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

[Tami]

I just meant that no one deserved the level of mistreatment that has been described.

I'll also add that one potential solution is the current deal the Trump administration seems to be getting with Mexico to get Mexico to be considered a safe harbor, which means that anyone seeking asylum is obligated to do so there. This has several benefits. The cost of living is cheaper in Mexico; the right thing for the US to do would be to increase federal aid in Mexico to cover their costs for people who would otherwise be in the United States. It's also better for refugees if they settle close to their homeland as that makes it easier to return when the situation is no longer as precarious.

Is every prison a concentration camp?

Prison: : a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers specifically : an institution (such as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes Mirriam-Webster

Concentration Camp: a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard Mirriam-Webster

Prisons are not used to hold families, are not used to hold people just because they are of a group targeted by a government.

Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons.

Written By: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

[PwrdOn]

I just meant that no one deserved the level of mistreatment that has been described.

I'll also add that one potential solution is the current deal the Trump administration seems to be getting with Mexico to get Mexico to be considered a safe harbor, which means that anyone seeking asylum is obligated to do so there. This has several benefits. The cost of living is cheaper in Mexico; the right thing for the US to do would be to increase federal aid in Mexico to cover their costs for people who would otherwise be in the United States. It's also better for refugees if they settle close to their homeland as that makes it easier to return when the situation is no longer as precarious.

Well see the problem with that is that Mexico is not actually safe, if it were the refugees would be fully content to stay there and there'd be no need for us to basically pay the Mexicans to take them off our hands. And why spend taxpayer dollars bribing the Mexicans when we could be spending that money to take care of them ourselves? You seem to take it as a given that just having to breathe the same air as these migrants is somehow offensive to most Americans, and while this is undoubtedly true for some people, what would that say about us as a country and the values we supposedly stand for?

[aja_christopher]

Is every prison a concentration camp?

Do you always start asking questions, deflecting to other issues, and arguing semantics when you don't like when the truth is revealed about your party?

[Tendrin]

Do you always start asking questions and deflecting to other issues when you don't like when the truth is revealed about your party?

Sure seems like it.

[aja_christopher]

Sure seems like it.

It's basically a poor man's version of the Socratic method -- ironic because Socrates was devoted to seeking the truth, while Mets seems to want to avoid the truth on the basis of political affiliation.



It's fine to ask questions, but asking questions instead of just admitting that something is wrong shows a willingness to defend inhumane policy and actions.

[worstblogever]

It was on this date in 2015 that "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiled a two-time loser in attempts to get into the U.S. Senate, World Wrestling Entertainment CEO and now former Cabinet Secretary of the Small Business Association, Linda McMahon, whose background as a recurring character within the WWE Universe (including storyline angles where she was cheated on, in a catatonic state, and “turning heel” by kicking announcers with medical ailments in the groin). Some of the shady business practices her company has made within the industry of professional wrestling over the past few decades include not just a widespread misuse of steroids distributed by company doctors in the 1980s, not just hiring wrestlers who had allegedly murdered their girlfriends, not just pressuring wrestlers to perform with concussions and likely exacerbating their progressive brain tissue’s destruction via CTE, not just permeated a culture of sexual harassment of female employees, but even allegedly covering up a sexual assault of a female wrestler on an overseas tour of Kuwait in 2007. Linda was a hopeless cause in multiple elections as she burned through millions of dollars of her own family’s fortune to try and win a Senate seat. After losses in both 2012 and 2014, both Linda and her outspoken husband, Vince McMahon seemed content to give up politics, but when WWE Hall of Fame member Donald Trump managed to win the White House, they called their old pal, and Linda was set up to run the Small Business Association, because he’s that insane and terrible at picking people for federal appointments. In any event, Linda McMahon was openly describing how chaotic and terrible it is working in the Trump administration and announced she would resign in May of 2019 from that position to run a Trump political PAC.


In 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” presented its original profile of the current U.S. House Representative from North Carolina’s 7thCongressional District, David Rouzer, whose resemblance to Saturday Night Live cast member Jon Lovitz still haunts us to this day. Rouzer had already established himself as a staunch conservative while he served in the North Carolina State Senate, aligning himself as a climate change denier who tried blocking studies of sea level change, showing he was downright archaic when it came to education, what with his support of corporal punishment without parental exemption in schools, and his homophobic streak was proven by both his opposition to anti-bullying measures that would protect LGBT students and his support for a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage. He hasn't mellowed out much since heading to Washington, D.C., like how he was willing to state his desire to have another government shutdown over the fact that the GOP was unable to defund Planned Parenthood, due to his viewing of the fraudulent video produced by the Center for Medical Progress (whose leaders were since been indicted for their deception). This was only two years after the last time Republicans shut the government down, and got nothing but costing millions upon million dollars for our country, and threatening government workers with being furloughed, Rouzer was ready to repeat that over a shoddy hoax.

Rouzer was trying to earn big points points as a freshman lawmaker for introducing his own written legislation, but then again, when you consider his bill was to drug test welfare recipients nationally, it becomes a lot less impressive. After all, when states have passed such laws and adopted them, they have lost a fortune on the cost of drug testing, and found statistically less drug use by those on government assistance, without any "savings" of throwing people off welfare. Even worse, the states have lost money on court cases when the same Republicans supporting these bills see their legislation challenged by ACLU lawsuits, and they get overturned as being violations of the 4th Amendment. But that's David Rouzer for you... take a failed, s*** idea at the state level and try to do it across the country.

In June of 2015: Rep. Rouzer released a statement after the Supreme Court rules in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in favor of marriage equality, saying it would be against the will of our Founding Fathers, and that it created a "slippery slope of shifting sand". Perhaps this would be a good time to point out to Rouzer that George Washington was cool with awarding a house to Continental Army General Baron von Steuben after the war, mmhm? When a guy with wooden teeth is more tolerant of gays than you are… you have problems.

North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District has a +9 Republican lean in the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which was enough to help him limp to get 55% of the vote in the 2018 elections. And he's returned to the capitol to show how regressive one man can be:

• January 23rd, 2019: Rep. Rouzer voted against HR 648, because he was gleefully enjoying the longest government shutdown in history.
• February 28th, 2019: David Rouzer votes against HR 1112, a bill which would have required universal background checks on all firearm purchases, and close the gun show loophole.
• March 14th, 2019: Rep. Rouzer votes against HJR 46, which sane members of Congress voted for to reject Donald Trump’s “national emergency” regarding the U.S. border and his attempts to reallocate funds for a border wall without Congressional approval.
• April 4th, 2019: David Rouzer is one of 158 Republicans who choose to vote against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm (which statistics show, makes them more likely to use those firearms against women in their lives).
• June 4th, 2019: Rouzer votes against the Dreamers Act, because he’s too xenophobic and partisan to care about immigration reform.

David Rouzer’s ties to Elizabeth Dole are considered enough to make him a party stalwart, and a favorite pick by many to potentially run for U.S. Senate in 2020, or to try to snag Richard Burr’s seat when he retires in 2022. All we know for sure is, he’s likely to make a decision based on what the redrawn districts for North Carolina look like in the 2020 election. If he doesn’t have that +9 advantage, we expect him to make a challenge to Thom Tillis or jump to a neighboring district to try to save himself.

[aja_christopher]

I just meant that no one deserved the level of mistreatment that has been described.

If you really believe this, then why do you continue to support a party that routinely advocates and engages in the mistreatment of minorities?

[aja_christopher]

"Virginia Republicans lose in U.S. Supreme Court racial gerrymandering case"

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Republican legislators in Virginia a defeat, leaving in place a ruling that invalidated state electoral districts they drew because they weakened the clout of black voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The justices, in a 5-4 decision, sidestepped a ruling on the merits of the case. They instead found that the Republican-led state House of Delegates lacked the necessary legal standing to appeal a lower court ruling that had invalidated 11 state House districts for racial discrimination.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat and the state’s top law enforcement official, opposed the appeal and argued that the Republican legislators were not entitled to act on behalf of the state in the case. A new political map is being used for this year’s state elections.

“Virginia’s elections this fall will take place in fair, constitutional districts. It’s a good day for democracy in Virginia,” Herring wrote on Twitter.

The Supreme Court’s action let stand a 2018 ruling by a federal three-judge panel that the 11 districts all violated the rights of black voters to equal protection under the law under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1TI1TN

[Mister Mets]

Prison: : a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers specifically : an institution (such as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes Mirriam-Webster

Concentration Camp: a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard Mirriam-Webster

Prisons are not used to hold families, are not used to hold people just because they are of a group targeted by a government.

Written By: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Tami, by the definition you provide that a place where large numbers of people are detained or confined under armed guard is a concentration camp, prisons count. It doesn't matter whether the prisoners are members of an ethnic or religious minority (the "such as" in the definition suggests it often happens but is not an absolute requirement for the definition- there is also the point that minority groups are overrepresented in prisons as well.)

Well see the problem with that is that Mexico is not actually safe, if it were the refugees would be fully content to stay there and there'd be no need for us to basically pay the Mexicans to take them off our hands. And why spend taxpayer dollars bribing the Mexicans when we could be spending that money to take care of them ourselves? You seem to take it as a given that just having to breathe the same air as these migrants is somehow offensive to most Americans, and while this is undoubtedly true for some people, what would that say about us as a country and the values we supposedly stand for?

There are specific restrictions on claims for asylum, so the point isn't that they go to the safest possible country but to a place they are safe from the persecution they flee (and presumably free from new forms of persecution on the same level). If you want to increase the definition of grounds for asylum, that's something we can argue openly, and that legislators can make the case for. It's not the current system.

Do you always start asking questions, deflecting to other issues, and arguing semantics when you don't like when the truth is revealed about your party?

If the argument is that I don't accept uncomfortable truths, I want to understand what specific truth I'm accused of deflecting. There are two questions here that are quite relevant. Is every prison a concentration camp? Did the Obama administration have concentration camps when they kept migrants in the same facilities in which Japanese-Americans were kept during World War 2?

There are two possibilities from a lack of response to these questions. The first is that some liberals have the same shortcoming they accuse conservatives of having, that they are unwilling to speak uncomfortable truths about American society as it was before President Trump, and admit what was wrong under President Obama (as well as Presidents before him). The second is that the definition of concentration camp is being twisted to score political points, and that the new definition loses the moral weight of the earlier one.

If you really believe this, then why do you continue to support a party that routinely advocates and engages in the mistreatment of minorities?

Focusing on this topic, it's because I'm unaware of the other side suggesting an acceptable alternative. They seem to address some of the problems, but aren't fixing the issue of people who aren't supposed to be in the country benefitting from exploiting loopholes that put children at risk.

[Mister Mets]

This is interesting.

The New York Times asked the Democratic presidential candidates to answer 18 questions, some on major policy questions and some on personal stuff.

1. In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?
2.Would your focus be improving the Affordable Care Act or replacing it with single payer?
3.Do you think it’s possible for the next president to stop climate change?
4.Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights?
5.Who is your hero, and why?
6.Would there be American troops in Afghanistan at the end of your first term?
7.How many hours of sleep do you get a night?
8.Do you think illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States?
9.Where would you go on your first international trip as president?
10.Describe the last time you were embarrassed. Why?
11.Do you think President Trump has committed crimes in office?
12.Do you support or oppose the death penalty?
13.Should tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google be broken up?
14.Are you open to expanding the size of the Supreme Court?
15.When did your family first arrive in the United States, and how?
16.What is your comfort food on the campaign trail?
17.What do you do to relax?
18.Does anyone deserve to have a billion dollars?

Everyone but Biden responded. Now they've put it on video.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...gtype=Homepage

[aja_christopher]

There are two possibilities from a lack of response to these questions. The first is that some liberals have the same shortcoming they accuse conservatives of having, that they are unwilling to speak uncomfortable truths about American society as it was before President Trump, and admit what was wrong under President Obama (as well as Presidents before him). The second is that the definition of concentration camp is being twisted to score political points, and that the new definition loses the moral weight of the earlier one.

It's a false equivocation -- with regards to morality, Obama didn't openly use family separations as a deterrent, nor did he demonize immigrants or refer to them as "rapists". If you want to argue that those things are acceptable, then do so openly instead of trying to misrepresent the policies and general stance of the Obama administration (or "liberals" in general) on the immigration issue.

Yet, illegal immigration numbers still dropped under his administration -- an "acceptable alternative" that you still refuse to give "liberals" credit for.

All you show with this kind of "reasoning" is that your sole goal is to deflect from the shortcomings of your party, regardless of the terminology involved.

-----
"When the surge of migrant children began arriving in 2014, the Obama administration tried some of the same tactics as the Trump administration.

The Obama administration housed migrant children in temporary camps on military bases. And it pushed for long-term detention of migrant families while their asylum cases played out in immigration court, though federal courts blocked that policy.

But then, those tactics shifted. Under Obama, the federal government eventually spent billions of dollars in response to the migrant surge. For instance,the administration greatly expanded the network of shelters contracted by the Department of Health and Human Services that house unaccompanied children. These shelters house the children until they can be placed with a parent or other relative already living in the U.S.

According to Michelle Brané, the Obama administration deserves credit for learning from its mistakes.

"The Trump administration has done basically the opposite," Brané said. "They took exactly what failed, and expanded on it."

While the Obama administration would sometimes separate migrant families in detention, especially in cases in which the parent was deemed unsuitable, Brané pointed out the the Trump administration regularly separated families before abandoning the policy last year. Under Trump, nearly 3,000 children were separated from their parents under a "zero tolerance" policy against illegal border crossings.

And under Trump, the network of shelters for unaccompanied children nearly reached capacity of 15,000 before the administration relaxed new rules for vetting the adult sponsors, making it easier for children to be released to live with their family members while they await their day in immigration court."

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/68362...outhern-border
-------

"DHS watchdog finds expired food, dilapidated bathrooms amid 'egregious' conditions at ICE facilities in 2018"

"The Department of Homeland Security inspector general found expired food and dilapidated bathrooms during unannounced visits to four immigrant detention facilities in 2018, according to a report released Thursday.

The kitchen at one facility was in such poor shape -- with open packages of raw chicken leaking blood over refrigeration units -- that the kitchen manager was replaced while the IG inspection was ongoing.

The report describes conditions at facilities last year, but it comes amid a worsening situation along the US-Mexico border, where the number of migrants crossing the border illegally has surpassed previous years. The dramatic increase in arrivals -- the majority of whom are families and children -- has overwhelmed the Department of Homeland Security, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency reviewed in the latest report.

CNN was first to report on the IG's findings.

President Donald Trump has railed against the swell of migrants, threatening tariffs against Mexico and pushing for additional barriers along the border. More than 144,000 migrants were encountered or arrested at the US-Mexico border in May, a roughly 32% increase over April and the highest monthly total in 13 years, Customs and Border Protection said Wednesday, including over 11,000 unaccompanied children.

As of Monday, there were around 52,000 single adults in ICE custody -- an all-time high that exceeds funding levels yet again, according to ICE."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/06/polit...ort/index.html

-----
""Watchdog finds detainees 'standing on toilets' for breathing room at border facility holding 900 people in space meant for 125"

"The Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General has found "dangerous overcrowding" and unsanitary conditions at an El Paso, Texas, Border Patrol processing facility following an unannounced inspection, according to a new report.

The IG found "standing room only conditions" at the El Paso Del Norte Processing Center, which has a maximum capacity of 125 migrants. On May 7 and 8, logs indicated that there were "approximately 750 and 900 detainees, respectively."

"We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets," the report states. The report was first obtained by CNN. A cell with a maximum capacity of 12 held 76 detainees, another with a maximum capacity of eight held 41, and another with a maximum capacity of 35 held 155, according to the report.

"(Customs and Border Protection) was struggling to maintain hygienic conditions in the holding cells. With limited access to showers and clean clothing, detainees were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks," the report states. Other issues raised include spoiled food, lack of provisions, like lotion, that is required for detainees, and strip searches with no documented justification.

The report notes that ICE detainees "are held in civil, not criminal, custody, which is not supposed to be punitive."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/polit...ons/index.html

[aja_christopher]

[Deleted.]

[Malvolio]

It's basically a poor man's version of the Socratic method -- ironic because Socrates was devoted to seeking the truth, while Mets seems to want to avoid the truth on the basis of political affiliation.



It's fine to ask questions, but asking questions instead of just admitting that something is wrong shows a willingness to defend inhumane policy and actions.

I like what Seth Myers said at the end. If you really want to remind everyone that "this is not who we are," then you have to vote. No "Oh, both sides are equally bad." No "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil." Unless you're really going to move to Canada, instead of just talking about it, you will have to live with either four more years of Trump, or whoever the Democratic Party nominates next year. I've said this before, but it bears repeating, you don't get to install "None of the Above" into the Oval Office.

[worstblogever]

Arguing the semantics of if the immigrant detention centers are concentration camps aren't so far-fetched as the Trump campaign is fully aware they have the Proud Boys frequenting MAGA rallies where Trump speaks, and that they then go out into the street like the ol' Brownshirts did and look for "leftists" to attack.

We know what he is and what these people are. There's a logic to what to classify the Republicans who stick around and try to convince people it isn't happening that I've seen from one Julius Goat.

Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.

They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?"

[Jack Dracula]

Whatever label you want to attach, these are places of misery where children are seperated from their families and subjected to mental and physical abuse. If any Republican wishes to argue this I would ask if they would inter their own childen in one of these facilities for an indeterminate amount of time without aid or oversight.
Despite their self reported high ideals and Christian Values, the lack of any overt protest or call for halt of these practices implies tacit approval and suggests a willingness to turn a blind eye as long as their own, apparently higher-valued desires are met.
The argument of "But the Democrats want open boarders.." is proven to be BS since Democratic and Republican lawmakers have met to negotiate a fair solution to this problem and had ther deal struck down by Trump. I can guarantee you that open boarders was nowhere in that paperwork.
I suggest that as long as any Republican is willing to keep quiet and inactive about what their "fairly elected" President is doing to these people, they summarily shut the **** up and sit the **** down when it comes to Democrats getting upset about it. If you don't agree with it but aren't willing to help stop it at least get out of the way.