Must Read Trump backs down, orders end to family separations at U.S. border

[bushdoctor]

30 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I'm not sure that Trump is a smart guy at all, but that's a different issue. You're correct about eminent domain, they would certainly be able to do that and Trump has already used the "National Security" excuse for tariffs on Canadian steel which are very obviously no such thing. So no doubt he would do it in this case.

 

The only issue I would raise is that there's no way you end up with a mere 25 foot of eminent domain easement when you're talking a national security measure that's being actively patrolled. They'd put a perimeter road of significant size completely around it along with regular access routes for starters. There would be regularly spaced outposts for agents, facilities for the patrolling, etc. This would be a yuuuugggeee project with a massively negative environmental impact that wastes billions of dollars on something that is not a major problem for the US (California crops are already starting to rot in the fields due to lack of workers)...

I’m very familiar with the border. Trust me. I mean very. 

[bushdoctor]

38 minutes ago, JCauto said:

You're also neglecting the disastrous ecological impact it will have on wildlife in the border regions.

A border wall is exempt. National security. 

[bushdoctor]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Sad. First blaming Congress, and when Trump shows this is what he wants still not blaming Trump.

 

Trump is squarely responsible for this.

Why? For enforcing the law like he promised? The bad parts of the law need to be changed, but for “some reason” the Democrats refuse. 

[JCauto]

Just now, bushdoctor said:

A border wall is exempt. National security. 

Exempt from causing ecological and environmental damage? 

 

Trump and his minions like the execrable scumbag Pruitt of course will ignore the obvious environmental impacts of the wall. They have no vision to think about long-term consequences. I have no idea what your previous comment had to do with mine, which was referring to these impacts and the likely scale of the project. If you possess great knowledge of the area, you should surely have something useful to add to these aspects, no?

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Why? For enforcing the law like he promised? The bad parts of the law need to be changed, but for “some reason” the Democrats refuse. 

Nonsense, Trump has 'ordered' republicans not to change the laws. But you blame democrats.

 

Your defense of him makes no sense, but we have seen that before. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by stevenl

[bushdoctor]

39 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I'm not sure that Trump is a smart guy at all, but that's a different......

 

Well he did get elected the president of the United States against incredible odds. 

 

Can I get a “ok maybe he’s a little bit smart?”

?

[bushdoctor]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nonsense, Trump has 'ordered' republicans not to change the laws. But you blame democrats.

 

Your defense of him makes no sense, but we have seen that before. 

The Republicans offered more than one bill. How many have the Democrats come up with? 

They need to sit down and hammer it out. It’s never easy. We might see progress after the elections. Although if the amount of time for confirmation of Trump’s cabinet is any indication, it may never get done. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by bushdoctor

[bushdoctor]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nonsense, Trump has 'ordered' republicans not to change the laws. But you blame democrats.

 

Your defense of him makes no sense, but we have seen that before. 

When it comes to immigration law it’s pretty much a binary choice. Enforce the law or allow illegal immigration. Trump has chosen the former. 

[bristolboy]

26 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

I’m very familiar with the border. Trust me. I mean very. 

Good to hear. Then you know, for example. the crime in the border towns that are major transit points for illegal immigrants, crime is way down. Oh no, not enough for police to do. It's a crisis!!!

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

When it comes to immigration law it’s pretty much a binary choice. Enforce the law or allow illegal immigration. Trump has chosen the former. 

You're avoiding the issue.

 

Never mind, didn't expect otherwise.

[bushdoctor]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

You're avoiding the issue.

 

Never mind, didn't expect otherwise.

You said my defense of him makes no sense. I think it does. I told you why I am defending him. 

 

I think you mean you don’t like my answer. 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

You said my defense of him makes no sense. I think it does. I told you why I am defending him. 

 

I think you mean you don’t like my answer. 

No, I mean it as I said.

Praising him for acting on the law, he can't help it, after all it is the law, and at the same time making sure the law isn't changed, makes no sense.

 

This is defense no matter what.

[bushdoctor]

24 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, I mean it as I said.

Praising him for acting on the law, he can't help it, after all it is the law, and at the same time making sure the law isn't changed, makes no sense.

 

This is defense no matter what.

Yes I am defending him, that’s obvious. I meant to say I’m not avoiding the issue. Sometimes I get going too fast and am also responding to multiple people. 

 

 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

Yes I am defending him, that’s obvious. I meant to say I’m not avoiding the issue. Sometimes I get going too fast and am also responding to multiple people. 

 

 

So yes, you are avoiding the issue.

 

But I've had enough of this.

[bushdoctor]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So yes, you are avoiding the issue.

 

But I've had enough of this.

 

How am I avoiding the issue? 

 

[Srikcir]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So what needs to be hidden from the Red Cross?

News reporters are being denied now entry to 'tender care centers' on the excuse of protecting the children and babies' civil rights as minors. Who wouldn't want to conceal such legal ineptitude and inhumanity?

[Scott]

Posts and replies reported and removed.  

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

News reporters are being denied now entry to 'tender care centers' on the excuse of protecting the children and babies' civil rights as minors. Who wouldn't want to conceal such legal ineptitude and inhumanity?

A bit of a problem when the reporters bring up the 1st Amendment. 

[Andaman Al]

 After reading thread after thread with comments from Trump trolls that simply do not match any reality of what is going on in our particular  universe I came across a clip of the 2020 Republican convention.

 

 

[Peterw42]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Utter and absolute nonsense.

If the government had unlimited resources to enfoce all the lawsyou might have point. In fact, Federal enforcement of various laws is always a matter of priorities and resources. The Trump administration has made this it's #1 law enforcement priority based on lies about the harm that illegal immigration is doing to the nation.

 

Yes, unfortunately many have indeed drunk the Koolaid and "those immigrants" are the reason they dont have a big screen tv, a new pick up and a 6 figure income. As bad as this family separation thing is, its ultimately worse because its being done on the back of "give the masses someone to blame" rhetoric.

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Well he did get elected the president of the United States against incredible odds. 

 

Can I get a “ok maybe he’s a little bit smart?”

?

Well, I've known quite a lot of smart people in my life, and they tend to share common characteristics. Very few of them, in fact, none that I know of, ever brag about how smart they are or claim to be smarter than other people. They already know that, and they know it's not something one talks about. Everyone else knows it too.

 

Other things they tend towards...an insatiable curiousity, and need for finding out about new things by research...read a lot...an ability to immediately respond on topic and on point with salient information based on actual facts...skepticism and examination of a range of viewpoints before determining the best option or course...listen more than they talk...detail-oriented and quick on the feet...don't make stuff up knowing it can be easily checked and their credibility would be diminished as a result...usually consider an important issue carefully before deciding what to do...

 

Has anything I described there matched with The Donald? In my opinion, he has three major advantages that he managed to parlay into the Presidency - he had a lot of money to begin with to build his fortune, he had no moral or ethical constraints to limit his ability to make deals with those who had less money that he would then take advantage of, and he had the weight of a half century of a Cold War propaganda machine upgraded and weaponized on social media to support him. He does have a gift for identity politics and the vicious sort of snark that passes for dialogue and debate in the Reality TV reality of present-day USA. And that comes naturally of course. You get the government you deserve, I suppose.

 

But no, I don't believe he's particularly intelligent. He may well be a Narcissist, he certainly acts like one.

[bushdoctor]

30 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Well, I've known quite a lot of smart people in my life, and they tend to share common characteristics. Very few of them, in fact, none that I know of, ever brag about how smart they are or claim to be smarter than other people. They already know that, and they know it's not something one talks about. Everyone else knows it too.

 

Other things they tend towards...an insatiable curiousity, and need for finding out about new things by research...read a lot...an ability to immediately respond on topic and on point with salient information based on actual facts...skepticism and examination of a range of viewpoints before determining the best option or course...listen more than they talk...detail-oriented and quick on the feet...don't make stuff up knowing it can be easily checked and their credibility would be diminished as a result...usually consider an important issue carefully before deciding what to do...

 

Has anything I described there matched with The Donald? In my opinion, he has three major advantages that he managed to parlay into the Presidency - he had a lot of money to begin with to build his fortune, he had no moral or ethical constraints to limit his ability to make deals with those who had less money that he would then take advantage of, and he had the weight of a half century of a Cold War propaganda machine upgraded and weaponized on social media to support him. He does have a gift for identity politics and the vicious sort of snark that passes for dialogue and debate in the Reality TV reality of present-day USA. And that comes naturally of course. You get the government you deserve, I suppose.

 

But no, I don't believe he's particularly intelligent. He may well be a Narcissist, he certainly acts like one.

How many billionaires do you actually know? They can be asses just like the rest of us. 

[bushdoctor]

   1 hour ago,  bristolboy said: 

Utter and absolute nonsense.

If the government had unlimited resources to enfoce all the lawsyou might have point. In fact, Federal enforcement of various laws is always a matter of priorities and resources. The Trump administration has made this it's #1 law enforcement priority based on lies about the harm that illegal immigration is doing to the nation.

____________________________________

 

How is my post complete and utter nonsense?  I said it’s pretty much a binary choice. Trump can either enforce the law or allow illegal immigration. He chose the former. (And in keeping with his campaign promises that helped get him elected.)

I challenge you to show me where it’s not a binary choice under current law? 

[bushdoctor]

Obama ran into the same problem as Trump and initially did the same thing until he caved......

 

“According to Free, Obama said this in response: “I’ll tell you what we can’t have. It’s these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk.”

The Obama administration used “aggressive” policies to discourage illegal immigrants. In one example from July 2015, the ACLU fought to stop a government policy of locking up mothers and children from Central America who were claiming asylum.”

 

http://americanactionnews.com/articles/an-immigration-attorney-grilled-obama-about-border-baby-jails-three-years-ago-his-response-will-surprise-you

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Obama ran into the same problem as Trump and initially did the same thing until he caved......

 

“According to Free, Obama said this in response: “I’ll tell you what we can’t have. It’s these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk.”

The Obama administration used “aggressive” policies to discourage illegal immigrants. In one example from July 2015, the ACLU fought to stop a government policy of locking up mothers and children from Central America who were claiming asylum.”

 

http://americanactionnews.com/articles/an-immigration-attorney-grilled-obama-about-border-baby-jails-three-years-ago-his-response-will-surprise-you

So you still don't see the difference between separating the children from their parents and keeping them together.

[Andaman Al]

4 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

The Obama administration used “aggressive” policies to discourage illegal immigrants. In one example from July 2015, the ACLU fought to stop a government policy of locking up mothers and children from Central America who were claiming asylum.”

They were than subsequently released as an intact family unit. There is no comparison to what was occurring last week or the fact that 2000 kids need to be miraculously returned to their parents.

[Peterw42]

6 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

   1 hour ago,  bristolboy said: 

Utter and absolute nonsense.

If the government had unlimited resources to enfoce all the lawsyou might have point. In fact, Federal enforcement of various laws is always a matter of priorities and resources. The Trump administration has made this it's #1 law enforcement priority based on lies about the harm that illegal immigration is doing to the nation.

____________________________________

 

How is my post complete and utter nonsense?  I said it’s pretty much a binary choice. Trump can either enforce the law or allow illegal immigration. He chose the former. (And in keeping with his campaign promises that helped get him elected.)

I challenge you to show me where it’s not a binary choice under current law? 

Its only a binary choice because Trump has created the rhetoric that illegal immigrants are the root cause of everything thats wrong with America. In saying that and pushing the "blame the immigrants" agenda, he is obliged to enforce the laws etc. 

Trump could have campaigned that people with red hair are the problem and he would now have a binary decision to enforce laws against redheads.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

   1 hour ago,  bristolboy said: 

Utter and absolute nonsense.

If the government had unlimited resources to enfoce all the lawsyou might have point. In fact, Federal enforcement of various laws is always a matter of priorities and resources. The Trump administration has made this it's #1 law enforcement priority based on lies about the harm that illegal immigration is doing to the nation.

____________________________________

 

How is my post complete and utter nonsense?  I said it’s pretty much a binary choice. Trump can either enforce the law or allow illegal immigration. He chose the former. (And in keeping with his campaign promises that helped get him elected.)

I challenge you to show me where it’s not a binary choice under current law? 

It’s not about showing you anything Bushdoctor.

 

Trump has forcibly removed thousands of children from their parents, caged and interned them in camps. 

 

His administration, fearful of terms that might upset the public have invented the term ‘tender aged children’ so they don’t have to admit interning babies.

 

The people being shown and convinced are the American public.

 

You, and Trump’s apologists, are waffling on about the law, the American public are thinking about children, toddlers, babies and ther parents.

 

The issue is human decency and the one one thing we all share ‘family’.

 

You are completely off plot.

[Andaman Al]

47 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

How many billionaires do you actually know? They can be asses just like the rest of us. 

Well when Trumps tax returns come out as a result of the pending law suits or via Mueller's heroic team you will see that the Conman In Chief even had you thinking he was a billionaire. He is King of debt.

 

If none of the above works then it appears Cohen will satisfy everyones curiosity. After being thrown under the bus by Trump, Cohen has just stated that he will now do what is best for his family and his country. I almost felt sorry for him for a picosecond but then...nah! The truth is coming, what will all the Trumpbies do then, will they all turn to dust and disappear? Time for church...lots of praying to do ?

Edited June 24, 2018 by Andaman Al

[bushdoctor]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So you still don't see the difference between separating the children from their parents and keeping them together.

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not about showing you anything Bushdoctor.

 

Trump has forcibly removed thousands of children from their parents, caged and interned them in camps. 

 

His administration, fearful of terms that might upset the public have invented the term ‘tender aged children’ so they don’t have to admit interning babies.

 

The people being shown and convinced are the American public.

 

You, and Trump’s apologists, are waffling on about the law, the American public are thinking about children, toddlers, babies and ther parents.

 

The issue is human decency and the one one thing we all share ‘family’.

 

You are completely off plot.

 

If I shoplift, it’s a misdemeanor. It’s as much of a ‘victimless crime’ as illegal immigration IMO.  

I don’t get a free pass if I shoplift with my child. If I’m arrested the child is taken. If I’m convicted I’m separated from my child. 

Very few people would blame the government for arresting me, or blame the shoplifting law. Most people would probably put the blame directly on me where it belongs and think of me as a bad father.