Originally posted by SquallX
Pretty ****ed up when he puts it that way.But at the same time, I do want to believe we can leave a better world for the next generation if we come together.
If only we could do a whole 180 in politics. Remove the corrupts, and remove big private investors in politics.
So yeah. It aint Never gonna happen.
Originally posted by SquallX
Pretty ****ed up when he puts it that way.But at the same time, I do want to believe we can leave a better world for the next generation if we come together.
If only we could do a whole 180 in politics. Remove the corrupts, and remove big private investors in politics.
The truth hurts though
This demonstration seems more like a scare tactic than a problem and solution being identified. The message seems to be:
"We're going to run out of room, food, jobs, etc. by taking people in, and we're not making any difference! The world is doomed and we have to fend for ourselves!"
Well, people in the world can't be represented by ****ing gumballs in glass jars.
What's his main argument?
That we couldn't possibly eradicate poverty in other countries by taking in immigrants? Well, no shit. That is not the main argument in support of immigration, anyhow. The million(s) we do take in will likely be far better off here than in their much poorer and/or war-torn countries, and they often send back some of the money they've earned here to their struggling families still in their home countries. That is the true humanitarian focus in the immigration debate.
That we put a stop to immigration altogether and help all these other countries? How? Do we crack down on American corporations exploiting cheap labor in these countries, and pay them higher living wages with full benefits? Do we also provide humanitarian aid in the form of food, clean drinking water, medical care, and funding? Do we cease military operations overseas and replace it with agriculture, irrigation, and infrastructure programs?
Originally posted by Blindside12
Wow nothing you said refuted any of his claims
So then clarify his claims.
Be honest. You saw my post was more than a couple of lines, and you chose not to read it because
a) it's hard, and
b) you've already made up your mind on the issue and are not the least bit open to anything to the contrary.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
So then clarify his claims.Be honest. You saw my post was more than a couple of lines, and you chose not to read it because
a) it's hard, and
b) you've already made up your mind on the issue and are not the least bit open to anything to the contrary.
So the US can solve world poverty based on?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not how the burden of proof works.
1. the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge
I actually agree with him in the sense that the countries that have failed these people need to find solutions to help them, and that immigrating to other better countries is not really a long term solution for most of t hem. That said, he did not "prove" anything. He made a reasonable argument with an effective, though questionably accurate, visual aide. But no proof.