As are children. And human lives.
This is probably the third time you've implied that kids are being actively hurt or dying during this process. I'm not sure where that's coming from. The outrage is (justifiably) about parents and children being separated, not parents being detained and children being executed. Please elaborate.
Any other action than saving the child FIRST is essentially using the childs life for another purpose. Even if you see that purpose as saving more children in the long run.
Really? What if that one other action is
calling the fire department to put the fire out? You're basically saying "no time for that water nonsense! There's a kid near a fire in there!" Meanwhile, there's a whole 'nother building full of kids next door that has a
really big stake in whether or not you make that call.
You can't react to every situation as if it's the last/only situation. Thankfully, as a people we've been clear-headed enough to use the downtime between one crisis and the next to setup procedures that minimize those awful situations.
That's the argument you're actually up against here, not this straw man stuff about letting kids die to prove an abstract point about civics. I realize that's a much easier position to defend, but it's not the actual choice in front of us.
And if Trump wanted to he could choose not to torment kids for political reasons. But we don’t live in a world of ideals where the best case solution is always undertaken and in plenty of time.
Exactly. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that an Executive Order would happen faster than legislation. But that argument lives in that "world of ideals" where Trump would just do what you wanted immediately, rather than the real world where it predictably took days of outrage and hemming and hawing.
I'm not talking about some kumbayah bipartisan pipe dream. This was on the verge of happening already, and very likely would have if people hadn't unilaterally ruled it out.
Im thinking more and more that you live in some strange unfamiliar ideal democratic utopia where legislators are actually efficient and honest and competent and uninfluenced by anything other than doing the right thing for their constituents and somehow every piece of legislation comes out perfect and is widely accepted by all. I'd love to join you but that’s not the reality Im currently living in.
See above. You're playing the "this is the real world" card when talking about a legislative solution, but not with the executive order.
And I can assure you, zero of my beliefs are based on a general faith in the effectiveness or honesty of politicians. That's precisely why the separation of powers are important in the first place.
So until we get there Im going to bulldoze through process if need be when it comes to keeping kids from being tormented in my name. But I wont be doing this as a rule. And I will also vote. And express my urgent desire for a legislative solution for the situation even after the kids are out of relative danger. I can do both things. And I expect my politicians to be able to also.
If you expect them to be able to do that, you can expect them to vote promptly on something important. You're really just arbitrarily fluctuating between expecting nothing of politicians, and saying you should be able to expect X, as the needs of a given argument dictate.
You could have just stopped that sentence at "How do you feel about the idea of a President Trump..." and Im sure you could fill in my opinion from there. And anyway, to me the process worked here.
Well, yeah, that's why I asked: the whole premise of the question is based on the idea that you
won't like the way it works out other times, which is why it's not good to favor power grabs in general, even when they produce results you like in a given situation.
I can kinda see how someone could look the other way on executive power when they like the guy wielding it and like what he's doing with it, though that's obviously
tremendously short-sighted. But I can't for the life of me wrap my head around how someone could continue to do this while simultaneously thinking the
current person wielding that power is dangerous and irresponsible.
Wait... Are you talking about someone convicted based on illegal or unconstitutional tactics? Then yes of course. You arent? By definition, if they have been convicted based on illegal tactics then they arent actually proven guilty of the crime. Specifically, their case should be thrown out and they should be retried. Although Im not really sure how this is directly relevant to my stance on helping the children first.
I thought it was pretty clear, but sure, I'll put it side-by-side:
Are you saying you are willing to allow that to continue because the process of legislating "correctly" is more important in the long run then these kids well being in the short run?
I'm just replacing a few nouns:
Are you saying you are willing to let a murderer go free because due process is more important in the long run then these victims' lives in the short run?
Please explain how you decide which legal issues are expendable in the moment, and which are more important than the outcome of any one situation.