4 ms·

Maybe, because it worked? I'm pro Trump, the liberals are the ones that broke it, but immigration is the core constitution of the USA.

guelo 10y ago
What did liberals do that broke it?
- owebmaster 10y ago
  I replied something similar in other reply. See above, please :)
grzm 10y ago
I appreciate your comment and its sentiment that immigration has played a core role. Would you mind commenting on why you included "the liberals are the ones that broke it"? Even if true m, it seems needlessly divisive.
- owebmaster 10y ago
  I may not receive the same sympathy I had in the previous reply, but I do believe that the way the past administration (and their NGO and think tank satellites) "promoted" (enforced) an agenda of "liberal" values (LGBT, abortion, hollywoodian feminism, "democracy", etc...) and regime change to all countries that fail at least in one item of the checklist (and even some that comply with all of them, like Brazil). I do think that the current situation is a huge backlash of the past (and recent) politics.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Right. I understand where you're coming from. What I'm trying to get at is why include that in your comment. Part of the problem in US politics right now is the intense polarization and division people feel. There's been a lot of people expressing that their voices haven't been heard. While it's of course important to look at the past to figure out what has and hasn't worked when looking at what we want to the future, I think focussing on the division rather than on what we want to do to improve the situation hurts, rather than helps. (And it's not like everything was perfect and peachy prior to 8 years ago either.)
    - owebmaster 10y ago
      I agree with you. But the mainstream narrative also don't talk about everything not been perfect the last 8 years, and bad stuff done by/during Obama administration are just now starting to be a problem to the media (and consequently, to a huge parcel of citizens that follow the trend). As someone said, where were the strikes and protests when Obama were conducting drones missions or the destruction of Libya, Syria, Somalia, etc? It is bad to keep deepen division, but it is a lot worse if one party takes over everything owning the narrative of "the good side" in a very illegitimate way, which is exactly what is developing in the USA right now. I feel very sorry about it, it is very similar to what happened here in Brazil and it got us to a coup d'etat.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Let's try to leave the mainstream narrative to the side, at least not have it front and center, while we're on HN. Likewise with the accusations of hypocrisy or disingenuity. If I thought it would be helpful, I'd include other examples from colors of the political spectrum, but that would just anger whoever feels that's unfair. It's really difficult to move forward together on issues people share in common when everyone insists on bringing up everything anyone associated with some idea is brought up as a point of contention. We have to figure out a way forward together. We're not going to agree on everything, but I honestly believe many of us have common cause on a lot of fundamental issues.
        owebmaster 10y ago
        Although I agree with you, this lecturing tone is part of the problem. You don't want to be divisive? It is important to be empathetic. Common ground is, you know, common ground. Not people moving heavily to one side.
        grzm 10y ago
        Point taken. What improvements or changes would you recommend in my approach? What in particular comes across as lecturing? (Oh, and please don't blame or associate my lecturing with any particular side: that's really just me. The polarization of the current political environment has contributors from both "sides", and any solution has to come from people in general.) Any phrases or statements you find particularly ineffective? Anything that would be more effective? I don't think I've staked out any position other than not trying to be careful to refrain from using language that is needlessly divisive. I haven't intended to move anyone to any particular side, so I'm interested in knowing what came across as doing so. People are often unaware of how things they say may come across, and I'm no different. Edited to add: This is tough stuff to talk about constructively. Thanks for sticking with me. I appreciate it.
jimmyk 10y ago
>Maybe, because it worked?...immigration is the core constitution of the USA. Immigration from where in particular? US immigration law is vastly different now compared to before 1965.
- owebmaster 10y ago
  I may not be the right guy to articulate it, as I don't have a deep knowledge about Us history, but in the past, other ethnics that currently are considered Americans had a though time adapting, like the Irish, didn't they? I do think that this foster assimilation is what made USA great. But I'm not an American, I'm a Brazilian. And currently we are facing some similar immigration trend that I believe will be very good for us, I hope.
  - jimmyk 10y ago
    >I may not be the right guy to articulate it, as I don't have a deep knowledge about Us history, but in the past, other ethnics that currently are considered Americans had a though time adapting, like the Irish, didn't they? Yes, indeed they did. The Irish have much much more in common, genetically, phenotypically, and culturally, with other north western European ethnic groups (the bulk of the US population at the time) than do Middle Eastern and North African ethnic groups, and it still took Irish immigrants generations to integrate into the existing population, during which time there was a great amount of friction. We came out better for it, but that is absolutely not guaranteed to happen for more distant ethnic groups. There is no reason to believe all ethnic groups are compatible enough to successfully integrate.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      If they can all be said to have integrated at all. Irish folk often still have a strong "us vs them" attitude. Still a chip on their shoulder after all these generations.

guelo 10y ago

What did liberals do that broke it?

owebmaster 10y ago
I replied something similar in other reply. See above, please :)

grzm 10y ago

I appreciate your comment and its sentiment that immigration has played a core role. Would you mind commenting on why you included "the liberals are the ones that broke it"? Even if true m, it seems needlessly divisive.

owebmaster 10y ago
I may not receive the same sympathy I had in the previous reply, but I do believe that the way the past administration (and their NGO and think tank satellites) "promoted" (enforced) an agenda of "liberal" values (LGBT, abortion, hollywoodian feminism, "democracy", etc...) and regime change to all countries that fail at least in one item of the checklist (and even some that comply with all of them, like Brazil). I do think that the current situation is a huge backlash of the past (and recent) politics.
- grzm 10y ago
  Right. I understand where you're coming from. What I'm trying to get at is why include that in your comment. Part of the problem in US politics right now is the intense polarization and division people feel. There's been a lot of people expressing that their voices haven't been heard. While it's of course important to look at the past to figure out what has and hasn't worked when looking at what we want to the future, I think focussing on the division rather than on what we want to do to improve the situation hurts, rather than helps. (And it's not like everything was perfect and peachy prior to 8 years ago either.)
  - owebmaster 10y ago
    I agree with you. But the mainstream narrative also don't talk about everything not been perfect the last 8 years, and bad stuff done by/during Obama administration are just now starting to be a problem to the media (and consequently, to a huge parcel of citizens that follow the trend). As someone said, where were the strikes and protests when Obama were conducting drones missions or the destruction of Libya, Syria, Somalia, etc? It is bad to keep deepen division, but it is a lot worse if one party takes over everything owning the narrative of "the good side" in a very illegitimate way, which is exactly what is developing in the USA right now. I feel very sorry about it, it is very similar to what happened here in Brazil and it got us to a coup d'etat.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Let's try to leave the mainstream narrative to the side, at least not have it front and center, while we're on HN. Likewise with the accusations of hypocrisy or disingenuity. If I thought it would be helpful, I'd include other examples from colors of the political spectrum, but that would just anger whoever feels that's unfair. It's really difficult to move forward together on issues people share in common when everyone insists on bringing up everything anyone associated with some idea is brought up as a point of contention. We have to figure out a way forward together. We're not going to agree on everything, but I honestly believe many of us have common cause on a lot of fundamental issues.
      - owebmaster 10y ago
        Although I agree with you, this lecturing tone is part of the problem. You don't want to be divisive? It is important to be empathetic. Common ground is, you know, common ground. Not people moving heavily to one side.
        grzm 10y ago
        Point taken. What improvements or changes would you recommend in my approach? What in particular comes across as lecturing? (Oh, and please don't blame or associate my lecturing with any particular side: that's really just me. The polarization of the current political environment has contributors from both "sides", and any solution has to come from people in general.) Any phrases or statements you find particularly ineffective? Anything that would be more effective? I don't think I've staked out any position other than not trying to be careful to refrain from using language that is needlessly divisive. I haven't intended to move anyone to any particular side, so I'm interested in knowing what came across as doing so. People are often unaware of how things they say may come across, and I'm no different. Edited to add: This is tough stuff to talk about constructively. Thanks for sticking with me. I appreciate it.

jimmyk 10y ago

>Maybe, because it worked?...immigration is the core constitution of the USA. Immigration from where in particular? US immigration law is vastly different now compared to before 1965.

owebmaster 10y ago
I may not be the right guy to articulate it, as I don't have a deep knowledge about Us history, but in the past, other ethnics that currently are considered Americans had a though time adapting, like the Irish, didn't they? I do think that this foster assimilation is what made USA great. But I'm not an American, I'm a Brazilian. And currently we are facing some similar immigration trend that I believe will be very good for us, I hope.
- jimmyk 10y ago
  >I may not be the right guy to articulate it, as I don't have a deep knowledge about Us history, but in the past, other ethnics that currently are considered Americans had a though time adapting, like the Irish, didn't they? Yes, indeed they did. The Irish have much much more in common, genetically, phenotypically, and culturally, with other north western European ethnic groups (the bulk of the US population at the time) than do Middle Eastern and North African ethnic groups, and it still took Irish immigrants generations to integrate into the existing population, during which time there was a great amount of friction. We came out better for it, but that is absolutely not guaranteed to happen for more distant ethnic groups. There is no reason to believe all ethnic groups are compatible enough to successfully integrate.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    If they can all be said to have integrated at all. Irish folk often still have a strong "us vs them" attitude. Still a chip on their shoulder after all these generations.