely different there than they are here in America. With that in mind, there's probably no way you can really comprehend the reality unless you live here as a person of color -- what you see on in our entertainment is often a projection of an ideal rather than the far less respectable reality, the "skill" of "Celebrity Apprentice billionaire businessman" Trump being a perfect example of that.

What you're seeing is a battle for the "spirit" of America -- those who want to return to what it was (MAGA) versus those who want it to live up to it's promise of fair treatment towards all, American or otherwise.

-----
[/I]

You’re right.

I have so little experience of cultures other than my own, that I find it super difficult to really understand the real differences between various countries.

Most especially between US and UK..where my instinctive reaction is to think of Americans as very like Brits, but a bit more open minded and extrovert.

[aja_christopher]

You’re right.

I have so little experience of cultures other than my own, that I find it super difficult to really understand the real differences between various countries.

Most especially between US and UK..where my instinctive reaction is to think of Americans as very like Brits, but a bit more open minded and extrovert.

It probably depends on where you live in America -- I noticed a lot of Brits lived in LA which is one of the more liberal cities in America, so that might be the sort of "America" they gravitated towards, where Americans do tend to be more open-minded and extroverted. The ones I hung and worked with while I was living in England were great -- not always outgoing but very friendly (and knowledgeable) once you got to know one another.

The entertainment industry is focused in these areas as well, so it's not surprising that they project an image that doesn't always reflect America as a whole.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

When Trump said: "Go back to where you came from", I'm sure that echoed in the minds of scores of people who are black, Latino, Asian, even European. I know it did with me, taking me back to when I was 12 and was bussed from predominately black West Philadelphia to mostly white Southwest Philadelphia for junior high school, and one day, that epithet was accompanied by rocks thrown at the bus I was on by angry residents, leaving me scared and wondering if I was going to make it back home alive. Today, people are shocked and surprised that racism is still very much alive and well in the America of the 21st century when we should be far more enlightened than we are, but the sad and inconvenient truth is that it never went away, it simply laid dormant, waiting for just the right trigger to come along and blast it back into full and repulsive life. And that trigger was Donald J. Trump, President of the United States. It's also reprehensible that by saying what he did, Trump, spokesman for the country painted everyone as racist knuckledraggers like him and his lowbrow followers. Meanwhile, members of his party, the REPUBLICAN party are either cowering under desks, terrified of contradicting the Orange Menace for fear of reprisals, or worse, they agree with his vile comments. That's not leadership, not by any stretch of the imagination, that's rank cowardice and tacit acquiescence to a thuggish madman and his equally insane whims. Oh, yeah, history will remember the GOP as having pitifully caved to a racist demagogue and looked the other way while he tore the country apart. Good work, REPUBLICAN party!