|
Post by RickW on Jun 19, 2018 15:25:33 GMT -5
I would have to agree with Paul. And I don't believe he's proposing regime change, taking over their businesses. Nothing of the sort. The idea is to help their economies prosper, so they stay there, and don't come rushing north in waves. If they have a dictator who is willing to go along with that, and I don't see why they wouldn't, as happy, prosperous citizens are the best way to keep the masses quiet, then why would the US not say fine? It's been proven time and again that you're not terribly good with regime change; it just seems to create an environment for even worse shit to happen.
Plus, it provides target markets for American goods and services. Or would if the head twat wasn't so anti free trade.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 19, 2018 15:35:45 GMT -5
I would have to agree with Paul. And I don't believe he's proposing regime change, taking over their businesses. Nothing of the sort. The idea is to help their economies prosper, so they stay there, and don't come rushing north in waves. If they have a dictator who is willing to go along with that, and I don't see why they wouldn't, as happy, prosperous citizens are the best way to keep the masses quiet, then why would the US not say fine? It's been proven time and again that you're not terribly good with regime change; it just seems to create an environment for even worse shit to happen. Plus, it provides target markets for American goods and services. Or would if the head twat wasn't so anti free trade. Well, the only thing worse than our record of regime change is the world's record of propping up dictatorial economies. Sure, what the hell? We can offer Canada as collateral for all the shit we'll give them. Why didn't someone think of that when the Korean war ended?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 19, 2018 15:45:08 GMT -5
I think ePaul and Rick's theory is ignoring reality. We've never managed to buy a friend with foreign aid.
IMHO, what we need to do is cause the problem to be their problem and not ours, which I think is what we're trying to do by closing the border. Build the wall. If they don't get in we can't be gigged for not treating them well enough, which isn't possible anyway.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 19, 2018 15:49:00 GMT -5
There's really nothing that deters people wanting free stuff quite like having to work for it.
Or be shot. That can work, too.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 19, 2018 16:17:02 GMT -5
As Chris Hayes observes. Currently, the Trump administration is arguing that its family-separation policy: - is a deterrent - is biblically compliant - is the Democrats' fault - does not exist. While a commentator explains on Fox news that the traumatised, crying children are "child actors". Granted, Chris Hayes doesn’t have insight to the finest conservative minds on the Soundhole, but still, you’d think he’d know some of this stuff. He should have added: Fake News Media Hyperbole Hysterical Media Democrats Secret Desire for Open Borders Crying Wolf It’s Reagan’s Fault And, although nobody’s claimed this one yet because the thread’s only 3 pages long but I’m sure we’ll get around to it, it’s the fault of our national security threat, Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 19, 2018 16:33:28 GMT -5
This issue is a policy issue. Families are purposely being separated as a deterrent to those back home who may be contemplating coming to the US. It’s intentional.
According to an ICE official, some of the separations will be permanent because of the way the system works. There will be families who will never be reunited.
And we wonder where terrorists come from?
If someone took my child, no matter the reason, even if I did commit a misdemeanor like jaywalk, litter, smoke in a bathroom or cross a border, I would do anything - anything - to get my child back. If that failed, I would seek retribution. And the lives of those responsible, whether directly or indirectly, would be prizes to be taken. In other words, I’d get biblical.
I can’t say what I’d do if a government purposely made an orphan of me. I just can’t get myself into that mindset. But I think retribution would again be a fairly common response.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 19, 2018 17:12:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jun 19, 2018 18:28:34 GMT -5
...especially as 25-30% of us will at some soon coming point have emotional and ethnic ties to the refugees.... Like I do to my Mexican brother-in-law, my half-Mexican nieces, my quarter-Mexican great niece and great nephews, my El Salvadoran son-in-law, and my half-El Salvadoran granddaughter. It is becoming pretty common. I also have Chinese and Russian adoptees among my family.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jun 19, 2018 18:29:29 GMT -5
Could you guys PLEASE delete your posts with the C-word in them??
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 19, 2018 19:37:41 GMT -5
Could you guys PLEASE delete your posts with the C-word in them?? Good thing I don't have to because I cleverly adopted the British word that the British guy used for the same thing, making it instantly benign and darn cute. There's so much for us uncultured Americans to learn from our overseas friends.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 19, 2018 19:45:42 GMT -5
If someone took my child, no matter the reason, even if I did commit a misdemeanor like jaywalk, litter, smoke in a bathroom or cross a border, I would do anything - anything - to get my child back. If that failed, I would seek retribution. And the lives of those responsible, whether directly or indirectly, would be prizes to be taken. In other words, I’d get biblical. I can’t say what I’d do if a government purposely made an orphan of me. I just can’t get myself into that mindset. But I think retribution would again be a fairly common response. What would you do if noone took them like 5/6s of those kids and you simply pointed them toward the US and told them to get lost in that direction? What would you get biblical about then?
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 19, 2018 20:01:14 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TwatA word we said in junior school as a (not very) creative spin on "twit". (Added - Words have inescapable associations with the class of those that use them here. "Twit" is a useful word but at a fairly young age it becomes apparent that it is usually uttered by P G Wodehouse characters and posh people. So then, not being either of those, you say "twat" instead. You and your friends say it because it is a slightly more robust and less posh version of "twit"). If I were to erase a C-word it might be "crypto". Edit - I'll substitute shit-gibbon if that is preferable.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 19, 2018 20:04:16 GMT -5
"Like I do to my Mexican brother-in-law, my half-Mexican nieces, my quarter-Mexican great niece and great nephews, my El Salvadoran son-in-law, and my half-El Salvadoran granddaughter. It is becoming pretty common. I also have Chinese and Russian adoptees among my family."
A friend in Texas told me that what stopped anti-Mexican slurs in Texas was that there were so many mixed marriages, and so many mixed-race grandkids.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jun 19, 2018 22:35:30 GMT -5
"Like I do to my Mexican brother-in-law, my half-Mexican nieces, my quarter-Mexican great niece and great nephews, my El Salvadoran son-in-law, and my half-El Salvadoran granddaughter. It is becoming pretty common. I also have Chinese and Russian adoptees among my family." A friend in Texas told me that what stopped anti-Mexican slurs in Texas was that there were so many mixed marriages, and so many mixed-race grandkids. I think it also helps that all Texans are aware of the contribution of ethnic Mexicans to Texas freedom, including that of Juan Seguin, one of the signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 19, 2018 22:41:30 GMT -5
I deleted the word "Coke" from my post. No problemo, it didn't really add much anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jun 20, 2018 0:19:20 GMT -5
There is a fundraiser on Facebook started by a Silicon Valley couple to try to raise $1500.00 for legal support for the families separated by Trumps policy. It's sitting at over Five million and climbing. A stunning rebuke of the current policy.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 20, 2018 1:06:18 GMT -5
So this isn't the today thread, but, after about three weeks here, keeping up with the news (or arguing one side or the other) has kind of faded into the background. My two partners in crime are Bill and Patti. We cruised around a little today, got a little sun, so a couple shots. That's some kind of big mulberry-like fruit I'm holding in the first one (noni, good for its dye), in the second the cap'n cook monument is that tiny little vertical almost invisible white thing off in the distance. I'll try to get over there at some point (kayak, tho there's a hiking trail down the ridge). One guy down the hill (on the property), Al, is 75, has a D-35 (early 70s) that apparently has been stepped on, but it seems to play fine, and I had kind of forgotten what a martin sounded like. Bill and I have been down a few times for tunes, beers, and so on. He brings in papaya and mango in the morning, there's a big thing of bananas hanging just out front of the house that we pull a dozen off every morning, sometimes some other things.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jun 20, 2018 8:16:58 GMT -5
This will probably not go over well with some here but here goes anyway. Isn't one of the basic causes of immigration problem worldwide (and not just at our southern border) is that the birth rate of the "have-nots" is way higher than that of the "haves"?
Am I wrong in thinking that the a large portion of the most desperate immigrants are usually practicing members of conservative religions that eschew birth control?
IMHO, this will need to change and people will need to stop having more children than they can provide for. (Here is where I might piss off friends) I don't think the Pope has the moral authority to preach to me about "the poor" when his church teaches them that it is a "sin" to use birth control that works. I don't want to hear it from him. If he wants to help the poor, pass out birth control pills after every sermon and preach that it is a sin to bring children into abject poverty.
I can't imagine the hardship and suffering that would drive a parent to put their child on top of a train in Central America to head north on a 3,000 mile journey. It's awful and terrible and heartbreaking but if we don't address the root problem, it will never be solved. Arguing about a fence or a policy is not addressing the root cause.
If too-high birth rates in poor countries is not one of the root causes, where am I missing it?
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jun 20, 2018 8:54:25 GMT -5
I don't think the Pope has the moral authority to preach to me about "the poor" when his church teaches them that it is a "sin" to use birth control that works. I think it was one of Nixon's cabinet who had to resign when he told the joke about the Pope and birth control. "He no playa da game, he no makea da rules."
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 20, 2018 8:58:48 GMT -5
This will probably not go over well with some here but here goes anyway. Isn't one of the basic causes of immigration problem worldwide (and not just at our southern border) is that the birth rate of the "have-nots" is way higher than that of the "haves"? Am I wrong in thinking that the a large portion of the most desperate immigrants are usually practicing members of conservative religions that eschew birth control? IMHO, this will need to change and people will need to stop having more children than they can provide for. (Here is where I might piss off friends) I don't think the Pope has the moral authority to preach to me about "the poor" when his church teaches them that it is a "sin" to use birth control that works. I don't want to hear it from him. If he wants to help the poor, pass out birth control pills after every sermon and preach that it is a sin to bring children into abject poverty. I can't imagine the hardship and suffering that would drive a parent to put their child on top of a train in Central America to head north on a 3,000 mile journey. It's awful and terrible and heartbreaking but if we don't address the root problem, it will never be solved. Arguing about a fence or a policy is not addressing the root cause. If too-high birth rates in poor countries is not one of the root causes, where am I missing it? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your suggestion. Providing free access to birth control worldwide would be a good thing, IMO, and could be supported by people here on both sides of the aisle. But over population is just another symptom. Impoverished parents can’t really afford just one or two children any more than they can afford five or ten children. If you want to tackle the root cause, you need to take on poverty. Immigration, or if you like, illegal immigration, is going to continue to be a worldwide issue as long as we have third world countries and affluent countries who want to maintain their perch at the top of the hill. Focusing on birth control could be seen as a way to further our own interests, and might be politicized. With fewer or no children to send to us, we have no problems with a pesky media showing horrific scenes of children who have been forcibly taken from their parents, or children who have made the journey all on their own only to wind up in a cage. I’d still support free access to birth control for all. It’s better than infanticide, sacrificing the newborn for the sake of the rest of the family, something that used to happen here in the US a hundred years ago before the laws were changed to allow doctors and the media to discuss birth control, and selling condoms finally became legal. And it’s better than sending your kid on a journey all alone, a seemingly humane gesture, to an inhumane country.
|
|