Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 7/10/2018 at 6:09 AM, MIXL2 said:

Sweden does a absolutely deplorable job of distinguishing between people who come here from cocaine farms as criminals and people who have worked honestly to shit to get here, every single "asylum seeking" from Colombia that I have met is in one or another way connected to our fucking guerrillas

And so I couldn't wish more that hardworking immigrants got here, the current policies don't get it done, hence my stance

What makes you think so?

Asylum right is an important constitutional achievement and every application for asylum status should be looked at fairly following the set of criteria that were developed for that purpose. And Sweden can't be selective about people who have asylum status. Everyone who seeks asylum and is proven to be legitimately persecuted for political reasons or is a war refugee etc. should be let in as a matter of course. However migration doesn't equal asylum. And there surely are people that come for good reasons but won't pass the criteria and hence aren't eligible asylees, especially from South America. Should they not get a chance? How do you tell a "good hard working" immigrant from a "bad criminal" immigrant? Crime is often a result of lack of other opportunities and it's a shame that South America has so much struggle with all the typical consequences of poverty. Let's not forget that these conditions partly were caused by actions of the Western world. And in my opinion it makes much more sense to fight the causes of flight Western nations generate with their politics rather than to seal off and forget the negative impacts the industrial world has on developing countries. South America is doing well considering how the US treated this continent for years, overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with installed militant dictatorships. This happens all over the world, mostly led by the US and supported by EU countries. So Western nations actually have a responsibility to handle refugees and economy migrants as they generate causes of flight.

And if someone from South America whose Swedish citizenship is still pending commits a serious crime I'm sure that person will be deported.

  On 7/10/2018 at 10:44 AM, darreichungsform said:

 

  On 7/10/2018 at 6:09 AM, MIXL2 said:

Sweden does a absolutely deplorable job of distinguishing between people who come here from cocaine farms as criminals and people who have worked honestly to shit to get here, every single "asylum seeking" from Colombia that I have met is in one or another way connected to our fucking guerrillas

And so I couldn't wish more that hardworking immigrants got here, the current policies don't get it done, hence my stance

What makes you think so?

Asylum right is an important constitutional achievement and every application for asylum status should be looked at fairly following the set of criteria that were developed for that purpose. And Sweden can't be selective about people who have asylum status. Everyone who seeks asylum and is proven to be legitimately persecuted for political reasons or is a war refugee etc. should be let in as a matter of course. However migration doesn't equal asylum. And there surely are people that come for good reasons but won't pass the criteria and hence aren't eligible asylees, especially from South America. Should they not get a chance? How do you tell a "good hard working" immigrant from a "bad criminal" immigrant? Crime is often a result of lack of other opportunities and it's a shame that South America has so much struggle with all the typical consequences of poverty. Let's not forget that these conditions partly were caused by actions of the Western world. And in my opinion it makes much more sense to fight the causes of flight Western nations generate with their politics rather than to seal off and forget the negative impacts the industrial world has on developing countries. South America is doing well considering how the US treated this continent for years, overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with installed militant dictatorships. This happens all over the world, mostly led by the US and supported by EU countries. So Western nations actually have a responsibility to handle refugees and economy migrants as they generate causes of flight.

And if someone from South America whose Swedish citizenship is still pending commits a serious crime I'm sure that person will be deported.

 

the very last phrase is the crucial bit that is missing from our legislation currently (not missing, we just have a few too many cases where it hasn't been implemented well, which is why I don't think the policies are well implemented) otherwise you're correct imo... great post

you condensed it to choosing between two risks  and outlined one of them (being for stronger immigration laws risks declining entrance to "good immigrants"). the other side of the coin is that being for weaker immigration laws risks opening up to "bad immigrants" or to skip the good/bad dichotomy maybe immigrants with different value systems to the norm (different and static to the point where it creates problems).

so u get to pick ur poison n that's a good thing u kno.. we could argue the details of both positions but imo they are both valid and to decide just how valid they are in different settings is why we have democracy I guess iunno.. I'm getting ranty

  On 7/10/2018 at 11:26 AM, MIXL2 said:

 

  On 7/10/2018 at 10:44 AM, darreichungsform said:

 

  On 7/10/2018 at 6:09 AM, MIXL2 said:

Sweden does a absolutely deplorable job of distinguishing between people who come here from cocaine farms as criminals and people who have worked honestly to shit to get here, every single "asylum seeking" from Colombia that I have met is in one or another way connected to our fucking guerrillas

And so I couldn't wish more that hardworking immigrants got here, the current policies don't get it done, hence my stance

What makes you think so?

Asylum right is an important constitutional achievement and every application for asylum status should be looked at fairly following the set of criteria that were developed for that purpose. And Sweden can't be selective about people who have asylum status. Everyone who seeks asylum and is proven to be legitimately persecuted for political reasons or is a war refugee etc. should be let in as a matter of course. However migration doesn't equal asylum. And there surely are people that come for good reasons but won't pass the criteria and hence aren't eligible asylees, especially from South America. Should they not get a chance? How do you tell a "good hard working" immigrant from a "bad criminal" immigrant? Crime is often a result of lack of other opportunities and it's a shame that South America has so much struggle with all the typical consequences of poverty. Let's not forget that these conditions partly were caused by actions of the Western world. And in my opinion it makes much more sense to fight the causes of flight Western nations generate with their politics rather than to seal off and forget the negative impacts the industrial world has on developing countries. South America is doing well considering how the US treated this continent for years, overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with installed militant dictatorships. This happens all over the world, mostly led by the US and supported by EU countries. So Western nations actually have a responsibility to handle refugees and economy migrants as they generate causes of flight.

And if someone from South America whose Swedish citizenship is still pending commits a serious crime I'm sure that person will be deported.

 

the very last phrase is the crucial bit that is missing from our legislation currently (not missing, we just have a few too many cases where it hasn't been implemented well, which is why I don't think the policies are well implemented) otherwise you're correct imo... great post

 

you condensed it to choosing between two risks  and outlined one of them (being for stronger immigration laws risks declining entrance to "good immigrants"). the other side of the coin is that being for weaker immigration laws risks opening up to "bad immigrants" or to skip the good/bad dichotomy maybe immigrants with different value systems to the norm (different and static to the point that where it reates problems).

 

so u get to pick ur poison n that's a good thing u kno.. we could argue the details of both positions but imo they are both valid and to decide just how valid they are in different settings is why we have democracy I guess iunno.. I'm getting ranty

 

Actually when talking about "good" vs "bad" immigrants I chose to use quotation marks to show that it's not that simple. My point is that a lot of social problems some of the lower class immigrants bring are partly the result of the influence Western nations have on the countries of origin so there is a responsibility of Western countries to accept migration not only out of hardcore economical egocentric reasons but also out of humanitarian reasons and responsibility. And if countries like Sweden want to reduce migration they should help the countries of origin to become places where more people have a chance of a good life by stopping wars, by development aid, by stopping exploitation and by reducing environmental damage caused by their industries rather than by closing the borders. And if anyone commits serious crimes they of course need to be punished. I'm not sure how much of the crime in Sweden is related to migration and if it's really that much of an uncontrollable problem that it would justify hardening the migration laws drastically. I think it's hardly possible to get a citizenship if you committed a crime that's worse than say stealing. Criminality is most of the time related to difficult socioeconomic conditions. Why not fight these instead of characterizing certain groups of people as useless or incompatible? It's good that Sweden has relatively easy migration laws (even though I'm not even sure if that is really the case anymore). Mass migration can only be successfully fought by reducing the causes of flight. I think I'm repeating myself quite a lot

yeye, I understand the argument and I won't reiterate mine, let people make up their heads :)

edit: I wanna clarify that im not characterizing groups of people as usless/incompatible.. devil is always in the details. I am saying that individual people can hold value structures that are in clash with the migrating country, this should atleast b made clear to them

Hey motherfuckers

Get your asses to the smarty pants thread or just PM each other dick pics or something.

who says we aren't already doing that?

edit:

back on track..

  On 7/10/2018 at 8:27 AM, very honest said:

not only will Kavanaugh likely make abortion illegal and weight the supreme court more to the right, he wrote that presidents shouldn’t be “distracted” by criminal investigations.

 

people think if the democrats can get a couple republicans on their side they can prevent his appointment. but gorsuch was appointed with 3 democratic votes, from senators in states that voted trump. there are 6 states with democratic senators that voted trump. 

 

this could be big. 5 people plead guilty. manafort's in solitary confinement. cohen apparently is trying to flip but mueller hasn't taken him up on it yet.

 

there are a lot of principles that have not been put to the test in courts and may reach the supreme court, such as if a president can be subpoenaed for testimony, which is on the brink of being sent to the courts right now.

 

too bad the republicans were allowed to brazenly steal an appointment from obama by the oblivious american public.

Don's bragging about how easy his meeting with Vlad will be compared to his so-called "allies":

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-putin-meeting-2018-706141

It's like the heads of the 2 biggest criminal organizations on the planet getting together to talk shop. I wonder what's on the agenda...money laundering? Blackmail? Construction deals? Shit...he'll probably ask Vlad if he wants to bang Melania.

  On 7/10/2018 at 9:43 PM, zero said:

Don's bragging about how easy his meeting with Vlad will be compared to his so-called "allies":

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-putin-meeting-2018-706141

 

It's like the heads of the 2 biggest criminal organizations on the planet getting together to talk shop. I wonder what's on the agenda...money laundering? Blackmail? Construction deals? Shit...he'll probably ask Vlad if he wants to bang Melania.

"i bang her long time ago when she was virgene"

Dear the United States of America,

If you reelect Donald J. Trump, I will break up with you.

Love, Eczem

In the meantime, make sure yo ass gets out and votes in the midterms in four months

  On 7/11/2018 at 1:08 AM, ambermonk said:

In the meantime, make sure yo ass gets out and votes in the midterms in four months

the biggest thing people should take away from 2016 is that we cannot take election results for granted. it is a sports game and it is not over until it's over.

trump has 90% support among republicans! they may well turn out to protect their boy from persecution.

^ stable genius, right there folks

Can someone give this guy a fatal heart attack already?

God pls.

flol

  On 7/10/2018 at 3:34 AM, whosebrian said:

 

  On 7/10/2018 at 3:09 AM, Nebraska said:

new scotus: brett kavanaugh

 

what's the over under on this guy?

And what are the odds that these judges will stay in his pocket when he needs them?

 

you get someone who's corrupt and can be bought

https://twitter.com/RepMaloney/status/1016492630946013190

  On 7/11/2018 at 4:29 PM, Joyrex said:

Pretty sure this is a Kanye quote from a release party in Wyoming

he can't die soon enough. 

I work with a guy who was in the Army and was stationed in Germany during the 80's. He voted for Trump... I wonder how oblivious he is to the fact that Trump wants to fuck up NATO for Putin and undo everything he did over there. 

  On 7/12/2018 at 6:00 AM, Candiru said:

I work with a guy who was in the Army and was stationed in Germany during the 80's. He voted for Trump... I wonder how oblivious he is to the fact that Trump wants to fuck up NATO for Putin and undo everything he did over there. 

bootlickers stay eatin' shoe polish and swearing up and down it's chocolate

*shrug*

  On 7/12/2018 at 6:13 AM, Stickfigger said:

I'm not a smart guy so tell me ... who benefits from the extra $266B USD being spent on defense by Europe and Canada over the next 6 years?

I think he asked them for 4% of their GDP rather than 2% because it's an unreasonable request, which he will try to use as an excuse for pulling the US out of NATO when they point out how stupid it is. But congress came out overwhelmingly in support of NATO so I don't think he can just do that willy nilly. Even they know not to start WW3.

It's a similar tactic the House Intelligence Committee is using on Rod Rosenstein. Ask him for a ridiculous amount of documents, many of which they don't have the clearance to see, and if he takes "too long" or stands up for himself, use that as an excuse to fire him. But Jim Jordan was the biggest asshole about it and then he got caught up in the college wrestler molestation negligence scandal of Doom, so fuck that dude. 

  On 7/12/2018 at 6:19 AM, Candiru said:

 

  On 7/12/2018 at 6:13 AM, Stickfigger said:

I'm not a smart guy so tell me ... who benefits from the extra $266B USD being spent on defense by Europe and Canada over the next 6 years?

 

I think he asked them for 4% of their GDP rather than 2% because it's an unreasonable request, which he will try to use as an excuse for pulling the US out of NATO when they point out how stupid it is. But congress came out overwhelmingly in support of NATO so I don't think he can just do that willy nilly. Even they know not to start WW3.

 

It's a similar tactic the House Intelligence Committee is using on Rod Rosenstein. Ask him for a ridiculous amount of documents, many of which they don't have the clearance to see, and if he takes "too long" or stands up for himself, use that as an excuse to fire him. But Jim Jordan was the biggest asshole about it and then he got caught up in the college wrestler molestation negligence scandal of Doom, so fuck that dude. 

 

you know everyone has some dirt on everyone else and just waiting for the right time to drop it to the press if they don't play nice. 

seems to work on everyone except trump who is just made of dirt, sleeps in dirt, fucks dirt, shits dirt, eats dirt etc and everyone knows it except his loyal base of trumptards

He pressures Europe to weaken it's relationships with Russia and to threaten it by huge build-up of arms but at the same time wants to be friends with Putin. Also he acts as if there is a real threat that Russia will attack Europe. Why does this crackpot always get away with his incoherence 

A good rule of thumb when it comes to Trump and his tweets accusing someone of something is that he is projecting. He's doing the thing he is accusing someone else of doing.

And there is no point in thinking that Trump's actions are in any way coherent. He is a 70+ year old ignorant fat slob, who probably have some sort of dementia, who is way over in his head and thinks world politics is the same as real estate business in New York in the 80s. There is always a winner and a loser, no mutually beneficial deals in his mind. He has been surrounded by sycophants his whole life and he still tries to do that, hence the low quality of people in his administration. They are not there to offer advice, they are there to stroke his ego. If they have their own agenda that can be packaged into ego stroking the orange babby, then they are going to take it (Stephen Miller and probably Bolton too, who is looking to start a war either in NK or Iran).