623
‘Dude, you were president’: Obama flings Trump’s line of attack right back at him
(www.huffpost.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
623 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19170 readers
6477 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I say it, I get buried in down votes. Yes, we have a problem and it involves real people with real lives. Acting like the issue is 100% GOP bullshit isn't helping to either fix the issue or help these people.
For example, look at the downward trend for 2024. Well, that's good news isn't it? That's 100,000 people the Border Patrol encountered trying to get in, in a single month. We have to talk about how we are to employ, feed and shelter that many people. And they are constantly flowing in.
I have no idea how best to proceed, the logistics are boggling, but pretending nothing is happening is not a strategy.
No one is pretending that nothing is happening. The Democratic Party has proposed a variety of solutions and the GOP has blocked 100% of them. Everyone recognizes there's a problem, but only one of the major parties is blocking progress on this specific issue.
You're getting down voted because you're giving credence to the GOP argument that this is somehow due to lack of action by the current administration. There's a problem with our immigration system AND the GOP is completely full of shit 100% of the time on immigration. Both are true.
And the Democrats have zero plans as to how:
All I see from the left side of the aisle is more ways to prevent immigration. And once again, liberals have no clue that real lives are on the line and use this as a political football. Not nearly as bad as conservatives, but still, I'm not hearing how we deal with these folks once they're here. All the Dems got is finer-honed blocking plans, nada about the humanitarian crisis.
Notice how your comment says nothing about the real humans involved?
Democrats have proposed a path to citizenship. They have proposed improving the process of immigrating to the United States by adding judges and streamlining the process. They support a strong social safety net. They support improving working conditions. All things that help with the root causes for a lot of the problems in our immigration system. And all of which have been shut down by the GOP.
Hell, the only reason the Democrats are mainly talking about enforcement and not fixing the system in its entirety right now is because that's literally the only thing the GOP would entertain when they negotiated the deal Trump tanked.
I don't think it's fair to claim the Democrats are using the issue as a political football when they're actually operating in good faith. We need to stop allowing Republicans to get elected and sabotage the process.
Trump's plan for the real humans involved is to deport them all. Which would take so much time that it would involve concentration camps.
I wonder how much the influx of immigrants has to do with the GOP falsely claiming 'the border is wide open, they're letting everyone in!' on an international stage at every opportunity for the past two decades.
I have no idea. I asked my Filipino wife how much American politics entered into her plans to come here. She told me that they're really not aware of the political situation, don't care, they just want to get here.
I find that hard to believe, but there's an anecdote, hell I know. We got a Honduran friend I'll ask. Doesn't speak a lick of English after 5-years stateside, but I'd be interested in what he can say. Cool note: That man walked for a month to get here. Probably getting away from homosexual persecution, whatever, he's a brave man.
I'm also interested in what your black friend and jewish coworker have to say, please let me know, thanks!
That 100,000 number is the number of border encounters, which counts people caught crossing illegally and people trying legally but being denied entry. While we don't have any way of knowing for sure, the apprehension rate was estimated at 78% in 2017-2020 and has quite possibly gone up a little since then. The 78% of people caught crossing is 100,000, the number of people actually crossing successfully is a lot lower.
And that’s the number of crossing encounters; likely the same people attempted to cross many times, and 78% of the time they were caught.
Oftentimes, people aren’t crossing the border to find a new life in the US; they’re crossing to visit friends, do some shopping/smuggling, or find some itinerant work, after which they cross the other direction.
explain how this is a problem.
The lazy immigrants who don't work are taking all the jobs.
Goddamn welfare queens are trying to steal my job.
And eating all the dogs and getting all the gender affirming surgeries in prison.
Day tok ma job!
I mean, I can see it being a logistical problem for the areas directly on the border if people that come in stay there instead of spreading across the country to avoid overtaxing local resources, but on the whole, one would think lots of people coming in would be a good thing. Immigration is what is keeping the country slowly growing instead of being in population decline the way many other countries are these days, and in general, more people does translate to more economic and military power as long as you can maintain the same per-capita economic conditions once they arrive. If anything, we should be trying to attract immigrants in my view
Yes! We need immigrants, but the logistical problems are a little more than you dumb down. See my comment here. We're not slowly growing, we're bulging at the seams. And I haven't even touched on the environmental impacts of this population growth.
It's sticky as hell, and you seem to get that. Anyone with simple answers is just that, simple.
I mean, the thing with the environmental impacts of it is that these people already existed, so any increase in climate impact from them is driven not by actual population growth in a global sense, but in people here having a higher quality of life. We need to decouple that from carbon emissions of course, but in the meantime, I dont know that "Some people who were incredibly poor are now a bit less poor" is really the worst reason for an increase in climate impact. 100000 a month is a bit over million people a year, which sounds like a lot, but when the country has over 300 million people, that is in the ballpark of a third of a percent. That doesnt seem like very much to me. It seems silly to say the country is "bursting at the seams" or "we're full" as I sometimes hear people say in the same vein- when we have a lower average population density than the world as a whole. Countries like India and China manage well over 4 times that in a similar amount of space, and if we want to stay globally relevant in the long run in a world where there are countries with over a billion people that are rapidly developing economically, it seems to me that we would benefit from roughly similar numbers. If we can achieve this by allowing the impoverished from elsewhere to come, add the better aspects of their culture to ours like migrant groups have done before, and improve their quality of life while doing so (granted, actually treating immigrants to the standards we treat eachother is something we need to work on), that strikes me as win-win. Yes, population growth poses a strain on things like housing and public services, but we do have enough raw land, and the infrastructure is something that we can build, indeed, building it is itself something that can drive economic growth and job creation.
Uh, you can't see the issue with 100,000 lives pouring into a country in a single month? OK.
I'm from Tulsa, OK originally. Not exactly a cow town. You could fill that city in 4-months with that many people, and Tulsa has been around since 1836, not even 200-years. Or, fill Chicago in a little over 2-years (whew, that's some rough back-of-the-napkin math!)
Think a moment on the housing, food, sewage, power, water, etc. to provide for that many lives. It's staggering and we keep loading more and more and more. Our population has increased by 138 million since I was born. That's a 60% increase. You cool with the environmental and carbon increases?
But hey! Pretend it's not a problem. These people earn slave wages, pay taxes, get zero benefits, sound good? Don't hear libs complaining about any of that. Modern slavery by any other words.
you don't care about a single one of those things you cite as problems. this is why your grandkids avoid you.