US & NA Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Wolfblade wrote:

Also nice to see you avoid the stuff about your source being literal garbage.

Ah... no attempt for sincere dialogue? Cool... <hits ignore button>

**Wolfblade**

whembly wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:

Also nice to see you avoid the stuff about your source being literal garbage.

Ah... no attempt for sincere dialogue? Cool... <hits ignore button>

Ahhh, ok. So calling you out for using a bad source (i.e. fox news, breitbart) is bad and wrong and not looking for a discussion, but actually using fox or breitbart in an attempt to bash a party is an attempt at discussion? Really?

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:

So you think the Democrats "won't" filibuster?

Does that matter? At least they'll be trying. And if they do then it's the D's fault (or at least that's the perception).

Yeah it matters. There's only so much bandwidth the Senate has to allow for passage of some bills, and if the other side signals that its a no-go, then a decision need to be made to move forward and hope there's a political cost, or use the bandwidth on other bills that has a chance of passing.

**tneva82**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Ironic the timing of leaving the human rights council with the border debacle going on.

Why? With all the human right violating US does why would they want to be there? US isn't "good guys". Never has been and is going even worse all the time.

This keeps up and NK will be paragon of virtues soon compared to US...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheMeanDM wrote:
As I said on my personal fb account:

How are we to be a beacon for all that is good and right in the world when we purposefully and intentionally surrender our place in history as a just and moral leader in the free world?

I never dreamed of a day when we would abandon the noble vision of human rights and equality for all peoples, but I fear that with the withdrawal of the US from the Human Rights Council we have turned a dream into a nightmare and snuffed out a sorely needed light in this darkening world. The repercussions of this ill conceived action will, I fear, trigger more pain and suffering in a world that already sees far too much of each.

Who says US was that beacon in the first place? Bully using biggest guns isn't beacon for good and right.

**d-usa**

Democrats are going to filibuster a bill that has the support of Democratic Senators AND GOP Senators that has 60+ votes before Trump opposes it?

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
So you think the Democrats "won't" filibuster?

I think it's a moot point (and shameless goalpost moving to boot) since GOP leadership won't allow anything to make it to the floor.

Trump could end this tomorrow if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to.

The GOP could end this tomorrow if they wanted to via legislation, but they won't, because Trump doesn't want to.

The Democrats have no real power to influence this process since they don't have any political power, but that won't stop Trump and the GOP from cravenly blaming them anyway on reasons wholly imaginary in nature, and the loyal footsoldiers from willingly embracing obvious lies because, of course, partisanship is strong.

**whembly**

I will concede that there are solutions to this. Not easy... but definitely doable.

Both bills are still "on track" at the House for additional amendments and votes.

Not sure where Cruz's bill at... but, Schumer not supporting a "clean bill" reminds me of his favorite GOP criticism... Hostage Takers.

I agree with Co'tor... GOP need to call Schumer’s bluff. Advance this bill and see if Democrats filibuster.

Hey remember this border hawk in 2014? Saying "We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border doesn’t mean your child gets to stay. We don’t want to send a message contrary to our laws or encourage more to come"

Spoiler:

**lonestarr777**

Hillary lost. No one wanted her, on either side. We get it. You hate her.

This. Changes. NOTHING.

Oh no in an alternate dimension where Hillary won because when you get less votes in an election you lose in bizzaro world, she'd do the same thing right? Is that the point?

This is beyond aggravating. Whataboutism is the biggest garbage logic I have ever seen. This is gak a five year old pulls. You walk in the living room and Jimmy is peeing on the carpet in the corner, when you yell at him he shrugs and says "Well Mikey stole some cookies yesterday." It doesn't matter. Jimmy is peeing on the carpet right now, because Mikey did something stupid doesn't excuse it. Bad behavior is bad behavior, period!

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
I will concede that there are solutions to this. Not easy... but definitely doable.

First off, it's very, very easy, because this is a Trump policy that was rolled out informally a month ago. He could end it this morning with a single phone call and go back to how he, himself, was administering this policy 2 months ago. That's the very definition of easy. Yes, a long term fix needs to be done by Congress. Guess who is also responsible for that?

The election is over. Hillary Clinton lost. The GOP holds the house, the senate, the presidency, and a majority of the SCOTUS, and have done so for a year and a half. At some point you need to hold your party responsible for the fact they're actually in charge of the country now, and have been for some time.

**d-usa**

Why is the whole “unaccompanied minors =/= accompanied minors” thing so damn complicated?

**A Town Called Malus**

d-usa wrote:
Why is the whole “unaccompanied minors =/= accompanied minors” thing so damn complicated?

For the same reason that "is not explicitly disallowed from doing thing" =/= "should do or is good idea to do said thing" is.

**Tannhauser42**

d-usa wrote:
Why is the whole “unaccompanied minors =/= accompanied minors” thing so damn complicated?

It's not complicated. But, to acknowledge the difference would be a threat to some of the narratives being forged.

**dosiere**

d-usa wrote:
A prevalent complaint against the Democratic Party has been that they spend to much time embracing identity politics. But at the same time embracing identity politics seems to be the focus of the Trump Administration, and the GOP is switching their principles to do the same.

True, and it’s a sad thing to watch happen. It appears to be an inevitable reaction to the rather unsubtle way the Democratic Party has used the tactic for years now, but I hope I’m wrong about that. On a positive note, there is definitely a shift on the right towards a more libertarian POV about social issues at the same time. I’m hoping those voices somehow counterbalance the stupid rhetoric from both sides. I cringe when I hear Trump, but not any more than when I hear someone like Maxine Waters. I’m rather sick of it all.

**Easy E**

Last I checked, if a party did not filibuster you only needed a simple majority in the Senate to pass a bill if it was brought to a vote.

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
A prevalent complaint against the Democratic Party has been that they spend to much time embracing identity politics. But at the same time embracing identity politics seems to be the focus of the Trump Administration, and the GOP is switching their principles to do the same.

Vice-signalling is the new virtue-signaling.

https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/trump-is-vice-signalling-over-immigration-and-its-going-to-work/

Call it vice-signalling. The President and Kirstjen Nielsen are making clear that, even if it means being seen to be inhuman, they are taking voter concerns about massive immigration seriously. There is a clear political upside to this, despite – or because of – the negative headlines. ‘Zero tolerance’ on illegal immigration is popular, even if some of the unpleasant consequences are not.

Time and again, we see that the media consensus on the rights and wrongs of immigration is way out of step with what the public thinks. Look at what happened in Britain, with the Windrush scandal. There it emerged that the government, in its attempts to create an inhospitable climate for illegals, had treated some longstanding Caribbean residents as unlawful. The story sucked up enormous amounts of media oxygen – more so, arguably, than it deserved, given how few Windrush residents were targeted. Everyone who was anyone agreed that the government policy was a national disgrace, unBritish, and deeply damaging to the Prime Minister. The Home Secretary had to resign.

Then a funny thing happened. In the wake of the scandal, the government outperformed expectations in local elections, and in fact ever since Theresa May has been pulling away in the polls. Well-informed British political analysts now say that her party benefitted from Windrush, since voters appreciated the toughness on immigration even to the point of being cruel. Some even suggested the government had deliberately created the fuss to vice-signal to the electorate. Vice-signalling is the opposite of virtue-signalling, which is what a lot of the commentators now shouting about the injustice of separating families are doing. Vice-signalling involves saying or doing something that others call mean in order to show how resolute you are; how unfazed you are by public and social media denunciations. It’s becoming quite the thing.

**A Town Called Malus**

Easy E wrote:
Last I checked, if a party did not filibuster you only needed a simple majority in the Senate to pass a bill if it was brought to a vote.

But see, the Republican leadership in congress, who adopted a complete obstruction tactic and so filibustered anything and everything they could, cannot conceive of the Democrats not doing the same.

They seem to think that if they brought a bill into congress which said that families would not be split up at the border, with no idiotic riders attached with nothing to do with the actual issue being addressed (such as defund planned parenthood, or repeal obamacare, or remove every gun regulation in DC etc.), the democrats would filibuster it purely on the basis that it was proposed by a Republican. It doesn't even enter the equation that the other side might not behave the same way as they would.

**Luke_Prowler**

I don't think identity politics is anything new, or is a Left thing. Think about the most commonly used phrase in politics: "Hard working [insert nationality]". Playing against an implied immoral/good-for-nothing/straight up malicious "other" was a thing from day one, and the idea of it being new is rose tinted glasses at best.

**Disciple of Fate**

Yeah its nothing new or exclusively left wing. Reagan already used what we would later call a dog whistle to attract voters and that is at its core nothing more than identity politics in a more extreme form. Identity politics have played a role since before the term was coined.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/trump-is-vice-signalling-over-immigration-and-its-going-to-work/

Call it vice-signalling. The President and Kirstjen Nielsen are making clear that, even if it means being seen to be inhuman, they are taking voter concerns about massive immigration seriously. There is a clear political upside to this, despite – or because of – the negative headlines. ‘Zero tolerance’ on illegal immigration is popular, even if some of the unpleasant consequences are not.

Time and again, we see that the media consensus on the rights and wrongs of immigration is way out of step with what the public thinks. Look at what happened in Britain, with the Windrush scandal. There it emerged that the government, in its attempts to create an inhospitable climate for illegals, had treated some longstanding Caribbean residents as unlawful. The story sucked up enormous amounts of media oxygen – more so, arguably, than it deserved, given how few Windrush residents were targeted. Everyone who was anyone agreed that the government policy was a national disgrace, unBritish, and deeply damaging to the Prime Minister. The Home Secretary had to resign.

Then a funny thing happened. In the wake of the scandal, the government outperformed expectations in local elections, and in fact ever since Theresa May has been pulling away in the polls. Well-informed British political analysts now say that her party benefitted from Windrush, since voters appreciated the toughness on immigration even to the point of being cruel. Some even suggested the government had deliberately created the fuss to vice-signal to the electorate. Vice-signalling is the opposite of virtue-signalling, which is what a lot of the commentators now shouting about the injustice of separating families are doing. Vice-signalling involves saying or doing something that others call mean in order to show how resolute you are; how unfazed you are by public and social media denunciations. It’s becoming quite the thing.

Finally, now Fox and Friends has a good way of talking positively about Kim, he's not a brutal dictator, its just vice signalling

Man, the things they come up with.

**cuda1179**

Wolfblade wrote:
whembly wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:

Also nice to see you avoid the stuff about your source being literal garbage.

Ah... no attempt for sincere dialogue? Cool... <hits ignore button>

Ahhh, ok. So calling you out for using a bad source (i.e. fox news, breitbart) is bad and wrong and not looking for a discussion, but actually using fox or breitbart in an attempt to bash a party is an attempt at discussion? Really?

Fox is the Right's CNN or MSNBC. Breitbart is their Huffington Post. Let's not pretend one side has a monopoly on garbage.

**Wolfblade**

cuda1179 wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
whembly wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:

Also nice to see you avoid the stuff about your source being literal garbage.

Ah... no attempt for sincere dialogue? Cool... <hits ignore button>

Ahhh, ok. So calling you out for using a bad source (i.e. fox news, breitbart) is bad and wrong and not looking for a discussion, but actually using fox or breitbart in an attempt to bash a party is an attempt at discussion? Really?

Fox is the Right's CNN or MSNBC. Breitbart is their Huffington Post. Let's not pretend one side has a monopoly on garbage.

Except fox and breitbart are far worse and not even comparable. Breitbart and fox don't even try and pretend they have any purpose beyond being propaganda for the right.

**Togusa**

lonestarr777 wrote:
Hillary lost. No one wanted her, on either side. We get it. You hate her.

This. Changes. NOTHING.

Oh no in an alternate dimension where Hillary won because when you get less votes in an election you lose in bizzaro world, she'd do the same thing right? Is that the point?

This is beyond aggravating. Whataboutism is the biggest garbage logic I have ever seen. This is gak a five year old pulls. You walk in the living room and Jimmy is peeing on the carpet in the corner, when you yell at him he shrugs and says "Well Mikey stole some cookies yesterday." It doesn't matter. Jimmy is peeing on the carpet right now, because Mikey did something stupid doesn't excuse it. Bad behavior is bad behavior, period!

I wish I could upvote this 1000 times.

I too am sick to death of the phrase "But Hillary....."

feth Hillary. She's gone, old news, out of politics.

<Screams into the void>

**Disciple of Fate**

So Jeff wrote an Op-Ed
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/19/jeff-session-we-dont-want-separate-parents-kids-editorials-debates/36192703/

Jeff Sessions: We don’t want to separate parents from kids

Jeff Sessions

Published 12:04 p.m. UTC Jun 20, 2018

Some years ago, it was decided that law enforcement might arrest adults who crossed the border illegally by themselves, but anyone who brought a child with them would not be prosecuted, a form of immunity.

Word got out about this loophole with predictable results. The number of aliens illegally crossing with children between our ports of entry went from 14,000 to 75,000 — a fivefold increase — in just the past four years.

These trends undermine the integrity of our system. That’s why the policy that is causing them must end, too.

Ending this blanket immunity means prosecuting adults for illegal entry whether they have children with them or not. That is what we are doing at the Department of Justice.

OUR VIEW: Zero tolerance makes zero sense

But we will not put the children in jail. Instead, the children must be cared for by the Department of Health and Human Services, as the law requires.

And these children are well cared for. In fact, they get better care than a lot of American kids do. They are provided plenty of food, education in their language, health and dental care, and transported to their destination city — all at taxpayer expense.

In total, HHS is spending more than one billion taxpayer dollars a year providing quality care.

Separations are temporary and rare. The vast majority of children in custody came to this country by themselves.

Many unaccompanied children have been abused by smugglers or recruited by criminal gangs such as MS-13. There is nothing humane about encouraging human trafficking — but that is what open borders policies do. Everything the Trump administration is doing is helping put traffickers out of business.

If people have a genuine asylum claim, they can come to a port of entry, make their claim legally, and remain with their children while their case is processed.

We do not want to separate parents from their children. What we want is a safe, lawful system of immigration that would end this question altogether. We want to build a wall to prevent illegal entry. Congress could make that happen quickly — and they should.

Those who want to come to this country can and should apply legally. We have the most generous immigration laws in the world — but they should be enforced. At the Department of Justice, that is what we intend to do, and we ask Congress to be our partners in this effort.

Jeff Sessions is the attorney general of the United States.

Somehow I don't think the argument that you treat them better than American children is a great defense at all. Well that and the other bollocks.

**Togusa**

Wolfblade wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
whembly wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:

Also nice to see you avoid the stuff about your source being literal garbage.

Ah... no attempt for sincere dialogue? Cool... <hits ignore button>

Ahhh, ok. So calling you out for using a bad source (i.e. fox news, breitbart) is bad and wrong and not looking for a discussion, but actually using fox or breitbart in an attempt to bash a party is an attempt at discussion? Really?

Fox is the Right's CNN or MSNBC. Breitbart is their Huffington Post. Let's not pretend one side has a monopoly on garbage.

Except fox and breitbart are far worse and not even comparable. Breitbart and fox don't even try and pretend they have any purpose beyond being propaganda for the right.

I dunno, I did see some good reporting from fox about the two dictators meeting in Singapore a few weeks ago.

**Wolfblade**

Togusa wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
whembly wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:

Also nice to see you avoid the stuff about your source being literal garbage.

Ah... no attempt for sincere dialogue? Cool... <hits ignore button>

Ahhh, ok. So calling you out for using a bad source (i.e. fox news, breitbart) is bad and wrong and not looking for a discussion, but actually using fox or breitbart in an attempt to bash a party is an attempt at discussion? Really?

Fox is the Right's CNN or MSNBC. Breitbart is their Huffington Post. Let's not pretend one side has a monopoly on garbage.

Except fox and breitbart are far worse and not even comparable. Breitbart and fox don't even try and pretend they have any purpose beyond being propaganda for the right.

I dunno, I did see some good reporting from fox about the two dictators meeting in Singapore a few weeks ago.

Hey, even fox makes a mistake and lets facts slip through once in awhile!

**Crispy78**

Can't find it but I'm sure someone mentioned Godwin's Law earlier. Please see the following update from Godwin. He's cool with the comparison.

https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320?s=19

**Vaktathi**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Jeff wrote an Op-Ed
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/19/jeff-session-we-dont-want-separate-parents-kids-editorials-debates/36192703/

Jeff Sessions: We don’t want to separate parents from kids

Jeff Sessions

Published 12:04 p.m. UTC Jun 20, 2018

Some years ago, it was decided that law enforcement might arrest adults who crossed the border illegally by themselves, but anyone who brought a child with them would not be prosecuted, a form of immunity.

Word got out about this loophole with predictable results. The number of aliens illegally crossing with children between our ports of entry went from 14,000 to 75,000 — a fivefold increase — in just the past four years.

These trends undermine the integrity of our system. That’s why the policy that is causing them must end, too.

Ending this blanket immunity means prosecuting adults for illegal entry whether they have children with them or not. That is what we are doing at the Department of Justice.

OUR VIEW: Zero tolerance makes zero sense

But we will not put the children in jail. Instead, the children must be cared for by the Department of Health and Human Services, as the law requires.

And these children are well cared for. In fact, they get better care than a lot of American kids do. They are provided plenty of food, education in their language, health and dental care, and transported to their destination city — all at taxpayer expense.

In total, HHS is spending more than one billion taxpayer dollars a year providing quality care.

Separations are temporary and rare. The vast majority of children in custody came to this country by themselves.

Many unaccompanied children have been abused by smugglers or recruited by criminal gangs such as MS-13. There is nothing humane about encouraging human trafficking — but that is what open borders policies do. Everything the Trump administration is doing is helping put traffickers out of business.

If people have a genuine asylum claim, they can come to a port of entry, make their claim legally, and remain with their children while their case is processed.

We do not want to separate parents from their children. What we want is a safe, lawful system of immigration that would end this question altogether. We want to build a wall to prevent illegal entry. Congress could make that happen quickly — and they should.

Those who want to come to this country can and should apply legally. We have the most generous immigration laws in the world — but they should be enforced. At the Department of Justice, that is what we intend to do, and we ask Congress to be our partners in this effort.

Jeff Sessions is the attorney general of the United States.

Somehow I don't think the argument that you treat them better than American children is a great defense at all. Well that and the other bollocks.

it is interesting how this has gone from "not policy" to "yeah this is totally policy" in the space of 3 or 4 days with this administration.

Its also especially interesting how Sessions notes that asylum seekers should go through ports of entry...where they are actively and categorically being denied entry.

Crispy78 wrote:
Can't find it but I'm sure someone mentioned Godwin's Law earlier. Please see the following update from Godwin. He's cool with the comparison.

https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320?s=19

that is...more than a wee bit amusing. EDIT: its older than I thought, hadnt realized that was from last august.

**Spinner**

Depends on who you ask and how willing they are to gloat about it, as far as I can tell.

**feeder**

Speaking of Godwin, ICE director Thomas Homan, speaking to Fox, used this staggeringly tone deaf defense that his office is not like the Nazis:

Thomas Homan wrote:“I think it’s an insult to the brave men and women of the border patrol and ICE to call law enforcement officers Nazis. They are simply enforcing laws enacted by Congress.”

And of course Fox just let it slide like the sycophantic little toadies they are.

How do people so stupid get such important positions?

**Sarouan**

I wasn't aware that the Senate needed 60 votes in that case, so that's where the blockade is. Thanks to all the people who answered me.

Meanwhile, USA officially got out of UN Human Rights Council. It's another symbol, as far as I read, but that's another symbol that will be interpreted a lot. I truly wonder how you americans manage to handle that storm of news these last days. It doesn't seem to stop, that's impressive in some way. Must be tiring as hell as well...

To people supporting the Republican's current line, do you think it would be wise it keeps going that way at this pace ? I mean, beyond partisanship, purpose of politics is to go somewhere someday. So far, I must say it's difficult to me to see a pattern other than Trump trying to do everything to get releected next mandate, as if it was the sole purpose for his actions - but that seems a bit "weak" as a purpose here. What would be the right course for the conservatives in the end, in your opinion ? I'm genuinely interested here. What would be the best candidate for next mandate, in the end ?

Hope this topic will stay open. I may not agree with everything stated here, but it's really interesting to see the different points of view so long as everyone stays polite. I understand it's not an easy thing sometimes, with how things are heated these times.

**Wolfblade**

Stay classy, Fox, stay classy

For the work blocked, Corey Lewandowski (on fox) makes a "womp womp" sound while Zac Petkanas talks about a 10-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who was separated from her mother, then proceeds to try and cover it up by talking about laws/illegal border crossing.