General politics

[ewen21]

I heard several times over that people are fleeing Central America due to the problems WE created for them.   I need to ask whether or not Americans are responsible for the violent crimes in these countries:

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/21/5636412/countries-most-homicides-deadliest-murder-rates

 

According to the link above Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador had the highest violent crime rate.  This was after 6 years of Obama being in office.  Is he complicit in this as well?

 

I happen to think we MIGHT want to reflect on where things went wrong, but to say WE created the violent crime epidemic in this countries doesn't fit.  It certainly doesn/t fall on Trump's lap.

[Mr. Brooks]

I never said otherwise, but there is money, which was my only point. Which I didn't make clear?

Sorry, the following made me think that wasn't your only point:

 

"but it is interesting how much they'll give to fix a building, compared to helping people."

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sorry, the following made me think that wasn't your only point:

"but it is interesting how much they'll give to fix a building, compared to helping people."

 

I did say that, but it wasn't really the point.......but sure, I can see how I should have just left that off, but I kept typing, and then left it in there. Oh well, I should really learn to keep things to one point at a time.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Trump is not the reason why there now is a border crisis. The conditions in the countries in question and the crunch of humany at the border, coupled with laws that allow illegals to be detained and released IS the problem. The numbers have become so insane so quickly that it could take YEARS for a released detainee to get a hearing. This is what's making them so bold. They more than willing to take their chances of never being found after they are released (or better yet, slip through the cracks).

 

No, this isn't on Donald Trump.  Trump is the one fixated on trying to quell this mess (or possibly end it). Say what you will about his methods, but I credit him for acknowledging the issue.

 

The problem is not Trump's fault.  But here is where there is fault for Trump: when this problem first started to escalate he tried to use it to get him political points and a wall.  Even though any wall we built would be completely non-impactful to this problem.

 

So while I certainly wouldn't put much of any blame on him for the problem itself, he's done a pretty crappy job responding to the problem in his own right.

[ewen21]

I cannot disagree. Trump's not been effective addressing this problem and his rhetoric has inflamed the issue to the point where it's going to be an even bigger struggle trying ameliorate the situation.

 

The rhetoric from the democrats has been even more ineffective because they have been far too slow to acknowledge the issue. They were too busy trying to characterize Trump as a racist and promote their party as the one of tolerance and inclusion. Whether ii is because of their obsession with being anti-Trump at every turn of if its their need to supply the public with feel good rhetoric, they aren't offering solutions. All we get is we have to bring humanitarian aid to the countries in question. And...these people are human beings!

It's almost as if they are a prop for the democrats to promote their odd agenda.

 

They talk about humanitarian work.

1. What does that even mean? How is it accomplished and what does that entail exactly? At what cost? What kind of time parameters? This is foreign policy and it takes time.

 

2, Why are we talking about that and not addressing the more pressing issue? It's nice to put your head in the sand and reside on a moral high ground, but now that Trump called their bluff on sanctuary cities they are exposed. They can't just sit back, criticize Trump and make that their policy. Apart from attempting to remove Trump from office I cannot see where their focus lies. It's become a culture of whining. Come up with SOMETHING beyond "we need to save these people

 

We need to fix the problem for AMERICANS CITIZENS FIRST. Elected officials are supposed to promote the general welfare for its citizens first. The democrats need to stop posturing with their anti-Trump obsession and the humanitarian aid rhetoric. It doesn't address the current issue at the border.

 

Therein lies the rub. It is why I am extremely frustrated with the democrats. They talk a mean game when it comes to policy by they don't seem to be capable of implementation. If they can intoduce a bill that can change immigration laws and thwart these migrants from manipulating the system then I'd be on board.

 

It comes down to the fact that these countries can gain easy access to us without even becoming citizens. They can (even if it's only for a few years before a percentage of them are deported) live off our system in a somewhat parasitic way. To be able to work without being tax (no matter how meager the pay) and get certian benefits is a drain on our economy.

 

Mexicans are in the same boat we are. We REALLY need to get with them and work on problem. A lot of Mexican people are fed up with this and want their souther borders reinforced and closed

[ewen21]

Barr is stepping up to the mic now.  This should be interesting.

 

The shame of it is I can only watch until about 10:00.  I hope you guys watch

[Mike Sixel]

The party of individual freedom (well, their Senate leader for sure) wants to raise the age to buy tobacco to 21. I'm guessing the other party will have plenty of people joining him.

 

I hate tobacco, but it's legal......so adults should be allowed to buy it if they want. 

[Badsmerf]

The party of individual freedom (well, their Senate leader for sure) wants to raise the age to buy tobacco to 21. I'm guessing the other party will have plenty of people joining him.

 

I hate tobacco, but it's legal......so adults should be allowed to buy it if they want.

Really? That surprises me. Maybe an attempt to keep it out of highschool. While they're at it legalize marijuana.

[Mr. Brooks]

The party of individual freedom (well, their Senate leader for sure) wants to raise the age to buy tobacco to 21. I'm guessing the other party will have plenty of people joining him.

 

I hate tobacco, but it's legal......so adults should be allowed to buy it if they want.

Everyone pays for the health effects of tobacco use though.

And 21 keeps it out of schools, or attempts to at least.

 

When your personal choices start to impact everyone else, it's no longer personal freedom.

We don't allow people the personal freedom to drive drunk, or to enroll unvaccinated children in public schools (though there are loopholes on that one), or any number of other things that affect everyone else.

 

The data proves that the older children get without trying cigarettes, the less likely they are to smoke. Which makes it less likely that the rest of society has to subsidize their health care for the last x years of their life.

[ewen21]

I hear you, Brooks. Yet at the same time people are going to smoke tobacco no matter what. I don't like to concede that but it's too ingrained in the human mind. Smoking is so damn connect to us and has been for centuries. The surgeon general stamp has been around since 1964. That's a few generations with all that information so I don't think prohibiting tobacco is a net positive. More like a net negative as it was with alcohol.

 

This coming from a guy who knows the effects of cigarettes. If we could snap our fingers and make it disappear I would sign for that

[Mr. Brooks]

I hear you, Brooks. Yet at the same time people are going to smoke tobacco no matter what. I don't like to concede that but it's too ingrained in the human mind. Smoking is so damn connect to us and has been for centuries. The surgeon general stamp has been around since 1964. That's a few generations with all that information so I don't think prohibiting tobacco is a net positive. More like a net negative as it was with alcohol.

 

This coming from a guy who knows the effects of cigarettes. If we could snap our fingers and make it disappear I would sign for that

Well smoking rates are going way down.

Part of that reason is targeting youth the same way the tobacco companies do.

If you can help keep them out of the schools, there is a good chance that it will lower it even more.

 

Plus, I was more speaking philosophically to Mike, regarding the personal freedom aspect of it than whether it would actually work or not.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Everyone pays for the health effects of tobacco use though.
And 21 keeps it out of schools, or attempts to at least.

When your personal choices start to impact everyone else, it's no longer personal freedom.
We don't allow people the personal freedom to drive drunk, or to enroll unvaccinated children in public schools (though there are loopholes on that one), or any number of other things that affect everyone else.

The data proves that the older children get without trying cigarettes, the less likely they are to smoke. Which makes it less likely that the rest of society has to subsidize their health care for the last x years of their life.

 

Then make it illegal. I get it, I hate it......but adults should get to make their own choices. 

 

 

I don't expect everyone to agree, but if an action is legal for some adults, it should be legal for all adults. that's a HUGE difference between drunk driving (illegal for everyone), and this.

[Mr. Brooks]

Then make it illegal. I get it, I hate it......but adults should get to make their own choices.

 

 

I don't expect everyone to agree, but if an action is legal for some adults, it should be legal for all adults. that's a HUGE difference between drunk driving (illegal for everyone), and this.

I assume that means you think the drinking age should go back down to 18?

Prohibition doesn't work. Restricting to 21 is a good compromise, IMO, to keep tobacco and alcohol out of school.

 

Like you, I don't expect people to agree with me either. Hopefully just enough to someday pass a law like this.

 

IMO, the best fix we could hope for is that tobacco companies go out of business on their own, no prohibition needed.

Every time you deny them an adolescent starting tobacco, the closer we get to that.

People rarely start smoking after 21.

 

Is 21 any more arbitrary than 18? What specifically are your concerns with 21 year olds having rights that 18 year olds don't have? Is it just because that's the date they are tagged as legal adults? Is it really more disempowering for a 21 year old to have a right that an 18 year old doesn't than it is for an 18 year old to have a right that a 17 year old doesn't? If so, is it only because of that arbitrary "legal adult" application?

 

I could understand if the draft was still being implemented. But as it is now, you pay taxes at 17, you can be sent to prison at 17, etc. So 18 year olds already have rights that 17 year olds don't, even though those same 17 year olds can face the same responsibilities. How is that substantially different than 21/18?

[TheLeviathan]

I'm with Brooks, 21.  Just consider that the age we allow controlled substances to be purchased and the justification is exactly as straightforward as he's said: keep it out of schools.

 

18 isn't a magical age and there are many other things where the age we allow it to happen varies.  That's ok, doesn't have to be one set age for all things IMO.

[PseudoSABR]

Although I think 18 year olds are as a group particularly immature, but yet they can die for their country and also vote.  There's a contradiction in holding them out as adults when it comes to their social obligation and denying them benefits because they are too immature.  

[ewen21]

It really is a shame I got into cigarettes. I swear it started on the golf course in my late 20s. I'm not into cigars (and a couple of friends of mine were) so I just figured bring cigarettes instead. That marked a period in my life of about 15 years and it was born from golfing of all things. I would smoke sporadically, but even a little isn't good. Up until two years ago I smoked a little here and there until one day it just suddenly become disgusting to me.

 

I don't smoke anymore and I don't golf much more (unfortunately)

I think medical marijuana is a good thing since it can help people and create jobs. I'm even OK with recreational use so long as it's done in private and never around children.

[Mike Sixel]

I assume that means you think the drinking age should go back down to 18?

Prohibition doesn't work. Restricting to 21 is a good compromise, IMO, to keep tobacco and alcohol out of school.

Like you, I don't expect people to agree with me either. Hopefully just enough to someday pass a law like this.

IMO, the best fix we could hope for is that tobacco companies go out of business on their own, no prohibition needed.

Every time you deny them an adolescent starting tobacco, the closer we get to that.

People rarely start smoking after 21.

Is 21 any more arbitrary than 18? What specifically are your concerns with 21 year olds having rights that 18 year olds don't have? Is it just because that's the date they are tagged as legal adults? Is it really more disempowering for a 21 year old to have a right that an 18 year old doesn't than it is for an 18 year old to have a right that a 17 year old doesn't? If so, is it only because of that arbitrary "legal adult" application?

I could understand if the draft was still being implemented. But as it is now, you pay taxes at 17, you can be sent to prison at 17, etc. So 18 year olds already have rights that 17 year olds don't, even though those same 17 year olds can face the same responsibilities. How is that substantially different than 21/18?

I am opposed to any drinking age, actually. Be like Europe.

 

We've decided 18 means adult. Not 17.

[Mr. Brooks]

Although I think 18 year olds are as a group particularly immature, but yet they can die for their country and also vote. There's a contradiction in holding them out as adults when it comes to their social obligation and denying them benefits because they are too immature.

People under 18 are held as adults as well in their social obligations. They have to pay taxes and can be sent to prison. Yet we deny them benefits of adulthood already.

 

And yes, 18 year olds can die for their country. But only if they choose to. Although you still must register for the draft, it is no longer used.

[Mr. Brooks]

I am opposed to any drinking age, actually. Be like Europe.

 

We've decided 18 means adult. Not 17.

I wouldn't have guessed you as an arbitrary line kind of guy Mike.

 

If it really is just because of that line to you, perhaps a solution would be to stop declaring a moment of adulthood altogether.

Just assign each right, privilege, and responsibility on it's own individual basis. I mean we actually already do that.

We have different ages for when you can start working part time, when you can start working full time, when you can drive supervised, when you can drive unsupervised, when you must pay taxes, when you can be sentenced to prison, when you can vote, when you can drink, when you can rent a car, when you can run for president, when you can get a senior discount, when you can collect benefits.

 

Let's scrap this silly idea that you suddenly morph into an adult at midnight on your eighteenth birthday, and keep using common sense like we mostly already do, just without the official title.

[ewen21]

The democrats need to get over the Mueller Report, but they know they HAVE TO keep the issue alive until the campaign trail.

 

The desperation is interesting to watch, but it's time for democratic congress reanalyze their view of immigration. The first step is to acknowledge the problem and I think some democrats are actually waking up to the reality of the situation--even if it means making a concession.

[ewen21]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kveo.com/amp/news/local-news/border-patrol-identifies-over-3-000-fraudulent-family-cases/1936727806

Further evidence of illegal activity engaged in by asylum seekers.

[ashbury]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kveo.com/amp/news/local-news/border-patrol-identifies-over-3-000-fraudulent-family-cases/1936727806

Further evidence of illegal activity engaged in by asylum seekers.

''Yesterday in one 24-hour period we had over 4,800 people cross our border. A new record for the modern era...."

 

Things have kind of gone to pot under this current administration, haven't they? Using the same tools and infrastructure that previous administrations had. Maybe it's not the tools and infrastructure that's the problem.

[Vanimal46]

''Yesterday in one 24-hour period we had over 4,800 people cross our border. A new record for the modern era...."

 

Things have kind of gone to pot under this current administration, haven't they? Using the same tools and infrastructure that previous administrations had. Maybe it's not the tools and infrastructure that's the problem.

The problem could be changing economic and political environments ELSEWHERE compared to how it was in past administrations.

[ewen21]

''Yesterday in one 24-hour period we had over 4,800 people cross our border. A new record for the modern era...."

 

Things have kind of gone to pot under this current administration, haven't they? Using the same tools and infrastructure that previous administrations had. Maybe it's not the tools and infrastructure that's the problem.

This border problem was inherited. Furthermore, Trump has not been allowed to implement his plan to control border issues. People just don't like the idea of a wall being constructed. Makes us seem too barbaric. Who cares what it looks like?

 

There were children rushing the border in record numbers back in 2014. Either you forgot or you never knew

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/10/10/18088638/child-migrant-crisis-unaccompanied-alien-children-rio-grande-valley-obama-immigration

 

Part of what cemented Trump as a "racist" was his hard stance on this issue. He acknowledged the issue. He's only now woken the democrats up with his sanctuary city ploy

[ewen21]

The problem could be changing economic and political environments ELSEWHERE compared to how it was in past administrations.

The homocide rates in Cenrtal America coupled with lax border policies that existed while Trump was on Celebrity Apprentice is the issue.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-northern-triangle

 

This idea that inaugurating Trump inticed millions of Muslims and Latinos to rush to America really is a load of BS. Seems to me as though that's been suggested here

[ashbury]

This border problem was inherited.

The border was not a problem, it was a campaign slogan. And afterward there were 2 years of undivided control in Congress and the presidency, if they actually wanted to do something.

 

The policies of the past two years, including slow-walking of immigration applications and the widespread tactical separation of families, have caused misery.

 

This is as phony as a crisis can be. And he somehow expects to be elected twice on the same basis.

[Squirrel]

 

This border problem was inherited. Furthermore, Trump has not been allowed to implement his plan to control border issues. People just don't like the idea of a wall being constructed. Makes us seem too barbaric. Who cares what it looks like?

There were children rushing the border in record numbers back in 2014. Either you forgot or you never knew
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/10/10/18088638/child-migrant-crisis-unaccompanied-alien-children-rio-grande-valley-obama-immigration

Part of what cemented Trump as a "racist" was his hard stance on this issue. He acknowledged the issue. He's only now woken the democrats up with his sanctuary city ploy

Because a wall doesn't solve the problem. The only thing a wall does is to keep 'those people' out at all costs. Is that your goal? If so, why? Wouldn't it be better to take that money and use it to better these immigrants' lives in their home countries so they have no reason to leave? The problem isn't that they are at our border, the problem is why the come in the first place, that's the heart of the issue. You've gone a long way in this thread and haven't brought up the wall until now. That's really all I need to know about you.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Because a wall doesn't solve the problem. The only thing a wall does is to keep 'those people' out at all costs. Is that your goal? If so, why? Wouldn't it be better to take that money and use it to better these immigrants' lives in their home countries so they have no reason to leave? The problem isn't that they are at our border, the problem is why the come in the first place, that's the heart of the issue. You've gone a long way in this thread and haven't brought up the wall until now. That's really all I need to know about you.

Well plus, a wall isn't going to stop anyone.

Miraculously, roofers are still able to re shingle houses, despite all the walls they have to contend with.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Well plus, a wall isn't going to stop anyone.
Miraculously, roofers are still able to re shingle houses, despite all the walls they have to contend with.

Right unless they 24 hour police the entirety of the wall (which would be an enormous and endless cost), people will find away under and over.  

[ewen21]

The border has been a problem for a long time. If people can cross the border without going through the process, get detained, screened, set loose inside America with a pending court date not in the foreseeable future....

That's a problem. It's a problem that in 2014 52,000 unaccompanied children crossed the border.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna147601

 

How can putting up a wall and posing a merit system (not advocating it, but Canada uses one) not going have an impact? A wall means there is someone on the other side, not a greeter. A wall means you can come in but only on our terms. If they HAVE TO follow the same process Africans, Asains and Europeans do we aren't in this situation. This isn't a race thing, as some here try to suggest. They found a soft spot in our immigration process and it emboldens (and compels them) to do this. I'd feel the same way if Italians, Irish and Poles did the same thing. Please someone tell me they don't believe me, and please stop alluding to race.

 

I don't understand why some folks are so challenged by enforcing laws rather than a system that creates a loophole for people simply because of geography. It's totally unmanageable and if you don't believe me look into what Mexicans think this situation.

 

Trump spoke about a problem which ALREADY EXISTED. His rhetoric didn't somehow create this problem. He's trying to fix the problem and the democrats can't/won't/haven't come up with a perscription. They are too busy focusing on the Mueller Report