Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1444445447449450694

Comments

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Yes, that exact James Comey. The same one fiercely loyal to Obama, and the same man who expresses a pathological hatred for Trump seemingly every day.

    Why is it so hard to believe the man who openly states his contempt for a person to have a bias against him? It's perfectly logical to make this conclusion based on his actions and statements.

    But I love the "he's a republican!" as though it is some sort of gotcha. As if there aren't differences in the Republican party that are as different as Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders. Not everyone on "the same side" likes each other, and it's completely obvious Trump is disliked by a big faction of D C republicans.

    This is Orange man good delusion.

    The only "pathological hatred" is from Trump. His words and Twitter feed are full of hate. Comey is not perfect but he's professional to a fault. He tried to do the right thing, hardly pathological.

    Trump's M.O. is to spew insults and lies and say it's because they don't like me. Boo hoo.

    Comey is a classic conservative with a love for his country.

    Trump's a narcissistic opportunist. Trump fans are cultists in love with Trump's celebrity. They have fallen for the sunk cost fallacy.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    .

    Trump's a narcissistic opportunist. Trump fans are cultists in love with Trump's celebrity. They have fallen for the sunk cost fallacy.

    You like to say this about Trump supporters, but I find them far more reasonable than those who hate him. Trump supporters are perfectly capable of disagreeing with him on a particular matter. Trump haters can't seem to bring themselves to admit that he is right about anything, and if it even hints at being vaguely supportive of anything he believes they will be resistant to it no matter how obvious. but it's not productive to dwell on these things.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited February 2020
    I'd be happy to praise Trump if he ever does anything good. Hasn't happened yet. I've yet to see a Trump supporter disagree with him on anything ever. Certainly no Republican politician has stood up to him when it counts ever.

    Trump took his 29th trip to Mar-a-Lago bringing his Golf tab to 334 years of presidential salary paid by taxpayers. Paid to his own company. You’d think he might know somebody who could arrange a discount or something but I guess not. I'm sure all the fiscal conservatives are on this one too. Bernie Sanders wants to get people healthcare and gets "how you gonna pay for it?" while Trump rips off the country blatantly violating the Constitution for himself and conservative silence.

    https://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5e4712b9c5b64d860fcab86c

    Also, Avenetti is going to prison for the exact thing Trump did and is doing more of.
    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @WarChiefZeke "You like to say this about Trump supporters, but I find them far more reasonable than those who hate him. "

    Yeah, all those people who say that they are fine with children being thrown into concentration camps because they "deserve it" are SO reasonable. So are the people who actively remove other peoples' rights because they think they are "icky" or something. These people are fine with his many breaches of the constituion. But no, the people trying to defend Americans' rights and uphold the Constitution are somehow the unreasonable ones.

    Boy the sheer projection of it all.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    I'd be happy to praise Trump if he ever does anything good.

    Way to prove their point.

    Here you go: paid parental leave for federal workers.

    Yes, you can criticise the details of how it is implemented, but as the United States is the only industrialised nation in the world without paid parental leave, literally anything is better than the status quo. And you can try to say it was Ivanka's priority, but Ivanka didn't put it in the State of the Union and push to have it on a specific must-pass bill.

    Like it or lump it, paid parental leave is a legacy of the Trump administration, and since Democrats have been fighting for that for many years, saying that's not good at all is intellectually dishonest.

    I could list some more, if you like. Or hell, I could list some good things Hitler did (the world's first anti-smoking laws!) if you really need to be shown the complete and utter absurdity of your above statement.
    Hasn't happened yet. I've yet to see a Trump supporter disagree with him on anything ever. Certainly no Republican politician has stood up to him when it counts ever.

    They didn't vote to get rid of the ACA when Trump absolutely wanted them to. (But I guess the love-in for McCain is over now?)

    They voted against his wishes on Russia several times, including joining with Democrats to create a veto-proof majority (but I guess, since that doesn't "count", you had no problems with Trump's attitude towards Russia?).

    Eight of them voted with Democrats to strip him of war-making powers just the other day, for pity's sake.
    Trump took his 29th trip to Mar-a-Lago bringing his Golf tab to 334 years of presidential salary paid by taxpayers. Paid to his own company. You’d think he might know somebody who could arrange a discount or something but I guess not. I'm sure all the fiscal conservatives are on this one too. Bernie Sanders wants to get people healthcare and gets "how you gonna pay for it?" while Trump rips off the country blatantly violating the Constitution for himself and conservative silence.

    https://lmgtfy.com/?q=false+equivalence

    Grond0WarChiefZekeBalrog99MaleficentOne
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited February 2020
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @WarChiefZeke "You like to say this about Trump supporters, but I find them far more reasonable than those who hate him. "

    Yeah, all those people who say that they are fine with children being thrown into concentration camps because they "deserve it" are SO reasonable.

    Literally nobody acts like that. This is not a reasonable view of people.

    I have always loved the "concentration camps" line since it is so emblematic of this rank moral hypocrisy. These "concentration camps" were started under Obama, and not one of the anti Trump fanatics had shit to say. Not one single word. Just like they had nothing to say when he was murdering kids overseas or jailing good and honest whistleblowers and intimidating others.

    The only thing Trump did differently here was family separation for those whose only crime was migration offenses, but because that was so historically unpopular among both sides of the aisle it was quickly reversed. If Republicans were celebrating Trump would have had no reason to stop.
    Boy the sheer projection of it all.

    Indeed.
    Balrog99
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Ayiekie wrote: »
    I'd be happy to praise Trump if he ever does anything good.

    Way to prove their point.

    Here you go: paid parental leave for federal workers.

    Yes, you can criticise the details of how it is implemented, but as the United States is the only industrialised nation in the world without paid parental leave, literally anything is better than the status quo. And you can try to say it was Ivanka's priority, but Ivanka didn't put it in the State of the Union and push to have it on a specific must-pass bill.

    Like it or lump it, paid parental leave is a legacy of the Trump administration, and since Democrats have been fighting for that for many years, saying that's not good at all is intellectually dishonest.

    I could list some more, if you like. Or hell, I could list some good things Hitler did (the world's first anti-smoking laws!) if you really need to be shown the complete and utter absurdity of your above statement.
    Hasn't happened yet. I've yet to see a Trump supporter disagree with him on anything ever. Certainly no Republican politician has stood up to him when it counts ever.

    They didn't vote to get rid of the ACA when Trump absolutely wanted them to. (But I guess the love-in for McCain is over now?)

    They voted against his wishes on Russia several times, including joining with Democrats to create a veto-proof majority (but I guess, since that doesn't "count", you had no problems with Trump's attitude towards Russia?).

    Eight of them voted with Democrats to strip him of war-making powers just the other day, for pity's sake.
    Trump took his 29th trip to Mar-a-Lago bringing his Golf tab to 334 years of presidential salary paid by taxpayers. Paid to his own company. You’d think he might know somebody who could arrange a discount or something but I guess not. I'm sure all the fiscal conservatives are on this one too. Bernie Sanders wants to get people healthcare and gets "how you gonna pay for it?" while Trump rips off the country blatantly violating the Constitution for himself and conservative silence.

    https://lmgtfy.com/?q=false+equivalence

    Bro, he's going to veto this:
    i]Eight of them voted with Democrats to strip him of war-making powers just the other day[/i], for pity's sake. Jury's still out on this.

    You are right about the paid parental leave for federal workers. That is a good thing. One good thing, right there.

    And you're right about McCain being the last Republican with a spine to do the right thing but he's dead so you can't get credit for him anymore. Romney gets credit for half a spine for doing the obvious right thing in the Impeachment "trial". It didn't amount to anything but symbolic sure. McCain actually did something, again though, he's gone now.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited February 2020
    Even people like Marco Rubio, Cassidy, and other Republicans whose names fail me have been trying to get varieties of paid family leave passed in recent years. Trump is finally the man that did it, after personally accepting the deal in negotiations. But nah he deserves no credit.

    I do like to see these bipartisan deals. McCain deserves a mention for trying to do so with campaign finance.
    semiticgoddessAyiekie
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Even people like Marco Rubio, Cassidy, and other Republicans whose names fail me have been trying to get varieties of paid family leave passed in recent years. Trump is finally the man that did it, after personally accepting the deal in negotiations. But nah he deserves no credit.

    I do like to see these bipartisan deals. McCain deserves a mention for trying to do so with campaign finance.

    Personally accepting the deal, whataguy. Lol

    Campaign finance would be nice. Election security too. Too bad those are dead in the Senate.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited February 2020
    Another word on the menace that is Michael Bloomberg. I listen to a fairly modest podcast that operates of small town Illinois. One of the hosts was phone-banking last week for a local Congressional candidate. It's not something any Presidential candidate would ever pay attention to. Yet he said in the time he was there, they received exactly ONE incoming phone call to the office. It was from the Bloomberg campaign, looking to hire local staffers. In Springfield, IL. At a rag-tag phone banking operation. His tendrils and money are EVERYWHERE. He is simply spreading money around like a fire-hose on full-blast and attempting to purchase everything in sight. There is something fundamentally nauseous about the entire thing. And after listening to some first-hand accounts of the consequences of stop and frisk, and his horrendous views on "red-lining" (which is essentially the Republican talking point from back in '08-'09 that the cause of the financial crisis was minorities who couldn't afford their mortgages), I simply don't think I can vote for him under any circumstances. I'd pull the lever for any other Democratic candidate, but this prick is a bridge too far.
    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Even people like Marco Rubio, Cassidy, and other Republicans whose names fail me have been trying to get varieties of paid family leave passed in recent years. Trump is finally the man that did it, after personally accepting the deal in negotiations. But nah he deserves no credit.

    I do like to see these bipartisan deals. McCain deserves a mention for trying to do so with campaign finance.

    I think Trump gets half credit (if not less) when it comes to Federal Workers pay and benefits. He did just nix their 2.5(3)% pay raise down to 1% on economic grounds. The same economy that Trump has been saying is the best ever. It wouldn't surprise me if the 1.5-2/5% trade off across the board equals what they'll have to pay for the paid maternity leave.
    ThacoBell
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    Bro, he's going to veto this:

    Whether he does or not, eight Republicans voted against Trump's interests a couple of days before you said no Republicans would do this.

    And since it does not make Trump look good to have to veto bipartisan legislation like this, so it is not credible to say this was all some plot.
    You are right about the paid parental leave for federal workers. That is a good thing. One good thing, right there.

    So, please be happy to praise him for doing something decent, as you said you would be. And continue to criticise him for doing terrible/dumb things, as makes sense to do. No administration is ever all good or all-bad, and there is nothing wrong with supporting what good there is.
    And you're right about McCain being the last Republican with a spine to do the right thing but he's dead so you can't get credit for him anymore. Romney gets credit for half a spine for doing the obvious right thing in the Impeachment "trial". It didn't amount to anything but symbolic sure. McCain actually did something, again though, he's gone now.

    If you really wanna smear anything good a Republican ever does, you might as well say McCain only did what he did out of personal animus towards Trump.

    I mean, if you're going to ignore that Romney's vote has exposed him to an anormous amount of pushback and hate, that this was easily forseeable, and that therefore his conscience is the only credible reason he voted to impeach Trump... then why not ignore everything that doesn't fit your viewpoint?

    I mean, other than that is dehumanising and contributes to the lowering of political discourse, which are actually very good reasons not to do this.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I absolutely love how the take on paid leave for federal workers leaves out the fact that it was a significant push by Congressional Democrats to even get it on the table, and that the only reason it passed was because they managed to shoehorn it into the bill that established Trump's fantastical "Space Force". Paid leave exists because Democrats took advantage of Trump's desire for a vanity branch of the military. And they managed to get the paid leave into a defense authorization bill. If you're gonna thank anyone, thank Nancy Pelosi. It NEVER happens if Democrats don't take the House in 2018. Not in a million years. A Republican House passes a straight-up bill without a single hint of such a provision, and if you think otherwise, your understanding of US politics borders on delusional.

    He called for it in the State of the Union and also is on record as supporting it at other times. I'm not entirely certain what more you want, given the President doesn't write legislation.

    Like, do you have literally any reason to think he had nothing to do with it besides "Trump is Evil, this is NotEvil, therefore it was Not Trump"?

    What is so painful about "Trump is wrong about 95% of everything, but I can support him on this issue, at least in principle"? That's exactly what Nancy Pelosi just did, after all.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    deltago wrote: »
    I think Trump gets half credit (if not less) when it comes to Federal Workers pay and benefits. He did just nix their 2.5(3)% pay raise down to 1% on economic grounds. The same economy that Trump has been saying is the best ever. It wouldn't surprise me if the 1.5-2/5% trade off across the board equals what they'll have to pay for the paid maternity leave.

    Actually, the paid leave is paid for out of future social security benefits.

    Which is bad, very Republican, and of course disproportionately costly to lower-income workers.

    But it is still better than the previous status quo.

    And it is an important first step to a system more in line with virtually every other country on the planet.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    And after listening to some first-hand accounts of the consequences of stop and frisk, and his horrendous views on "red-lining" (which is essentially the Republican talking point from back in '08-'09 that the cause of the financial crisis was minorities who couldn't afford their mortgages), I simply don't think I can vote for him under any circumstances. I'd pull the lever for any other Democratic candidate, but this prick is a bridge too far.

    I mean, it's probably worth mentioning he's apologised and said he was wrong about stop-and-frisk, although there are fair reasons to be skeptical of his apology.

    That being said, it's pretty hard to foresee any Democratic president being worse for minorities than a second term for Trump (other than the interesting phenomenon that Republican presidents make the populace at large more aware of racism and its effects). Consequence of a two-party system is that you are often faced with deciding whether or not to vote for a lesser of two evils.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited February 2020
    Ayiekie wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    I think Trump gets half credit (if not less) when it comes to Federal Workers pay and benefits. He did just nix their 2.5(3)% pay raise down to 1% on economic grounds. The same economy that Trump has been saying is the best ever. It wouldn't surprise me if the 1.5-2/5% trade off across the board equals what they'll have to pay for the paid maternity leave.

    Actually, the paid leave is paid for out of future social security benefits.

    Which is bad, very Republican, and of course disproportionately costly to lower-income workers.

    But it is still better than the previous status quo.

    And it is an important first step to a system more in line with virtually every other country on the planet.

    Oh, it was THAT shitty plan that Rand Paul was pushing earlier last year?? I wasn't even aware of that. If that's the case, I give even less credit to everyone involved. That isn't paid family leave. That's taking out a loan on your own retirement savings. Big difference. But a quintessential American solution. And yes, it is more costly to low-income workers, because people who make less than roughly $135,000 a year are the only ones who actually pay Social Security taxes the whole year. If you make, say, $250,000, you are done paying them by June. People act like fixing Social Security solvency is some kind of mind-numbing riddle. Double the damn cap. Triple it if necessary. Or remove it altogether.
    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @WarChiefZeke "You like to say this about Trump supporters, but I find them far more reasonable than those who hate him. "

    Yeah, all those people who say that they are fine with children being thrown into concentration camps because they "deserve it" are SO reasonable.

    Literally nobody acts like that. This is not a reasonable view of people.

    I have always loved the "concentration camps" line since it is so emblematic of this rank moral hypocrisy. These "concentration camps" were started under Obama, and not one of the anti Trump fanatics had shit to say. Not one single word. Just like they had nothing to say when he was murdering kids overseas or jailing good and honest whistleblowers and intimidating others.

    The only thing Trump did differently here was family separation for those whose only crime was migration offenses, but because that was so historically unpopular among both sides of the aisle it was quickly reversed. If Republicans were celebrating Trump would have had no reason to stop.
    Boy the sheer projection of it all.

    Indeed.

    Yeah, no. I'm repeating what Trumpers have said to me over and over again. People talk like this.

    Let's also take a look at the camps too, shall we?

    Obama built detention centers and held families in them. Good? No, it violated federal law that prevented the detaining of children. It was shut down months later. Guess what? The people were actually released when ordered by the courts. The people also detained had access to food, water, and emergency medical care.

    To contrast:
    Trump filled these centers to capacity, holding way more people than Obama ever did. And they were ALL CHILDREN. Even as young as TODDLERS were held. They did not recieve enough food, oftentimes frozen or raw. No medical care, and didn't even get BEDS. Children also DIED while in US "care". Some of the girls were even sexually assaulted. When the courts ordered the kids back, nothing happened for weeks. It came out that there was NO DOCUMENTATION. To this day, we still don't know how many kids were taken or even how many have been returned.

    There is no equality here. Obama's actions were bad, but not "Literal child abusing concentration camp" bad. The conditions under Trump's camps were identical to the type of camps that Anne Frank experienced. I even made a lengthy post comparing the conditions and ideology, and not a single Trump supporter or conservative here was able or willing to try and refute it.

    I think you know this. Even through your hyper partisan bias, you realize its indefensible. Which is why you haven't defended it. All you can do is try to shift blame away, its the kindergartener's defense. "But teacher, tommy did it to!".
    semiticgoddessjjstraka34ronaldo
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I remember predicting that children would be raped in those camps. I remember when I found out that that prediction was coming true.
    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited February 2020
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @WarChiefZeke "You like to say this about Trump supporters, but I find them far more reasonable than those who hate him. "

    Yeah, all those people who say that they are fine with children being thrown into concentration camps because they "deserve it" are SO reasonable.

    Literally nobody acts like that. This is not a reasonable view of people.

    I have always loved the "concentration camps" line since it is so emblematic of this rank moral hypocrisy. These "concentration camps" were started under Obama, and not one of the anti Trump fanatics had shit to say. Not one single word. Just like they had nothing to say when he was murdering kids overseas or jailing good and honest whistleblowers and intimidating others.

    The only thing Trump did differently here was family separation for those whose only crime was migration offenses, but because that was so historically unpopular among both sides of the aisle it was quickly reversed. If Republicans were celebrating Trump would have had no reason to stop.
    Boy the sheer projection of it all.

    Indeed.

    Yeah, no. I'm repeating what Trumpers have said to me over and over again. People talk like this.

    Let's also take a look at the camps too, shall we?

    Obama built detention centers and held families in them. Good? No, it violated federal law that prevented the detaining of children. It was shut down months later. Guess what? The people were actually released when ordered by the courts. The people also detained had access to food, water, and emergency medical care.

    To contrast:
    Trump filled these centers to capacity, holding way more people than Obama ever did. And they were ALL CHILDREN. Even as young as TODDLERS were held. They did not recieve enough food, oftentimes frozen or raw. No medical care, and didn't even get BEDS. Children also DIED while in US "care". Some of the girls were even sexually assaulted. When the courts ordered the kids back, nothing happened for weeks. It came out that there was NO DOCUMENTATION. To this day, we still don't know how many kids were taken or even how many have been returned.

    There is no equality here. Obama's actions were bad, but not "Literal child abusing concentration camp" bad. The conditions under Trump's camps were identical to the type of camps that Anne Frank experienced. I even made a lengthy post comparing the conditions and ideology, and not a single Trump supporter or conservative here was able or willing to try and refute it.

    I think you know this. Even through your hyper partisan bias, you realize its indefensible. Which is why you haven't defended it. All you can do is try to shift blame away, its the kindergartener's defense. "But teacher, tommy did it to!".

    I mean, aside from all this, the REASON they did this was to terrorize these parents and punitively punish them. The punishment for crossing the border illegally (for those that weren't seeking asylum) was, quite literally "we're taking your child away from you". In many cases, that means FOREVER because there was no record keeping going on. I showed video months ago of a Administration lawyer arguing before a 3 judge panel that they aren't required to provide toothpaste and soap to the detainees. It was a systematic, deliberate effort to reduce border crossings. And (I guess) congratulations?? Maybe it did. The only thing it required was state-sanctioned kidnapping.

    In many cases, the punishment for the functional legal equivalent of jay-walking became permanent loss of your child. BEST case scenario, maybe some of those kids end up handed off to some couple from the Midwest through a "Christian" adoption agency down the line. We can ask Native Americans all about how that works.
    ThacoBell
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited February 2020
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @WarChiefZeke "You like to say this about Trump supporters, but I find them far more reasonable than those who hate him. "

    Yeah, all those people who say that they are fine with children being thrown into concentration camps because they "deserve it" are SO reasonable.

    Literally nobody acts like that. This is not a reasonable view of people.

    I have always loved the "concentration camps" line since it is so emblematic of this rank moral hypocrisy. These "concentration camps" were started under Obama, and not one of the anti Trump fanatics had shit to say. Not one single word. Just like they had nothing to say when he was murdering kids overseas or jailing good and honest whistleblowers and intimidating others.

    The only thing Trump did differently here was family separation for those whose only crime was migration offenses, but because that was so historically unpopular among both sides of the aisle it was quickly reversed. If Republicans were celebrating Trump would have had no reason to stop.
    Boy the sheer projection of it all.

    Indeed.

    Yeah, no. I'm repeating what Trumpers have said to me over and over again. People talk like this.

    Let's also take a look at the camps too, shall we?

    Obama built detention centers and held families in them. Good? No, it violated federal law that prevented the detaining of children. It was shut down months later. Guess what? The people were actually released when ordered by the courts. The people also detained had access to food, water, and emergency medical care.

    To contrast:
    Trump filled these centers to capacity, holding way more people than Obama ever did. And they were ALL CHILDREN. Even as young as TODDLERS were held. They did not recieve enough food, oftentimes frozen or raw. No medical care, and didn't even get BEDS. Children also DIED while in US "care". Some of the girls were even sexually assaulted. When the courts ordered the kids back, nothing happened for weeks. It came out that there was NO DOCUMENTATION. To this day, we still don't know how many kids were taken or even how many have been returned.

    There is no equality here. Obama's actions were bad, but not "Literal child abusing concentration camp" bad. The conditions under Trump's camps were identical to the type of camps that Anne Frank experienced. I even made a lengthy post comparing the conditions and ideology, and not a single Trump supporter or conservative here was able or willing to try and refute it.

    I think you know this. Even through your hyper partisan bias, you realize its indefensible. Which is why you haven't defended it. All you can do is try to shift blame away, its the kindergartener's defense. "But teacher, tommy did it to!".

    You clearly have a delusional view of what it was like pre-Trump. Thousands of children were still held. It was still treated similar to a prison, with cages and an hour or two of outdoors exercise at best. Everything you are trying to lay at the feet of "Trumpers" was still going on, just massively under reported compared to now, with only local news covering it at the time, because no Obama supporters cared one bit and still make excuses for it. Yeah, it's "not so bad" when Obama does it, okay. So yeah, they were "literally child abusing concentration camp" bad, you simply refuse to admit it, but that's your choice.

    The "omg the government lost children!!" line was always a b.s media creation. Politifact, surprisingly, did a good write up on this. The only thing that happened was that the sponsors did not return a voluntary phone call. That's literally it. If you think not returning phone calls is something new to the Trump admin or a clear sign that are in danger or something, I'm sorry man, you're delusional.

    But you're right, I'm not defending it, the way you seem to want to downplay it in previous years. I've stated more than once my preferred method is to simply turn families away who are not legally allowed to be entering. Being responsible for the well being of everyone in the world, as long as they are able to set foot here, is unsustainable lunacy and is bound to turn into the mess that it currently is.


    "Is it true that the federal government lost the nearly 1,500 immigrant children?
    Not exactly — there’s more to the story. The government in late 2017 was unable to reach 1,475 children after placing them with sponsors. But HHS said that in many cases the children’s sponsors are their parents or family members; some sponsors are here illegally and don’t want to be contacted by federal authorities.

    "These children are not ‘lost’; their sponsors — who are usually parents or family members and in all cases have been vetted for criminality and ability to provide for them — simply did not respond or could not be reached when this voluntary call was made," HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan said in a May 28 statement.

    From October to December 2017, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement attempted to reach 7,635 unaccompanied minors and their sponsors, said Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families within HHS in April.

    Of the 7,635 children:

    • 6,075 remained with their sponsors;

    • 28 had run away;

    • 5 had been deported;

    • 52 relocated to live with a non-sponsor;

    • 1,475 could not be reached."
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    edited February 2020
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @WarChiefZeke "You like to say this about Trump supporters, but I find them far more reasonable than those who hate him. "

    Yeah, all those people who say that they are fine with children being thrown into concentration camps because they "deserve it" are SO reasonable.

    Literally nobody acts like that. This is not a reasonable view of people.

    I have always loved the "concentration camps" line since it is so emblematic of this rank moral hypocrisy. These "concentration camps" were started under Obama, and not one of the anti Trump fanatics had shit to say. Not one single word. Just like they had nothing to say when he was murdering kids overseas or jailing good and honest whistleblowers and intimidating others.

    The only thing Trump did differently here was family separation for those whose only crime was migration offenses, but because that was so historically unpopular among both sides of the aisle it was quickly reversed. If Republicans were celebrating Trump would have had no reason to stop.
    Boy the sheer projection of it all.

    Indeed.

    Yeah, no. I'm repeating what Trumpers have said to me over and over again. People talk like this.

    Let's also take a look at the camps too, shall we?

    Obama built detention centers and held families in them. Good? No, it violated federal law that prevented the detaining of children. It was shut down months later. Guess what? The people were actually released when ordered by the courts. The people also detained had access to food, water, and emergency medical care.

    To contrast:
    Trump filled these centers to capacity, holding way more people than Obama ever did. And they were ALL CHILDREN. Even as young as TODDLERS were held. They did not recieve enough food, oftentimes frozen or raw. No medical care, and didn't even get BEDS. Children also DIED while in US "care". Some of the girls were even sexually assaulted. When the courts ordered the kids back, nothing happened for weeks. It came out that there was NO DOCUMENTATION. To this day, we still don't know how many kids were taken or even how many have been returned.

    There is no equality here. Obama's actions were bad, but not "Literal child abusing concentration camp" bad. The conditions under Trump's camps were identical to the type of camps that Anne Frank experienced. I even made a lengthy post comparing the conditions and ideology, and not a single Trump supporter or conservative here was able or willing to try and refute it.

    I think you know this. Even through your hyper partisan bias, you realize its indefensible. Which is why you haven't defended it. All you can do is try to shift blame away, its the kindergartener's defense. "But teacher, tommy did it to!".

    You clearly have a delusional view of what it was like pre-Trump. Thousands of children were still held. It was still treated similar to a prison, with cages and an hour or two of outdoors exercise at best. Everything you are trying to lay at the feet of "Trumpers" was still going on, just massively under reported compared to now, with only local news covering it at the time, because no Obama supporters cared one bit and still make excuses for it. Yeah, it's "not so bad" when Obama does it, okay. So yeah, they were "literally child abusing concentration camp" bad, you simply refuse to admit it, but that's your choice.

    The "omg the government lost children!!" line was always a b.s media creation. Politifact, surprisingly, did a good write up on this. The only thing that happened was that the sponsors did not return a voluntary phone call. That's literally it. If you think not returning phone calls is something new to the Trump admin or a clear sign that are in danger or something, I'm sorry man, you're delusional.

    But you're right, I'm not defending it, the way you seem to want to downplay it in previous years. I've stated more than once my preferred method is to simply turn families away who are not legally allowed to be entering. Being responsible for the well being of everyone in the world, as long as they are able to set foot here, is unsustainable lunacy and is bound to turn into the mess that it currently is.


    "Is it true that the federal government lost the nearly 1,500 immigrant children?
    Not exactly — there’s more to the story. The government in late 2017 was unable to reach 1,475 children after placing them with sponsors. But HHS said that in many cases the children’s sponsors are their parents or family members; some sponsors are here illegally and don’t want to be contacted by federal authorities.

    "These children are not ‘lost’; their sponsors — who are usually parents or family members and in all cases have been vetted for criminality and ability to provide for them — simply did not respond or could not be reached when this voluntary call was made," HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan said in a May 28 statement.

    From October to December 2017, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement attempted to reach 7,635 unaccompanied minors and their sponsors, said Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families within HHS in April.

    Of the 7,635 children:

    • 6,075 remained with their sponsors;

    • 28 had run away;

    • 5 had been deported;

    • 52 relocated to live with a non-sponsor;

    • 1,475 could not be reached."

    There was in fact considerable criticism of Obama's treatment of unaccompanied children. That was particularly the case in 2014 when a spike in the numbers arriving led to children being housed in army camps and similar facilities. This article gives a bit of information about that and compares it with the situation under Trump.

    The numbers you're quoting from 2017 refer to genuine unaccompanied children, i.e. those that arrive at the border on their own (these are overwhelmingly teenagers). The bulk of them have historically been processed and sent to live with family in the US. The children taken from their families in 2018 under Trump's zero tolerance policy are very different. They had no expectation of being separated, were often far younger and many were sent to carers with no family connections. These are also the group where there have been enormous problems as a result of records not being maintained about where they were sent - leading the government to breach a number of court injunctions requiring them to reunite families.

    As has been said before, the reason for separating these families was deterrence - using a terror tactic to try and dissuade other families from travelling to the US. The use of detention for deterrence purposes had previously been found illegal under the Obama administration (though he was detaining whole families, rather than splitting them up). It was therefore always obvious Trump's zero tolerance policy was illegal, even before taking account of the unjustified way families were separated and the length of time children were held for.
    ronaldoThacoBell
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited February 2020
    Grond0 wrote: »
    There was in fact considerable criticism of Obama's treatment of unaccompanied children. That was particularly the case in 2014 when a spike in the numbers arriving led to children being housed in army camps and similar facilities. This article gives a bit of information about that and compares it with the situation under Trump.

    No there wasn't. If there was, you wouldn't be using an article from 2018, the time of Trump, to be discussing criticism of this practice during Obama's time.

    Even the articles from that time they themselves link to are not critical, they are neutral and informative- imagine that!- simply explaining the process, showing kids laying on mats in cages, and making vague allusions to the process being "overburdened" without the loads of additional propaganda. You can't call it critical by any means until this 2018 article where they retroactively criticise it.

    There was considerable judicial criticism, but that's not what i'm talking about.

    The numbers you're quoting from 2017 refer to genuine unaccompanied children, i.e. those that arrive at the border on their own (these are overwhelmingly teenagers). The bulk of them have historically been processed and sent to live with family in the US. The children taken from their families in 2018 under Trump's zero tolerance policy are very different. They had no expectation of being separated, were often far younger and many were sent to carers with no family connections. These are also the group where there have been enormous problems as a result of records not being maintained about where they were sent - leading the government to breach a number of court injunctions requiring them to reunite families.

    Actually no, this applies to ones separated from families as well.

    As your own source states, children who get separated from family at the border get registered as "unaccompanied minors". Unintuitive and confusing, but that's how it works. Young children have always been caught in this process so this is just emotional manipulation with no basis in substantial policy change other than scale.

    So yes, not answering a phone call is still the sole basis for this claim, and there are plenty of reasons why the minority that did not answer the call would choose not to.

    I also find it more than a little bit silly to think that in the Obama years people knew they were going to be separated, as opposed to now. Like most people break the law with the expectation of being caught or are well versed in foreign law changes anyway. This just seems like an attempt to sugar coat things. You can't possibly know or prove it.

    As has been said before, the reason for separating these families was deterrence - using a terror tactic to try and dissuade other families from travelling to the US. The use of detention for deterrence purposes had previously been found illegal under the Obama administration (though he was detaining whole families, rather than splitting them up). It was therefore always obvious Trump's zero tolerance policy was illegal, even before taking account of the unjustified way families were separated and the length of time children were held for.

    Sure man. I'm not in favor of this policy, so I don't disagree. Just don't pretend the bulk of this wasn't already done before and the only difference is more people were getting caught up in it.

    But he was still splitting families up, just not for solely migration crimes.
    Post edited by WarChiefZeke on
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited February 2020

    Trump filled these centers to capacity, holding way more people than Obama ever did. And they were ALL CHILDREN. Even as young as TODDLERS were held. They did not recieve enough food, oftentimes frozen or raw. No medical care, and didn't even get BEDS. Children also DIED while in US "care". Some of the girls were even sexually assaulted. When the courts ordered the kids back, nothing happened for weeks. It came out that there was NO DOCUMENTATION. To this day, we still don't know how many kids were taken or even how many have been returned.

    There is no equality here

    Sorry to go back to this, but everything you are saying here that makes these two situations unequal happened under Obama.

    Filled far beyond capacity? Check.

    Children without beds or adequate food and more? Check.

    Sexual assault? Check.

    Abuse by guards? Check. It happened systemically under Obama actually, and was swept under the rug and not investigated, and yes, they were aware.

    At what point does Obama stop being a saint?

    https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659

    Trump filled these centers to capacity, holding way more people than Obama ever did. And they were ALL CHILDREN. Even as young as TODDLERS were held. They did not recieve enough food, oftentimes frozen or raw. No medical care, and didn't even get BEDS. Children also DIED while in US "care". Some of the girls were even sexually assaulted. When the courts ordered the kids back, nothing happened for weeks. It came out that there was NO DOCUMENTATION. To this day, we still don't know how many kids were taken or even how many have been returned.

    There is no equality here

    Sorry to go back to this, but everything you are saying here that makes these two situations unequal happened under Obama.

    Filled far beyond capacity? Check.

    Children without beds or adequate food and more? Check.

    Sexual assault? Check.

    Abuse by guards? Check. It happened systemically under Obama actually, and was swept under the rug and not investigated, and yes, they were aware.

    At what point does Obama stop being a saint?

    https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody

    It never ceases to amaze me how people in this thread continually need to retread old arguments months and months after they have been discussed. The same people.

    We've gone over the statistics. No one is claiming Obama is a saint (Strawman, by the way - literally everyone who has referenced him on this page have derided his actions on thgis issue). The conditions at the border under Trump are categorically worse than the conditions under Obama at the border. They were held longer. They were more crowded. They were more consistently denied basic amenities.

    Lastly - they were targeted to be intentionally split apart from their families as a means to terrorize them into not coming.
    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367

    Trump filled these centers to capacity, holding way more people than Obama ever did. And they were ALL CHILDREN. Even as young as TODDLERS were held. They did not recieve enough food, oftentimes frozen or raw. No medical care, and didn't even get BEDS. Children also DIED while in US "care". Some of the girls were even sexually assaulted. When the courts ordered the kids back, nothing happened for weeks. It came out that there was NO DOCUMENTATION. To this day, we still don't know how many kids were taken or even how many have been returned.

    There is no equality here

    Sorry to go back to this, but everything you are saying here that makes these two situations unequal happened under Obama.

    Filled far beyond capacity? Check.

    Children without beds or adequate food and more? Check.

    Sexual assault? Check.

    Abuse by guards? Check. It happened systemically under Obama actually, and was swept under the rug and not investigated, and yes, they were aware.

    At what point does Obama stop being a saint?

    https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody

    It never ceases to amaze me how people in this thread continually need to retread old arguments months and months after they have been discussed. The same people.

    I don't think Zeke is calling out the people on this thread per se. I see him more as pointing out the fact that if the press had been half as hard on Obama as they are on Trump, this whole policy might have been nipped in the bud years ago. The selective outrage of the media is a big part of the problem.
    Ayiekie
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    Balrog99 wrote: »

    Trump filled these centers to capacity, holding way more people than Obama ever did. And they were ALL CHILDREN. Even as young as TODDLERS were held. They did not recieve enough food, oftentimes frozen or raw. No medical care, and didn't even get BEDS. Children also DIED while in US "care". Some of the girls were even sexually assaulted. When the courts ordered the kids back, nothing happened for weeks. It came out that there was NO DOCUMENTATION. To this day, we still don't know how many kids were taken or even how many have been returned.

    There is no equality here

    Sorry to go back to this, but everything you are saying here that makes these two situations unequal happened under Obama.

    Filled far beyond capacity? Check.

    Children without beds or adequate food and more? Check.

    Sexual assault? Check.

    Abuse by guards? Check. It happened systemically under Obama actually, and was swept under the rug and not investigated, and yes, they were aware.

    At what point does Obama stop being a saint?

    https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody

    It never ceases to amaze me how people in this thread continually need to retread old arguments months and months after they have been discussed. The same people.

    I don't think Zeke is calling out the people on this thread per se. I see him more as pointing out the fact that if the press had been half as hard on Obama as they are on Trump, this whole policy might have been nipped in the bud years ago. The selective outrage of the media is a big part of the problem.

    The first line in the quote I made was him specifically responding to another poster on this thread. So it's clearly on this thread (too).

    I'll agree that the media hasnt treated the situations equally (which, of course - they arent equal to begin with) - and they havent been consistent even controlling for how the two situations are unequal in their severity. That said, part of this is that Trump put himself under a huge microscope by launching his campaign calling Mexicans "Rapists" and continually speaking of them with pejoratives. Obama skated under the radar* to a degree because of his rhetoric.

    *That said, it's being somewhat overblown as if no one ever heard of the issue. I was familiar with some of this when it was happening, and we had a pretty large inter-party debate on the deportations and other ugly aspects of Obama's border policies in 2015 and 2016 during the Democratic primary elections.
    ThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited February 2020
    It's Presidents' Day as in it belongs to all Presidents.

    Not just the current one who is so vain he thinks everything is about him. This guy is a screw-up.

    If he doesn't get scared and actually does show up to the general election debate the moderator should ask him basic questions like "Is the Earth flat?" and "how much does a loaf of bread cost?" and "who is the President of Puerto Rico?" He useless without his talking points of "I am greatest, Obama badman! Democrat badman! Illegals!"

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    edited February 2020
    Grond0 wrote: »
    There was in fact considerable criticism of Obama's treatment of unaccompanied children. That was particularly the case in 2014 when a spike in the numbers arriving led to children being housed in army camps and similar facilities. This article gives a bit of information about that and compares it with the situation under Trump.

    No there wasn't. If there was, you wouldn't be using an article from 2018, the time of Trump, to be discussing criticism of this practice during Obama's time.

    Even the articles from that time they themselves link to are not critical, they are neutral and informative- imagine that!- simply explaining the process, showing kids laying on mats in cages, and making vague allusions to the process being "overburdened" without the loads of additional propaganda. You can't call it critical by any means until this 2018 article where they retroactively criticise it.

    There was considerable judicial criticism, but that's not what i'm talking about.

    The numbers you're quoting from 2017 refer to genuine unaccompanied children, i.e. those that arrive at the border on their own (these are overwhelmingly teenagers). The bulk of them have historically been processed and sent to live with family in the US. The children taken from their families in 2018 under Trump's zero tolerance policy are very different. They had no expectation of being separated, were often far younger and many were sent to carers with no family connections. These are also the group where there have been enormous problems as a result of records not being maintained about where they were sent - leading the government to breach a number of court injunctions requiring them to reunite families.

    Actually no, this applies to ones separated from families as well.

    As your own source states, children who get separated from family at the border get registered as "unaccompanied minors". Unintuitive and confusing, but that's how it works. Young children have always been caught in this process so this is just emotional manipulation with no basis in substantial policy change other than scale.

    So yes, not answering a phone call is still the sole basis for this claim, and there are plenty of reasons why the minority that did not answer the call would choose not to.

    I also find it more than a little bit silly to think that in the Obama years people knew they were going to be separated, as opposed to now. Like most people break the law with the expectation of being caught or are well versed in foreign law changes anyway. This just seems like an attempt to sugar coat things. You can't possibly know or prove it.

    As has been said before, the reason for separating these families was deterrence - using a terror tactic to try and dissuade other families from travelling to the US. The use of detention for deterrence purposes had previously been found illegal under the Obama administration (though he was detaining whole families, rather than splitting them up). It was therefore always obvious Trump's zero tolerance policy was illegal, even before taking account of the unjustified way families were separated and the length of time children were held for.

    Sure man. I'm not in favor of this policy, so I don't disagree. Just don't pretend the bulk of this wasn't already done before and the only difference is more people were getting caught up in it.

    But he was still splitting families up, just not for solely migration crimes.

    This article from 2014 provides information about unaccompanied children arriving at the border. One of the points it makes is that 90% of UAC arriving during the 2014 surge were released to relatives. This should not be too much of a surprise as a major reason for the UAC arriving was to try and rejoin family members already in the US. Although you're correct that children separated from families were reclassified as UAC and they therefore used the same processing system, this does not mean that the results were the same. In the former case the basic aim was to reunite families where possible, but in the latter it was specifically to split up families.

    This report by the Inspector General for DHS explains in detail the problems in reuniting separated families - those problems are not primarily to do with a failure to answer telephone contacts (which itself would not be a sufficient reason for a failure to meet court injunctions anyway).

    Nearly all the children who arrived at the US border actually on their own were teenagers. It's true that UAC is a slightly misleading category as it includes any child who does not accompany a biological parent or legal guardian. This means that there were always a small number of young children arriving, e.g. with their grandparents or older siblings. However, the proportion of young children was far higher for those arriving in designated families than for UAC generally.

    Your reference to Obama splitting families up was one of the two main talking points Trump used to defend the introduction of the zero tolerance policy (the other was that the law required him to split them up). Both those claims have been debunked many times - see here for example. There may be good reasons for splitting families up (to protect children for instance), but Trump's policy was not intended to do that - instead it aimed at causing deliberate harm to children and/or family relationships in order to discourage other parents from bringing children to the US. As I've said before I think that intention goes well beyond something that could be defended as a misguided attempt to address real issues of concern.
    ThacoBellsmeagolheartAyiekie
Sign In or Register to comment.