logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 768

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Republicans vs. human rights:

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621435225/u-s-announces-its-withdrawal-from-u-n-s-human-rights-council?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180619

If that Council were useful and truly focused on Human Rights, I’d care.

The article explains why you should care.

It also comes at a poor time, given our own human rights violations.

Eh, it explains why crumbs are better than nothing. At least now the US won’t stand in the way of the Council scolding us, isn’t that great?

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.

At the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box, I’m gonna ask what evidence there is of this.

Yeah even I don’t get that one.

Author
Time

Hahahahaha great job guy. Now you can claim victory for fixing your fuck up. And your dumbshit supporters will eat it up.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.

At the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box, I’m gonna ask what evidence there is of this.

Yeah even I don’t get that one.

States like Louisiana, which is more religious than other states, has a far greater crime and murder rate than more secular states like Vermont or New Hampshire. I’m using it as an example of how it’s totally false that religion makes a society less criminal.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.

At the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box, I’m gonna ask what evidence there is of this.

Yeah even I don’t get that one.

States like Louisiana, which is more religious than other states, has a far greater crime and murder rate than more secular states like Vermont or New Hampshire. I’m using it as an example of how it’s totally false that religion makes a society less criminal.

And the Bear Patrol kept the bears away from Springfield. You could tell because there were no bears in Springfield.

Seriously, how can you possibly claim that religion is the reason that Louisiana has more crime than Vermont?

Author
Time

I don’t think he’s saying that religion is the reason for crime, but rather giving an example of how atheism is not directly leading to the downfall of society.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think he’s saying that religion is the reason for crime, but rather giving an example of how atheism is not directly leading to the downfall of society.

“the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.”

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think he’s saying that religion is the reason for crime, but rather giving an example of how atheism is not directly leading to the downfall of society.

“the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.”

Ok, I was only referring to his latest post, this quote seems like an oversimplification.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

And yet if he had allowed asylum seekers to be put on ‘supervised release’, would Republicans have ever stopped attacking him for it? I can imagine the attack-ads now.

Of course, Obama genuinely believed in compromise, even though the opposition would attack him regardless.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

That guy’s whole tirade takes two responses from Obama: “Are you an immigration lawyer?” and “I’ll tell you what we can’t have. It’s these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk.” and wraps it in a big ball of subtext that Obama didn’t actually use. Like he says Obama asks if he’s an attorney because Obama was told they’re the only ones who’d care. How does he know this? That’s certainly a leap of logic.

Ridiculous. I would actually be interested in what Obama really would have to say, not this guy’s blathering on about what he wanted Obama to say but didn’t.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Hahahahaha great job guy. Now you can claim victory for fixing your fuck up. And your dumbshit supporters will eat it up.

At best, it’s a stop gap measure. The law that exists does not permit keeping children in detention for more than 20 days, and adjudication of parents’ charges typically takes longer. The law needs to be changed or there is nothing that will keep parents and children together - absent not charging people who have kids. Many would prefer more lax enforcement of the laws but that’s another matter.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

Obama isn’t the president anymore and Obama wasn’t as bad on the whole as Trump is on immigration.

But nobody cared when it was Obama, and now suddenly it’s a national crisis. I guess hypocrisy has a short shelf life.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

Jay, do you think Trump and Obama are equally terrible?

No. I voted for Obama (twice) and Hillary. Had I thought Obama were terrible, I had the opportunity to vote against him for his second term. And I certainly wouldn’t have voted for Hillary after that, given that I believed she’d continue with Obama’s policies for the most part.

Our immigration policy is shit, it’s been shit for a long time, and anyone blaming it on Trump is doing so out of political expediency. Everyone should stop defending their team, acknowledge we all dropped the ball, and work on legislation to fix it.

Anyone screeching about a “Trump policy” that elicited no meaningful reaction from them when Obama was doing it is a hypocrite.

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

And yet if he had allowed asylum seekers to be put on ‘supervised release’, would Republicans have ever stopped attacking him for it? I can imagine the attack-ads now.

Of course, Obama genuinely believed in compromise, even though the opposition would attack him regardless.

Of course they would’ve attacked him for it, because they oppose catch and release. They know chances are high that illegal immigrants won’t show up for court if they think they’ll be deported. Since we have laws limiting the amount of time children can be detained, they can’t stay with their parents, who end up being detained for much longer (I think it’s 20 days max for kids). The options under current law are to separate them or let them all out. Edit: I was writing this when Mrebo responded, see his post above.

The compromise is allowing kids to be detained along with their parents past the current limit. Kids stay with their guardians, and the guardians aren’t released in the U.S. Democrats don’t like this idea because it’s cruel in their opinion, but if we provided better facilities to accommodate families while they await their court date, I think it would be fine. Republicans probably wouldn’t like that because we’d be spending taxpayer dollars on those facilities, but if the tradeoff is curbing illegal immigration, they should take the hit.

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

That guy’s whole tirade takes two responses from Obama: “Are you an immigration lawyer?” and “I’ll tell you what we can’t have. It’s these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk.” and wraps it in a big ball of subtext that Obama didn’t actually use. Like he says Obama asks if he’s an attorney because Obama was told they’re the only ones who’d care. How does he know this? That’s certainly a leap of logic.

Ridiculous. I would actually be interested in what Obama really would have to say, not this guy’s blathering on about what he wanted Obama to say but didn’t.

This is why I don’t go out of my way to “cite my sources” as you requested earlier. You like the source and their argument, great. You don’t like the source, it’s bullshit.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months… nobody cared when it was Obama, and now suddenly it’s a national crisis. I guess hypocrisy has a short shelf life.

Agreed on the first part but the reason for it being highlighted now is not a double-standard, it is because Obama didn’t say Mexicans were all rapists and claim that Mexico was going to build the US a wall to keep themselves out. If Trump didn’t want the media to examine his border policy more closely than they did Obama’s policies, then he shouldn’t have had so many tantrums about it while screaming “Please pay attention to me!” all the time.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months… nobody cared when it was Obama, and now suddenly it’s a national crisis. I guess hypocrisy has a short shelf life.

Agreed on the first part but the reason for it being highlighted now is not a double-standard, it is because Obama didn’t say Mexicans were all rapists and claim that Mexico was going to build the US a wall to keep themselves out. If Trump didn’t want the media to examine his border policy more closely than they did Obama’s policies, then he shouldn’t have had so many tantrums about it while screaming “Please pay attention to me!” all the time.

Poor reasons - even if true - for the media and the public to pay attention or not pay attention. Obama was awesome on papering over and distracting from his bad conduct and policies.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months… nobody cared when it was Obama, and now suddenly it’s a national crisis. I guess hypocrisy has a short shelf life.

Agreed on the first part but the reason for it being highlighted now is not a double-standard, it is because Obama didn’t say Mexicans were all rapists and claim that Mexico was going to build the US a wall to keep themselves out. If Trump didn’t want the media to examine his border policy more closely than they did Obama’s policies, then he shouldn’t have had so many tantrums about it while screaming “Please pay attention to me!” all the time.

I’m not seeing how it’s not a double standard just because the rhetoric changed, while the policy itself remained the same.

I take your point, though. Trump called attention to the issue as part of his campaign, so he needs to deal with the fallout. Obama was smart enough to promote policies that played well to his supporters and quietly implement those that could be problematic.

Edit: Fucking hell, Mrebo just scooping me left and right today.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

I’d still like to know how he is going to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

I’d still like to know how he is going to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

He’s not. I think I remember him saying he gave up on that, or that he was looking at payment options that didn’t have to do with Mexico. I could be wrong, though.

.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.

At the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box, I’m gonna ask what evidence there is of this.

Yeah even I don’t get that one.

States like Louisiana, which is more religious than other states, has a far greater crime and murder rate than more secular states like Vermont or New Hampshire. I’m using it as an example of how it’s totally false that religion makes a society less criminal.

And the Bear Patrol kept the bears away from Springfield. You could tell because there were no bears in Springfield.

Seriously, how can you possibly claim that religion is the reason that Louisiana has more crime than Vermont?

I’m not. I’m saying that it proves that religious populations don’t deter crime and secular ones don’t invite crime.

The whole reason I brought it up was to debunk the claims of people like Jordan Peterson who claim that religion is a necessity in order to keep society from collapsing. Obviously it isn’t because secular societies are by and large doing fine and often are doing better than the religious ones.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think he’s saying that religion is the reason for crime, but rather giving an example of how atheism is not directly leading to the downfall of society.

Yes. This is very obviously what I was doing.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

I very rarely leave my house, but I’ve decided that if I ever find myself present at a performance of the National Anthem, I won’t stand.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Well that was very obviously not what you said in the part I quoted, but ok.