Its so sad to see the government employees suffering, i am an immigrant, i dont know if this is the country that has any ethics, holding them hostage for ego trips.
- Microsoft Mr 🌏Do you think a country where health care is not guaranteed to everyone has some ethics?
- Why can't we go back to the Obama days when there weren't any government shutdowns?
- Only sad thing here is how emotional and easily swayed people like you are by popular media and news sources.
Thinking for yourself once in a while would probably help you have a better time.
- I just think your sympathy is utterly misplaced. We can cover an example. Say you feel badly for people in China who are oppressed by the Communist Party, like the millions of Uighars in the north east of China who are having their lives and homes invaded by party officials, and routinely abducted and sent to forced labor and re-education camps where they are tortured and have organs forcibly removed for profit.
Can you do anything about it? If so, then do it. If not, then focus on something you can actually affect. Otherwise the people you can actually help will miss out on your misplaced sympathy.
In this way it doesn’t matter if they are real or not most of the time. But the point I am really making is that you let yourself be easily manipulated when you consume popular news media, and it will make you feel worse for no good reason.
Unless you’re a masochist, continue on.
- @Spicy That’s definitely a problem. But a persistent individual can identify these people and compartmentalize them. Heavily sympathetic people (like women and liberals in general) have to put in their due diligence to “aim properly”.
It’s all about due diligence.
And it’s more important for liberals to think through things for themselves than conservatives simply because liberals are statistically correlated to have high openness — a Big 5 trait. Open individuals typically generate new ideas, and nothing is more risky than new ideas. Conservatives on the other hand typically want to conserve the status quo, which is inherently less risky.
Liberals and sympathetics have a higher responsibility to put in major due diligence and think through their own inclinations.
- I’m an immigrant as well and I just want to say that if you have such a bad opinion about this country perhaps it would be better for you to just go back to your home country. I’m sure everything is morally superior and perfect there.
Trump won the election on immigration and he needs to deliver. His opponents know that obstructing this is their best hope at making him a one term president. That’s the only reason why they don’t want to negotiate on something that’s less than a rounding error in the overall budget.
- Google / EngBluthsAmerica and ethics? Of course not. But then neither did the Roman Empire or the British empire. You don’t get to stay a superpower if you have ethics.
- Romans were absolutely not tolerant of religious views. They would completely suppress a people via oligarchy simply for having experienced a differing world view. They also routinely rewrote and modified religious texts for their own purposes. For example the myth of Amor and Psyche -> Eros and Aphrodite were name swapped with Amor and Venus.
- I think you’re mixing up the American government with the American people.
- Healthcare isn’t a right here. Sick leave isn’t a right here. Paid vacation isn’t a right here. Maternity leave isn’t a right here. We invade countries on false pretense and lies. 90 people a day die in gun violence. And you question if we’re an ethical country?
It depends on who is in power, but the answer is a range is maybe to hell no. And as long as this country keeps prioritizing the individual over we the people, we will never be an ethical country.
- Agreed. There’s some fervor in the federalist papers. But it’s no different really than any democratic revolution countries underwent. The generation that dreamed and fought for democracy all had the same rhetoric. That was a long time ago.
Note I’m not expecting the US to ever change. Not anytime soon at least. Churchill famously said, or perhaps was misquoted saying, that you can always count on America to do the right thing after they’ve exhausted every other possibility.
- There are ethics, just not at the top for the next two years or so. There is always room for improvement.
- Anyone notice a service they weren’t receiving while the government is shutdown?
- Show your data breaking down attendance to national parks otherwise you’re just making a meaningless talking point. I grew up lower middle class and road trips to the national parks was a majority of our vacations.
The federal government funds welfare and other services. The states simply administer it. I don’t know off hand who pays the salaries in the state, but I believe it’s the feds. When the feds shut down and run out of money what good is the states to manage this when the money comes from the fed?
Many state programs also are ran this same way. When the feds turn off the money, everyone suffers.
Your point is probably why does the fed handle any of this? Your question is probably best answered with another question. Why don’t we just have 50 separate countries?
- See a lot of urban African Americans or Latinos on all those trips you took? Nope.
Everyone thinks they are middle class. Even if you are, that’s still not inner city poor.
Welfare/food stamps have been paid through February.
The Fed does very little outside of run a military and an insurance scheme (neither of which is impacted). The State/Local budget is about 2x that of the fed if you exclude military, SSDI, Medicare, and Medicaid.
We don’t separate into 50 countries for common defense - military and protection of the border. Given we apparently don’t give a fuck about the border or citizenry, we might as well split into 50 countries.
- It’s just entertaining listening to you get so worked up and fulminate with fallacies that we don’t care about citizenry or borders. Why do all conservatives devolve into this. You honestly think this way?
We don’t split up into 50 countries because on top of defense benefits, there are some things the feds simply have more power over and can do a better job than each state doing something randomly different. That’s why congress has unlimited authority to regulate interstate commerce. Because the economy ad a whole works better with one standard applied to all even handedly. States are free to experiment going above and beyond the minimum federal standard.
Funny how you didn’t grasp this in your answer only cared about defense. I guess it’s true. Conservatives (whatever that means anymore) really do think differently and can’t separate the trees from the forest.
Stop making excuses that the shutdown is cool. It’s not. It’s stupid and fucked up and totally not necessary and hurting 800k workers and their families.
- Not worked up at all - it’s a very rational discussion.
Monetary union and having a tariff-free zone is the benefit you are highlighting, which I agree with but it’s a very passive activity - you don’t need 20 million people to not do stuff. Also, Southern Europeans may disagree with you on the ROI.
The primary function of a federal government is defense and protection of the Bill of Rights. I know, crazy, right? Maybe those founder guys knew something.
What’s not cool is 1000 illegals per day for 30 years moving here.
- The EU very different. They share the same currency and have open borders and trade, but do not share the same sovereignty. So it’s apples to oranges and cannot be compared to the states.
The founders definitely knew what they were doing. That’s why the constitution is a framework. A very broad framework that was intended to facilitate the construction and evolution of our laws. Because more important that what the founders knew is what they didn’t know. They didn’t now how society was to evolve. Therefore the constitution is vague on purpose and very flexible in many areas.
The explicit function of the federal government, from the constitution itself, is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity.”
Well there’s a lot of shit to cover in all of that, don’t you think? The language is amazing. Quite more than just a military.
Oh and very explicitly, to run the USPS. The founders were quite specific about that.
You should be happy to hear that more illegals are leaving than arriving to our shores then. And I’m all about border security. I just don’t think Trump himself knows how to do it or has the right ideas. Hence why we have 3 branches of government for a good fucking reason. Because one dude doesn’t know better than everyone else. This issue has to be debated and go through regular order in congress. Not some shotgun marriage because Tump says do. Trump needs to end the shutdown and get to work. He had 2 years as a free pass to do whatever he and the GOP wanted. They could have rammed through nearly anything they wanted using reconciliation and other measures.
Trump’s hall pass has expired. It’s time for bipartisanship.
- Agreed this is for Congress to fix. Given they haven’t done that for 30 years (couldn’t the last two years because of Senate filibuster), I have no expectation they will. And our nation will suffer because of that, a lot more than .3% of the population is having their paycheck delayed a couple weeks. Not so much because of anything illegal immigrants specifically do, but more that citizens see less value and responsibility in their citizenship over time given a decline in the belief in the rule of law.
Funny you mentioned sovereignty- that doesn’t exist unless citizenship and borders have meaning.
- Trump wasn’t held back by the filibuster. The filibuster is only for regular order. They passed the trump tax cuts using budget resolution, which only requires 51 votes.
All they had to do was give Trump however many billions he wanted and cut the same amount of spending elsewhere. Democrats couldn’t touch it.
Question is if the GOP is so high and mighty about border security, why didn’t they do this? I thought they were the ones hot and heavy on the immigration war drum and rule of law?
I can’t parse this discrepancy other than the GOP just wants to dial up the immigration card to secure votes and never actually do anything to fix it.
- Sadder is when the primary function of a government (border defense) hasn’t been taken seriously for 30 years.
- That bill increased border policing and workplace crackdowns while legalizing undocumented immigrants who’d entered the US before 1982.
Border enforcement and repression have only been increased by the government since then.
Clinton passed tougher laws, W Bush increased workplace raids, Congress (including top Democrats) voted to build a border fence during the W admin, Obama increased funding and surveillance and some drones for fun.
So how is it that “nothing has been taken seriously”? Every administration has increased this state repression approach and it had no effect on a spike around 2000 or the sharp decline since then. It’s a bullshit folly like a “war on drugs” or “the war on terror” that never really does anything but crunch some individuals while diminishing the general rights of everyone else... except the state, that gets more power and more precedent to trample over people.