I wonder if you’ve ever been the focus of a SDMB pile on. I’m guessing…no. No, it doesn’t advance the debate, but it sure is good for letting me vent my frustration sometimes at you folks.
Let me get this straight-The Prez is putting kids into concentration camps because we won’t fund his wall? He would have spent spent the money on the camps first if we had just given him what he wanted?
Is that the claim being made?
I’m just not interested. They may be very convincing arguments, I’m sure, so get back to me when she can rally a handful of academics - people who are in a good position to evaluate the arguments - to her cause. But that you consider it convincing is, to put it bluntly, worthless. Because convincing right-wing people to go along with the right-wing line is her job. She does this shit for a living. Independent of the merit of the arguments, mind you, it is literally her job to be an editor and author for a website that is basically right-wing propaganda.
I said it from the start - don’t bring me this shit.
I’ve cited maybe a dozen historians, most of whom specialize in the holocaust, all calling them concentration camps. You may find the arguments put forward by the editor at Red State convincing. I find them incredibly weak, personally. But neither of us are in as good of a position as any of the dozen or so academics I cited. And they’re all pretty clear on whether or not these are concentration camps.
Your use of the word “all” here is wrong. From your Newsweek cite:
With the definition of “you folks” being “the people who keep telling me that the preponderance of evidence shows that the horrible conditions in the camps are not caused by lack of funding, but rather this administrations desire to create horrible conditions in the camps as a deterrence.”
This is the problem. Funding is not the problem.
If I apologize for this minor error, will you apologize for that incredibly tasteless joke at the expense of children in concentration camps?
I’ve already pointed out that you were wrong. I’m not really interested in an apology from you.
And, just to make the point:
Of course, better to pull out the mote out of his eye first, instead of casting out the beam out of the administration’s eye.
Funding is one component, but the Administration has consistently sought to deter people fleeing the violence in their country by making migrants as miserable as possible. If one’s main objective is to make other people miserable, it isn’t actually a defense to say that they didn’t have sufficient money to make life humane.
And yet, the Republican-controlled Senate produced its own version of the bill fewer than 48 hours before Pelosi; both of which were written nearly two months after the request. And you only blame the Democrats. I think your partisan bias is showing here. Plus, see comments above.
I think this is your anti-science bias showing.
Do you also think the ICRC is biased? They are supposed to do a study soon.
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”.
I don’t think so, but I’ve got a request for you: Go here and read this little article (it’s not very long), and then come back and tell me if you can see how some people might conclude the AAP is something less than entirely non-partisan.
Yes, that was my point earlier: If it’s as bad as you claim, you should be able to make that argument without resorting to Nazi references.
He’s the one here making erroneous posts, and reading and responding to what I’m writing; “the administration” isn’t.
:rolleyes:
It is not my problem if you spectacularly ignore the point, seems that children can be abused and nothing is wrong in your view.
But hey, removing a mote in the eye of a poster in a message board is more important… /s
And as has been pointed out by many here, over and over again and by others who have a great deal of expertise on the subject:
The term “concentration camp” is quite an accurate one in this instance, and does not have to mean “Nazi death camp”. There is one side making a big deal of mentioning the Nazis here, and equating “concentration camp” to “Nazi camp”. Look in the mirror.
On what facts do you base this opinion?
By all accounts, the conditions that the people are being held in sound terrible. From conception to execution, nothing seems like it was done with competence. But when I read “concentration camps”, the entire thing falls flat to me. This was discussed early on in the thread - it seems transparently inflammatory. From a real politk point of view, I’m not sure if that is a good tactic to take. Maybe it is because it will motivate more people to vote who otherwise wouldn’t. Or maybe it is a good tactic because it will energize the base. I don’t know.
But I do know there is a vast difference between rounding up people already in the country and holding them against their will, and detaining people who are voluntarily attempting to enter the country and may or may not have a right to be here. That false equivalence is doing a lot of work and it’s wholly unpersuasive for me.
If a politician started calling what is happening “communist genocide” as well, I think they would get some people to agree with that. But a lot of people would think - this isn’t really communist genocide. And pointing that out isn’t a defense of what is happening, because words matter.
A more interesting question to me, is whether it’s appropriate to create a deterrent to immigration by making the process more difficult?
According to Trump and his team, they made conditions more unpleasant and harmful (i.e. purposefully separating families) for deterrent purposes.
And, according to nearly every academic who has weighed in, entirely appropriate. Words do matter - why don’t you ask the actual experts? Historians who are experts in the holocaust are standing up and saying, “These are concentration camps”. The excuse “but we NEEEEEEEEEEED them!” does not change their classification. It also doesn’t dodge some rather horrifying historic parallels. :rolleyes:
I’m pretty sure this sentence from the Red Stater’s article is inaccurate.
Many of those being held did not cross the border illegally. They legally presented themselves at a port of entry and requested asylum.
They didn’t break the law. They showed up on our doorstep and asked for help.
I guess we have to admit that there are bad people on both sides here.
One the one side we have an administration that takes people who have legally requested asylum, and separates them from their children. The children are kept in segregated areas in poor conditions and not given appropriate supplies such as soap or toothpaste. Some of the children have died. Many of these separations were done with such poor oversight that many of the children will never see their parents again. And the administration has said that the bad conditions will serve as a deterrent to prevent others from having the audacity to come and ask for asylum.
On the other hand, some bad people have used the term “concentration camps” to describe the areas where the children are held, and this is an inflammatory term, that reminds people of the horrible events of World War II.
These two things are exactly alike, and these two groups of people are equally bad.
Also, any reports on these children in camps are fake news. And no, you can’t send anyone to look at the camps.