ChrisWeigant.com

Can House Republicans Explain Political Reality To Trump?

[ Posted Tuesday, June 19th, 2018 – 15:58 PDT ]

I would sincerely love to be a fly on the wall at tonight's summit meeting between President Donald Trump and the House Republicans. By the time you read this, the meeting will likely either be underway or already over, so it remains to be seen how much of what goes on will leak out. Indeed, one hopes for a surreptitious recording to be made public, but one doesn't always get what one hopes for (alas!). But no matter how many of the details leak, I'd be willing to bet that the meeting will be described as "a spirited discussion" by someone in attendance. The phrase will likely become unavoidable, really.

Trump is, once again, living in his own fantasy world. The Republicans are about to explain political reality to him. This likely won't go over very well, since Trump trusts his own instincts above all, and his instincts so far are to continue to redouble his efforts rather than change course in any way. But then again he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected in four and a half months -- while everyone else in the meeting does.

The "zero tolerance" policy that Jeff Sessions announced -- and that Trump could change at any time he chooses -- is not playing too well in Peoria, to put it mildly. The firestorm surrounding the policy of separating children (down to toddler age) from their parents is raging, and it shows no signs of abating any time soon. It's a wonder that I haven't yet heard a right-wing conspiracy about how Donald Trump is secretly a Democrat, since he really would have had to try pretty hard to come up with an issue that would be more likely to motivate Democratic voters in the midterms. Trump is making life very hard for Republican candidates right now, and the House members (who all have to get elected every two years) are about to explain this fact to him. Or try to, at any rate.

This time around, for whatever reason, Trump's lies are not working as designed. He obviously had a master plan to cause pain and suffering and then blame it all on the Democrats, but at this point even members of his own party aren't buying what Trump is selling. "The Democrats made me do it!" is so patently false and indeed downright laughable that the Republicans in Congress know the only way out of this mess is to quickly pass some sort of law overturning Trump's chosen child separation policy, in an attempt to save their own political skins.

The Senate, so far, is taking the lead on the issue. They still haven't settled on a single plan yet, although two have now been proposed (one by Ted Cruz of Texas, which shows how badly the anti-immigrant moves by Trump have gotten -- if even a Republican in Texas is against them). Whichever plan they finally settle upon will be simple: allow the children to be locked up with their parents. This way Trump still gets to have his zero tolerance policy, but the media images of frightened and traumatized children being warehoused in cages like stray dogs will hopefully cease (they may be replaced by media images of frightened and traumatized families in cages, but whatever...). That's as far as Republicans are willing to go -- don't fix the real problem, but for Pete's sake please stop with the videos and audiotapes of wailing children!

If even Mitch McConnell (who never met a problem he didn't consider too large for inaction by the Senate) is now on board with at least partially defying Trump, then you know the president has gone too far. Some Senate Republicans are evenly openly admitting that Trump himself could fix this problem "in five minutes," which shows more than anything else that Trump's "Democrats made me do it!" spin attempt has utterly failed. If members of your own party won't join you in bashing the opposition because what you're saying just isn't true, then maybe you'd better change your tune a bit.

The House, so far, hasn't proposed a standalone bill, because they're still trapped in a political calendar of their own making. If this legislative logjam goes nowhere this week, however, look for House Republicans to start making narrow proposals to end the child separation policy as well.

Tonight's meeting between Trump and the House GOP caucus was supposed to go differently. It was supposed to be a pep rally for getting an immigration reform bill through the House. Earlier, Paul Ryan successfully fended off a rebellious attempt by some of his own members who were pushing for a vote on an actual bipartisan bill. Ryan instead scheduled two votes for later in the week, on a hardline Tea Party bill and on a so-called "moderate compromise" bill (which is neither, as I explained yesterday). Trump coming up to Capitol Hill to see them was supposed to rally them all around voting for at least one of the bills, so they could then pass it and immediately begin using it as a political bludgeon during the midterm campaign season (since nobody is expecting the Senate to pass the same bill any time soon). In other words, the meeting was to plan a cynical political election-year strategy designed to give the false impression that Republicans cared more about the DREAMers than Democrats. That was the plan, at any rate.

This was all mapped out before the child separation issue moved into the center ring of American politics, though. The ground has now radically shifted under the House Republicans' well-laid plan. Trump is the only one who, so far, hasn't really grasped this. House Republicans from Ryan on down realized days ago that the optics of the issue were so bad and so heavily skewed against Trump's position that they had to do something about it. So they hastily added a section to their "moderate" bill to end the child separation policy. They were even inferring today that they might add this same provision to the hardliner bill as well, showing how Republicans pretty much across the GOP spectrum now know that Trump's position is simply politically untenable.

Tonight's meeting will be an indicator of how Trump is going to react next. One assumes that House member after GOP House member will explain to Trump that if the child separation policy continues, complete with ever-more-lurid daily media reports (each one straining to show the American public the misery that is happening in their name), then Republican candidates are going to be doomed in November. These political facts of life are quite likely to be just about the only agenda item tonight for Republicans who will have the chance to tell Trump straight to his face what the midterm landscape actually looks like. Trump, up until now, seems to think he's actually improving the re-election chances of Republicans with his new policy, so it'll be interesting to see how he reacts to the news that the opposite is happening.

Trump's got an out, of course. Once the backlash started growing, even Trump admitted how horrific the situation was. Trump then tried to dump all the blame on Democrats, which went over like a lead balloon. But Trump said last Friday that he'd be OK with Congress changing the law so that children wouldn't be removed from their parents, meaning he could now easily support whatever bill the Republicans in the House and Senate finally agree to. Trump's original plan of using the bad situation as leverage against Democrats to scare them into voting for a larger immigration reform bill (complete with money for his wall and new limits on legal immigration) is simply not going to work. There will have to be a separate bill narrowly targeting the child separation policy which must pass quickly, which will completely foil Trump's grand plan to use it as political leverage. But because of what he said on the White House lawn last Friday, Trump could decide it's in his best interest right now (to say nothing of the interests of all Republican midterm candidates) to just throw in the towel and support a narrow bill to end the child separation.

Trump's got this out, if he chooses to use it. House Republicans must know that their sole job in tonight's meeting is to convince him to take it. This would preserve Trump's fiction that "Congress has to act" (it doesn't, Trump could change the policy with one phone call to Jeff Sessions), which would allow him to save some face publicly. Republicans now look like they're going to coalesce around: "Lock them all up together, even the children!" which must have a certain amount of appeal to Trump, one would think.

The only real question is whether Trump will fight back against taking this convenient out or not. Will he balk at being undermined by his own party in Congress? Will he threaten to veto any bill that doesn't have his wall money (especially since he's already reportedly threatening to shut the government down over the wall funding issue)? Will he dig in his heels or will he face up to the political reality of the situation, which has some of the worst media optics since Hurricanes Maria and Katrina (or even, as Laura Bush pointed out, since the Japanese-American internment camps)? That's what will be interesting to watch, which is why I started the column by saying I'd love to be a fly on the wall for tonight's Republican confab with the president.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

200 Comments on “Can House Republicans Explain Political Reality To Trump?”

  1. [1] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But who dareth to deliver the bad news to the king?

    Aye, there be-ith our first mystery!

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    Amen. :)

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The key is that Trump doesn't have to worry about re-election now. By the time that comes up this will be long forgotten.

    But the Republicans that need to can stand up to Trump on this issue now.

    And what the issue is doesn't really matter to Trump, as long as the distraction is working.

    And it seems to be working.

    Three articles in a row.

    With so much to write about this issue of the moment it leaves no time to discuss any other issues that have not been able to break through all the distraction issues and enter the public discourse, leaving the public woefully uniformed about anything but the distraction of the moment.

  4. [4] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    According to Betteridge's law of headlines, the answer should be no. Probably accurate as usual...

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The meeting was, apparently, uneventful.

    Now THAT'S cruel. :)

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    Where are the girls being taken? Where are the babies?

    No one will answer.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's never a good bet to underestimate the cowardice and/or wrongheadedness of the House Republicans.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would love to see prime minister Justin Trudeau open our borders to the families that are fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries.

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your house is up in flames, and the police chief (Ryan), the fire chief (McConnell) and the mayor (President) are arguing over who gave somebody the matches to light the fire, when the mayor and his attack dog are holding the burning ember. of a match.

    At least put the fire out, then you can run around in self-righteous circles you f'n #$%^s

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    HERE ARE HORRIFYING PHOTOS OF OBAMA’S ILLEGAL ALIEN FACILITIES THE MEDIA REFUSES TO SHOW YOU
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/photos-obama-immigration-detention-facilities/

    Where was all the consternation and tears and anguish for the poor children during the Obama years???

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would love to see prime minister Justin Trudeau open our borders to the families that are fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries.

    That's a very good idea, Liz..

    Let's round up all the illegal immigrants at our southern border, each and every last one of them and bus them to the northern border and let Canada deal with them..

    You want to make a wager as to whether or not Trudeau would accept them? :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where are the girls being taken? Where are the babies?

    No one will answer.

    I am curious as to why you didn't ask that question during the Obama administration...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's never a good bet to underestimate the cowardice and/or wrongheadedness of the House Republicans.

    Just to clarify...

    Our new arrangement only applies to Weigantians, right?? Anyone outside Weigantia is fair game for name-calling and personal attacks.. Right??

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions is exploring the possibility of using DNA tests to verify the parentage of illegal alien adults who attempt to cross the southern border with children, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a statement Tuesday after interviewing Sessions on his radio show Washington Watch.

    “Sessions is talking to congressional members and is hoping for a legislative fix. The AG wants an immigration policy that is just, fair and enforceable. They talked about making sure that these really are the parents of these kids,” Perkins said.

    He continued, “They are looking at how to use DNA tests in the field to verify they are parents and not traffickers. The reality is if American parents put their kids through what these immigrant parents have done to their kids — they would be charged with child abuse.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/tony-perkins-sessions-dna-tests/

    I am sure ALL Weigantians would join me in expressing approval for this idea...

    I especially like the part where the (non)parents would rate additional charges for child abuse and worse...

    This would solve a lot of problems. It would insure that the families that ARE REALLY families would stay together and that the traffickers would get what they deserve...

    This is a good idea... Right???

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whichever plan they finally settle upon will be simple: allow the children to be locked up with their parents.

    Question...

    When an American commits a crime, do they have the option to be locked up with their family??

    Why should immigrant criminals have that option when American criminals do not??

    If you don't want to be separated from your family, the solution is simple and obvious..

    DON'T COMMIT A CRIME...

    I mean, isn't that obvious???

    All of this is nothing but political posturing.. Where was all this righteous indignation when this exact same thing was happening under the Obama Administration??

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the constitution doesn't apply exclusively to citizens, and innocent until proven guilty is not the sole province of the president.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    the constitution doesn't apply exclusively to citizens, and innocent until proven guilty is not the sole province of the president.

    What is the point as it pertains to whichever comment you are responding to? :D

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    If our government were a person it would be declared mentally incompetent, dangeous to itself and others, and placed into a nursing home. Maybe we should just skip the 4th of July this year. Celebration seems a bit off to me.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    If our government were a person it would be declared mentally incompetent, dangeous to itself and others, and placed into a nursing home.

    Any facts that prove this???

    Or is that just your opinion??

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[15], unlawful presence is not a crime. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Citizens are only separated from their families for extended periods if they're convicted of felonies. An immigrant non citizen is just as innocent until proven guilty as the president, and is still protected by the 8th amendment.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    @m[15], unlawful presence is not a crime. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor.

    And a misdemeanor is... wait for it.. a crime ;D

    Citizens are only separated from their families for extended periods if they're convicted of felonies.

    Factually not accurate..

    If Joe Blow goes into a wal-mart with his children and steals a widget and is caught and arrested, he is separated from his children...

    If, due to circumstances, he is remanded into custody for a duration, he will be separated from his family for "extended period"..

    An immigrant non citizen is just as innocent until proven guilty as the president, and is still protected by the 8th amendment.

    But having committed a crime, he will be remanded into custody until such time as his crime is adjudicated..

    And will be separate from his family until such time..

    What's your take on DNA testing??

    If he can PROVE that the children he is separated from are actually his children, then they can be re-united..

    Which is the bigger crime??

    Keeping children and adults separated until such time as paternity can be established?

    Or letting a sick twisted child-sex trafficker remain with his victims??

    I know you well enough to know that you would agree with me that the latter is much MUCH worse..

  22. [22] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    There's an interesting alternative I could see Trump pursuing that I haven't really heard mentioned: fire Jeff Sessions. It's no secret that there is friction between Trump and Sessions, and for many, it's a wonder that he's lasted this long. With Sessions being a vocal supporter of this policy, I could see Trump using this as a pretense to finally fire Sessions, while also making Sessions the scapegoat to allow Trump to save face when he reverses course. He'd basically say it was Sessions' idea to do this, not his own, and by firing Sessions, he could then make the necessary changes to ensure that families aren't split up. Obviously, this would be a lie, but that's never stopped Trump before, and his base has never heard a lie from Trump they didn't believe either. They'd believe him and line up behind him as if that's where they'd always been. Trump gets to keep pretending he's infallible while having a good excuse to get rid of Sessions. It seems like the perfect Trump move.

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m, unless someone is caught red handed crossing the border illegally, they are innocent of ANY crime, even a misdemeanor, and the burden is on the government to prove wrongdoing, not on the accused to prove their kids are really theirs. The child molester scenario is a red herring, experts can spot a case like that in 5 minutes.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    @m, unless someone is caught red handed crossing the border illegally,

    Uh... How else are they in this predicament if the were not caught???

    The child molester scenario is a red herring, experts can spot a case like that in 5 minutes.

    So, you don't think child trafficking happens???

    It's a very real scenario...

    I really don't see a problem with establishing family connections PRIOR to keeping families together..

    And I would have to suspect the agenda of those who DO have a problem with establishing that family connection..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there is no DNA connection and no official documentation to establish a family connection, then there is absolutely NO REASON to keep adults with children..

    Under those circumstances, child trafficking is a very real possibility...

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @bleyd, the trump 2020 campaign manager is way ahead of you.

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m, of course trafficking happens, but once in custody an expert can figure out quickly whether a child is with a loved one or an abuser. As to how people end up in custody, many are arrested doing something other than illegally cross the border.

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m, you're defending the indefensible.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    @m, of course trafficking happens, but once in custody an expert can figure out quickly whether a child is with a loved one or an abuser.

    Facts to support???

    As to how people end up in custody, many are arrested doing something other than illegally cross the border.

    Explain exactly how that would work??

    @m, you're defending the indefensible.

    That's your opinion and I respect that.. But the simple fact is, ALL of it would be avoided if criminals didn't commit crimes..

    The fact that they bring their 'alleged' children to face this "indefensible" horror is a very good indication that they are NOT related, that it is a trafficking situation..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    @m, of course trafficking happens, but once in custody an expert can figure out quickly whether a child is with a loved one or an abuser.

    Facts to support???

    As to how people end up in custody, many are arrested doing something other than illegally cross the border.

    Explain exactly how that would work??

    @m, you're defending the indefensible.

    That's your opinion and I respect that.. But the simple fact is, ALL of it would be avoided if criminals didn't commit crimes..

    The fact that they bring their 'alleged' children to face this "indefensible" horror is a very good indication that they are NOT related, that it is a trafficking situation..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oopos Double tap...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is the bigger crime??

    Keeping children and adults separated until such time as paternity can be established?

    Or letting a sick twisted child-sex trafficker remain with his victims??

    Put another way..

    Of the two options, which inflicts the greater harm to the children...

    The answer is clear...

    Separating the "family" is the best of the bad options..

    "It's not hard knowing wrong from right. What's hard is choosing the wrong that is more right."
    -Annette Benning, SIEGE

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    9

    Perfectly stated.

    At least put the fire out, then you can run around in self-righteous circles you f'n #$%^s

    ^^^ Exactly this. ^^^

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    12

    I am curious as to why you didn't ask that question during the Obama administration...

    I am even more curious as to why you'd continue to make uninformed and incredulous claims that you know everything that a poster says. :)

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am even more curious as to why you'd continue to make uninformed and incredulous claims that you know everything that a poster says. :)

    I am open to be proven wrong.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    I am open to be proven wrong.. :D

    FACT: There is no poster on this board who would ever have need to prove the fact that you don't know everything they say. Ever. Bar none.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    FACT: There is no poster on this board who would ever have need to prove the fact that you don't know everything they say. Ever. Bar none.

    I never claimed to know everything they say...

    But, given the fact that what is occurring now also occurred during the Obama administration and give the fact of the Obama worship that permeated this forum during the Obama era, it's a safe conclusion..

    Since I can't prove the negative, only you can prove the positive.. :D

    As I said, I am very open to being proven wrong...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    some of the worst media optics since Hurricanes Maria and Katrina

    Sorry, CW.. President Trump has already had his "Katrina moment"... As a matter of fact, he has had several..

    This is just NeverTrumper hysteria at work.. Next week it will be something different and ANOTHER "Katrina moment"...

    YYYAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:
  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    I never claimed to know everything they say...

    No, but when you make the nonsensical claim that someone did or didn't say something when you couldn't possibly know otherwise unless you know everything they say, then you're simply making claims you know nothing about.

    But, given the fact that what is occurring now also occurred during the Obama administration and give the fact of the Obama worship that permeated this forum during the Obama era, it's a safe conclusion..

    No, it isn't a safe conclusion, particularly when what you claim are "facts" and what is the reality aren't exactly the same thing. I can do nothing about the fact that you believe the falsehoods and the false equivalency being played out on right-wing propaganda media, and your opinion that posters worshipped any POTUS is equal to me referring to BLOTUS as the Orange Blowhole and Your Worship.

    I never heard you claim you weren't a Honda Pilot Elite AWD; therefore, it is a safe conclusion that you are a Honda Pilot Elite AWD. See how silly that sounds?

    You make a claim about someone else: You prove it.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    None of this is really new..

    ALL of it has been going on for decades...

    This is nothing more than a new shiny bludgeon for the NeverTrumpers to beat President Trump over the head with..

    Next week, there will be a mass shooting or some other such and THAT will become the new shiny...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    You make a claim about someone else: You prove it.

    You can't prove a negative..

    I have posted my conclusion and the FACTS that support this conclusion..

    If you dispute the conclusion, then it's up to you to prove my conclusion is false..

    Like I said, I'll be happy to issue a correction once I am proven wrong...

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    41

    None of this is really new..

    Yes, it is "new."

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-law-separate-families-passed-1997/

    There is no federal law mandating children and parents be separated at the border; a policy resulting in that outcome was enacted in May 2018.

    There is no federal law that stipulates that children and parents be separated at the border, no matter how families entered the United States. An increase in child detainees separated from parents stemmed directly from a change in enforcement policy repeatedly announced by Sessions in April and May 2018, under which adults (with or without children) are criminally prosecuted for attempting to enter the United States:

    The “zero-tolerance” policy he announced [in May 2018] sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry.

    As a result, hundreds of minors are now being housed in detention centres, and kept away from their parents.

    Over a recent six-week period, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border, figures released on [15 June 2018].

    [Attorney General] Sessions said those entering the US irregularly would be criminally prosecuted, a change to a long-standing policy of charging most of those crossing for the first time with a misdemeanour offence.

    ALL of it has been going on for decades...

    Only if you count "decades" in weeks and not years. :)

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, it is "new."

    I know you would like to think that.. But it really isn't..

    Snopes is a well-documtend Left Wing propaganda outlet. As such it's useless as supporting facts..

    It's well documented that Obama put children in cages and separated families...

    This is nothing new..

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    42

    You can't prove a negative..

    It's not a negative. You made a claim about me so either prove it or don't say it when you have no idea what you're talking about.

    I have posted my conclusion and the FACTS that support this conclusion..

    No, you didn't post a "conclusion." You made a statement about me as if it was a fact. If you can't prove your "conclusions," then stop posting them as if they are facts.

    If you dispute the conclusion, then it's up to you to prove my conclusion is false..

    Wrong. It's up to you to stop making claims about others that you can't prove.

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    44

    I know you would like to think that.. But it really isn't..

    No, you don't know what I would "like to think."

    You said "none of this is new." Obviously, Jeff Sessions announced a policy change on multiple occasions. The policy changed recently, and that's a "new" thing. :)

  47. [47] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kristjen Nielsen was hounded out of a restaurant last night. Good.

    I saw a wonderful tweet where a guy fired 2 Trumpers working for him. Good.

    An intern screamed "fuck Trump" at the orange-criminal-in-chief yesterday.

    Corey Lewandowski doing damage control after he mocked a Downs-Syndrome-child-being-torn-from-mother story. His despicable public career as plague-carrier for this criminal administration needs to be over A.S.A.P.

    Trumpers are being exposed for what they are: nazi-white supremacist traitors - and the rest of America is recoiling.

  48. [48] 
    John M wrote:

    As far as the meeting between Congressional Republicans and Trump that that C.W. talked about, apparently we have now learned at least two things:

    1) Trump has decided to "double down" on his zero tolerance policy.

    2) Trump couldn't even stay on topic, as he veered from discussing immigration long enough to condemn Republican candidate Mark Sanford of South Carolina, leading to the unprecedented move of Trump being booed by his own Congressional Republicans.

  49. [49] 
    John M wrote:

    [15] Michale

    "When an American commits a crime, do they have the option to be locked up with their family??

    Why should immigrant criminals have that option when American criminals do not??

    If you don't want to be separated from your family, the solution is simple and obvious..

    DON'T COMMIT A CRIME...

    I mean, isn't that obvious???"

    No, it's not. I am tired of your false equivalence. There is a difference between stealing milk to feed your starving child, and choosing to use drugs while endangering your children thru willful neglect.

    "All of this is nothing but political posturing.. Where was all this righteous indignation when this exact same thing was happening under the Obama Administration??"

    Nice way to try to use Obama as a distraction and scapegoat for a administration that is now deliberately engaging in government child abuse and violating human rights on a scale that no previous American administration has ever done.

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    47

    Yes to every word, and now BLOTUS is going to sign an Executive Order to put an end to the problem that his administration created with their recently enacted policy.

    Kristjen Nielsen was hounded out of a restaurant last night. Good.
    I saw a wonderful tweet where a guy fired 2 Trumpers working for him. Good.
    An intern screamed "fuck Trump" at the orange-criminal-in-chief yesterday.
    Corey Lewandowski doing damage control after he mocked a Downs-Syndrome-child-being-torn-from-mother story. His despicable public career as plague-carrier for this criminal administration needs to be over A.S.A.P.
    Trumpers are being exposed for what they are: nazi-white supremacist traitors - and the rest of America is recoiling.

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oops. That comment managed to post before I was finished with it so everything Paula posted got repeated.

    Apologies. :)

  52. [52] 
    John M wrote:

    [21] Michale

    "If Joe Blow goes into a wal-mart with his children and steals a widget and is caught and arrested, he is separated from his children...

    If, due to circumstances, he is remanded into custody for a duration, he will be separated from his family for "extended period".."

    Except, Joe Blow was just accused of, wait for it... a felony. If that same Joe Blow was arrested for, say, a parking violation... which is, wait for it.... on the same legal level as crossing the border illegally, he would be released, given a date to return to court, and.... wait for it.... returned to his family and children.

    "If he can PROVE that the children he is separated from are actually his children, then they can be re-united..

    Or letting a sick twisted child-sex trafficker remain with his victims??"

    PROVE IT.

    There was an interview with a woman in Guatemala, who was separated from her child, deported back to Guatemala, while her child was never returned to her, and is still in the USA somewhere, and she doesn't know where. The U.S. government is now becoming permanently responsible for taking care of these children, and unnecessarily breaking families up permanently, by deliberate choice, when it doesn't have to.

  53. [53] 
    John M wrote:

    [32] Michale

    "Or letting a sick twisted child-sex trafficker remain with his victims??

    Separating the "family" is the best of the bad options.."

    FACTS to support it?

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    American Airlines announces it will no longer transport kidnapped children. Airline personnel have been traumatized by their participation. They have consciences.

  55. [55] 
    John M wrote:

    [35] Michale

    "I am open to be proven wrong.. :D"

    FACTS to support it?

  56. [56] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    You people and your petty arguments and disputes create the impression that you can't see the forest for the trees. This whole discussion falls somewhere between inane and irrelevant.

    The problem here isn't how we segregate the illegals (NOT the "undocumented" or any other Dem/Lib PC substitute for plain truth), but the ILLEGALS!

    The real problem here is that one of the consequences of 'globalization' is that all the dark-complexioned peoples of the world have become aware of the fact that life is a helluva lot more pleasant in societies organized and operated by light-complexioned peoples.

    A reasonable person might logically conclude that that realization ought to stimulate the dark-complexioned people to the realization of the plain fact that they would be much better off by modifying their own social and economic systems of governance to emulate the ones of which they are so envious, right?

    HELL NO!! The conclusion they actually arrive at is that that would likely be too damn hard and require too damn much work, so instead, what they actually do is decide the easiest thing would be to migrate north and simply move in with the more happy people, in hopes their happiness will trickle down to them!

    At this point, let me anticipate Kick's rebuttal, claiming that the lack of prosperity in the world of the dark-complexioned is the legacy of 'colonialism'.

    Bullshit. The misery level of the dark-complexioned parts of the world was far greater prior to colonialism, and has degenerated back to prior levels post-colonialism.

    Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa during colonialism, and now Zimbabwe has to import everything they eat, and the identical scenario is currently playing out with South Africa after the white folks were expelled.

    Colonialism is NOT the reason the dark-complexioned folks are in perpetual disaster!

    OK, maybe NOW you can have a meaningful argument (in between your ad hominems and insults directed at me.)

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that the Hysterical Left is.. well.. hysterical about the children being separated from the parents..

    Yet, the Left doesn't see anything wrong with the brutal killing of children by the hundreds of thousands every year..

    There is a little inconsistency there...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, you don't know what I would "like to think."

    It's obvious that you would like to think your point is valid because you posted it..

    But it really isn't a valid point..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except, Joe Blow was just accused of, wait for it... a felony.

    No, he was not.. He was accused of a misdemeanor.. It wasn't a felony widget, it was a misdemeanor widget..

    FACTS to support it?

    If you need FACTS to support the idea that temporarily separating a family to determine that they ARE, indeed, a family is better than allowing a child sex trafficker to continue to victimize his victims...????

    Well, I just can't help you.. I would hope you would think the former is better than the latter without me having to "prove" that it is..

    But if you don't think that, then... I dunno..

  60. [60] 
    John M wrote:

    [56] C. R. Stucki

    WOW, that is the MOST RACIST thing I have ever heard on this board or just about seen in print anywhere.

  61. [61] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So, tell me Stucki, how was the life of those brown people that use to live where you now own land before the light complexioned people showed up? You know, the Native Americans...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS

    OK, maybe NOW you can have a meaningful argument (in between your ad hominems and insults directed at me.)

    We're trying to end that..

    I wish you could have been around at the beginning.. David was my favorite, even Kevin had his moments.. CB... She got washed away with Hurricane Sandy..

    It was really a fun time.. We would argue and debate like cats and dogs, but we all had fun doing it..

    We're hoping to return to that fun time...

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, tell me Stucki, how was the life of those brown people that use to live where you now own land before the light complexioned people showed up? You know, the Native Americans..

    What's your point, as it pertains to the current illegal immigration discussion??

    If the illegal immigrants had to power to conquer this land and retain it as their own, more power (no pun intended) to them...

    But they don't, so I am hard pressed to reconcile your comment with the current discussion...

    Maybe you can help me out... :D

  64. [64] 
    John M wrote:

    [59] Michale

    "No, he was not.. He was accused of a misdemeanor.. It wasn't a felony widget, it was a misdemeanor widget.."

    Then that's your fault for not making that clear. You simply said he stole a widget. You didn't specify what kind.

    Steal a candy bar, and it's misdemeanor shoplifting. Steal a TV and it's felony shoplifting.

    In any case, you still don't have a point, since crossing the border illegally is still on a par with stealing a candy bar, and not a TV. Any separation is going to be very brief for a misdemeanor, and not anywhere near the length of time of that associated with a felony charge.

    "If you need FACTS to support the idea that temporarily separating a family to determine that they ARE, indeed, a family is better than allowing a child sex trafficker to continue to victimize his victims...????"

    No, I am asking YOU to provide any evidence that you have to support your claim that there have been ANY instances of children being in the company of child sex traffickers and not their parents, currently being separated and detained by the U.S. government.

    Apparently you have none.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    WOW, that is the MOST RACIST thing I have ever heard on this board or just about seen in print anywhere.

    Can you address the facts???

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Then that's your fault for not making that clear. You simply said he stole a widget. You didn't specify what kind.

    I would have thought using the term "widget" would indicate that it was an insignificant item.

    My apologies for not making it clear..

    No, I am asking YOU to provide any evidence that you have to support your claim that there have been ANY instances of children being in the company of child sex traffickers and not their parents, currently being separated and detained by the U.S. government.

    Apparently you have none.

    So, it's your claim that it NEVER happens???

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    American Airlines announces it will no longer transport kidnapped children. Airline personnel have been traumatized by their participation.

    Any facts to support that claim???

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM

    Deadly human trafficking business on Mexico-US border
    Sinaloa cartel rivalries present an omnipresent risk of extortion, kidnapping and death for migrants travelling through.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/deadly-human-trafficking-business-mexico-border-160117073423022.html

    If you don't believe that child trafficking is a problem on the southern border..

    I can't help you with that delusion..

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Human Trafficking, Sex Tourism, and Child
    Exploitation on the Southern Border

    http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=childrenatrisk

    Apparently, children at risk are only a problem when it can be used as a political bludgeon to beat President Trump over the head with..

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    The deadly toll of human smuggling and trafficking in the US
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/us/migrant-deaths-and-human-trafficking-by-the-numbers/index.html

    Surely, it's better to keep kids and adults separated to confirm paternity, rather than risk child sex traffickers being confined with their victims, eh??

    Maybe that's just me...

  71. [71] 
    John M wrote:

    [65] Michale
    WOW, that is the MOST RACIST thing I have ever heard on this board or just about seen in print anywhere.

    "Can you address the facts???"

    I was. It is a FACT, that those were racist statements. I am a middle aged white man. I have a degree in political science. I would be the first one to agree that Robert Mugabe took a country, namely Zimbabwe, and ran it into the ground economically through his own sheer incompetence.

    I would also be the first to point out that that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that he or the majority of the people of Zimbabwe are of what we would call the Black race. White people can be just as incompetent also. We judge people on an individual basis. we don't make generalizations based on stereotypes based on their group membership.

  72. [72] 
    John M wrote:

    [66] Michale

    "So, it's your claim that it NEVER happens???"

    NO. I AM asking you to provide ANY example of where it has happened in connection with what is currently going on.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was. It is a FACT, that those were racist statements. I am a middle aged white man. I have a degree in political science. I would be the first one to agree that Robert Mugabe took a country, namely Zimbabwe, and ran it into the ground economically through his own sheer incompetence.

    OK.. So, CRS was factually accurate..

    White people can be just as incompetent also.

    No one is arguing that..

    We judge people on an individual basis. we don't make generalizations based on stereotypes based on their group membership.

    Really???

    BASKET OF DEPLORABLES

    Your response??

    NO. I AM asking you to provide ANY example of where it has happened in connection with what is currently going on.

    It happens on the southern border..

    Do we agree on that point??

  74. [74] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It was really a fun time.. We would argue and debate like cats and dogs, but we all had fun doing it..

    Go read your posts from that era. You have the power to bring that era back but you have to look in the mirror to do so. Stop spamming ever single right wing opinion piece just to stick it to the left. Stop trying to win arguments by grossly over posting to crap them out. It's forum bullying pure and simple. I have seen the same game played over and over. You push and push and push and push. Someone snaps and tosses an insult your way, then you grossly over return the insults. We are not stupid, we know that was your intention from the beginning. Stop acting the victim, you are only fooling yourself.

    David, Kevin, CB, LewDan and many others have been pushed away by that very behavior. None of us are going to dedicate our live to responding to your endless page long posts and constant spam...

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [55],

    Heheh.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM...

    Just answer a simple question..

    What is the worse outcome insofar as pain and suffering inflicted on children??

    1. Being separated from family until such time as family ties can be ascertained..

    2. Being sequestered with a child sex traveller for a long duration of time..

    Of those two options, which are worse for children??

    It's a simple question...

  77. [77] 
    John M wrote:

    [68] Michale

    "Deadly human trafficking business on Mexico-US border
    Sinaloa cartel rivalries present an omnipresent risk of extortion, kidnapping and death for migrants travelling through.

    If you don't believe that child trafficking is a problem on the southern border...

    I can't help you with that delusion.."

    I NEVER said that is A) was not a problem or B) that it doesn't happen.

    I was asking you to provide ONE example of where a child separated from an adult that they currently crossed the border with illegally, was not their parent but their kidnapper. A child currently in U.S. custody under the Trump administration newly enacted zero tolerance policy.

    Something which you have avoided and still failed to do.

    Also, your own article supports the FACT that these children are MORE in danger on the Mexican side of the border from these criminals, than that they are being BROUGHT over the border BY these criminals.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Things are going well, Michale?

    It was actually a bit of a pleasure going through all of the comments on this page ...

    Back later to participate!

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    David, Kevin, CB, LewDan and many others have been pushed away by that very behavior.

    Not factually accurate..

    I know for a fact that CB lost everything in Hurricane Sandy so right there, you are wrong...

    LewDan attacked CW and accused him of being a racist and that's why LewDan is gone..

    So, right there, you are wrong..

    Irregardless of all your errors, the simple fact is, things were better back then...

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I NEVER said that is A) was not a problem or B) that it doesn't happen.

    OK, so you agree that it DOES happen...

    So, since we agree that it DOES happen, it makes sense to try and PREVENT it from happening, right??

    I mean, if the goal is to protect the children, we should do what we can to protect the children right??

    And THAT means ascertaining the validity of the family connections..

    I am glad we can agree on this..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz

    Things are going well, Michale?

    I think so.. Things are spirited like in the old days, but there aren't any personal attacks or name-calling yet.. So, the outlook is good.. :D

    It was actually a bit of a pleasure going through all of the comments on this page ...

    Yea.. It almost feels like 2008 again!! :D

    Back later to participate!

    Looking forward to it.. :D

  82. [82] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What's your point, as it pertains to the current illegal immigration discussion??

    Go read his entire post and you will figure out the relevance.

    If Stucki is just going to troll, I don't mind just tossing right back at him. His post was a teaspoon truth and eight quarts of bullshit trolling that ignores huge swaths of history.

    Or to put it more succinctly, if the white parts of the world are so pleasant, why do the whites all flock to the darker skinned parts of the world when it's time to vacation?

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or to put it more succinctly, if the white parts of the world are so pleasant, why do the whites all flock to the darker skinned parts of the world when it's time to vacation?

    Haiti vs Labadee...

    I am sure you can figure it out.. :D

    I wanted to know what the relevance of the Native American situation is to the current illegal immigration situation..

    "Could you help a brother out??"
    -Tony Stark, CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR

    :D

  84. [84] 
    John M wrote:

    [73] Michale

    "OK.. So, CRS was factually accurate.."

    NO, CRS was NOT factually accurate, since he ascribed the fault as being connected to the characteristic of a race of a group of individuals as a whole, and not to individual failings. What part of that do you not grasp?

    "Really???

    BASKET OF DEPLORABLES"

    Ok, I will amend that to... WE SHOULD JUDGE PEOPLE... I cannot be an apologist for any individuals in any group who do not live up to that standard, I can only account for my own behavior.

    [76] Michale

    "It's a simple question..."

    It is a simple question that you already know the answer to. But then that wasn't your point in asking it in the first place. It has nothing to do with the current reality of the administration policy taking place and is being used as a distraction on your part to take the focus off of that and on to something else.

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [55] You seem to think that evolutionary differences in the process of oxidation of tyrosine followed by polymerization impacts societal governance.

    And, you are claiming, that this is the obvious point everybody else is missing.

    You might want to check yourself, you seem to be missing a functioning brain. This is a load of libertarian inspired racist claptrap.

    Get educated.

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, after Michale soiling his diaper almost constantly for three days trying to squirm out of admitting he supports child cruelty, it turns out his orange idol has flip-flopped and discovered that he can undo a policy that he himself created with the help of Sessions and his other child-abusing cronies.

  87. [87] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Not factually accurate..

    'tis the story of your life...

    Sandy was how long ago? If CB wanted to be here, they would be here.

    As for LewDan, Chris is proud he has never banned anyone and you were definitely a major reason he left.

    Irregardless of all your errors, the simple fact is, things were better back then...

    Oh, I agree. But it's interesting that you are unable to be introspective about your posting behavior to figure out why...

  88. [88] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I wanted to know what the relevance of the Native American situation is to the current illegal immigration situation..

    It's relevant to his post, if you could be bothered to read it, even you could figure out why...

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO, CRS was NOT factually accurate,

    He was factually accurate when he described WHAT had happened.

    His opinion on WHY it happened, you don't agree with.. That's fine..

    Ok, I will amend that to... WE SHOULD JUDGE PEOPLE... I cannot be an apologist for any individuals in any group who do not live up to that standard, I can only account for my own behavior.

    So, you would agree that any one person is NOT responsible for the actions of a group.. Yes??

    It is a simple question that you already know the answer to.

    If I knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking the question..

    It has nothing to do with the current reality of the administration policy taking place

    It has EVERYTHING to do with the current reality..

    You concede that there IS child sex trafficking on the southern border..

    The problems you accuse the administration of are occurring on the southern border..

    So, I'll ask again..

    ISN'T it reasonable to confirm family status to PREVENT child sex traffickers being housed with their victims..

    YES or NO...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    You might want to check yourself, you seem to be missing a functioning brain. This is a load of libertarian inspired racist claptrap.

    I wouldn't have thought you would be the first one to make personal attacks, Neil..

    It's very disappointing..

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sandy was how long ago? If CB wanted to be here, they would be here.

    Mind reading???

    As for LewDan, Chris is proud he has never banned anyone and you were definitely a major reason he left.

    X2

    Oh, I agree.

    Good.. Then it's settled..

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't usually link to charitable causes, but this is topical and on point:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/19/us/facebook-fundraiser-raices-trnd/index.html

    Note - they were at $6M this morning and are closing in on $12M already - and it is heartening to see so many heartland conservatives donating.

    Trump is easily the most evil person we've had in he White House in a generation. Child cruelty sickens all but the most deluded and partisan.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's relevant to his post, if you could be bothered to read it, even you could figure out why...

    You are the only one who claims relevance..

    Only you can enlighten me as to HOW it is relevant...

    If you can't, that's kewl too...

    I understand..

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Child cruelty sickens all but the most deluded and partisan.

    Says the guy who supports abortion..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Ok, I will amend that to...

    So, you were wrong...?? :D

  96. [96] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Only you can enlighten me as to HOW it is relevant...

    Michale, I'm not going to be your interpreter of written English. Read every paragraph and you will figure it out. The paragraph in question is toward the bottom...

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wouldn't have thought you would be the first one to make personal attacks, Neil..

    Comment [56] was disgusting Michale.

    I know you and I tease each other and I refuse to count you as anything but a misguided friend, but the underpinnings of comment [56] was the ill-informed reasoning that leads to mass atrocities.

    The take-away I took from [56] was the brown-skinned people are incapable of successful self government and thus should be regarded as parasites on white countries. The target was illegal immigrants, and I do not support illegal immigration, however the same reasoning can be, and has been, used to underpin actions that are the most shameful in our history.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    If what is being done at the southern border is so "cruel" you have to wonder about the utter despicable-ness of the parents to willingly DRAG their "children" to such "cruelty"??

    Any parent who willingly subjects their children to such "cruelty" DESERVES to have their children taken away...

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    HELL NO!! The conclusion they actually arrive at is that that would likely be too damn hard and require too damn much work, so instead, what they actually do is decide the easiest thing would be to migrate north and simply move in with the more happy people, in hopes their happiness will trickle down to them!

    At this point, let me anticipate Kick's rebuttal, claiming that the lack of prosperity in the world of the dark-complexioned is the legacy of 'colonialism'.

    Bullshit. The misery level of the dark-complexioned parts of the world was far greater prior to colonialism, and has degenerated back to prior levels post-colonialism.

    Stucki, I will tell you essentially what I told Michale: You really don't know what I'd say or what I think or believe unless I tell you. Also, people's views change over time based on various factors which I will not attempt to explain due to time constraints. Stucki, you get bonus points for at least explaining that you were anticipating my "rebuttal" rather than just making a statement about me as if it was a fact, but I think it would be a novel idea if those who claim to know how I feel or what I think would stop pretending to value "facts" while doing so much speculation.

    Wow, Stucki. It appears to me as if you likely haven't travelled much outside the United States and maybe haven't travelled much inside it either.

    As for the majority of your ridiculous assumption wherein you're arguing a point with me that I never made, I have two words: Oprah Winfrey.

    Hey, Stucki, I wonder if Oprah feels the same way about those dirt poor "white-complexioned" "happy people" in a large portion of America as you do about the "dark-complexioned." /sarcasm off

  100. [100] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Good.. Then it's settled..

    It's introspective time. If you want the old days, you have to change your posting behavior to the old days.

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    Says the guy who supports abortion..

    Really? I want abortion to be eliminated, I just want a different path to it than you do.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    <It's introspective time. If you want the old days, you have to change your posting behavior to the old days.

    I have already done so...

    I don't allow you people to push my buttons anymore.. :D

    "And I am feeling MUCH better now..."
    -John Astin, NIGHT COURT

    :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? I want abortion to be eliminated,

    You don't support abortion??

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    58

    It's obvious that you would like to think your point is valid because you posted it..

    My point was a fact. If you don't believe it, then you're the one who would like to think your point is valid when it's simply the lunacy of the "Hysterical Right"... to borrow your phrasing.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    If what is being done at the southern border is so "cruel" you have to wonder about the utter despicable-ness of the parents to willingly DRAG their "children" to such "cruelty"??

    Any parent who willingly subjects their children to such "cruelty" DESERVES to have their children taken away...

    I mean, think about it people..

    This country has tens of thousands of workers dedicated to this very thing..

    "Ripping children from the arms of parents" who do a shitty job of taking care of their children..

    It's called CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES...

    So, the hysterical and hypocritical claims of the NeverTrumpers are nothing but a partisan agenda at work..

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point was a fact.

    No, it's not.. But I understand why you want to believe it is..

    Have a nice day, Kick.. :D

  107. [107] 
    Paula wrote:
  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    You don't support abortion??

    Of course not. Does anybody? It is like supporting appendectomies. If they are necessary then perform them, but preventing the need for them is far better for everybody.

    I think abortion should be safe, legal, and very rare, because it isn't needed except in medical emergencies.

    However banning them just adds to total human suffering because with today's contraceptive technology women are pushed underground and into unsafe practices.

  109. [109] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So to recap, House Republicans revealed their total lack of spines last night. Which is why they should all be replaced next November.

    Senate Republicans, however, were about to give Trump an earful. And he folded like a cheap card table.

    Trump has seen the (political) error of his ways, and signed an Executive Order. Or, he could have picked up the phone and told Sessions to stop, since it was a discretionary policy anyway.

    But Michale is still defending the policy. Oh wait! Trump just reversed himself (again). Dilemma: argue in favor of the old policy or in favor of the new policy?

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Ripping children from the arms of parents" who do a shitty job of taking care of their children..

    Michale: if you watched your neighbors kids killed because they wouldn't join a gang, and your kids were threatened in the same was and your only option was to flee, would you consider yourself a child abuser?

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course not. Does anybody?

    Uh... yea.. It's a litmus test for the Left Wing...

    Did one of us just step into an alternate reality??

    I think abortion should be safe, legal, and very rare, because it isn't needed except in medical emergencies.

    OK, so you support abortion only in the case of medical emergencies...

    OK I have to admit, I am shocked.. I am more Left Wing on that issue than you. :D Who would have thunked it..

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale: if you watched your neighbors kids killed because they wouldn't join a gang, and your kids were threatened in the same was and your only option was to flee, would you consider yourself a child abuser?

    I would not flee to a place that employs "child cruelty"...

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neil [108]: Well put.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has seen the (political) error of his ways, and signed an Executive Order.

    Facts to support???

    But Michale is still defending the policy.

    Yes..I am defending the policy that allows to CONFIRM paternity and family connections rather than allow children to be sexually abused by someone who CLAIMS they are his/her children..

    So, the question is.. Why do YOU support the policy of sexual exploitation of children over confirm family ties???

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, the question is.. Why do YOU support the policy of sexual exploitation of children over confirm family ties???

    That crossed the line, Balthasar.. My apologies..

    Amend that to read..

    So, the question is.. Why would ANYONE support the policy of sexual exploitation of children over confirm family ties???

    Again, my apologies....

  116. [116] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bashi [61]

    "The life of those brown people who use(d) to live here . . ." was, I presume, equivalent to whatever life any and all stone-age people anywhere lived, right?

    I'm not personally intimately acquainted with the details of typical stone-age people's lives, but it shouldn't be hard to research.

    I'm guessing you're not envisioning stone-age, right? You're more likely imagining the Hollywood image of the "noble savage", right? Proudly mounted on his Apaloosa stallion, clad in his beaded vest and moccasins, with his Winchester rifle held aloft and his eagle feather bonnet streaming in the wind!

    You've no doubt forgotten that the horse, the rifle and even the glass beads on his buckskins, all came from the evil Palefaces!! '

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhhh The Never Trumpers speak..

    “WE SHOULD RIP BARRON TRUMP FROM HIS MOTHER’S ARMS AND PUT HIM IN A CAGE WITH PEDOPHILES AND SEE IF MOTHER WILL WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE GIANT ASSHOLE SHE IS MARRIED TO,”
    -Peter Fonda

    Peter Fonda is now having a nice long chat with the Secret Service...

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    OK, so you support abortion only in the case of medical emergencies...

    The difference being that Republicans would narrowly define the term 'medical emergencies' to restrict nearly all abortions, while Democrats would leave the decision about what constitutes a medical emergency up to the mother, who is, after all, the ONLY one with a legal and moral right to make that decision.

    Keep the government out of it.

  119. [119] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, the question is.. Why would ANYONE support the policy of sexual exploitation of children over confirm family ties?

    Okay..

    A. The policy of charging EVERY illegal immigrant with a crime actually makes it HARDER to sort the traffickers, the mules, and the gunrunners from the larger group, according to an interview with the former head of ICE this morning.

    B. The DNA thing isn't about child trafficking. I'd guess it's to cover the fact that infants simply refuse to memorize their assigned ICE numbers, even when it is hurriedly taught to them.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    The difference being that Republicans would narrowly define the term 'medical emergencies' to restrict nearly all abortions, while Democrats would leave the decision about what constitutes a medical emergency up to the mother, who is, after all, the ONLY one with a legal and moral right to make that decision.

    Keep the government out of it.

    I wasn't asking you...

    But, since you butted in..

    about what constitutes a medical emergency up to the mother, who is, after all, the ONLY one with a legal and moral right to make that decision.

    You don't think a DOCTOR is more qualified to make that decision??

    I mean, the mother might think that ruining her figure constitutes a "medical emergency"...

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    B. The DNA thing isn't about child trafficking.

    You're right..

    It's about confirming paternity to make sure that the "family" in question really is a family..

    I can't help but wonder WHY anyone would oppose such testing???

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wasn't asking you...

    But, since you butted in..

    That should have had a :D with it.. :D

  123. [123] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    C.R.: The problem is, that you're arguing an OLD racist stereotype, one that was debunked generations ago.

  124. [124] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [120] You don't think a DOCTOR is more qualified to make that decision?

    No, I don't. But since you mention it, the law is that it's a PRIVATE decision to be made between the patient and her doctor, and we have no right to intervene or second guess her or her doctor's decision or its motivations.

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    90

    I wouldn't have thought you would be the first one to make personal attacks, Neil..

    Well, obviously you wouldn't since you were... in point of fact… the first one to actually make a personal attack yesterday less than 30 minutes after promulgating rules whereby those who did so should be banned from the board. You.

  126. [126] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I'm not personally intimately acquainted with the details of typical stone-age people's lives, but it shouldn't be hard to research.

    Usually it's part of standard grade school education to learn the history of the native peoples of your area.

    I'm guessing you're not envisioning stone-age, right?

    You would be guessing wrong.

    You've no doubt forgotten that the horse, the rifle and even the glass beads on his buckskins, all came from the evil Palefaces!! '

    And the small pox, don't forget the small pox...

    I'm just pointing out that it is hard to take your opinion of darker skinned cultures seriously when you can't be bothered to learn about the history of the ones that lived in the area you now call home...

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    92

    I don't usually link to charitable causes, but this is topical and on point:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/19/us/facebook-fundraiser-raices-trnd/index.html

    Note - they were at $6M this morning and are closing in on $12M already - and it is heartening to see so many heartland conservatives donating.

    Thank you for the link, Neil. I'm in for $5,000. Nobody tell Don... oh, wait... everybody tell Don. :)

    Trump is easily the most evil person we've had in he White House in a generation. Child cruelty sickens all but the most deluded and partisan.

    Agree 100%. Thanks again. I had not seen that fundraiser. :)

  128. [128] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I was musing last night about what would have happened if Switzerland had the same policies at their borders in the late 1930's that we have today at ours.

    How would the Von Trapp Family (from The Sound of Music) fared?

    Let's see: eight children separated by age, and poor Maria charged with suspected trafficking because she isn't genetically linked to any of them. The eldest daughter (16 going on 17) closely questioned for suspected abuse issues...

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I don't. But since you mention it, the law is that it's a PRIVATE decision to be made between the patient and her doctor, and we have no right to intervene or second guess her or her doctor's decision or its motivations.

    So, you are NOW saying it's not a "medical emergencies" decision but rather a personal decision for the mother only..

    So, if the mother doesn't want her tits to sag, she can kill her child and you don't have a problem with it..

    OK, that's fine.. I respect your position..

    I just point out that it's a little inconsistent with your OH MY GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN" position you take regarding illegal immigrants..

  130. [130] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm in for $5,000.

    Wow! Good for you. Thanks.

  131. [131] 
    John M wrote:

    [94] Michale

    "Child cruelty sickens all but the most deluded and partisan.

    Says the guy who supports abortion.."

    I assume you realize that you can support freedom of choice without supporting abortion itself, and that the two are not necessarily the same?

  132. [132] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy [123]

    I've no idea what you are talking about. I'm not arguing ANY "racist stereotyp", new or old.

    I said the dark-complexioned people are all migrating to the abodes of the light-complexioned people, world-wide. Do you dispute that fact??

    I didn't speculate on their motivation (except that they prefer our way of life to theirs), and I did not say skin-tone had anything to do with it.

    You (and various others here, aka neilm) need to quit 'reading between the lines'!

  133. [133] 
    John M wrote:

    [95] Michale

    "Ok, I will amend that to...

    So, you were wrong...?? :D"

    No, I will admit to being imprecise, as you were with your widget comment.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    I assume you realize that you can support freedom of choice without supporting abortion itself,

    Even if that CHOICE is to kill a child thru an abortion??

    Seems to me to be inconsistent with the SJW stance on illegal immigrants children..

    You either protect and cherish the lives of children or you do not..

    Or is such protection and cherish the lives to children SOLELY dependent on your Party ideology??

    That would seem to me to be the most logical conclusion...

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    106

    No, it's not.. But I understand why you want to believe it is..

    The policy regarding how illegal immigrants are being handled has changed, Michale. If it hadn't, then Jefferson B. Sessions has lied again about the policy changing, and your Orange Worship is signing an Executive Order to keep the families together now that would be entirely unnecessary if there was no need to further change the policy that was recently changed.

    Have a nice day, Kick.. :D

    I always do. :)

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I will admit to being imprecise, as you were with your widget comment.

    Fair enough.. :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    The policy regarding how illegal immigrants are being handled has changed, Michale.

    No, the policy has not changed..

    How it is enforced has...

    The laws, the policy, it's what has been in place for decades...

    I always do. :)

    Me too! :D

  138. [138] 
    John M wrote:

    [89] Michale

    "He was factually accurate when he described WHAT had happened.

    His opinion on WHY it happened, you don't agree with.. That's fine.."

    It's not even correct entirely on WHAT happened either.

    There are plenty of non-white nations that are economic success stories: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore...

    As well as plenty of White nations that are economic failures: Greece, Argentina, Russia, Belarus....

    "So, you would agree that any one person is NOT responsible for the actions of a group.. Yes??"

    YES

    "So, I'll ask again..

    ISN'T it reasonable to confirm family status to PREVENT child sex traffickers being housed with their victims.."

    Except that wasn't the question you originally asked. You asked if it was better to separate children from the adults they were with against the assumption of the remote possibility of leaving them with a child abuser.

    You know the answer is to never leave a child with an abuser.

    You also know that the reality is that children are being separated from their actual loving parents, and that is never ok.

  139. [139] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I said the dark-complexioned people are all migrating to the abodes of the light-complexioned people, world-wide. Do you dispute that fact?

    Well yes. There weren't a lot of light-complexioned people in North (or South) America before Europeans arrived. There weren't a lot of whites in Morocco, Siberia or Australia either.

    Migration happens, dude.

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've no idea what you are talking about. I'm not arguing ANY "racist stereotyp", new or old.

    Yea, see I don't get it either..

    They make comments that are supposed to be referencing things, but they don't make the connection..

    You (and various others here, aka neilm) need to quit 'reading between the lines'!

    AKA reading what they WANT to read rather than reading what is actually there.. :D

  141. [141] 
    John M wrote:

    [94] Michale

    "Child cruelty sickens all but the most deluded and partisan.

    Says the guy who supports abortion.."

    I assume you also know that many people hold the position that what is being aborted is in no a "child" in any sense of the word.

  142. [142] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    John M. [138] Your answer was better than mine.

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    I assume you also know that many people hold the position that what is being aborted is in no a "child" in any sense of the word.

    Yes I do.

    Is that your reason for supporting abortion, while at the same time supporting illegal immigrant children??

  144. [144] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I assume you also know that many people hold the position that what is being aborted is NOT a "child" in any sense of the word.

    The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade pointed out that assigning 'personhood' to the unborn was actually a recent phenomenon, cooked up out of political necessity.

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM

    It's not even correct entirely on WHAT happened either.

    YOU said it was...

    I would be the first one to agree that Robert Mugabe took a country, namely Zimbabwe, and ran it into the ground economically through his own sheer incompetence.
    -JM

    You also know that the reality is that children are being separated from their actual loving parents, and that is never ok.

    NOW who is assuming facts not in evidence...

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade pointed out that assigning 'personhood' to the unborn was actually a recent phenomenon, cooked up out of political necessity.

    OK, so ya'all support abortion because you don't really think it's a child..

    And bigots don't want "brown people" in this country because they really think that they are people..

    Hmmmmmm

    I am trying to figure out the difference in these two positions, but I am really hard pressed to...

  147. [147] 
    neilm wrote:

    I said the dark-complexioned people are all migrating to the abodes of the light-complexioned people, world-wide.

    All "dark-complexioned people"? None are staying where they live?

    Do you dispute that fact??

    Yes. Most are staying at home.

    Also, most of the Syrian refugees are "light-complexioned people".

    Classifying people by their propensity to process amino acids into melanin is the definition of racism.

    Why don't you look at the reasons people are migrating, regardless of the level of polymerized breakdown products of tyrosine they happen to produce.

    1. Some are escaping situations that are life threatening - for example Puerto Ricans who came to Florida after Maria, or fleeing gang violence in central America, or a civil war in Syria. We should treat these people with dignity, check their stories, and help them as best we can.

    2. Others are migrants attracted to America because we let our businesses employ them illegally, so they know there is (relatively) well paid work for them.

    3. Some are economic migrants who see that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I don't know many people who support this.

    Lumping them all together into category 3 is inhumane, unfair and stupid - all at the same time.

    Of course, nothing I just stated here is news to anybody on this board, but there are some who want to keep America a certain color, and so tell themselves comforting lies about immigration because they know coming out and standing with the white supremacists would make them social pariahs and shatter their self image as the "people who really care but know hard choices sometimes have to be made".

  148. [148] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Is that your reason for supporting abortion, while at the same time supporting illegal immigrant children?

    You're confusing "allowing" with "supporting".

  149. [149] 
    neilm wrote:

    I am trying to figure out the difference in these two positions, but I am really hard pressed to...

    My embryology class at Medical School taught me the stark difference between lumps of cells and human beings. If you want to start placing a dividing point on in-uterine development you better get some pretty thick books out and also be ready for a pretty tough discussion with vegetarians about pigs, cows, etc.

  150. [150] 
    Paula wrote:

    The abortion argument is just another rw-deflection. Why do you guys fall for this so often? Why do you waste time arguing with someone who doesn't believe shit? He just "says" stuff. As soon as you nail him with facts he just shifts to some other deflection.

    Anti-choicers should be pro-birth-control but they're not. They should support equal-pay for women and other supports for mothers but they don't. They don't give a damn about babies, born or unborn. They just want to control women's bodies. They are force-birthers not pro-lifers. Fuck their false frames, their utter hypocrisy, their hubris, their fake-christianity.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't you look at the reasons people are migrating, regardless of the level of polymerized breakdown products of tyrosine they happen to produce.

    1. Some are escaping situations that are life threatening - for example Puerto Ricans who came to Florida after Maria, or fleeing gang violence in central America, or a civil war in Syria. We should treat these people with dignity, check their stories, and help them as best we can.

    2. Others are migrants attracted to America because we let our businesses employ them illegally, so they know there is (relatively) well paid work for them.

    3. Some are economic migrants who see that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I don't know many people who support this.

    Lumping them all together into category 3 is inhumane, unfair and stupid - all at the same time.

    Ignoring the fact that there are also scumbags and rapists and murderers and druggies who are coming to this country to rape and murder and pillage is also inhumane and unfair and stupid...

    THIS is exactly the problem..

    The Never Trumpers ignore the very real threat because it doesn't fit into their Party agenda narrative..

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    My embryology class at Medical School taught me the stark difference between lumps of cells and human beings. If you want to start placing a dividing point on in-uterine development you better get some pretty thick books out and also be ready for a pretty tough discussion with vegetarians about pigs, cows, etc.

    Not really relevant to my point..

    Those who support abortion do so because they believe that it's not really a child...

    Those who support keeping brown people out of this country do so because they believe that they are not really people..

    The basis for the beliefs is not relevant..

    They are two of a kind...

  153. [153] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It seems appropriate to mention this exchange from an episode of All in the Family I just saw last night (may not be perfectly quoted).

    Lionel: So what you're saying Mr.Bunker is we shouldn't judge a whole group of people on the actions of a few?

    Archie: That's right.

    Lionel (on his way out the door): I'm going to have to remember that. You don't judge a whole group of people on the actions of a few. You don't judge a whole group of people....

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fuck their false frames, their utter hypocrisy, their hubris, their fake-christianity.

    This is the response to a logical and rational discussion....

    Their time is past...

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems appropriate to mention this exchange from an episode of All in the Family I just saw last night (may not be perfectly quoted).

    Lionel: So what you're saying Mr.Bunker is we shouldn't judge a whole group of people on the actions of a few?

    Archie: That's right.

    Lionel (on his way out the door): I'm going to have to remember that. You don't judge a whole group of people on the actions of a few. You don't judge a whole group of people....

    Timely and apropos.... :D

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Manhunt Underway For Central Pa. Man Accused Of Threatening To Kill President Trump, Other Officials
    https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/06/20/manhunt-for-pennsylvania-man-accused-of-threatening-to-kill-president-trump/

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

  157. [157] 
    Paula wrote:

    [153] Don: Except for nazis.

  158. [158] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    137

    Kick: The policy regarding how illegal immigrants are being handled has changed, Michale.

    Michale: No, the policy has not changed..

    Yes, the policy has changed. The. Policy. Has. Changed.

    I understand you're being told on right-wing propaganda media that the "policy has not changed." This is utter nonsense. Oh, what will it take for you to understand that the policy has changed despite all protestations to the contrary of the lying right-wing media?

    Let me try this. The block contains the press release regarding the policy change. Note that the press release refers to it as a "new" policy... just like I did. Note also that the policy change uses the words "escalated effort."

    Department of Justice
    Office of Public Affairs

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Friday, April 6, 2018

    Attorney General Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions today notified all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest Border of a new “zero-tolerance policy” for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien. The implementation of the Attorney General’s zero-tolerance policy comes as the Department of Homeland Security reported a 203 percent increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018, and a 37 percent increase from February 2018 to March 2018—the largest month-to-month increase since 2011.

    “The situation at our Southwest Border is unacceptable. Congress has failed to pass effective legislation that serves the national interest—that closes dangerous loopholes and fully funds a wall along our southern border. As a result, a crisis has erupted at our Southwest Border that necessitates an escalated effort to prosecute those who choose to illegally
    cross our border,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “To those who wish to challenge the Trump Administration’s commitment to public safety, national security, and the rule of law, I warn you: illegally entering this country will not be rewarded, but will instead be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice. To the Department’s prosecutors, I urge you: promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens. You play a critical part in fulfilling these goals, and I thank you for your continued efforts in seeing to it that our laws—and as a result, our nation—are respected.”

    On April 11, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a renewed commitment to criminal immigration enforcement. As part of that announcement, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors and directed them to prioritize the prosecution of certain criminal immigration offenses.

    Today’s zero-tolerance policy further directs each U.S. Attorney’s Office along the Southwest Border (i.e., Southern District of California, District of Arizona, District of New Mexico, Western District of Texas, and the Southern District of Texas) to adopt a policy to prosecute all Department of Homeland Security referrals of section 1325(a) violations, to the extent practicable.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry

    How it is enforced has...

    What part of the word "handled" was confusing?

    The laws, the policy, it's what has been in place for decades...

    Laws and policies are two different things. The policy has obviously changed because the laws haven't. Obama ran into this same problem. He changed the policy because Congress refused to change the law... DACA. Obama didn't sign an Executive Order like Donald Trump and the right-wing talking heads keep claiming to do this; he simply changed the policy: DACA.

    The right-wing propaganda machine doesn't want to admit the policy did indeed change. Their talking point is that everything is business as usual when it isn't remotely. Their policy changed. Above is the press release that documents the change of the policy.

    Let us all know you understand this now, please. :)

  159. [159] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (156)-
    That's the problem with Liberals- all talk and no action.:D

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    So, you are basically saying that the policy has changed because Sessions SAID the policy has changed... But everyone is on record as saying that all of the right are liars.. So why should you believe what Sessions says now???

    The policy has not changed.. It's the same policy started by President Bush, called OPERATION STREAMLINE...

    What HAS changed is that there is now zero tolerance in ENFORCING the policy...

    This is fact..

    So, no.. There has been no policy change...

    Operation Streamline is the policy and it's the same policy that was in place that President Bush had started and the Obama had continued...

    This is fact..

    Have a great night, Kick.. :D

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual, my evenings belong to my beautiful wife.. :D

    Ta ta til the morning.. :D

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    150

    The abortion argument is just another rw-deflection. Why do you guys fall for this so often? Why do you waste time arguing with someone who doesn't believe shit? He just "says" stuff. As soon as you nail him with facts he just shifts to some other deflection.

    It is deflection. A left-wing comparable deflection would be to keep bringing up the ridiculous false equivalence that all righties condone the killing of adults in the act of "nation building" while whining incessantly about the value of life and referring to two cells in a petri dish as a "child."

    Anti-choicers should be pro-birth-control but they're not. They should support equal-pay for women and other supports for mothers but they don't. They don't give a damn about babies, born or unborn.

    I agree with Paula that the vast majority actually don't care about "lives," just mainly interested in how they can exert and exercise control over others lives.

    The taking a knee in protest of "lives" mattering is also reframed by them as disrespect rather than "lives" mattering. If they truly cared about "lives" mattering, there'd be no need to reframe the issue as one that fits their false narrative about respect for the National Anthem versus respect for "lives." I believe it is primarily an issue of people feeling like they need to control the "others." They're scared of the others, and BLOTUS obviously feeds this fear every chance that he gets. Sad.

    They just want to control women's bodies. They are force-birthers not pro-lifers. Fuck their false frames, their utter hypocrisy, their hubris, their fake-christianity.

    Their issue of controlling others being reframed as concern for patriotism. It's just "control" of the "others," and that about sums it up. :)

  163. [163] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    160

    So, you are basically saying that the policy has changed because Sessions SAID the policy has changed... But everyone is on record as saying that all of the right are liars.. So why should you believe what Sessions says now???

    No, "everyone" is NOT on "record as saying that all of the right are liars." The only thing you prove when you make a ridiculous statement like that is that you'll invent a lie in order to disprove a fact.

    The policy changed as outlined in simple English words above and distributed by the Department of Justice, and as any law enforcement officer I know can actually tell you, laws and policies are two different things. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

    The policy has not changed.. It's the same policy started by President Bush, called OPERATION STREAMLINE...

    Then why spend so much time criticizing and trashing the leftie President if the policy had not changed? It did change. Under Bush 43, officials were instructed and generally exempted family units and minors from the “Operation Streamline” process where migrants were quickly prosecuted and deported. In 2008, Bush signed a law unanimously passed by Congress that called unaccompanied minors to be released into the “least restrictive setting.”

    During the Obama administration, families were most often detained together in administrative ICE custody, but there were obviously exceptions. Under Trump, the policy was changed. See the press release and admit it or choose to remain willfully ignorant. Your choice.

    So, no.. There has been no policy change...

    Alert the Department of Justice and Jeff Sessions and Your Orange Worship. For some reason he feels the need to reverse their new policy as outlined in their press release. :)

  164. [164] 
    TheStig wrote:

    John M. - 60

    Apparently it is now OK to casually insult and denigrate entire classes of people who aren't around to defend themselves. Post 56 being a fine example... and there are plenty more in it's wake

    Liz - cleanup on isle 56. Also isles 116 & 132 too.

    Is ignorant bigot speech given a pass around here? Is being "nice" and "fair" for registered members only?

  165. [165] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig (and anybody else willing)

    Help me out here. Do you disagree with the accuracy/truthfulness of anything whatsoever I said in [56], or do you simply wish I hadn't pointed out what's actually at issue here because it isn't PC?

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    C.R. Stucki,

    I read your post in question and it leave me wondering about what your position is on the indigenous rights of the original inhabitants of the Americas and their descendants.

    I'm always surprised when indigenous issues don't come up in any discussion on immigration.

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would also be interested, CR, in your definition of 'political correctness' as it tends to vary from person to person ...

  168. [168] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki [165]

    You mean beyond all of it? As I said, there is a teaspoon of truth and eight quarts of bullshit in that post.

    Try this tool and see if you can educate yourself on migration patterns. When selecting the US, don't forget to flip between Immigrant and Emigrant populations. Also note 3.4% of the world population are immigrants to somewhere. A tiny drop in the bucket of the total world population...

  169. [169] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Also note 3.4% of the world population are immigrants to somewhere. A tiny drop in the bucket of the total world population...

    And a persistent one. We're all ultimately related anyway, nativists have always been delusional. Imagine the pretzel-logic of our nativists just 150 years ago: these were mostly from British emigre stock, making the same complaints about the Irish that their great-great-great grandchildren are making about today's immigrants, while simultaneously importing dark-skinned people to be farm machinery. Bigotry boggles the mind.

  170. [170] 
    TheStig wrote:

    crs-165. Yes, I take issue. It is a glib generalization. It flys in the face of history, anthropology and genetics...as I know them, and I've spent a lot of time learning. It's your sales pitch, so you maybe you should present your facts first. I think your market may be more Daily Stormer than CW.com.

  171. [171] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Crs- if you are really brave, send for a 23 andme kit...you may darker complected than you think.

  172. [172] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Crs- while we are having this discussion, have ever considered that racial prejudice is just PC for white bigots? Sauce for the goose etc.

  173. [173] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bashi [168}

    OK, about the "teaspoonfull of truth and 8 quarts of bullshit".

    How about a little more specific? Like, do you deny that millions of Africans and Arabs are swarming across the Meditranean heading for northern Europe, and thousands of South and Central Americans are flocking to our southern border??? Do you deny that the vast majority of them are "dark-complexioned"???

    Or do you admit that they are indeed "dark-complexioned", but you just wish I hadn't said they are because it ain't PC???

    You guys aren't fooling anybody, you are just part of the "ad hominems and insults" I foretold in [56]. I saw that coming, and you haven't disappointed me.

  174. [174] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    So, you did not bother to use that tool I posted in [168]?

  175. [175] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [171]

    Yeah, you may be right. Looking back at the old photos of all my Swiss ancestors, I see a lot of brown natives - OH!, wait, those are the famous cows grazing across the alpine meadows, so likely, not so brown!

  176. [176] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [166]

    RE "The indigenous rights of the original inhabitants of the Americans . ."

    Not sure where to go with that one. I've heard of 'indigenous people', but never of "indgenous rights".

    Far as I know, the Native Americans and their descendants have the same rights as the immigrant Americans and their descendants.

    I don't see the connection to the theme of this thread.

  177. [177] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS - you don't see the connection?

    The connection is seen from the indigenous peoples' perspective which must seem to them quite ironic in that the original inhabitants of the America's welcomed European immigrants looking for a better life to their shores, including a lost explorer, and now those immigrants are less than welcoming to new migrants looking for a better life.

    As for indigenous rights, well, you have a lot to learn and I'm sure that you find that journey as fascinating as I did so many years ago.

    A good starting point would be the United Nations Declaration of the rights of Indigenous Peoples:
    http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

    Another great resource is from Canada: The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

    Here is something that may surprise you ... Within the Canadian constitution is a clause, Section 35, in which the aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nation, Metis and Inuit are recognized and confirmed.

    Of course, we still have a very long way to go in Canada when it comes to recognizing the Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the inherent right to self-government, of First Nations, Metis and Inuit but, we are progressing.

  178. [178] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Stucki

    Care to hazard an opinion on the skin tone of Jesus Christ? First Cent. Judeans in general?

  179. [179] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [178]

    No, can't think of any reason why I would. How would it pertain to separating immigrant kids from their parents, or to the larger question of illegal immigration?

  180. [180] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [172]

    So, what is a bigot? Is that a person who points out that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are dark-complexioned? Do you equate mention of skin tone with bigotry?

  181. [181] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    Why did your forebears come to America? Because they were too lazy to succeed is Switzerland?

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    Is ignorant bigot speech given a pass around here? Is being "nice" and "fair" for registered members only?

    Actually, the nice and fair rule IS for registered members only..

    However, if you want the rule to apply to EVERYONE and are willing to be "nice" and "fair" to President Trump and all Republicans....

    Well....

    "My soul is prepared, Doctor Jones. How about yours??"
    -Nazim, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

    But, it's funny..

    You come down on CRS for being mean and give Paula a pass for her hysterical bigotry...

    Why is that??

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I'm always surprised when indigenous issues don't come up in any discussion on immigration.

    Why should it??

    Do you believe that indigenous people here in this country are entitled to any more than they have right now??

    Or, are you suggesting we give California back to Mexico???

    If you are, I am TOTALLY and COMPLETELY 1000% behind you in that.. :D

  184. [184] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,as someone who regularly comments on "moral standing" i think you'd appreciate the hypocrisy argument on immigration.

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    @m,as someone who regularly comments on "moral standing" i think you'd appreciate the hypocrisy argument on immigration.

    Which hypocrisy argument would that be??

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, com'on! I make so many hypocrisy arguments.. :D

  187. [187] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bashi [181] Re "forebears"

    For me it was only 'threebears' (Paternal great grandpa did not emigrate.) However, the Swiss are notoriously industrious. They are more prosperous than Americans.

    Anyway, why do you ask that dumb-ass question? Was that a lame-ass attempt at insult? Pathetic!

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you believe that indigenous people here in this country are entitled to any more than they have right now??

    Well, Michale, I am not very familiar with the situation in your country but I would be surprised if Native Americans were enjoying the practice of all of their indigenous rights.

    I can tell you that Aboriginal peoples in my country are still in a struggle to have their rights recognized and these rights are recognized and affirmed in our constitution!

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, what indigenous rights are recognized in your country now?

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, what indigenous rights are recognized in your country now?

    They have their own country, their own laws, their own jurisdictions...

    Howz that??

  191. [191] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [189]

    Far as I'm aware, none of the rights codified in our Bill of Rights specifies that they apply to only specific citizens - all are universal.

    Does your constitution have rights for only certain people??

  192. [192] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Bashi-181

    I have late middle age diaspora Swiss in-laws. According to them, it's expensive, crowded and the military service requirements used to be very invasive (especially if you had a critical infra structure skill set)... less so now. They hold dual citizenship and go back frequently...if you have a 700 year old barn/house in the family, it's very hard to let it go.

    My Swiss connections love The South and acclimated quickly. Red pickup truck (dented) gun rack in the back, fishing gear on the gun rack.

  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, I knew that Native Americans in your country enjoy greater autonomy than that enjoyed by First Nations, Metis and Inuit in my country but I wasn't aware of the extent of those rights.

    Thanks for the info.

    What is the relationship between Native Americans and the federal government? I can't say that I've ever heard much about the interactions between the two, I mean other than the highly publicized confrontations.

  194. [194] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    C.R.Stucki,

    Far as I'm aware, none of the rights codified in our Bill of Rights specifies that they apply to only specific citizens - all are universal. Does your constitution have rights for only certain people??

    I can see that I have a lot of work to do. :)

    Let me try explaining it this way ... First Nations have their own "Bill of Rights", so to speak, and their own governments, their own cultures and languages, and general way of doing things. These, collectively, are what's known as Indigenous rights or Aboriginal rights.

    This concept dates back to when European immigrants first started dealing or 'treatying' with the sovereign nations they found on 'Turtle Island'. The first treaty was the Two Row Wampum Treaty which basically outlines how the indigenous nations and the newcomers would live, side by side, in peace and security, and would not interfere with each other.

    You must remember that in Canada, the history with First Nations is different from the experience in your country. Here, in place of Indian wars, there was largely treaty-making. Unfortunately, one of the parties never lived up to their end of the bargain.

    First Nations have always done their duty to live up to this treaty. The newcomers did not. And, ever since, First Nations have been struggling to have their indigenous rights recognized and respected.

    Here's another way to think about it... being treated equally does not mean being treated the same.

  195. [195] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    Merely demonstrating the stupidity of your argument. Interesting that you think light complexioned people would come here because they were industrious but dark complexioned because they want the easy way out.

    Lets face it, your Swiss relatives came here for some reason, and that reason was unlikely that they were successful in Switzerland. Why is the same not true just because someone hails from further southern latitudes?

  196. [196] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bashi

    As a matter of fact, I've been told that they came here because they were converts to Mormonism, and at that time, the Mormon leaders were attempting to create their own 'Zion' (no connection to Israel) gathering in the Great Basin (Utah and Nevada).

    I'll leave it up to you whether that represented "successful" or "unsuccessful".

    So, maybe you're onto something! Perhaps all those Africans, Arabs and Hispanics are heading for more prosperous places because they've joined the Mormon church (but somehow, I doubt it).

    Also, remember that when the light-complexioned people came here 3 to 4 generations ago, this place was a gawdam wilderness, and they were pioneers - life was damn tough, there was no such thing as an "easy way out", and there were no dark complexioned people to help with the pioneering. (Of course, there were the Indians, but contrary to what you likely believe, they really weren't all that much help.)

    Thanks to their efforts there now IS an "easy way out", so NOW the dark-complexioned people happily show up!!

  197. [197] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    184

    @m,as someone who regularly comments on "moral standing" i think you'd appreciate the hypocrisy argument on immigration.

    Nailed it. :)

  198. [198] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Also, remember that when the light-complexioned people came here 3 to 4 generations ago, this place was a gawdam wilderness, and they were pioneers - life was damn tough, there was no such thing as an "easy way out", and there were no dark complexioned people to help with the pioneering. (Of course, there were the Indians, but contrary to what you likely believe, they really weren't all that much help.)

    I am saddened that such thinly veiled racist and openly ignorant postings have become so commonplace on this enlightened blog.

  199. [199] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki=

    That story is not to far removed from my old boss. A Palestinian christian (from Palestine), who did very well in school. Received a full scholarship to study computer science in the Soviet Union, then came to America for religious reasons, and has successfully run a business for a couple of decades and has quite a few real estate holdings in the San Francisco Bay Area. Quite wealthy by most standards, and an all around nice upstanding guy.

    I have also known many from Mexico who are nice, hard working, successful people. Me thinks you desperately want there to be more differences between complexions than actually exist...

  200. [200] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

Comments for this article are closed.