-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
2020 Trump Discussion
- Thread starter orch
- Start date
so whats your point? attacking those who dislike the “go back to africa” comments? is this blasé “who cares” just because the ones attacked are progressives against us totalitarianism? the better question is if trump had said “go back to your home (africa) kamala harris” would you still be so insouciant or would also be one of those enraged keyboard activists you seem to harbor distaste for?
per the actual conversation: I think its in poor taste Dece1t to imply that those big four could just go back to whatever country their ancestor is from if they have problems with how America is doing things. The argument here is twofold: that 1) America is doing objectively the “correct” geopolitical and domestic maneuvering and that 2) they are unable to “help” America. 1 is rooted in pure unadulterated nationalism, as in viewing the country with extreme positive prejudice and deducing that its all ok without any critical insight and 2 is rooted in simply a disagreement on political agendas. I’m sure you, or anyone for that matter, wouldn’t say that protesters of Roe v Wade, who call America an increasingly Godless country, should all go back to their foreign environments and try to help convert their own country to whatever religious zeal they so choose.
I definitely think the "hatred for america" schtick is overplayed. People constantly complain about the media taking Donald Trump quotes out of context and yet that exact same page from the playbook is being used to berate people like AOC, Ilhan Omar, etc. From the gallows of the free speech activists comes rhetoric condemning such speech or actions; from the same people who would quote "give me liberty or give me death" or volaire's "i may not agree with your speech but I will defend to the death your right to say it" come the argument "if you dont like it leave." How is this not, in your eyes, simply societal censorship? Do you not see the double standard here, in attempting to protect the free speech of white supremacists ("i may not agree with it but its important to have the right to not be policed in speech") to outright calling for the deportation of a United States member of Congress?
I don't really give a shit about calling it racist or whatever because it defeats the entire point and drags the argument down into the mud where one side slings "no you're the racist" and the other slings "but youre antisemitic" and they look at face value words rather than the deeper picture. Leading an entire crowd and energizing the base by painting a caricature, a fixation, onto an opposition candidate is absolutely terrifying. Whether the chants are "lock her up" or "send her home" or "jews will not replace us" is entirely beside the point, because its an active effort to stigmatize and radicalize these bases, potentially resulting in extreme radical attacks (like the dude who sent bombs to like 10 democrat congresspeople). If you favored any sense of normalcy you would condemn these instances rather than outright supporting them. Who gives a shit if Ilhan Omar is a "spoiled brat" in your eyes? Her politics are diamterically opposed to yours, but that doesn't call for forced deportation or calls for violence. I fucking despise Mitch McConnell but I doubt you would say any person calling for his head, because the first part of political discourse is to act in a political manner; attempting to seize control or feign seizing control as you call for people's head and then say "well i didnt actually say they should kill her but you know its a good thing they did anyway!" is downright scummy and fascist.
lol at the "nazis were actually lefties all along" argument
per the actual conversation: I think its in poor taste Dece1t to imply that those big four could just go back to whatever country their ancestor is from if they have problems with how America is doing things. The argument here is twofold: that 1) America is doing objectively the “correct” geopolitical and domestic maneuvering and that 2) they are unable to “help” America. 1 is rooted in pure unadulterated nationalism, as in viewing the country with extreme positive prejudice and deducing that its all ok without any critical insight and 2 is rooted in simply a disagreement on political agendas. I’m sure you, or anyone for that matter, wouldn’t say that protesters of Roe v Wade, who call America an increasingly Godless country, should all go back to their foreign environments and try to help convert their own country to whatever religious zeal they so choose.
I definitely think the "hatred for america" schtick is overplayed. People constantly complain about the media taking Donald Trump quotes out of context and yet that exact same page from the playbook is being used to berate people like AOC, Ilhan Omar, etc. From the gallows of the free speech activists comes rhetoric condemning such speech or actions; from the same people who would quote "give me liberty or give me death" or volaire's "i may not agree with your speech but I will defend to the death your right to say it" come the argument "if you dont like it leave." How is this not, in your eyes, simply societal censorship? Do you not see the double standard here, in attempting to protect the free speech of white supremacists ("i may not agree with it but its important to have the right to not be policed in speech") to outright calling for the deportation of a United States member of Congress?
I don't really give a shit about calling it racist or whatever because it defeats the entire point and drags the argument down into the mud where one side slings "no you're the racist" and the other slings "but youre antisemitic" and they look at face value words rather than the deeper picture. Leading an entire crowd and energizing the base by painting a caricature, a fixation, onto an opposition candidate is absolutely terrifying. Whether the chants are "lock her up" or "send her home" or "jews will not replace us" is entirely beside the point, because its an active effort to stigmatize and radicalize these bases, potentially resulting in extreme radical attacks (like the dude who sent bombs to like 10 democrat congresspeople). If you favored any sense of normalcy you would condemn these instances rather than outright supporting them. Who gives a shit if Ilhan Omar is a "spoiled brat" in your eyes? Her politics are diamterically opposed to yours, but that doesn't call for forced deportation or calls for violence. I fucking despise Mitch McConnell but I doubt you would say any person calling for his head, because the first part of political discourse is to act in a political manner; attempting to seize control or feign seizing control as you call for people's head and then say "well i didnt actually say they should kill her but you know its a good thing they did anyway!" is downright scummy and fascist.
lol at the "nazis were actually lefties all along" argument
There are literally protests every fucking day, Mike. Somehow access to the internet has left you unable to be connected to other people.
And dece1t engaging in some CLASSIC historical revisionism. In about 50 years he be like "Trump was actually a leftist because he claimed to speak for the working class". Real easy to pretend you have leftist goals when you conveniently ignore all the racism and xenophobia. Lifting up one group at the expense of others is not leftist. Full stop period. It's just redesigning and restructuring the capitalist power structures.
If you ever read a history book you'd see that the burgeoning nazi party specifically adapted that name to appear more palatable to people enticed by leftist ideals. It was a strategic lie to generate interest.
God why am I even trying? It's exhausting to constantly combat these lies and propaganda party lines with reality. fuck.
And dece1t engaging in some CLASSIC historical revisionism. In about 50 years he be like "Trump was actually a leftist because he claimed to speak for the working class". Real easy to pretend you have leftist goals when you conveniently ignore all the racism and xenophobia. Lifting up one group at the expense of others is not leftist. Full stop period. It's just redesigning and restructuring the capitalist power structures.
If you ever read a history book you'd see that the burgeoning nazi party specifically adapted that name to appear more palatable to people enticed by leftist ideals. It was a strategic lie to generate interest.
God why am I even trying? It's exhausting to constantly combat these lies and propaganda party lines with reality. fuck.
I never said anything about the "go back to africa" comments.
I also never said I didn't care about the "go back to africa" comments.
I was talking about kids in cages, etc., but go off I guess.
And since you brought it up, Kamala already got her own Trump birther tweet. I rolled my eyes, liked her response on fb, and moved on with my life. I don't know why you think my life revolves around Kamala Harris or that I dislike justice dems.
Where are these large scale protests? I genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited:
Not sure about ilhan tbh. Although considering there is a very strong chance which she committed immigration fraud by marrying her own brother AND sympathised with the antifa terrorist that attacked an ICE facility kinda explains why her approval rating is only a mere single digit percentile.
the u.s right are the proud inheritors of the tradition of the british empire. theyve succeeded in both increasing their ability to subjugate while lowering the threshold needed to wave the bloody shirt. it creates this peculiar admixture of pity at their patheticness and horrified anger at their actual actions, not unlike that created by seeing a school shooter in an ill-fitting trench coat.
These last couple of days have been nuts, lol. Brilliant strategical maneuver from Trump, though. No way to tell if its on purpose but he basically made the already incredibly unpopular The Squad the defacto face of the Democratic party, and gotten some good ol DNC infighting out of it, too. I bet this pays off big in 2020.
This isnt an endorsement of Donald Trump, Im just looking at this objectively. It was a good move by him, and the polling agrees. 49% of the electorate approved of his comments, and within that 49% are most of the ones who vote so its probably even higher.
This isnt an endorsement of Donald Trump, Im just looking at this objectively. It was a good move by him, and the polling agrees. 49% of the electorate approved of his comments, and within that 49% are most of the ones who vote so its probably even higher.
I'm not calling for the deportation of her, I made it clear I actually disagree with Trump's move in saying that. I agree with the primary premise in that if you truly hate America, why don't you go "help" somewhere else. I disagree with people saying to deport her at trump's latest rally, imo that's where it got nasty (if the situation in itself wasn't already). Are you sure what AOC and Omar are saying are being taken out of context though? I think it's pretty difficult to defend calling ICE detention centers "concentration camps," imo that's one of many things said that are definitely not out of context. I've found "the squad" to be pretty damn blatant in their comments. Another one being Pressly claiming that some are not gay, christian, black, so on and so forth just because they disagree with her radical agenda. Is that out of context too? It doesn;t seem like it.
I get where you're going, I really do, but no I don't believe there is a double standard. Free Speech is universal as I've mentioned numerous times so long as it does not incite violence, I'm in complete agreement that's where the speech is no longer defended. The counter argument to saying Omar should be deported would be ignoring it (because let's be honest, that notion holds absolutely no power nor legislative backing, I think you and I agree that's obvious) or protesting against it. I'm protesting against those remarks, I found it disgusting that the crowd would chant that. It's a pretty unAmerican notion. I was saying I understand the outrage (not so much that I condone it, personally I don't), because like I said, Dems didn't grow a pair to condemn her for what were pretty anti-semetic remarks (she's not just a spoiled brat, frankly I find her to be probably the worst congress person in history), yet they condemn Trump over his latest tweet controversy and then go even further to launch a failed articles of impeachment vote.
I really do agree with you both bases are becoming intensely polarized, it's coming from both sides and I don't like it either (to be blunt I see this shit here lmfao), that doesn't mean speech should get stifled. That's an all around horrible idea to compel speech. A great example is when Clinton called Trump supporters blatant deplorables, or Pelosi breaking house rules by calling Trump a racist. I was complaining at both instances (the first of which I was a moderate liberal at the time of the comment being made), it really comes down to a matter of calling it out no matter which side its on, but not beating around the bush to defend something, It either is or isn't, and nowadays I see this overdramatized, badly.
Sidenote: I have no clue why I need to repeat myself, I posted a shit ton about this and settled it a while ago, but yes, nazi's were kinda leftists. In saying that I'm not calling leftists nazis, a rectangle ain't a square, but it frustrates me when people try to cover up what history really was to support a false narrative. They pushed for state control wages, state control healthcare, among other soclialist policies that far-left advocates are pushing for today. It's in their damn name.
The fact 49% of voters approved of his comments is far and away a more damning comment on the American electorate than it is a positive indicator for Trump (not to say the two aren't mutually exclusive).
I don't agree with Putin about a lot of almost everything, but I think at this year's G20 when he said that Liberalism has failed (Liberalism as in the basis of western democracies, not as in what America incorrectly labels the general 'left') he was onto something. America is sadly shifting more and more to two extreme camps, with quasi-neo-Fascists on the right and weak (ideaologically) Leftists on the left which means that the right will win because business loves Fascism and hates Socialism and money wins elections. Trump is the perfect opportunist to take hold of it because he literally has no belief system and will do whatever for percieved personal benefit. I have no doubt he will win 2020* because he is all offense and playing defense doesn't poll well and the Democrats are fucking idiots to have not figured this out, and also their offense is basically the political equivalent of the Detroit Lions. I gave up on democracy and the US Government many years ago, but since I not live overseas holy shit how did my country go off the rails so fucking fast.
*FDT obviously, but I don't think he will lose and this way if he does I get a nice surprise.
holy shit no the fuck they weren't, read a fucking book. that's not by Jordan Peterson
Let's break this down from the beginning.
The main "antisemitism" that Ilhan Omar is accused of committing comes in the form of these tweets as well as a 2012 tweet where she said, "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." The first of these images is a direct reference to a Puff Daddy song, "It's All About the Benjamins". The assumption from the right is that it is a direct reference to the common "Jews only care about money" stereotype that is rooted in prejudice. The assumption on the left (and my personal assumption) is that it is a direct statement on why American congressional members are so upfront about protecting the interests of Israel vs the interests of other nations / themselves. Here is a good link, from the Institute for Policy Studies, a seminal, secular party whos primary interest involves the decline of American global intervention; in it they explain a plethora of reasons why the United States supports Israel, from geopolitical standpoints such as a check on the Russian backed Syria, to the testing of American military weapons, to serving as a third world battleground to allow the United States to undergo coups and back unpopular geopolitical sentiments (such as apartheid, Iran, Nicaragua). I strongly suggest giving it a read so as to allow yourself to see "the other side." I am not asking you to shift your opinion. The statement "all about the Benjamins" is imo just a shorthand to explain the biggest reason that the American right and left almost universally support Israel, who has been criticized heavily in the last couple decades for the treatment of Palestinians; i.e. "it makes the congressmen money." The second photo is simply a criticism of AIPAC, a lobbying group that strongly supports the pro-Israel geopolitical agenda. Surely you of all people wouldn't oppose getting rid of lobbying in congress, specifically globalist lobbying? I fail to see how this is anti-semitic unless one takes the stance of any criticism of the state of Israel as anti-semitic, in which case I don't really have anything left to say in this conversation.
Now the last statement is fairly crude, yes, and possibly unintentionally offensive. Due to Omar's status and history I don't really see this as a "I hate jews" or even attempting to stereotype jews, especially when she later elaborated on her comments after meeting initial criticism during 2012, by stating that "I don't know how my comments would be offensive to Jewish Americans. My comments precisely are addressing what was happening during the Gaza War and I'm clearly speaking about the way the Israeli regime was conducting itself in that war." She later even apologized for unintentionally, in her words, drawing upon those stereotypes. To me the whole "Israel is hypnotizing the world" is meant as a criticism of the state of Israel, which is far and away different from criticism of an entire faith. To look at the difference you only need to see the different stances on the two party solution from American and Israeli (and French) jews, here is a poll for that. Take of that what you will.
From your stances it seems you strongly take the stance that people should mind their own business and stick to their own country, i.e. "let he without sin cast the first stone." That's fine, that's a solid stance and one I could personally agree with. That said, why then are you supportive of a geopolitical agenda and not an "American first" mindset? Why is it America's problem to deal with the two state mess over in the Middle East? Do you believe that America does not have its own issues, and that publicly bringing up those issues is in someone not attempting to help? The first step to recognizing an issue is to voice it and speak it into existence, as blindly turning an eye won't help solve the issue any faster. I don't think that AOC or Ilhan Omar, or really any of the current Congressional members on either side, truly "hate" America. They may have different ideas of what their idea of America looks like and their policy / stances reflect that, but to say they truly hate America just because they bring up issues that you may not perceive as an issue doesn't mean you can wave them off and say to go back to their own country.
I don't have any comment on AOC criticizing the containment camps. Personally I think that the detainment camps are pretty fucked up and there are probably better solutions, though I also recognize that the issue has become highly politicized since 2016 (even if the policy was in effect prior to 2016). I don't see how criticizing our current forms of immigration control is in any way being hateful towards America, and if you wish then make the argument for it and I will respond appropriately. Similarly, I do not hold a strong opinion on Pressley's comments, whatever they were. From a cursory glance I would say that dismissing voters because they do not believe the same thing you do is not necessarily racist or even hateful but is indeed malignantly ignorant. That will always be the case for any "Uncle Tom" or "Mary Sue," although there is something to be said about people seemingly supporting policymakers who overwhelmingly vote in opposition to the policies that would support that policy (Gays for republicans come to mind, when republicans have overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage to a far greater degree than democrats. Another hypothetical to fit this would be "stoners for trump," otherwise known as libertarians). No party is entitled to a single facet or public block, republicans are no more entitled to white, christian, heterosexual men than democrats are entitled to PoC, irreligious, genderfluid people, and in pure political spirit they would cater to everyone.
I did not respond to the rest of your post because it did not seem relevant to me. I have no interest in getting slogged into a debate on what political leaning Nazis were as both sides will just claim "historical revision" and it will get absolutely nowhere. Nor do I see how its relevant to the 2020 Trump discussion.
i remember this discussion, trump is a socialist because of his concentration camp policy right?
the nazi party platform for reference
"
- A union of all Germans to from a great Germany on the basis of the right to self-determination of peoples.
- Abolition of the Treaty of Versailles.
- Land and territory (colonies) for our surplus population.
- German blood as a requirement for German citizenship. No Jew can be a member of the nation.
- Non-citizens can live in Germany only as foreigners, subject to the law of aliens.
- Only citizens can vote or hold public office.
- The state insures that every citizen live decently and earn his livelihood. If it is impossible to provide food for the whole population, then aliens must be expelled.
- No further immigration of non-Germans. Any non-German who entered Germany after August 2,1914, shall leave immediately.
- A thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The science of citizenship shall be taught from the beginning.
- All newspapers must be published in the German language by German citizens and owners."
Finally, there is just the small fact of WW2 being seen as an ideological conflict between fascism and socialism in germany at the time:
"
Adolf Hitler had argued in his autobiography Mein Kampf (1925) for the necessity of Lebensraum ("living space"): acquiring new territory for Germans in Eastern Europe, in particular in Russia.[14] He envisaged settling Germans there, as according to Nazi ideology the Germanic people constituted the "master race", while exterminating or deporting most of the existing inhabitants to Siberia and using the remainder as slave labour.[15] Hitler as early as 1917 had referred to the Russians as inferior, believing that the Bolshevik Revolution had put the Jews in power over the mass of Slavs, who were, in Hitler's opinion, incapable of ruling themselves but instead being ruled by Jewish masters.[16]
The Nazi leadership, (including Heinrich Himmler)[17] saw the war against the Soviet Union as a struggle between the ideologies of Nazism and Jewish Bolshevism, and ensuring territorial expansion for the Germanic Übermensch(superhumans), who according to Nazi ideology were the Aryan Herrenvolk ("master race"), at the expense of the SlavicUntermenschen (subhumans).[18] Wehrmacht officers told their troops to target people who were described as "Jewish Bolshevik subhumans", the "Mongol hordes", the "Asiatic flood" and the "red beast".[19] The vast majority of German soldiers viewed the war in Nazi terms, seeing the Soviet enemy as sub-human.[20]"
they called themselves socialists in an attempt to appeal to working class germans. they weren't socialists because they didn't pursue socialist policies; workers in nazi germany did not have control over the means of production and were still exploited by their employers. capitalist power dynamics still existed under the nazi regime.
I'm not sure where you are getting that 49% number from since you didn't link any actual polling. These are the only ones I'm aware of, one from YouGov (which, yes, I'm aware is partnered with HuffPo right now, but it has a pretty good track record in past elections at least), and one from Ipsos.
https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2019/07/18/5d30f62ee4b020cd9940fa2b.pdf
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default.../2019-07/topline-usat-trump-tweets-071619.pdf
Pretty stunning finding in the Ipsos poll...
65% of respondents agreed that "Telling minority Americans to “go back where they came from” is a racist statement", including 45% of Republicans. Then, when asked specifically about Trump's tweets, only 37% of Republicans believed THOSE were offensive. Basically, somewhere around 8% of Republican respondents changed their mind about whether or not something was offensive based on Trump doing it. Similarly, 85% of Democrats find that general statement to be racist, and then 93% Trump's specific one. Again, around an 8% change because it's Trump.
Can these people please have principles and not blind partisanship?
Last edited:
Thats the irony of socialism: no country truly is or has by that definition, because it doesn't work. :I
Last edited:
Hey Dece1t what's your evidence that any of them hate America? That Donald "Biggest Inauguration Crowd Ever" Trump said so?
Also what's your evidence that the detention facilities, which fit just about every definition of "concentration camp," aren't concentration camps? That Donald "A Big Strong Macho Guy Came Up To Me In Tears And Called Me Sir" Trump said so?
Also isn't it funny that Trump is attacking other politicians for "hating America" when one of his favourite rhetorical flourishes in 2016, whenever he wanted to criticize government policy, was "how stupid is this country"?
Also what's your evidence that the detention facilities, which fit just about every definition of "concentration camp," aren't concentration camps? That Donald "A Big Strong Macho Guy Came Up To Me In Tears And Called Me Sir" Trump said so?
Also isn't it funny that Trump is attacking other politicians for "hating America" when one of his favourite rhetorical flourishes in 2016, whenever he wanted to criticize government policy, was "how stupid is this country"?
They literally only fit the technical dictionary definition on not the colloquial version which always takes precedence over whatever the dictionary says.
Like, you have to realize how dumb it looks to call them concentration camps when we have always used it to mean a place you forcibly go to die that you cant escape from.
The people who use the term "concentration camps" to describe the border situation are just looking for the endorphin rush you get when you finally get (or in this case just think you get) evidence for a position you've been holding for a long time but you cant prove concretely, like say Trump is a nazi or indisputable evidence for Bigfoot or saying x team is gonna win the Superbowl before the beginning of the season and actually getting it right. So basically you want them to actually be real concentration camps because if they weren't you'd have to admit that you had egg on your face the whole time and that you got it wrong, which can be incredibly painful especially when you have painted yourself as the moral smart guy this whole time.
Like, you have to realize how dumb it looks to call them concentration camps when we have always used it to mean a place you forcibly go to die that you cant escape from.
The people who use the term "concentration camps" to describe the border situation are just looking for the endorphin rush you get when you finally get (or in this case just think you get) evidence for a position you've been holding for a long time but you cant prove concretely, like say Trump is a nazi or indisputable evidence for Bigfoot or saying x team is gonna win the Superbowl before the beginning of the season and actually getting it right. So basically you want them to actually be real concentration camps because if they weren't you'd have to admit that you had egg on your face the whole time and that you got it wrong, which can be incredibly painful especially when you have painted yourself as the moral smart guy this whole time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
That semantic argument about concentration camps is wrong even in the nazi example, since both labor/work camps and extermination/death camps were collectively concentration camps. The fact that YOU, colloquially, disagree does not make it so. Anyone remotely educated on the history of the holocaust or other events with similar use of concentration camps knows what they are. Perhaps the US school system though is willfully misleading students to make its own history look better.
Even Auschwitz which I’m sure you wrongly think of as purely a place to die was a collection of numerous smaller camps, many of which were for labor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment
Concentration camp at its most basic definition is synonymous with internment camp, as in the Japanese internment camps that the US operated during World War II. Rather curiously though we call our own camps internment camps and yet the nazi ones concentration camps or heck often we call the ones in communist countries “reeducation camps.” Somehow internment sounds better, I guess?
So if you’d rather people call them internment camps, since that’s the colloquial word in the US, fine lol. That still doesn’t make them any better since internment is literally synonymous and still an abhorrent policy.
That semantic argument about concentration camps is wrong even in the nazi example, since both labor/work camps and extermination/death camps were collectively concentration camps. The fact that YOU, colloquially, disagree does not make it so. Anyone remotely educated on the history of the holocaust or other events with similar use of concentration camps knows what they are. Perhaps the US school system though is willfully misleading students to make its own history look better.
Even Auschwitz which I’m sure you wrongly think of as purely a place to die was a collection of numerous smaller camps, many of which were for labor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment
Concentration camp at its most basic definition is synonymous with internment camp, as in the Japanese internment camps that the US operated during World War II. Rather curiously though we call our own camps internment camps and yet the nazi ones concentration camps or heck often we call the ones in communist countries “reeducation camps.” Somehow internment sounds better, I guess?
So if you’d rather people call them internment camps, since that’s the colloquial word in the US, fine lol. That still doesn’t make them any better since internment is literally synonymous and still an abhorrent policy.
I Googled "migrant deaths in US detention centers" to get a better understanding of the spate of fatalities that are appearing in news headlines so frequently and was shocked to learn that of the 24 deaths this year (as of June), it's still below the peak of 32 from 2004 when record keeping began.
So, we know these detention centers precede the Trump administration, but I can't recall ever hearing this much about them, and certainly never heard them called concentration camps before. (Take that with a grain of salt, though, because I'll be the first to admit I'm not a news junkie.)
The heightened awareness about the conditions of the centers/camps is appreciated, and inhumane conditions at any facility where people are held in custody are deplorable regardless of the president, but I have to ask: Is this endemic to Trump's administration, or is this the fault of a systemic failure within ICE/Homeland Security at large, or something else?
I'm always happy to deride Trump for his vile behavior, but can we really pin this on him? Would it be any different under a progressive candidate? Even Obama's administration held ~34,000 migrants daily in facilities on average.
So, we know these detention centers precede the Trump administration, but I can't recall ever hearing this much about them, and certainly never heard them called concentration camps before. (Take that with a grain of salt, though, because I'll be the first to admit I'm not a news junkie.)
The heightened awareness about the conditions of the centers/camps is appreciated, and inhumane conditions at any facility where people are held in custody are deplorable regardless of the president, but I have to ask: Is this endemic to Trump's administration, or is this the fault of a systemic failure within ICE/Homeland Security at large, or something else?
I'm always happy to deride Trump for his vile behavior, but can we really pin this on him? Would it be any different under a progressive candidate? Even Obama's administration held ~34,000 migrants daily in facilities on average.
Ok, but a lot of it is Congress blocking the funding desperately needed for it, this isn't exactly Trump's fault. I agree the conditions aren't great, but there's so much stonewalling it's not even funny.
I can practically guarantee you that it was not thought-out. Nothing by Trump is. He just gets cut an enormous amount of slack by half the country so he can post unfiltered stuff and when something sticks he looks like a political genius.
That being said I agree with you - if the election is Trump v ‘the squad’ in 2020 Trump wins easily.
I agree with you. Talking about that, the democratic People's Republic of Korea is the most democratic country in the world. It's obvious, it's in the name.
24 is not necessarily an accurate number since it's unclear whether they count everyone who dies at a hospital as 'outside' of ICE custody.
as to why we didn't hear it before: There was lots of objections to the formation of these agencies (DHS and ICE) when Bush created them so not sure what substance there is there. Following that, Obama had 'the american left' (if it can even be talked about as existing) lawled to sleep more or less. It would be tempting for some to argue that under Obama these camps weren't kept intentionally derelict in order to inflict harm and discourage immigration as they are being rapidly purposed for by the current administration, but such an argument ignores the actual history of refugee camps as a tool of state control. Such an argument essentially claims that there is a really big difference between neo-liberal incompetence/arrogance and neoconservative cruelty, but you won't see it from me.
I think ICE/Homeland Security were bound to be central oppressive components of any far-right regime that captured the electorate's imagination and that was what was stated by what was left of the left back in the bush years. In addition, many of the people recruited on the basis of 'counter-terrorism' missions have found out that their main job in ICE and Border Patrol is actually to run a homeless shelter, which mainly involves providing services to families. Border Patrol has 45000 employees and every 36 hours one of them is arrested for a violent crime or felony, which really makes you think about those 24 deaths and what exactly that number is indeed counting.