22 Aug
12:21pm, 22 Aug 2024
25,403 posts
|
larkim
But the substance I agree with (insofar as I could read more than just a couple of lines, rather than just the URL). *Illegal* migrants surely should be processed, deported etc rapidly. That would be a solid, effective system. But asylum seekers <> illegal migrants, which is the fundamental problem that the RW press can't understand (or choose to avoid understanding). If we can properly distinguish between legal/illegal/asylum-linked migration, we can have a proper conversation about the grey areas between those categories - have we got the right balance of what we allow as "legal" migration? Are we properly standing up to our moral and international duties to welcome and support those seeking (and entitled to) asylum? Surely that's the point of doing things properly? |
22 Aug
12:34pm, 22 Aug 2024
32,934 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
larkim wrote: Almost irrespective of Trump from this point onwards, there'll be disturbances if he doesn't win; the events following the last election almost make that inevitable. I still think he falls short of the real threat to the US democratic tradition that some paint him as though; he's just a very bad loser and I don't actually think he even considers the election he is in as anything other than a game to be played and won, however he does it. It's the fact that his acolytes and disciples can't see through that that confounds me. Are they really that stupid, or is there something about what Trump really does offer that I'm failing to grasp that might actually make me sit down and consider his offer as rational for even a few minutes. (I like to think that if, say, Thatcher/Major/Sunak/Cameron had sat down with me and used their best persuasive tones that I might actually be able to understand things from their perspective as being "correct", even if I disagreed from my perspective. I can't even fathom that that might be possible with Trump) He "almost" overturned the result of a free and fair election using fair, foul and violent means to do it. On Jan 6th the US was a hair's breadth away from anarchy. Who cares if he is a buffoon who couldn't run a whelk stall. Who cares if the country falls into anarchy and violence. He doesn't. His whole project is to create fear and division and position himself as the only guy who can fix it. If he has to burn down every federal institution to do it, he will. He's literally saying that he will. |
|
22 Aug
1:37pm, 22 Aug 2024
25,405 posts
|
larkim
I still think we're falling for Democratic hyperbole. Even the "dictator" quote looks to me as a deliberately incorrect understanding of what he was saying. And the stuff about dismantling federal infrastructure is (as I understand it) about putting power back in the control of states (e.g. this proposal to eliminate the Department of Education). theguardian.com It's not *at all* that I agree with him. But there's a risk that by exaggerating what he says and does or might do, those who oppose him simply paint themselves into a readily rebutted corner, rather than taking him on on policy (in a way which appeals to US voters). (The quote was that he'd be a dictator only on day one, to implement a border closure with Mexico and expand oil drilling, and after that he'd not be a dictator. Yet it has been post-spun as Trump declaring he wants to be a dictator. theguardian.com ) |
22 Aug
1:46pm, 22 Aug 2024
22,919 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Farage off to Clacton-upon-Arizona again theguardian.com |
|
22 Aug
1:48pm, 22 Aug 2024
25,406 posts
|
larkim
larkim wrote: I still think we're falling for Democratic hyperbole. Even the "dictator" quote looks to me as a deliberately incorrect understanding of what he was saying. And the stuff about dismantling federal infrastructure is (as I understand it) about putting power back in the control of states (e.g. this proposal to eliminate the Department of Education). theguardian.com It's not *at all* that I agree with him. But there's a risk that by exaggerating what he says and does or might do, those who oppose him simply paint themselves into a readily rebutted corner, rather than taking him on on policy (in a way which appeals to US voters). (The quote was that he'd be a dictator only on day one, to implement a border closure with Mexico and expand oil drilling, and after that he'd not be a dictator. Yet it has been post-spun as Trump declaring he wants to be a dictator. theguardian.com ) OTOH, if peddling the "Trump is a real threat to US democracy" line wins votes for Harris - then keep it up!! |
|
22 Aug
2:05pm, 22 Aug 2024
32,935 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
He's a real threat. He should be in jail by now.
|
22 Aug
3:28pm, 22 Aug 2024
17,670 posts
|
jda
“ UK ministers rule out joining youth mobility scheme with EU” Another from the “look how much more progressive and sensible Labour are than the loony Brexiter Tories” files. theguardian.com I’m sure the youth will be inspired and motivated by that. |
22 Aug
3:42pm, 22 Aug 2024
20,334 posts
|
Gooner
Have they said why?
|
|
22 Aug
4:47pm, 22 Aug 2024
17,671 posts
|
jda
Brexit means brexit (they didn't actually say that) |
22 Aug
5:56pm, 22 Aug 2024
32,735 posts
|
macca 53
Gooner wrote: Have they said why? It’s in here…. theguardian.com |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
