Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's 4th Of July Parade

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    DE,

    immigration, certainly-- the GOP is moving from "we are just against ILLEGAL immigration" to "we are against current levels of legal immigration". on the political calculation, not altogether incorrect, that the new Americans will likely not back their corner.

    the other stuff, not so much (trade more than alliances).

    the GOP likely move away from the old libertarianism stuff, outside of cutting taxes, because they've found out the hard way that such a platform is highly unpopular with the electorate.
    So the immigration views will hold.

    I didn't understand what you meant by with trade & alliances ?

    Comment


    • #77
      Trump's trade platform of tariffs and protectionism is anathema to (former) GOP mantra of free trade. although there is a subset of conservatives whom support protectionism as well.

      there is no GOP appetite whatsoever in terms of Trump's denigration of the US alliance system, and it's one of the few areas where the GOP will make a sound or two when Trump goes overboard.

      so the next GOP candidate will likely hold Trump's views on immigration, less so on trade, probably not at all on alliances.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by astralis View Post
        DE,

        immigration, certainly-- the GOP is moving from "we are just against ILLEGAL immigration" to "we are against current levels of legal immigration". on the political calculation, not altogether incorrect, that the new Americans will likely not back their corner.
        DE, not sure if you're familiar with the term, but the term "New Americans" refers to those people who are naturalized citizens of foreign birth. They still often maintain ties with their families overseas. Children born into families who maintain ties with overseas relatives would generally also not likely be sympathetic to reductions in immigration levels, as they have uncles, aunts, grandparents, and cousins, still in the countries their parents came from, to whom they feel a familial bond too.

        Marriages between people of 2nd or "1.5" generation background to persons residing in their parents' home countries is also common. "1.5" generation persons being those who immigrated with their parents as children. I'm sure you're aware of PIOs, for example, returning to India for the purposes of marriage, before returning back overseas with their spouse.

        Another issue related to this, that has prominently come to the fore recently in Republican politics, is that of "chain migration". This is where 1st, "1.5", and 2nd generation immigrants sponsor their family members living overseas, in immigrating to the US on the basis of relation by blood.
        Last edited by Ironduke; 08 Jul 19,, 01:51.
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • #79
          Another issue related to this, that has prominently come to the fore recently in Republican politics, is that of "chain migration". This is where 1st, "1.5", and 2nd generation immigrants sponsor their family members living overseas, in immigrating to the US on the basis of relation by blood.
          this is a good demonstration of how under Trump, language that was mostly used about/against illegal immigration is now being applied to legal immigration.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by astralis View Post
            this is a good demonstration of how under Trump, language that was mostly used about/against illegal immigration is now being applied to legal immigration.
            Yeah, the language used to describe something certainly has an affect on people's perception of it.

            The term chain migration has developed negative connotations, while family reunification has more positive connotations.
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              DE, not sure if you're familiar with the term, but the term "New Americans" refers to those people who are naturalized citizens of foreign birth. They still often maintain ties with their families overseas. Children born into families who maintain ties with overseas relatives would generally also not likely be sympathetic to reductions in immigration levels, as they have uncles, aunts, grandparents, and cousins, still in the countries their parents came from, to whom they feel a familial bond too.

              Marriages between people of 2nd or "1.5" generation background to persons residing in their parents' home countries is also common. "1.5" generation persons being those who immigrated with their parents as children. I'm sure you're aware of PIOs, for example, returning to India for the purposes of marriage, before returning back overseas with their spouse.

              Another issue related to this, that has prominently come to the fore recently in Republican politics, is that of "chain migration". This is where 1st, "1.5", and 2nd generation immigrants sponsor their family members living overseas, in immigrating to the US on the basis of relation by blood.
              Very familiar but then your laws permit it.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                DE,

                immigration, certainly-- the GOP is moving from "we are just against ILLEGAL immigration" to "we are against current levels of legal immigration". on the political calculation, not altogether incorrect, that the new Americans will likely not back their corner.
                This does not make sense. If they sense new Americans won't be for it then why is GOP moving the argument to current levels of legal immigration ?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  Very familiar but then your laws permit it.
                  Was just giving you background in case you were unfamiliar with the certain aspects of immigration and immigration policy in the US. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. My ancestors emigrated to the colonies/the US between the 1620s and 1890s.

                  Besides not approving of certain inhumane practices from a humanist perspective, I have no opinion one way or the other on immigration levels, quotas, the countries they come from, etc.
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                    Policing is a state subject in India, and Indian police are the worst equipped in terms of tools (guns etc) to counter modern policing challenges. Indian police deal with thugs with lathis, which is long wooden sticks.
                    In Karnataka in particular, I've seen the police equipped with both the lathi and SKS-type rifles. Though since you mention it, I do recall a fair number of thugs getting warded off by cops making threatening gestures with a lathi. I don't remember those cops being equipped with 7.62 battle rifles.

                    In one particular instance, a beggar kid, perhaps 6 years old or undersized from malnutrition, was pestering me and other foreigners for money. A Bangalore cop, on his own initiative, walked up to us, and with a slim stick of bamboo started whipping the kid. The kid was dodging and weaving, avoiding several strikes, but getting hit by others, all while laughing and making karate/kung fu-style moves to mock the cop, before running off. :-)

                    In this instance, the cop, the beggar kid, and onlookers all took it in good humor.

                    In America, there'd probably be a response of overwhelming physical force and painful restraint, or a taser, pepper spray, and perhaps something even worse. Maybe what I'm trying to say is police attitudes can be militarized, even in the absence of military hardware.

                    It's probably cheaper for the police to acquire surplus 7.62mm battle rifles that are 50+ years old, rather than a new pistol. The only police I ever remember seeing carrying a sidearm were typically precinct chiefs and his lieutenants.
                    Last edited by Ironduke; 11 Jul 19,, 18:40.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                      DE, I'm not sure if you've been to the US, but we already have a problem with military hardware in our streets. Namely, the provisioning by the DoD of our local city police forces and county sheriffs with surplus military hardware, including armored personnel carriers and other armored vehicles. This and other surplus military hardware is being doled out very generously by the Pentagon (at the direction of our politicians, of course), and being used excessively in situations in which such a degree of force, intimidation, and instillation of fear is completely unwarranted.
                      I wouldn't really call the "military level" hardware itself a problem; the problem is the application, and control. After all, those local police forces in the US are factually all independent and decide on when and how to use such hardware themselves.

                      In other nations - India or elsewhere - there is at least a state-level cohesion in procedures. As in, yes, you may see police patrolling with SKS or setting up machine gun nests, but there's a standard set of instructions under which local circumstances such will take place.

                      Even if the armament may not always quite fit the role. Cop teams here mostly use their heavier backup weapon to put wounded animals out of their misery. Given their current standard (full auto MP7 PDW in every cop car) looks like a lot of wild hogs bring their body armor when they're being hit by cars...

                      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                      We need a little more Andy Griffith and a little less SEAL Team Six when it comes to the policing of our citizens.
                      The state-level SWAT unit (company-sized) in the state i live in in Germany carries the same standard weapons outfit as US SOCOM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by kato View Post
                        the problem is the application, and control.
                        Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                        This and other surplus military hardware is [...] being used excessively in situations in which such a degree of force, intimidation, and instillation of fear is completely unwarranted.
                        We're more or less saying the same thing here, with me being more long-winded and you more concise.
                        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                          DE, I'm not sure if you've been to the US, but we already have a problem with military hardware in our streets. Namely, the provisioning by the DoD of our local city police forces and county sheriffs with surplus military hardware, including armored personnel carriers and other armored vehicles. This and other surplus military hardware is being doled out very generously by the Pentagon (at the direction of our politicians, of course), and being used excessively in situations in which such a degree of force, intimidation, and instillation of fear is completely unwarranted.
                          I lived there for 6 years. Mostly in the NYC region. Lived through 9/11.

                          See, i don't recall seeing military hardware on the streets. What was very obvious was how well armed they were with glocks and batons making them appear quite intimidating compared to English bobbies or even Indian cops.

                          And yes the number of them. During 9/11 the place was absolutely crawling with them. Rudy said it was to make people feel safer but it had the opposite effect on me.

                          I suppose the feeling of police state did crop up given how in your face the cops there tend to be but there are laws there. So cops can and do overdo it but they cannot get away with it. I was informed if ever stopped on the road to remain in the car and not approach them as that comes across as aggressive. Let them come over to you. One of my friends telling me he didn't know this, walked up to them and these guys got their guns out at him.

                          NYC cops on par with French cops i'd say in the intimidation stakes. And then the French have their riot police which are in another category of tough.

                          We need a little more Andy Griffith and a little less SEAL Team Six when it comes to the policing of our citizens.

                          The proposal to have tanks rolling down the streets of DC would only further normalize what's already an existing trend in American militarized policing even more. I'm not sure if you were aware of this background, which is why I'm giving it to you.
                          If you're ok with jets then what is the big deal with tanks. They're your tanks. What i find interesting is TH linking to a retired general's views. Meaning even the military considers it inappropriate. Which is odd, you'd think they be out in their best colours in front of their people. Military deploys abroad not at home.

                          To you it may seem normal. I've seen the machine gun nests at your airport entrances, complete with sandbags and camouflage nettings. I've seen that most Indian police sling SKS and other 7.62mm battle rifles. Indian police armament and perhaps policing style is more along gendarmerie/paramilitary lines. In the US, the trend toward this model disturbs many of us.
                          Airport security was tight in India even in the 90s. I was identifying my luggage out on the tarmac before they let it into the hold back then.

                          Compare the airport here with JFK. You can sit with your loved ones in the departure lounge. Something i've never experienced in any other airport.

                          In an indian airport you say your farewells at the entrance of the airport. Arrivals is different but departures is passengers only which completely sucks.

                          Police reform in India is long time coming thing. People think the cops here never reformed since the Brits left. In the sense they can be quite brutal almost colonial like.

                          I was in a building complex once, took a wrong turn and all of sudden i see six of these guys in camo and automatic rifles and it was quite startling. A judge lived there and these were state appointed bodyguards. You will also see them near any country's mission or consulate.

                          CRPF are paramilitary, i get to see them during voting time. Hardly interact with them in the cities, more likely to interact with cops. The cops have enfields. The ones at banks have shot guns.

                          We're not allowed to have guns like that. You are but you still feel put on by the military hardware around you : )

                          PS: will get back to you on the special relationship thing, Kori has some interesting things to say
                          Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Jul 19,, 22:05.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            In Karnataka in particular, I've seen the police equipped with both the lathi and SKS-type rifles. Though since you mention it, I do recall a fair number of thugs getting warded off by cops making threatening gestures with a lathi. I don't remember those cops being equipped with 7.62 battle rifles.

                            In one particular instance, a beggar kid, perhaps 6 years old or undersized from malnutrition, was pestering me and other foreigners for money. A Bangalore cop, on his own initiative, walked up to us, and with a slim stick of bamboo started whipping the kid. The kid was dodging and weaving, avoiding several strikes, but getting hit by others, all while laughing and making karate/kung fu-style moves to mock the cop, before running off. :-)

                            In this instance, the cop, the beggar kid, and onlookers all took it in good humor.

                            In America, there'd probably be a response of overwhelming physical force and painful restraint, or a taser, pepper spray, and perhaps something even worse. Maybe what I'm trying to say is police attitudes can be militarized, even in the absence of military hardware.

                            It's probably cheaper for the police to acquire surplus 7.62mm battle rifles that are 50+ years old, rather than a new pistol. The only police I ever remember seeing carrying a sidearm were typically precinct chiefs and his lieutenants.
                            Yeah that's the thing, the cops here don't scare me, the NYC ones did come across more intimidating. And straight up front.

                            But knowing your way around the laws helps

                            This & this and many more on his channel

                            This guy is something else : )
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Jul 19,, 22:48.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              If you're ok with jets then what is the big deal with tanks. They're your tanks. What i find interesting is TH linking to a retired general's views. Meaning even the military considers it inappropriate. Which is odd, you'd think they be out in their best colours in front of their people. Military deploys abroad not at home.
                              Fighter jets aren't being used for law enforcement purposes. They're not carrying out airstrikes on the citizenry or carrying out policing actions on civilians.

                              Armored vehicles, however, are being used in situations in which the application is completely unwarranted. I wouldn't say it's happening all the time or it's standard operating procedure, but there are instances in which these vehicles have been used aggressively out of proportion to the situation.

                              This is just a particularly extreme example of what's really a general problem. Escalation by police to maximum force, violence, intimidation, instillation of fear out of all proportion to the situations they're confronting is very common, and a major problem. Not all cops do this, and they don't react to all situations in this manner, but it's still far common than it should be.

                              Like I said, in my opinion, we need a little more Andy Griffith, and a little less of this paramilitary commando stuff when it comes to everyday run-of-the-mill situations and crimes.

                              Giving them armored vehicles when there's already this problem is like pouring fuel on a fire. Tanks and military vehicles rolling down the streets in NK-style parades only further normalizes the presence of this hardware among the civilian population.

                              I don't want tanks and APCs rolling down my streets, and obviously, many other Americans feel the same way. Don't care if it's a "just a parade". These vehicles don't belong in our neighborhoods.

                              Not sure if you're capable of comprehending this, I'm beginning to feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. People are justified in having these perspectives, especially in light of certain practices and experiences.
                              Last edited by Ironduke; 12 Jul 19,, 18:18.
                              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                                I don't want tanks and APCs rolling down my streets, and obviously, many other Americans feel the same way. Don't care if it's a "just a parade". These vehicles don't belong in our neighborhoods.
                                I'm going to go ahead and pre-emptively respond to what I know is going to be a point brought up.

                                "But what about your tanks and armored vehicles rolling down other people's streets in other countries? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?"

                                Personally, I'm not really interested into getting into a whataboutist discussion that in my view has no direct relevance to the subject at hand, that I feel is more detractive than contributive.
                                Last edited by Ironduke; 12 Jul 19,, 18:18.
                                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X