Nicker on 4/7/2019 at 05:55
Quote:
Right. Never happened. Just made up:
Naw, Tony. You don't get to start a new beef with me until you apologise for your last shit show. Why should anyone waste my time trying to find a few pearls in the buckets of pig shit you serve up here? It's not even 50/50 with you.
Starker on 4/7/2019 at 17:57
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
And you were accusing ME of being too gullible?
Her being right is a coin-toss according to the (arguably left-biased) Politi-fact.
(
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/)
Can you find me corroboration elsewhere and a summary of what's happening from someone who isn't a scripted partisan hack?
Do you still not understand that Rachel Maddow is not a journalist? She comments on the news, she doesn't make them.
And you are gullible. Extremely so. If there's a half-baked conspiracy theory, you jump on it wholesale, if there's some right-wing media spin that portrays the left in a bad light, you swallow it unquestioningly, but a respected prize-winning journalist says something that goes against your narrative, well, then the media is suddenly untrustworthy.
Also, if you can't figure out how to learn about a story like this, the help you need goes far beyond what I can give. I'm done spoonfeeding you. I don't post here for your convenience.
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
A much better alternative would be to shut down border enforcement entirely obviously, and just let them wander the desert until they find work on a Koch brothers farm.
I'm kind of flabbergasted by the way this is being handled. The government first spent months denying that there was no migrant crisis (claiming that idea was just a right wing conspiracy theory), now they refused to allocate any funding to fix the situation and their proposed solution (by Elizabeth Warren) is to just shut down border enforcement entirely.
I don't see any possible course of events following implementation of that policy that would lead to a good outcome. Most likely the result is to create an underclass living in absolute squalor, working in poverty in perpetuity.
This crisis is manufactured by the current administration. They are unnecessarily separating children to enact their zero tolerance maximum cruelty policy as a deterrent and they are keeping adults in detention who don't need to be there. And it has not been working. Rather the opposite, the coyotes are now saying that Lord Dampnut is going to close down the border and this is the last chance to ever get to the US.
Also, child abuse and human rights violations are not a matter of funding. You don't need to treat asylum seekers like criminals to hear their cases. Hell,
convicted criminals get better treatment. Hell, criminals give their
captives better treatment:
Quote:
(
https://thehill.com/latino/450076-former-somali-pirate-taliban-captives-slam-reported-immigration-conditions)
Former captives of the Taliban and Somali pirates are taking to Twitter to favorably compare their treatment to that of migrants in U.S. custody.
Reacting Sunday to a now-viral clip of Justice Department lawyer Sarah Fabian suggesting toothpaste and soap were not necessary for migrant children held in detention centers, journalist Michael Scott Moore responded “Somali pirates gave me toothpaste and soap.”
Somali pirates gave me toothpaste & soap. (
https://t.co/K8zCP3IVMm)
— Michael Scott Moore (@MichaelSctMoore) June 22, 2019
Moore was abducted by pirates in 2012 and held for more than two years before American and German diplomats paid nearly $2 million to secure his release.
David Rohde, online news director for The New Yorker, also responded Monday:
The Taliban gave me toothpaste & soap.
— David Rohde (@RohdeD) June 24, 2019
Rohde was kidnapped by Taliban members in November 2008 outside Kabul and held for eight months before escaping with his interpreter, Tahir Ludin, in July 2009.
The clip of Fabian sparked widespread outrage over the weekend amid other reports of unsanitary, overcrowded and dangerous conditions in facilities where migrant children are being detained, including a report that four toddlers were sent to the hospital last week after being held at a detention facility.
Nicker on 5/7/2019 at 15:52
Stupid stupid stupid man.
Renzatic on 5/7/2019 at 19:16
There were airports back in the revolutionary days, Dia. It's where the carrier pigeons flew out from.
Nicker on 5/7/2019 at 19:39
I stand corrected.
SD on 5/7/2019 at 19:53
If his supporters were capable of feeling an ounce of shame, they should be embarrassed to have put this mountebank in the White House.
demagogue on 6/7/2019 at 03:51
That's a key feature of this whole populist uprising, or of populism generally.
When anyone invokes the language of shame, they take it as an attack by an arrogant elite & double down on it.
In Japan they have this idea of "dame bunka" or "broken culture", broken in a sense like "I'm a guy that can't keep a job or girlfriend, I'm fundamentally broken, so I'll start collecting 100s of figurines of monster-raped young schoolgirls", the more shocking the better, and they start doubling down on gestures that play up how fundamentally broken they are. That's maybe a similar thing I see with whatever we're calling this movement in the US now. (Aside: nobody is connecting them to the Tea Party anymore because it's gone so mainstream. Trumpers or Trumpistas maybe.)
It's like they're pro-actively looking for gestures they know will disgust the arrogant liberal elite and reveling in it. They're poor whites that have suffered enough; they're not going to apologize anymore; and they not only feed off of the disgusted looks thrown their way, they'll go out of their way to trigger them in a weird self-frenzy cycle. Or I guess. I don't know. If I were still in my political science days I'd try to be thinking more formally about statistical ways to draw out the features, psychology, and driving motivations of this demographic.
Edit: My undergrad thesis was a statistical profile of Ross Perot voters in 1992, which was a kind of failed populist uprising. Looking back I'm really interested in how that was a prototype for what we have now. In 1992 it was very much a value signalling gesture, and frustration and disgust were driving motivations. Be interesting to compare and contrast the two cases. I mean they're not unrelated. Perot formed the Reform Party in 1992, and Trump ran as its candidate in 2000.
Tocky on 6/7/2019 at 05:33
LOL. I voted for Perot. I didn't care for any candidate and knew he wouldn't win but I wanted the one who won to understand that getting the deficit down was important after Reagan had run it up giving tax breaks to the rich. Not sure how I would have fit in your stats. Perot was a hypocrite who had manipulated government land programs to make himself a millionaire and I understood that though. I never expected Clinton to balance the budget but he surprised me. Since those days I've given up on any honest attempt at deficit reduction and come to accept that the system is based on unicorn farts after all.
demagogue on 6/7/2019 at 06:04
I supported Perot for a bit in 1996, but because I thought he was more centrist than Republicans, which I already thought were leaning too rightwards even then. After I started researching him & politics generally though, I think he would have had a lot of foibles like Trump & would have also been pretty bad, though not as bad as now.
1992 was definitely different from 2016. Perot didn't have the identity politics edge, radicalizing an us-vs-them mentality.
He was an "outsider" and did have the protectionism & "little guy" populist appeal. His main schtick was anti-Nafta.
Your little blurb is completely consistent with what I found in that thesis. Almost none thought he would win and felt they were sending a signal, and they were very disaffected against the other two candidates. He was for people that felt "it's the economy stupid", pragmatic, Bush is out of touch, but they didn't trust Clinton, or they thought a businessman could do better than a politician, somebody outside the game. I haven't researched enough to say what Trump voters are really like. I know the narrative a lot of articles are pressing, but it's different when you really get down to the level of demographics and districts and opinion polls.