Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 181: We Are Seeking (An) Asylum

(+) Yeah! (+)

regarding the "don't feed the troll" thing, from what i understand red sox's position is that democratic politicians should stop responding to trump's tweets. that's not a terrible position to have*, but now i do wonder why keeps attacking us for criticizing trump's tweets. as far as i know we have nobody working for the democratic party posting here (karma hunter doesn't post anymore, so...).

* an objection i do have to this position is that trump's tweets are kind of impossible to ignore - they're news because trump is the president of the US. i just now realized that when i asked red sox "should democrats not comment when asked about the tweets?" he never answered, instead dodging the question by saying that they should "focus on creating news themselves." not sure how that would work - if an interviewer asks a democrat for commentary on a trump tweet, should they start rambling about policy proposals?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

regarding the "don't feed the troll" thing, from what i understand red sox's position is that democratic politicians should stop responding to trump's tweets. that's not a terrible position to have*, but now i do wonder why keeps attacking us for criticizing trump's tweets. as far as i know we have nobody working for the democratic party posting here (karma hunter doesn't post anymore, so...).

* an objection i do have to this position is that trump's tweets are kind of impossible to ignore - they're news because trump is the president of the US. i just now realized that when i asked red sox "should democrats not comment when asked about the tweets?" he never answered, instead dodging the question by saying that they should "focus on creating news themselves." not sure how that would work - if an interviewer asks a democrat for commentary on a trump tweet, should they start rambling about policy proposals?

Liberals represent the Democratic Party and they absolutely have an impact on public opinion, even if they aren't politicians. And yeah, they should pivot away from Trump's framing of the issues onto their own. "Yes, the president continues to try to divide the country with inflammatory tweets, but let's talk about what really matters."
---

red sox 777 posted...

Liberals represent the Democratic Party

why do i represent the democratic party? i don't even live in the US.

"Yes, the president continues to try to divide the country with inflammatory tweets, but let's talk about what really matters."

lol, good luck with that when you're getting interviewed on fox. like they'll allow an interview to become democratic party propaganda.
---

https://twitter.com/flotus/status/1009222291887218693?s=21

A great visit with the King & Queen of Spain at the @WhiteHouse today. Queen Letizia & I enjoyed tea & time together focusing on the ways we can positively impact children.

Again, if this was in a parody, it would be seen as too over-the-top
---

https://twitter.com/thebeatwithari/status/1009206675109285888?s=21

"The prosecutions for illegal entry while preventing people from coming legally appear to be part of a pincer movement intentionally designed to choke off asylees attempting to come into the country" - @chrislhayes

I had no idea asylees was a word
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/flotus/status/1009222291887218693?s=21

A great visit with the King & Queen of Spain at the @WhiteHouse today. Queen Letizia & I enjoyed tea & time together focusing on the ways we can positively impact children.

Again, if this was in a parody, it would be seen as too over-the-top

Right? That's how ridiculous this all is. Satire is dead.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Liberals represent the Democratic Party

why do i represent the democratic party? i don't even live in the US.

Likewise, I'm a Canadian living in the US, but I also don't feel like I'm really all that well-aligned with the American democrat party. (I am reasonably well aligned with the Canadian NDP, but there's no equivalent party in the US).

For example, closest any American presidential candidate has come to representing my views is probably Bernie Sanders, but I still have serious disagreements with Sanders. (Sanders is anti-NAFTA, I think NAFTA is great, and spent a long time on a NAFTA visa).

Mr Lasastryke posted...

* an objection i do have to this position is that trump's tweets are kind of impossible to ignore - they're news because trump is the president of the US.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show manages to ignore them completely (and that show's ratings soared when they decided to stop covering Trump tweets).

That show has also become mostly coverage about the Muller investigation, though. Which...I don't particularly like either. It's a lot like Hillary email coverage. Like...yes, we know this person is being investigated. But the investigation is top secret, so reporting right now won't tell us much, aaaaand "my political opponent is being investigated" is not a policy position. It's more of a convenient way to dodge taking a stand on important issues.
---

metroid composite posted...

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show manages to ignore them completely (and that show's ratings soared when they decided to stop covering Trump tweets).

it's one thing for a host to do this but it's another thing for a politician to do it. i still don't see how politicians can avoid discussing trump's tweets.

i suppose you can try to just not give interviews to the majority of the mainstream media anymore, like how trump refused to come on fox after getting asked questions by megyn kelly he didn't like. when he did that he went up in the polls (as muffin likes to gleefully remind us). but that only worked for trump because he's held to different standards than other politicians - it made his supporters go "YEAH THAT'S SO ALPHA AND COOL OF HIM FUCK MEGYN KELLY." if a democrat tried to pull that shit it would be seen as a sign of weakness.
---

Red Sox:

1. Your "stop feeding the troll and only get outraged about the really important things" argument is falling on deaf ears because to me and I believe to most of us, the president of our country telling falsehoods intended to divide our country against itself is one of the important things, and to me personally it's probably the most important thing to criticize Trump on.

2. This has already been said but I don't think anyone else is looking at this issue through your "election strategy" mindset. I also don't even think you're analyzing the issue through that lens correctly, as I think the "diminished returns of liberal outrage" (idk what to call it) phenomenon you're describing was an established feature of our society even before the Trump presidency.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it's one thing for a host to do this but it's another thing for a politician to do it. i still don't see how politicians can avoid discussing trump's tweets.

i suppose you can try to just not give interviews to the majority of the mainstream media anymore

Oh, for actual politicians you just pivot. Literally just ignore the question and say your talking points.

Ex, if you're Bernie Sanders you say "I don't think the American people care about that. I think the American people care about this being the one major country on earth where healthcare is not a right. I think the American people care about us having the highest rate of childhood poverty in the developed world." blah blah blah

That said, ordinary people like moist of B8, when someone asks us a direct question, we're not going to dodge and avoid answering the question completely.
---

I dunno, the moist B8ers can be pretty slippery.
---

metroid composite posted...

Ex, if you're Bernie Sanders you say "I don't think the American people care about that. I think the American people care about this being the one major country on earth where healthcare is not a right. I think the American people care about us having the highest rate of childhood poverty in the developed world." blah blah blah

yeah, that's what red sox said but like i said, i don't think that works. i doubt fox will allow bernie to turn an interview into a propaganda show for his own ideas.
---

https://apnews.com/1dafadd6fee4447cadd4a0179553026e

Hey what do you know, that child concentration camp crisis that Trump created can actually be completely resolved by him just signing a piece of paper. Who knew.
---

That would be great, but as always with Trump promises, believe it when you see it
---

I described whats happening with the family separation here to China Tim last night.

His response: Jesus, thats horrible even by our standards.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://apnews.com/1dafadd6fee4447cadd4a0179553026e

Hey what do you know, that child concentration camp crisis that Trump created can actually be completely resolved by him just signing a piece of paper. Who knew.

It could be resolved by a phone call. It didn't start by an EO. He wants the theater and the clapping, as seen here:

https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1009482168962174976

If Democrats are sincere in their outrage about kids separated from their parents at the border, they'll applaud an executive order from Trump.

If Dems don't applaud Trump, we know they never cared about a solution.

Trump is an arsonist who wants to be cheered for putting out a fire after it burned down half the town.
---

Ill applaud the solution itself. I wont applaud Trump.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Trump is an arsonist who wants to be cheered for putting out a fire after it burned down half the town.

---

On the other hand though, we do want Trump to feel like there's a reason for him to move in a positive direction. If a dog runs away and is yelled at when it comes back, it's going to avoid coming back. Sure, you'd hope morality would prevent him from doing awful shit in the first place, but that's clearly not the case. While this isn't an example of a good president, there should at least be lessening of the anger directed towards him if nothing else.
---

The issue with his solution is that it is likely still illegal.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-order.html

Mr. Trumps executive order would seek to get around an existing 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores settlement, that prohibits the federal government from keeping children in immigration detention even if they are with their parents for more than 20 days.

My knowledge here is admittedly limited. But wouldn't that same settlement prevent him from holding the children in the concentration camps anyway? Of course, he's a guy who hates listening to anything a court has to say.

So I'm just not sure how his solution is much of anything, besides slightly less cruel.
---

Trump is not a good boy. Trump is a very bad boy
---

I haven't noticed non-Americans being stupid about American politics. I'm talking about people who support US Democrats (and not all of them, obviously).

Bernie did a good job of refusing to accept the issue framing others have tried to impose on him. He consistently brought the conversation back to wealth inequality, no matter where the interviewer tried to take things. He was accused by some of being one-dimensional, but at least people knew what he stood for.

Romney failed to do this, more or less accepting the frame of discussion put forward by the media and Obama (what is the government going to do for X group?. And he couldn't win a debate on that ground. He never established what he stood for.
---

As for Clinton, she got the issue frame she wanted and worked for (let's compare how bad the candidates are).....it just wasn't a good frame for her. Where she lost the election is that people who disliked both Trump and Clinton voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
---

metroid composite posted...

That said, ordinary people like moist of B8, when someone asks us a direct question, we're not going to dodge and avoid answering the question completely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O10IjF2Ahs4" data-time="
---

Peace___Frog posted...

The issue with his solution is that it is likely still illegal.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-order.html

Mr. Trumps executive order would seek to get around an existing 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores settlement, that prohibits the federal government from keeping children in immigration detention even if they are with their parents for more than 20 days.

My knowledge here is admittedly limited. But wouldn't that same settlement prevent him from holding the children in the concentration camps anyway? Of course, he's a guy who hates listening to anything a court has to say.

So I'm just not sure how his solution is much of anything, besides slightly less cruel.

This is why Cruzs bill was solid - he set the upper limit at 14 days which fits the bill and forces the system to move.
---

I would like to point out that this situation is so fucked up that we are unironically using the term "concentration camp" to describe it in the year 2018
---

red sox 777 posted...

Where she lost the election is that people who disliked both Trump and Clinton voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

You have a source on this claim?
---

Im too lazy to look atm, but I remember that being the case. Iirc 70%ish of people who decided at the last minute (week maybe?) voted for Trump (I would hazard a guess that Comeys letter had a lot to do with that, especially as Trump managed to stay mostly quiet at the end).
---

Actually, I may be mixing up two stats; last minute deciders and people who disliked both. I think both of them may have been 70/30 Trump/Clinton, but Im not positive.
---

Yeah I remember last minute deciders going for Trump but that doesn't necessarily mean they dislike him.
---

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/peter-fonda-baron-trump-secret-service/index.html

I want to condemn these words by Peter Fonda

Highly, highly inappropriate and disgusting.
---

we should just take twitter away from old people tbqh
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

we should just take twitter away from old people tbqh

And Young ones while we're at it.
---

lol Fox News is really getting super pissed about Peter Fonda saying Barron Trump should be kidnapped while giving zero sympathy for those who actually have had their children taken from them.

They just can't condemn both of them.
---

Peter Fonda, upset over kids being put in literal cages, makes inappropriate tweet wondering how Melanie would feel if her son was put in a cage
Conservatives: OUTRAGE!

NRA, upset over kids being upset over their friends being shot, has people saying that democrats should be shot on sight, swatting David Hogg, and calling for him to be shot
Conservatives: *crickets*

Conservatives over kids being put in literal cages?
*Crickets*
---

https://twitter.com/PastorDScott/status/1009120739834912768

retweeted by trump. pretty disgusting that the president states the empathy liberals have for the children is disingenuous.
---

https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1009420022249345024

wtf is he talking about? is "the left / the media" claiming the summit took place yesterday or something?
---

And there's a massive difference between saying "we should do this" vs. "imagine if this happened to you." Fonda is wrong to say we should do this as "payback" for these policies, but if someone appealed to Melania by saying "could you imagine if you had Barron ripped away from you like that?" that's absolutely fair game.
---

I declare the summit was nine days ago

You can't see it, but I'm twirling my mustache

#SEPLeft
---

You know, I have to say I'm surprised by the Trump kids. All of them turned out so much like their father. Which surprises me because it seems like he'd be a hands-off kind of dad. Either that or 'being shitty' genetics are very strong. Or maybe just growing up wealthy and entitled does that to you. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Affluenza: It's real! We must take a stance against Affluenza. Help wealthy kids get over this horrible affliction.
---

You forgot about Tiffany.

It's okay, because Trump did too.
---

The exit polls had people who disliked both Trump and Clinton going for Trump at around 70/30 IIRC. People who liked Clinton but not Trump and people who liked Trump but not Clinton unsurprisingly went almost 100% for the one they liked. People who liked both, I forget who won, but as these were the 2 least favorably viewed candidates ever, there weren't many of those.
---

One of the weirdest things to me--and maybe someone can explain this to me--is that there were conservatives I knew who were like "I don't support Trump" during the primaries. They were like "Trump would be a bad idea."

...Then come the election they switched to "Well, he's not Hillary" which, okay I guess makes sense from a conservative point of view. They hate Hillary so much they'd rather let an ogre take office.

But THEN come post-election day they're Trump cultists who won't criticize him for anything.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/peter-fonda-baron-trump-secret-service/index.html

I want to condemn these words by Peter Fonda

Highly, highly inappropriate and disgusting.

Wow what a well adjusted and not at all crazy person.
---

It's not about Trump, it's about them. They demand respect for Trump, because he speaks for them. It doesn't mean they like him, but as long as he holds the position of voice of the conservative people, conservatives insist that he be respected to respect them.

Also, the country is prosperous. The unemployment rate hasn't been so low in many years. We're starting to get the tariffs Trump promised to reduce the trade deficits. There's lots to be happy about.
---

Trade deficits make me happy :(
---

Ashethan posted...

One of the weirdest things to me--and maybe someone can explain this to me--is that there were conservatives I knew who were like "I don't support Trump" during the primaries. They were like "Trump would be a bad idea."

...Then come the election they switched to "Well, he's not Hillary" which, okay I guess makes sense from a conservative point of view. They hate Hillary so much they'd rather let an ogre take office.

But THEN come post-election day they're Trump cultists who won't criticize him for anything.

~Tribalism~
---

it does seem like a lot of people are addicted to cheerleading trump no matter what he does.

for as much of a moron trump is, it's impressive how good he is at brainwashing - even smart - people.
---

Good thread on the details of the EO:

Tl;dr - it's worded extremely vaguely and barely gives any direction. So trump wants to be rewarded for doing something... but he still didn't really do anything. He's just trying to get the media off his back.

https://twitter.com/dog_rates/status/1009224352456495105

The parts of this that purport to end family separation are kinda like the Cheshire Catfading to nothing when you look closely. Its administration policy to maintain family unity, where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. https://t.co/P2OCgfSUza

Then in the very next sentence, Congress's failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law. So keeping families together, by their lights, is not consistent with law.

Nothing in the EO approaches an order to anyone to keep families together. DHS Sec. is ordered to maintain custody of alien families in 3a. The word together isnt used. Contrast the language of 3b: The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family *together* when..

Separate issue: The way theyve defined alien families excludes US citizen children of non-citizens. As I read it, the policy mandates separating e.g. children born in the states during the pendency of proceedings against alien parents (whod be detained along w alien siblings)

Last thing: As noted above, 3b is really the only clear command regarding family unity, and its a prohibition. Moreover, its threshold is so loose when there is a concern (whose concern? past or present? based on evidence? gut feeling?) that its set up to swallow the policy. https://t.co/320EH76GuH

Imagine the DHS bureaucrat referring to this order trying to figure out whether a family will be kept together. Theres all the wishy-washy stuff about available resources and where appropriate and consistent with lawlots of risks for a bureaucrat to go that route. ...

Then theres Section 3b, shining like a beacon of clarity in a sea of troubles. When theres this concern, you shall not detain the family togetherno exceptions, no qualifications. That ones easy. Is there a concern? Find a concern, write it down, and your butt is covered.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

for as much of a moron trump is, it's impressive how good he is at brainwashing - even smart - people.

I've found that smart is a very relative term.
---