Follow TV Tropes

Following

John Oliver's Last Week Tonight

Go To

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#976: Sep 20th 2018 at 3:46:53 AM

I disagree, a privilege implies that voting is something you have to earn, that it is something only for a select group of people (however large). It implies that you can be excluded from voting.

A right implies that everyone, regardless of merits, has the right to vote. This is what true democracy is about: EVERYONE has a right to vote. It is not a privilege of an elite, or of men only, or of white men only, it is a right for all citizens.

I don't think voting should be an obligation. That seems to go against the freedom to decide for yourself, and to decide NOT to vote is just as much a legitimate choice as a decision to vote. The moment a nation starts rounding up citizens and FORCING them to vote is the moment that nation sets a step on the road to dictatorship. It will not be long after that for that nation's leaders to start deciding WHAT you should vote as well.

So to answer that question, voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege, and not an obligation.

Optimism is a duty.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#977: Sep 20th 2018 at 5:15:34 AM

[up] It is a privilege in the sense that not every person in the world has this right. It is a right because only with it, you truly have a democracy. And it is an obligation, because you are part of the society, and if you decline to participate in it, well, then you can't complain about what you get, and you failed your obligation for a fuzzy sense of "freedom".

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#978: Sep 20th 2018 at 5:58:45 AM

It should not be a privilege, though. It should be a right for every person in the world, not just a happy few countries.

Optimism is a duty.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#979: Sep 20th 2018 at 6:42:40 AM

[up] It shouldn't be, but as long as this isn't the case, we really, really should appreciate what our ancestors fought for.

Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#980: Sep 21st 2018 at 9:31:19 AM

I understand what you're saying about the obligation (and it gets mentioned every time I bring it up), but you could still choose to just fill in a blank ballot if you really don't want to vote. And presumably the penalty for not voting would be a small fine, not throwing them in jail. Of course, it would have to be paired with automatic registration and voting day being a national holiday, so that poor people don't have to choose between a fine and working that day.

There's a lot of voter apathy preventing people from voting. I feel like we need a major push to get them to the ballot box, and it will take more than just saying "okay, we promise we're not trying to stop you any more."

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#981: Sep 21st 2018 at 10:58:34 AM

... You get FINED for not voting? Seriously? That's ridiculous.

Optimism is a duty.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#982: Sep 21st 2018 at 4:03:07 PM

Not really, the idea is that it’s not just a right but also a duty to your country to turn up and vote, same as paying taxes.

Keep in mind that countries with mandatory voting tend to have relatively lax fine enforcement, easy voting access and an option to vote for nobody.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#983: Sep 21st 2018 at 7:19:47 PM

That's how it is in Brazil. It's obligatory under punishment of fines, but you can just do what's called "Null Vote" if you really don't want to vote (i.e the vote is discounted and you don't vote for anybody).

Unlike America, voting is also basically a holiday, being almost always placed in a saturday or a sunday and employers being forced by law to either give their employees the day off to vote or have them work under much lesser work hours so they have time to vote.

Edited by Gaon on Sep 21st 2018 at 7:23:57 AM

"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#984: Sep 22nd 2018 at 2:25:28 AM

In the Netherlands, there is no fine for not voting that I'm aware of, and it's not a holiday either, you are supposed to work around it (voting places stay open until late at night, though).

There is also no overblown sense of obligation of privilege around voting. It is simply the way we do elections, and there is no guilt slinging over not voting, though there IS a lot of handwringing over lowering turnout.

Optimism is a duty.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#985: Sep 22nd 2018 at 2:45:50 AM

In Germany, we vote on Sundays and you can ask to vote per letter beforehand if you know that you won't be unavailable. There is no fine, but, well, a popular German saying is "Wer nicht wählt, wählt rechts" (those who don't vote vote for the right-wing). Which is, btw, true...if the voter number hadn't fallen since Reunification, and everyone had voted at the last election, we might have a very different parliament now and the Af D might not even have it made over the 5% hurdle.

Thryn from Ann Arbor Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
#986: Nov 5th 2018 at 1:18:27 AM

The most emotional I have ever seen him. (This is also the first time the show was a legitimate Tear Jerker for me.)

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#987: Nov 5th 2018 at 1:54:15 AM

It's good that he is pointing this out. With everything going on the topic has been kind of overshadowed. It's Trump favourite trick, distract from a scandal with another scandal.

Pachylad (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#988: Nov 5th 2018 at 3:03:58 AM

inb4 leftists pointing out Obama's role in deportations and how it indirectly led to the current crisis

Not particularly here but definitely in a lot of the leftist spaces I lurk around.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#989: Nov 5th 2018 at 5:26:33 AM

Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen. At this point, they deserve to lose.

Optimism is a duty.
KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#990: Nov 5th 2018 at 7:39:46 AM

As said in the video, the issue came about because of the decision to criminalize illegal immigrants and thus treated them as you would a convict, lock them up and separate them from their family. But since the children themselves are technically illegal immigrants, they were not placed in a proper foster care system. This is the end result of a rhetoric that spans back at least 20 years (and immigration reform is something that nearly all countries are struggling with on a constant basis, as few countries are okay with wide-open borders), while Trump did ride on an anti-immigrant campaign this specific ordeal is something he inherited from the Obama era.

Of course, the video is kind of odd in that it is supposedly about family separations, but is really more spurned on by the continued rhetoric against the Immigrant Caravan that appeared in Mexico. That issue is a lot more odd to me, as it has a lot of details that don't quite add up. Probably shouldn't talk too much more about that for fear of what it will turn into.

Make no mistake, I don't approve of most of what Trump says, but even though Oliver talked about a possible backtrack Trump DID place an executive order to keep families together after public backlash. I'm not familiar with anyone who is offering a solution beyond the "wide-open borders" argument, something that would only create another cycle of immigration reform.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#991: Nov 5th 2018 at 8:22:40 AM

[up] The solution is to go back to the system they had beforehand. Taking children away from their parents in order to keep them away is contra-productive on every level. Especially since those least likely to misuse the asylum system ARE parents who just want to bring their children to safety.

KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#992: Nov 5th 2018 at 5:12:37 PM

Just to be clear, I'm talking about politicians who are offering solutions and not theoreticals made on the internet. These issues are actually non-partisan, as the Clinton's also criticized the "catch and release" policy with the same talk of people disappearing after getting around the system (while John Oliver makes a 99% court attendance claim, I think that is exclusively asylum seekers and not all immigrants, which is closer to 60-75% from what I can find).

The general concern is that either you have "immigrant family prisons," which costs more money to maintain, or you end up engorging the US foster care system with immigrant children while their parents are imprisoned. Certainly the cattle herding is about the worst way to deal with it, and an infuriating human rights violation.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#993: Nov 5th 2018 at 5:51:04 PM

Money should not be a problem: just tax your aristocracy billionaires more.

Optimism is a duty.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#994: Nov 5th 2018 at 7:09:48 PM

There's actually a very easy solution.

When illegal immigrants arrive, hold them until they can be judged as asylum seekers and send them back if they don't qualify.

Keep their kids with them.

The End.

It's irritating if you really are deluged with people you don't want in but it's not like these people ARE dangerous criminals—in which case you can just arrest them.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#995: Nov 5th 2018 at 7:33:55 PM

When illegal immigrants arrive, hold them until they can be judged as asylum seekers

Okay, no, flat no. I took immigration law last fall, and I can’t take this.

You are ONLY allowed to seek asylum AT A PORT OF ENTRY, i.e., the border.

They are NOT illegal immigrants while waiting for a decision. They are literally trying to use the legal process for claiming asylum.

KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#996: Nov 5th 2018 at 7:57:59 PM

Well that is essentially what the system is supposed to be about. My understanding is the Obama administration implemented a temporary separation (supposed to be less than 21 days) as illegal immigrants were held and given a proper court date and information processed, or they were otherwise deported. When the Trump administration issued a zero tolerance policy (trying to place a focus on merit based immigration instead of Visa lottery or naturalization), the number of people being detained skyrocketed and lead to the chaos where courts were backed up and families separated with no time frame of being reunited. When Trump was asked about why it took so long, his response was that 60 years of conflicting immigration policies is what manufactured that problem, and I'm inclined to believe it.

Something needs to happen at the Congressional level instead of a bunch of executive orders canceling each other out.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#997: Nov 5th 2018 at 11:56:15 PM

The Trump administration is literally keeping people away from the border. Meaning: Theoretically they could just walk up on a point of entry and officially and completely legally request asylum, but the Trump administration have ensure that they can't do that. So they are forced to cross the order elsewhere for their asylum request and then they get them on the illegal crossing.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#998: Nov 6th 2018 at 6:06:14 AM

Exactly, it is a criminalization process, and once an asylum seeker has been labeled as a criminal, the government can justify much harsher treatment. The real underlying problem of immigration is the underlying racism to immigration policy, criminalizing foreigners for simply wanting to seek asylum but not being allowed a legal course of doing so.

Optimism is a duty.
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#999: Nov 6th 2018 at 6:17:39 AM

[up][up][up] “as illegal immigrants”

Again. Asylum seekers are NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. If we deny their application for asyljm and deport them, they still aren't illegal immigrants!

For those who do enter the country without proper paperwork, the term is undocumented immigrants.

[up] Exactly. Inadvertently using inaccurate, right wing terms shifts the conversation.

When Trump was asked about why it took so long, his response was that 60 years of conflicting immigration policies is what manufactured that problem, and I'm inclined to believe it.

That’s the lamest of excuses. With the same history of bad legislation, even Obama, who was actually pretty awful to immigrants, didn’t manage this level of deliberate, vicious cruelty.

Edited by wisewillow on Nov 6th 2018 at 9:19:51 AM

KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#1000: Nov 6th 2018 at 8:31:16 AM

The zero tolerance policy (which, I should note, do not approve of, I'm merely discussing in clinical terms) is also responsible for the detention centers to be flooded over capacity and they were turning people away out of necessity. This includes them detaining "illegal immigrants" who did not cross the border legally and putting them together with those trying to cross at checkpoints. Things later evened out but they became accustomed to turning people away. Naive as I may be, I'd rather believe they didn't understand how the situation would turn out the way it did (which might have worked if Border Patrol and Immigration Services was better funded and organized, which John Oliver has shown in the past it is not) instead of deliberate foresight on the inhumane conditions it would cause.

I do agree that improper use of terms has made discussions on this more difficult, not everyone involved with this situation actually qualify as refugees seeking asylum. They may claim it under the assumption it would speed up the process, but just saying you feared gang violence in your hometown is not necessarily a valid reason. There is an underlying perception that Mexico is a third world country controlled by violent warlords, but they are actually fairly modern and advanced. The appeal of Mexican Immigration is less about the dangers of the country or lack of job opportunities and more a combination of familiar relationships in the US and the benefits of the exchange rate. Another complication, to my understanding, is those who would actually qualify for asylum may invalidate themselves by not seeking asylum in the first safe location that offers it. That would make them lose refugee status and instead be considered the same as other economic migrants simply looking for a better job.


Total posts: 3,586
Top