Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Mobius_118]

Persons. Not Citizens.

That's everyone, Mazder.

[Raga]

I support the separation policy as a matter of tactics. I also support making DACA conditional and not a freebie as a matter of tactics.

Most people want a reduction in overall numbers of immigrants and they want a skill-based system and not a "family reunification" (meaning chain migration) based system. This hasn't happened for two main reasons:

1. Certain Republicans refuse to do anything about the problem because certain of their donors want a never-ending stream of cheap labor.

2. Democrats generally refuse to do anything about it because A) they smell future voters and B) a percentage of their core in certain key states (read California) are basically one issue voters on pushing open borders and won't show up at the polls otherwise.

The status quo of 1 million mostly low-skill, mostly Latin American immigrants a year serves both of these groups nicely. They don't want it to change except perhaps to increase it even further.

If the only way to get Congress to do something is to make the situation utterly intolerable, so be it.

[Mobius_118]

"Think of the CHILDREN!!!!"

They're not asylum seekers. They are economic migrants who entered the country illegally and were caught. We have every right to secure our own borders. Ask the Canadians or Mexicans how they handle illegal "Guests".

It doesn't matter, you don't separate families over a misdemeanor. That's the law talking, not morality.

You keep pushing economic migrants. It doesn't matter if they're seeking a better life or running away from certain death, they are to be treated like human beings, as covered under the Constitution, as well as the UN doctrines.

You can REEEEEEEEEEEEE all you want. Law is the law.

[Mazder]

Persons. Not Citizens.

That's everyone, Mazder.

Yes, back in 1776 when persons was equal to all who were joining the country, as soon as that country forms they become persons of the United States of America. Or more commonly known as citizens.
This "using old world speak to include the illegals" is a bullshit loophole that just adds to more illegal citizens not paying into the socialized shit you want to apply for your country.

You keep pushing economic migrants. It doesn't matter if they're seeking a better life or running away from certain death, they are to be treated like human beings, as covered under the Constitution, as well as the UN doctrines.

The US constitution extends to citizens of the United States. If you're not a citizen then UN Law would take over. You can't have this "grey area" of "kinda a citizen but not" where some laws apply and some don't.

If the Constitution extends to every living, breathing person then walk over to Mexico and fix the Cartels problem yourselves as you apparently have to apply US citizenry Law there by your own definition.

[Mobius_118]

I've posted enough on how immigrants, legal or illegal, have certain rights under the Constitution.

If you refuse to understand it, and you continue to go against the interpretation shared by 100's of other Constitutional lawyers and scholars, then no amount of evidence will change your mind.

[Mazder]

I've posted enough on how immigrants, legal or illegal, have certain rights under the Constitution.

If you refuse to understand it, and you continue to go against the interpretation shared by 100's of other Constitutional lawyers and scholars, then no amount of evidence will change your mind.

Legal immigrants, yes.
Illegal ones, no.

If they want the rights they play the game and become legal citizens, otherwise they wave all rights. That is how it should be and prevents illegal immigrants exploiting the flaws in your system. And those laws are flaws as they have the application to invite people to sponge off your system without paying back into it.

If your Constitutional lawyers and scholars are okay with having cracks in the system that allows such exploitation then they may as well start by tearing up the law books in their entirety as clearly they're not in it for your country's best interests.

[Mobius_118]

Illegal Immigrants yes.

How many times do I have to teach you this lesson?

[Mazder]

Illegal Immigrants yes.

How many times do I have to teach you this lesson?

How many times until you realize it's my opinion on what should be and where I think your laws are failed and flawed?
I have less than 0 stake on what you do with your rounded up criminals or their offspring, all I am doing is pointing out where things are currently broken.

[Mobius_118]

Currently broken, you'd be correct. Since 2017 we've had a constant Constitutional crisis because we have a madman and his goons trying to turn this nation into a Banana Republic.

What made this nation great was that it's a melting pot of different cultures all coming together. We've always had little pockets of shit, but they've been emboldened by said madman.

The US had been successful for 241 years. That Constitution has been a bedrock document the whole time, and now it's under threat from someone whose team is being indicted and thrown in prison for treason.

[Raga]

In my ongoing "is cultural Marxism a thing" investigation, I've been butting my head against Jacques Derrida the last week. He's possibly the densest thing I've ever read that isn't like highly technical science stuff or math.

To even sorta/kinda understand what the flipping heck this guy is talking about, I've had to: read the first few chapters on an introductory semiotics book, watch about four hours of lectures from some Yale professor talking about introductory literary theory, watch a lecture on what logos means in ancient Greek philosophy, and watch a lecture on reflexivity in epistemology. After doing all that, I can finally more or less understand the first essay in this book "Understanding Derrida" that I checked out at the library. That's how ridiculous he is. Even a book that's supposed to help you understand him is next to impossible to understand.

Takeaway: he *is* saying something coherent that he is intentionally making as incoherent as possible. The incoherence is like 50% technical jargon from like 10 different academic disciplines in the humanities he borrows from willy-nilly and like 50% intentional, unnecessary pomposity. Moreover, the coherent thing he's saying can be summed up in 2 sentences.

Also, found this book just from browsing the stacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Currents_of_Marxism but it's like 1200 pages long so honestly I think I'll just crap out on it.

[Mazder]

Currently broken, you'd be correct. Since 2017 we've had a constant Constitutional crisis because we have a madman and his goons trying to turn this nation into a Banana Republic.

What made this nation great was that it's a melting pot of different cultures all coming together. We've always had little pockets of shit, but they've been emboldened by said madman.

The US had been successful for 241 years. That Constitution has been a bedrock document the whole time, and now it's under threat from someone whose team is being indicted and thrown in prison for treason.

Yeah and it's been broken since 1776 according to you.

A melting pot of cultures that legally come together. If your addition to a culture is illegally skirting past that cultures laws to get your kids in legally then that's not something I'd like that culture to adopt or have any part in, nor would I want them and that practice in my culture and would do anything to legally keep them out.
Plus laws can be changed.
Even the Constitution isn't invulnerable. Practically, maybe. Literally, far from it.

[Mobius_118]

I don't know how 2017 suddenly turned into 1776.

Also, this isn't just a Constitutional issue, this is also a United Nations issue. Violations of human rights, secondary and tertiary victimizations, all of it violates the law on multiple levels.

But if you're suggesting we amend the Constitution to allow for human beings, regardless of legality, to be treated like animals, then it's a good thing you're not involved in the laws.

[Raga]

I'm not sure what would be illegal about detaining them so long as they are fed, sheltered, not physically or verbally abused, and given sufficient information about their legal proceedings that they can make informed decisions.

Now, the guys standing on the bridge telling people to go away because "we can't take asylum seekers today," that's probably illegal.

[Mobius_118]

That's the thing, they're not being given proper shelter, food, and are being physically abused.

[Mazder]

I don't know how 2017 suddenly turned into 1776.

Also, this isn't just a Constitutional issue, this is also a United Nations issue. Violations of human rights, secondary and tertiary victimizations, all of it violates the law on multiple levels.

But if you're suggesting we amend the Constitution to allow for human beings, regardless of legality, to be treated like animals, then it's a good thing you're not involved in the laws.

Because if the law has always been the same in the sense of it being from when the Constitution was written then the modern day application of that same law shows how it was always potentially broken if you're in favour of keeping illegal immigrants.

I am saying your laws already should suggest your country's rights be extended to legal citizens or visitors of your country. Illegal citizens would full under UN/human rights laws, but should not receive the exact same rights as a citizen of the United States, otherwise what is the point of being an American then?

And, yeah, I don't really care about their current treatment in the sense of it being used as a fear tactic. Let that be used as a fear tactic against any future illegal immigrants. "Enter legally or you're thrown in the hole when we catch you." It'd probably deter more illegal immigrants in future.
But, yeah, it sucks they're in a bad lot but, eh, fuck it, at this point the problem of illegal immigrants has gotten so bad that maybe you do have to scare them from coming back again.
Not that I'd condone the actions, but as a thought exercise you gotta wonder if it'd work.

Now, the guys standing on the bridge telling people to go away because "we can't take asylum seekers today," that's probably illegal.

As far as I know there is no law which compels one to have yo take in asylum seekers. You are technically allowed to turn them away. If we weren't the whole migrant crisis after the Syrian war wouldn't have been as big of a thing in Europe.

[Mobius_118]

Yeah there's no excuse for torturing kids.

Conservatives are so concerned about the children and the babies and the fetuses, right up until there's actual kids being tortured.

Using that as a fear tactic just makes those that support it look like monsters. Rightfully so. This is a fucking travesty of human rights laws.

[Mazder]

Yeah there's no excuse for torturing kids.

Conservatives are so concerned about the children and the babies and the fetuses, right up until there's actual kids being tortured.

Using that as a fear tactic just makes those that support it look like monsters. Rightfully so. This is a fucking travesty of human rights laws.

It's not their kids to them, so they don't care.

To the adults, yeah, maybe we need to be scarier than that they're running from.
Especially if they're not willing to do things the proper way and become an actual citizen because until they do they're not "one of you".

[Raga]

That's the thing, they're not being given proper shelter, food, and are being physically abused.

Where is the evidence of this? The most I've seen is that the detention centers are really, really *sterile* and not aesthetically kid-friendly. I've seen pictures of kids with like those ugly silver emergency blankets sleeping on hospital looking cots behind chainlink. If instead it was blankets with cartoon characters, nicely painted wooden beds, and toddler gates, it would serve the exact same function and there would be no shock value.





And so on.

[Mobius_118]

That's the problem when you black box everything and sanitize it all when a Senator surprise visits a facility. It's hard to get evidence when the DHS guards are armed and any attempts are met with stonewalling or detainment.

Then there's the lasting psychological damage from the separation itself. Can't see all the scars. Anyone here who's a victim of violence or has PTSD knows that.

[TheodoricFriede]

There is, of course, also the cold truth of "I dont care".

As it turns out there is a very simple way of avoiding this. Don't try to cross the border illegally.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

There is, of course, also the cold truth of "I dont care".

As it turns out there is a very simple way of avoiding this. Don't try to cross the border illegally.

I like how Mobius and the far left have taken over the Religious Right's shrieking of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!".

My my my how times change.

[Mobius_118]

I like how you continuously think law violations qualify as THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Hopefully you never find out what it's like to be caged up and treated like an animal. I don't think your tiny little mind could handle it.

[TheodoricFriede]

You know what else is a law violation?

Crossing the border illegally.

[Mobius_118]

Know what I didn't have a problem with, stated multiple times? Deportation of illegal immigrants. What I do have a problem with is the uptick of inhumane treatment that breaks the law.

That was the whole point.

Which all of you miss because reasons.

We signed this in 1995.

[Vol]

So clearly the kid detention story is the topic de jure, as everyone seems to be carping on and on. Has there been any polling on how much people care about this? Because clearly the international media is setting up the outrage ouroboros, but I can't gauge how much the hysteria is real or affected.

[Mobius_118]

Well this little forum is hardly a good sampling of who cares and who doesn't. No one here care about human rights violations other than a select few who know the laws.

The majority of people I talk to understand that it's an actual crime to do what the trump administration is doing. The Obama Administration, despite doing something similar, actually processed the amnesty claims and reunited families, rather than just separating families and just leaving them in cages.

Coming to the border for amnesty isn't a crime, despite GAC claiming that they're economic migrants. I wonder how many immigrants GAC actually talks to, rather than generalizing.

[FrozenShadow]

I don't know how 2017 suddenly turned into 1776.

Also, this isn't just a Constitutional issue, this is also a United Nations issue. Violations of human rights, secondary and tertiary victimizations, all of it violates the law on multiple levels.

But if you're suggesting we amend the Constitution to allow for human beings, regardless of legality, to be treated like animals, then it's a good thing you're not involved in the laws.

Well, it's now rather obvious that Trump and his current government don't give a flying fuck about Human rights.

As of Tuesday, US has withdraw from U.N Human rights council.

It doesn't matter how U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is trying to twist it in positive light, try to make US look like caring good guy, who can't allow all the travesty happen and remain in "hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.” (Direct quota from Haley's words from Washington post article). Because this withdrawal also allows US to ignore some of the Human rights related matters.

It's even more ironic, that part of the reason for this move, was to support US ally Israel. A country that right now and has been amongt the worst human right violators in the way of how they treat palestinians.


Also, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised, if US would resign from NATO in few months. It would fit so perfectly in Trump's goal of "Make America Great again.....and alone."

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Perhaps our "Allies" should start carrying their own weight then.

Then again people have complained for years about American Hegemony it might be fun to watch them deal with the aftermath.

The UN is a fucking joke though. They made the fucking Saudis the chair on a council of human rights.

[FrozenShadow]

Perhaps our "Allies" should start carrying their own weight then.

Then again people have complained for years about American Hegemony it might be fun to watch them deal with the aftermath.

The UN is a fucking joke though. They made the fucking Saudis the chair on a council of human rights.

Like Israel is doing, when it human right wrongdoings. That's one part, where US allies are definitely carrying their own weight.

Though I do give you the fact that other NATO countries should invest more money to their military as part of the treaty they signed.

As for Saudis, well they definitely aren't poster country for Human rights. But US really ain't any better with all the resent developments, everything US did in Afghanistan over the years they spend there, unlawful attack on Iraq and every laws decreasing or completely taking away all the rights of people in the name of "preventing terrorism".

[Raga]

The various International Justice apparatuses of the world have consistently only ever applied to small, poor countries who didn't have the resources to resist. That's not really a claim that this is a good thing, but a statement that basically every developed country has broken standards with impunity more or less whenever they felt it served their interests.

I do care about human rights violations, but it's abundantly unclear that what's happening with migrants at the border actually constitutes human rights violations. If the mere act of separating a kid from its parent for some period of time is a violation of human rights then prosecuting anybody for crime who has kids is a violation of human rights.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

The various International Justice apparatuses of the world have consistently only ever applied to small, poor countries who didn't have the resources to resist. That's not really a claim that this is a good thing, but a statement that basically every developed country has broken standards with impunity more or less whenever they felt it served their interests.

I do care about human rights violations, but it's abundantly unclear that what's happening with migrants at the border actually constitutes human rights violations. If the mere act of separating a kid from its parent for some period of time is a violation of human rights then prosecuting anybody for crime who has kids is a violation of human rights.

The truth of the matter is that neither side actually cares about the issue. For the Republicans it's something to dismiss.

For the Democrats it is what they hope will be a wedge issue that might help them in the midterms.

Just like almost every other story that has received political attention in the last few months.

[Vol]

Takeaway: he *is* saying something coherent that he is intentionally making as incoherent as possible. The incoherence is like 50% technical jargon from like 10 different academic disciplines in the humanities he borrows from willy-nilly and like 50% intentional, unnecessary pomposity. Moreover, the coherent thing he's saying can be summed up in 2 sentences.

To wit, this is why I disliked the philosophy course I took in college despite being interested in the topic. It came across as obtuse for the sake of being obtuse, and that kind of intellectual jerking off was frustrating. I only bothered to show up to that class a handful of times and made up bullshit on the final by being needlessly wordy. Yes, there does to need be higher level of conversation in order to convey these complicated, abstract thoughts, but the ability to be understood is rather important too.

Well this little forum is hardly a good sampling of who cares and who doesn't. No one here care about human rights violations other than a select few who know the laws.

The majority of people I talk to understand that it's an actual crime to do what the trump administration is doing. The Obama Administration, despite doing something similar, actually processed the amnesty claims and reunited families, rather than just separating families and just leaving them in cages.

Coming to the border for amnesty isn't a crime, despite GAC claiming that they're economic migrants. I wonder how many immigrants GAC actually talks to, rather than generalizing.

Consider the justice system with regards to human rights. Agents of the state can bust into your property, kill your dog and your family, beat you up, take your money, all on a mistaken address for a no-knock raid and get off scot-free. That's legal. They can grab you off the street and hold you for hours without any charges. Some judge can decide to lock you into a concrete and metal hellhole for the rest of your life if you sell the wrong recreational substances in large amounts. You fuck a 17 year old when you're 18, the justice systems get to call you a pedophile and restrict everything you do and everywhere you go for the rest of your life. If you let your kid walk to school by themselves, there's a chance the CPA will swoop in and separate them from you forever. The government actively monitors people who've done nothing wrong in the off chance they do, then strikes to pay for the existence of their own enforcement agencies. They create traps to goad people into breaking the law so they can claim scalps.

So relative to what is legal and not considered a humans right violation when it happens to my fellow citizens, this seems rather unremarkable.

[Mazder]

No one here care about human rights violations other than a select few who know the laws.

Disagreeing with an exploitation in the law and putting forth a thought experiment comment on playing harder than what illegals come from to deter more of them does not mean I don't care about human rights violations.
I simply don't care as I have no way of changing or doing anything about it. Not going to waste the energy worrying about something I can't affect.

[Raga]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/62222943 ... ed-to-fail

Punt, punt, pass, pass. Keep kicking that can, guys. And if you *do* bother to vote on it because you're nervous about midterms, no biggie, because the Senate will just ignore it. The sweatshop operators who pay for your campaigns won't have to worry.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdMSJVoxYlo&t=1382s

[Vol]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622229439/house-immigration-bills-set-for-thursday-votes-expected-to-fail

Punt, punt, pass, pass. Keep kicking that can, guys. And if you *do* bother to vote on it because you're nervous about midterms, no biggie, because the Senate will just ignore it. The sweatshop operators who pay for your campaigns won't have to worry.

Like I say, the GOP are nutless. They'll move the line on taxes, immigration levels, which week you can abort at, but hard, radical change spooks their asses like a dog and a vacuum. Feature of the system, since bold, passionate leaders would get buried. People think Trump's Literally Hitler, and that guy isn't pushing the envelope nearly as hard as I would.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVg549MlF-E

[Mobius_118]

Keep spinning your tires, GAC.

[Raga]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdMSJVoxYlo&t=1382s

Eh, while this guy's arguments are their own kind of specious, it's broadly true about the inanity of comparing this policy to Nazism. I have sort of mixed opinions about the "everything left of Bernie Sanders is a Nazi" line of argument. On the one hand, anything that serves as an accelerant on the raging dumpster fire that is our political landscape isn't really a good thing, and yet there might be some practical result in rhetorically bankrupting the term Nazism (and thus ensuring people will just ignore it as a nonsense flash word). Like actually being able to talk about nationalism or assimilation or cultural cohesion without the lurking baggage of "oh the Nazis cared about those things and they murdered 11 million people so those things must inherently lead to genocide and mass murder." Of course, the ugly side effect is that when actual Nazis show up, you are left with no meaningful word to apply to them linking them to their progenitors.

The right already did this to itself with its usage of the word "socialist." It has for years insisted that anybody left of Ayn Rand is a socialist, Barack Obama who is thoroughly neoliberal among them. The result has been that many people have concluded that "socialism" must not be so bad after all if all it means is supporting public schools and taking care of old people and making sure poor people don't starve. And now, because "socialism" has been rhetorically bankrupted it means next to nothing when you call an actually socialist state (say, Venezuela) socialist and even serves the ugly, unintended consequence of making some of the "socialism must not be so bad after all" crowd conclude Venezuela must be a *good* state.

[Raga]

Well, hey, what do you know: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/563480/

The Atlantic is consistently a good rag, especially for a left-leaning one.

[Mobius_118]

I thought North Korea wasn't a threat anymore. That trump had magically fixed everything.

Looks like he lied. Again. Chalk up another loss for the wannabe dictator.

[Mazder]

I thought North Korea wasn't a threat anymore. That trump had magically fixed everything.

Looks like he lied. Again. Chalk up another loss for the wannabe dictator.

To me it sounds like "in case NK doesn't do as it says I am going to keep the emergency procedures in place so that I can use them if they don't play ball, like we agreed". Obviously said with more fluff and legal jargon and such, but that's the feel I get form it anyway.
Mind you I am also not scouring everything he does with a fine toothed comb for anything that could remotely sound like a contradiction, so, there's that.

[TheodoricFriede]

To me it sounds like "in case NK doesn't do as it says I am going to keep the emergency procedures in place so that I can use them if they don't play ball, like we agreed". Obviously said with more fluff and legal jargon and such, but that's the feel I get form it anyway.
Mind you I am also not scouring everything he does with a fine toothed comb for anything that could remotely sound like a contradiction, so, there's that.

I mean TO BE FAIR, it COULD be a sign that Trump gave North Korea our nuclear launch codes, and secretly sold out the US for power in North Korea.

You cant prove he didn't.

[Mazder]

To me it sounds like "in case NK doesn't do as it says I am going to keep the emergency procedures in place so that I can use them if they don't play ball, like we agreed". Obviously said with more fluff and legal jargon and such, but that's the feel I get form it anyway.
Mind you I am also not scouring everything he does with a fine toothed comb for anything that could remotely sound like a contradiction, so, there's that.

I mean TO BE FAIR, it COULD be a sign that Trump gave North Korea our nuclear launch codes, and secretly sold out the US for power in North Korea.

You cant prove he didn't.

True.
But I'd say how can he guzzle the high fat foods he's been used to if he goes to Korea, lol.

[Mobius_118]

Everything he says is a contradiction.

But pertaining to the NK threat that he downplayed when he was taking his photo-op, he told the public that NK was no longer a threat. Then he goes and switches positions.

It's not like the deal basically gave NK everything it wanted and we get nothing in return or anything.

[TheodoricFriede]

[Mobius_118]

Dr. Mobius ended up not being nuts at the end of the DLC, so...

[TheodoricFriede]

How sad for you that we are not in that DLC.

[Mobius_118]

Well, you quoted it.

I'm just pointing out the continued failings of the current administration that fall beyond anything we've seen since the last Republican president. Seems to be a trend there with Republican presidents for the last 50 years.

[TheodoricFriede]

Ugh...

Mobius. Always the same Broadcast. He's clearly mad, driven insane by his flawed and imprecise kindergarten-level research methodology.