If that’s the case, why are so many people, regardless of privilege, still miserable? If voting fixed things, shouldn’t things be getting fixed? Because it doesn’t seem that way to me.
I didn’t say voting fixes anything. It doesn’t, especially in first past the post two party systems.
I’m saying that the idea that nothing changes is only something you could say if you aren’t a member of any of the many demographics that are actively getting their rights stripped away.
Voting may not do much to make things better, but it can absolutely make it magnitudes worse for vulnerable folk.
I know multiple people the entire arc of whose lives were changed by the Obama-era immigration policies. Want me to ask them to tell you how wrong you are?
the deporter in chief? si, se puede? Obama is a border-hawking, bomb-dropping torture supervisor who extra judicially murdered people on his kill list.
I know one guy who got to stay in the US under DACA, and I know one guy who was fighting a legal battle to stay in the country when Obama came into office, and he said fighting his case got easier under Obama. He’s still here now (he stayed in limbo for a pretty extended length of time, and eventually got married which resolved the issue).
I am not an expert. I don’t know which column of this table the second guy would fit into, or whether the huge reductions in the second column mean that the “deporter in chief” nickname is an unfair characterization based on the relatively-smaller increases in the first column. I just know he said his case got easier.
What do you know about it? What are your sources of information?
What are your sources of information, specifically about his deportations and his immigration policy? Are you basing this on “everyone knows” type of knowledge, and finding it superior to someone relaying to you firsthand knowledge and a cited source with an argument?
Okay, so you don’t have a deep familiarity with the topic. It’s okay, I’m not really an expert either. But, I’ve looked at the full statistics (I sent you a table), which add some extremely important facts to the “deporter-in-chief” quick one-liner criticism. And also, I have some secondhand experience with it, which is usually a pretty valuable thing to have when the anecdotes are used in addition to statistics.
So, where did you get your information? Is it just that you know the term “deporter-in-chief” and that deportations went up, because everyone knows those things, and that’s it as far as what you know about the topic?
If that’s the case, why are so many people, regardless of privilege, still miserable? If voting fixed things, shouldn’t things be getting fixed? Because it doesn’t seem that way to me.
I didn’t say voting fixes anything. It doesn’t, especially in first past the post two party systems.
I’m saying that the idea that nothing changes is only something you could say if you aren’t a member of any of the many demographics that are actively getting their rights stripped away.
Voting may not do much to make things better, but it can absolutely make it magnitudes worse for vulnerable folk.
Absolutely. We don’t get to vote for “better” in America. We get “less worse” and “more worse.” Voting for less worse just makes sense.
But if you convince people they’re voting for “better” and they don’t get it, I don’t blame them for not voting again.
I know multiple people the entire arc of whose lives were changed by the Obama-era immigration policies. Want me to ask them to tell you how wrong you are?
the deporter in chief? si, se puede? Obama is a border-hawking, bomb-dropping torture supervisor who extra judicially murdered people on his kill list.
do you know any of those people?
Whataboutism says what
I know one guy who got to stay in the US under DACA, and I know one guy who was fighting a legal battle to stay in the country when Obama came into office, and he said fighting his case got easier under Obama. He’s still here now (he stayed in limbo for a pretty extended length of time, and eventually got married which resolved the issue).
I am not an expert. I don’t know which column of this table the second guy would fit into, or whether the huge reductions in the second column mean that the “deporter in chief” nickname is an unfair characterization based on the relatively-smaller increases in the first column. I just know he said his case got easier.
What do you know about it? What are your sources of information?
it’s not whataboutism to say Obama deported, killed, and tortured people. it’s a fact, and it’s relevant when discussing his legacy.
What are your sources of information, specifically about his deportations and his immigration policy? Are you basing this on “everyone knows” type of knowledge, and finding it superior to someone relaying to you firsthand knowledge and a cited source with an argument?
feels like you’re asking me whether I’m believing statistics over your anecdotes. I am. I am believing statistics over your anecdotes.
Okay, so you don’t have a deep familiarity with the topic. It’s okay, I’m not really an expert either. But, I’ve looked at the full statistics (I sent you a table), which add some extremely important facts to the “deporter-in-chief” quick one-liner criticism. And also, I have some secondhand experience with it, which is usually a pretty valuable thing to have when the anecdotes are used in addition to statistics.
So, where did you get your information? Is it just that you know the term “deporter-in-chief” and that deportations went up, because everyone knows those things, and that’s it as far as what you know about the topic?
don’t be condescending