“You have a bunch of bad hombres down there,” Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. “You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.”

 d-usa wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Going back to Trumps wall here is an interesting article about El Paso and how it is really helping the border controls, a drop from 10,000 to 500 crossings a day seems pretty successful. I hypothesize that most doubters don't have Mexico on their doorstep. What I didn't know was that El Paso has had fencing for over 25 years, so its not a new concept, its just fallen from grace because of Trump. Your thoughts?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/02/el-paso-residents-highlight-positives-living-with-border-wall.html

“It is a big deterrent, it is effective ... It gives us that deterrence ... (so) we can be more effective.” Border Patrol Agent Martin Wilson.

So the wall's been around for 25 years, but apparently wasn't much of a deterrence until 2007-2009... when the recession hit and made the US a less attractive place for immigrants to make their money.

So if Trump destroys the economy, he can claim victory on immigration?

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
..see he's also removing the whole "it's illegal to bribe foreign officials" law too ?

That's the Russian's thanks then.

Aren't we forgetting Obama accepted a bribe of 1250 illegal immigrants from Australia to keep up good relations?

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.

Oh for feth's sake. "The left" is not defined by some college kids.

You have just picked some people acting badly, and used that define half a country. I mean seriously, you've gone from 'college kids acting like stupid college kids' to 'the left prioritizing the elimination of free speech'.

This is tribalism at its most ridiculous.

 sebster wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
No you completely missed my point, I am not disagreeing that the USA shouldn't honour agreements, I was questioning the morality of the deal in the first place. Here are 1,250 who landed in Australia seeking refuge there, the Ausies don't want them so make a deal with Obama to get rid of them. Is it not wrong for Australia to treat them in this way? Surely said deal makes them as bad as Trump on such matters. Regarding honouring the agreement, many politicians when coming to power scrap or U-turn policies they have never agreed with. Whether Trump can force this one through, I don't know.

Okay, this is a complex issue so I'll just give a quick run down.

Over the last thirty odd years a lot of people have attempted to reach Australia by boat. A lot of them have drowned. The most common attempt is to go from Indonesia to Christmas island, and they mostly use derelict fishing boats to make the journey. Go look at google maps to see where Christmas Island is to get an idea of how crazy dangerous that boat journey is.

So we've tried a lot of stuff to get people taking that trip. The biggest thing has been mandatory offshore detention - ie sitting on a shithole pacific island for years, being told that even if you are confirmed as a refugee it won't be in Australia. That's why we cut deals to get other countries to take people from these islands.

There's a whole lot of other complicating factors, though. For one, it's debatable whether the offshore detention works - it seems to have dropped refugee numbers but its hard to tell for sure, and it's possible that most good work was actually done by getting Indonesia to police human tracking moving through their country. But more than that, life in these offshore camps is really ugly. As in beatings, rapes, suicides, people sewing their mouths shut, all kinds of stuff like that. Just awful.

But also awful was the images of one boat that run up on the cliffs of Christmas Island, complete with dead bodies in the water. So feth if I know how to solve this. We've been trying to solve the issue for more than 20 years, and have gotten absolutely nowhere.

 Easy E wrote:
WTF?

http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_MEXICO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-01-18-21-24

“You have a bunch of bad hombres down there,” Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. “You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.”

Really? Would we keep their oil too?

 jasper76 wrote:
I sincerely hope you are correct that this is not becoming mainstream in the left.

A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE

— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
There's no way Trumps wall will work.

What if Trump's wall was not to prevent Mexican from entering? What if it was actually about preventing US citizens from leaving after he turned the US into an awful dictatorship?

 whembly wrote:
Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:

A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE

— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017

...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Going to tip my toe into the refugee discussion.

First, I would love to see a world where the freedom of movement is only constrained by individual desire and one’s own resources and health. It would mean that the world has moved beyond the desire to do each other harm or to seek enriching one’s self at the expense of others. But we are not there yet and I believe that every nation, just as every individual, has the right to choose who can enter their country (home), even when there are seemingly humanitarian reasons to grant entry (thinking of the lifeboat analogy).

As a large and prosperous nation, the US has a huge capacity to accept a sizeable number of refugees and immigrants. Just how many and where they should be settled is debatable, as is the states’ and taxpayer’s interest and obligation to support their transition, and the refugees and immigrants obligations to assimilate and integrate into US society. Given the disagreement on all of the above it is not surprising the swings in policy and action we are seeing.
So that said, with regard to the Australian refugee deal, from what I have read so far, it seems that the Australian PM committed to and is attempting to follow through on an immigration policy similar to Trump’s while attempting to address the long running criticism of Australia’s own handling of immigrants and refugees, and found in the Obama administration a party that would be willing to help him achieve his political goals. Consequently, I am having a hard time understanding why Australia doesn’t take in the refugees and instead wants to send them to the US? Is it because the Australian PM does want to seem to be back tracking, or doesn't want to encourage a new wave of refugees and asylam seekers (in the same way that Obama's dreamer's act seemed to encourage a surge in unaccompanied immigrant minors?), or are there legimate logistical issues?

It sounds like that part of the dust up is that Australia tried to get clarification on the implementation of the deal and how Trump's EO was going to impact it and Trump and his key advisors possibly not being as aware of the existing deal expressed their frustration accordingly since implementation before the 90 review is complete would violate Trump's EO, hence the "frank" discussion between the two. But there still seems to be a root cause issue, particularly in Australia, that is not being addressed. The whole thing seems to smack of passing the buck at the expense of the refugees.

Am I missing something?

 Easy E wrote:
Anyway, authoritarianism is on the rise everywhere from the left and the right. These are strange times indeed. I am still wondering what is the best way to combat it no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from. What is a moderate to do?

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:

A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE

— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017

...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.

You were this indignant when anti-Trump protesters were actually physically assaulted and beaten on several occasions at Trump rallies during the election, right. I don't remember.

I think we can agree that the only logical response as a left/right peaceful protester to a left/right violent protester with a firebomb is simply "feth this gak, I'm out"

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Going to tip my toe into the refugee discussion.

First, I would love to see a world where the freedom of movement is only constrained by individual desire and one’s own resources and health. It would mean that the world has moved beyond the desire to do each other harm or to seek enriching one’s self at the expense of others. But we are not there yet and I believe that every nation, just as every individual, has the right to choose who can enter their country (home), even when there are seemingly humanitarian reasons to grant entry (thinking of the lifeboat analogy).

As a large and prosperous nation, the US has a huge capacity to accept a sizeable number of refugees and immigrants. Just how many and where they should be settled is debatable, as is the states’ and taxpayer’s interest and obligation to support their transition, and the refugees and immigrants obligations to assimilate and integrate into US society. Given the disagreement on all of the above it is not surprising the swings in policy and action we are seeing.
So that said, with regard to the Australian refugee deal, from what I have read so far, it seems that the Australian PM committed to and is attempting to follow through on an immigration policy similar to Trump’s while attempting to address the long running criticism of Australia’s own handling of immigrants and refugees, and found in the Obama administration a party that would be willing to help him achieve his political goals. Consequently, I am having a hard time understanding why Australia doesn’t take in the refugees and instead wants to send them to the US? Is it because the Australian PM does want to seem to be back tracking, or doesn't want to encourage a new wave of refugees and asylam seekers (in the same way that Obama's dreamer's act seemed to encourage a surge in unaccompanied immigrant minors?), or are there legimate logistical issues?

It sounds like that part of the dust up is that Australia tried to get clarification on the implementation of the deal and how Trump's EO was going to impact it and Trump and his key advisors possibly not being as aware of the existing deal expressed their frustration accordingly since implementation before the 90 review is complete would violate Trump's EO, hence the "frank" discussion between the two. But there still seems to be a root cause issue, particularly in Australia, that is not being addressed. The whole thing seems to smack of passing the buck at the expense of the refugees.

Am I missing something?

 whembly wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:

A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE

— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017

...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.

You were this indignant when anti-Trump protesters were actually physically assaulted and beaten on several occasions at Trump rallies during the election, right. I don't remember.

I was. Both sides have jack asses.

Protest peacefully all you want. But rioting and physical assaults? Unacceptable.

 Sentinel1 wrote:
I don't want to sound evil, but I think your country has the right idea. Once you open your doors, they come en masse and the human traffickers reap the rewards.

I don't think its fair on the immigrants to be portioned off to whoever will take them. As for traveling by little boats, that is their own choice. Life in Indonesia and surrounding islands isn't as bad as say a warzone so I don't sympathise for their actions.

What the Australian Navy should do is process them on the island and then send them straight back to mainland Indonesia or where ever they came from. If say said person is from an obscure place it would make sense to keep them until you have a group to take.

I know you would have to overcome international law etc but it is the only solution I see. Some may point out it wouldn't work because they don't have a passport to return to their home nation. Couldn't the Australian government create temporary Aussie passports, do paperwork for return visas and then confiscate passports after arrival?

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.

Oh for feth's sake. "The left" is not defined by some college kids.

You have just picked some people acting badly, and used that define half a country. I mean seriously, you've gone from 'college kids acting like stupid college kids' to 'the left prioritizing the elimination of free speech'.

This is tribalism at its most ridiculous.

 jasper76 wrote:
Another of example of how I didn't leave the left, but the left left me.

Milo Yiannopoulos event at UC Berkeley canceled after protests
By Madison Park and Kyung Lah, CNN
(http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html

Berkeley, California (CNN)Violence erupted Wednesday night at UC Berkeley -- the same campus where the Free Speech Movement started 53 years ago -- hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.
The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.
Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."

Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.
More than 1,500 protesters had gathered at Sproul Plaza, chanting and holding signs that read: "No safe space for racists" and "This is war."
The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.
As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.
As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.
No arrests were made throughout the night.

Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak by the Berkeley College Republicans. He has been on a college speaking tour and had planned to speak about cultural appropriation on Wednesday.
In a Facebook Live video, Yiannopoulos described what happened as "an expression of political violence."
"I'm just stunned that hundreds of people ... were so threatened by the idea that a conservative speaker might be persuasive, interesting, funny and might take some people with him, they have to shut it down at all costs."
But some protesters said the Yiannopoulos event wasn't a matter of free speech, because he espouses hate speech.

UC Berkeley said it had prepared security measures following what had happened at Yiannopoulos' previous events. One of his planned speaking engagements at UC Davis was also canceled last month in response to protests.
"Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence," UC Berkeley said in a statement.

Most UC Berkeley students who spoke with CNN said they were relieved that Yiannopoulos wasn't able to speak, but this was not how they wanted to accomplish that goal.
One student told CNN that he didn't agree with what happened.
"It's a sad irony in the fact that the Free Speech Movement was founded here and tonight, someone's free speech got shut down. It might have been hateful speech, but it's still his right to speak," said Shivam Patel, a freshmen who stood outside of Sproul Plaza.
The Free Speech Movement started at UC Berkeley in 1964 after students protested en masse when administrators tried to restrict their political activities on campus.
Patel said he supported peaceful protests, but disagreed with the way things turned out on Wednesday.
"It allows people on the right to say, 'Look at all these liberal Berkeley snowflakes. They're intolerant of speech.' I don't think it's productive at all. It does nothing to help this country."

 jasper76 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.

Oh for feth's sake. "The left" is not defined by some college kids.

You have just picked some people acting badly, and used that define half a country. I mean seriously, you've gone from 'college kids acting like stupid college kids' to 'the left prioritizing the elimination of free speech'.

This is tribalism at its most ridiculous.

As I said before, if this were some isolated incident, I would likely never have brought it up. But it's part of a trend; a pattern. And the degree to which people are willing to do ju jitsu to try and dismiss these trends as insignificant is telling.

I sincerely hope you're correct, and the this type of behavior is not becoming acceptable in the mainstream of the left. Events and the responses I am seeing to them suggest otherwise, but I certainly hope you are correct.

It's also quite possible that the left is a different animal in Australia than it is in the United States.

In any case, my liberal values have not changed. I still believe in things like free speech and freedom of assembly. To the extent that the modern left does not prioritize those values, they will bleed support from those that do.

 Frazzled wrote:

You must have missed the part where we have 12mm illegal aliens here now., .

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.

Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.

So the left is too violent, while at the same time not violent enough to stop the violence?

Did I call for violence? No. A line of peaceful free speech loving liberal students and faculty blocking off the rioting gak bags could have worked. Similar to the 'safety circle' they put up around one of their gatherings to keep student reporters out a while back.

But instead, they gave implicit approval by allowing the violent ass hats to deliver their message for them.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Bob the Inquisitor: UC Berkeley certainly has asserted that those protestors came from Oakland. I'd suggest that you take that with a grain of salt...UC Berkeley has a huge PR issue to deal with because of the riots.

As it stands, I take "they were from Oakland" as something asserted rather than something proved. Most of them we masked, so I'm not sure how they were ID'd as Oakland residents.

FWIW, I am open to the concept, but I won't take it at face value since UC Berkeley has a vested interest in promoting their school as a safe environment for parents to send their kids.

Bruce Springsteen's gig opener in Melbourne today?

Don't Hang Up.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Anybody catch Trump's speech earlier?

Holy horsegak! It was awful!

It was the national prayer day breakfast speech or something. Trump talked as though he were in a nightclub.

He called his defence secretary mad dog, boasted about ranting at the Australian Prime Minister, and called for respect for religions!

In all my years of listening to Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama etc etc

I have NEVER heard a President give a keynote speech like that. Everybody else took the matter seriously, even if you 100% disagreed with them, or thought it was boring.

But Trump? I have never seen the office of POTUS handled like this before...

God help America.