President Trump

Tools    






anyway, don't worry, the odds are definitely stacked in your favor.
the odds are stacked in favour of liberals in the long run . the immigrants , women , minorities and gays will vote for liberals and eventually their increasing numbers will prevail .



and now for the (surprisingly) less idealistic interpretation from the left-leaner

i always interpreted it like, it's not about getting older, it's about the generation you come from. your generation was brought up in a less socially liberal world. as we as a society become more progressive/open-minded, it's hard for people as they get older to see things that used to align with their party suddenly change or disappear altogether; in the 60s for example, one could call oneself a liberal and still be ok with gay marriage being illegal, abortion being largely illegal, the death penalty still being in force, accepting openly racist attitudes etc. not so today.

anyway, don't worry, the odds are definitely stacked in your favor.
Yes - generations and eras do have a major effect. There's also much to be said for people's definitions of the term liberal and conservative. Many say that today's conservative is yesterday's liberal as the characteristics for what these terms represent have themselves changed over time.



Its not bad at all considering Lincoln was a Republican and the most virulent racists that ever existed were southern Democrats. Things change over time. Unless you are a Whig. But as a counter point Im still confused by Conservative versus Labor (sorry... LabOUR...) versus Liberal Democrats versus Democratic Unionists, etc. Seems Monty Python had it right when they touted the Loony Party as a legitimate extension of the British politician system.
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...



My influence was mostly from the cities i lived in and people i grew up with. Except maybe Hanoi. But then again, that was short stay to make that judgement. I have literally nothing against, LGBT, abortion, mixed culture etc etc. All of these are simply a non-issue to me. So I dont like politicians harping about them to get votes. But right now, its a little different. Trump has completely changed the dynamics of what a politician is. But then again, is he a politician?
__________________
My Favorite Films



Like most people here, day by day, I'm learning more and more about this current situation (with immigrant families apprehended after illegally crossing the border) and all the details that led to it - not just those that led to the media blitz but those that led to the overall situations themselves.

A huge huge problem is that so many facts are presented in contexts that misrepresent them or don't tell the full story, and so many things that are not facts are being disseminated for political reasons.

For instance: the media has recently been showing a photo of a crying little girl from Honduras and using its emotional impact to stir up outrage toward the current administration. The initial report was she was crying because she's been separated from her mommy due to the Nazi-esque tactics of the Trump administration. Time magazine even Photoshopped the toddler with Trump looming over her with the caption "Welcome to America."



Now recent facts reveal the girl is indeed the daughter of an immigrant from Honduras stopped at the border, but she was never separated from her mother whom she was travelling with. The toddler may have been crying (as toddlers do) for any number of reasons - but not for being separated from her mother to be put into a concentration camp.

Now - the revealed facts in no way suggest that immigrant children haven't been separated from their parents because we now know that they were as part of the "zero tolerance" policy to enforce laws against illegal immigration.

This one incident only shows that there are those willing to exploit others and either lie or fail to fact-check or verify in order to pursue a political agenda just as we saw with the "children in cages" photos which were blamed on Trump and that set off the current media blitz (but which were photos of unaccompanied minors in holding facilities during the Obama era).

One reason (perhaps among others) that "zero tolerance" was initiated was that former "catch and release" policies had resulted in rampant human trafficking utilizing, abusing and endangering children as they became a passport of sorts to various types of human traffickers: kidnappers, drug-cartels, child-prostitution-rings, sex-slavers, labor traffickers and criminals of various sorts. The word got out that if you bring kids to the border, it's a way to get in, and criminals took advantage of it.

So separating children from illegal immigrants while their adult companions were investigated to determine if they were genuine relatives or criminal traffickers was deemed the best way to protect those children who may have been being used. Of course, some argue the gov. was using the separation practice as a harsh deterrent, which also may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the policy was also designed to separate & protect children from human traffickers while their situations were figured out.

Point: everything is not always as it seems at first glance, and every story (and every "side") has a backstory of details that led to it.



Yeah, we know how this works: wait for the left to screw up or overreach (which they do plenty), ding them for it, but simply remain silent if it happens the other way and deflect any attempt to talk about anything else. It's all news, and it's all true, but it's heavily curated to create a particular impression.

You can do this with any group or side in any debate, and it's a really transparent way to argue for something without having to really defend it.



For instance: the media has recently been showing a photo of a crying little girl from Honduras and using its emotional impact to stir up outrage toward the current administration. The initial report was she was crying because she's been separated from her mommy due to the Nazi-esque tactics of the Trump administration. Time magazine even Photoshopped the toddler with Trump looming over her with the caption "Welcome to America."
That that particular child was not separated from her mother is completely irrelevant. The fact is 2500+ have been. And the only reason this child became a symbol is because she is the ONLY one a photographer was able to get a picture of because the HHS has been SO careful about having reporters get cameras or microphones in the places where this heinous practice was being undertaken. So think of her as a symbol of what was going on. That she wasnt separated doesnt somehow make that not true.



I think their choice of photo is relevant, and it's worth criticizing them for it. If they can't get the dramatic photo op they want with an actual photo, they shouldn't do it. It's clearly misleading.

Of course, the misuse of the photo is no basis for dismissing criticism of Trump on this issue, either, even though we all know a lot of people will use it for exactly that purpose. Which, incidentally, is another reason not to do it.



Yeah, we know how this works: wait for the left to screw up or overreach (which they do plenty), ding them for it, but simply remain silent if it happens the other way and deflect any attempt to talk about anything else. It's all news, and it's all true, but it's heavily curated to create a particular impression.

You can do this with any group or side in any debate, and it's a really transparent way to argue for something without having to really defend it.
Sure you can do it with any group in any debate - that would pretty much be described as "politics."

I'm not excusing or defending anything - I'm giving of summary of some of the things I learned recently, so far, about this high-profile situation. I will, however, still criticize anyone or group who lies, exploits people or situations for political gain or as part of some personal vendetta against an individual.

For the anti-Trumpers, I always point out he's got enough faults and has done & said enough stupid or offensive things to go after him for, you don't need to make stuff up (like mislabeling photos) to make him look any worse - he takes care of that on his own. If he's going to succeed or fail let him do it on his own merits - he doesn't need any help.



Sure you can do it with any group in any debate - that would pretty much be described as "politics."
But not discussion. Saying this is just "politics" is admitting you're here to push a particular viewpoint, like a political operative does.

I'm not excusing or defending anything
Yes, I know: your refusal to defend things is part of my point.

I'm giving of summary of some of the things I learned recently, so far, about this high-profile situation. I will, however, still criticize anyone or group who lies, exploits people or situations for political gain or as part of some personal vendetta against an individual.
That you're technically capable of this, or do it sometimes, doesn't really change what I'm saying. You actively choose to wait for, and highlight, transgressions from one side only, and pretty much refuse to engage on anything else. I know because I've tried numerous times.

Discussion forums are for discussion, not monologues. Their life blood is give-and-take, not one-way pontification. If you're not interested in that, you can start a blog.



I think their choice of photo is relevant, and it's worth criticizing them for it. If they can't get the dramatic photo op they want with an actual photo, they shouldn't do it. It's clearly misleading.
But it represents something thats actually happening. Its not a lie. Its a truly relevant symbol. Did the Time article state outright THIS LITTLE GIRL WAS DRAGGED AWAY FROM HER SCREAMING CRYING MOTHER? I dont know. But I have no issue with it at all the way its presented. And anyway if Trump can tout this ENTIRELY FAKE TIME cover:



then I hardly feel sorry for him now. What do they say payback is again?



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
wtf? i love trump now
I thought it was so funny, I had to make sure it wasn't an Onion piece!



http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump...ive-you-987178
After someone has a meeting with Pence, Trump will ask them, "Did you pray with Mike?" on their way out

2 days ago, he said "I heard so much bad press about me, never seen before, I started disliking myself!" which is funny for anyone to say, ESPECIALLY from an immodest guy like him.



But it represents something thats actually happening. Its not a lie. Its a truly relevant symbol. Did the Time article state outright THIS LITTLE GIRL WAS DRAGGED AWAY FROM HER SCREAMING CRYING MOTHER? I dont know. But I have no issue with it at all the way its presented.
I'd like a slightly higher standard from my journalism than "not a lie." They can represent what's happening without photo manipulation. I really don't think this should be a controversial position.

And anyway if Trump can tout this ENTIRELY FAKE TIME cover:



then I hardly feel sorry for him now. What do they say payback is again?
First, let's maybe hold actual journalists to higher journalistic standards than anyone else, let alone politicians.

Second, some silly self-aggrandizing cover in his office is obviously not equivalent to the magazine's actual cover, sitting on news stands.

Third, if it's lame for him to do that (and it is), it doesn't become okay to do it to him because of "payback."



I don’t now? Then why did you ask how this process "actively hurts" children then? I was simply responding to your request. If you already knew the answer then why ask that question? Never once did I mention that kids were being "executed" as you stated.
The use of the term "human lives" is not a reference simply to their existence.
Seems like the issue is how you interpret "human lives" (I take it to mean lives are at stake) and "actively hurt" (which I use to mean direct, unavoidable/tangible harm, as opposed to potential or even likely psychological damage). I don't see much use in litigating which of our interpretations is the more natural or intuitive. We're on the same page now, which is the important thing.

It absolutely does. Are you telling me you cant use an analogy involving physical harm or death to talk about a situation that doesn’t specifically involve death?
Nope. I'm saying an analogy has to involve the same general trade offs and considerations.

If I say a person is in danger of "falling off a cliff" because they are at a point in their lives where a decision they make could make life more difficult for them is that not appropriate because falling off a cliff is actually fatal in reality?
"Falling off a cliff" is a good analogy as long as it's being used to describe a point of no return. That's the relevant part, and exaggerating the literal consequence of reaching that point doesn't obfuscate the nature of the claim.

I don't think there's much point in belaboring this, either, though. If you want I'll be happy to break down why I think the analogy misleads and what I think a fair construction would look like, but otherwise I'm content to stick to the rest.

I guess to be technically accurate I should have said Trump is lighting a building on fire that full of children.
Ever hear the phrase "never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence"? I think it clearly applies here. Here's what I said at the beginning of all this:

If someone is in the country illegally, we're legally obligated to detain them, yes? At that point, you either detain them the way you would anyone else (nobody gets to takes their kids to jail), or you have some special facility or exception for families in this situation so they can stay together while being detained/reviewed/whatever. The argument here is that there is no real current legal exception, and to whatever degree this didn't happen before was the degree to which we were just sort of making up the law as we went (though many have pointed out that these things were happening before, only they didn't get as much attention).
If there's nothing in the law about what to do with detained people traveling with their families, it's possible the previous administration just sort of had people not do that, even if there really wasn't much in the law itself to account for the problem. This administration stopped making exceptions, probably not realizing the implications of this.

Not thinking that through is on them, but that's a situation that should've never been created in the first place: either the law is written too broadly (defeating the entire purpose of having laws), or the previous administration decided to just sort of ignore the law as written (and did that for years rather than codifying their policy for future administrations). That's incredibly short-sighted. This obviously wasn't handled well, but no administration should have to come in and figure out what laws the previous administration was massaging around the margins.

And Ive replied that it is clearly and obviously faster to make an order then it is to go through the laborious unguaranteed process of legislating something that ISNT just going to be about stopping the actual thing everyone is focused on. I mean that’s just a no brainer.
The legislative fix was already drafted and there was nothing stopping it other than Schumer ruling out that kind of fix entirely, for no real reason.

If you want to simply believe it was going to fail for one reason or another, I can't disprove your counterfactual, but there really isn't any sign of that. The same pressure that had been brought to bear on the President was motivating Congress pretty well, which is exactly what you'd expect.

On Trumps choice to engage in this practice in the first place because he thinks he can. If he can just decide to start abusing children one day then he can decide to stop. He doesn’t need the inept House and Senate to jump through hoops for him. He doesn’t need bells and whistles and formal announcements. He doesn’t even need an executive order. He just needs to stop. But instead we give Trump a pass on abusing children and we complain that not signing a bill loaded with more than just STOP SEPARATING KIDS AND PARENTS on it is all on the democrats. Garbage. Get this joke of a president to NOT torment kids to begin with and this isnt an issue.
How can you write a paragraph like this and not see how clearly it makes the opposite case re: legislation? If this President is so reckless and dangerous, why don't you want to remove his ability to exercise these whims? These are diametrically opposed views of executive power.

Ah so you think there is some other choice than rescue the child or legislate the situation? Im assuming you think its a false choice based on your thinking that legislation is just as fast as rescuing which of course I find absurd? Or is it a false choice because you think the children arent actually being harmed or in any danger?
It's a false choice because: a) it's just as fast, in this case, because the legislation was ready for a vote and the President predictably took days to respond to public pressure, and b) because we're making dangerous situations like this more common in the future, and while it probably feels better in the moment to forget that and just do ANYTHING to fix the situation in front of you, it doesn't actually reduce the amount of suffering in the world, and somebody has to care about those tough questions of consequence and precedent.

You think creating and passing legislation is just as fast as saying STOP and I think its not.
Yeah, but you're just saying it's not, and I'm giving you reasons it is. First, because there's no actual procedural hurdle: Congress has passed emergency legislation very quickly before. Second, because the supposedly super fast executive order took days, as well, for the same reason legislation would: public pressure has to build. Third, because as far as we can tell it was drafted and prominent Republicans were supporting it.

If your response to this is just to say you think it's absurd, then I guess we're at an impasse.

Not trying to misrepresent you with those declarations. So please correct me if I have something inaccurate there at all. Maybe you are ok with the use of "harm" as long as its made clear "harm" in no way implies "death" and maybe you think legislating is just as fast as ordering as long as you force the democrats (or far right republicans for that matter) to sign off on extra stuff they don’t want any part of. But you tell me. Im not speaking for you. Im all ears.
Nope. I fully understand why someone committed to the legislative process and finding a solution would vote no on a bill laden with extra stuff. I'm not exactly optimistic my progressive friends will remember that concept the next time Republicans are accused of voting against puppy vaccines, or whatever, but in a vacuum that's a potentially legitimate reason to vote no.

Pretty sure my exact words were: "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." How is throwing out a court decision and having a retrial "letting them go free" exactly?
You're just rewriting the question in a way that avoids what it's asking. I'm positing a situation where violating the Fourth Amendment ensures a conviction that there would otherwise not be enough evidence for. You can't say "well maybe they have enough evidence anyway so they can just retry." The point of the hypothetical is that they don't, and a guilty person is going to go free on a technicality.

And even if they were set free (which was never part of my reply mind you) the analogy still doesn’t work because their existence in the world doesn’t guarantee a child is being abused whereas Trump separating kids from their parents does by definition.
It also has the potential for actual murder, contra that one.

The point is that this appears to be an inconsistent legal standard. You obviously understand the concept that the integrity of the system is more important than any one case, and that sometimes people have to go free (which will inevitably involve some recidivism) on technicalities, yes? I'm asking why this is unthinkable for you in one circumstance, but not another. And what underlying legal principle that distinction is based in.

None of the proposed bills I read were JUST about not separating families. And that includes the "moderate" House Republican bill, the more conservative bill presented by Bob Goodlatte, and the one introduced by Mark Meadows. All of them had other things mixed in there including DACA, legal immigration limits and wall funding as noted. If you are aware of another one that was proposed that had NO other considerations other than STOP SEPARATING THE CHILDREN then let me know.
The Cruz bill was, if not literally nothing else, very close, and the only "extras" were specifically about minimizing the time spent in detention facilities. It doubled the number of judges to get through the backlog, for example. The only objection appears to be the expedited hearing timeline, but that's obviously not some kind of payola, or goodie bag, or stealth wall funding or anything, and it also seems pretty consistent with the goals of minimizing the amount of time people are in these facilities (which is inevitably going to involve a trade off between those two goals).

So here's the situation: politicians are saying this is a terrible tragedy, and the need to fix it is positively urgent. They have a piece of legislation that fixes it and isn't festooned with giveaways, but they reject it out of hand and instead assume that a notoriously mercurial, notoriously petty President will do what they want instead? If the situation is as horrendous as they and you have said, and there was no ulterior political motive, how could anyone justify taking that risk?



But not discussion. Saying this is just "politics" is admitting you're here to push a particular viewpoint, like a political operative does.


Yes, I know: your refusal to defend things is part of my point.


That you're technically capable of this, or do it sometimes, doesn't really change what I'm saying. You actively choose to wait for, and highlight, transgressions from one side only, and pretty much refuse to engage on anything else. I know because I've tried numerous times.

Discussion forums are for discussion, not monologues. Their life blood is give-and-take, not one-way pontification. If you're not interested in that, you can start a blog.
No it's not.

Which part of your point? I defend lots of things (I just wasn't defending anything in my last post, except the right to criticize those who lie or exploit).

Yeah, I highlight transgressions as they occur depending on what situation we're talking about (as I did the other day right after the news broke when Chuck Schumer announced that his party was refusing to sign a bill that would resolve the situation he called horrific for no other reason than he "wanted to keep the pressure on Trump" thus pointing out the hypocrisy and fraudulence of all his & his cohort's former "outrage" & "concern").

If you want to argue that he was in the right, I'll debate that with you - but I may not be able to debate it when you are available and I am not (and I understand that the vice versa goes for any online conversations).

I've never seen a discussion board that didn't have monologues. Any discussion must first start with someone making a statement or expressing an opinion (which could be called a monologue). As always, just because people may not be able to discuss on YOUR timetable (like maybe they have to go to a job and won't get back to the site for another 24 to 48 hours) doesn't mean they don't want to discuss. Will you enforce this no monologuing guideline when someone rates or reviews a movie? Isn't that a monologue? And what if someone replies, but the OP doesn't continue the conversation? And what if the initial reply isn't a contrary opinion but something like "I agree, I like that movie too for the same reasons" - isn't that itself just another monologue as there is no exchange of ideas?

I'd love to start a blog. Can you tell me how one goes about doing it?

P.S. Love you Chris (a.k.a. Steve!)



No it's not.I've never seen a discussion board that didn't have monologues. Any discussion must first start with someone making a statement or expressing an opinion (which could be called a monologue). As always, just because people may not be able to discuss on YOUR timetable (like maybe they have to go to a job and won't get back to the site for another 24 to 48 hours) doesn't mean they don't want to discuss.
This is a straw man. I have given you zero grief related to timetables or delays. I'm referring only to issues where you have literally told me you weren't interested in debating, or else clearly decided to stop replying despite posting other things. In other words, clear choices not to engage in a discussion even when it's being solicited, because it's not on your narrowly preferred topics or from your preferred framing.

Will you enforce this no monologuing guideline when someone rates or reviews a movie? And what if someone replies, but the OP doesn't continue the conversation? And what if the initial reply isn't a contrary opinion but something like "I agree, I like that movie too for the same reasons" - isn't that itself just another monologue as there is no exchange of ideas?
I have literally done exactly this, even recently. I think it was last month that I removed a member's thread creation abilities because all they ever did was create threads to say "I like X" and they didn't respond to anything after that.

I'd love to start a blog. Can you tell me how one goes about doing it?
I linked you to a site earlier.

I suspect this hasn't happened (and won't) because monomaniacal political bloggers are a dime a dozen and most are ignored. But posting those same things on a forum guarantees them some kind of audience. That's my problem with this stuff: I think sometimes people just want to yell about something, but can't get people to listen unless they imply they want to have a conversation about it, even though they don't.



But it represents something thats actually happening. Its not a lie. Its a truly relevant symbol. Did the Time article state outright THIS LITTLE GIRL WAS DRAGGED AWAY FROM HER SCREAMING CRYING MOTHER? I dont know. But I have no issue with it at all the way its presented.
I do have to agree with Yoda that media accuracy is very important for many reasons, especially in our current age of political hysteria where every side is grasping at anything they think they can use against the other side; context, facts and extenuating circumstances be damned.

Let's remember, this entire recent hoopla (not the actual crisis mind you, but the hoopla that seemed to spontaneously erupt) was set off by the misrepresentation of photographs.