General US Politics

[Dr. Tarrasque]

27 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Has Trump committed Murder or Treason (the American definition)? No, he hasn't. Therefore, under the laws of the US, he cannot be sentenced to death. What is it with people forgetting about things like Amendment 8? The Death Penalty is much too harsh, even for the travesties he has inflicted. What I can hope for is that if removed and imprisoned, he either be sent to ADX or Ft. Leavenworth so that he won't be able to ever touch his money ever again. Not death. Not at all.

A case for Treason having been committed by Trump is debatable. A large number of actions that Trump has taken (and not taken) benefit Russia or have been suggested by Putin including when he pulled out of the Iran Nuclear deal, not implementing sanctions on Russia, the recent move to stop military exercises with South Korea which even the Wall Street Journal reports that this idea came from Putin. You also saw on how he insisted that Russia be brought back to the G7 and how Trump's treatment of the G7 allies gave Putin room to just come in and shame the country and Russia celebrating what went on in G7

Putin knows he's got a puppet in power that will just fuck things up for the next president to have to spend all that time rebuilding and cleaning up.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Tryhard]

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Trump is a disgusting stain on American history and I certainly hope he would be penalized with death once his Impeachment passes.

ALSO, the party of "Family values" brings you...... an incarcerated 8 month old. Trump should die. Stephen Miller, reportedly the one that sold this idea to Trump, should die with him.

Trump's one guy. There is a bigger underlying problem of the people, and the Republican party, that would rather vote for his ideas because they don't like Democrats, and a substantial percent of the US population that simply does not care about the proven facts. Get rid of Trump and you'll certainly make yourself feel better, but it doesn't even begin to combat any subsequent odious ideas.

19 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I think that has more to do with him being institutionally constrained by legal process and co-equal branches of government then being insufficiently fascist in his political leanings to do it, if he thought he could get away with shit like--say--throwing journalists in jail.

I also think by the criteria listed above and explanation of their applicability, higher level suppression of dissent is not needed to make the diagnosis.   

It's hard to believe Trump has any consistent political ideology, be it fascism, far-right ideology, or any other, to be honest. He's all over the place. Remember when he advocated for "taking the guns away without due process", lol. And really you don't even need to look that far back before he ran in 2015 to see him advocating universal healthcare and being pro-choice.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

14 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Has Trump committed Murder or Treason? 

No; hes only ripping kids away from their families and throwing them in concentration camps 

https://www.gq.com/story/border-patrol-dont-call-cages-cages

^^^
Border Patrol doesn't want you calling the cages that they're keeping the kids cages, because it "makes them look bad." Call them "chain-linked partitions."

...this is where we're at....

[dragonlordsd]

19 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Has Trump committed Murder or Treason (the American definition)? No, he hasn't. Therefore, under the laws of the US, he cannot be sentenced to death. What is it with people forgetting about things like Amendment 8? The Death Penalty is much too harsh, even for the travesties he has inflicted. What I can hope for is that if removed and imprisoned, he either be sent to ADX or Ft. Leavenworth so that he won't be able to ever touch his money ever again. Not death. Not at all.

Technically, he has committed confirmed treason, but only in the most extreme possible definition of it. He did provide information to a foreign power (Russia) that he did not have approval from congress to release, but it was so minor that it would certainly not warrant the death penalty.

That said, I do agree with you. Under no circumstances should we sentence someone to death based on political actions. Killing your critics is one of the surest signs of a dictatorship.

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, dragonlordsd said:

Technically, he has committed confirmed treason, but only in the most extreme possible definition of it. He did provide information to a foreign power (Russia) that he did not have approval from congress to release, but it was so minor that it would certainly not warrant the death penalty.

That said, I do agree with you. Under no circumstances should we sentence someone to death based on political actions. Killing your critics is one of the surest signs of a dictatorship.

Except we don't know everything that was turned over to Russia.  It's one thing if Trump told them KFC's fried chicken recipe, but quite another if he slipped them some weapon blueprints.

[Tediz64]

I tend to not agree or see it from the point of view that it is specifically trump let alone. the republican administration that is "ripping apart/tearing apart/separating, etc" families. Something has to be done and someone has to enforce it/take the blame. 

Take for example a common citizen (who in this example is a single parent for w/e reason) who commits something akin to murder, rape, etc and is caught red-handed. That person would get arrested immediately and detained. Irrelevant if they have a child at home or not, that person simply can't be allowed to roam free to commit further crimes. It isn't like using the "oh i have a child i can't leave alone" defense excuses them so they can stay free because that wouldn't sit well with ANYONE. Especially if they committed another crime in that time frame. You'd have a whole mess of people complaining why he wasn't put away sooner.

So in this situation you now have a child (lets make up an age. we'll go with 7 years old) left to fend for themselves. That would be negligence or irresponsible to leave them alone for NUMEROUS reasons (they could hurt themselves, probably can't feed themselves, etc). So then the police would outsource that job to say for example CPS, or whatever other agency to care for that child or contact family to go give that child to them in the mean time while the parent is charged. You should already give them credit for even going that far. I mean say they didn't do that? Then you'd have people saying we are leaving children at home abandoned and etc so the complaining would NEVER stop.

SIMULTANEOUSLY, you can't also bring the child and lock them up with the parent for another whole mess of problems that can come up with that situation. First off, if i'm not mistaken, jails and for sure prisons separate genders and don't lock them up together.  So which parent gets the child locked up with them? Then think about the fact that sometimes people don't get one whole cell all to themselves so what if a stranger is in there with a child? See, in this scenario, i shouldn't have to explain all the ways this could go south REAL QUICK. Again people would whine and complain regardless. They'd cry inhumane.

So long story short, we can't lock them up together, we can't leave them behind, and we can't just let people break the law and use children to defend themselves from being imprisoned. Now is the crime that is being committed that serious? (the whole crossing our border since that is the topic i'm responding to in the few posts above me) Not really. But it is getting out of hand. As opposed to doing nothing this at least sends out a message we won't tolerate you crossing. Are there other options on how to slow it down or stop it? Sure if you TRY to brainstorm more effective ways. Emphasis on the TRY part. But sadly our leaders are too lazy for that. This gets media attention, uses scapegoats, and basically fits someone's agenda. Its a shame but regular citizens like us don't get to make decisions or implament things except every 2 or 4 years when it comes time to vote. Even then we don't get much choice in the matter because it is a emphasis on the "we are just voting for leaders". In other words, we can only pick people to do things based off the candidates that we have. Sometimes they don't do what they promise, sometimes they get bought out, sometimes nobody represents a particular issue that needs to be addressed, and a whole bunch of other problems with the whole democracy and republic style of government.

I know this is my first time posting in this thread, and i want people to take what i say with a grain of salt, but i don't like our current style of government. I --> THINK <-- a monarchy would be better. Sometimes this country sounds like an oligarchy. Its run by an elite few. Say for example i had great ideas, and i was truly a philanthropist and altruistic and put others before me. Say i ran for office. I'd get crushed in an instant. I'd never get any votes let alone probably make any changes if i got up into a position. My only options would be to donate to a group/organization that reaches out and helps people but even those only target specific reasons or causes. There are too many battles being fought. Again....."grain of salt" please.

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Tediz64

[Dr. Tarrasque]

11 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Trump's one guy. There is a bigger underlying problem of the people, and the Republican party, that would rather vote for his ideas because they don't like Democrats, and a substantial percent of the US population that simply does not care about the proven facts. Get rid of Trump and you'll certainly make yourself feel better, but it doesn't even begin to combat any subsequent odious ideas.

Getting rid of Trump would be the first step as things stand today and no one's arguing that the key to immediately solving all of the US' problems is Trump's removal or at least, I don't believe I've been making that argument. When the Republican party is currently placing its continued existing and power stature on being "The Party of Trump", what other starting point is there for getting those fuckers out of power?

To your point about Republicans being an issue, you're definitely not wrong here, today there was a hearing where folks in congress where questioning the Inspector general regarding the recent report about how the Clinton investigation during the 2016 campaign were handled. Here are a few details I picked up from the meeting.

1. Comey and the FBI upheld protocol and standards when it came Trump-Russia related intel. The same is not true for Clinton (which has been common knowledge for a while) and prosecutors conclude that she is innocent of the allegations. Congressmen essentially came to be under the impression that Comey's handling of the situation definitely damaged Clinton, one of them even saying these actions practically handed the presidency to Trump.

2. There was a LOT of questioning regarding some text messages that displayed how people in the FBI felt about Trump. To break it down...

2A. There were text messages along the lines of "Trump's not gonna be president, we have an insurance policy" which brought up questions of conspiracies going on at the FBI to make Trump lose.

2B. There were text messages along the lines of "I could smell the Trump supporters" and "These people have to be seriously retarded to vote for that guy". This brought up questions about how could workers at the FBI who obviously dislike Trump and have a private bias actually work in a fair investigation without having said bias affect their decision making.

2C. There was one particular message that the republicans focused on, I think it was the one about the "insurance policy". This one stood out the most because the line of questioning eventually devolved to why the congressmen did not receive that particular text. This is speculation on my part but the Republicans pressing on this issue were looking for something to fule propaganda and information to attack Rod Rosenstein. In particular you had this douchebag see at least 3 turns of going back to looking for anything to attack Rosenstein with that he was even called out on it. You heard it here folks, Rosenstein may be fired by Friday if Republicans get their way.

3. The Republicans want to make a case to the public that there's an anti-trump agenda going on and they were extremely persistent in trying to make anything that came up in conversation seem like it's anti-trump without good reason. "90% of the media coverage is anti-trump", "These agents are obviously anti-trump", etc. You have this happening with the fact that HILARY LOST the election and some of the congressmen in that meeting sought to avoid wasting time on this subject and instead bring attention to the children being separated at the border and the recent Trump foundation scandal.

Some of these morons are actually unsure as to why media coverage is "90% anti-trump" these days...

Edited June 19, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Tryhard]

1 minute ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Getting rid of Trump would be the first step as things stand today and no one's arguing that the key to immediately solving all of the US' problems is Trump's removal or at least, I don't believe I've been making that argument. When the Republican party is currently placing its continued existing and power stature on being "The Party of Trump", what other starting point is there for getting those fuckers out of power?

To your point about Republicans being an issue, you're definitely not wrong here, today there was a hearing where folks in congress where questioning the Inspector general regarding the recent report about how the Clinton investigation during the 2016 campaign were handled. Here are a few details I picked up from the meeting.

1. Comey and the FBI upheld protocol and standards when it came Trump-Russia related intel. The same is not true for Clinton (which has been common knowledge for a while) and prosecutors conclude that she is innocent of the allegations. Congressmen essentially came to be under the impression that Comey's handling of the situation definitely damaged Clinton, one of them even saying these actions practically handed the presidency to Trump.

2. There was a LOT of questioning regarding some text messages that displayed how people in the FBI felt about Trump. To break it down...

2A. There were text messages along the lines of "Trump's not gonna be president, we have an insurance policy" which brought up questions of conspiracies going on at the FBI to make Trump lose.

2B. There were text messages along the lines of "I could smell the Trump supporters" and "These people have to be seriously retarded to vote for that guy". This brought up questions about how could workers at the FBI who obviously dislike Trump and have a private bias actually work in a fair investigation without having said bias affect their decision making.

2C. There was one particular message that the republicans focused on, I think it was the one about the "insurance policy". This one stood out the most because the line of questioning eventually devolved to why the congressmen did not receive that particular text. This is speculation on my part but the Republicans pressing on this issue were looking for something to ful propaganda and information to attack Rod Rosenstein. In particular you had this douchebag see at least 3 turns of going back to looking for anything to attack Rosenstein with that he was even called out on it

3. The Republicans want to make a case to the public that there's an anti-trump agenda going on and they were extremely persistent in trying to make anything that came up in conversation seem like it's anti-trump without good reason. "90% of the media coverage is anti-trump", "These agents are obviously anti-trump", etc. You have this happening with the fact that HILARY LOST the election and some of the congressmen in that meeting sought to avoid wasting time on this subject and instead bring attention to the children being separated at the border and the recent Trump foundation scandal.

These morons are actually unsure as to why media coverage is 90% anti-trump these days.

It's more along the lines of, don't underestimate the fact that the Republican party have many more that, while not the same as Trump, believe in horrible neo-con far-right wing ideology. This is the sort of thing that makes me roll my eyes when there have been numerous stories of Democrats trying to rehabilitate George Bush's image just because he isn't Trump.

The Republicans will unite behind Trump almost unanimously as long as it is politically advantageous, but I think it will be very interesting if anything happens to Rosenstein. Really, I wasn't trying to take away from the fact that I would like nothing more than Trump to be removed and jailed for genuine crimes.

To be fair, I'm not exactly fond at all of the American corporate media myself, and I'm not going to say they are doing a good job just because they mostly don't like Trump, but I don't need the media to know that Trump is an idiot. He shows that all by himself.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

So long story short, we can't lock them up together, we can't leave them behind, and we can't just let people break the law and use children to defend themselves from being imprisoned. Now is the crime that is being committed that serious? (the whole crossing our border since that is the topic i'm responding to in the few posts above me) Not really. But it is getting out of hand. As opposed to doing nothing this at least sends out a message we won't tolerate you crossing. Are there other options on how to slow it down or stop it? Sure if you TRY to brainstorm more effective ways. Emphasis on the TRY part. But sadly our leaders are too lazy for that. This gets media attention, uses scapegoats, and basically fits someone's agenda. Its a shame but regular citizens like us don't get to make decisions or implament things except every 2 or 4 years when it comes time to vote. Even then we don't get much choice in the matter because it is a emphasis on the "we are just voting for leaders". In other words, we can only pick people to do things based off the candidates that we have. Sometimes they don't do what they promise, sometimes they get bought out, sometimes nobody represents a particular issue that needs to be addressed, and a whole bunch of other problems with the whole democracy and republic style of government.

 

I get where you're coming from here but this falls flat because of the cases where they're locking up kids from asylum seekers. In most cases, these aren't people sneaking to get into the border, they're often people voluntarily presenting themselves at the border seeking asylum from the troubles of they're escaping from. There's absolutely no need to lock up the children for these cases as the claim is that they're using this to deter people from coming into the country ILLEGALLY whereas these cases are nothing of the sort and are practically collateral damage of Trump's draconian immigration agenda.

Even for those that ARE illegally coming in, this policy is just too much. Resources are being misused and the time the Trump administration is spending trying to find a new argument for defending this crap is time that could be on coming up with a logical solution but that's not gonna happen and Trump recently revealed why: He wants to use these kids and a government shutdown to impose the Democrats to agree to more funding for his border wall. He played this same card before.

This shit just needs to stop before more of this happens.

@Tryhard I'm aware man. We have a holocaust deniers and people of organizations with similar views to the American Nazi party running for office. 

My biggest problem with corporate media these days is that they try too hard to be neutral in order to appeal to the right. They'll post and report on stories and avoid taking a stance which I can understand EXCEPT when that stance is truth and facts. That's the one stance you should always support and bring up. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Tediz64]

7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I get where you're coming from here but this falls flat because of the cases where they're locking up kids from asylum seekers. In most cases, these aren't people sneaking to get into the border, they're often people voluntarily presenting themselves at the border seeking asylum from the troubles of they're escaping from. There's absolutely no need to lock up the children for these cases as the claim is that they're using this to deter people from coming into the country ILLEGALLY whereas these cases are nothing of the sort and are practically collateral damage of Trump's draconian immigration agenda.

Even for those that ARE illegally coming in, this policy is just too much. Resources are being misused and the time the Trump administration is spending trying to find a new argument for defending this crap is time that could be on coming up with a logical solution but that's not gonna happen and Trump recently revealed why: He wants to use these kids and a government shutdown to impose the Democrats to agree to more funding for his border wall. He played this same card before.

This shit just needs to stop before more of this happens.

@Tryhard I'm aware man. We have a holocaust deniers and people of organizations with similar views to the American Nazi party running for office. 

My biggest problem with corporate media these days is that they try too hard to be neutral in order to appeal to the right. They'll post and report on stories and avoid taking a stance which I can understand EXCEPT when that stance is truth and facts. That's the one stance you should always support and bring up. 

 

Not to throw them to the wolves and say it isn't our problem but basically.....yeah...not our problem. Don't get me wrong, it is unethical and immoral that crime exists in other countries and i believe that these people genuinely fear for their life but they need to do something about it themselves. We can't police the entire world and help everyone. It just isn't feasible. We have our own battles to wage and problems to fix on our side of the border. So regardless if they "voluntarily" turn themselves in at the border or not, they still aren't allowed and need to file paperwork and wait in line like EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. Just because they share our border and can waltz over a few hundred miles doesn't mean they should get special treatment.

I know a filipino who APPLIED (with paperwork) to come over here back in the 1989! They are so backed up on paper work that they BARELY started reviewing the papers filed dated between 1980 and 1995 in 2014. At this point, some of the people filed on the paperwork, they passed up the age of 18 and now have to RE-FILE as adults and go through the whole waiting process all over again for who knows how long. Have you heard what has been going on in the news over there? They fear for their life too!. But it isn't like they can just WALK over to our border (or swim it if you want to split hairs). They file and wait patiently. So why are the central americans allowed to do it? Why aren't we making them file and wait? Think about how unfair it is to the other people from different parts of the world. They see our country and how peaceful it is so of course they want to come here compared to where they are now. But we simply can't house millions upon billions of people from every country where shit is hitting the fan and then come out and say we are still doing ok. 

If you (also implying the thousands maybe even millions of people who feel the same way you do to) want to make a difference for them, here is an idea that helps them plus saves us the effort/resources. Form an organization. Fund the organization based of donations or self-fund it with its members. Arm and train the organization. Have all the members renounce their citizenship so it doesn't look like we are invading other countries. Go to the country where evil people exist, and shoot to kill. Exterminate all of them. If they push drugs, rape women, kill babies, or whatever it is they are doing that is so bad they are making people flee for their lives (literally leave the place they were born and known all their life and leave behind all their belongings and maybe some family members), more than likely you can't reason with them or rehabilitate them (being the bad guys) so just do everyone a favor and kill them. Then all these people can go back to their country and set roots and just go on about their business. You can even stay if you want behind afterwards so you can help rebuild the towns and etc. I say this in all seriousness because running away doesn't solve the problem and people that are being evil shouldn't be allowed to get away with how they are behaving and go unpunished. Something has to be done. You can't sit here and tell me that them running away while leaving those bad guys alive to run amok is the best we can do. That isn't solving a problem. Its ignoring it and allowing it to become other people's problem (not just us but over time future people born in that country)

Also regarding your first source, it is filled with words like "alleged" and "reportedly" including talking about a private meeting. So basically a bunch of hearsay. Which we all know can be biased based off the reporter and how they choose to word it or use flaming words. That 4 year old girl story is pretty fucking sick though. They ran away from that only to find it here too.

[The Geek]

Or, y'know, we could make legal immigration not take 20+ years.  That's an idea too.

[Tediz64]

In addition to my post (where i'm quoting Dr. Tarrasque) i want to put another emphasis on how i think that the current method isn't that great. We could brainstorm a better idea. I don't want people to misunderstand and think that i condone what is happening with the families being separated. I just think something different needs to happen but what i don't want is for nothing to happen or be done about it. We need some type of solution that also involves limiting the hundreds upon thousands trying to come over here (especially if its just because they fear for their life. Because that implies they don't want to leave but have too. We should be giving them an option so they can stay AND be safe in their country!)

Edited June 20, 2018 by Tediz64

[Tediz64]

8 minutes ago, The Geek said:

Or, y'know, we could make legal immigration not take 20+ years.  That's an idea too.

But the goal isn't to "accept" them and let them come over. They probably don't want to. It should be making it so they can stay in their country where they probably want to be, but also make it safe. As in get rid of the problem that is making them fear for their life. I don't know about you but i don't want our population to shoot up to like 2 or 3 billion. I don't even think america could handle that resource wise. 

[Dr. Tarrasque]

4 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

If you (also implying the thousands maybe even millions of people who feel the same way you do to) want to make a difference for them, here is an idea that helps them plus saves us the effort/resources. Form an organization. Fund the organization based of donations or self-fund it with its members. Arm and train the organization. Have all the members renounce their citizenship so it doesn't look like we are invading other countries. Go to the country where evil people exist, and shoot to kill. Exterminate all of them. If they push drugs, rape women, kill babies, or whatever it is they are doing that is so bad they are making people flee for their lives (literally leave the place they were born and known all their life and leave behind all their belongings and maybe some family members), more than likely you can't reason with them or rehabilitate them (being the bad guys) so just do everyone a favor and kill them. Then all these people can go back to their country and set roots and just go on about their business. You can even stay if you want behind afterwards so you can help rebuild the towns and etc. I say this in all seriousness because running away doesn't solve the problem and people that are being evil shouldn't be allowed to get away with how they are behaving and go unpunished. Something has to be done. You can't sit here and tell me that them running away while leaving those bad guys alive to run amok is the best we can do. That isn't solving a problem. Its ignoring it and allowing it to become other people's problem (not just us but over time future people born in that country)

You are suggesting that civilians commit genocide at a foreign country and act as judge, jury and executioner. No thank you, relay this to the gun happy nuts of America if you'd like so they can finally put those guns they love to tout to some use but leave civilians who want to leave peacefully and wish to make the world a better place through diplomacy out of it.

Running away from your country to avoid its corruption and high crime rate doesn't solve those problems there, you're right but I think your take on this matter is far too childish and assumes too much that it ends up being black and white when it's not that simple. Your take on the matter practically suggests that we should just incite civil war to kill of "evil people" when problematic folk arise (such as today's White Supremacists) and that to help foreigners we should relinquish our lives.

Immigration into our country gives those people a new start without sacrificing our own. People of the US are not being pushed out of their homes or having their jobs taken away as the right wing propaganda suggests, in fact many small business that supported Trump are suffering because of it and wishing that Trump reconsider the work visa limitations he's imposed on unskilled workers which by the way, he didn't apply to himself and is able to get all the unskilled workers he pleases. With the work visa limitations imposed by Trump, you have more jobs available but these are jobs that Americans will not take. So much for "immigrants are taking our jobs and ruining amurica". Studies suggest otherwise and as you can see in the report, Stephen Miller tried to block it. He's the same asshole that is reportedly the architect behind this policy and the same asshole that played a part in rewriting the Muslim ban several times to try to get it to pass. Stephen Miller should've been removed several months back but nope, he's still around and led to what we have today

Your suggestion of crowdfunded militia/organization to go out and suppress crime in another country is telling our people to go sacrifice themselves and further fund an organization that's constantly impeding attempts to mitigate shootings by implementing simple gun control regulations all over the country that already exists in several states that have problem to have lower rates of shootings. Are you by any chance paid by the NRA?

Do the laws for immigration need to change? Absolutely. Is illegal immigration as big a problem as the right wing is making it out to be? No, illegal border crossings are less than overstays of people who came here to work legally.

The bigger problem with immigration in America is the racism that the right-wing is inciting from the subject. You will see studies and research debunking most (if not all) of the claims made by the right wing. The country needs a president that isn't a fucking orange turd of a moron and a cabinet with scientists and people who uses FACTS to make decisions, not fucking racist morons wasting their time and energy looking for excuses to defend their horrible policies and blame it on other people.

Example: Tucker Carson of Fox News claims that many people arguing against this separation policy do not even have children so they don't actually care about what's going on. Do I need to explain what's wrong here?

Edited June 20, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Tryhard]

Plus, there's various statistics about illegal immigration peaking around 2007 and steadily declining since then. In fact, more Mexicans are immigrating back to Mexico rather than staying in the US, and it's a net loss of migrants in that case. Illegal immigrants also have a lower rate of crime compared to the general populace because they know their punishment will be deportation if they are to attract the attention of law enforcement.

Let's also be clear, Obama was not kind to illegal immigrants either for his entire time in office. While it's obvious that he did not go as far as what's currently going on, he was not without heavy critique on this issue.

It's a common thing to blame immigrants or so-called "scroungers", usually the ones with the least amount of power and wealth in a country and who do the underpaid jobs that most American-born citizens do not want to do for the problems in society. It's been a common tactic to divide up the lower and middle classes and have them blame each other on whatever division they can i.e religion, race, immigration status. As George Carlin says it better:

"That's the way the ruling class operates in any society. They try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other so that they, the rich, can run off with all the fucking money! Fairly simple thing. Happens to work. You know? Anything different—that's what they're gonna talk about—race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality, anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank!"

It's always perplexing to see immigration make some of the top priorities when there is so much else wrong with American society.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Tryhard

[Tediz64]

3 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

You are suggesting that civilians commit genocide at a foreign country and act as judge, jury and executioner. No thank you, relay this to the gun happy nuts of America if you'd like so they can finally put those guns they love to tout to some use but leave civilians who want to leave peacefully and wish to make the world a better place through diplomacy out of it.

So i ask, how is that working out for us? I took a basic level psychology course and one word horrifies me. One word or "effect" simply blew my mind away. The By-stander effect. Where people diffuse responsibility of a situation among a crowd or for various other reasons won't jump in to save a person. I don't want to live with people who can watch someone break into a home and do nothing about it. I don't want to live with people who can watch an 8 year old at a bus stop get kidnapped and assume someone else who saw will call the cops. You have people who'd watch as someone gets raped/killed and DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT. Kitty Genovese (which kicked started research into by-stander effect) literally was BRUTALLY murdered and screamed for help and over 38 people didn't do shit because they thought someone else would get around to it. You want diplomacy? Well guess what, you want to be raped, killed, robbed, and beaten. That's all i hear. Just because you don't hear it or see it, doesn't mean isn't happening right now.

Spoiler

 

In 2014 based off the FBI Crime Clock linked in a spoiler, those are the crime rates that are reported in America. Reported!. Meaning they aren't accurate because some people don't report their rape or being robbed. In fact also when i took Intro to Criminal Justice, based off how records are filed if a person committed domestic abuse and beat his wife and 2 children, on the docket when he is filed and charged it'll be for all 3 counts, but in the archives it'll be listed a 1 incident of domestic abuse. So even those reported are being lumped together. Look at the clock. Tell me it doesn't make you sick. 13 people per hour are getting raped. THREE HUNDRED AND TWELVE per day!!! More than 60 people per hour are assaulted. That is 1, 440 per day .  It eats me up every day if i don't distract myself with games or anime that out there right now, someone is suffering or dying and the entire world goes on and we do shit about it. 

I remember hearing my mom say "if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got". Just a quick search shows that the idea of imprisoning people dates as far back as 640 B.C. So tell me why are we still wasting our time with locking people away when it clearly doesn't deter crime none what so ever based off that FBI crime clock? Which by the way has gotten worse as of the later years. Plus that clock doesn't factor in other countries and parts of the world. 

Ok....so i'm getting a little worked up but let me put my point in a smaller more direct paragraph because otherwise i can keep going

There are people out there who are evil and just plain wicked and inflict pain and suffering on others. Ignoring them, locking them up, or being "diplomatic" about it is going to do ABSOLUTELY nothing. Killing them not only sends a message that a new world order won't accept such heinous crimes but makes the world a better place. Your diplomacy doesn't achieve that. It has been tested against time since 460 B.C. when the Romans first enacted a prison. 

You say i'm being childish and seeing things as black and white, but everyone else's opinion on what to do and how to keep going about a certain situation isn't getting it solved. It isn't working. What bothers me about what you said the most is the part i underlined. You don't want to live peacefully because you don't even realize this world isn't peaceful right now. Yet you criticize me for wanting to make a change and ACTUALLY make the world a better place. You don't even want to make the world a better place through diplomacy because your still busy turning and looking the other way as someone RIGHT NOW is getting killed or robbed.  As far as i'm concerned, if you haven't already killed someone in your life time, you part of the world that is ok with evil existing. Your part of the world that will turn and look the other way as others suffer. Your part of the world that glorifies evil with games like Grand Theft Auto which make sport of crime, or movies that have rape scenes in them, or books like 50 shades of Grey that turn abuse into a bondage role-play relationship that girls swooned over and was so popular it needed a movie. You ignore it, because it hasn't happened to you, your mom, your siblings if you have any, or a friend. That is being complacent. 

My idea on going to other countries and committing genocide is what i have to bring to the table. Are you coming up with any ideas on saving the people or making the lives of 7.9 billion (i think that is our current population on earth) better/peaceful? No. You don't care about the world from where i stand at. You want those people making others flee for their life to go on about their business. Your ACTIVELY ignoring them and letting them continue to operate by saying "oh we'll use diplomacy and not go genocide them. lets focus on racism and trump" For argument sake we have an incompetent leader but don't get distracted by that. Lets focus on making the world better instead of whining about something we can't change. 

Now then....i'm kinda wondering how i go on to this topic when the original topic was border crossing. 

 

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

it's always perplexing to see immigration make some of the top priorities when there is so much else wrong with American society.

Look at my rant above lol. We do have alot wrong with america. We got other problems to solve then to worry about immigration. Problems that date back super far and yet haven't been solved. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Tediz64

[Shoblongoo]

13 hours ago, The Geek said:

Or, y'know, we could make legal immigration not take 20+ years.  That's an idea too.

^^^
That would be my preferred choice-of-policy. 
 

13 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

But the goal isn't to "accept" them and let them come over. They probably don't want to. It should be making it so they can stay in their country.

...here is something about our immigration law that most people do not know, and I wish more people did...

The quotas, the broad exclusion criteria, the Byzantine processes for lawful admission, the infeasiblity of admission by lawful process for large classes of persons seeking to work and raise their families in America and surges of "unlawful" entry in-the-alternative, the mass detention and deportation of migrant populations--none of that existed for the first 100 years of our history as a nation. 

We took (almost) everyone, subject to a cursory booking process and basic health examination.  Basically if you were able-bodied and not carrying a contagious disease, you were in. 

It was part of our national character and identity. We were "the nation of immigrants." We were "the melting pot." 

We understood implicitly the economic benefit. Immigrants were not just units of supply in the labor market competing with American workers; they were units of demand in the market for goods and services that American workers provided. And not just consumers of goods and services (i.e. "resources"), but producers.

More people, doing more jobs, producing more things, demanding more goods and services--that wasn't a formula for consume all natural resources + fuck the American worker. That was a formula for economic growth. Every immigration wave expanded our supply/demand curve and grew our economy and made us stronger and more prosperous.

... we knew this... 

What changed???

America passed its first exclusionary immigration laws and commenced its first detention + deportation policy in the 1880s.

What was happening in the 1880s?

What was happening in the 1880s was that immigration patterns were changing. Previously they had consisted almost entirely of European immigrants crossing the Atlantic and settling around New York Harbor. Now we had something new--a predominant body of Asian immigrants crossing the Pacific and settling around San Francisco Bay.

...well of course that sent the white nationalists and the xenophobes of the day into a nativist tizzy that the slanty eyed yellow-bellies were taking their jobs + ruining the character of the nation with an influx of culture that was too different and too alien to ever truly assimilate into the American melting pot.

And so in 1882, America passed the The Chinese Exclusion Act. Our first immigration ban + mass authorization for detention and deportation of "illegal immigrants."

Ostensibly, it was an Act protecting the workers and resources of America and the values of our nation from a flood of low-skill immigrants.

In reality; it was a departure from 100 years of opposing law, motivated purely by racial animus and the non-white status of the targeted immigrants and the ethno-nationalist policy goals of maintaining a perpetual white majority. 

The Chinese Exclusion Act was challenged in the 1889 case of Chae Chan Ping v. United States.  The first ever immigration law case to come before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Court in Ping deigned to perform its usual exercise of judicial review over the policy considerations and legality of the statute, holding instead that the ability to set and enforce immigration exclusion criteria was the "plenary power" of Congress and the President. 

The Court affirmed that Congress had broad authority to exclude on the basis of race or national origin or basically anything else it damn-well-pleased; lawmakers did not have any burden of demonstrating that the exclusion policy was rationally related to its stated policy goals or in furtherance of a compelling interest of government. The mere fact that they were acting pursuant to their authority to set rules of entry and naturalization into the United States was sufficient proof of compelling interest. 

This is a burden that lawmakers would be required to meet in virtually any other field of law to avoid having their law struck down for violation of the Due Process Clause (it is generally understood in legal theory that it is a violation of due process to make and enforce a law that is not rationally related to its stated purpose). But the precedent was set that this requirement does not exist when Congress makes immigration laws.
____________________________________________________________________
 

Chae Chan Ping v. United States and its landmark "Plenary Power Doctrine" remains good precedent to this day, and it is the cornerstone on which the subsequent century of American immigration law has been built.

 Protection of the American worker and our resources is mere pretense, and Congress has never been required to demonstrate that the basis of its immigration laws are anything but.

The law is and since its earliest inception always has been an artifact of White Supremacy; its purpose to suppress the growth and influence of minority populations, and brand their cultures as inferior to those of European origin.

Nothing more.   


  

Edited June 20, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Water Mage]

37 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

 

 

I remember hearing my mom say "if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got". Just a quick search shows that the idea of imprisoning people dates as far back as 640 B.C. So tell me why are we still wasting our time with locking people away when it clearly doesn't deter crime none what so ever based off that FBI crime clock? Which by the way has gotten worse as of the later years. Plus that clock doesn't factor in other countries and parts of the world. 

Ok....so i'm getting a little worked up but let me put my point in a smaller more direct paragraph because otherwise i can keep going

There are people out there who are evil and just plain wicked and inflict pain and suffering on others. Ignoring them, locking them up, or being "diplomatic" about it is going to do ABSOLUTELY nothing. Killing them not only sends a message that a new world order won't accept such heinous crimes but makes the world a better place. Your diplomacy doesn't achieve that. It has been tested against time since 460 B.C. when the Romans first enacted a prison. 

You say i'm being childish and seeing things as black and white, but everyone else's opinion on what to do and how to keep going about a certain situation isn't getting it solved. It isn't working. What bothers me about what you said the most is the part i underlined. You don't want to live peacefully because you don't even realize this world isn't peaceful right now. Yet you criticize me for wanting to make a change and ACTUALLY make the world a better place. You don't even want to make the world a better place through diplomacy because your still busy turning and looking the other way as someone RIGHT NOW is getting killed or robbed.  As far as i'm concerned, if you haven't already killed someone in your life time, you part of the world that is ok with evil existing. Your part of the world that will turn and look the other way as others suffer. Your part of the world that glorifies evil with games like Grand Theft Auto which make sport of crime, or movies that have rape scenes in them, or books like 50 shades of Grey that turn abuse into a bondage role-play relationship that girls swooned over and was so popular it needed a movie. You ignore it, because it hasn't happened to you, your mom, your siblings if you have any, or a friend. That is being complacent. 

My idea on going to other countries and committing genocide is what i have to bring to the table.

I want you to read what I quoted and think about what you just said. 

You’re advocating genocide, you’re encouraging others to kill. That’s sort of thinking is incredibly dangerous. And it will not bring peace, if anything it will make things worse.

So again, read what I quoted and seriously  consider if you truly believe in that.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Water Mage

[RandomJC]

42 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

You say i'm being childish and seeing things as black and white, but everyone else's opinion on what to do and how to keep going about a certain situation isn't getting it solved. It isn't working. What bothers me about what you said the most is the part i underlined. You don't want to live peacefully because you don't even realize this world isn't peaceful right now. Yet you criticize me for wanting to make a change and ACTUALLY make the world a better place. You don't even want to make the world a better place through diplomacy because your still busy turning and looking the other way as someone RIGHT NOW is getting killed or robbed.  As far as i'm concerned, if you haven't already killed someone in your life time, you part of the world that is ok with evil existing. Your part of the world that will turn and look the other way as others suffer. Your part of the world that glorifies evil with games like Grand Theft Auto which make sport of crime, or movies that have rape scenes in them, or books like 50 shades of Grey that turn abuse into a bondage role-play relationship that girls swooned over and was so popular it needed a movie. You ignore it, because it hasn't happened to you, your mom, your siblings if you have any, or a friend. That is being complacent. 

So...if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, if you haven't done something evil, you're condoning evil existing? You understand killing someone is an evil act, not a righteous one, right?

This is very dangerous thinking. You need to seek help.

[Tediz64]

9 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

I want you to read what I quoted and think about what you just said. 

You’re advocating genocide, you’re encouraging others to kill. That’s sort of thinking is incredibly dangerous. And it will not bring peace, if anything it will make things worse.

So again, read what I quoted and seriously  consider if you truly believe in that.

Yeah. I don't feel shame in it either. When you allow the world to travel the path and course it has been, you get people like me born into it. I was conceived by rape. I was born from hate, agony, and ignorance. An overall lack of order in this world allowed me to be created. Half the time i don't even feel like i have the right to complain because then i'm reminded that far worse exists out there. I met a girl in florida before i turned 18 who literally wanted to run away and come to me (an online friend) just to get away from her step-dad raping her. I am open to coming to the table and negotiating for a better world but i want to see some initiative. Because what we are doing isn't working. The crime has gone up. Our population is at 7.9 billion. More crimes will continue to happen and people will continue to suffer and that shouldn't be condoned or accepted as the norm.  Being radical is the only answer when otherwise it means being complacent and never getting around to solve the problem. We should event be at 60 aggravated assaults per hour. It should barely be like...10 per day or something smaller. When someone is murdered that is a family ripped apart. According to that clock that is 2 per hour (almost). That is 48 people killed senseless per day. We need to restore order and do away with those who are evil. 

[Water Mage]

2 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

Yeah. I don't feel shame in it either. When you allow the world to travel the path and course it has been, you get people like me born into it. I was conceived by rape. I was born from hate, agony, and ignorance. An overall lack of order in this world allowed me to be created. Half the time i don't even feel like i have the right to complain because then i'm reminded that far worse exists out there. I met a girl in florida before i turned 18 who literally wanted to run away and come to me (an online friend) just to get away from her step-dad raping her. I am open to coming to the table and negotiating for a better world but i want to see some initiative. Because what we are doing isn't working. The crime has gone up. Our population is at 7.9 billion. More crimes will continue to happen and people will continue to suffer and that shouldn't be condoned or accepted as the norm.  Being radical is the only answer when otherwise it means being complacent and never getting around to solve the problem. We should event be at 60 aggravated assaults per hour. It should barely be like...10 per day or something smaller. When someone is murdered that is a family ripped apart. According to that clock that is 2 per hour (almost). That is 48 people killed senseless per day. We need to restore order and do away with those who are evil. 

Even if you achieve peace like that, it’s peace earned through fear, something I want nothing to do with. A peace earned that way will undoubtedly crumble, and pave way to dictatorship. Not only that but good and evil is a subjective concept, so killing those you deem as evil will undoubtedly get innocent people killed.

[Balcerzak]

41 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

^^^
That would be my preferred choice-of-policy. 
 

...here is something about our immigration law that most people do not know, and I wish more people did...

The quotas, the broad exclusion criteria, the Byzantine processes for lawful admission, the infeasiblity of admission by lawful process for large classes of persons seeking to work and raise their families in America and surges of "unlawful" entry in-the-alternative, the mass detention and deportation of migrant populations--none of that existed for the first 100 years of our history as a nation. 

We took (almost) everyone, subject to a cursory booking process and basic health examination.  Basically if you were able-bodied and not carrying a contagious disease, you were in. 
 

I mean, it's also important to remember that for the first 100 years, while the immigration policy was as open as you say it was, the country was also abusing relations with native americans to expand and take their land. By the timeline you presented, it looks as if the time immigrant restrictions started coming in hard was also around the time the Pacific had been hit and there was no more "free" expansion to be had. Unlimited immigrant entry doesn't come without cost. Given the choice to go back in time and change things, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable advocating free entrance for all if it meant endorsing exploitation of the native population. 

[Shoblongoo]

...okay so we have separating families + putting children in concentration camps, and going to other countries and committing genocide. Those are ideas on the table.

They're really, really bad ideas. But they're ideas.

So on our end, I've proposed letting more people in and relaxing the requirements of entry for people trying to escape abominable living conditions and make better lives for themselves. The way we use to do.

For improving country conditions in the places these immigrants are coming from here's an idea:  Repeal and Replace the Controlled Substances Act, and end the "War on Drugs."
_________

As was previously discussed in the "men of serenes forest" thread, we created the American mafia and the modern problem of organized crime in America when in the early 20th century we banned alcohol. The consequence was that alcohol distribution and production became a lucrative criminal enterprise; organized crime and gang warfare and all the associated violence and human suffering sprang up because the $$$ in bootlegging empowered the formation of these criminal enterprises and incentived the gangs running them to violently protect their business interests.

Presently, our drug laws have produced a comparable effect on the formation and empowerment of drug gangs.

And the populations that suffer most from this are--of course--the populations residing in the Latin American countries where the gangs stake out their turf and produce the marijuana and the cocaine, and use the enormous quantities of $$$ generated from their business to violently protect their business interests with paramilitary force and narcoterrorism.

The #1 impedement to improving country conditions in Mexico and Latin America is narcoterrorism.

The #1 thing we can do to end narcoterrorism and improve living conditions in these countries is disempower the drug cartels.  

The #1 thing we can do to disempower the drug cartels is legalize + produce and sell ourselves through lawful businesses, thereby depriving them of demand for their product and the economic basis of their power.

If we do this, it will be the death of narcoterrorism in Mexico and Central America. And living conditions in those countries will improve accordingly.

(HINT: Now that alcohol is legal and you can walk into any lawfully operated liquor store in America to buy beer and whiskey. When was the last time you heard of horrific violence being carried out by roving gangs of bootleggers???)

Edited June 20, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Tediz64]

10 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

So...if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, if you haven't done something evil, you're condoning evil existing? You understand killing someone is an evil act, not a righteous one, right?

This is very dangerous thinking. You need to seek help.

I understand what i'm saying is a paradox. That in order to achieve peace (or more so than what we have because i'm also not delusional enough to think we can achieve a point in time where we are 100% crime free) we need more chaos. Killing is righteous if it is self-defense or humane. Isn't the general consensus that if you run over an animal and it is in pain or suffering really bad and won't make it that you put it out of its misery? Don't we call that mercy killing. Not all forms of killing are evil because then otherwise, even a 8 year old can be called evil for killing a mosquito or because they ate a burger (which involved killing some innocent cow). I know my topic is around killing humans, but can we consider those people that? They look more like demons to me. The way they go around terrorizing and inflicting despair. Leaving a trail of destruction in their wake.

On a side note, i'm not talking about enjoying killing. but how do you think our soldiers come home and justify what they have done over seas? Hence why they are decorated and praised. They sacrifice their soul and mental state so that regular people can live in peace and have freedom. I don't think we acknowledge that part enough. I think that is a utopia i'm referring to by the way. I don't want EVERYONE going around committing genocide but only those brave souls who will take one for the team.

[Tediz64]

26 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

So...if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, if you haven't done something evil, you're condoning evil existing? You understand killing someone is an evil act, not a righteous one, right?

This is very dangerous thinking. You need to seek help.

You also further my point that if your going to just see me as a radical and NOT FOCUS on the real problem that is still persisting, that you are being complacent. You are ok with coexisting with it since you won't go out of your way to stop it. So the next time a person is raped i want you to remember, YOU SAID OK TO IT. You gave that murderer or robber the thumbs up. You gave that person who physically abused their partner, the thumbs up. @RandomJC wants people to suffer/hurt and doesn't want to do anything about it. Go ahead. Keep looking the other way and ignore as it happens all around you. Once it happens to your family or friends then it'll be other people's turn to look the other way while you cry for justice. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Tediz64