American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Ah, as recent as the 90s. You guys are right. It was a failed result.
But wasn't the goal to remove the violent military junta and restore democracy with Aristide?

US restoring democracy? When has that ever happened?

No the US has been backing leaders in Haiti based on who's co-operative and who's not. Co-operative dictators get to stay, rude ones need to go. Beating and torturing opposition is always fine, as long as you do what the US says.

It's all very classic colony stuff really. Haiti is an independent country in name only.

They've also still been picking presidents for Haiti in the 2010s.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Itse

US restoring democracy? When has that ever happened?

No the US has been backing leaders in Haiti based on who's co-operative and who's not. Co-operative dictators get to stay, rude ones need to go. Beating and torturing opposition is always fine, as long as you do what the US says.

It's all very classic colony stuff really. Haiti is an independent country in name only.

They've also still been picking presidents for Haiti in the 2010s.

That's all true, but how does it translate to asylum? Immigration, yes. Refugee, maybe. You're talking macro level government stuff. A Haitian family shows up at the US border. How do they prove, in 2021, that this government, or changes in government, are a threat to their well-being?

I mean, legally Asylum eligibility has a very high bar. Your life has to be immediately in danger, either by imprisonment or by death. The definition is in troutman's post, "The U.S. must recognize refugees that fear persecution and are not able to get help from their home country."

[Cali Panthers Fan]

^Right, which is why they aren't able to grant asylum and why they're effectively saying, "don't come, we can't do anything for you and you'll be turned back anyway".

Things being bad in the country isn't enough of a reason to grant asylum. It really is something that requires a homegrown solution with U.S. help, but I'm skeptical that U.S. involvement will make anything better there. It traditionally has been quite the opposite.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Ah, as recent as the 90s. You guys are right. It was a failed result.
But wasn't the goal to remove the violent military junta and restore democracy with Aristide?
Wouldn't it have been even worse without US intervention and the continued killings? These things seemed to be looked at one way, conditions didn't improve or may got worse and it's the US' fault for being there.


I just think calling it as 'burning people's houses down' is unfair.

In addition to the formal stuff done by the US, like the CIA supporting fascists dictators, possibly even more harm was done by the drug trade. The largest market for illegal drugs from Central and South America was the US, by a long shot. Even though the US government didn't encourage illegal drug use, the citizenry of the US (and to a smaller extent Canada) are largely responsible for the drug cartels and rampant violence that most of the South and Central American refugees are fleeing.

I think 'burning down their houses' is an apt analogy for a number of reasons.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

In addition to the formal stuff done by the US, like the CIA supporting fascists dictators, possibly even more harm was done by the drug trade. The largest market for illegal drugs from Central and South America was the US, by a long shot. Even though the US government didn't encourage illegal drug use, the citizenry of the US (and to a smaller extent Canada) are largely responsible for the drug cartels and rampant violence that most of the South and Central American refugees are fleeing.

I think 'burning down their houses' is an apt analogy for a number of reasons.

Those governments allowed drugs to be sold to us, to fill their pockets. How do you really define destabilize and at what point does that action really transfer responsibility. Would Guatemala be in a better place now under a communist regime? Is Venezuela more stable without said destabilizing?Latin America will blame America for every problem so long as it is politically advantageous to do so.


This whole trip is a joke anyways. Guatemala will ask for money and vaccines in exchange for some fake promises. The money and vaccines will go the the country’s rich and ruling class. All posturing.



Harris is virtue signalling, please don't come to the border, you'll be wasting a trip and we care about you and your well-being. AOC is virtue-signalling about letting anyone seek asylum because we care about you and your well-being and about what the US has done to you in the past. Can gets kicked down the road to the next President.

[#-3]

I do think that it's slightly assuming a lot of the people who would be the first to jump on the US for paternalistic intervention in poorer nations, are the same people using the same arguments to complain that the US isn't doing everything it can to make life better for the people of these countries.

These are really hard problems, and even if your intention is to treat asylum seekers with the utmost respect and care, from a political and strategic negotiation stand point, you probably have to signal that asylum is going to be a tumultuous path of last resort. You guys all need to stop being so credulous and taking everything that any one says at face value, sometimes you are working with incomplete information. Trust your instincts that someone like Joe Biden genuinely wants to do good work and has adapted over time when he receives better cards/information, this guy isn't some gilded sociopathic con-man.

[Dion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1402076637739503616

[Matata]

The economic warfare performed upon South America by the US gov't and US industry can't be understated. In "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" John Perkins described the process as:

1. Send in the "economic hit men" (which was Perkins job at the time), try and get the governments to sign bad deals that typically involve the country taking out a huge loan from the IMF for a large infrastructure project (like a power plant) and sending that money to a US engineering firm to deliver the project. When the project inevitably fails to be profitable, leaving the country massively indebted and then forced to sell it's resource based industries (lumber, oil, mining, etc.) to US industry to cover their debts.
2. If #1 is unsuccessful, the CIA then provides support in the form of blackmail and assassination.
3. If #2 is unsuccessful, the CIA moves to regime change, typically by funding rebellions. CIA black operations are typically funded through drug trade (the 1980s US crack epidemic being used to fund Contra's is a famous example), also human and gun trafficking.
4. If #3 is unsuccessful, US military intervention.

This is more how things used to work (1950s-1990s), I'd imagine the modern methods are significantly more sophisticated, less dirty work and relying more an exerting pressure through the bad deals already in place. Without these decades of crippling US interference, its impossible to say where SA would be.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Moments like this beg the question: Who is stupider? Gohmert, or the people who vote for him?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1402388019420741633

[troutman]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1402465703270268930

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Moments like this beg the question: Who is stupider? Gohmert, or the people who vote for him?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1402388019420741633

He's playing dumb, asking a leading question to a rhetorical point he already has in mind: climate change is not man-made, it is due to orbital variation.

Of course, that's 100% incorrect and has already been accounted for about a thousand times in the literature, but hey, you keep banging that drum of skepticism and I'm sure history will look back you favorably.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

How do Senators just 'miss' voting? I get sometimes there could be family emergencies, but it seems like there's always at least a couple that are no-shows. Isn't that kind of their job?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

How do Senators just 'miss' voting? I get sometimes there could be family emergencies, but it seems like there's always at least a couple that are no-shows. Isn't that kind of their job?

if your 10 votes short it doesnt matter whether your there or not

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

if your 10 votes short it doesnt matter whether your there or not

She's getting a ton of #### on twitter right now... of course it is twitter.


But this why Democrats are idiots: They are attacking Gillibrand (she was at a military event) for missing a vote that Republicans blocked, instead of letting people on Twitter know Republicans don't want women to be paid the same as a man.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

She's getting a ton of #### on twitter right now... of course it is twitter.

But this why Democrats are idiots: They are attacking Gillibrand (she was at a military event) for missing a vote that Republicans blocked, instead of letting people on Twitter know Republicans don't want women to be paid the same as a man.

She's getting #### because she made a big deal over Franken, and failed to show up for this vote.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

if your 10 votes short it doesnt matter whether your there or not

But I'm not just talking about this vote. I see if quite often down there, I'll see results of a vote and sometimes there will be 3 or 4 or more senators that weren't there. I get family emergencies and stuff like that, but I guess I just believe if that's your job (a pretty important one for the country) you should be there to vote every time unless there's something serious going on in your life.

[timun]

KootenayFlamesFan, you should see what the attendance is like in the Canadian Senate. They usually only sit for 70 or so days every year, and they only have to be there for ~50ish to not get in **** for not being there.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I believe it.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by troutman

She's getting #### because she made a big deal over Franken, and failed to show up for this vote.

It's still stupid, pointless and counterproductive.

[PostandIn]

Biden at the G7, lol.

https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/...911454213?s=21