14 years and counting...

The Juggler

unsung said:

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

His predecessors did the same thing.  Where was the outrage then?

It's irrelevant what anyone else did in the past.  Do you think it's right to separate the families or not?  That's what it comes down to.

It isn't irrelevant at all.  It is US policy.  And the outrage has nothing to do with children, just more anti-Trump.  Everyone gets it but all of you.

You’re what’s wrong with this country. Congrats

The Juggler

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Well Trump just signed an order disallowing the separation of families.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-reversal-trump-signs-order-stopping-family-separation/ar-AAyUE7S?ocid=spartanntp

Now begins the process of getting these 2,500 kids back to their families, and in my opinion, there is no chance in hell that every one of those kids is going to get where they need to be.

what a fucking idiot fraud. no order was needed for the original policy, but obviously he's trying to put blame on the democrats STILL for this by using an order to reverse his position. 

evil piece of shit. 

Yup, a HUGE piece of shit. Now to see how in the fuck they're going to manage reunited the thousands of kids and parents they already separated since April - I agree with Ledbetterman10; I can't see that going well at all.... I will also be keeping my eye on these tent cities and shit, where I'm going to guess we'll now see families suffering in rather than just children - better but still awful. I think the humanitarian crisis is far from over folks.

This is Trump’s Katrina. 

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

A whole lot of brown noses in that oval orifice.

“If you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart”: Read the full transcript of Trump’s immigration meeting - Vox https://apple.news/AI0UdKqtaTLCILmmMxtXpOg

 Listen to that gurgle. Holy Christ.

that transcript makes me want to vomit. the grovelling by those senators "thank you mr president for your leadership" "you are the one who can lead out of this crisis" "thank you mr president for having us here today". I don't recall ever seeing any other senators act that way towards the prez. 

We have many things that are important. We’re talking about trade and many, many things. It didn’t feel exactly right to me. So we will be officially postponing the congressional picnic for tomorrow. We’ll make it another time when things are going extremely well. And they are going for the country extremely well. We have record-setting numbers in every way economically

what a fucking idiot. 

slightofjeff

Ledbetterman10 said:

Well Trump just signed an order disallowing the separation of families.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-reversal-trump-signs-order-stopping-family-separation/ar-AAyUE7S?ocid=spartanntp

Now begins the process of getting these 2,500 kids back to their families, and in my opinion, there is no chance in hell that every one of those kids is going to get where they need to be.

This is weird because three days ago, the Administration was telling us A) This policy didn't exist and If it did exist, it was the Democrats' fault and only they can fix it. So color me perplexed.

tempo_n_groove

slightofjeff said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Well Trump just signed an order disallowing the separation of families.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-reversal-trump-signs-order-stopping-family-separation/ar-AAyUE7S?ocid=spartanntp

Now begins the process of getting these 2,500 kids back to their families, and in my opinion, there is no chance in hell that every one of those kids is going to get where they need to be.

This is weird because three days ago, the Administration was telling us A) This policy didn't exist and If it did exist, it was the Democrats' fault and only they can fix it. So color me perplexed.

C) that legislation is needed to change said policy!

PJ_Soul

The Juggler said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Well Trump just signed an order disallowing the separation of families.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-reversal-trump-signs-order-stopping-family-separation/ar-AAyUE7S?ocid=spartanntp

Now begins the process of getting these 2,500 kids back to their families, and in my opinion, there is no chance in hell that every one of those kids is going to get where they need to be.

what a fucking idiot fraud. no order was needed for the original policy, but obviously he's trying to put blame on the democrats STILL for this by using an order to reverse his position. 

evil piece of shit. 

Yup, a HUGE piece of shit. Now to see how in the fuck they're going to manage reunited the thousands of kids and parents they already separated since April - I agree with Ledbetterman10; I can't see that going well at all.... I will also be keeping my eye on these tent cities and shit, where I'm going to guess we'll now see families suffering in rather than just children - better but still awful. I think the humanitarian crisis is far from over folks.

This is Trump’s Katrina. 

Yeah, except it's 100x worse. This was a deliberate act of evil. Katrina was just Bush being incompetent.

rgambs

It's interesting to see people come into a thread with 500+ comments in the last few days and still have the facts completely wrong even though they've been laid out a dozen times or so.

PJ_Soul

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

josevolution said:

he needs to be impeached or resign along with his whole administration

This is something I hear a lot of people say on a nearly daily basis, but isn't there an argument to be made that Trump might be MORE dangerous if he was forced out of office? He doesn't have "supporters." He has FANS. And they are hardcore fucking fans. The type that might revolt if he was impeached and voted out of office.

What I'm about to type would sound ridiculous if it wasn't 2018 in America.....

A Trump impeachment could lead to a sort of Civil War. If voted out of office, he certainly wouldn't just throw his hands up and say "oh well." He'd rally his "troops" into a frenzy that could lead to some horrible displays on their part. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised (again, this would sound crazy if I wasn't talking about Trump and his fans) if Trump could rally some of his most supportive states to succeed from the nation. "The Trump States of America."

I know...everything I just typed is either completely insane, completely possible, or both.

I really don't think his idiot fans are bright enough to start a revolution in any case, but even if they are, no, I don't think it's right to keep an evil, destructive, criminal leader in office just because his moronic supporters might be mad about it. Is such a revolt in the realm of possibilities? I suppose, technically. Should that be a deterrent to doing what's right? No. Even if that did happen, that would just be something America and the world would also have to deal with. If he actually has supporters who are that fucking crazy and rabid and want America to be like their vision that badly, then they probably need to be fought in any case, and sooner is usually better than later I figure. And I think these yahoos would end up being pretty damn easy to beat until the entire US military decided to get involved in a coup against America's government and laws, and I don't really see them doing that in the name of Trump. 

I don’t think intelligence has ever been a requirement to start an armed conflict; in fact, generally the reverse. 

I disagree. I have never heard of any political revolution that was lead by morons actually, let alone ones that were successful. Why do you think that such events are generally lead by idiots?

You're forgetting about one political revolution that was successfully lead by morons: THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP! Not all revolutions have to be violent.

As for my hypothetical revolt by Trump fans over an impeachment, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part to suggest a Civil War. But if nothing else, it would lead to more divisiveness in this country than we already have.

I'm not sure that's possible, lol.
How much more divisive could this be? And the answer is None. None more divisive.

my2hands

rgambs said:

It's interesting to see people come into a thread with 500+ comments in the last few days and still have the facts completely wrong even though they've been laid out a dozen times or so.

I'm not surprised, at all

Halifax2TheMax

rgambs said:

It's interesting to see people come into a thread with 500+ comments in the last few days and still have the facts completely wrong even though they've been laid out a dozen times or so.

Facts? What are those?

PJ_Soul

LongestRoad

tbergs said:

Cliffy6745 said:

LongestRoad said:

So do you all think that anyone should be able to enter the country without being stopped? Should everyone be able to travel freely across all borders? 

Not one person has said that.

Hell, I'll say it. I don't know if there is such thing as "freely", but what would really change from what's happening right now? You could spend all of these resources we devote to border control on human services for these people where we know they already cross and devote law enforcement to focusing on the crime that is occurring in their jurisdictions.

I still think that the Wire Season 3 got it right. Quit trying to stop the inevitable and focus on how we can reallocate the funds more appropriately.

you mean give them a free ride as soon as they get here while American citizens  work and while American citizens don't qualify for the same benefits. How about anyone can come here freely as long as they aren't criminals and they do not need any help and they have a job prospect. I also think that if a child comes to this country without a parent and then the parent later shows up to reap the benefits after the child received legal status, the parent should be immediately arrested for child neglect and have to serve a minimum mandatory 10 year sentence. We're talking about what our government is doing but what about these abusive parents that could send their child into harms way to obtain entry into this country???

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Bentleyspop said:

American Airlines doing the right thing.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1009497182263791619?s=19

Hmmm denying a service to someone cause you disagree....sounds like the cake thing.

one is discrimination. the other is not. 

I tend to think both are pretty bad.

well to be fair I’d have to understand more about the normal
arrangement, but I don’t like the idea of not providing a service to certain people.

mrussel1

unsung said:

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

His predecessors did the same thing.  Where was the outrage then?

It's irrelevant what anyone else did in the past.  Do you think it's right to separate the families or not?  That's what it comes down to.

It isn't irrelevant at all.  It is US policy.  And the outrage has nothing to do with children, just more anti-Trump.  Everyone gets it but all of you.

No, you're wrong.  I was trying to avoid getting into a detailed discussion of what the laws actually say, and focus on the moral aspect.  There is no requirement for separating families.  It's because the administration went with a zero tolerance policy, the execution of that policy (as they designed it to be executed) created the separation.  Read the Flores Consent decree.  Read the Immigration law of 1954, read the law Bush I signed in 88-89 with wide support.  None of these MANDATED separation.  They could have led to it, but outside of a few specific cases (as pointed out earlier), it did not happen.  

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Bentleyspop said:

American Airlines doing the right thing.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1009497182263791619?s=19

Hmmm denying a service to someone cause you disagree....sounds like the cake thing.

one is discrimination. the other is not. 

I tend to think both are pretty bad.

well to be fair I’d have to understand more about the normal
arrangement, but I don’t like the idea of not providing a service to certain people.

I have no clue how one could ever draw the conclusion that AA refusing to transport kidnapped children for the government is in any way comparable to or just as bad as businesses refusing to serve gay people because they're gay. Huh? Am I totally misinterpreting what you're trying to say here?

josevolution

unsung said:

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

His predecessors did the same thing.  Where was the outrage then?

It's irrelevant what anyone else did in the past.  Do you think it's right to separate the families or not?  That's what it comes down to.

It isn't irrelevant at all.  It is US policy.  And the outrage has nothing to do with children, just more anti-Trump.  Everyone gets it but all of you.

That's laughable , then why did American airlines & United decide to tell this administration to use their own fucking planes to transport kids in fact it's only you who doesn't get it around these boards !

unsung

The Juggler said:

unsung said:

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

His predecessors did the same thing.  Where was the outrage then?

It's irrelevant what anyone else did in the past.  Do you think it's right to separate the families or not?  That's what it comes down to.

It isn't irrelevant at all.  It is US policy.  And the outrage has nothing to do with children, just more anti-Trump.  Everyone gets it but all of you.

You’re what’s wrong with this country. Congrats

Oh I know, an employed white male is not the favored demographic.  We'll continue to shoulder the burden though.

tbergs

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Bentleyspop said:

American Airlines doing the right thing.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1009497182263791619?s=19

Hmmm denying a service to someone cause you disagree....sounds like the cake thing.

one is discrimination. the other is not. 

I tend to think both are pretty bad.

well to be fair I’d have to understand more about the normal
arrangement, but I don’t like the idea of not providing a service to certain people.

I have no clue how one could ever draw the conclusion that AA refusing to transport kidnapped children for the government is in any way comparable to or just as bad as businesses refusing to serve gay people because they're gay. Huh? Am I totally misinterpreting what you're trying to say here?

I think it's unclear if they have refused or just asked them not to use their airline. What I read was a request with no specific indication they would refuse if they didn't honor the request.

tbergs

unsung said:

The Juggler said:

unsung said:

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

His predecessors did the same thing.  Where was the outrage then?

It's irrelevant what anyone else did in the past.  Do you think it's right to separate the families or not?  That's what it comes down to.

It isn't irrelevant at all.  It is US policy.  And the outrage has nothing to do with children, just more anti-Trump.  Everyone gets it but all of you.

You’re what’s wrong with this country. Congrats

Oh I know, an employed white male is not the favored demographic.  We'll continue to shoulder the burden though.

Oh please, how many years has it been since white males shouldered the burden?

HughFreakingDillon

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Bentleyspop said:

American Airlines doing the right thing.....

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1009497182263791619?s=19

Hmmm denying a service to someone cause you disagree....sounds like the cake thing.

one is discrimination. the other is not. 

I tend to think both are pretty bad.

well to be fair I’d have to understand more about the normal
arrangement, but I don’t like the idea of not providing a service to certain people.

I have no clue how one could ever draw the conclusion that AA refusing to transport kidnapped children for the government is in any way comparable to or just as bad as businesses refusing to serve gay people because they're gay. Huh? Am I totally misinterpreting what you're trying to say here?

I think it's unclear if they have refused or just asked them not to use their airline. What I read was a request with no specific indication they would refuse if they didn't honor the request.

correct.