Trump immigrant family separation policy

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...

Not in Illinois it's not.

Illinois is a Blue state. It was obvious that Clinton was going to win Illinois, so there was no need to vote for the candidate whose underlying philosophy you disagree with in order to prevent Trump from winning. Illinois voters who voted for Johnson did not contribute to Trump winning the election because Clinton won Illinois. If every voter in Illinois had voted for Clinton, it would have had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election because Illinois electoral votes went to Clinton. As it is, Clinton got 56% and Trump got 39%.

Illinois has 18 Representatives: 11 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

Two of the republicans ran unopposed as the Democrats did not field a candidate.

Another, (LaHood) is the son of Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican who previously represented the district and was also Obama's Secretary of Transportation. I no longer live in Peoria, so I'm not all that familiar with the younger LaHood, but from his Wikipedia page, it appears that he is fairly moderate and has not been a Trump cheerleader. On a personal note, my wife thinks very highly of the senior LaHood. His office was instrumental in arranging an honor guard for my father-in-law's funeral. (Retired Air Force sergeant who served in Korea and VietNam) The younger LaHood defeated a Breitbart editor in the primary.

My point is that sometimes a district's voters have connections with their representatives that transcend politics. They see them as people/individuals first.

It's also good to remember most people in Illinois expected Clinton to win the presidency. Therefore, the idea that they needed vote for an opposition candidate they disagreed with in order to keep Trump in check would not have occurred to them. Since they expected a Clinton victory, they logically would have expected to rely on Congress to keep her in check instead.

I also voted for Gary Johnson, mostly to support a third party. (I don't vote a party line for either party. To quote Richard Pryor in Brewster's Millions: "Vote None of the Above.") I don't recall who I voted for for Congress, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Rodney Davis (R) because I was in the mood to vote against incumbents that day.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If they are a member of the republican party (either a candidate, or a recent republican voter) then your vote played a role in the current child separation issue.
Click to expand...
And many issues that the person does support.
Click to expand...
The fact that Trump is a racist nut-bag, who both campaigned using bigoted rhetoric and proposed racist policies should override any and all consideration of those other issues that a person does support.

"Hey, I'm getting a tax break. Guess that makes up for the hundreds of children forcefully taken from their parents".

And, of course, this assumes that whatever issues a person happens to agree with Trump on are ones that Trump is willing and able to deliver coherent policy. Which we have seen is rarely the case.
 
Segnosaur said:
Ok, so you voted for someone who lost. Yet had they won, that would have been one more republican in Congress.

Now, I don't have a crystal ball to know how exactly he would have voted for legislation if he were in congress, but given the fact that he has a 'pro-life' link on his web page, I rather suspect he would have followed the majority and supported Trump.

So yes, you are illustrating my point for me perfectly... the "I'm really against Trump" voter who is still voting in a way that still benefits Trump indirectly.
Click to expand...

He had a snowballs chance on Venus of winning. Thanks to gerrymandering. I fully knew that going in. My vote was a protest against Bobby Rush. Are you defending Bobby Rush? Is it Democrat or die?
 
xjx388 said:
A voter can absolutely abhor this policy of Trump's yet still support other political goals of the GOP, especially locally. A little too much generalization here.
Click to expand...

How locally though? At least they got the deficits they wanted so that is something that traditional conservatives can feel good about.
 
Darat said:
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!
Click to expand...
I get hep C and HIV PCR antigen tests (viral loads) in less than 24 hours. It depends on if you are looking for markers or testing the whole genome. Testing the whole genome would not be necessary.


The reason for the back-ups in testing rape kits is funds and resources, not the time the test takes.
 
uke2se said:
You can support the party of Trump while abhorring Trump? No, not rationally, you can't.
Click to expand...

Of course you can, especially in local elections. Put it this way: If a conservative has a choice between a Sandersesque candidate for Senator and the GOP alternative, it would make little sense to vote for the Sandersesque candidate.

Even nationally, if we are offered a situation in 2020 where we maybe have a candidate like Bernie Sanders with a Dem controlled congress, it would be stupid for a conservative to vote for Sanders if they support the majority of policies the GOP favors and absolutely oppose the majority of Sanders' policies. Even if Trump were the GOP candidate I wouldn't blame a conservative for holding their nose and voting Trump.

Like I said, way too many generalities here.
 
TomB said:
Not in Illinois it's not.

Illinois is a Blue state. It was obvious that Clinton was going to win Illinois, so there was no need to vote for the candidate whose underlying philosophy you disagree with in order to prevent Trump from winning. Illinois voters who voted for Johnson did not contribute to Trump winning the election because Clinton won Illinois. If every voter in Illinois had voted for Clinton, it would have had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election because Illinois electoral votes went to Clinton. As it is, Clinton got 56% and Trump got 39%.

Illinois has 18 Representatives: 11 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

Two of the republicans ran unopposed as the Democrats did not field a candidate.

Another, (LaHood) is the son of Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican who previously represented the district and was also Obama's Secretary of Transportation. I no longer live in Peoria, so I'm not all that familiar with the younger LaHood, but from his Wikipedia page, it appears that he is fairly moderate and has not been a Trump cheerleader.
Click to expand...

Is standard bearer much better than cheerleader?
 
xjx388 said:
Of course you can, especially in local elections. Put it this way: If a conservative has a choice between a Sandersesque candidate for Senator and the GOP alternative, it would make little sense to vote for the Sandersesque candidate.
Click to expand...

Yep the conservative will do what ever trump wants but then that is what conservatism means now. A trump lapdog is exactly what you want. But then you pretend to take issue with his racism and the like.
 
xjx388 said:
Of course you can, especially in local elections. Put it this way: If a conservative has a choice between a Sandersesque candidate for Senator and the GOP alternative, it would make little sense to vote for the Sandersesque candidate.

Even nationally, if we are offered a situation in 2020 where we maybe have a candidate like Bernie Sanders with a Dem controlled congress, it would be stupid for a conservative to vote for Sanders if they support the majority of policies the GOP favors and absolutely oppose the majority of Sanders' policies. Even if Trump were the GOP candidate I wouldn't blame a conservative for holding their nose and voting Trump.

Like I said, way too many generalities here.
Click to expand...

And that's horrendous.

You are basically proving the point. According to you, a conservative would be better off voting for a proto-fascist, racist bafoon than a social democrat. That is why "conservatives" should have no more place in the US.

ETA: Actual conservatives - that is, people who aren't racist or racism enablers - are welcome in the Democratic party.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
I can see, on these very pages, why politics has become increasingly polarized. If you are One Drop of Conservative or Liberal, by gum your all of that side.

Concrete thinking run amok.
Click to expand...

And we saw in south carolina what happens when a republican tries to not support trump in every way. He is the pure conservative model that the republican party needed and he has unified them more than any other president.
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...
A "switch red herring derail" (which does really sound nasty) could have been averted if only you had quoted the whomp whomp supposedly uttered by the Left in reaction to the threats.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And we saw in south carolina what happens when a republican tries to not support trump in every way. He is the pure conservative model that the republican party needed and he has unified them more than any other president.
Click to expand...

Sanford had a lot of personal baggage too. I was at Clemson when he went on his infamous Appalachian Trail hike. I was pretty surprised he was able to get that seat after his disgrace, don't know what to make of his inability to hold it.
 
TomB said:
Re: Illinois in the election...

Another, (LaHood) is the son of Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican who previously represented the district and was also Obama's Secretary of Transportation. I no longer live in Peoria, so I'm not all that familiar with the younger LaHood, but from his Wikipedia page, it appears that he is fairly moderate and has not been a Trump cheerleader.
Click to expand...

While he may not be a "trump cheerleader" LaHood still voted for the republican Tax cut bill. You know, the ones that Trump is bragging about (the one that increases the debt load and will eventually increase the tax rate on lower and middle income Americans.)
My point is that sometimes a district's voters have connections with their representatives that transcend politics. They see them as people/individuals first.
Click to expand...
While they may be "voting locally", their vote STILL had the side effect of benefitting Trump. Sad that it has to be that way, but there you go.
It's also good to remember most people in Illinois expected Clinton to win the presidency.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. As I pointed out before, even if there were little chance of Clinton losing in the state (which nobody should ever completely rule out), at the very least a vote for Clinton would have been symbolic... a way to say "We really don't want a racist nut-bag running our country". Instead, people who picked a 3rd party voted in a way that said "Errrr... we really don't care either way much if a racist nut-bag runs the country"
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...
While I avoid labeling myself, and can't speak for "the left", I unequivocally deplore what Fonda said.

Your outrage over it, however, earns a womp womp.
 
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...

So, you don't see the difference between the actions of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as directed by THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and some has been actor spouting off on twitter :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom