General State of the Union Thread

[TBoneTX 47,505]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

We are on a roll today, you and me

[T-B. sustains dyspnea and syncope and becomes a fall risk in Winter]

[yuna628 9,873]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

So please tell me how and which parts he lied about in regard to immigration.

 

How will he not be here if curtains plans are enacted?

 

 

WE NEED THE DETAILS!!!!!!!!

So do you really think that Stephen Miller is a racist?

 

There is the fact check thread about the subject, but being that we are on an immigration forum, I'd think you could identify what he lied (and continues to lie) about. We can agree that the system needs reforms, but there are changes he wishes to make (under the direction of Miller) that tell me he either knows nothing about immigration or is counting on the fact the American people don't.

 

He's something far worse than a racist.

53 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm not trying to disagree with you on your sentiments, but maybe elaborate more? He is a visitor here, presumably on a regular tourist visa (perhaps expedited so he could attend the address). Yes I agree he was used as a political pawn to send a "positive message".

 

Obviously it would never happen for geographic reasons but if he had somehow escaped directly into the USA I'd venture to guess that his application for asylum would have been approved. Asylum from North Korea would be kind of a "no brainer" I think.

 

For me it wasn't as much lying as it was an exaggeration and misrepresentation. I think he could have explained his points a little better. I honestly think his immigration plan may be close to the best we are going to get, and I think it does actually reach across the aisle to try to find common ground. I liked his sentiment that not everyone is going to get everything they want, and I think we need to focus on that more. However he did heavily exaggerate the issues, when for me I would have preferred more honesty (Though I realize honesty doesn't send as great of a message in a big speech).

 

When he talked about focusing on the "nuclear family" by eliminating chain migration...he just didn't explain it that well. I think he could have been clearer that by limiting it to spouses and children we could let in those groups QUICKER and in greater numbers. At face value saying that ending chain migration will "protect" the nuclear family just doesn't instantly explain how/why. Why can't we have both? Providing more details as to why would have been nice and important.

 

He talks about our current "open border" (a massive simplification) and how he will "fully secure the border" - Also a massive simplification. Our border won't be "fully secure" with a wall. We have an entire Northern Border that will remain open. And vast numbers of immigrants come in via plane. He paints an exaggerated picture of now, and an exaggerated picture of what he proposes (But to be clear - That isn't unexpected in a SOTU address).

 

When he talked about the visa lottery program - He says that it hands out visa without regards to skill. That isn't entirely true. You need to meet requirements to be considered. Skill IS considered, though once you meet the qualifications the actually selection process is still random. But everyone who is ABLE to enter has to meet the skill qualifications (work experience or high school education I think? I forget). You could argue that is a lie, or just an exaggeration of the truth. He also seems to apply that the majority of those who enter through the lottery program now don't want to work, and don't love our country. "Bad apples" get through every immigration system, and they will continue to do so. There is no evidence that the majority of people who enter through the program don't meet those qualities that he supports.

Let us imagine for a moment that he was a person that was desperately attempting to escape the regime to America. As a whole, the US has admitted very few refugees from NK and not many at all have ever received political asylum. His chances of doing that would be slim on a good day. NK is one of those countries which is on now, via the Trump admin, on the ban list. It is ironic, if not a little sickening that he would stand there and praise the tenacity and determination of this poor man, and his yearning for freedom, while once banning those who still do manage to escape (and the number is tiny) and want to come to the US. My dentist is actually one of those persons.. his family escaped when he was a baby. He lives the American dream now and is a proud American that has worked hard to get where he is now, and serves this tiny town, including customers that can be very abusive to him when they discover he is Korean.

 

The plan that the WH is proposing is no different than SAFA or RAISE (both bad bills), which have been examined and found to be horrific in their design and of great harm to this country. We know very well that 'chain migration' does not work in the way he implies it does. Nor will he bother to explain it because this little game counts on the populace to be largely ignorant of how the process works. We know that the DV program needs reform, however his comments about it, as you've pointed out are not true.

 

What one likes to call ''exaggerations'' I call it lies. I can't sugarcoat, no matter what President is behind the podium.

27 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Just for the record Religious liberty is very much important and a bed rock of our country, as is freedom to be non religious if one so chooses. 

Certainly it is. However the freedom to be non-religious or of a religion that isn't liked by some individuals seems to be heading into unfavorable territory.

 

[yuna628 9,873]

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

Overall I honestly agree, now that I've watched some of it.

 

He could have focused a lot more on himself, which is his typical "persona" when on twitter or on campaigns. I think here he was surprisingly less so and I found that refreshing. As I've said before though I'd love to see him keep this behavior and demeanor and apply it more consistently outside of large political speeches. For me a person's actions and duplicitousness are very strong factors in my approval of the person, so it still remains a large reason why I have a generally negative view of him. He can be great in a moment like this, and then tomorrow he can go back to attacking people on twitter and creating conflict.

 

I also agree that I think politicians need to give credit where it's due. Applauding for low unemployment numbers would NOT automatically mean that you approve of everything Trump is doing. You can claim that you are happy about those objective figures, while still opposing certain agenda items. I think we've pushed too far into extreme sides. It makes you question what they truly care about, political points or actual benefits to people and constituents?

I think their fear is, that if they applaud, they are applauding for something he had little to do with. Applauding might be 'polite' from an optic perspective, but it's not going to win them political points.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I think their fear is, that if they applaud, they are applauding for something he had little to do with. Applauding might be 'polite' from an optic perspective, but it's not going to win them political points.

I wouldn't see applauding as an acknowledgement that he is responsible. I would see it just as an acknowledgement that the news is good.

 

I realize though I may not be the type of person they are trying to win points from. In general I'm not the kind of person that thinks in terms of "political points". I'd just prefer honesty.

 

The news was good. Whether Trump is responsible or not, I'm not going to frown and look negative about something that is objectively good. I'll be happy, but still disagree with the President on many many issues.

[OriZ 3,165]

Didn't bother watching it to be honest. From what I read though, it was pretty much what I expected, which is the reason I didn't watch it

[OriZ 3,165]

9 hours ago, yuna628 said:

I think their fear is, that if they applaud, they are applauding for something he had little to do with. Applauding might be 'polite' from an optic perspective, but it's not going to win them political points.

Absolutely agree. That said, Obama did the exact same thing(and in return Republican members also did the exact same thing). 

[Ban Hammer 14,274]

14 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Addenda to my above:

 

1.  Many of the Democrats didn't just look obstinate or morose; they looked comatose.  And how could so few of them applaud news that was good for everyone in the country and even for their special interests?

 

[bcking 3,157]

5 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

In the interest of transparency - Is that an actual picture of them at that point in the speech? I don't think so.

 

There actually is a picture of them in the room sitting and looking similarly morose. I think that is the picture that should be used, so as not to be misleading.

 

19 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Let us imagine for a moment that he was a person that was desperately attempting to escape the regime to America. As a whole, the US has admitted very few refugees from NK and not many at all have ever received political asylum. His chances of doing that would be slim on a good day. NK is one of those countries which is on now, via the Trump admin, on the ban list. It is ironic, if not a little sickening that he would stand there and praise the tenacity and determination of this poor man, and his yearning for freedom, while once banning those who still do manage to escape (and the number is tiny) and want to come to the US. My dentist is actually one of those persons.. his family escaped when he was a baby. He lives the American dream now and is a proud American that has worked hard to get where he is now, and serves this tiny town, including customers that can be very abusive to him when they discover he is Korean.

 

I missed this before. This is a topic I admittedly don't know much about. I found an interesting article though - https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/admitting-north-korean-refugees-to-the-united-states-obstacles-and-opportunities/

 

"of 73,293 refugees brought into the country in 2010, only 25 came from North Korea, whereas 18,016 came from Iraq, 16,693 from Burma, 12,363 from Bhutan, followed by Somalia (4,884), Cuba (4,818), Iran (3,543), Democratic Republic of Congo (3,174), Eritrea (2,570), Vietnam (873) and Ethiopia (668)."

 

I'm not that well versed in how the process works but I would love to know have a denominator for all of those numbers. 25 from North Korea, out of how many that specifically tried? As the article points out many go to South Korea, they gain citizenship status there. Many of those other countries (if not all) don't have a similar situation where there is an ethnically similar country that offers them citizenship and is safe for them.

 

As for Trump's travel ban -

 

Wasn't that on visitors from other countries? Did it apply to people seeking refugee status? Furthermore in this particular case the man is a citizenship of South Korea and is no longer a "North Korean National" (I'm assuming he has relinquished his citizenship of NK, probably when he obtained his citizenship of SK). So I'm also not sure the travel ban would have even applied to him.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

Found some more data in that article (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/admitting-north-korean-refugees-to-the-united-states-obstacles-and-opportunities/)

 

At the beginning it says:

 

"United States has admitted only 122 North Korean refugees to this country since the adoption of the North Korea Human Rights Act (NKHRA) in 2004, and that only an estimated 25 have received political asylum."

 

Then down the page it says:

 

"From October 2004 to March 2010, 107 of 238 refugee applicants withdrew their applications, heading instead to South Korea, which can receive them in a matter of weeks (the most a month or two) and provide far more generous resettlement aid than the United States."

 

The article was written in 2011 so presumably they only had data up to 2010.

 

That means there were 238 refugee applicants, and 122 were admitted. I don't know if the 25 receiving political asylum are included or in a different pool so I'll just ignore them. If 107 applicants withdrew their applications, then only 9 applicants were actually rejected (238 - (107 + 122))

 

[-relo- 105]

16 minutes ago, bcking said:

In the interest of transparency - Is that an actual picture of them at that point in the speech? I don't think so.

 

 

I'm betting you can't find a pic of some of them at the SOTU....they're a classy bunch

[smilesammich 10,727]

13 minutes ago, -relo- said:

I'm betting you can't find a pic of some of them at the SOTU....they're a classy bunch

i can't think of a classier way of protesting a racist president than not showing up. although many of them did show:

 

[-relo- 105]

12 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i can't think of a classier way of protesting a racist president than not showing up. although many of them did show:

 

thanks bcking. i forgot how stupid they looked w/ the scarfs.no picks of the mouthpieces available, i'm assuming?

 

what makes you label Trump a racist anyway?....other than, you're just throwing poo & hoping it sticks

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, -relo- said:

thanks bcking. i forgot how stupid they looked w/ the scarfs.no picks of the mouthpieces available, i'm assuming?

 

what makes you label Trump a racist anyway?....other than, you're just throwing poo & hoping it sticks

mouthpiece? don't know what you're talking about fashion police.

 

trump is labelled a racist by many, because he's a racist. that's how these things work. trump's racism has been the topic of many threads here, if you're interested in why he's perceived as a racist i suggest you get to reading - plenty out there. don't think you're interested in that though.

[-relo- 105]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

mouthpiece? don't know what you're talking about fashion police.

 

trump is labelled a racist by many, because he's a racist. that's how these things work. trump's racism has been the topic of many threads here, if you're interested in why he's perceived as a racist i suggest you get to reading - plenty out there. don't think you're interested in that though.

lmao. some things never EVER change. keep that arm warmed up

[Crazy Cat 44,449]

5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

trump is labelled a racist by many, because he's a racist.

Easy accusation to make.....now prove it.