US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

yes it is when you're getting the ones who've got their sh1t together. Try the ones that land on your doorstep after a long trip over the Rio Grande. It's different. I think you know that. Your mayor certainly does. All an accepting policy does is encourage even more to come. You folks should be pushing aggressively to help sort out the issues in there home countries, rather than exerting energy attaching -ism's to the folks wanting the laws to be correctly applied

We don't always get the immigrants who have their sh1t together. We've been accepting a lot of immigrants for decades. But when Texas and Florida thought it would be snide to send us more than the system can handle, it has overwhelmed the system. This is not a joke, and not a moment for laughing. I still don't know what you mean that NYC is hyper-segregated, if that's what you meant. Or that we live "champagne socialist" lives here. That Manhattan has become a playground for the rich is a topic for another day, but there is still a lot of effort put into low-income housing, programs for the poor, and assimilation of immigrants, across the 5 boroughs. You may not want to hear this, but states like NY, CA and, yes, Florida and Texas, count on a lot of illegal immigrant work. Florida is actually shooting itself in the foot.

I'm not saying that the recent problems in Mexico, Central and South America have not exacerbated immigration problems in the US. I honestly can't think of a President during these times who had a coherent policy on immigration other than George W. Bush.

 

[Moxie]

I think people feel that schadenfreude because other states were labelled racist for saying the flow had to be stopped. I personally find it very funny how quickly the New York mayor and Governor flip flopped, and now he’s doing a tour of Central America, seemingly panicking about it and begging them not to come…

Do you think that states like TX and FL are so thin-skinned that being called "racist" in their behaviors was the dominating factor for their actions? TX and FL are looking for relief, and yes, their Republican governors found a callous and political way of relieving their problem, rather than working with all states and trying to actually assuage the influx.

You clearly know nothing about the current NYC Mayor, who is far from liberal, or our governor, either, who is likewise moderate. You can't call what they are doing a "flip-flop." You're implying that they were ever liberal in their policies. What NY has is is a generous policy towards immigration, but it's based on a certain amount of people coming in at a time.

The US can accept refugees, and immigrants seeking work. As I pointed out to Federberg above, we count on a certain amount of immigrant work, including illegals. That's the way it works. No one should pretend that isn't so. But there is no coherent policy to deal with the current influx, including a way to spread them out across states.

 

[Kieran]

Do you think that states like TX and FL are so thin-skinned that being called "racist" in their behaviors was the dominating factor for their actions? TX and FL are looking for relief, and yes, their Republican governors found a callous and political way of relieving their problem, rather than working with all states and trying to actually assuage the influx.

They found a clever way of transporting the problem to states who were saying there’s no problem. Sanctuary states that now say there’s a problem. Good work by the the Texas and Florida leadership.

You clearly know nothing about the current NYC Mayor, who is far from liberal, or our governor, either, who is likewise moderate. You can't call what they are doing a "flip-flop." You're implying that they were ever liberal in their policies. What NY has is is a generous policy towards immigration, but it's based on a certain amount of people coming in at a time.

They flip flopped. The fact is that now Biden is building the wall that you all said was cruel and racist. Do you ask think that now, of Joe Biden too? Good for the Democrats for sensibly following what the Republicans wanted. It’s better to have politicians who change their mind and do the right thing eventually, rather than double down on their terrible errors.

I found this video very funny but also very typical of a smug class of politicians who brag about their false ideas of compassion.

The US can accept refugees, and immigrants seeking work. As I pointed out to Federberg above, we count on a certain amount of immigrant work, including illegals. That's the way it works. No one should pretend that isn't so. But there is no coherent policy to deal with the current influx, including a way to spread them out across states.

So Texas and Florida were right to send them on to sanctuary states? The fact is you had basically an open border policy that let too many in, and some of you thought it was racist to complain about that. I’m glad by the way you have a sensible policy towards immigration. And that now you’re starting to enforce it…

 

[Moxie]

They found a clever way of transporting the problem to states who were saying there’s no problem. Sanctuary states that now say there’s a problem. Good work by the the Texas and Florida leadership.

I don't think it's "clever," I think it's cynical, and uncooperative.

They flip flopped. The fact is that now Biden is building the wall that you all said was cruel and racist

Personally, I never said the wall was "cruel." I said it was stupid, a waste of money, and has the potential to disrupt the natural flow of animals, particularly across the border, which can also be disastrous for the flora, due to this disruption. Build a wall, and people will figure out how to go over, or under, etc. Not so the animals. My particular concern is that they wall up Big Bend National Park.

What has been racist is the rhetoric used, particularly, but not exclusively by Trump, to instill fear.

Do you ask think that now, of Joe Biden too? Good for the Democrats for sensibly following what the Republicans wanted. It’s better to have politicians who change their mind and do the right thing eventually, rather than double down on their terrible errors.
I found this video very funny but also very typical of a smug class of politicians who brag about their false ideas of compassion.



So Texas and Florida were right to send them on to sanctuary states? The fact is you had basically an open border policy that let too many in, and some of you thought it was racist to complain about that. I’m glad by the way you have a sensible policy towards immigration. And that now you’re starting to enforce it…

As I have said, we've had no coherent border policy for a long time.

 

[Kieran]

I don't think it's "clever," I think it's cynical, and uncooperative.

Personally, I never said the wall was "cruel." I said it was stupid, a waste of money, and has the potential to disrupt the natural flow of animals, particularly across the border, which can also be disastrous for the flora, due to this disruption. Build a wall, and people will figure out how to go over, or under, etc. Not so the animals. My particular concern is that they wall up Big Bend National Park.

What has been racist is the rhetoric used, particularly, but not exclusively by Trump, to instill fear.

As I have said, we've had no coherent border policy for a long time.

There’s enough racist rhetoric in America to smear both sides, but I actually think Texas and Florida were being cooperative. They gave your lot a gang of illegal immigrants to deal with…

 

[Jelenafan]

Per the pro- Hamas rallies in NY:

Of Course We Can Condemn Israel—and Hamas. It’s Not Complicated.

Hamas’s attacks last weekend were obviously immoral. So is the Israeli occupation.

newrepublic.com

There are different forms of violence. Violence against slaveholders or fascist dictators is one thing. Violence against babies is quite another. And sure, to decide which form of violence is acceptable and which is not constitutes sliding along the proverbial slippery slope. But it is exactly these distinctions that intellectuals and engaged activists are supposed to make, and if we can’t make them, we enter a deep moral abyss.

 

[tented]

60 Minutes report about flying migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. (13 minutes)

 

[britbox]

Per the pro- Hamas rallies in NY:

Of Course We Can Condemn Israel—and Hamas. It’s Not Complicated.

Hamas’s attacks last weekend were obviously immoral. So is the Israeli occupation.

newrepublic.com

I thought violence against babies had been normalised in the West under the guise of wimmins rights. Not trying to be pithy... but the outcomes aren't any different.

 

[Fiero425]

I thought violence against babies had been normalised in the West under the guise of wimmins rights. Not trying to be pithy... but the outcomes aren't any different.

Yep! There are women's rights causing deaths, but what's worse is politics playing w/ lives! Conservatives demand all babies to be born, but couldn't care less about them afterwards! Kids are being abused or living in horrible conditions due to this philosophy! Why cut support & programs for kids while giving tax brks. to the rich? It makes no sense, but that's what Rep. politics is all about; a true lack of common sense!

 

[britbox]

Yep! There are women's rights causing deaths, but what's worse is politics playing w/ lives! Conservatives demand all babies to be born, but couldn't care less about them afterwards! Kids are being abused or living in horrible conditions due to this philosophy! Why cut support & programs for kids while giving tax brks. to the rich? It makes no sense, but that's what Rep. politics is all about; a true lack of common sense!

You're conflating two different arguments, that don't really have much in common. Conservatives don't care less about kids? Who told you that?... sounds like more of the same moronic "divide and conquer" tribalism gibberish.

There shouldn't be anyone on this planet who isn't a progressive conservative... no need to split the definition. You preserve what works, and change what doesn't. Unfortunately, too many are stuck in a tribal trance, and the puppeteers laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Fiero425]

You're conflating two different arguments, that don't really have much in common. Conservatives don't care less about kids? Who told you that?... sounds like more of the same moronic "divide and conquer" tribalism gibberish.

There shouldn't be anyone on this planet who isn't a progressive conservative... no need to split the definition. You preserve what works, and change what doesn't. Unfortunately, too many are stuck in a tribal trance, and the puppeteers laugh all the way to the bank.

Whatever! I still say the hypocrisy of conservatives enrages me! I've watched Republicans play political football w/ this issue for as long as I can remember! Going back to Reagan, his admin. thought it would be "cute" to feature kid's meals w/ ketchup being a vegetable! Conservatives have been after any & all programs having to deal w/ child hunger, wanting to kill the SNAP program & others! The only thing progressive about conservatives is the disgust we should have for their lame leadership!

 

[britbox]

Whatever! I still say the hypocrisy of conservatives enrages me! I've watched Republicans play political football w/ this issue for as long as I can remember! Going back to Reagan, his admin. thought it would be "cute" to feature kid's meals w/ ketchup being a vegetable! Conservatives have been after any & all programs having to deal w/ child hunger, wanting to kill the SNAP program & others! The only thing progressive about conservatives is the disgust we should have for their lame leadership!

You're playing tribal football... just how they want it. Pick a side. As El Dude stated... it's a uniparty with an aim to preserve their own power base. It's world wide wrestling in suits... and if you still think that's real then I can't help you. None of them give two hoots about you pal.... if you think Nancy Pelosi gave a flying fig about your welfare then go and take a look at San Francisco. How many years has she had to change outcomes in that city? Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[britbox]

and if you want to talk about hypocrisy... it's considered virtuous to be pro-abortion that terminates the life of between 600,000 and 1 million babies in the US per year... and yet we get the same old "babies being bayoneted by bad guys" propaganda every time some cunt wants to play on your emotions and send you to war. It gets played over and over and over again... go look at the WW1 and WW2 propaganda posters about the Germans and the Japs... and now the Palestinians. Same old shit.

 

[Fiero425]

and if you want to talk about hypocrisy... it's considered virtuous to be pro-abortion that terminates the life of between 600,000 and 1 million babies in the US per year... and yet we get the same old "babies being bayoneted by bad guys" propaganda every time some cunt wants to play on your emotions and send you to war. It gets played over and over and over again... go look at the WW1 and WW2 propaganda posters about the Germans and the Japs... and now the Palestinians. Same old shit.

I have just about the same animus for stupid women who use "abortion" for birth control! They have to be a special kind of stupid w/ multiple ways to prevent it! I have the biggest problem w/ minorities who stress education, while common sense is obviously lost!

 

[Kieran]

and if you want to talk about hypocrisy... it's considered virtuous to be pro-abortion that terminates the life of between 600,000 and 1 million babies in the US per year... and yet we get the same old "babies being bayoneted by bad guys" propaganda every time some cunt wants to play on your emotions and send you to war. It gets played over and over and over again... go look at the WW1 and WW2 propaganda posters about the Germans and the Japs... and now the Palestinians. Same old shit.

You’re going the long way around, brother, in trying to illustrate moral equivalences that not only aren’t exact - they don’t exist. While I agree with you about the horrible abortion figures, particularly in America, but also in Europe and even China, I think they’re not comparable in substance to what Hamas do.

In one hundred years the abortion trade will be one of those things that people in the future will most condemn us for, alongside maybe our treatment of animals. Just like we can look back critically at the Spartans and wonder how they not only found it moral and even more than that, socially necessary for their own survival to throw babies born with disabilities off the edge of a cliff - and this with the parents approval - people in the future will look at our abortion figures as being akin to a Holocaust, but this time brought to us by liberals.

But this isn’t the same as what Hamas do. In 1988 Hamas published their infamous charter, where they state quite clearly their intentions towards Jews everywhere, and Israel. They cite their prophet as justification (Article 7):

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Throughout they blame Jews for wars everywhere, they use old antisemitic tropes to portray the Jews negatively, and at one point they even cite the renowned forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Article 32):

With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it. (Article 22)

You can go through that whole maniacs manifesto and find only the bloodiest intentions towards Jews, intentions they tend to keep, as we’ve seen. They’ve never revoked this nor apologised for it. They quote one of their ‘martyrs’, in the preamble:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

The abortionists are doing evil work but it’s very few of them have genocidal intentions towards all babies, nor do they tend to celebrate the butchery.

I’m sure you watched with grim horror the scenes beside the Sydney Opera House where hundreds gathered and chanted “F*ck the Jews, Gas the Jews.”

What did you make of that? There’s was no mention of Israel because it’s not only about Israel. It’s about Jews. They exist in peace nowhere else in the Middle East. In fact, I don’t think they even live anywhere else in the Middle East. I remember I used to have a Muslim pal from Pakistan and when she’d get angry at the Jews (not even in discussions about Israel) she’d say things like, ‘Hitler should have finished the job’

They have murderous intentions towards Jews in every Islamic country. It’s a terrible, frightening thing. Believe me, if Israel falls, that will be the darkest day we’ll have lived through until then - and the darkness will only have begun. And believe me, I also understand how dark it is for Palestinians living under Hamas, who have made promises regarding further elections that they have no intention of keeping. Might as well ask Putin to hold a free election.

And I know that Israel have committed war crimes.

This is a very striking - and short - video I watched the other day. I recommend it because it’s by somebody I very rarely agree with but he says it not only clearly, but beyond clearly. I was surprised by how well said this is.

 

[britbox]

You’re going the long way around, brother, in trying to illustrate moral equivalences that not only aren’t exact - they don’t exist. While I agree with you about the horrible abortion figures, particularly in America, but also in Europe and even China, I think they’re not comparable in substance to what Hamas do.

In one hundred years the abortion trade will be one of those things that people in the future will most condemn us for, alongside maybe our treatment of animals. Just like we can look back critically at the Spartans and wonder how they not only found it moral and even more than that, socially necessary for their own survival to throw babies born with disabilities off the edge of a cliff - and this with the parents approval - people in the future will look at our abortion figures as being akin to a Holocaust, but this time brought to us by liberals.

But this isn’t the same as what Hamas do. In 1988 Hamas published their infamous charter, where they state quite clearly their intentions towards Jews everywhere, and Israel. They cite their prophet as justification (Article 7):


Throughout they blame Jews for wars everywhere, they use old antisemitic tropes to portray the Jews negatively, and at one point they even cite the renowned forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Article 32):



You can go through that whole maniacs manifesto and find only the bloodiest intentions towards Jews, intentions they tend to keep, as we’ve seen. They’ve never revoked this nor apologised for it. They quote one of their ‘martyrs’, in the preamble:



The abortionists are doing evil work but it’s very few of them have genocidal intentions towards all babies, nor do they tend to celebrate the butchery.

I’m sure you watched with grim horror the scenes beside the Sydney Opera House where hundreds gathered and chanted “F*ck the Jews, Gas the Jews.”

What did you make of that? There’s was no mention of Israel because it’s not only about Israel. It’s about Jews. They exist in peace nowhere else in the Middle East. In fact, I don’t think they even live anywhere else in the Middle East. I remember I used to have a Muslim pal from Pakistan and when she’d get angry at the Jews (not even in discussions about Israel) she’d say things like, ‘Hitler should have finished the job’

They have murderous intentions towards Jews in every Islamic country. It’s a terrible, frightening thing. Believe me, if Israel falls, that will be the darkest day we’ll have lived through until then - and the darkness will only have begun. And believe me, I also understand how dark it is for Palestinians living under Hamas, who have made promises regarding further elections that they have no intention of keeping. Might as well ask Putin to hold a free election.

And I know that Israel have committed war crimes.

This is a very striking - and short - video I watched the other day. I recommend it because it’s by somebody I very rarely agree with but he says it not only clearly, but beyond clearly. I was surprised by how well said this is.

I wasn't talking about moral equivalences, I specifically stated outcomes (wrt babies). The old bayoneting of babies is an old propaganda trope to play on emotions and to stir up anger and hatred. It's been used time and time again.

A moral equivalence would have been the UK shutting down Ireland's Internet, Electricity, Water, and going on a vengeful rampage after an IRA atrocity. As you are well aware, extreme violence breeds more violence and it becomes locked into subsequent generations.

Of course, I'd condemn the actions of Hamas and the crowds glorifying it, but that shouldn't give the state of Israel a free pass to commit it's own atrocities. Call them both out for the blood of innocents.

 

[Kieran]

I wasn't talking about moral equivalences, I specifically stated outcomes (wrt babies). The old bayoneting of babies is an old propaganda trope to play on emotions and to stir up anger and hatred. It's been used time and time again.

A moral equivalence would have been the UK shutting down Ireland's Internet, Electricity, Water, and going on a vengeful rampage after an IRA atrocity. As you are well aware, extreme violence breeds more violence and it becomes locked into subsequent generations.

Of course, I'd condemn the actions of Hamas and the crowds glorifying it, but that shouldn't give the state of Israel a free pass to commit it's own atrocities. Call them both out for the blood of innocents.

I agree with you to an extent but that last paragraph - that’s the moral equivalence. Whether we like it or not, Jews are living in existential threat from Muslim Jihadists, who commit atrocities and celebrate them. It’s been wisely said that if Hamas put down their weapons there’d be peace, if Israel put theirs down, they’d be wiped out.

By the way, what’s the Australian reaction to that Sydney opera house mob? Personally, I’d round the fuckers up and check their papers. You don’t want lowlifes like that in your country. And I notice at Harvard university, formerly a prestigious institution but now fallen into controversy over its own racism towards Asians, there were loud celebrations of Hamas.

Some people don’t deserve to live in the west. These ‘protesters’ at Harvard remind me of the Queers for Palestine, a group of sick masochists. As Douglas Murray once put it, if Queers for Palestine actually went to Palestine they’d be begging Israel to save them…

 

[Moxie]

I thought violence against babies had been normalised in the West under the guise of wimmins rights. Not trying to be pithy... but the outcomes aren't any different.

I don't know if it's "pithy," but it does sort or tell us how you feel about women's rights. I don't in any way agree with you that women's rights, or abortion rights have "normalized violence against babies." That is definitely a false equivalency.

and if you want to talk about hypocrisy... it's considered virtuous to be pro-abortion that terminates the life of between 600,000 and 1 million babies in the US per year... and yet we get the same old "babies being bayoneted by bad guys" propaganda every time some cunt wants to play on your emotions and send you to war. It gets played over and over and over again... go look at the WW1 and WW2 propaganda posters about the Germans and the Japs... and now the Palestinians. Same old shit.

I get that you think abortion is wrong, for you, but you make no distinction for why abortions happen. They are not all about a choice, which for many people is still morally correct and valid. There are cases of rape and incest to be considered. And if you're so worried about "babies," you should consider the very young pregnant women who need and seek abortions, often for the above reasons. Then there are medically necessary abortions. Is the choice to save the life of the mother wrong? Many of them have other children to mother. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but you're talking about fetuses, not actual babies. Many of these decisions have to be and are made together with the mother's husband/partner. Most of them are difficult, and can be heart-breaking. Is it for you to judge other people's decisions and life-circumstances?

 

[Federberg]

I don't know if it's "pithy," but it does sort or tell us how you feel about women's rights. I don't in any way agree with you that women's rights, or abortion rights have "normalized violence against babies." That is definitely a false equivalency.

I get that you think abortion is wrong, for you, but you make no distinction for why abortions happen. They are not all about a choice, which for many people is still morally correct and valid. There are cases of rape and incest to be considered. And if you're so worried about "babies," you should consider the very young pregnant women who need and seek abortions, often for the above reasons. Then there are medically necessary abortions. Is the choice to save the life of the mother wrong? Many of them have other children to mother. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but you're talking about fetuses, not actual babies. Many of these decisions have to be and are made together with the mother's husband/partner. Most of them are difficult, and can be heart-breaking. Is it for you to judge other people's decisions and life-circumstances?

do you make the distinction in your support for abortions? I would like to understand your view about the statistical data which shows that the majority of the abortions are being done by women who have multiple abortions. Let's stipulate that we, here, all agree that there's no argument about medically necessary abortions, or those due to rape or incest. What's your thinking about the vast number of abortions which are used by a sub set of women which the data suggests are multiple time consumers of the service?

I have already stated that I think the right should be given to the woman. But please answer my question. What is your view....

 

[mrzz]

do you make the distinction in your support for abortions? I would like to understand your view about the statistical data which shows that the majority of the abortions are being done by women who have multiple abortions. Let's stipulate that we, here, all agree that there's no argument about medically necessary abortions, or those due to rape or incest. What's your thinking about the vast number of abortions which are used by a sub set of women which the data suggests are multiple time consumers of the service?

I have already stated that I think the right should be given to the woman. But please answer my question. What is your view....

We are 93.92% in agreement here. But there are two points I'd like to make.

Even regarding rape, there is a time window here. People keep forgetting that... Can a woman, seven and a half months pregnant, even in this case, simply interrupt the pregnancy? In this particular example it is obvious that a living human being would literally pay for the sins of the father...

By the way, put this together with the modern tendency of people saying that someone can afterwards decide what it is rape and what is not, and "buuum", you have a butcher's dream. And please, please, please, I hope no one offends my intelligence with replies like "nobody would do that".

Regarding the second part in bold, I guess that you are solely referring to the cases you described above, which, given the caveat of the time window, makes us in a practical agreement. But I would surely word it differently. The whole misconception for me starts when we use the word "rights" in these cases (even "choice" in general is a bad choice). People mention Roe vs Wade a lot, but the vast majority never cared reading the decision itself. And one thing that vote does very brightly is bring to the fore that there might be two people to consider. And when there are two, it simply makes no sense to talk (solely) about the "rights" of just one of them.

So, even in the cases where I would practically agree that abortion is a viable option, I would never phrase it with the word "right". I would detail precisely the case, and state that the final "decision" in this case belongs to the (particular) woman, but she does not have a "right". She is compelled by the facts to make a choice (and are only the facts of the matter that give her that choice).

I agree that in practical terms we get to the same place, but in principle, those are two completely different positions.