If the Democratic party wasn't weak and riddled with corruption Trump would never have been elected in the first place.
That's like saying "she wouldn't have been raped if she wasnt so weak" or "you wouldn't have been robbed if you had an alarm system".
How about blaming the perpetrator of the heinous and evil acts which by the way he is still doing.
Oh, the Democrats are claiming to be the victims now, are they?! The Democrats aint the victims, the people of Earth are the victims, the Democrats are the bystanders who stood by and did nothing.
I didn't say they were victims I said how about instead of blaming democrats you blame the party that is doing the actual evil. Instead of blaming the other party for not stopping the evil.
If the Democratic party wasn't weak and riddled with corruption Trump would never have been elected in the first place.
I love that reasoning.
“This party is corrupt, so let’s elect someone who will probably go down as the most corrupt politician in American history!”
Whatever allows a person to sleep better at night I guess.
The party is corrupt, so attacking someone on the basis of corruption fails on the grounds of hypocrisy. "We are less corrupt than the other candidate" is not a basis for getting the vote out. The party is weak, so attacking someone because their ideas are stupid and evil fails because they have nothing better to suggest.
Every political system accretes corruption over time. The only way to tackle it is to periodically press the reset button. Show me a political system that has been stable for hundreds of years and I will show you something that is long overdue kicking down.
But it was for Republicans. Remember ‘Crooked Hillary’? ‘Lock her Up!’ Chants?
I said it before, Trump labels someone else something, even if it is false, so he can’t be labeled that first because it will sound like Hypocrisy.
And if corruption was a huge issue to people, they’d be questioning why Trump wasn’t using a blind trust for his businesses after being nominated (because funnelling government expenses into your own businesses is literally the definition of corruption).
And by voting in Trump, the U.S. wasn’t pushing reset, they were pushing fast forward.
If the Democratic party wasn't weak and riddled with corruption Trump would never have been elected in the first place.
I love that reasoning.
“This party is corrupt, so let’s elect someone who will probably go down as the most corrupt politician in American history!”
Whatever allows a person to sleep better at night I guess.
The party is corrupt, so attacking someone on the basis of corruption fails on the grounds of hypocrisy. "We are less corrupt than the other candidate" is not a basis for getting the vote out. The party is weak, so attacking someone because their ideas are stupid and evil fails because they have nothing better to suggest.
Every political system accretes corruption over time. The only way to tackle it is to periodically press the reset button. Show me a political system that has been stable for hundreds of years and I will show you something that is long overdue kicking down.
But it was for Republicans. Remember ‘Crooked Hillary’? ‘Lock her Up!’ Chants?
I said it before, Trump labels someone else something, even if it is false, so he can’t be labeled that first because it will sound like Hypocrisy.
And if corruption was a huge issue to people, they’d be questioning why Trump wasn’t using a blind trust for his businesses after being nominated (because funnelling government expenses into your own businesses is literally the definition of corruption).
And by voting in Trump, the U.S. wasn’t pushing reset, they were pushing fast forward.
We pushed something. I'd say it was more like getting on a roller coaster, but you have no idea if the thing has been inspected, or if it's even ever actually completed it's trip safely even once. And one thing you know if you have ever been on a roller coaster that goes really high and really fast is that once it leaves the station, you can't get off. The only way off is to take the ride. It just so happens that the loop at the quarter mark of this roller coaster is forced child separation at the border.
If the Democratic party wasn't weak and riddled with corruption Trump would never have been elected in the first place.
I love that reasoning.
“This party is corrupt, so let’s elect someone who will probably go down as the most corrupt politician in American history!”
Whatever allows a person to sleep better at night I guess.
The party is corrupt, so attacking someone on the basis of corruption fails on the grounds of hypocrisy. "We are less corrupt than the other candidate" is not a basis for getting the vote out. The party is weak, so attacking someone because their ideas are stupid and evil fails because they have nothing better to suggest.
Every political system accretes corruption over time. The only way to tackle it is to periodically press the reset button. Show me a political system that has been stable for hundreds of years and I will show you something that is long overdue kicking down.
But it was for Republicans. Remember ‘Crooked Hillary’? ‘Lock her Up!’ Chants?
I said it before, Trump labels someone else something, even if it is false, so he can’t be labeled that first because it will sound like Hypocrisy.
And if corruption was a huge issue to people, they’d be questioning why Trump wasn’t using a blind trust for his businesses after being nominated (because funnelling government expenses into your own businesses is literally the definition of corruption).
And by voting in Trump, the U.S. wasn’t pushing reset, they were pushing fast forward.
That was your problem: Hillary WAS crooked. Sure, much less crooked than Trump and no more crooked than most politicians, but Trump's accusations couldn't simply be brushed off, nor could she retaliate in kind without being hypocritical. She might have been able to get away with it if she had had more charisma than a wet turd and some policy ideas beyond "lets keep doing things the same as we always have and hope things get better".
Basically, by not fielding a decent candidate (and they had one) because of corruption and patronage, the Democratic party didn't only screw over America, it screwed over the whole planet.
If the Democratic party wasn't weak and riddled with corruption Trump would never have been elected in the first place.
That's like saying "she wouldn't have been raped if she wasnt so weak" or "you wouldn't have been robbed if you had an alarm system".
How about blaming the perpetrator of the heinous and evil acts which by the way he is still doing.
Oh, the Democrats are claiming to be the victims now, are they?! The Democrats aint the victims, the people of Earth are the victims, the Democrats are the bystanders who stood by and did nothing.
I didn't say they were victims I said how about instead of blaming democrats you blame the party that is doing the actual evil. Instead of blaming the other party for not stopping the evil.
Blame Republican evil on Republicans.
Do you blame Demons and Devils for doing evil? No, because they are only doing what is in their nature.
You blame the paladins who are to busy polishing their armour to stop them.
Okay, if you don't understand that metaphor, try this: Most people are evil. There is nothing you can do to change that. You can't get elected if only the good people vote for you, because the evil people outnumber the good people. In order to get elected it's the evil people you need to pursuade to vote for you, and they aren't likely to do that if you tell them they are evil.
That was your problem: Hillary WAS crooked. Sure, much less crooked than Trump.
Nope. It just had that perceptition that they were at minimum equal in their corruption. And that wasn’t my problem, I’m Canadian.
It is now the American’s problem of Trump being able to line his pockets unchecked because of the assumption that Hillary was more corrupted. With no proof besides right wings pundits opinion. All investigations into her dealings proved other wise.
Do you blame Demons and Devils for doing evil? No, because they are only doing what is in their nature.
You blame the paladins who are to busy polishing their armour to stop them.
I don't think it's in the nature of Republicans to do evil. Nor do I think the Democrats were busy polishing their armor.
The Democratic party ran ads. They did their campaigning. They told people to vote for Clinton, and they explained why. Clinton debated Trump on live television. She gave speeches. She talked to people. She did the same type of campaigning that Trump and all other presidential candidates in modern history did.
Democrats went out on voting day and voted for Clinton. Ultimately, Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes. But, against the predictions of everyone, both left and right, she just barely lost the electoral vote by a few tens of thousands of votes across three states. No one foresaw that scenario, even the extremely small number of people who thought Trump was going to win.
Should the Democrats have run a campaign? Yes... and they did.
Should the Democrats have told people why they should vote for Clinton and why they shouldn't vote for Trump? Yes... and they did.
Should the Democrats have gone out and voted on voting day? Yes... and they did.
The Democratic party spend $623 million on the 2016 election. To say that the Democratic party did not attempt to stop Trump from becoming president is factually untrue. To say that they didn't do enough to stop him is facile--you can say that about any event in history.
For what it's worth, not a single person in 2016 ever said "Democrats need to do X or else Trump is going to win." I can see why a Trump supporter wouldn't shout that out, but I would question any non-Trump supporter who suggests the Democrats should have known how to win that election--if it was so obvious, where were you? I have yet to see a critique of Democratic strategy that isn't based entirely on hindsight.
More to the point, I disagree with the notion that it is normal for the GOP to do evil, or even to do wrong (I have unrelated reasons for not using the word evil in general). The Republican party is not a mindless force like a hurricane, nor is it a criminal organization. It is a group of like-minded people with a particular set of beliefs involving limited government, security, tradition, and emphasis on free market ideals.
When the GOP implements a policy, that is a conscious decision by everyone who supported the policy. Take the tax bill from late last year. There is a very specific reason why that very specific bill passed, and it has nothing to do with the Democratic party being weak or the Republican party being good or evil.
The reason why that tax bill passed is because 227 members of the House of Representatives voted in favor, and 205 voted against. That's 227 Republican politicians voting in favor, 13 Republicans voting against, zero Democrats voting in favor, and 192 Democrats voting against. This isn't an abstract number; these are real people who made a conscious decision in their own heads. They are listed here, by name. Same goes for the Senate--every vote that made that bill into a law came from a real person, and you can view them by name here.
But wait--why where there 240 Republicans in the House compared to 192 Democrats, and why were there 52 Republicans in the Senate compared to 48 Democrats?
Because that's who people voted for. Those votes, too, came from individual people making conscious decisions.
So, let's say you have an opinion on the tax bill. If you think it was a bad thing, then who do you blame? The people in Congress who voted for it, or the people in Congress who voted against it? Do you blame the people who voted the former into office, or do you blame the people who voted for the guy who lost the election?
If you think it was a good thing, then who do you give credit for the law? The people in Congress who voted for it, or those who voted against it? Do you give credit to the people who put the former into office, or the people who voted for the guy who lost the election?
It's not like Republicans are mindless robots or evil monsters who can't control themselves and it's the Democrats' responsibility to keep them from destroying the world. All of these policies are the result of real people making conscious decisions in their own minds.
It's a bit like blaming a fireman for failing to stop an arsonist from destroying a building, or praising an arsonist who doesn't use enough fuel to keep the fireman from saving the building. The blame goes to the successful arsonist, not the failed fireman. The praise goes to the successful fireman, not the failed arsonist.
We should hold people accountable for the things they do, not the things that other people do.
There's no such thing as good and evil... That thought process is the reasoning behind all the things we're talking about... About child separation, Trump, immigration... When people think criminals are evil and illegal immigrants are criminal... Then it makes sense to build a huge wall, take children away, lock people away for years and years. However, when you understand these people are doing exactly the same thing as every human would do with their experiences and situation... Then you start thinking about how to truly address the problem... Why people are leaving their own country or why others are feeling they need to commit a crime. You can still do what needs to be done, protect borders, punish criminal acts... But that won't fix things. The person who believes in good and evil, thinks locking someone up or the fear of it, will solve the problem...when the reality is simply having to build more and more prisons, spending more money and breaking the will of the person locked up. The person who believes all people are the same, built of different experiences which shape us... Will focus more on the cause, origin, essentially asking "what would make me do this? Or "what would make me think this way?"
I don't subscribe to people are evil theory. Are babies evil?
When you think about it, infancy is the most evil part of a person's life. People don't really develop the ability to feel empathy, or act upon it, until later in life. As helpless critters who cannot take care of themselves, much less others, babies are selfish by nature. It's only when people grow up and become more self-sufficient that it becomes reasonable to expect them to be kind.
It's actually kind of funny. The most lovable critters in the world are also secretly the most evil!
In regards to who supports what with actual votes, the Democrats (according to Dianne Feinstein's count) now have 48 members of their party on board. Everyone but (predictably) Joe Manchin of West Virginia. So just like with issues like Net Neutrality, the tax bill, and health care repeal, there is a MAJOR difference that can be drawn down exactly down party lines. Obviously, since this is mostly a hostage negotiation, there is no way enough (if any) Republicans will sign on or let it come to the floor, much less pass the House, much less get signed by Trump. By the priorities here are pretty stark.
Meanwhile DHS Secretary Nielsen is engaging in some epic gaslighting, insisting separating families is NOT their policy. I've heard of wanting to have it both ways before, but this is getting absurd. How is anyone supposed to have a reasonable debate in a political environment being fostered by pathological liars??
And these stories are NOT getting any better. Now the AP has a new story, which literally has children curled up in balls near cages clutching a photocopy of his mother's photo ID, and children having to change the diapers of the younger children themselves:
From a purely political perspective, this story has spun completely out of the control of the Administration and the GOP. They have to lie about it because they don't want to be blamed for it, but they also have to continue to support out the other side of their mouth to appease the anti-immigrant base. So every single day when a new story comes out, they are going to have to own what is uncovered. I've read multiple accounts that this policy was the brain-child of Stephen Miller, who advocated using the "nuclear option" of separating families. This is indeed the type of situation you end up with when you let someone like him take the reigns, because he is really nothing more than an internet troll has been given access and power.
Laura Bush, who I never remember weighing in on ANY policy before that I can remember, has written an op-ed in the Washington Post condemning the policy:
Laura Bush, who I never remember weighing in on ANY policy before that I can remember, has written an op-ed in the Washington Post condemning the policy:
Laura Bush, who I never remember weighing in on ANY policy before that I can remember, has written an op-ed in the Washington Post condemning the policy:
I don't put a hell of alot of stock into that one, for two reasons. One is that she could presumably just walk down the hall and tell her husband so herself instead of issuing a statement about it (assuming she can stand the sight of him, which I honestly very much doubt she can). But the second is that I really can't take any statement or speech from Melania Trump seriously after what happened at the convention when it was revealed her speech was obviously plagiarized from Michelle Obama's years before. I don't believe she has any agency in any of this. That statement didn't seem like it came from a real person to me. It sounded like another example of the White House talking out both sides of their mouth. I would be shocked if she had anything at all to do with it. And I'm not knocking Melania Trump in any way. I just don't think she has any say in what she does or doesn't do when it comes to this Administration. I mean, even her campaign against "online bullying" seems like it is just a massive troll job by the Administration when her husband is obviously the biggest online bully the world has ever seen. Maybe she cares about it, maybe she doesn't, but her role as First Lady seems utterly inconsequential to me. She has always been Trump's trophy wife and that hasn't changed. Occasionally she will be trotted out as a prop, but even that is fairly rare. I think Melania Trump has as much influence over her husband as you or I do. And my guess is the second he is out of office she is going to file for divorce.
Laura Bush, who I never remember weighing in on ANY policy before that I can remember, has written an op-ed in the Washington Post condemning the policy:
Laura Bush, who I never remember weighing in on ANY policy before that I can remember, has written an op-ed in the Washington Post condemning the policy:
I don't disagree with you. I've no idea how she really feels, but what interested me was she was making a statement at all - given how rarely she ventures above the parapet. I think it is pretty likely that her statement was put together for the purpose of presenting this as an issue where the Democrats are blocking progress and both sides need to work together (code for giving Trump whatever he wants). However, the fact someone considered her intervention was needed at all suggests that there are some concerns about things spinning out of control.
Things getting out of control is not likely to worry Trump himself and I expect he will follow his normal path when caught doing something bad of 'doubling down'. It would not surprise me though to see a further rash of resignations over this issue - things seem to have been relatively quiet on that front recently ...
Melania obviously only married Trump for his money. She was a nude model, there's plenty of evidence online, she saw old man Trump as a way out of her situation in life.
She has her own opinions on what is right and wrong but so what honestly she's only important because she is married to the President. Her "be best" thing seems dead on arrival when her husband is spouting off filthy attacks and lies constantly.
My point is it's great to have an opinion about things but she seems incapable of any action or effect. I guess I'll believe it when I see it so far I'm seeing a trophy wife has opinions, ok great so. What's being done?
Also, compare Cuba before and after the revolution and Chile before and after Pinochet regime. Cuba before the revolution was richer than most European countries, now is failed totalitarian state who almost destroyed the world during the missile crisis
Never thought I'd see the day where there was praise for a military dictator installed in a US coup that resulted in the persecution and execution of thousands of critics and tens of thousands put in internment camps. But hey, internment camps are making a hell of a comeback this month, so maybe I'm the crazy one.
I don't subscribe to people are evil theory. Are babies evil?
When you think about it, infancy is the most evil part of a person's life. People don't really develop the ability to feel empathy, or act upon it, until later in life. As helpless critters who cannot take care of themselves, much less others, babies are selfish by nature. It's only when people grow up and become more self-sufficient that it becomes reasonable to expect them to be kind.
It's actually kind of funny. The most lovable critters in the world are also secretly the most evil!
Hah, I've been saying "Cute is evil" for years.
Kittens are unholy terrors, but they ARE cute.
Babies get away with their evil because they can't IMPLEMENT their evil. Yet.
I think that he's saying that even a right-wing dictator can get a country a good average income?
But Pinochet was in power like 35-40 years ago, not now. He was thrown OUT of office 30 years ago this year.
Furthermore, there's pretty good evidence that Chile was economically stunted under Pinochet, only held together while its economy was being reorganized, because he was a ruthless dictator, and has achieved what it has only since Pinochet was taken out of office and poverty an inequality got tackled.
Do we have some reliable numbers for a death count by the Che regime? I don't see one right off the bat.
I don't think Che's violence justifies Pinochet's or makes it any less despicable. Apparently Pinochet killed over 3,000 people and tortured about 29,000. So I think I'll go ahead and classify him as a dictator and a murderer just like Che, considering Pinochet overthrew a democratic government, ruled as a dictator, and has a higher death count than Osama bin Laden. It's theoretically possible for a revolutionary leader to qualify as both a hero and a murderer, but the murderer part is generally more important to me. Killing innocent civilians pretty much disqualifies you as a decent human being.
In general, I'd rate communist regimes as distinctly worse than fascist regimes, but being only partly as horrific as a bloody communist government is simply not worthy of praise.
re: separating children from the parents at immigration detention centers.... For now, set aside the fact that separations were going on during the Obama Administration yet no one complained, set aside the fact that separations were not an issue 6 months ago, and set aside questions as to whether or not separations are ethical, moral, and/or legal. What solution to the problem exists?
Do we let the children stay in the adult detention center with the parents? How is that not psychologically scarring to the children, growing up in what is essentially jail? Should detention centers become more like secure college dormitories, with a cafeteria, in-house school, playground, etc.? How is that dissimilar from WWII-era internment camp, generally now thought of a "a bad idea"?
Do we shrug our shoulders and just let the families go free without penalty simply because they have a child with them? If they are simply let go, what guarantee do you have that they will show up to their scheduled hearing at immigration court? If they are released, what is to keep them from disappearing by moving from community to community under different names?
Just because a family shows up at the border with a child in tow, how do you *know* that that is actually their child? Surely you don't think that all immigrants automatically tell the truth all the time, do you?
Are all people who hold the opinion "let them all in" going to let an immigrant family move into their home? If not, why not?
re: separating children from the parents at immigration detention centers.... For now, set aside the fact that separations were going on during the Obama Administration yet no one complained, set aside the fact that separations were not an issue 6 months ago, and set aside questions as to whether or not separations are ethical, moral, and/or legal.
You might want to set that aside, but it is also not true. There were separations, but under different circumstances and much more rarely. It becoming the crisis it is now, is directly tied to this administrations policy.
Do we let the children stay in the adult detention center with the parents? How is that not psychologically scarring to the children, growing up in what is essentially jail? Should detention centers become more like secure college dormitories, with a cafeteria, in-house school, playground, etc.? How is that dissimilar from WWII-era internment camp, generally now thought of a "a bad idea"?
Yes, that would be a start. The difference to the WWII interment camp is that a) those are not citizens and b) it needs to be as short-term as possible. Applications/immigration status should be decided quickly. Those who get granted legal status should be released. Those who did not should be deported together with the children.
Also note, that currently many of the kids are already in detention/jail. Just without their parents. Which is worse than being in jail with mommy and daddy.
Do we shrug our shoulders and just let the families go free without penalty simply because they have a child with them? If they are simply let go, what guarantee do you have that they will show up to their scheduled hearing at immigration court? If they are released, what is to keep them from disappearing by moving from community to community under different names?
Just because a family shows up at the border with a child in tow, how do you *know* that that is actually their child? Surely you don't think that all immigrants automatically tell the truth all the time, do you?
Most of the time they will be. Ask the kid if you are distrustful. If there is something very specific that makes you suspect that something is not ok, run additional checks and tests. I think this question is not constructive.
Are all people who hold the opinion "let them all in" going to let an immigrant family move into their home? If not, why not?
I don't hold that opinion. But it is not hypocrisy either.
There is a large difference between believing that we can tackle a problem as a society/state and believing you can have a real impact by yourself. You as well ask "If you believe crime is bad, are you going to hunt criminals?" or "if you believe there should be more teachers, why do you not become one?" Everyone makes this distinction all the time. This is the classic right-wing argument to liberals "you are not perfect, so who are you to tell us how we could improve our society?" I hate that argument. If people really believed it, nothing would get done anymore.
More practically, it is also not an option. It is not permitted to do so.
Comments
Blame Republican evil on Republicans.
I said it before, Trump labels someone else something, even if it is false, so he can’t be labeled that first because it will sound like Hypocrisy.
And if corruption was a huge issue to people, they’d be questioning why Trump wasn’t using a blind trust for his businesses after being nominated (because funnelling government expenses into your own businesses is literally the definition of corruption).
And by voting in Trump, the U.S. wasn’t pushing reset, they were pushing fast forward.
That was your problem: Hillary WAS crooked. Sure, much less crooked than Trump and no more crooked than most politicians, but Trump's accusations couldn't simply be brushed off, nor could she retaliate in kind without being hypocritical. She might have been able to get away with it if she had had more charisma than a wet turd and some policy ideas beyond "lets keep doing things the same as we always have and hope things get better".
Basically, by not fielding a decent candidate (and they had one) because of corruption and patronage, the Democratic party didn't only screw over America, it screwed over the whole planet.
You blame the paladins who are to busy polishing their armour to stop them.
It is now the American’s problem of Trump being able to line his pockets unchecked because of the assumption that Hillary was more corrupted. With no proof besides right wings pundits opinion. All investigations into her dealings proved other wise.
The Democratic party ran ads. They did their campaigning. They told people to vote for Clinton, and they explained why. Clinton debated Trump on live television. She gave speeches. She talked to people. She did the same type of campaigning that Trump and all other presidential candidates in modern history did.
Democrats went out on voting day and voted for Clinton. Ultimately, Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes. But, against the predictions of everyone, both left and right, she just barely lost the electoral vote by a few tens of thousands of votes across three states. No one foresaw that scenario, even the extremely small number of people who thought Trump was going to win.
Should the Democrats have run a campaign? Yes... and they did.
Should the Democrats have told people why they should vote for Clinton and why they shouldn't vote for Trump? Yes... and they did.
Should the Democrats have gone out and voted on voting day? Yes... and they did.
The Democratic party spend $623 million on the 2016 election. To say that the Democratic party did not attempt to stop Trump from becoming president is factually untrue. To say that they didn't do enough to stop him is facile--you can say that about any event in history.
For what it's worth, not a single person in 2016 ever said "Democrats need to do X or else Trump is going to win." I can see why a Trump supporter wouldn't shout that out, but I would question any non-Trump supporter who suggests the Democrats should have known how to win that election--if it was so obvious, where were you? I have yet to see a critique of Democratic strategy that isn't based entirely on hindsight.
When the GOP implements a policy, that is a conscious decision by everyone who supported the policy. Take the tax bill from late last year. There is a very specific reason why that very specific bill passed, and it has nothing to do with the Democratic party being weak or the Republican party being good or evil.
The reason why that tax bill passed is because 227 members of the House of Representatives voted in favor, and 205 voted against. That's 227 Republican politicians voting in favor, 13 Republicans voting against, zero Democrats voting in favor, and 192 Democrats voting against. This isn't an abstract number; these are real people who made a conscious decision in their own heads. They are listed here, by name. Same goes for the Senate--every vote that made that bill into a law came from a real person, and you can view them by name here.
But wait--why where there 240 Republicans in the House compared to 192 Democrats, and why were there 52 Republicans in the Senate compared to 48 Democrats?
Because that's who people voted for. Those votes, too, came from individual people making conscious decisions.
So, let's say you have an opinion on the tax bill. If you think it was a bad thing, then who do you blame? The people in Congress who voted for it, or the people in Congress who voted against it? Do you blame the people who voted the former into office, or do you blame the people who voted for the guy who lost the election?
If you think it was a good thing, then who do you give credit for the law? The people in Congress who voted for it, or those who voted against it? Do you give credit to the people who put the former into office, or the people who voted for the guy who lost the election?
It's not like Republicans are mindless robots or evil monsters who can't control themselves and it's the Democrats' responsibility to keep them from destroying the world. All of these policies are the result of real people making conscious decisions in their own minds.
It's a bit like blaming a fireman for failing to stop an arsonist from destroying a building, or praising an arsonist who doesn't use enough fuel to keep the fireman from saving the building. The blame goes to the successful arsonist, not the failed fireman. The praise goes to the successful fireman, not the failed arsonist.
We should hold people accountable for the things they do, not the things that other people do.
It's actually kind of funny. The most lovable critters in the world are also secretly the most evil!
Meanwhile DHS Secretary Nielsen is engaging in some epic gaslighting, insisting separating families is NOT their policy. I've heard of wanting to have it both ways before, but this is getting absurd. How is anyone supposed to have a reasonable debate in a political environment being fostered by pathological liars??
And these stories are NOT getting any better. Now the AP has a new story, which literally has children curled up in balls near cages clutching a photocopy of his mother's photo ID, and children having to change the diapers of the younger children themselves:
https://www.apnews.com/9794de32d39d4c6f89fbefaea3780769
From a purely political perspective, this story has spun completely out of the control of the Administration and the GOP. They have to lie about it because they don't want to be blamed for it, but they also have to continue to support out the other side of their mouth to appease the anti-immigrant base. So every single day when a new story comes out, they are going to have to own what is uncovered. I've read multiple accounts that this policy was the brain-child of Stephen Miller, who advocated using the "nuclear option" of separating families. This is indeed the type of situation you end up with when you let someone like him take the reigns, because he is really nothing more than an internet troll has been given access and power.
Laura Bush, who I never remember weighing in on ANY policy before that I can remember, has written an op-ed in the Washington Post condemning the policy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/f2df517a-7287-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.2841ea846d54
Facts >> Feelings
Things getting out of control is not likely to worry Trump himself and I expect he will follow his normal path when caught doing something bad of 'doubling down'. It would not surprise me though to see a further rash of resignations over this issue - things seem to have been relatively quiet on that front recently ...
She has her own opinions on what is right and wrong but so what honestly she's only important because she is married to the President. Her "be best" thing seems dead on arrival when her husband is spouting off filthy attacks and lies constantly.
My point is it's great to have an opinion about things but she seems incapable of any action or effect. I guess I'll believe it when I see it so far I'm seeing a trophy wife has opinions, ok great so. What's being done?
"Mexicans are mostly a rabble of illiterate indians" (Che Guevara, 1955);
“The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.” https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/the-feminist-simone-de-beauvoir-met-the-rapist-che-guevara-and-the-dictator-fidel-castro/
Also, compare Cuba before and after the revolution and Chile before and after Pinochet regime. Cuba before the revolution was richer than most European countries, now is failed totalitarian state who almost destroyed the world during the missile crisis
Kittens are unholy terrors, but they ARE cute.
Babies get away with their evil because they can't IMPLEMENT their evil. Yet. I think that he's saying that even a right-wing dictator can get a country a good average income?
But Pinochet was in power like 35-40 years ago, not now. He was thrown OUT of office 30 years ago this year.
Furthermore, there's pretty good evidence that Chile was economically stunted under Pinochet, only held together while its economy was being reorganized, because he was a ruthless dictator, and has achieved what it has only since Pinochet was taken out of office and poverty an inequality got tackled.
I don't think Che's violence justifies Pinochet's or makes it any less despicable. Apparently Pinochet killed over 3,000 people and tortured about 29,000. So I think I'll go ahead and classify him as a dictator and a murderer just like Che, considering Pinochet overthrew a democratic government, ruled as a dictator, and has a higher death count than Osama bin Laden. It's theoretically possible for a revolutionary leader to qualify as both a hero and a murderer, but the murderer part is generally more important to me. Killing innocent civilians pretty much disqualifies you as a decent human being.
In general, I'd rate communist regimes as distinctly worse than fascist regimes, but being only partly as horrific as a bloody communist government is simply not worthy of praise.
Do we let the children stay in the adult detention center with the parents? How is that not psychologically scarring to the children, growing up in what is essentially jail? Should detention centers become more like secure college dormitories, with a cafeteria, in-house school, playground, etc.? How is that dissimilar from WWII-era internment camp, generally now thought of a "a bad idea"?
Do we shrug our shoulders and just let the families go free without penalty simply because they have a child with them? If they are simply let go, what guarantee do you have that they will show up to their scheduled hearing at immigration court? If they are released, what is to keep them from disappearing by moving from community to community under different names?
Just because a family shows up at the border with a child in tow, how do you *know* that that is actually their child? Surely you don't think that all immigrants automatically tell the truth all the time, do you?
Are all people who hold the opinion "let them all in" going to let an immigrant family move into their home? If not, why not?
Yes, that would be a start. The difference to the WWII interment camp is that a) those are not citizens and b) it needs to be as short-term as possible. Applications/immigration status should be decided quickly. Those who get granted legal status should be released. Those who did not should be deported together with the children.
Also note, that currently many of the kids are already in detention/jail. Just without their parents. Which is worse than being in jail with mommy and daddy. See above. Most of the time they will be. Ask the kid if you are distrustful. If there is something very specific that makes you suspect that something is not ok, run additional checks and tests. I think this question is not constructive.
I don't hold that opinion. But it is not hypocrisy either.
There is a large difference between believing that we can tackle a problem as a society/state and believing you can have a real impact by yourself. You as well ask "If you believe crime is bad, are you going to hunt criminals?" or "if you believe there should be more teachers, why do you not become one?" Everyone makes this distinction all the time. This is the classic right-wing argument to liberals "you are not perfect, so who are you to tell us how we could improve our society?" I hate that argument. If people really believed it, nothing would get done anymore.
More practically, it is also not an option. It is not permitted to do so.