Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: Wondering the Acosta

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

If it comes to defending Trump or Ryan, I'd go with Ryan every time. He is a cowardly, spineless entitled shit, but at least he has guiding principals. I strongly disagree with him and think he's hypocritical, but I think that he was at least more-or-less qualified for the position he held. Trump is a buffoon with zero self-awareness and an ego larger than his lack of self-awareness with skin thinner than the thinnest I've ever seen on any peach. Ryan over Trump, all day every day.

And to be clear, Ryan is a horrible little shit and I couldn't be happier that he's out of congress. I could wish that his career in politics in general is over, but obviously he's going to be rewarded for being who he is. I'll have to be satisfied that at least he's gone from public service.

Paul Ryan will be president by 2032, so you've got that to look forward to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I've long suspected. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/kim-darroch-leak-memo-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-obama-latest-met-police-a9003951.html

Trump basically killed the Iran Nuke agreement out of his crybaby spite for Obama. I do not think this idiot in our White House has ever had an original thought, he is motivated through pure infantile emotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

"Open borders!"

Presumably the snark here is that the platform we saw there seemed fairly reasonable (and if so, to me too).  

But this is a good opportunity to emphasize a few other things.  

Again, the caveat that for me this is all about Trump.

So Warren there talks about the decriminalization of illegal immigration as Booker and Castro talk about.  Fine by me, and I am a person that hates the language of "illegals" or "aliens."

But correct me if I'm wrong, but this is indeed a new position for the Democratic party.  That is not to say it's wrong, of course.  But it is the furthest on this particular issue the party has ever gone, and it's happening against Trump.

In just a few years the Dems went from being extremely afraid of the lie that Obamacare would cover non-citizens to saying in debates that non-citizens should be covered.  That is a total sea-change regardless of what's morally better.  

Would it not be accurate to say that we don't have any kind of good evidence on how this will play out?  That's how it feels to me.  It might play out just fine.  But it feels like there's pro-Trump danger all over this scenario, and I don't see anyone grappling with this other than perhaps Jace the Terrible and otherwise it's a thing to be ignored or rebutted.

The logic you @larrytheimp have put forth a few times about how it's about getting amped and getting the vote out I think is totally solid, and that's my goal whether my feelings get hurt or not.  That must happen no matter who the Dem primary winner is and no matter what the exact primary platform is.  Where my caution signs on this thing come from is not cause Bret Stephens but cause really the Dem platform, even if the totally inevitable "open borders" attack is BS, is that this is still a new position that is politically untested in a general election, so I don't see how people can sanguine about whether or not this could be a miscalculation. 

As mentioned before, the immigration issue is the thing most responsible for the rise of right-wing populist movements.  No one really disputes this that I"m aware of.  But Trump is not just an alt-right guy but that as well as plenty of other horrors on top.  

All of this is to say, dude, with all due respect, is that there may be several factors that are making our side a bit blind on this dynamic, things I could easily have overlooked.  

Maybe to try and put a lid on this for the moment, where my anxiety is coming from isn't just that I'm seeing the potential pitfall I'm describing above.   It's also that I guess I'm not satisfied from anyone's responses that they really even see the pitfall.  You've tried to address it which I appreciate, but generally speaking it seems like we might be crippling our nominee whoever it may be, so that's my main motivation in continuing to harp on this:  the urgency of beating Trump and the anxiety, Cassandra-style, that my allies aren't seeing the risk I'm seeing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Triskele said:

Taking this quite literally, and the answer may just be "perhaps."  One of the comments I made when first talking about this thread was something like "you get the electorate that you have, not necessarily the electorate you want."

ETA:  I think there's something worth delving further into in your post.  I would guess, tell me if I'm wrong, that your reaction is close to 100% based on your thoughts on what is the right moral stance on immigration about close to 0% based on any kind of calculus about beating Trump.  Is that correct?

If we wake up the day after Trump has won re-election but you talked a big game are you happier than if Trump loses?

 

I’m not gonna be happy either way because Democrats will still be putting people in concentration camps, but they’ll make it roomier and give them hygiene products. 

 

But given your posts that come across as victim blaming the rise of fascism in this country on immigrants and the Dems not being far right enough to appease white supremacists, I’m gonna take it you’re not gonna be happy unless Dems do go the keep the concentration camps, but make them slightly more “humane”.

Nah what has allowed the far right to rise is a propaganda machine in Fox News, the rest of the media treating the right wings opinion as legitimate thanks to their spineless “objectivity” way of “reporting”, and old out of touch liberals insisting on trying to “work” with a party that has had fascist tendencies for decades. It doesn’t help the racism in this country has not been properly dealt with either. 

Edited by Bonnot OG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 68/69 year old anarchist in Tacoma Washington was shot and killed for torching the vehicles ICE is going to be using during their gestapo round ups. He didn’t shoot at the cops even though he was armed, but he was still killed, over property destruction. 

 

Its funny how every last militia fool that went on about gun rights because "when the government starts rounding people up in camps we'll need to fight back" is  cheering government jackbooted thugs on for shooting the one honest american who did precisely that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

But given your posts that come across as victim blaming the rise of fascism in this country on immigrants and the Dems not being far right enough to appease white supremacists, I’m gonna take it you’re not gonna be happy unless Dems do go the keep the concentration camps, but make them slightly more “humane”.

Nah what has allowed the far right to rise is a propaganda machine in Fox News, the rest of the media treating the right wings opinion as legitimate thanks to their spineless “objectivity” way of “reporting”, and old out of touch liberals insisting on trying to “work” with a party that has had fascist tendencies for decades. It doesn’t help the racism in this country has not been properly dealt with either. 

Can you pinpoint what in  my posts makes you see it this way?

Where did I victim blame?  That's big accusation.  

Your post overall is just totally unhinged.  Who are you talking to?  Even the most GOP people that ever post here don't seem like Fox News people that I can tell...

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

A 68/69 year old anarchist in Tacoma Washington was shot and killed for torching the vehicles ICE is going to be using during their gestapo round ups. He didn’t shoot at the cops even though he was armed, but he was still killed, over property destruction. 

 

Its funny how every last militia fool that went on about gun rights because "when the government starts rounding people up in camps we'll need to fight back" is  cheering government jackbooted thugs on for shooting the one honest american who did precisely that. 

 

link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bonnot OG

You are quite off base, homey.  On every single detail of this mad paragraph.  I want Trump gone because he's horrible therefore I

m in Trump's side in the facism?  That does appear to be your argument.  

Quote

But given your posts that come across as victim blaming the rise of fascism in this country on immigrants and the Dems not being far right enough to appease white supremacists, I’m gonna take it you’re not gonna be happy unless Dems do go the keep the concentration camps, but make them slightly more “humane”.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Triskele said:

snip

Well said, Monkey Man. My obsession is more specifically on winning back the Senate but I would happily attach my point of view to what you've written here.

 

Here comes Jace's Senate breakdown, as best as I can manage with the tools at my disposal. I'm taking a break from writing my novel about Gertrude Stein's reanimated corpse being a member of the Trump cabinet to do this so you bastards better be grateful! I'm using Morning Consult's data that can be found here if you wanna proof my work. It's one polling outlet and I'm one subjective analyst, take it for what it's worth. I'm operating under the (chosen delusion) that Democrats can tie Trump's unpopularity to Republican incumbents in vulnerable seats.

Here we go...

Alaska:

In the last Morning Consult post (just imagine that sentence at the start of every one of the following state breakdowns as well) conducted on the first of June, Donald has a 45% approval vs 43% disapproval. He hasn't cracked 50% approval in the state since November last, while disapproval has remained steadily in the 41 to 47 range for the last 2 years.

Dan Sullivan, incumbent Republican had a 38% approval vs 32% disapproval late last year.

Alaska looks like a place to try and get a push going to me. The small population could actually be a benefit to Democrats here as the margin for error that Republicans have to walk is razor thin. Depress the rural vote with non-stop ads about climate change and Donald's insanity on the subject and see if we can run up the few urban centers.

Alabama:

Is a loss, Trump is 24% above water there. Doug Jones, good job or whatever keeping the pedophile out of the Senate I guess.

Arizona:

Lookin' good. Donald is at 45% approval vs 52% disapproval, his numbers have been underwater there more or less (a few small lead changes for short spells) since mid-'17.

Martha McSally, incumbent Republican, was sitting dead even 35% approve and disapprove last checked. Recall that she lost the race last year to Krystine Sinema by about 2.4 percent but was reappointed to John McCain's vacated seat in a politically shrewd move.

Arizona has to be a win for Democrats. Nothing short of all-out war is acceptable in this new purple state. I'd love a 'tough on crime' sort who isn't a fascist to appeal to the suburbans who don't like seeing people get put in concentration camps but still have affluence-anxiety.

Arkansas:

Shockingly Trump's at just 51% approval in the state vs 45% disapprove. His approvals have been sort of lazily trending down for a long time now and the mid-40's has been pretty consistent for the disapproves. That's... almost... kinda viable. I'd love to see Democrats get a strong candidate in there and make Republicans play defense. I just don't see Arkansas going blue unless they really get hit with some fucked up weather (fingers crossed) and people drown en masse or something, but making Trump go to rallies down there would be a positive outcome. Biden is probably the only candidate who could actually carry the state, but I've made my feelings on that man clear.

Tom Cotton, incumbent Confederate, is basically untouchable with 48% approval vs 28% disapproval. We're not flipping that seat. Just making the Kochs spend money is the play.

Colorado:

The Donald is drowning in Colorado. 42% approval vs 55% and those numbers haven't changed beyond margin-of-error since '17. If Dem's can't carry Colorado and swipe the Senate seat then we nominated Marianne Williamson.

Cory Gardner, incumbent Republican, right next to McSally at 35% for and against. Again, though, if Trump's disapproval isn't enough to sink Gardner then Dem's done fucked up.

Delaware:

Is nowhere near as lopsided as I'd like. Only 44% approval to 53% disapprove, but if we lose this seat it's a rout.

Chris Coons, incumbent Democrat, is very popular in the state sitting at 52% approval to 29% disapproval.

Georgia:

Donnie dipshit is sitting at 48% vs 48% in Georgia, and he's basically been sliding between a few points above or under water since November last. I want Stacy Abrams to run for Senate so bad I can literally taste it, I know that having the Governorship stolen away probably broke her fucking heart. But goddammit Jace needs a hero.

David Perdue has a lot of support, he's sitting at 47% approval vs 29% disapproval, but dammit this is a state that needs to be fought for if only to make the Republicans defend another front. Kinda like the Germans getting the Young Turks to attack Russia. They didn't think the Ottoman Empire was gonna win them WWI, but it's one more region for the enemy to consider.

Idaho:

Our fearless leader's doing great here. 57% approval vs 39% disapproval. I wouldn't even run a candidate for Senate unless he (don't run a woman there) knew he was just cheer leading for whichever of the house districts are less unwinnable.

James Risch, incumbent Republican, is at 43% approval vs 29%.

Illinois:

Biggest margin so far! 38% approval vs 58% disapproval, those numbers have stayed consistent.

Tricky Dick Durbin isn't terribly popular, only 37% approval vs 35% disapproval, but this is as safe as we get.

Iowa:

God, but Iowa gives me hope. Donald's at 42% approval vs 55% disapproval and those numbers haven't changed since mid '17 except for a blip very early last year when the gap closed for a month then returned to roughly what it has been at otherwise.

Joni Ernst, incumbent Republican, is eminently vulnerable with 40% approval vs 37% disapproval. This seat must be flipped if our party has a viable future.

Kansas:

Almost looks tempting. 50% approval vs 47% disapproval. I don't trust Kansas as far as I could throw a nuke at it, but there's no incumbent and the economy has been in a shambles for fucking years so if there was any place to put $30 against and hope you're happy to lose money it'd be Kansas for my money. I feel like a candidate for Senate could write up some silly bill about empowering teacher's unions from the Federal level and get some traction.

Kentucky:

Irrelevant. Donald's at 56% approval vs 41% disapproval. They hate Mitchell but they'll reelect him. That fighter pilot lady is the best chance Dem's would get though so we've got that going.

Mitch has 36% approval vs 50% disapproval. I write that only as a completionist. Seriously, don't think they'd elect a Democrat.

Louisiana:

Similar story to Kentucky, 55% approval vs 41% disapproval. Not gonna get a flip here, but we can pray for deaths in this storm if you're feeling ambitious.

Bill Cassidey, incumbent Republican, is safely ensconced in power at 47% approval vs 29% disapproval.

Maine:

Is so frustrating. 43% approval vs 54% disapproval, but those people fucking love them some Susanne Collins for some reason.

She's at 52% approval vs 39% disapproval in one of the most mind-boggling states we have. I fucking hate Maine.

Massachusetts:

35% approval vs 62% disapproval.

Ed Markey, incumbent Democrat, is safe at 51% approval vs a comfortable 22% disapproval.

Michigan:

Just stay steady, Michigan. Stay stead! 40% approval vs 55% disapproval and those numbers have been very steady.

Gary Peters, incumbent Democrat, could be more secure at 33% approval vs 22% disapproval but if this is a loss then the Russians outright hacked the voting machines (probably for the 2nd time, I'll fucking say it).

Minnesota:

Looks safe at 41% approval vs 57% disapproval.

Incumbent Tina Smith has decent favorable. 42% approve vs 24% disapproval.

Mississippi:

Is red as red gets. 57% approval vs 39% disapproval.

Cindy Hyde-Smith, incumbent Republican, shouldn't give you false hope. She's even at 38% approval to 37% disapproval but that's because she's a woman not because they'll consider a Democrat.

Montana:

Is worth competing in. 52% approval vs 45% disapproval. This is another place where Democrats should go full-court press on the negative ads to try and depress turnout.

Steve Daines, incumbent Republican, is almost certainly not gonna lose. But it's worth a shot. He's at 44% approval vs 31% disapproval. Again, try to depress turnout and hope we get lucky.

Nebraska:

Is certainly tempting, with 49% approval vs 48% disapproval but it's not gonna go blue and Ben Sasse won't lose his seat.

Ben Sasse, incumbent Republican, is at 49% approval vs 27% disapproval. Sure, it could go blue in a blowout but this is primarily supposed to be about the Senate and that's not in play here.

New Hampshire:

37% approval vs 60% disapproval.

Jeaneen Saheen, incumbent Democrat, is very popular with 53% approval vs 32%

New Jersey:

41% approval vs 56% disapproval. Should be safe as long as Corey doesn't do something stupid.

Cory Booker, incumbent Democrat, is quite popular at 47% approval vs 33% disapproval.

New Mexico:

Looks almost blue with 40% approval vs 56% disapproval. Let's play good defense here.

Tom Udall is retiring from the seat.

North Carolina:

Is awfully exposed with Trump sitting at 47% approval vs 50% disapproval. These numbers have been super tight and flipping back and forth since August of '17. This is a state Democrats need a good showing in. I would hammer repeatedly the dirty tricks Republicans used to damage the governorship after the voters spoke and tried to steal the house seat.

Thom Tillis, incumbent Republican, is supremely vulnerable with 34% approval vs 33% disapproval. We need a good showing here and this seat could be won. Fuck, enough down ticket support and some voter suppression tactics could be combated to return the state to the purple status so many analysts thought it was going towards.

Oklahoma:

Trump sits at 54% approval vs 42% disapproval.

James Inhofe, incumbent Republican, won't lose this seat with 41% approval vs 29% disapproval.

Oregon:

39% approval vs 58% disapproval. Safe as they get.

Jeff Merkley,incumbent Democrat, is safe at 46% approval vs 28% disapproval.

Rhode Island:

38% approval vs 59% disapproval.

Jack Reed, incumbent Democrat, enjoys 49% approval rating vs 27% disapproval.

South Carolina:

Vaguely worth competing for presidential victory, as Trump has only 52% approval vs 44% disapproval.

Lindsay Graham, incumbent Republican, will not lose his seat though. 52% approval vs 31% of people who aren't sniveling lickspittle.
 

South Dakota:

Worth fighting for, at 50% approval vs 46% disapproval. There's been fluctuation over the course of his term, but it's stayed within striking distance and narrowed of late. Another place where just making R's play defense is a good play because...

Mike Rounds, incumbent Republican, has the highest approval rating in the open seats at 56% approval vs 28% disapproval. He won't lose his seat but we can hope to trap Trump into campaigning up there to save himself instead of protecting vulnerable Senators.

Tennessee:

57% approval vs 40% disapproval.

It doesn't matter who runs here, Democrats shouldn't waste their time with these fuckwits.

Texas:

The cocktease of the Liberal dreamer. Trump has a little cushion with 50% approval vs 46% disapproval, and those numbers have been relatively constant since summer of '17 but the fact that he'll have to campaign here is a win. It'd be nice if Beto wasn't torpedoing his own viability as a Senator when he could have a Presidential candidate to draft off of.

John Cornyn is very safe at 43% approval vs just 25% disapproval. All the more reason someone who performed well in the state like Beto should be doing the right thing and challenging him.

 Virginia:

I expect a strong Democratic presence to defend this small margin of 46% approval vs 50% disapproval, numbers that have barely budged in the last 2 years.

Mark Warner, incumbent Democrat, is a good champion with 48% approval vs 29% disapproval. As long as the candidate isn't a disaster I expect Virginia to stay blue but we'll need to fight for it.

West Virginia:

Not even worth competing in at 58% approval vs 39% disapproval.

Shelley Capito, incumbent Republican, sits at 48% approval to 30% disapproval.

Wyoming:

Not worth fighting for. Donald's at 59% approval vs 37% disapproval.

Michael Enzi, incumbent Republican, won't lose the seat with 52% approval vs 23% disapproval.

 

There it is, my breakdown. Hope you enjoyed it.

 

 

 

Edited by Jace, Basilissa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

PHILADELPHIA—One of the loudest and most sustained applause lines on the final day of the Netroots Nation conference came when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) pledged to investigate potential crimes committed against immigrants in the United States if she were in the White House. 

“To anyone out there who is working in this system,” she said to a packed ballroom inside the Pennsylvania Convention Center on Saturday. “Understand, you abuse immigrants, you physically abuse immigrants, you sexually abuse immigrants, you fail to get the medical care that they need, you break the law of the United States of America,” Warren said to a thunderous ovation.

 “And Donald Trump may be willing to look the other way, but President Elizabeth Warren will not. On my first day, I will empower a commission in the Department of Justice to investigate crimes committed by the United States against immigrants,” the Massachusetts Democrat told the presidential forum. 

 

Immigration Dominates Final Day of Netroots, Ahead of Planned ICE Raids
The presidential forum had few protests and a lot of agreement on one thing: The Trump administration must pay for its disastrous immigration policies.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/immigration-dominates-final-day-of-netroots-ahead-of-planned-ice-raids?ref=home1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Immigration Dominates Final Day of Netroots, Ahead of Planned ICE Raids
The presidential forum had few protests and a lot of agreement on one thing: The Trump administration must pay for its disastrous immigration policies.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/immigration-dominates-final-day-of-netroots-ahead-of-planned-ice-raids?ref=home1

Now THAT, that, I can get behind a nominee saying. Simultaneously tears down Trump while implying adherence to the nebulous concept of 'law and order'. Damn fine statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/us/politics/2020-democrats-future-now-fund.html?

"Here’s One List Where Kirsten Gillibrand Is Winning and Kamala Harris Is Tied With Marianne Williamson

A study of the Democratic presidential contenders says Gillibrand, Warren and O’Rourke have done the most to help build the party by boosting state legislative candidates."

Probably no surprises as to who is on the top of the list and who is at the bottom.

 

Quote

 

The idea is that rebuilding the party nationally depends on the hard work of winning seats in state legislatures around the country. With that in mind, the two-year-old Future Now Fund, working with the progressive think tank Data for Progress, is trying to apply pressure to the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates by ranking them in terms of who is doing the most to help Democrats win state legislative races.

A ranking released Thursday shows that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas are currently the most engaged with candidates for state office. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are also ranked in the top 10.

Senator Kamala Harris of California is ranked in the bottom 10, according to the analysis, which has her slightly ahead of Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York and tied with the self-help author Marianne Williamson.

 


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

A 68/69 year old anarchist in Tacoma Washington was shot and killed for torching the vehicles ICE is going to be using during their gestapo round ups. He didn’t shoot at the cops even though he was armed, but he was still killed, over property destruction. 

 

Its funny how every last militia fool that went on about gun rights because "when the government starts rounding people up in camps we'll need to fight back" is  cheering government jackbooted thugs on for shooting the one honest american who did precisely that. 

 

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

Such deep thinking, such profound analysis, such brilliant interpretation, it's impossible to comprehend why there is no there there in them there words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

Do you have a firm idea of how immigration policy changed between Obama and Trump? Do you realize how much this is a "crisis" purely of Trump's manufacturing?

I get that there is a risk in Democrats going too far out over their skis in regard to immigration policy, but this post is a whole lot of both-sidesing and false equivalency and water carrying for the right wing view of immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

"Open borders!"

Larry, my position on immigration since the '70's has been open borders. When people have the opportunity to vote with their feet, politicians' little hearts and minds will surely follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Is it wrong to enforce current immigration law? These organizations and institutions functioned under Obama, Obama deported millions. I get Trump is doing it inhumanely, ut you are arguing that to deport anyone is fascism?

Which I think is a larger problem their people here saying we need to morally argue against all this, but where was this strong conviction when Obama was in office? And when president Kamala or Warren or whoever, continues deporting people will people call them racist scream it's a moral issue? No, no one will say anything.

Look Trump is a racist I get it, and the cruelty of his camps is the point I get it, but Trump on immigration has kind of broke the democratic party and the left, none of them are arguing open borders but many of the candidates are effectively arguing that enforcing any border law is immoral. I think this kind of loose rhetoric will hurt the democrats and no one will care if a dem is in office all these existential moralities will simply melt away.

Yes it’s wrong to enforce current immigration laws. They are not moral or ethical. Just because it is law doesn’t make it okay. Slavery was legal, the holocaust was legal, and helping people avoid either and or escape was considered illegal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Do you have a firm idea of how immigration policy changed between Obama and Trump? Do you realize how much this is a "crisis" purely of Trump's manufacturing?

I get that there is a risk in Democrats going too far out over their skis in regard to immigration policy, but this post is a whole lot of both-sidesing and false equivalency and water carrying for the right wing view of immigration.

Yes I understand that, I understand Trump has made a lot of this, I understand the cruelty is the point, I understand Trump has made things deliberately worse, but this has led some democrats down the wrong path in that they are arguing against the existence of immigration enforcement not the inhuman way Trump is doing it. The poster I quoted called immigration raids fascist so I asked if Obama was one for presiding over it.

It's not both siding, I'm not saying democrats are equally as bad, I'm saying that the second a democrat is elected all those people calling deportation racist and fascist are going to not say a peep. So all those people telling Triskele and Jace that we can't take a harder line on immigration because of teh morals are wrong wrong wrong, because when a democrat is elected none of them will say a peep.

Now let me be clear is Trump a racist, yes absolutely, are the conditions in his camps deplorable absolutely, could he make them better but chooses not to yes absolutely, are ICE and CPBP deeply racist institutions that need reform yes absolutely, is it inherently racist to detain people who lack the proper documentation or legal right to be in a country? No, it isn't. So democrats should pass the bill to improve conditions and then lambast Trump when conditions don't improve. They can advocate for increased legal immigration with increased enforcement, which is incidentally what Trump ran on.  Except you know actually do it. Increasing the number of undocumented immigrants helps no one as it's just increasing a marginalized class, we should be for reducing that number and increasing legal immigration and border enforcement is part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×