The Political Thread - Hobbes Edition

[smjjames]

 

"There ARE neo-nazis in Canada too, don't think your country as being exempt from that contagion."

 

Absolutely. And, I'm wagering 99% of neo-nazis in Kanada have links to Europe. Just sayin'. :wink:

I was about to share with  you a real idea I heard from  a NGO in the USA about how the immigrants could be moved legally to Canada as Trudeau has some adviser who literally says Canada will take but then I realized its  a terrible idea as its only a short term solution 

 

The moment these immigrants would be settled in some Canadian icy mountain hellhole it would set a precedent that this type of illegal immigration works and another caravan would be deployed and we  would have the same issue but worse as now there is a sense of a objective which just makes people more driven to get to the USA

'

So they need to be stopped at the Mexican border and an alternative camp found in Mexico or another Central American country, surly there  must be some island they could use if you see the map below ?

 

 https://www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/147469-central-america-map-vector

 

 

How about Ellis Island?

 

More seriously though, who would be using the island? Would the US be managing the camps on the islands (as Australia does Nauru) or would Belize or Honduras be using their own islands? It's possible Guatemala and El Salvador have smaller islands not visible on that map.

 

Also, the EU tried the same proposal with camps or centers on other countries territories and the North African countries involved flat out said no (the article I read didn't give specifics). So, if the countries say no, then that option is out unless you want to militarily force them or something.

 

Australia was only able to do the camps on Nauru because that tiny island country is heavily dependent on Australia. I'm sure you and US politicians would like to think of Mexico and the Central American countries as vassal states, but we don't have anywhere near the kind of leverage Australia has over Nauru.

 

If Trump didn't demean and trashtalk immigrants, maybe those countries might be willing to cooperate.

Edited November 2, 2018 by smjjames

[BruceVC]

 

 

"There ARE neo-nazis in Canada too, don't think your country as being exempt from that contagion."

 

Absolutely. And, I'm wagering 99% of neo-nazis in Kanada have links to Europe. Just sayin'. :wink:

I was about to share with  you a real idea I heard from  a NGO in the USA about how the immigrants could be moved legally to Canada as Trudeau has some adviser who literally says Canada will take but then I realized its  a terrible idea as its only a short term solution 

 

The moment these immigrants would be settled in some Canadian icy mountain hellhole it would set a precedent that this type of illegal immigration works and another caravan would be deployed and we  would have the same issue but worse as now there is a sense of a objective which just makes people more driven to get to the USA

'

So they need to be stopped at the Mexican border and an alternative camp found in Mexico or another Central American country, surly there  must be some island they could use if you see the map below ?

 

 https://www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/147469-central-america-map-vector

 

 

How about Ellis Island?

 

More seriously though, who would be using the island? Would the US be managing the camps on the islands (as Australia does Nauru) or would Belize or Honduras be using their own islands? It's possible Guatemala and El Salvador have smaller islands not visible on that map.

 

Also, the EU tried the same proposal with camps or centers on other countries territories and the North African countries involved flat out said no (the article I read didn't give specifics). So, if the countries say no, then that option is out unless you want to militarily force them or something.

 

Australia was only able to do the camps on Nauru because that tiny island country is heavily dependent on Australia. I'm sure you and US politicians would like to think of Mexico and the Central American countries as vassal states, but we don't have anywhere near the kind of leverage Australia has over Nauru.

 

If Trump didn't demean and trashtalk immigrants, maybe those countries might be willing to cooperate.

 

 

 

This post made me laugh, its very factual but also you make certain points that made me then imagine they could be implemented but I was hoping no one on this forum had heard of  Nauru ....we should send the immigrants there     Have you seen the conditions people have lived on these Australian refugee islands. I shouldn't laugh but I have a very strange sense of humor and all I can imagine is the caravan arriving on the island after being on ships for weeks and all the people seeing there new " home " 

 

Here is a more sanitized view of Nauru 

 

https://borgenproject.org/nauru-refugees/

[injurai]

 

It and variations are said expressively to mean he is degrading aspects of America. People often talk about how he (along with the GOP and Trump's constituency) are subverting American democracy and rolling back progress that finally extended the constitutional rights to minorities and women. With Trump displaying little awareness nor acknowledgement of the worst of his fans, nor of the fears of real American citizens who have concerns and needs. I think people are absolutely right that Trump's messaging and style leverage certain sentiments is dangerous and is adding more damage to an already strained partisan divide. It's clear Trump just wants to win and will work with whatever demographic of America that he feels he can win alongside, with the externalities of his own actions (emboldening populism, nationalism, and ethno-centrism as examples) being less than an afterthought,

This is a very interesting and revealing post which I am not sure you may be aware of, I have heard this before but not on any forums. I just need to clarify something

 

Do you share this worry and other members like Shady are you guys worried about this as well? I just need to know what about Trump concerns people the most so I can confirm I have the right information which should ameliorate most real fears or sense of anxiety

 

After Trump won I stopped frequenting most of the SJ forums I use to visit, I didnt do this because I stopped believing in SJ or human rights or suddenly I felt the world  was a dark place ...no Trump is just a man and he isnt evil but rather capricious, impulsive, strategic , patriotic and committed to his delivery of his promises he made to his base. I left the internet SJ world because I realized parts of it had become corrupted and many of us had been manipulated.  I have learnt much about Trump since then which I will share with you a little later as I have work to do. Oh and my impending post should be seen as positive but please let me know what is bothering anyone about Trump?

 

 

This is one of the most peculiarly worded inquiries I have ever received. So my post is revealing but you don't say why, and I you're not sure if I'm aware of what it reveals, but you don't ask me right out? Also that my post mirrors something you've heard before but specifically not on forums, but you proceed to wax about "SJ" forums and why you fell out of touch with them? Obviously progressive liberal ideals differ from radical revolutionaries beliefs both on tenets, just-processes, and while failings of a forum's microcosms are relevant to the times, it is a bit of a tangential acknowledgement while acknowledging and pinpointing the issues with Trump and the movements around him. Then you've also learned something about Trump and when you get around to sharing it your priming us to see it as a positive? Priming, is in general odd.

 

Look, I'm happy to be self-aware and meta so you can just ask me straight out if you think you are reading into something from my post. It's just strange how coy your inquiry is. Why are you trying to confirm you have the right information? What is that information? It's like you're playing poker with how you keep referencing your cards, but not putting them on the table. To your one somewhat direct question, 'm surprised you don't already know from the last 2 years at least some legitimate existing concerns over Trump that leave people bothered. I see that you have work, so I'll just wait for you flesh out this vexing post of yours before I try to predict what it is that you're asking. (I need to sleep, then I work as well, so you have quite a bit of time to clarify.)

[BruceVC]

 

 

It and variations are said expressively to mean he is degrading aspects of America. People often talk about how he (along with the GOP and Trump's constituency) are subverting American democracy and rolling back progress that finally extended the constitutional rights to minorities and women. With Trump displaying little awareness nor acknowledgement of the worst of his fans, nor of the fears of real American citizens who have concerns and needs. I think people are absolutely right that Trump's messaging and style leverage certain sentiments is dangerous and is adding more damage to an already strained partisan divide. It's clear Trump just wants to win and will work with whatever demographic of America that he feels he can win alongside, with the externalities of his own actions (emboldening populism, nationalism, and ethno-centrism as examples) being less than an afterthought,

This is a very interesting and revealing post which I am not sure you may be aware of, I have heard this before but not on any forums. I just need to clarify something

 

Do you share this worry and other members like Shady are you guys worried about this as well? I just need to know what about Trump concerns people the most so I can confirm I have the right information which should ameliorate most real fears or sense of anxiety

 

After Trump won I stopped frequenting most of the SJ forums I use to visit, I didnt do this because I stopped believing in SJ or human rights or suddenly I felt the world  was a dark place ...no Trump is just a man and he isnt evil but rather capricious, impulsive, strategic , patriotic and committed to his delivery of his promises he made to his base. I left the internet SJ world because I realized parts of it had become corrupted and many of us had been manipulated.  I have learnt much about Trump since then which I will share with you a little later as I have work to do. Oh and my impending post should be seen as positive but please let me know what is bothering anyone about Trump?

 

 

This is one of the most peculiarly worded inquiries I have ever received. So my post is revealing but you don't say why, and I you're not sure if I'm aware of what it reveals, but you don't ask me right out? Also that my post mirrors something you've heard before but specifically not on forums, but you proceed to wax about "SJ" forums and why you fell out of touch with them? Obviously progressive liberal ideals differ from radical revolutionaries beliefs both on tenets, just-processes, and while failings of a forum's microcosms are relevant to the times, it is a bit of a tangential acknowledgement while acknowledging and pinpointing the issues with Trump and the movements around him. Then you've also learned something about Trump and when you get around to sharing it your priming us to see it as a positive? Priming, is in general odd.

 

Look, I'm happy to be self-aware and meta so you can just ask me straight out if you think you are reading into something from my post. It's just strange how coy your inquiry is. Why are you trying to confirm you have the right information? What is that information? It's like you're playing poker with how you keep referencing your cards, but not putting them on the table. To your one somewhat direct question, 'm surprised you don't already know from the last 2 years at least some legitimate existing concerns over Trump that leave people bothered. I see that you have work, so I'll just wait for you flesh out this vexing post of yours before I try to predict what it is that you're asking. (I need to sleep, then I work as well, so you have quite a bit of time to clarify.)

 

Sorry I wasn't  clear, I am glad you made this post as I can see the confusion. I am busy for 2 hours but then I will explain in more detail but just to summarize 

 

For example if you said " Trump is racist  " I can give you examples of African Americans who are his friends. Also I am very well aware of the anxiety and anger Trump causes in many countries like SA but what he says doesn't bother me so thats what I meant by " what concerns "

 

Finally  you may already know what I know which I why I wanted to know " what concerns you about Trump ", lets say you think " Trump is going to invade Mexico" I cant help with that as I have no information to dispute or support that view 

 

I hope this makes sense ?

[Guard Dog]

So... let me get this straight... people in the migrant caravan are suing Donald Trump over an EO he hasn't even issued yet. The folks are dead broke and walking somewhere in southern Mexico and CNN this morning tells us with a completely straight face that some members of this gaggle have retained counsel in Washington DC and are bringing an action against the President of the United States? Puh-leeez, You know I shake my head at the whole "The Media is the enemy of the people" and "Fake News" shtick. It's all a bunch or crap. But "the media" (as if it were a monolithic entity) needs no help in undermining it's own credibility. 

 

The USA in 2018 is a cynic's paradise. Trust nothing, believe nothing, count on nothing, defend nothing. Religion, patriotism, truth, political leadership, moral leadership, all of it is contaminated and stripped of whatever virtue they once had. It's the nihilists dream. Small wonder I've washed my hands of the whole thing.

[Amentep]

So... let me get this straight... people in the migrant caravan are suing Donald Trump over an EO he hasn't even issued yet. The folks are dead broke and walking somewhere in southern Mexico and CNN this morning tells us with a completely straight face that some members of this gaggle have retained counsel in Washington DC and are bringing an action against the President of the United States? Puh-leeez, You know I shake my head at the whole "The Media is the enemy of the people" and "Fake News" shtick. It's all a bunch or crap. But "the media" (as if it were a monolithic entity) needs no help in undermining it's own credibility. 

 

The USA in 2018 is a cynic's paradise. Trust nothing, believe nothing, count on nothing, defend nothing. Religion, patriotism, truth, political leadership, moral leadership, all of it is contaminated and stripped of whatever virtue they once had. It's the nihilists dream. Small wonder I've washed my hands of the whole thing.

 

Its not just been reported by CNN, but by Fox, National Review, Washington Examiner, etc. as well.  And electronic documents on the filing are in some of the news reports, like the Fox news web report. 

 

People file legal claims all the time, even spurious ones with no basis, or with the intent of drawing attention to a cause. I believe one of the law firms is a human rights focused law firm, all the lawyers would need would need though is to find individuals in the group willing to be the plaintiffs in the suit, and make it class action so others can be added to it.

 

So I'm a little confused here as how the media has undermined its own credibility by reporting on what appears to be a true news story...?

[Gfted1]

A biased website and all but despicable if true: Beto Campaign Appears to Illegally Spend Funds on Supplies for Caravan Aliens.

[Guard Dog]

 

So... let me get this straight... people in the migrant caravan are suing Donald Trump over an EO he hasn't even issued yet. The folks are dead broke and walking somewhere in southern Mexico and CNN this morning tells us with a completely straight face that some members of this gaggle have retained counsel in Washington DC and are bringing an action against the President of the United States? Puh-leeez, You know I shake my head at the whole "The Media is the enemy of the people" and "Fake News" shtick. It's all a bunch or crap. But "the media" (as if it were a monolithic entity) needs no help in undermining it's own credibility. 

 

The USA in 2018 is a cynic's paradise. Trust nothing, believe nothing, count on nothing, defend nothing. Religion, patriotism, truth, political leadership, moral leadership, all of it is contaminated and stripped of whatever virtue they once had. It's the nihilists dream. Small wonder I've washed my hands of the whole thing.

 

Its not just been reported by CNN, but by Fox, National Review, Washington Examiner, etc. as well.  And electronic documents on the filing are in some of the news reports, like the Fox news web report. 

 

People file legal claims all the time, even spurious ones with no basis, or with the intent of drawing attention to a cause. I believe one of the law firms is a human rights focused law firm, all the lawyers would need would need though is to find individuals in the group willing to be the plaintiffs in the suit, and make it class action so others can be added to it.

 

So I'm a little confused here as how the media has undermined its own credibility by reporting on what appears to be a true news story...?

 

They are presenting is as being initiated by the people in the caravan, not on their behalf by an advocate. You and i both know who is doing this and why but the story CNN was selling on TV this morning is that the migrants themselves hired the lawyers and initiated the claim. The fact that a suit is being brought is not what is false. It's the packaging. 

 

When people start foaming at the mouth about "fake news" they are usually referring to the opinion pieces and commentary shows. The EJ Dionne, Paul Krugman, Pat Buchannan, Sean Hannity, Maddow, etc types. They exist just to stir s--t up and are under no obligation to be truthful or even logical. But if CNN, the Washington Post (I read this everyday), USA Today (ditto) or even Fox present a thing as being so in the context of it being news you can believe it is so. But even with that they can make a narrative by presenting facts in a certain light. For example if a law firm is acting pro-bono on behalf of a person or organization they are still that entities legal counsel and can be said to be "retained" by them. So rather than CNN saying "Advocacy groups for" they say the "legal counsel of" all still true but it leaves a very different impression on the viewer. It's all in the packaging. 

 

You see what i'm getting at here?

[smjjames]

 

 

So... let me get this straight... people in the migrant caravan are suing Donald Trump over an EO he hasn't even issued yet. The folks are dead broke and walking somewhere in southern Mexico and CNN this morning tells us with a completely straight face that some members of this gaggle have retained counsel in Washington DC and are bringing an action against the President of the United States? Puh-leeez, You know I shake my head at the whole "The Media is the enemy of the people" and "Fake News" shtick. It's all a bunch or crap. But "the media" (as if it were a monolithic entity) needs no help in undermining it's own credibility. 

 

The USA in 2018 is a cynic's paradise. Trust nothing, believe nothing, count on nothing, defend nothing. Religion, patriotism, truth, political leadership, moral leadership, all of it is contaminated and stripped of whatever virtue they once had. It's the nihilists dream. Small wonder I've washed my hands of the whole thing.

 

Its not just been reported by CNN, but by Fox, National Review, Washington Examiner, etc. as well.  And electronic documents on the filing are in some of the news reports, like the Fox news web report. 

 

People file legal claims all the time, even spurious ones with no basis, or with the intent of drawing attention to a cause. I believe one of the law firms is a human rights focused law firm, all the lawyers would need would need though is to find individuals in the group willing to be the plaintiffs in the suit, and make it class action so others can be added to it.

 

So I'm a little confused here as how the media has undermined its own credibility by reporting on what appears to be a true news story...?

 

They are presenting is as being initiated by the people in the caravan, not on their behalf by an advocate. You and i both know who is doing this and why but the story CNN was selling on TV this morning is that the migrants themselves hired the lawyers and initiated the claim. The fact that a suit is being brought is not what is false. It's the packaging. 

 

When people start foaming at the mouth about "fake news" they are usually referring to the opinion pieces and commentary shows. The EJ Dionne, Paul Krugman, Pat Buchannan, Sean Hannity, Maddow, etc types. They exist just to stir s--t up and are under no obligation to be truthful or even logical. But if CNN, the Washington Post (I read this everyday), USA Today (ditto) or even Fox present a thing as being so in the context of it being news you can believe it is so. But even with that they can make a narrative by presenting facts in a certain light. For example if a law firm is acting pro-bono on behalf of a person or organization they are still that entities legal counsel and can be said to be "retained" by them. So rather than CNN saying "Advocacy groups for" they say the "legal counsel of" all still true but it leaves a very different impression on the viewer. It's all in the packaging. 

 

You see what i'm getting at here?

 

 

Then complain about the packaging, not the fact the lawsuit is happening. Though I get what you're saying, in this one: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/honduran-migrants-sue-trump-administration-over-proposed-border-policies-n930321 (linked off of another forum), the title says the migrants are doing it, then in the second paragraph implies that advocates are doing it on behalf of the migrants.

 

Though my reaction to your post was 'they can?' since they aren't even in the US yet.

[Guard Dog]

I thought my post was pretty clear in that I was criticizing CNN for presenting the story in a dishonest  way. rather than commenting on the facts of it. I was calling out the wrapper not the candy. Was that really so hard to discern?

 

As far as "can they" of course they can. It's long settled that non citizens can sue the US or citizens of the US in US court if they have standing to do so. But so imply a band of folks in foot in nowhere Mexico with no money, knowledge of the US or influence anywhere hired a Washington law firm to sure the US Government (which is exactly the narrative some outlets are presenting) is obviously absurd. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Pidesco]

A biased website and all but despicable if true: Beto Campaign Appears to Illegally Spend Funds on Supplies for Caravan Aliens.

Lying, dishonest site would be more accurate.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If half the attacks on Beto were true that'd actually make me want to vote for him. Alas instead of an extremist outlaw who'd destroy the US he's just a bougie liberal.

[Gfted1]

Lying, dishonest site would be more accurate.

Are they? Im sincerely asking. Are the transcripts / recordings fabricated or otherwise misrepresented?

[ShadySands]

They have been caught doing some deceptive editing in the past but here it seems more or less true though...

 

 

"Staff members took it upon themselves to use prepaid cards from one of our more than 700 field offices to buy baby wipes, diapers, water, fruit and granola bars, and donate them to a local humanitarian nonprofit (Annunciation House) that helps mothers and children in the community," O'Rourke spokesman Chris Evans said in a statement. "The value was under $300 and it will be appropriately reported to the FEC."

 

It is not unusual for campaigns to make donations to groups like Annunciation House. Campaigns are allowed to give to charity "as long as the candidate does not receive compensation from the charitable organization before it has expended the entire amount donated," according to the FEC website.

 

In the video, a campaign staffer is shown expressing an awareness that what they are doing is improper, or at least could be perceived as improper. One talks of how he can “ignore the rules” and raises the prospect of a “$50,000 fine” if caught.

 

While the remarks are unflattering to the campaign, they do not break the law unless the donations are wrongly reported to the FEC, according to one campaign finance expert.

 

"The law requires accurate and correct reporting of disbursement of campaign funds,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at the government watchdog group Common Cause. "If that happens, there is no civil or criminal violations of the law. If the campaign were to incorrectly report these funds, then the tape … would be evidence that the violation was knowing and willful."

Link

 

PS not that I expect it will matter to most people. They will either be frothing at the mouth or unconcerned depending on which way they were already leaning

Edited November 2, 2018 by ShadySands

[Malcador]

A biased website and all but despicable if true: Beto Campaign Appears to Illegally Spend Funds on Supplies for Caravan Aliens.

 

That's what you find despicable ? Hm.

[Malcador]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/oct/26/rep-matt-shea-takes-credit-criticism-for-document-/

 

 

7. 5  Facts  of  War:
a. War  is  a  fact  of  life.
b. God  is  with  us  and  the  battle  is  His.
c. Numbers  are  inconsequential.
d. Armaments  are  inconsequential.
e. Isaiah  57:1  –  Why  Righteous  Men  are  Killed…

 

Sounds reasonable.

[213374U]

6. Things for a Holy Army

a. Sacrifice/Worship/Prayer;

b. Circumcision/Saved; (???)

c. Vow (consecration to the Lord);

d. Trumpets/Ark;

e. Atonement/Money; and

f. Praise to Kek God Before/During/After.

 

#justholyarmythings

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

6. Things for a Holy Army

a. Sacrifice/Worship/Prayer;

b. Circumcision/Saved; (???)

c. Vow (consecration to the Lord);

d. Trumpets/Ark;

e. Atonement/Money; and

f. Praise to Kek God Before/During/After.

 

 

#justholyarmythings

**** chop for Christ.

[HoonDing]

 

a holy warrior

[injurai]

My lord, do I ever hate theocrats.

[smjjames]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/oct/26/rep-matt-shea-takes-credit-criticism-for-document-/

 

 

7. 5  Facts  of  War:

a. War  is  a  fact  of  life.

b. God  is  with  us  and  the  battle  is  His.

c. Numbers  are  inconsequential.

d. Armaments  are  inconsequential.

e. Isaiah  57:1  –  Why  Righteous  Men  are  Killed…

 

Sounds reasonable.

 

Bet he would have made a great Spartan soldier, or maybe a Berserker.

[Guard Dog]

Let's see... police, military, Border Patrol, and now militia all bumping elbows on the border. Now considering most of it is private property add armed landowners and ranchers irritated by all the fuss to the mix. What could possibly go wrong?   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-militia-groups-head-to-border-stirred-by-trump%E2%80%99s-call-to-arms/ar-BBPiGxA

 

This is why you don't cry wolf when the actual wolf (if you could even call it that) is the entire length of Mexico away and on foot. 

[Malcador]

These militia types always strike me as guys who are badass against unarmed people. So like cops in that way

[smjjames]

Let's see... police, military, Border Patrol, and now militia all bumping elbows on the border. Now considering most of it is private property add armed landowners and ranchers irritated by all the fuss to the mix. What could possibly go wrong?   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-militia-groups-head-to-border-stirred-by-trump%E2%80%99s-call-to-arms/ar-BBPiGxA

 

This is why you don't cry wolf when the actual wolf (if you could even call it that) is the entire length of Mexico away and on foot. 

 

Even the military is concerned about those. Though they seem more concerned about possible theft and the militias just plain getting in the way atm than of violence.

 

The article also said that theres at least two groups from Canada (according to the person saying that anyway), don't they have their own Canadian border to defend? heh. I just find it mildly amusing that Canadian militia are going to the US-Mexico border.

[injurai]

Anyone catch the Munk debate between Frum and Bannon? Note the closing poll is wrong, and the numbers actually didn't change. I found the whole thing very unsatisfying, it wasn't quite a conversation and it wasn't quite a debate. At some point Frum seems to become visibly rattled, and I can only speculate as to why. It's clear that the room is with Frum, but Frum seems to pickup on an impasse related to Bannon's facade. Bannon has this quality of confidence, where he carefully only defends a few "improved flavors" of populism, while bunting away responsibilities on his movements messaging and signalling. Frum can't really call Bannon out on being insincere, and is stuck mostly doing a lot of leg work to re-establish reality and the landscape of perceptions, where as Bannon show's little effort or desire to want the nation's solutions to come from a process intellectual inquiry. I think this is what rattles Frum, where Bannon treats the populist shift as almost a political pilgrimage to unknown territory. Yet in unknown territory we don't even know where we'll need to start fixing things. Yet it's also clear that the people allied in Bannon's movement do have a clear destination and it's not at all aligned with the little man. For every person in the room with Frum, there is at least another half-person at home more compelled by the obscured trajectory that Bannon promotes. So much more is at stake for Frum, and he's just extended credence to Bannon for being unable to step out on a limb and accuse Bannon of dishonesty.