jakee

So no one complained about migration while Obama was in office, then?

No one knows what it was you out out there. Are you copying Hungary or not? Are you letting asylum seekers apply in their home countries or do they have to go to Mexico? You might wanna simmer down on the self congratulation, you’re hardly taking a bold and unique stand based on strong principles here. I just did.

Where is yours? Why did you just link to an article and quote part of it to support your position, when you apparently don't actually believe anything it says?

You said refugees would have to apply at the Embassy in their home country. Most people at the southern border are not Mexicans. Are you going to have a list of countries where asylum seekers can apply at the US embassy and a list of countries where they can't? I think I now understand why you were so confused just now. I was talking about what you actually said and you apparently didn't know what you'd said. And? Stop stressing and make it easier.

But also at the moment asylum seekers have to physically get to the US first. Are you happy that anyone, anywhere in the world can find the closest US Embassy, have their asylum claim fairly assessed, and if it is genuine they get to come to the US from there?

Right, because North Korea is locked down to an extent where it’s incredibly difficult for anyone to physically leave. Which according to you is impossible, because there’s no reason for NK to spend so much time, money and effort on locking down the borders. As for trying again, how can I? If the only thing you will accept is a real example of the consequences of your plan then there isn’t one - because your requirement of asylum seekers presenting themselves at an Embassy in their home country doesn’t exist. That’s just the most transparently stupid attempt at a ‘gotcha’ imaginable. But ultimately if you don’t understand that the real situation of nations imprisoning and refusing to release people that other nations are desperately trying to have released actually exists, then you really need to quit talking about politics until you join the rest of us in reality. Asylum seekers are generally not just economic migrants because that alone won’t get them asylum. But ok - if your position is that there is nothing that would prevent genuine asylum seekers trying to escape despotic governments from just walking into an embassy… are you really saying that you want the US to take in many more asylum seekers than it does now?

Because despotic regimes rely on the threat of punishment to keep the populace in line. If someone goes against the government, simply allowing them to leave and no longer be subject to that government is not a desirable outcome. It signals to everyone in the country that they too can go against the government and be absolutely fine. Do you think Kim Jong Un would be ok with any North Korean citizens turning up at the UK embassy and attempting to escape to Europe? This is honestly the most staggering level of cluelessness you’ve displayed yet.

What is there to worry about? Oil will last forever and aquifers will last forever. It’s so simple!

They get murdered / disappeared / imprisoned for life by the government they want to escape from. When I said it was complicated I was being facetious. I didn’t think it was actually possible that you wouldn’t understand.

Now stay with me here, because this is going to be an extremely complex scenario that may stretch the limits of your understanding - but what if the dangerous government of said home country has agents identifying citizens who go to the US embassy?

If you suggested copying the Third Reich’s border policy I sure as hell would. And again, your point was about how Hungary manages to do things - the answer to which is authoritarian, anti-democratic government.

I think you just did.

If you don’t understand that how Hungary manages to do something inevitably comes back to Orban then I have no idea why you even bother talking about politics at all. When the question is how does Hungary manage to do X - well, Orban controls the government, Orban controls the press and Orban controls the courts. So how else does anything happen?

I see. It’s kinda odd that you phrased it in a way that implied parity when you actually meant that there is evidence of an incredibly small scale of wrongdoing from Biden compared to Trump. Also odd that you contrasted calls for jail time for Trump and excuses for Biden even though you actually meant there was no evidence of wrongdoing from Biden of the sort that has lead people to call for jail time for Trump.

Hungary is ruled by a proto-dictator leading his country further and further down the Vladimir Putin model of government. Using them as an example of how to do anything right now is about as MAGA as it gets. (Seriously, the US right’s idolisation of Orban couldn’t be a bigger warning sign if it was literally written in the sky with fireworks.)

So much utter fucking partisan bullshit. You can’t say ‘there is ample evidence of Biden’s wrongdoing’ then hide behind ‘the investigation is still ongoing’ when someone asks what the fucking evidence is and expect to have anyone believe that you’re being honest. Leaving aside that Biden’s documents case is nothing whatsoever like Trump’s. Did Biden defy subpoenas? Did he obstruct justice? Did he send minions to delete security footage? Did he show journalists war plans that he knew were still secret? If you keep claiming not to like Trump you know what you have to do - vote for Biden. Otherwise you have to admit you’re just as in thrall to him and just as taken in by right wing conspiracy theories as the rest of your looney party.

Brent will be along soon to explain why that all sounds exactly like Biden.

Right, but that's really just a technicality, isn't it? Nebraska doesn't exist in a vacuum. The political parties still exist, and all but one of the state legislators are registered members of the two major parties.

The other thing is that without political parties / alliances you just can’t get anything done. How you would create and negotiate legislation that has a chance of passing when everyone is singing from their own hymn sheet I have no idea - and regardless of what the libertarian nutters would like to believe (not you Jerry), the government does actually have to be able to do stuff. Plus due to human beings natural tendencies to clump together then without political parties there would still be political alliances and factions, the voting public would just be even less aware of what they were.

You make an excellent point. On the other hand, in just one recent thread, you said that people who disagreed with you on the topic in question haven’t been paying attention, are a waste of time to talk to, are impervious to evidence, have weak reading comprehension, have questionable sanity, are lost causes, have poor values, and represent the idea that stupidity is the only inexhaustible natural resource. So I would point out that there’s a saying about specks, planks and eyes, but I guess I’m too stupid to know what it means.

Which part of that would you call evidence, exactly?

Ok cool - so people are either progressives or monarchists. Which one are you? Let's see what the other Hitchens has to say: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Hitler was an authoritarian, militaristic, xenophobic nationalist. You join the dots.

I haven’t actually heard those calls, apart from actual Nazis or genuine Islamic extremists. While I think the comments from the University Chairs were ill advised, I’m pretty sure that’s what they were trying to head off. Expecting that if they said ‘yes we would expel any students calling for genocide against Israel’ they would be presented with examples of students saying things that really don’t mean that but that their Republican questioners claim does mean that, then get bogged down in a horrible quagmire of pointless argument. Which would be par for the course for Republicans on committees right now.

I think he solidly loses.