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.

**cuda1179**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The Tea Party is such a fringe element, that they managed to basically run the Freedom Caucus in the House and manage to shut down the majority party.

Nah... the Tea Party (and the Freedom Caucus) is pretty mainstream.

Its sarcasm because Cuda was calling them a fringe element

It would be quite helpful if you didn't misquote me. I never stated that the Tea Party was a fringe element. Or perhaps you just didn't read too carefully. What I stated was, "Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them?"

In other words, people on this forum definitely judged the whole of the Tea Party by actions of fringe elements within it. Not that the Tea Party was a fringe element. Reading comprehension people, Dang.

**whembly**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Here we go again

The Trump administration will not reunite any migrant children with parents still held in immigrant detention facilities unless federal law is changed, a top administration official told Congress on Tuesday, adding a new level of confusion and fear in the family separation crisis created by the White House.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, testifying on Capitol Hill, provided the clearest statement to date of administration policy and confirmed what immigrant advocates have feared: The only way parents can quickly be reunited with their children is to drop their claims for asylum in the United States and agree to be deported.

If parents pursue asylum claims, administration officials plan to hold them in custody until hearings are complete — a process that can take months and in some instances years because of a backlog of several hundred thousand cases.

And while that process takes place and the parents are in custody, their children will not be returned to them, Azar said, citing current rules that allow children to be held in immigrant detention for no more than 20 days.

“If the parent remains in detention, unfortunately, under rules that are set by Congress and the courts, they can't be reunified while they're in detention," Azar told the Senate Finance Committee. He said the department could place children with relatives in the United States if they can be located and properly vetted.

Azar’s department has custody of 2,047 children separated from their parents after they were apprehended crossing the border illegally since May. That’s when the Trump administration began enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy that required prosecution of all adults crossing the border — and separate detention of any minors with them.

His statement brought angry protests from Democrats and immigrant advocates.

“The administration is holding children hostage to push parents to drop their asylum claims,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) tweeted.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-house-vote-20180626-story.html

So... you want them to defy the judge?

You realize this can literally be put off with an EO until it is fixed by congress correct? Like this is literally the moment that Locke meant for executive prerogative to be used

Federal Judge put an injunction that prevents children from being detained longer than 20 days. An EO cannot overcome that injunction. Only an act of Congress.

Unless, you want Catch & Release...

**NinthMusketeer**

cuda1179 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The Tea Party is such a fringe element, that they managed to basically run the Freedom Caucus in the House and manage to shut down the majority party.

Nah... the Tea Party (and the Freedom Caucus) is pretty mainstream.

Its sarcasm because Cuda was calling them a fringe element

It would be quite helpful if you didn't misquote me. I never stated that the Tea Party was a fringe element. Or perhaps you just didn't read too carefully. What I stated was, "Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them?"

In other words, people on this forum definitely judged the whole of the Tea Party by actions of fringe elements within it. Not that the Tea Party was a fringe element. Reading comprehension people, Dang.

-Makes implied statement
-Called on implied statement being false
-Walks back to literal statement

Classic internet.

**cuda1179**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The Tea Party is such a fringe element, that they managed to basically run the Freedom Caucus in the House and manage to shut down the majority party.

Nah... the Tea Party (and the Freedom Caucus) is pretty mainstream.

Its sarcasm because Cuda was calling them a fringe element

It would be quite helpful if you didn't misquote me. I never stated that the Tea Party was a fringe element. Or perhaps you just didn't read too carefully. What I stated was, "Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them?"

In other words, people on this forum definitely judged the whole of the Tea Party by actions of fringe elements within it. Not that the Tea Party was a fringe element. Reading comprehension people, Dang.

-Makes implied statement
-Called on implied statement being false
-Walks back to literal statement

Classic internet.

-Misses point of statement
-misquotes
-strawman

Classic internet

Unless of course you are honestly saying it's true that the Tea Party, as a whole stated that " brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps"

So to reiterate your accusations:

-I made a statement
-Statement was NOT false
-never walked anything back.

**thekingofkings**

BaronIveagh wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Ouze wrote:
We made Jimmy give up his peanut farm.

Wait did Jimmy Carter actually write that or is it part of the joke XD

Sadly, Carter really was forced to give up his peanut farm to become president, and because of mismanagement by the trustees when he reclaimed it was over a million dollars in debt.

And, in a 'totally' unexpected turn, the states are suing Trump over the Immigration issue now, claiming his new policy of deporting without trials is, among other things, unconstitutional.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44622596

you need your skull back, the box thing is weird.

**Wolfblade**

some good news, remains to see if it'll happen however, but a judge in CA ordered that the separated families must be reunited

Now, I don't know how that works outside of CA imprisoned kids (probably doesn't) but it's a step towards correcting Trump's malicious policy.

**NinthMusketeer**

cuda1179 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The Tea Party is such a fringe element, that they managed to basically run the Freedom Caucus in the House and manage to shut down the majority party.

Nah... the Tea Party (and the Freedom Caucus) is pretty mainstream.

Its sarcasm because Cuda was calling them a fringe element

It would be quite helpful if you didn't misquote me. I never stated that the Tea Party was a fringe element. Or perhaps you just didn't read too carefully. What I stated was, "Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them?"

In other words, people on this forum definitely judged the whole of the Tea Party by actions of fringe elements within it. Not that the Tea Party was a fringe element. Reading comprehension people, Dang.

-Makes implied statement
-Called on implied statement being false
-Walks back to literal statement

Classic internet.

-Misses point of statement
-misquotes
-strawman

Classic internet

Unless of course you are honestly saying it's true that the Tea Party, as a whole stated that " brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps"

So to reiterate your accusations:

-I made a statement
-Statement was NOT false
-never walked anything back.

Well let's see:

cuda1179 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Are people pretending that the Tea Party was some weird low level event?

Hey guys, remember all the times people were comparing Obama to Hitler while talking about how his brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps and enact his socialist agenda to turn the USA into Nazi Germany?

Remember how the liberals decided that if you call them mean names, they will turn to the radical extreme left elements and the Democrats in power decided to pander to the fringe elements of the liberal sphere?

Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them? OR is that only the case for BLM and the MeToo movement?

So d-usa makes a statement that the Tea Party was not a fringe element within the GOP. If he stopped here you would be good. But he went on to, and this is important, use Democrats in a sarcastic statement about the GOP as a whole. You did not pull out the portion where he was specifically talking about the Tea Party, so even if you intended to comment on it specifically that is not what your statement meant. What you posted is a comment that the GOP should not be judged on fringe elements within them, thus the implied statement that the Tea Party is a fringe element. Which is exactly what I said.

Assuming that you did indeed mean to refer to the Tea Party specifically in the original statement, you could have avoided all this by just saying "I see my statement was misinterpreted, let me clarify" but instead you chose to go on the offense with passive-aggressive insults and a follow up of hypocrisy. Which in turn speaks that your original intent was not different than it appeared and you were instead looking for an excuse.

**cuda1179**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
[Assuming that you did indeed mean to refer to the Tea Party specifically in the original statement, you could have avoided all this by just saying "I see my statement was misinterpreted, let me clarify" but instead you chose to go on the offense with passive-aggressive insults and a follow up of hypocrisy. Which in turn speaks that your original intent was not different than it appeared and you were instead looking for an excuse.

I guess I misinterpreted what d-usa was saying. Considering he never mentioned the GOP, as a whole, in his entire post, this should be somewhat understandable. Even then, he does refer to the "FEMA death camp" allegation. That WAS a fringe of the Tea Party, and not the Tea party as a whole.

As for passive aggressiveness, that seems to be flooding this thread, from all angles. Anyone that calls anyone else out on it is themselves a hypocrite.

**Da Boss**

Due to rule 1, passive aggression is the only kind of aggression allowed

Personally, this policy makes me feel quite aggressive.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Here we go again

The Trump administration will not reunite any migrant children with parents still held in immigrant detention facilities unless federal law is changed, a top administration official told Congress on Tuesday, adding a new level of confusion and fear in the family separation crisis created by the White House.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, testifying on Capitol Hill, provided the clearest statement to date of administration policy and confirmed what immigrant advocates have feared: The only way parents can quickly be reunited with their children is to drop their claims for asylum in the United States and agree to be deported.

If parents pursue asylum claims, administration officials plan to hold them in custody until hearings are complete — a process that can take months and in some instances years because of a backlog of several hundred thousand cases.

And while that process takes place and the parents are in custody, their children will not be returned to them, Azar said, citing current rules that allow children to be held in immigrant detention for no more than 20 days.

“If the parent remains in detention, unfortunately, under rules that are set by Congress and the courts, they can't be reunified while they're in detention," Azar told the Senate Finance Committee. He said the department could place children with relatives in the United States if they can be located and properly vetted.

Azar’s department has custody of 2,047 children separated from their parents after they were apprehended crossing the border illegally since May. That’s when the Trump administration began enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy that required prosecution of all adults crossing the border — and separate detention of any minors with them.

His statement brought angry protests from Democrats and immigrant advocates.

“The administration is holding children hostage to push parents to drop their asylum claims,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) tweeted.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-house-vote-20180626-story.html

So... you want them to defy the judge?

You realize this can literally be put off with an EO until it is fixed by congress correct? Like this is literally the moment that Locke meant for executive prerogative to be used

Federal Judge put an injunction that prevents children from being detained longer than 20 days. An EO cannot overcome that injunction. Only an act of Congress.

Unless, you want Catch & Release...

That is in fact what they want.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:

Unless, you want Catch & Release...

That is in fact what they want.

What "they" want is legal ports of entry to be opened properly again. For people crossing the border to seek asylum to not automatically be taken into custody while their asylum claims are processed, unless there's a clear and evident danger on the part of the asylum applicant. There's more but those are the two key things--because as much as the 'law and order' side is whining about "dem foreigners comin' in illegally!", they're ignoring that the legal avenues are being shut either by incompetence or malice.

But hey, you knew this. You both do. You just choose not to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your "narrative" of how the Other Guys want to "let everyone in as voters for Democrats!1!1!".

**Frazzled**

In other news Crowley loses to "Democratic Socialist" Cortes who wants to get rid of ICE.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:

Unless, you want Catch & Release...

That is in fact what they want.

What "they" want is legal ports of entry to be opened properly again. For people crossing the border to seek asylum to not automatically be taken into custody while their asylum claims are processed, unless there's a clear and evident danger on the part of the asylum applicant. There's more but those are the two key things--because as much as the 'law and order' side is whining about "dem foreigners comin' in illegally!", they're ignoring that the legal avenues are being shut either by incompetence or malice.

But hey, you knew this. You both do. You just choose not to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your "narrative" of how the Other Guys want to "let everyone in as voters for Democrats!1!1!".

Why? You don't care about actual citizens.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:

Unless, you want Catch & Release...

That is in fact what they want.

What "they" want is legal ports of entry to be opened properly again. For people crossing the border to seek asylum to not automatically be taken into custody while their asylum claims are processed, unless there's a clear and evident danger on the part of the asylum applicant. There's more but those are the two key things--because as much as the 'law and order' side is whining about "dem foreigners comin' in illegally!", they're ignoring that the legal avenues are being shut either by incompetence or malice.

But hey, you knew this. You both do. You just choose not to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your "narrative" of how the Other Guys want to "let everyone in as voters for Democrats!1!1!".

Why? You don't care about actual citizens.

And there it is. The talking point.

This is that rhetoric at play. The idea that being for everyone being treated fairly somehow means that someone else is going to be treated unfairly.

**Mrs. Esterhouse**

The US government has always treated its citizens unfairly. They certainly don't need to use immigration as an excuse!

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:

Unless, you want Catch & Release...

That is in fact what they want.

What "they" want is legal ports of entry to be opened properly again. For people crossing the border to seek asylum to not automatically be taken into custody while their asylum claims are processed, unless there's a clear and evident danger on the part of the asylum applicant. There's more but those are the two key things--because as much as the 'law and order' side is whining about "dem foreigners comin' in illegally!", they're ignoring that the legal avenues are being shut either by incompetence or malice.

But hey, you knew this. You both do. You just choose not to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your "narrative" of how the Other Guys want to "let everyone in as voters for Democrats!1!1!".

Why? You don't care about actual citizens.

And there it is. The talking point.

This is that rhetoric at play. The idea that being for everyone being treated fairly somehow means that someone else is going to be treated unfairly.

How is that fairness? Under your scheme any illegal alien, once caught, can scream "amnesty" and another US citizen loses a job.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:

Unless, you want Catch & Release...

That is in fact what they want.

What "they" want is legal ports of entry to be opened properly again. For people crossing the border to seek asylum to not automatically be taken into custody while their asylum claims are processed, unless there's a clear and evident danger on the part of the asylum applicant. There's more but those are the two key things--because as much as the 'law and order' side is whining about "dem foreigners comin' in illegally!", they're ignoring that the legal avenues are being shut either by incompetence or malice.

But hey, you knew this. You both do. You just choose not to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your "narrative" of how the Other Guys want to "let everyone in as voters for Democrats!1!1!".

Why? You don't care about actual citizens.

And there it is. The talking point.

This is that rhetoric at play. The idea that being for everyone being treated fairly somehow means that someone else is going to be treated unfairly.

How is that fairness? Under your scheme any illegal alien, once caught, can scream "amnesty" and another US citizen loses a job.

You know that "amnesty" is not the same as "asylum", right?

**Frazzled**

It's irrelevant.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
It's irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant when you're making a claim that someone "once caught, can scream "amnesty" and another US citizen loses a job".

YOU made a claim. You started in with the current Republican talking point of "Dems don't care about actual citizens", when called out on it you went to "fairness" and the idea that someone can just pull a thing from plays of old where the protagonist would run into a church shouting "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!" to avoid the consequences of their action.

And now, when called out on that claim, you're now trying to play it off as "irrelevant".

**Frazzled**

Blah blah blah. Once it's catch and release again it's irrelevant. Once released only a few % show up for the hearing.

Call me when you care about the US citizens who are being displaced and lower class wages suppressed.

**cuda1179**

Studies have shown that illegal immigrants impact the job market for the lower classes the most, particularly African Americans. Illegal immigration is at a low, deportations are at a high, and African American are more employed than ever. Coincidence?

Also, while beneficial to African Americans, I doubt that that alone will be enough to sway many to vote Republican.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Blah blah blah. Once it's catch and release again it's irrelevant. Once released only a few % show up for the hearing.

Prove it. Prove your statement.

Not with crap from some Conservative thinktank, ICE, or Fox News. If what you're saying is true, there should be reputable independent sources to back it up.

Call me when you care about the US citizens who are being displaced and lower class wages suppressed.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Oh right, it's an attempt at deflection!

Funny how you care now, where were you when your party has effectively been the one doing the displacing via things like approving oil pipeline routes that affect people being displaced, construction programs to gentrify areas at the expense of those already living there, or for protections for slumlords allowing for them to kick people out to sell properties at a huge profit when they'd been affordable housing projects before?

And "lower class wages suppressed"? That's rich(no pun intended), given that your party has also been doing everything they can to oppose collective bargaining and just removed a bunch of tax write-offs that teachers (traditionally a "lower class wage" job) relied upon to make their job feel a bit more like it could support them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:
Studies have shown that illegal immigrants impact the job market for the lower classes the most, particularly African Americans. Illegal immigration is at a low, deportations are at a high, and African American are more employed than ever. Coincidence?

What studies?

Also, while beneficial to African Americans, I doubt that that alone will be enough to sway many to vote Republican.

Probably not while your party is harping on the "law and order" train and continually even refusing to discuss the issue of police mistreatment of their communities.

**Vaktathi**

It's fair to point out that the asylum option is open to an incredible amount of abuse. It is, and it's hard to avoid that.

At the same time, the idea that every illegal alien is taking a job from a US citizen is also spurious, labor markets are far more complex than that, and the more effective action on that front is probably more on the labor demand side.

**Ustrello**

Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:

Unless, you want Catch & Release...

That is in fact what they want.

What "they" want is legal ports of entry to be opened properly again. For people crossing the border to seek asylum to not automatically be taken into custody while their asylum claims are processed, unless there's a clear and evident danger on the part of the asylum applicant. There's more but those are the two key things--because as much as the 'law and order' side is whining about "dem foreigners comin' in illegally!", they're ignoring that the legal avenues are being shut either by incompetence or malice.

But hey, you knew this. You both do. You just choose not to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your "narrative" of how the Other Guys want to "let everyone in as voters for Democrats!1!1!".

Why? You don't care about actual citizens.

And there it is. The talking point.

This is that rhetoric at play. The idea that being for everyone being treated fairly somehow means that someone else is going to be treated unfairly.

How is that fairness? Under your scheme any illegal alien, once caught, can scream "amnesty" and another US citizen loses a job.

All those farming (not even farmers just farm hands and produce pickers) and bus boy jobs taking away in a flash. Jesus frazz you are taking that idiotic dog whistle talking point hook line and sinker

**Disciple of Fate**

cuda1179 wrote:
Studies have shown that illegal immigrants impact the job market for the lower classes the most, particularly African Americans. Illegal immigration is at a low, deportations are at a high, and African American are more employed than ever. Coincidence?

Also, while beneficial to African Americans, I doubt that that alone will be enough to sway many to vote Republican.

This isn't really true depending on where you look, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a report in 2017 observing a 20 year economic trend in relation to immigration. The main job market hit is actually that of previous immigrants. Most fill in jobs that American citizens don't do in regions (and sectors to an extent) that don't really overlap, like agriculture. Overall illegal immigrants drive economic growth because they boost sectors that would struggle to find workers. African Americans don't tend to be employed in any significant number in seasonal agriculture for example.

Overall immigration as a whole (legal and illegal) depresses wages for high school drop outs to an extent, but high school drop outs as a percentage of the work force can't make up for a shortfall in immigrants (even if they want or live close enough to those jobs) which will hurt the US economy in the long term and certain sectors in the short term already.

**Frazzled**

Horse gak. They don't do them because they don't pay much and are now excluded.

Construction
Manufacturing
Retail
Maintenance
Agriculture

These were all fields poor white, black etc. Did. My dad was a sharecropper. I did manufacturing and maintenance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other news- SCOTUS rules people can't be required to pay Public Union dues for government jobs.

**Disciple of Fate**

Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. They don't do them because they don't pay much and are now excluded.

Construction
Manufacturing
Retail
Maintenance
Agriculture

These were all fields poor white, black etc. Did. My dad was a sharecropper. I did manufacturing and maintenance.

But that isn't due to immigrants, its the industry. Construction and agriculture industry have been very strong lobbyists for work visas and that hasn't been changed by these Trump actions. If Trump cuts back on illegal immigration you will just see those visas shoot up. Its both a supply and a demand problem, not enough Americans at current wage, not 'enough' money to pay them better.

And they don't pay enough exactly because the industry doesn't want to pay more, this isn't down to immigrants. All the industries that could went off shore for cheaper labor. Besides making businesss hire Americans by law you won't change anything.

**Frazzled**

If there are ten jobs and illegals take five for below minimum wage then 1. Citizens have list five jobs. 2. The wages of the other jobs will fall.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
If there are ten jobs and illegals take five for below minimum wage then 1. Citizens have list five jobs. 2. The wages of the other jobs will fall.

This assumes that citizens were competing for those 5 jobs in the first place.

It also is your way of absolving the company employing those individuals of any responsibility.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. They don't do them because they don't pay much and are now excluded.

Construction
Manufacturing
Retail
Maintenance
Agriculture

These were all fields poor white, black etc. Did. My dad was a sharecropper. I did manufacturing and maintenance.

But that isn't due to immigrants, its the industry. Construction and agriculture industry have been very strong lobbyists for work visas and that hasn't been changed by these Trump actions. If Trump cuts back on illegal immigration you will just see those visas shoot up. Its both a supply and a demand problem, not enough Americans at current wage, not 'enough' money to pay them better.

And they don't pay enough exactly because the industry doesn't want to pay more, this isn't down to immigrants. All the industries that could went off shore for cheaper labor. Besides making businesss hire Americans by law you won't change anything.

Agriculture is also a heavily subsidized industry. We saw that thing come up in the whole Bundy derpfest.

**Tannhauser42**

Frazzled wrote:
If there are ten jobs and illegals take five for below minimum wage then 1. Citizens have list five jobs. 2. The wages of the other jobs will fall.

You're proceeding from a false assumption: the illegals aren't "taking" those jobs. The jobs are being given to them. You should be focusing your anger at the employer.

**Frazzled**

1. Simple logic says that if they are not going for those jobs When They Previously Did, that something has changed.

2. I am fine with making it a felony. How about you?