Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

o_O.Q said:
Machiavellian said:

My response is that your question is an excuse to accept the situation happening based on the article.  What does it matter if I accept open borders or not since that isn't what the article is about.  You asked a question looking to support what is happening, it really matters not if I accept open or close borders since that isn't what's at stake.  People dying trying to get into the US is what's at stake and the solutions we accept to stop it is really the question.

To answer your question so you can feel good, No I do not accept open borders, I have answered this question before in political threads.  Just because I do not support open borders does not mean I accept any means necessary to stop illegal immigration.  I definitely do not support looking for ways to cause these people to die in some hope this will deter them from trying to make a dangerous desert crossing.

Also if the person is not given Asylum, why would I be in favor of throwing them back to die.  Why does that need to be the solution.  Are you saying we need to take them back into the desert find a nice comfortable spot and leave them there or just send them back to the country they came from.  Why don't we just do what we do with anyone who seeks asylum and get denied.  We already have a process for this and it's not the solution you presented.

"What does it matter if I accept open borders or not since that isn't what the article is about"

its important because it would be a waste of time to discuss border security with someone who wants the borders to be gone right?

Maybe if you did not waste your time trying to bring up a subject that has no meaning to the content of what is being discussed, you would not need to ask this question.

"To answer your question so you can feel good, No I do not accept open borders"

why not? why would you deny people access to the united states?

I said I do not accept open borders, that does not mean I do not accept immigration to the US.  The term and concept of open border isn't as simple as saying "Let everyone in" then let people in who have a purpose or on certain conditions.  I am more than happy to accept anyone who can support their family and increase the welfare of the US.  I can go into much more detail but to be honest, if you really want to open this topic, you should open it up as another thread instead.

"Just because I do not support open borders does not mean I accept any means necessary to stop illegal immigration."

huh? any means necessary? you mean securing the border? since you do not support open borders what measures would you take to prevent people from entering the country?

Do we not already have systems in place to prevent people from illegally entering the country.  Already accept those.  Hell, I just gave an example of doing something outside of the box which I am sure you ignored because it didn't fit your position.  Let me state it again, looking to help our neighbors increase the welfare of their countries probably would benefit more than throwing up a wall or forcing people to make dangerous crossings in the desert.

Let me ask you a question, have you ever gone to another country and help build a school, well, housing, roads, bridges you name it.  Well, I have and guess what, I have first hand experience in how such projects changes the people.  Maybe you should try out something along those lines I promise you it will change your perception on life.

"You asked a question looking to support what is happening"

it has nothing to do with whether i personally support it or not or whether the majority of americans support it or not

it is about what is law, what is in the constitution, what people far smarter than you or I have laid down as the rules to govern a particular society

Lol, people always throw this "What is Law" around only to then ignore it when its not convenient to their position.  Laws have come and gone or been changed depending on who is in charge.  The constitution has amendments to update and change it.  So when you say what is Law, what does that really mean because any Law can be changed, the Constitution can be amended.  America has a history of unjust laws and a history of people standing up for their rights and the rights of others making changes to those laws.  Just saying "what is Law", "what is in the constitution" what does that actually mean because by itself, it means nothing.

"Also if the person is not given Asylum, why would I be in favor of throwing them back to die"

you just equated not being allowed into the country with death did you not?

I am guessing you felt like ignoring everything else I stated since you only added that one line.  Not sure how you came to that conclusion since I gave an answer exactly what I meant but more power to you.



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:

therefore, you believe america should have completely open borders?

i didn't say i want these people to die, i'm asking you for your position on this issue

Personally, I think in a perfect world, open borders is the only kind of border that makes sense.  

Seeing as we don't live in a perfect world, our borders should be as open or closed as they need to be.  

No one is concerned about the US Canada border, it's not an "open border" where people are free to come and go as they please, but it also doesn't have a fence or a military presence.  

The only reason people are coming from the southern border is because a lot of those countries have issues so the people have a lot of incentive to come here particularly to find assylum. 

If the question is whether we should build a wall, I'd prefer a more costly offering that would a.) actually benefit everyone involved, and b.) is more likely to work.  

If we can improve the lives of people where they are living, they have less incentive to come here.  

But either way, the impact a policy has on people shouldn't be worse than what a policy is supposed to be doing.  

People shouldn't be dying, because we want to keep them out of the country.  There's plenty of more humane options, even if you definitely don't want anyone coming into the country.  



Make America great small again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjSWm4QNTuk

Louisiana is loosing a football field worth of land area every single hour due to climate change and the rising sea level that comes with it - on top of being accelerated by the land sinking down.

Louisiana lost 1900 square miles between 1932 and 2010 alone, which is about the size of Delaware.



Machiavellian said:
o_O.Q said:

"What does it matter if I accept open borders or not since that isn't what the article is about"

its important because it would be a waste of time to discuss border security with someone who wants the borders to be gone right?

Maybe if you did not waste your time trying to bring up a subject that has no meaning to the content of what is being discussed, you would not need to ask this question.

"To answer your question so you can feel good, No I do not accept open borders"

why not? why would you deny people access to the united states?

I said I do not accept open borders, that does not mean I do not accept immigration to the US.  The term and concept of open border isn't as simple as saying "Let everyone in" then let people in who have a purpose or on certain conditions.  I am more than happy to accept anyone who can support their family and increase the welfare of the US.  I can go into much more detail but to be honest, if you really want to open this topic, you should open it up as another thread instead.

"Just because I do not support open borders does not mean I accept any means necessary to stop illegal immigration."

huh? any means necessary? you mean securing the border? since you do not support open borders what measures would you take to prevent people from entering the country?

Do we not already have systems in place to prevent people from illegally entering the country.  Already accept those.  Hell, I just gave an example of doing something outside of the box which I am sure you ignored because it didn't fit your position.  Let me state it again, looking to help our neighbors increase the welfare of their countries probably would benefit more than throwing up a wall or forcing people to make dangerous crossings in the desert.

Let me ask you a question, have you ever gone to another country and help build a school, well, housing, roads, bridges you name it.  Well, I have and guess what, I have first hand experience in how such projects changes the people.  Maybe you should try out something along those lines I promise you it will change your perception on life.

"You asked a question looking to support what is happening"

it has nothing to do with whether i personally support it or not or whether the majority of americans support it or not

it is about what is law, what is in the constitution, what people far smarter than you or I have laid down as the rules to govern a particular society

Lol, people always throw this "What is Law" around only to then ignore it when its not convenient to their position.  Laws have come and gone or been changed depending on who is in charge.  The constitution has amendments to update and change it.  So when you say what is Law, what does that really mean because any Law can be changed, the Constitution can be amended.  America has a history of unjust laws and a history of people standing up for their rights and the rights of others making changes to those laws.  Just saying "what is Law", "what is in the constitution" what does that actually mean because by itself, it means nothing.

"Also if the person is not given Asylum, why would I be in favor of throwing them back to die"

you just equated not being allowed into the country with death did you not?

I am guessing you felt like ignoring everything else I stated since you only added that one line.  Not sure how you came to that conclusion since I gave an answer exactly what I meant but more power to you.

"Maybe if you did not waste your time trying to bring up a subject that has no meaning to the content"

this is literally a discussion about borders, what are you talking about?

"Hell, I just gave an example of doing something outside of the box which I am sure you ignored because it didn't fit your position.  Let me state it again, looking to help our neighbors increase the welfare of their countries probably would benefit more than throwing up a wall or forcing people to make dangerous crossings in the desert."

why couldn't both that and securing the border be done?

why make it into a unilateral thing where its either that borders be secured or aid is given to other countries?

are you aware of how much the us spends on foreign aid btw?

"I am more than happy to accept anyone who can support their family and increase the welfare of the US."

what about those who cannot? 

"Let me ask you a question, have you ever gone to another country and help build a school, well, housing, roads, bridges you name it.  Well, I have and guess what, I have first hand experience in how such projects changes the people."

you are truly a saint for doing that for people, if i could i would give you a gold star

"Laws have come and gone or been changed depending on who is in charge.  The constitution has amendments to update and change it. "

yes but obviously when discussing law we must acknowledge the current state of law

it was once within the law to own people and maybe things will revert back to that point again if certain people have their way

the fact of the matter is that the law right now categorises the us as a country without open borders, regardless of whether you want it to be that way or not

"Just saying "what is Law", "what is in the constitution" what does that actually mean because by itself, it means nothing."

the laws mean nothing because they may change over time?

does this mean you would be ok with me coming into your home and taking your possessions?

" Not sure how you came to that conclusion since I gave an answer exactly what I meant but more power to you."

this is how

"Yeah, we should make sure they continue to die in the desert, that will show them."

this implication here to me is that if they are not taken into the country then they will die, is that an unreasonable conclusion to make?



the-pi-guy said:
o_O.Q said:

therefore, you believe america should have completely open borders?

i didn't say i want these people to die, i'm asking you for your position on this issue

Personally, I think in a perfect world, open borders is the only kind of border that makes sense.  

Seeing as we don't live in a perfect world, our borders should be as open or closed as they need to be.  

No one is concerned about the US Canada border, it's not an "open border" where people are free to come and go as they please, but it also doesn't have a fence or a military presence.  

The only reason people are coming from the southern border is because a lot of those countries have issues so the people have a lot of incentive to come here particularly to find assylum. 

If the question is whether we should build a wall, I'd prefer a more costly offering that would a.) actually benefit everyone involved, and b.) is more likely to work.  

If we can improve the lives of people where they are living, they have less incentive to come here.  

But either way, the impact a policy has on people shouldn't be worse than what a policy is supposed to be doing.  

People shouldn't be dying, because we want to keep them out of the country.  There's plenty of more humane options, even if you definitely don't want anyone coming into the country.  

"Personally, I think in a perfect world, open borders is the only kind of border that makes sense.  "

what about cases where cultures are incompatible?

the us has a vastly different culture to areas in the middle east for example( this is not a value judgement just a fact )

or in this perfect world does everyone all have the same culture, beliefs etc?

"If we can improve the lives of people where they are living, they have less incentive to come here.  "

the us spends more than any other country on foreign aid as far as i know

the real problem i believe is the government has too much power and so has been allowed for decades to destabalise various regions across the world, which obviously leads to refugees

the people of the us have been negligent and so they will pay the price

"People shouldn't be dying, because we want to keep them out of the country."

if illegal aliens en masse decide to go on hunger strike because they are not being allowed in, does that mean they should automatically be allowed in ?



Around the Network

Some comedy gold from our friend Ben Shapiro.

And also a great example of how I like interviewers to handle political figures.



forest-spirit said:

Some comedy gold from our friend Ben Shapiro.

And also a great example of how I like interviewers to handle political figures.

Facts don't care about Shapiro's feelings. The ending really is him ragequit the interview because he couldn't get his way in twisting the words.

Also funny how he accuses the BBC on interviewing him because he's popular and wanting to make a quick buck on him, not understanding how the BBC operates and that he's only popular globally in the US.



forest-spirit said:

Some comedy gold from our friend Ben Shapiro.

And also a great example of how I like interviewers to handle political figures.

Ben Shapiro is so ignorant and arrogant.

Apparently you don't have to be actually intelligent to be an “intellectual”, you just have to appear intelligent and convinced.



G O O D B O I

o_O.Q said:
Machiavellian said:

"Maybe if you did not waste your time trying to bring up a subject that has no meaning to the content"

this is literally a discussion about borders, what are you talking about?

"Hell, I just gave an example of doing something outside of the box which I am sure you ignored because it didn't fit your position.  Let me state it again, looking to help our neighbors increase the welfare of their countries probably would benefit more than throwing up a wall or forcing people to make dangerous crossings in the desert."

why couldn't both that and securing the border be done?

why make it into a unilateral thing where its either that borders be secured or aid is given to other countries?

are you aware of how much the us spends on foreign aid btw?

This is where we continue to move away from the article itself.  We will continue to go down the rabbit whole as you try to make a point on something totally different.  As I stated if you really want to discuss this topic, why don't you open a thread on it because the article is about people trying to prevent people from dying.

"I am more than happy to accept anyone who can support their family and increase the welfare of the US."

what about those who cannot? 

"Let me ask you a question, have you ever gone to another country and help build a school, well, housing, roads, bridges you name it.  Well, I have and guess what, I have first hand experience in how such projects changes the people."

you are truly a saint for doing that for people, if i could i would give you a gold star

Nope, not a saint at all but I have definitely lived a life on both ends of the street and know what a hard life can make you do.  I did not do it to be a saint.  I did it to give back to communities after I was able to rise above poverty and live a good life.  I have helped build schools and then see the graduates who were not only able to go to college and get degrees but also come back to their homeland and put back into their community.  It's not about being a saint or anything of the sort, its just a appreciation of people who help me get to where I am at and giving back.

"Laws have come and gone or been changed depending on who is in charge.  The constitution has amendments to update and change it. "

yes but obviously when discussing law we must acknowledge the current state of law

So then how have we come to today with laws being changed and the constitution being amended.  Have people sacrificed their lives to make a difference and a change or did things just change on their own.  If you are going to throw the law into your argument just remember it's a two edged sword which I am sure we will find one you chose to ignore.

it was once within the law to own people and maybe things will revert back to that point again if certain people have their way

the fact of the matter is that the law right now categorises the us as a country without open borders, regardless of whether you want it to be that way or not

Not sure exactly what this sentence means since I already stated my thoughts on the matter.  What I am talking about is people taking a stance to not let people die because others take the law and use it to do so.  There is one thing to lock someone up for entering the country illegally, there is another thinking of ways for them to die or trying to find way to make it happen to enforce a law.  

If you thought a law was unjust are you the person who would sit back and do nothing.  The way you make your statements, it would seem that no matter what law is put into effect, you would just go along with it.

"Just saying "what is Law", "what is in the constitution" what does that actually mean because by itself, it means nothing."

the laws mean nothing because they may change over time?

does this mean you would be ok with me coming into your home and taking your possessions?

My statement is you as a person, do you always just follow the law.  Do you always go the speed limit no matter what.  The point is does "What is Law" only means something as long as it applies to someone else.  If you have broken the law no matter how big or small do not act self rigiouteos throwing that word around because in the end, the majority of the people only care about a law if it's not inconvenient to them.

" Not sure how you came to that conclusion since I gave an answer exactly what I meant but more power to you."

this is how

"Yeah, we should make sure they continue to die in the desert, that will show them."

this implication here to me is that if they are not taken into the country then they will die, is that an unreasonable conclusion to make?

Should I have put the sarcasm tag on that line.



Machiavellian said:
o_O.Q said:

" Not sure how you came to that conclusion since I gave an answer exactly what I meant but more power to you."

this is how

"Yeah, we should make sure they continue to die in the desert, that will show them."

this implication here to me is that if they are not taken into the country then they will die, is that an unreasonable conclusion to make?

Should I have put the sarcasm tag on that line.

No, because that would have only meant more work for him if he had to delete more context from your post.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club