Just in relation to the legality of cannabis that's been discussed lately, I note that Canada has now legalized recreational use of this. The story says that Canada is only the second country in the world (after Uruguay) to do this, but I think that's rather misleading. Despite the change in Canada's laws there will still be considerable restrictions on the growth, distribution and use of cannabis - the aim is just to ensure that these restrictions are done through a regulated framework rather than primarily through the criminal justice system.
I think there are a number of countries, like Portugal and Holland, where the legal system is already as permissive as Canada. However, I do think that the Canada decision reflects that the tide has turned in the way countries handle drug use. In the years to come I expect a lot more moves towards regulation and treatment approaches rather than direct criminal enforcement. To be cynical about it, that's partly because the gains to be made are not just reducing criminality and improving health, but also considerable extra revenue opportunities for governments.
The US could have negotiated peace far earlier therefore... but then modern Japanese society might have taken a very different course- a little more similar to South Korea for example which fully transitioned to democracy by the end of the 20th century.
Like @BallpointMan I'm also curious. Your statement implies that Japan is not a democracy - do you really mean that? Can you expand on what you think might have changed about Japan if the war had ended in a different way?
My reading was that Japan would have transitioned later than it has in actual history (end vs mid 20th century), not that actual Japan is not a democracy.
Yes, I think that Japanese history may have followed a different trajectory in this case. The present forms of Japanese democracy are still influenced by the short neocolonial period that the country was occupied. Various bureaucratic structures have their origin in that period, as well as the country's constitution, which was originally drafted in English and has never been revised. Japan did of course have elections in the prewar period as well, but by the 1920s conservative factions reacted harshly to civil unrest by curtailing political freedom. Until the Meiji constitution from the 19th century was revised any government could be brought down by pressure from elite groups or the military, and violence by right-wingers was essentially condoned as patriotic during the Taisho and Showa eras. I think that many expansionist regimes in history- e.g. Napoleonic France as well as Showa Japan- have essentially exported their domestic problems as they attempt to contain civil unrest by increasing their available resources and imposing discipline on the domestic population with the implicit promise of future reward.
IBM has created an AI program that can debate with humans. The technology is fairly limited, but the machine can put together coherent sentences that are relevant to the topic.
If only we could get people to put together coherent sentences which are relevant to the topic. That would be more amazing.
I am already on record as stating that zero tolerance policies are a bad idea and this one is no different--you do not use a sledgehammer to drive a nail used for hanging a small picture on the wall.
I cannot help but wonder...is this immigration/family separation issue throwing up so much noise that we are missing something else which is important?
“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” Al-Hussein also cited a statement from the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who said that detaining children separately from their parents was “government-sanctioned child abuse” that could cause permanent and irreversible harm to children.
Again, the Magnitsky Act are sanctions taken against corrupt government officials and human rights abusers to freeze their financial assets. Many countries copied the United States lead and have their own versions of this. Canada, the EU, the UK and other countries should sanction Trump personally and his companies for his actions. Freeze his financial assets.
He'd stop his policy of child abuse quickly because the main thing he cares about is enriching his family.
Nothing would stop the U.S. from retaliating and seizing/freezing financial assets to any country that does this to the United States. In fact Trump would probably love to hold onto some Canadian money as blackmail to hammer through NAFTA in favour of the U.S.
It's done the US pulled out of the UN Human rights council
They did that under W. Bush as well I believe.
Seems Republican administrations need a safe space from human rights. Their reason is they can't handle Israel being called out for human rights violations and stuff. Too upsetting.
Too bad Democrat administrations like to protect known human rights violators like Iran, Saudi Arabia, DR Congo, Turkey, NK, India, Pakistan, China, Venezuela, Mexico, Rwanda, UAE, Kenya, Cuba, Nigeria...
My feeling is that other countries freezing Trump assets is mostly proposed by the US internal opposition.
Trump is the democratically elected leader of the US, it makes no sense for us to sanction him personally for US politics. There should be retaliatory tariffs and other measures, but there is no reason to target him personally. In the end, the people who voted for him are responsible. There is no reason for them to be spared of the logical consequences.
In fact, this is something that is annoying to me as an outsider to US politics. So many are not taking responsibility for the US electing Trump. Depending on who you listen to it is either the electoral college, Comey or the Russians to blame. Note that I do believe (as an example) that the Russians tried to influence the election, but it is the responsibility of the American people not to let themselves be manipulated that easily.
Targeting corrupt officials is only the way to go when democracy in the country has died. The US is not that far gone yet.
I cannot help but wonder...is this immigration/family separation issue throwing up so much noise that we are missing something else which is important?
The important thing we are missing is that nobody gave a shit for the last ten years if sex slaves, children stolen from their parents for sale in the U.S. by the Mexican drug cartels, women and their kids used as drug mules crossed into the States or straight up Human Trafficking is allowed by Mexico, one of the worst most corrupt governments on the planet.
On the topic of the Russians I remember reading recently that it would be a mistake to think that Russian agencies (and other similarly minded actors) are only supporting right wing sources. They are just as likely to be setting up militant Black Lives Matter chatgroups or forums for arranging protests etc. for remaining in the EU, because what matters is promoting division and confusion. What weakens democratic states and their ability to respond coherently in the view of these actors is the promotion of intolerance concerning others' views and more extreme positions on the left and right. Of course they can only start the ball rolling and move on in these cases, hoping that the seeds of hate will bear fruit, they're not numerous enough to do anything more than to try to influence the debate by a percentage point or two.
I personally believe that story have a lot of grey areas. Pinochet is an example of it Is like some Allies who nuked 2 civil cities in a country who tried to surrender many times and sold half of Europe to USSR. This doesn't means that everything that USA has done was wrong...
This is pretty hugely inaccurate. As someone who studied History, I'd like to point out:
-Japan never attempted to surrender to the US until after the 2nd nuclear weapon was dropped (For the record. I'm totally against the dropping of the bombs, and other events such as the firebombing of Tokyo which was *far* more destructive than any nuclear weapon). -US has little to no say in how 'half of Europe" would go, as the Soviets had already conquered that territory by the end of the war, and there was next any expectation that the Soviets would willingly leave anywhere that they had occupied. Soviets had attempted to negotiate occupation of approximately half of Japan and Italy, but that demand was rebuffed by the allies in general.
The US's worst sin, diplomatically, was the concessions made in Yalta in 1943, in which FDR was willing to give the Soviets a lot in order to save American lives. Not our finest moment, to be sure - but then, I suspect this was largely unimportant. The Soviets werent giving up their gains, regardless of any treaty.
But about the betrayal of central/eastern Europe isn't a hoax.
But when Hitler invaded Poland from the west and Stalin invaded from the east, Britain declared war on Germany alone. Then, the British sat behind the Maginot Line while Poland was crucified. The British had goaded the Poles into standing up to Hitler though they had no plans to save or rescue Poland. Six million Poles would die as a result of having trusted in a British alliance
The second betrayal occurred at Teheran in 1943, when FDR moved into the Soviet embassy compound and assured Stalin he would not object to his keeping the half of Poland and the Baltic states Hitler had ceded to Stalin in their infamous pact. As Robert Nisbet wrote in “Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship,” FDR asked only that word of his concession not leak out before the 1944 elections, so Polish Americans would not react in rage.
In fact, this is something that is annoying to me as an outsider to US politics. So many are not taking responsibility for the US electing Trump......
Note that I do believe (as an example) that the Russians tried to influence the election, but it is the responsibility of the American people not to let themselves be manipulated that easily.
Targeting corrupt officials is only the way to go when democracy in the country has died. The US is not that far gone yet.
Most of us don't take responsibility because most of us didn't vote for the motherscratcher, most of us don't want him now either.
The electoral college, along with the other factors you mentioned helped get him elected. The electoral college gives more power to cornfields in Nebraska than actual people living in the country.
"the responsibility of the American people not to let themselves be manipulated that easily".
We have a massive disinformation network, Fox News, lying to people everyday - not to mention other right wing media. Just flat out making stuff up, lying.
In fact, this is something that is annoying to me as an outsider to US politics. So many are not taking responsibility for the US electing Trump......
Note that I do believe (as an example) that the Russians tried to influence the election, but it is the responsibility of the American people not to let themselves be manipulated that easily.
Targeting corrupt officials is only the way to go when democracy in the country has died. The US is not that far gone yet.
Most of us don't take responsibility because most of us didn't vote for the motherscratcher, most of us don't want him now either.
The electoral college, along with the other factors you mentioned helped get him elected. The electoral college gives more power to cornfields in Nebraska than actual people living in the country.
"the responsibility of the American people not to let themselves be manipulated that easily".
We have a massive disinformation network, Fox News, lying to people everyday - not to mention other right wing media. Just flat out making stuff up, lying.
Just to clarify what I meant, there is a difference between responsibility and blame. If you voted against him (not voting for him does not count IMO) you are not too blame, but you are still responsible both to speak out against him and continue voting against him. What is important is to notice that he has significant support in the US, even if external factors helped him.
As for Fox News, yes, it lies. But people are not forced to watch Fox News, except maybe unfortunate kids by their parents. And there are other sources that point out the lies.
But if it seems like most people are pissed and don't want to take responsibility it is because most of us literally didn't vote for him and don't want him, his family, or his agenda.
But about the betrayal of central/eastern Europe isn't a hoax.
But when Hitler invaded Poland from the west and Stalin invaded from the east, Britain declared war on Germany alone. Then, the British sat behind the Maginot Line while Poland was crucified. The British had goaded the Poles into standing up to Hitler though they had no plans to save or rescue Poland. Six million Poles would die as a result of having trusted in a British alliance
This seems a rather exaggerated position. If we were talking about Czechoslovakia it would be more understandable and Chamberlain has been very widely criticized for his decision to appease Hitler (both at the time and since).
As for Poland, Britain had a commitment to defend Poland from Germany and honored that by declaring war. Britain didn't have the military power to defeat Germany in their own back yard though and attempting to send large number of troops to Poland would have just resulted in their loss without helping the Poles. The treaty between Poland and Britain was specific to defending against Germany, so there was no commitment to defend Poland against Russia - and declaring war on them as well as Germany could well have pushed those countries closer together and led to a different outcome to WWII.
I just saw that a minute ago. I've been in the process of submitting a petition to the UK government asking them to protest about the separations (May has done so, but not forcefully enough for my taste), but with luck I can now abandon that. I'll wait a while though until we get confirmation that appropriate action really is being taken on this issue.
But if it seems like most people are pissed and don't want to take responsibility it is because most of us literally didn't vote for him and don't want him, his family, or his agenda.
Indefinite detention for what are (91% of the time) misdemeanor infractions. And since they can't keep the children for more than 20 days, it will set off a court battle, where Trump will then start attacking judges (as if he has ever stopped). Again, I ask this: what normal misdemeanor offense sets off a 20-day incarceration period without seeing a judge or being granted a hearing?? Much less an indefinite incarceration. This is a purposeful poison pill, though STILL miles better than the alternative.
I don't see why he has to issue an Executive Order, since no order was needed when they STARTED the practice 6 weeks ago. It was simply a directive he gave to Jeff Sessions. Beyond that, let's see if he actually SIGNS this order (remember banning bump stocks after Parkland??). Then we can talk about whether someone deserves credit for rescinding something they were 100% responsible for starting in the first place. And then we talk about what the hell is going to happen to the 2000+ kids who are already scattered to the wind, who the former director of ICE said in the last few days may NEVER be reunited with their parents because of how this has been implemented.
Beyond that, this idea of "zero-tolerance" for illegal immigration won't be anything approaching that until the EMPLOYERS who are hiring them are incarcerated in the same manner. Who is really to blame if someone "loses" a job to an undocumented worker. The worker, or the person who hires them and may be falsifying employment information or paying cash??
“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” Al-Hussein also cited a statement from the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who said that detaining children separately from their parents was “government-sanctioned child abuse” that could cause permanent and irreversible harm to children.
Again, the Magnitsky Act are sanctions taken against corrupt government officials and human rights abusers to freeze their financial assets. Many countries copied the United States lead and have their own versions of this. Canada, the EU, the UK and other countries should sanction Trump personally and his companies for his actions. Freeze his financial assets.
He'd stop his policy of child abuse quickly because the main thing he cares about is enriching his family.
Nothing would stop the U.S. from retaliating and seizing/freezing financial assets to any country that does this to the United States. In fact Trump would probably love to hold onto some Canadian money as blackmail to hammer through NAFTA in favour of the U.S.
Nothing would be done to the United States. Nothing.
The Magnitsky Act was made to sanction Putin's Russian Oligarchs billionaires by restricting access and freezing financial assets to corrupt government officials, not sanctioning the country as a whole. It is actually the reason Trump Jr. met with the Russian government spies in Trump Tower to get dirt on Hillary Clinton - their goal was to end the Magnitsky Act (the meeting was not about "adoptions", that was a lie made up by the President according to his lawyers).
So if other countries, who made their own versions of this act, applied these targets sanctions it would not be to the United States as a whole, it would only be to a corrupt family of criminal government officials who also commit egregious human rights violations. Those are descriptions of Donald Trump and his family. If that has any effect on him, it is because he has failed to divest himself from his businesses. Other President divested their business interests, Trump didn't because he wanted to be able to receive bribes and enrich himself further but as we see besides being able to bought off he is also open to this type of pressure being leveraged against him.
“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” Al-Hussein also cited a statement from the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who said that detaining children separately from their parents was “government-sanctioned child abuse” that could cause permanent and irreversible harm to children.
Again, the Magnitsky Act are sanctions taken against corrupt government officials and human rights abusers to freeze their financial assets. Many countries copied the United States lead and have their own versions of this. Canada, the EU, the UK and other countries should sanction Trump personally and his companies for his actions. Freeze his financial assets.
He'd stop his policy of child abuse quickly because the main thing he cares about is enriching his family.
Nothing would stop the U.S. from retaliating and seizing/freezing financial assets to any country that does this to the United States. In fact Trump would probably love to hold onto some Canadian money as blackmail to hammer through NAFTA in favour of the U.S.
Nothing would be done to the United States. Nothing.
The Magnitsky Act was made to sanction Putin's Russian Oligarchs billionaires by restricting access and freezing financial assets to corrupt government officials, not sanctioning the country as a whole. It is actually the reason Trump Jr. met with the Russian government spies in Trump Tower to get dirt on Hillary Clinton - their goal was to end the Magnitsky Act (the meeting was not about "adoptions", that was a lie made up by the President according to his lawyers).
So if other countries, who made their own versions of this act, applied these targets sanctions it would not be to the United States as a whole, it would only be to a corrupt family of criminal government officials who also commit egregious human rights violations. Those are descriptions of Donald Trump and his family. If that has any effect on him, it is because he has failed to divest himself from his businesses. Other President divested their business interests, Trump didn't because he wanted to be able to receive bribes and enrich himself further but as we see besides being able to bought off he is also open to this type of pressure being leveraged against him.
That doesn’t stop The Donald from using his political position to impose freezes on a countries citizen who takes this act.
All he has to do is fib, just throw out his favourite line of “national security reasons” and *poof* there goes Lino Saputo’s money.
If the children are no longer being separated, that's definitely good news. I'm still concerned about the prospect of removing the 20-day maximum detainment period and potentially locking up minors indefinitely before receiving a hearing.
Beyond that, this idea of "zero-tolerance" for illegal immigration won't be anything approaching that until the EMPLOYERS who are hiring them are incarcerated in the same manner. Who is really to blame if someone "loses" a job to an undocumented worker. The worker, or the person who hires them and may be falsifying employment information or paying cash??
This is the side of illegal immigration most people never mention--the unscrupulous employers who hire these people, paying cash so they can avoid offering any benefits other than "you're getting paid so shut up". It isn't just contractors cutting corners on payroll but also farms where immigrants might typically work as long as there is daylight.
This is the side of illegal immigration most people never mention--the unscrupulous employers who hire these people, paying cash so they can avoid offering any benefits other than "you're getting paid so shut up". It isn't just contractors cutting corners on payroll but also farms where immigrants might typically work as long as there is daylight.
Capitalism. Make a buck no matter what taken to the extreme. It's also the reason waitresses aren't paid salary, you as a customer are expected to tip to pay the person their salary and also you have to purchase your food. Works great for the business, they don't have to pay their people. A lot of other countries actually pay their service people a living wage, imagine that.
I don't see why he has to issue an Executive Order, since no order was needed when they STARTED the practice 6 weeks ago. It was simply a directive he gave to Jeff Sessions. Beyond that, let's see if he actually SIGNS this order (remember banning bump stocks after Parkland??). Then we can talk about whether someone deserves credit for rescinding something they were 100% responsible for starting in the first place.
You can be sure the answer to "why" Trump is doing it this way has an answer and a sinister ulterior motive behind it.
I personally believe that story have a lot of grey areas. Pinochet is an example of it Is like some Allies who nuked 2 civil cities in a country who tried to surrender many times and sold half of Europe to USSR. This doesn't means that everything that USA has done was wrong...
This is pretty hugely inaccurate. As someone who studied History, I'd like to point out:
-Japan never attempted to surrender to the US until after the 2nd nuclear weapon was dropped (For the record. I'm totally against the dropping of the bombs, and other events such as the firebombing of Tokyo which was *far* more destructive than any nuclear weapon). -US has little to no say in how 'half of Europe" would go, as the Soviets had already conquered that territory by the end of the war, and there was next any expectation that the Soviets would willingly leave anywhere that they had occupied. Soviets had attempted to negotiate occupation of approximately half of Japan and Italy, but that demand was rebuffed by the allies in general.
The US's worst sin, diplomatically, was the concessions made in Yalta in 1943, in which FDR was willing to give the Soviets a lot in order to save American lives. Not our finest moment, to be sure - but then, I suspect this was largely unimportant. The Soviets werent giving up their gains, regardless of any treaty.
But about the betrayal of central/eastern Europe isn't a hoax.
But when Hitler invaded Poland from the west and Stalin invaded from the east, Britain declared war on Germany alone. Then, the British sat behind the Maginot Line while Poland was crucified. The British had goaded the Poles into standing up to Hitler though they had no plans to save or rescue Poland. Six million Poles would die as a result of having trusted in a British alliance
The second betrayal occurred at Teheran in 1943, when FDR moved into the Soviet embassy compound and assured Stalin he would not object to his keeping the half of Poland and the Baltic states Hitler had ceded to Stalin in their infamous pact. As Robert Nisbet wrote in “Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship,” FDR asked only that word of his concession not leak out before the 1944 elections, so Polish Americans would not react in rage.
I always get confused with history. You can pull and shape any topic in anyway you want for the primacy of negativity. But not history. Surely? The facts stop you.
Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland. Slovack state invaded as well as the USSR. Britian were quite rightly suspect that both the Slovak state and the USSR had puppet governments of the Nazi state. (Plus the non aggression policy which not always worked with the Russians to the poles meant a lot of polish fighters made it to Britian)
Show me one quote from a British politician goading poles to fight Germans. Britian saying they would defend them if they were attacked is not the same as asking poles to fight. As for blaming Britain for the death of six million poles? I think you will find it was Nazi's doing the killing.
As for being able to help Poland? Germany blitzed the only soldiers we had on mainland Europe all the way back to Dunkirk. The other European nations joined Germany or were invaded. WE COULDN'T HELP BUT WE WANTED TOO! Britain had to tough it out alone but we got there in the end. As for Roosevelt and Stalin... 20 to 27 million Russians died. 20 million at least. I'm not sure what repatriations you can make or give for 20 million dead... But Russia was never going to just walk away. ... I honestly feel you have got your information from an American-Irish historian (one who can accept the British let the Irish starve during the potato famine, but can't accept the British starved too from the same famine and crop failure and that many more Irish moved to Britain and were accepted there than america because it would just show the British as too damned nice... ... (If you are Irish-American. I apologise for challenging your world view.)
There are absolutely no plans to reunite these children with their parents. None. So.....does the US government now OWN these children?? What legal mechanism transferred permanent custody of these kids to the State?? How is this not straight-up kidnapping?? We took the kids, it is OUR responsibility to get them back the their parents. Period, end of story. If not, we have abducted and orphaned 2000 children.
Beyond that, this idea of "zero-tolerance" for illegal immigration won't be anything approaching that until the EMPLOYERS who are hiring them are incarcerated in the same manner. Who is really to blame if someone "loses" a job to an undocumented worker. The worker, or the person who hires them and may be falsifying employment information or paying cash??
This is the side of illegal immigration most people never mention--the unscrupulous employers who hire these people, paying cash so they can avoid offering any benefits other than "you're getting paid so shut up". It isn't just contractors cutting corners on payroll but also farms where immigrants might typically work as long as there is daylight.
I have told this story in some fashion before, but it's the main reason I find the "economic" arguments about illegal immigration just don't hold water, or, at the very least, or not the real motivating factor.
My dad of my best friend in high school is a hard-core conservative voter. Though I haven't talked to him personally in a few years, it is inconceivable this man didn't vote for Donald Trump. Donald Trump's main agenda is curtailing immigration of ALL kinds, but especially illegal immigration.
Now, for upwards of 4 years, I watched this midwestern farmer negotiate with migrant workers who were literally crammed into a van. I watched him give them money with my own eyes. I have walked through the trailer he had set up on the back of the property that was there to give longer-term migrant workers a place to sleep. I have picked rocks in the fields on a hot summer day WITH these workers, and then been ridiculed by my friend's father at the end of the day excoriating us for how much lazier we were than the migrant workers (he wasn't wrong about that part). But as soon as these people are out of earshot, he'd start immediately riffing on "beaners" and "spics".
The cognitive dissonance here, in retrospect, is even more frightening. He had no problem paying them for work he knew he couldn't get anyone else to do. He even freely admitted they were far better workers at what he needed done than me or my friends could ever be. And yeah, it may be illegal, but who the hell was ever going to find out?? Rural Minnesota is a no-man's land. It's the kind of place where if you know a cop well enough he'd cover up a DUI for you. Certainly no one is going to report a farmer hiring migrant farmhands. But they will SURE AS SHIT complain about illegal immigration at the bar until the cows come home, even though they are LITERALLY the people who are helping fund it.
While he was at it Trump also erased Obama era protections for our oceans because screw the "environment" and "oceans" right. Why do Republicans hate everything?
Comments
I think there are a number of countries, like Portugal and Holland, where the legal system is already as permissive as Canada. However, I do think that the Canada decision reflects that the tide has turned in the way countries handle drug use. In the years to come I expect a lot more moves towards regulation and treatment approaches rather than direct criminal enforcement. To be cynical about it, that's partly because the gains to be made are not just reducing criminality and improving health, but also considerable extra revenue opportunities for governments.
*************
On the one hand, I am certain that being homeless and sleeping on the bridge connecting Matamoros to Brownsville is better than remaining in Guatemala where the gangs could threaten you on a daily basis. The difficult question, and one which different people would answer differently, is whether sleeping on that bridge is better than being in a detention center, even if that means being separated from your children. Sure, the detention center means having access to at least a mat on the floor, food, and shelter from the elements but it comes with the risk of being sent back.
I am already on record as stating that zero tolerance policies are a bad idea and this one is no different--you do not use a sledgehammer to drive a nail used for hanging a small picture on the wall.
I cannot help but wonder...is this immigration/family separation issue throwing up so much noise that we are missing something else which is important?
Trump is the democratically elected leader of the US, it makes no sense for us to sanction him personally for US politics. There should be retaliatory tariffs and other measures, but there is no reason to target him personally. In the end, the people who voted for him are responsible. There is no reason for them to be spared of the logical consequences.
In fact, this is something that is annoying to me as an outsider to US politics. So many are not taking responsibility for the US electing Trump. Depending on who you listen to it is either the electoral college, Comey or the Russians to blame. Note that I do believe (as an example) that the Russians tried to influence the election, but it is the responsibility of the American people not to let themselves be manipulated that easily.
Targeting corrupt officials is only the way to go when democracy in the country has died. The US is not that far gone yet.
The important thing we are missing is that nobody gave a shit for the last ten years if sex slaves, children stolen from their parents for sale in the U.S. by the Mexican drug cartels, women and their kids used as drug mules crossed into the States or straight up Human Trafficking is allowed by Mexico, one of the worst most corrupt governments on the planet.
But about the betrayal of central/eastern Europe isn't a hoax.
But when Hitler invaded Poland from the west and Stalin invaded from the east, Britain declared war on Germany alone. Then, the British sat behind the Maginot Line while Poland was crucified. The British had goaded the Poles into standing up to Hitler though they had no plans to save or rescue Poland. Six million Poles would die as a result of having trusted in a British alliance
The second betrayal occurred at Teheran in 1943, when FDR moved into the Soviet embassy compound and assured Stalin he would not object to his keeping the half of Poland and the Baltic states Hitler had ceded to Stalin in their infamous pact. As Robert Nisbet wrote in “Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship,” FDR asked only that word of his concession not leak out before the 1944 elections, so Polish Americans would not react in rage.
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-betrayal-of-poland-1939-1945-363
The electoral college, along with the other factors you mentioned helped get him elected. The electoral college gives more power to cornfields in Nebraska than actual people living in the country.
"the responsibility of the American people not to let themselves be manipulated that easily".
We have a massive disinformation network, Fox News, lying to people everyday - not to mention other right wing media. Just flat out making stuff up, lying.
As for Fox News, yes, it lies. But people are not forced to watch Fox News, except maybe unfortunate kids by their parents. And there are other sources that point out the lies.
But if it seems like most people are pissed and don't want to take responsibility it is because most of us literally didn't vote for him and don't want him, his family, or his agenda.
As for Poland, Britain had a commitment to defend Poland from Germany and honored that by declaring war. Britain didn't have the military power to defeat Germany in their own back yard though and attempting to send large number of troops to Poland would have just resulted in their loss without helping the Poles. The treaty between Poland and Britain was specific to defending against Germany, so there was no commitment to defend Poland against Russia - and declaring war on them as well as Germany could well have pushed those countries closer together and led to a different outcome to WWII.
Democracy sucks, eh?
Indefinite detention for what are (91% of the time) misdemeanor infractions. And since they can't keep the children for more than 20 days, it will set off a court battle, where Trump will then start attacking judges (as if he has ever stopped). Again, I ask this: what normal misdemeanor offense sets off a 20-day incarceration period without seeing a judge or being granted a hearing?? Much less an indefinite incarceration. This is a purposeful poison pill, though STILL miles better than the alternative.
I don't see why he has to issue an Executive Order, since no order was needed when they STARTED the practice 6 weeks ago. It was simply a directive he gave to Jeff Sessions. Beyond that, let's see if he actually SIGNS this order (remember banning bump stocks after Parkland??). Then we can talk about whether someone deserves credit for rescinding something they were 100% responsible for starting in the first place. And then we talk about what the hell is going to happen to the 2000+ kids who are already scattered to the wind, who the former director of ICE said in the last few days may NEVER be reunited with their parents because of how this has been implemented.
Beyond that, this idea of "zero-tolerance" for illegal immigration won't be anything approaching that until the EMPLOYERS who are hiring them are incarcerated in the same manner. Who is really to blame if someone "loses" a job to an undocumented worker. The worker, or the person who hires them and may be falsifying employment information or paying cash??
The Magnitsky Act was made to sanction Putin's Russian Oligarchs billionaires by restricting access and freezing financial assets to corrupt government officials, not sanctioning the country as a whole. It is actually the reason Trump Jr. met with the Russian government spies in Trump Tower to get dirt on Hillary Clinton - their goal was to end the Magnitsky Act (the meeting was not about "adoptions", that was a lie made up by the President according to his lawyers).
So if other countries, who made their own versions of this act, applied these targets sanctions it would not be to the United States as a whole, it would only be to a corrupt family of criminal government officials who also commit egregious human rights violations. Those are descriptions of Donald Trump and his family. If that has any effect on him, it is because he has failed to divest himself from his businesses. Other President divested their business interests, Trump didn't because he wanted to be able to receive bribes and enrich himself further but as we see besides being able to bought off he is also open to this type of pressure being leveraged against him.
All he has to do is fib, just throw out his favourite line of “national security reasons” and *poof* there goes Lino Saputo’s money.
Start planning your fall vacations to Canada: see the leaves change, start of Hockey Season, smoke some weed. October 17, 2018, recreational marijuana will officially become legal.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/06/19/house-gop-plan-would-cut-medicare-social-security-balance-budget/Qes1NpIuDLGJRlpJVxGwLN/story.html
Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland. Slovack state invaded as well as the USSR. Britian were quite rightly suspect that both the Slovak state and the USSR had puppet governments of the Nazi state. (Plus the non aggression policy which not always worked with the Russians to the poles meant a lot of polish fighters made it to Britian)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II
Show me one quote from a British politician goading poles to fight Germans. Britian saying they would defend them if they were attacked is not the same as asking poles to fight. As for blaming Britain for the death of six million poles? I think you will find it was Nazi's doing the killing.
As for being able to help Poland? Germany blitzed the only soldiers we had on mainland Europe all the way back to Dunkirk. The other European nations joined Germany or were invaded. WE COULDN'T HELP BUT WE WANTED TOO! Britain had to tough it out alone but we got there in the end. As for Roosevelt and Stalin... 20 to 27 million Russians died. 20 million at least. I'm not sure what repatriations you can make or give for 20 million dead... But Russia was never going to just walk away.
...
I honestly feel you have got your information from an American-Irish historian (one who can accept the British let the Irish starve during the potato famine, but can't accept the British starved too from the same famine and crop failure and that many more Irish moved to Britain and were accepted there than america because it would just show the British as too damned nice...
...
(If you are Irish-American. I apologise for challenging your world view.)
*Republicans
There are absolutely no plans to reunite these children with their parents. None. So.....does the US government now OWN these children?? What legal mechanism transferred permanent custody of these kids to the State?? How is this not straight-up kidnapping?? We took the kids, it is OUR responsibility to get them back the their parents. Period, end of story. If not, we have abducted and orphaned 2000 children.
My dad of my best friend in high school is a hard-core conservative voter. Though I haven't talked to him personally in a few years, it is inconceivable this man didn't vote for Donald Trump. Donald Trump's main agenda is curtailing immigration of ALL kinds, but especially illegal immigration.
Now, for upwards of 4 years, I watched this midwestern farmer negotiate with migrant workers who were literally crammed into a van. I watched him give them money with my own eyes. I have walked through the trailer he had set up on the back of the property that was there to give longer-term migrant workers a place to sleep. I have picked rocks in the fields on a hot summer day WITH these workers, and then been ridiculed by my friend's father at the end of the day excoriating us for how much lazier we were than the migrant workers (he wasn't wrong about that part). But as soon as these people are out of earshot, he'd start immediately riffing on "beaners" and "spics".
The cognitive dissonance here, in retrospect, is even more frightening. He had no problem paying them for work he knew he couldn't get anyone else to do. He even freely admitted they were far better workers at what he needed done than me or my friends could ever be. And yeah, it may be illegal, but who the hell was ever going to find out?? Rural Minnesota is a no-man's land. It's the kind of place where if you know a cop well enough he'd cover up a DUI for you. Certainly no one is going to report a farmer hiring migrant farmhands. But they will SURE AS SHIT complain about illegal immigration at the bar until the cows come home, even though they are LITERALLY the people who are helping fund it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/20/trump-just-erased-an-obama-era-policy-to-protect-the-oceans/?utm_term=.f363de98df7e