Trump immigrant family separation policy

And our Trump fanboys try to defend the indefensible.

It's either from blind worship of Trump or they think people with Brown Skins are not really human.
 
pgwenthold said:
Note how all the 2nd amendmenters love to talk about how guns are important to fight the tyranny of the government. But when someone on the left starts talking about actually fighting the tyranny of the government, then all of a sudden it's treason and out of line.

What if instead of BLM we had black people shooting cops, and they did it on the grounds of fighting tyranny? Basically, a black person gets stopped and shoots first when they felt threatened. You think republicans would be supporting their 2nd amendment rights to fight the tyranny of government? What if black people created a militia to take out bad cops?

I want to know, what exactly do the 2nd amendment consider to be tyranny that justifies the use of weapons against the government?
Click to expand...

I would say if there is no hope of realistacllly peaceable and legally replacing a government in power, then armed resistence becomes a morally justified course of action.
 
dudalb said:
I am voting a straight Democratic ticket.....and I HATE,HATE,HATE having to do that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's really no place for traditional conservatives anymore. The radical right has taken over the Republican party and it must be soundly defeated. I would feel bad for classic conservatives, but they stood by idle while this cancer spread through their party. They were plenty happy with all the votes the dogwhistle politics brought in, so they own this disaster.

There's been a lot of of apathy in American politics, and lord knows that Hillary was a terrible choice to crack through that apathy. But we've been given an abject lesson in the importance of elections. Elections matter, voting matters.

I held my nose and pulled the lever for Hillary in '16. I'll pull the lever ecstatically for any D in '18 so long as they are anti-Trump. The R's are dead to me until they fully reckon with what they did to us.
 
Trump: Zero tolerance! No exceptions! Lock them up!

Trumpettes: Trump's our hero!





Trump: Changed my mind. Separating babies from their parents is mean, we need some exceptions.

Trumpettes: Trump's our hero!
 
Segnosaur said:
Even if he though Johnson would be the best leader, there was no chance he could have won the election, which in the states typically comes down to Democrat vs. Republican.

So, a vote for Johnson was (indirectly) a vote that favored Trump.
Click to expand...

This line of thinking needs to be covered in cement and dropped in the deepest part of the ocean.

Over and over I've seen Clinton supporters lament that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. And over and over I've seen Trump supporters lament that a vote for a third party is a vote for Clinton.

Yes, apparently voting third party means your vote counts for 3, one for Clinton, one for Trump, and one for the third party candidate.

All a third party vote really says is that a person can't in good conscience support either the democratic or republican candidate.
 
Nazi agenda:
- Criminalize a civil offense
- Apply label of "criminal" to otherwise decent people
- Mention actual violent criminals
- Conflate the two, use race and labels to link
- Incite
- Now you can do <whatever> to the unarmed and defenseless, because "dark" and "feared for my life."

Transparent pap for the weak-minded and ethically vacant, or eager sociopaths. Also contrary to gospel for claimants of adherence to that code.

***
Now, as to all that "rule of law" jawboning from the GOP, TBD and logger:

  • Using your own original wording, without quoting any source, identify the conceptual relationship you personally believe, and can arguably sustain, that holds between the Bill of Rights, representative democracy, and the separation of powers, as compensating measures, with respect to the "rule of law" and "will of the People." Note that a big hint for kiddies has already been given you in the wording to provide some measure of chance, even if slight.
Or capitulate. Otherwise, stand down as incapable and patently unequipped to participate in reasoned adult debate regarding the proper nature and scope of laws and their enforcement in democracy (another hint). Fair warning: On this topic, I am quite willing to take firm hold, wrap coils, and squeeze until inert. As you both have taken a knee and chosen the first escape option on offer explicitly before, I suggest you make that same, safe determination, or finally admit you must take the second, more definitive, out.

And if you never even thought there was such a relation, turn off the PC, and go watch cartoons.

(I may be called away to work or play, but shall return.)
 
quadraginta said:
That isn't surprising.

I'm sure they don't either.

If it was "so simple" we wouldn't have a massive backlog of rape kits and other DNA evidence (of real, violent crimes) waiting to be tested.
Click to expand...
Where have you been for the last decade or so? The documentary series CSI has documented that you can get a DNA match done within minutes!
 
Separate children from parents detailed for committing a crime.
The Left: Won't somebody think of the Children?

People call for violent attacks on ICE employees' children and threaten to murder Congressmen's kids.
The Left: Whomp whomp
 
dudalb said:
I voted for Hillary but gave serioius consideration to voting for Johnson simply because I hated Trump with a passion, but simply did not agree with a lot of Hilary's policies.
Click to expand...
That is quite understandable. Its doubtful ANY politician will be a perfect match to anyone's policies, and Clinton was certainly no exception.

But the last election was not just about policy. It was about competency and integrity. Normally its not an issue... But again, Trump is different, and even if you differed over elements of policy, Clinton should clearly have been the preferred choice because, well, not a racist nut-bag.

I also have to wonder... if someone were a long time republican, would they REALLY find Clinton's policies that far off from the traditional republican stances? She was seen as being on the right-side of the Democrats, pro-corporate and had an aggressive foreign policy. On the other hand, while Trump talked deregulation and tax cuts, he also talked about ending foreign trade agreements and cutting back in America's military involvement overseas (a lie, but it was still a promise). So, in some ways Trump was even less of a republican than Clinton was.

But to be fair, voting for Johnson did seem to be a "safe" protest vote because Hilary was heavily favored to win.
Click to expand...
Again, even if that was the case (although one should never be 100% sure... Pennsylvania was also considered solidly democrat), there is also the symbolic aspect of the vote... the "We REALLY disagree with your racism so we're going to vote for your opponent.")

And I think you are not being fair, a number of people thought there would be more resistence to Trump from Republicans in Congress then their has been.
Click to expand...
Then they were foolish.

The republicans had just spent 8 years being the party opposed to just about everything Obama did, regardless of merit. They spent much of the last year blocking Obama's supreme court nominee due to some non-existent "Biden rule". The party had voted multiple times to repeal Obamacare. They ran multiple investigations into Bengazi that turned up... nothing. And they were under significant influence from the religious right, the NRA, and the tea party. Why would anyone think that a party that had been so intractable during the Obama years would all of a sudden turn around and be the voice of reason and moderation? Did they think there was some sort of Mind Wipe device like they had in Men in Black that would automatically make them forget that "Oh, I'm supposed to be an uber-republican"?
 
The Big Dog said:
Separate children from parents detailed for committing a crime.
The Left: Won't somebody think of the Children?

People call for violent attacks on ICE employees' children and threaten to murder Congressmen's kids.
The Left: Whomp whomp
Click to expand...
Quote please. So far, all the Left have been pointing out is that a resident of a mobile home park is less influential than the President of the USA. If anyone on the left has said his threats are acceptable, please quote and we will join you in deploring the comments.
 
The Big Dog said:
Separate children from parents detailed for committing a crime.
The Left: Won't somebody think of the Children?

People call for violent attacks on ICE employees' children and threaten to murder Congressmen's kids.
The Left: Whomp whomp
Click to expand...

Do you support putting children in cages?
 
uke2se said:
Who did you vote for for congress?
Click to expand...

I voted for August (O'Neill) Deuser, Republican - there was no Libertarian in the race. Deuser got 25.9% of the vote against ex-black Panther, ordained minister and serial mumbler Bobby Rush - who has yet to move the needle economically in any positive fashion in his district, or even promote racial harmony in any meaningful way that I can detect.
 
Shalamar said:
Womp Womp
Click to expand...

Craig B said:
Quote please. So far, all the Left have been pointing out is that a resident of a mobile home park is less influential than the President of the USA. If anyone on the left has said his threats are acceptable, please quote and we will join you in deploring the comments.
Click to expand...

And the whole "less powerful than Trump" bait and switch red herring derail is utterly specious.

Someone recommended attacking the children of ICE employees.
He is not as influential as Trump.

I guess the left does feel the threats are acceptable, because they sure have done nothing to "deplore" them.
 
The_Animus said:
Re: Votes for a 3rd party helped Trump...

All a third party vote really says is that a person can't in good conscience support either the democratic or republican candidate.
Click to expand...
First of all, if your 'good conscience' manages to suggest Clinton (a flawed but relatively competent candidate) and Trump (a racist orangutan with a string of failed businesses and shady deals) are somehow equivalent then your "good conscience" is a failure. Trump is a racist nut-bag, Clinton was not. Not doing everything you can to stop Trump means that you consider things like the forced separation of children from parents to be less significant than it really is.

Secondly, the U.S. is (for better or worse) a 2 party system. If one of the candidates is REALLY bad (like, for example, a racist orangutan who tries to equate Mexicans with "rapists" and who eventually brings about a situation where children are forcefully separated from their parents) it makes sense to want them stopped. A vote for a 3rd party says "Errr.... racism is no big deal".
 
LSSBB said:
I voted for August (O'Neill) Deuser, Republican - there was no Libertarian in the race. Deuser got 25.9% of the vote against ex-black Panther, ordained minister and serial mumbler Bobby Rush - who has yet to move the needle economically in any positive fashion in his district, or even promote racial harmony in any meaningful way that I can detect.
Click to expand...

Where does Deuser stand on the Trump-issue?

ETA: Reading a Q&A with Deuser he seems like a regular Trumpster. It's from 2016, so I guess he might have changed (:D)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom