American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, pretty sure the suggestion is “stop putting kids in cages.”

Do you honestly think that doing so will stop or reduce Hispanic immigration?

Or, more realistically, what would you propose to do with people that just show up at the border with no real family contacts, job prospects, or money? Just put them on a bus to a random city and wish them luck?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I'm not going to do the legwork for you, but go back and listen to all of Biden's and Harris' comments about the border situation before they were elected.

I believe it was referred to as a humanitarian disaster. There were several actions promised for "day 1" after they came into office.

It is astounding to me what people are willing to give a pass on when it doesn't fit their partisan narrative.

Sorry, but I must have missed it in your reply, so I’ll ask again:

What is/are your proposed solution(s) to the matter?

I’m not asking what Biden and Harris said or proposed. Just what you propose.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Do you honestly think that doing so will stop or reduce Hispanic immigration?

Or, more realistically, what would you propose to do with people that just show up at the border with no real family contacts, job prospects, or money? Just put them on a bus to a random city and wish them luck?

Not on a bus but the obvious solution would be for them to be placed at the border refugee camp and start the paperwork. But that seems a mess as well.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Do you honestly think that doing so will stop or reduce Hispanic immigration?

Or, more realistically, what would you propose to do with people that just show up at the border with no real family contacts, job prospects, or money? Just put them on a bus to a random city and wish them luck?

No, not relying on these centres has nothing to do with curbing Hispanic immigration.

And, most realistically, it is not my job to figure out how not to keep children in unlicensed holding facilities, that's the government's job. There are licensed facilities and many of these children have family on the US side of the border, so it's the government's job to figure out to get them into safe hands quickly, whether that means identifying and verifying their sponsors, putting them into licensed childcare facilities, or increasing the level of care in these facilities so that it meets the standards we expect for adoptive children.

Why do you think it's everyone but the government's job to solve their problems?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

You and all your pile-on like pals were saying?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1386723618802081793

You gonna be okay?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

You and all your pile-on like pals were saying?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1386723618802081793

Yup, that's definitely great news that the Biden administration was able to work with Astrazeneca and foreign governments to work around the language negotiated into the original contract that limited their doses to US use only.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Not on a bus but the obvious solution would be for them to be placed at the border refugee camp and start the paperwork. But that seems a mess as well.

I’m not sure that I see much of a significant difference between a border refugee camp and what already exists.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why do you think it's everyone but the government's job to solve their problems?

I don’t, although the government is, in theory, of, for, and by the people, so in that sense everyone is “the government”.

I do find it somewhat humorous though that people like to complain about a matter, which is a really easy thing to do, without offering any solutions to solve or address it, which is usually a more difficult thing to do.

The world already has plenty of Statler and Waldorfs.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I don’t, although the government is, in theory, of, for, and by the people, so in that sense everyone is “the government”.

I do find it somewhat humorous though that people like to complain about a matter, which is a really easy thing to do, without offering any solutions to solve or address it, which is usually a more difficult thing to do.

The world already has plenty of Statler and Waldorfs.

Recognising a problem is still valid without providing solutions on a platter.

Do you find thousands of people protesting police brutality over the last year humorous because not all of them have educated solutions in regards to reforming the police?

It’s also pretty easy to come up with fantasyland solutions like flooding money into Mexico to curb immigration. Having a solution isn’t always any more intellectual than recognising a problem and not knowing the solution. The world also has enough pseudo-intellectuals theorising on problems they don’t understand with solutions out of touch with reality.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yup, that's definitely great news that the Biden administration was able to work with Astrazeneca and foreign governments to work around the language negotiated into the original contract that limited their doses to US use only.

I am scheduled to get my first AZ jab tomorrow, but there was concern that they may not be able to schedule the booster shot soon enough. I guess it has to be done within a certain time frame, otherwise the anti-bodies actually fight the booster and you don't get the added benefit. Or something like that, that is what they made it sound like, but it wasn't clear. I contemplated cancelling my appointment for that reason, but hopefully this news helps alleviate that concenrn.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Recognising a problem is still valid without providing solutions on a platter.

Sure, in some instances.

But to simply say, for example, “gee, XYZ is a mess,” and essentially offer no solutions is hardly helpful to anyone, although it probably makes the speaker feel good about their ability to problem-spot.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Do you find thousands of people protesting police brutality over the last year humorous because not all of them have educated solutions in regards to reforming the police?

I have seen no evidence of what you are suggesting.

To the extent people are “protesting” as a means to invoke civil violence and looting, no, that is not humorous. But, again, I have seen no evidence of people protesting police brutality who are unable to offer up a proposed solution to police reform.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Having a solution isn’t always any more intellectual than recognising a problem and not knowing the solution. The world also has enough pseudo-intellectuals theorising on problems they don’t understand with solutions out of touch with reality.

Perhaps, but at least offering a solution indicates that the offeror has put some thought into the matter. And, occasionally, a seemingly hair-brained idea really does work.

Besides, who are you to suggest that someone doesn’t understand a particular problem or that an idea is out of touch with reality? Are you a subject matter expert in all things? If so, why aren’t you out there solving everything?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Sure, in some instances.

But to simply say, for example, “gee, XYZ is a mess,” and essentially offer no solutions is hardly helpful to anyone, although it probably makes the speaker feel good about their ability to problem-spot.



I have seen no evidence of what you are suggesting.

To the extent people are “protesting” as a means to invoke civil violence and looting, no, that is not humorous. But, again, I have seen no evidence of people protesting police brutality who are unable to offer up a proposed solution to police reform.



Perhaps, but at least offering a solution indicates that the offeror has put some thought into the matter. And, occasionally, a seemingly hair-brained idea really does work.

Besides, who are you to suggest that someone doesn’t understand a particular problem or that an idea is out of touch with reality? Are you a subject matter expert in all things? If so, why aren’t you out there solving everything?

Because I'm not a subject matter expert on everything, and I'm not the one expecting others to be before they lodge a complaint or state their position on an issue.

Problem spotting has value, which is that it brings light to an issue that needs to be addressed. It does not always have to offer a solution, and it can also have no value and be strictly conversational, just the same as whatever solution you imagine. You think Bill Bumface on CalgaryPuck.com is going to offer a helpful solution to the US Government regarding US/Mexico border control issues and kids being housed in unsuitable facilities? That's fantasy stuff, that's "every person in the world is unique and so am I and I can change the world with a tweet" stuff. In reality, we're having a conversation, and you suggesting people can't enter the conversation without having a solution locked and loaded to whatever problem exists lest they give you a chuckle, is fine nonsense.

Offering a solution doesn't mean the offeror has put some thought into the matter. In your case, the solution you offered makes it look like you haven't actually put thought into the matter, or are at least thinking about it in a way that's completely unrealistic. One can put thought into an issue, recognize a problem, and recognize that they don't have a good solution for a complicated issue. That's more valid than "I DONT KNOW THE US COULD JUST FUNNEL ENOUGH MONEY DOWN TO MAKE MEXICO DESIRABLE FOR EVERYONE SO THEY DONT LEAVE?" like lol. That's a sign of someone who doesn't understand an issue and, if they did think about it, clearly wasted their brain power.

You can recognize a problem exists and recognize that it must be solved. That's reality for a lot of people, that's life. So many people don't know how to solve their own problems, let alone the problems of the world, but at least they've got you here laughing at them.

You want to sea lion the issue, go nuts. It doesn't present you as intellectually curious as you intend it to. "It's not even a situation." Great, well anyone with common sense can tell you that, at very least, "it's not an ideal situation," so it seems like you could do well to actually think about it if you're being genuine, offer up some evidence of why it's not an issue if that's the standard you want to hold, or stop sea-lioning.

[afc wimbledon]

There is no solution to central American migration and none was promised, what there is a solution too was children being forcibly taken from their parents, the dreamers, migrant holding units run by rapists, migrants being denied medical care etc, most of those things seem to be being fixed.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

In reality, we're having a conversation, and you suggesting people can't enter the conversation without having a solution locked and loaded to whatever problem exists lest they give you a chuckle, is fine nonsense.

You are reading far more into my comment than is there.

I don’t see much value in just throwing rocks and pointing out the obvious.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

In your case, the solution you offered makes it look like you haven't actually put thought into the matter, or are at least thinking about it in a way that's completely unrealistic. One can put thought into an issue, recognize a problem, and recognize that they don't have a good solution for a complicated issue. That's more valid than "I DONT KNOW THE US COULD JUST FUNNEL ENOUGH MONEY DOWN TO MAKE MEXICO DESIRABLE FOR EVERYONE SO THEY DONT LEAVE?" like lol. That's a sign of someone who doesn't understand an issue and, if they did think about it, clearly wasted their brain power.

Perhaps you should read my comment more closely before going off on it.

I said “As far as I am concerned, if politicians really wanted to reduce Hispanic immigration, then they would help to strengthen the economies of Mexico and Central American countries, legalize drugs, and assist in crime reduction there.”

What is unrealistic about foreign aid? What is unrealistic about defunding the so-called drug war, which would, in turn, potentially reduce the level of violence in countries that are the current source of much immigration? What is unrealistic about assisting Latin American economies and helping to strengthen their own social nets?

Many of those fleeing Latin America are doing so because of crime and poverty. Addressing those issues might reduce their citizen’s desires to come to the US.

The US spent trillions in Afghanistan and the greater Middle East and has very little to show for it. Spending a few billions in its own hemisphere might be a bit more worthwhile.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

. . . well anyone with common sense can tell you that, at very least, "it's not an ideal situation," so it seems like you could do well to actually think about it if you're being genuine, offer up some evidence of why it's not an issue if that's the standard you want to hold, or stop sea-lioning.

Immigration isn’t truly an issue for the reasons I stated earlier: “without it, the US economy won’t work the way (those in charge of it and who benefit from it) want it to. No one wants to pay $5 for a tomato, or $350 for a basic hotel room, or $50 for a basic restaurant meal. The only way the economy works is with cheap labor, and immigration keeps that going.”

Immigration gives every party something to kick around and bloviate about and gives the poor someone else to look down on. So while I think that foreign aid and drug legalization and assisting in crime reduction could reduce the current levels of immigration, I also don’t think that any serious efforts will be put into implementing such actions because cheap labor and winning elections is more important to those in charge.

Lastly, I don’t think that immigration is a “situation” in any negative sense of the word because it will always occur to some extent and level and I sometimes think that those bemoaning it are being disingenuous.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I’m not sure that I see much of a significant difference between a border refugee camp and what already exists.

By definition, there should be a big difference. One is just being locked up and stranded at the border, and the other is being in a little community filling out your refugee papers and getting called legally. Because there is so little put into these refugee camps, there's no structure really. Rampant disease and violence.

You asked for solutions and this would be mine, for refugees to be sent into a safe camp. This has been done in many situations throughout history. But nobody on either the US or Mexican side want to administer these camps properly by putting the money and the work into it. Perhaps it is unfeasible.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Lastly, I don’t think that immigration is a “situation” in any negative sense of the word because it will always occur to some extent and level and I sometimes think that those bemoaning it are being disingenuous.

You honestly don't see anything wrong with how children are cared for and housed once they cross the border? None? And you think people bemoaning it are being disingenuous?

Explain that. I'm having trouble seeing anyone, even the current administration, who would agree that this is not a negative situation that needs addressing.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You honestly don't see anything wrong with how children are cared for and housed once they cross the border? None? And you think people bemoaning it are being disingenuous?

Explain that. I'm having trouble seeing anyone, even the current administration, who would agree that this is not a negative situation that needs addressing.

From what I’ve seen, I would prefer to see fewer (or no) internal fences within the facilities and softer beds, but other than that, no. They are being fed, housed, and some are getting some education, and I would think that they are in a better condition now than they were while they were being transported and, possibly, when considering the totality of circumstances, in their original home.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

From what I’ve seen, I would prefer to see fewer (or no) internal fences within the facilities and softer beds, but other than that, no. They are being fed, housed, and some are getting some education, and I would think that they are in a better condition now than they were while they were being transported and, possibly, when considering the totality of circumstances, in their original home.

Stupid suggestion I am sure but why can’t the US government post a website with all of these people’s names and locations and go super public with it. Then people who were separated may be able to find their kids name. You could just have a central database built now, after the fact, trying to connect families. Then deport them. Concurrently, reach out to government of Mexico to reach out to next of kin in Mexico to get uncles aunts family / friends to come get kids at the border.

Bad idea jeans? Just postulating. Better solution probably than just throwing them in cages with a mattress and some food?

Like, kids over the age of 3 should be able to tell you their name.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Stupid suggestion I am sure but why can’t the US government post a website with all of these people’s names and locations and go super public with it. Then people who were separated may be able to find their kids name. You could just have a central database built now, after the fact, trying to connect families. Then deport them. Concurrently, reach out to government of Mexico to reach out to next of kin in Mexico to get uncles aunts family / friends to come get kids at the border.

Bad idea jeans? Just postulating. Better solution probably than just throwing them in cages with a mattress and some food?

Like, kids over the age of 3 should be able to tell you their name.

'That's the third time today Prince Andrew, seriously do you really think we are going to believe you have a 15 year old daughter called Rosanna just because you're pointing at her name on the list!?!'

[Mr.Coffee]

Haha well when you introduce parent and child presumably the kid recognizes the parent? Haha but fair point.