Hacker News Reader

Comment by tootie | Hacker News Reader

I honestly think this is mostly irrelevant. As a liberal, I don't really care about what Republicans claim to believe or what their demographics really look like. All that matters is who they vote for and what that does to the country. If Republican voters actually have a moderate view of immigration, that's great, but they voted for a guy who is putting migrants in cages. Therefore, they all support putting migrants in cages. They could fix that by changing who they vote for, but they haven't done so. I consider this policy to be reprehensible, so how can I not consider Republican voters to be reprehensible?

One of my favorite modern political quotes actually came from Joe Biden. He said, "Don't tell me your values. Show me your budget and I'll tell you your values."

View on HN

> If Republican voters actually have a moderate view of immigration, that's great, but they voted for a guy who is putting migrants in cages. Therefore, they all support putting migrants in cages. They could fix that by changing who they vote for, but they haven't done so. I consider this policy to be reprehensible, so how can I not consider Republican voters to be reprehensible?

Except the previous President did the exact same. It's already long since come out that the people in cages photos that so enraged everyone last year were from 2014. Democrats voted for a guy who did that too then.

How do you reconcile this hypocrisy?

>How do you reconcile this hypocrisy?

It's like when a toddler has a hard fall and looks to the parent to see how to react. As a parent, if you look horrified and make a big deal about it, the child starts bawling. If you look normal and brush it off, the child has a minimal reaction. It's the same fall, but the network of people they take leadership cues from dictated the nature of their response.

It's the same with people (on both sides of the aisle), their social networks, and the press. People underestimate the power of the press and the influence it has on giving cues about when and what to be upset about.

It's not so much that the hypocrisy is reconciled, it's just ignored.

Some background: there are photos of immigrants in cages, taken in Obama's time. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/42228/

This is awful and as someone who generally supported Obama I consider this one of several shameful moments in his presidency. The issue with the Trump administration isn’t just about putting people in cages - that’s the sound bite, and one that should have been used with Obama - it’s how Trump’s zero tolerance policy puts so many people in cages, even if they’re seeking asylum.

> How do you reconcile this hypocrisy?

Why stop there? President Barrack "Drone-Strikes-For-Freedom" Obama certainly has an interesting legacy on his hands and yet it seems to me that the entire world has given him a blanket pass on all of the atrocious things that went down under his terms.

Or the fact that Obama left the Presidency with the US involved in 7 wars, 3 of them started during his mandate.

Nobody is in favor of putting kids in cages, but at the same time nobody can agree on who is at fault or how to stop it. I heard one person use the cages as support for the border wall, saying that if nobody could cross the border nobody would be caught by ICE. Almost everybody can agree on most of the same morals but as far as facts and deductions we might as well all be living in different universes.

I don't want to hear any of that. I want to hear OP reconcile his claim that the other side of his claimed side are all guilty of reprehensible behavior when it's factually correct that his did the same.

This isn't about blame or fixing it, it's about how dangerous it is when we broadly paint those we disagree with as "enemy" and ignore the facts, decency and reason that bind us together in society.

The migrant cage issue is really besides the point. I'm not trying to start a debate specifically about immigration. I could pick any topic, even something innocuous. My point is that if you claim to support a policy and then vote the other way, do you actually support it?

You're assuming that every voter voted for Trump for the positions he hold on the issues you care about. What if Trump was just the best candidate for the issues THEY care about? Also most of Republicans voted for Trump ergo all of them support all the policies by Trump is the same logic I can use to say most Americans voted for Trump therefore all Americans support all the policies by Trump. In reality, most Americans I've met are perfectly good and rational people, they just care about different issues, that's all.

That's a lot of hypotheticals, but I think that it was pretty obvious what kind of character they were voting for. And he has consistently held over 90% approval from Republicans during his term, so they are evidently satisfied with the results. When it comes to issues that I (and many liberals) feel strongly about, he was always very clearly a complete 180 from what I'd consider sensible policy. I've read that over 50% of Republicans now consider climate change to a major issue that should be addressed, but Trump repeatedly declared it a hoax. So, it stands to reason that at least tens of millions of people who claim to think climate change is a critical issues deliberately voted for someone who will expressly move the country backwards in its response.

I'm being somewhere reductive in my position and clearly people had some other incentives in how they voted, but I'm just saying that the premise of this article is meaningless. While Republican voters may not be as strident as they let on, they have placed an army of extremely strident representatives in power and haven't wavered in their support. That's what the country now has in hand and it wasn't by accident.

> If Republican voters actually have a moderate view of immigration, that's great, but they voted for a guy who is putting migrants in cages. Therefore, they all support putting migrants in cages.

This is unreasonable.

It's not really that unreasonable that a view like that exists.

The right wing, where ever you place that pin, has decided to play winner takes all politics for a long time in the west. The left loses when it compromises in most political spheres. The saying, the left always fight's itself first, didn't just pop out of thin air.

I think the left is becoming a little more hard nosed with fighting, and realizing that winning is winning is winning and it doesn't matter how you get there it's what you do once you are there. And I'd say this may be an effect of climate change and that we may be living in the last two decades where we can take meaningful action on climate change.

The US leads the world in GHG emission reductions, and acting like we need to do more, while every other country does less is not sound.

This thinking is equivalent to "oh the ship is sinking, others aren't bailing as many buckets of water as me therefore I should do less." Unless your goal is actually to sink, your rational is missing the objective.

This is rhetoric without substance. How much more should we be doing? The poorest among our country will suffer the most with the proposed austerity measure. If it's a global problem, more than one country has to address it (not just the one doing 15% of emissions; focus on the 80%, not 20%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

This is a ridiculous assertion. In USA, you're typically given two choices realistically. If you agree with more points of what is important to you, you vote for them. By no means is who you vote for a complete representation of yourself.

For many, it's probably not which party they agree with more points from, but which one they agree with on the one or two issues they care about the most, even if they disagree with everything else.

Absolutely. This is how I generally vote.

Stepping on a ledge and positing it's probably how a lot of people vote, if even unconsciously- but it's probably not a popular way of ascribing personal motive to the political act of voting which is a more conscious and deliberate action. Or at least, it's less convenient than simply associating the sum with the worst of its parts.

That bit in the article about 'motive attribution asymmetry'.

Certainly.

But who you voted for indicates your least-bad preference of the options available.

That's not really true. We have primaries. Republican primary voters didn't have a great set of options, but they clearly chose the worst person in American politics in about 50 years. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this?

If Republicans chose the worst person in 50 years of American politics to represent them, you've really got to wonder how the Democrats still managed to pick someone who would lose to him.

The DNC didn't want to listen to those of us in the party who were practically shouting at how unelectable Hillary Clinton was and the party got what it deserved, IMO.

> The DNC didn't want to listen to those of us in the party who were practically shouting at how unelectable Hillary Clinton was and the party got what it deserved, IMO.

And, many of us (I'm also a registered Democrat) that are watching things as they shape up in the DNC for 2020, are wondering if any lessons were taken to heart at all. It's frightening to me to sit here today and feel a genuine sense that Trump is going to win _again_ in 2020 because the DNC can't pull it's shit together and field an electable candidate.

This is just way, way off-topic. If you want to make it relevant, try asking why voters decided she was unelectable and ask yourself it had anything to do with policy. I think the crux of my entire complaint is that a huge swath of voters don't vote on policy at all. There could be 20 million Trump voters who wish he'd be softer on immigrants and take action on climate, but they really don't care because they just love his attitude or something. It's like declaring your intent to be a vegetarian but spending all your money on Big Macs because they're tasty. And then asking why Chipotle put tofu on the menu when you know everyone hates it.

> What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this?

That they care much, much more about their own financial and economic conditions than pretty much any other issues? That's not a slam on them; you would too if you were living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Bill Clinton understood this ("It's the economy, stupid.") but the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates somehow do not, which is why they stand a depressingly good chance of failing to win the next presidency.

> Therefore, they all support putting migrants in cages.

This is incredibly dangerous thinking. I don’t want to get involved in politics but I would hope a discussion on hacker news would hold higher standards than blanket statements like that.

This is rather virulent. As a liberal, I do not agree with you. I am sure there are human beings on the other side, and dialogue will help. Baseline thinking is not always relevant. In fact, I believe it is through the moderates on the other side that you can find a reasonable middle ground.

I'm making what I believe to be an observation of reality and a logical inference from that observation. I honestly don't know what to do about it, but I would be willing to personally bake a chocolate cake for every person whose mind I could change. All I'm saying, is that we judge people on their actions, not their intent.

I don't really care about what Republicans claim to believe

I would be willing to personally bake a chocolate cake for every person whose mind I could change.

These statements you've offered today seem in conflict with each other. Change my mind? I'll help you eat the cake if you succeed.

The belief I'd like to change is whatever belief leads them to seemingly vote agains their own interests. My point is that just because I find their actions reprehensible doesn't mean I support aggressive confrontation. I support whatever ethical approach will yield the best result.

The belief I'd like to change is whatever belief leads them to seemingly vote agains their own interests.

Voting against one's own perceived interests is indeed an interesting political act, but it is in no way relegated or unique to American citizens who vote Republican or even American citizens at all. Do you extend this same viewpoint of reprehension to members of other countries who vote against what you've decide are against their interests? Do you extend it to individuals in the US? Your neighbors?

> If Republican voters actually have a moderate view of immigration

To me it looks like they're actually extremely pro-immigration - despite the awful actions of ICE, it's continuing at a near-record pace of over 1 million per year: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2017/tab...

One of the interesting points that the media neglects to report on is that the migrants are free to return to their country. They would be given a ride to the border for free and allowed to go their merry way.

Migrants in "cages" is only a perception that certain people have.

The media neglects to report on this because it's not accurate.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-dete...

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2...

These fact checks are against a different claim, namely "detainees are free to walk out of detention centers" or "voluntary deportation is granted to everyone who requested it". The claim that nobody has made.

They are being detained because they claimed asylum (likely just to evade being deported) after illegally entering the country. They are being held while their claim is being evaluated. If they were to abandon that asylum claim there would not be any reason to hold them and the deportation would proceed. Voluntary deportation may not always be available since it's a privilege at discretion of immigration officers but forceful deportation is always there. The difference is that you get a ban on entering the US after being deported and voluntary deportation leaves your record clean.

E.g. the most recent case of a 18 y.o. held in detention: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2019/07/22/dalla...

Whose brother, who had no citizenship claims had apparently been deported as soon as he signed paperwork: "After two days in detention, Marlon signed a voluntary deportation form."

If you need more information there are plenty immigration lawyers websites explaining the whole procedure and options for detainees.

Those are talking about the ones who broke the law by entering the US illegally.

What issue are you referring to?

“but they voted for a guy who is putting migrants in cages. Therefore, they all support putting migrants in cages.”

parody account or very naive and young. either way, you’re no liberal.

> very naive and young. either way, you’re no liberal.

Likely, but about on par with other claimed liberals here in NY, given my experiences the last few years.

I considered myself to be extremely liberal, but the new left would view me as far right. I feel politically homeless and I hear a lot of the same sentiment from peers.

I was raised as liberal Republican (pro gay-mariiage in the 80s, marijuana legalization in the 90s, etc.), and it's been very disheartening to learn I have to call myself an American conservative because I strive toward the principle of individual freedom (i.e. liberty, from which the term 'liberal' is etymologically derived). I can tolerate anything but violence.

It's interesting you cited the fictional cage situation. You should do some research about the photos and cages.

> they voted for a guy who is putting migrants in cages

The funny thing about your comment is it applies to Trump and Obama voters:

https://apnews.com/a98f26f7c9424b44b7fa927ea1acd4d4

Case in point

Seriously...

Thanks for assuming that all Republicans voted for Trump. Your hasty generalization shows you know us well.

I am a Republican and voted for Rubio in the primary and Gary Johnson in the election. I'm sticking with the GOP because despite the evangelicals and Tea Party--both are anti-intellectual movements that breed the Trump swamp--the party's core values of limited government and equal opportunity ring true in ways that the democrat party has never worked for me.

This is the thing that I don't get about the USA. The Democrats are center-right. If you ignore the Army, Police and various intelligence / paramilitary parts of the USG (the bigs the Republicans expand and the Dems just roll with) then the USG under the previous administration was pretty small and efficient.

They're also pretty big on equal opportunity - for all, no matter who their parents are or what colour their skin.

The problem is the lack of choice in your two party first-past-the-post system. You see the same thing in the UK. It's too easily abused by well-funded minorities to amplify their power.

The USA is unique from the rest of the world (the Old World) in that it is based on an idea, not genetics.

We are the first start-up country. We are comprised of the greatest minds in the world from all genetic backgrounds. Rep. Amash is of Palestinian and Syrian descent, and he is more American than most notorious politicians with whom I am familiar. America is based on an idea, and he embodies it.

Old World people from Europe and Asia have no idea what they're talking about WRT the USA. Classifying the USA in European terms (i.e. "center-right") makes no sense in this context, and we do not use such terms for a reason. Humanity deserves at least one country where individual freedom is a revered principle and people do not emphasize outcomes other than technical innovation. Not every country needs to operate in the same way (nor every US state).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com