I think an under appreciated moment in US political history is Julian Castro forcing every Dem on the 2020 debate stage to raise their hands and say whether or not they were going to decriminalize illegal border crossings. He basically framed it as if any Dem against it was some sort of moral monster. Why was this necessary? Which voters were pushing for this? The general public doesn’t like illegal immigration and if you let the situation get out of control there will be real backlash against legal immigration.
Desperate_Path_377 on
> History is replete with times when an army in fighting retreat draws a line, digs in, and then counterattacks. The Russians in WW2 took world-historic losses, before turning the tide with a massive counteroffensive around Stalingrad.
This seems historically suspect. I’m sure there are just as many or more instances where counterattacks fail. Why not point to failed German counterattacks at the Bulge or Kursk.
I know it’s just a silly framing device for the rest of the piece and not the authors main point. But it just seems like hopium that all you have to do is ‘draw a line’, go on the offensive and things will just workout.
2 Comments
Stick to the always popular stance:
Illegal immigration is bad.
Legal immigration is good.
I think an under appreciated moment in US political history is Julian Castro forcing every Dem on the 2020 debate stage to raise their hands and say whether or not they were going to decriminalize illegal border crossings. He basically framed it as if any Dem against it was some sort of moral monster. Why was this necessary? Which voters were pushing for this? The general public doesn’t like illegal immigration and if you let the situation get out of control there will be real backlash against legal immigration.
> History is replete with times when an army in fighting retreat draws a line, digs in, and then counterattacks. The Russians in WW2 took world-historic losses, before turning the tide with a massive counteroffensive around Stalingrad.
This seems historically suspect. I’m sure there are just as many or more instances where counterattacks fail. Why not point to failed German counterattacks at the Bulge or Kursk.
I know it’s just a silly framing device for the rest of the piece and not the authors main point. But it just seems like hopium that all you have to do is ‘draw a line’, go on the offensive and things will just workout.