Why would he though? I don't think he can do that, especially if he couldn't with Clinton and hasn't tried with Biden.
I'm not saying they're decent, I'm just saying Trump might get even worse this term than the past presidents have. And Wilson was not a republican.
Because it can be useful. I dont think it would be about biden and clinton, but rather about bullying democratic state leaders. If someone like Trump is able to distort the law, why wouldnt he?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Lol, ya think?
Honestly, I think they would be THAT petty. (Mexico, especially).
I think it remains to be seen as far as the impact goes. Reagan is championed by the Right (or used to be) but countless things his administration did left decades-long impacts we're still feeling today. It's very possible Trump will end up being the same.
:3
I mean, they've got justification now. "Yeah, we can't trust you guys now because you elected a psycho. You have to woo us back to rebuild your good standing with us."
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Meaning what? If you feel called out by me complaining about reductive criticism, then idk lol
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
That would be a waste of time though, and a huge risk unless they can actually get the Dems punished. Bullying Democratic leaders would have little effect if they can prove innocence or whatnot.
We got two methinks.
Meaning it's more "Democrats bad" lately than "America bad". You're saying your argument will be dismissed as reductive. And I clarified that Libs aren't reducing your concerns to only one argument.
Not a fan of this argument.
I mean, the context is substantially different here. We are talking tens of thousands thousands of people (easily more tbh) that cross the continent from whichever country they are until they reach colombia. From there you have these folk literally just walking into the wilderness. And not like a green meadow or something, an honest to god jungle with no path. And if that wasn't cartoonishly dangerous enough, the whole rest of the way up to US is largely in control of gangs and cartels more than ready to happily exploit the shit out of immigrants, if they are a lucky and don't get outright robbed and/or murdered. A quick search on google suggests there's very probably billions of dollars these groups are making from migrants.
That was my point when I said there were things they were running away from in the first place. I was specifically referring to crime. Criminals that aren't exclusively preying on migrants, but their own people in their own communities. Sex traffickers and the like.
Wait, if we get to the issue of asylum then the problem here is that asylum is generally meant for people under direct threat. As in, a gang actually has its sight on you, and is threatening to kill you or your family. People migrating have a lot of issues but the most common one is poverty. The majority are of course afraid of crime and such but it's definitely not the case that they are all in the sight of criminal organizations and in imminent danger from one. Poverty or simply living in a bad neighborhood is not and has never been ground for asylum anywhere in the world. If it was then the US and EU would have to accept close to 90% of the population in south and central america as refugees. And the result of people migrating to the US in the way they have is that people who are actually in the sight of criminal organizations, people whose lives are being threatened, apply for asylum and their requests get lost in a system that is grossly overburdened. Someone's life could be in danger right now and the US would take years to process the request over the sheer volume of them. The vast majority of which simply can't meet the requirements to be approved for asylum.
Sure, but what leads to crime? Poverty. If they just stick around in a crime-ridden, impoverished society, they're gonna get wrapped up in criminality themselves.
You make it sound like it's not that big a deal, but it's obviously bad enough to risk being washed away in a river or envenomed by jungle snakes. Or I guess it's better to say it's a cumulative case of both fear of crime, and poverty.
It's why I'll never frown upon these immigrants entering the country through illegal means. If I were an immigrant with a family, my obligations would be to them, not the government. Not the law. Conservatives mistake legality for morality way too often.
I don't think you are necessarily wrong, in that situation it's by no means unreasonable for people to want to leave. But that leaves the question of what the heck government policy is supposed to be. Should the US go "yeah, let those who survive come, fuck the ones that don't"? Should countries who are actively fighting against gangs and cartels go "yeah, let's just ignore billions of dollars in racketeering, murder and sex trafficking, among other things"? Poverty absolutely leads to crime but at the same time that crime breeds more poverty, it's a vicious, unforgiving cycle. let alone that all this crime infects politics which in turn breeds crime and poverty.
