[Al_U_Card]

At least he's not a democrat ...

When are truisms false facts and fake news? When they suit a narrative. Undoubtedly yet another faulty source but quite interesting nonetheless.

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2018-May-15, 14:08, said:

Still proud?



Yep, best president foreign money can buy.

I, for one, am very proud of Comrade Dennison. He can't be bought for a couple of months of reduced rent on a condo. He can't be bought for a sweetheart deal on a home, or maybe a hundred thousand in home improvements, or maybe hundreds in thousands in cash for political favors.

No, he has the highest standards, reaches for the stars, and pulls in 1/2 billion dollars of bribe money. That's something every American can be proud of. Now I personally think he could have squeezed the Chinese for a billion or more, but that might have scared them away and cooked the golden goose, so now he can go back to well later in his presidency and squeeze them out of another 1/2 billion every couple of years. Well done Comrade!

And just wait until Russia funds a chain of hundreds of Dennison Towers throughout Russia and everybody in the world will be amazed and in total agreement that Comarade Dennison is the greatest businessman of this generation. Das Vedanya

[Winstonm]

 johnu, on 2018-May-17, 12:08, said:

I, for one, am very proud of Comrade Dennison. He can't be bought for a couple of months of reduced rent on a condo. He can't be bought for a sweetheart deal on a home, or maybe a hundred thousand in home improvements, or maybe hundreds in thousands in cash for political favors.

No, he has the highest standards, reaches for the stars, and pulls in 1/2 billion dollars of bribe money. That's something every American can be proud of. Now I personally think he could have squeezed the Chinese for a billion or more, but that might have scared them away and cooked the golden goose, so now he can go back to well later in his presidency and squeeze them out of another 1/2 billion every couple of years. Well done Comrade!

And just wait until Russia funds a chain of hundreds of Dennison Towers throughout Russia and everybody in the world will be amazed and in total agreement that Comarade Dennison is the greatest businessman of this generation. Das Vedanya

Yes, he who dies with the most toys furnished by foreign bribe money wins.

[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2018-May-17, 12:28, said:

Yes, he who dies with the most toys furnished by foreign bribe money wins.

https://www.buzzfeed...GLEe#.nf1oBdXzQ

[barmar]

Today's SMBC is appropriate

[Winstonm]

Still proud of your vote?

Quote

China on Sunday granted Ivanka Trump’s company final approval for its 13th trademark in the country in the last three months, a move that raises new conflict-of-interest concerns after her father extended a lifeline to Chinese telecom giant ZTE. This month alone, the first daughter’s company won seven new trademarks at around the same time her father, President Trump, vowed to get blacklisted ZTE “back into business, fast.”

See, you thought we needed a businessman to run the country but it turns out you left out the "I", and it's ruin the country.

[cherdano]

At least hundreds, probably thousands of children have been separated from their children. We know little about those children, but what we do know is horrible. Here is a video of such children being held in cages. Yes cages.
https://www.facebook...5619291917/?t=0
A lot of independent reports talk about the families being told the children would be taken away for "a bath". Only later the families realised they'd never see their children again.
No child deserves to be treated like that because their parents possible committed the misdemeanor of trying to achieve a better life for their family without having proper documentation for the required move.

Why do we have this policy? Because Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump are cruel human beings, with no regard for the human well-being of those who are "others".
And why are these racist pieces of *hi* in charge? Well, partly because Kaitlyn S thinks "the left" has been "at a war with America" since the 1960s, and because she wanted to express her displeasure with Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof.

On some level I can understand voting for Trump in 2016. Our group identities are strong, and I can see how someone could have bought into the crooked Hillary trope, or thought the system needed shaking up, while filtering out the rather obvious pieces of information that Trump would be worse.

But if you aren't ashamed of your vote now, then you've lost some of your humanity.

[Al_U_Card]

 cherdano, on 2018-June-18, 14:45, said:

On some level I can understand voting for Trump in 2016. Our group identities are strong, and I can see how someone could have bought into the crooked Hillary trope, or thought the system needed shaking up, while filtering out the rather obvious pieces of information that Trump would be worse.

But if you aren't ashamed of your vote now, then you've lost some of your humanity.

Thanks for aptly indicating why Trump got all those votes. Next election cycle should be most edifying.

[cherdano]

"Mum, how could you vote for such a racist monster? Yes, you couldn't know he would forcibly separate thousands of children from their parents, but surely his racist history (anti-discrimination housing lawsuits, Central Park Five), his racist primary campaign ("They are sending rapists"), and his racist general election campaign (remember Khizr Khan?) should have been a warning?"
"Son, you don't understand what the situation was at the time. These Krugman columns were infuriating."

[barmar]

And now he's trying to justify his policies with some of the most blatant, ruthless lies of his entire presidency. His early lies about the size of his inauguration audience, or how his electoral college win compares to the past, were merely amusing. The lies about illegal voting set off an expensive, unnecessary investigation, but little serious impact (although some states have used it to justify voting restrictions that disinfranchise minorities). His likes about "no collusion", while not yet proven false, are understandable self-preservation.

But claiming that the policy of separating children from their families is required by law, and he's powerless to do anything until the Democrats allow passage of new immigration laws, is so far beyond any of that. It's not just self-aggrandization or self-serving, it's cruel. The only thing missing is Trump twirling his mustache while cackling, but he doesn't have a mustache (maybe Bolton is somewhere doing it on his behalf).

[kenberg]

I like to keep things simple.
Point 1: Trump is Trump. Tomorrow he will still be Trump, so on to point 2.
Point 2: This will stop when, and probably only when, enough people, both those in power and those without power, insist on the following: Whatever our immigration policy is now and is to be in the future, this cannot be it.
Point 3: It follows that I have some responsibility here. President Trump will not listen to me. Senator Cardin, Senator Van Hollen, and my Representive Jaime Raskin might. Yes they are all Democrats, already in opposition to Trump, but that's not enough. They need to work with responsible Republicans (and no, that is not an oxymoron) to put a stop to this. I do not need to give them the details of how, I need to tell them I expect them to do it.

[awm]

 kenberg, on 2018-June-19, 09:50, said:

I like to keep things simple.
Point 1: Trump is Trump. Tomorrow he will still be Trump, so on to point 2.
Point 2: This will stop when, and probably only when, enough people, both those in power and those without power, insist on the following: Whatever our immigration policy is now and is to be in the future, this cannot be it.
Point 3: It follows that I have some responsibility here. President Trump will not listen to me. Senator Cardin, Senator Van Hollen, and my Representive Jaime Raskin might. Yes they are all Democrats, already in opposition to Trump, but that's not enough. They need to work with responsible Republicans (and no, that is not an oxymoron) to put a stop to this. I do not need to give them the details of how, I need to tell them I expect them to do it.

Unfortunately, this is an extension of the way Republicans ran Congress during the Obama administration. The approach is as follows:

Suppose there is something Republicans want and Democrats oppose (such as tax cuts for the wealthy, or cuts to medicaid/medicare, or repealing the affordable care act, or funding for a border wall) but they don't have sufficient votes to enact it (or override a Senate filibuster, or Obama's veto, etc). The historical norm would be to find something that the Democrats want and Republicans oppose, and then offer that in exchange. But this would be compromising with "the enemy" which Republicans no longer have any interest in doing.

So instead they look for something everyone wants -- something where failing to act would be a disaster (for example, the USA paying its debts, or letting immigrant children stay with their parents). And then they offer that to Democrats in exchange for votes. The upshot is that Republicans are basically playing chicken, hoping that the Democrats will blink first and give the Republicans what they really want in exchange for Republicans stopping something horrible that neither side considers a good outcome.

The problem is that Democrats shouldn't cave to this sort of hostage-taking. Trump and Sessions can stop this nonsense the same way they started it, with the stroke of a pen. We can't establish a precedent of paying them off to not act like Nazis, since this will normalize Nazi behavior and let them use it as a threat to get whatever they want in the future.

[johnu]

 cherdano, on 2018-June-18, 14:45, said:

At least hundreds, probably thousands of children have been separated from their children. We know little about those children, but what we do know is horrible. Here is a video of such children being held in cages. Yes cages.
https://www.facebook...5619291917/?t=0
A lot of independent reports talk about the families being told the children would be taken away for "a bath". Only later the families realised they'd never see their children again.
No child deserves to be treated like that because their parents possible committed the misdemeanor of trying to achieve a better life for their family without having proper documentation for the required move.

Why do we have this policy? Because Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump are cruel human beings, with no regard for the human well-being of those who are "others".
And why are these racist pieces of *hi* in charge? Well, partly because Kaitlyn S thinks "the left" has been "at a war with America" since the 1960s, and because she wanted to express her displeasure with Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof.

On some level I can understand voting for Trump in 2016. Our group identities are strong, and I can see how someone could have bought into the crooked Hillary trope, or thought the system needed shaking up, while filtering out the rather obvious pieces of information that Trump would be worse.

But if you aren't ashamed of your vote now, then you've lost some of your humanity.

Could we be wrong about the evilness of separating children from their parents at the border?

Laura Ingraham Compares Child Immigrant Detention Centers To Summer Camps

Sounds pretty sweet, Casa San Diego. I wonder if they are on AirBnb?

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2018-June-19, 12:08, said:

Unfortunately, this is an extension of the way Republicans ran Congress during the Obama administration. The approach is as follows:

Suppose there is something Republicans want and Democrats oppose (such as tax cuts for the wealthy, or cuts to medicaid/medicare, or repealing the affordable care act, or funding for a border wall) but they don't have sufficient votes to enact it (or override a Senate filibuster, or Obama's veto, etc). The historical norm would be to find something that the Democrats want and Republicans oppose, and then offer that in exchange. But this would be compromising with "the enemy" which Republicans no longer have any interest in doing.

So instead they look for something everyone wants -- something where failing to act would be a disaster (for example, the USA paying its debts, or letting immigrant children stay with their parents). And then they offer that to Democrats in exchange for votes. The upshot is that Republicans are basically playing chicken, hoping that the Democrats will blink first and give the Republicans what they really want in exchange for Republicans stopping something horrible that neither side considers a good outcome.

The problem is that Democrats shouldn't cave to this sort of hostage-taking. Trump and Sessions can stop this nonsense the same way they started it, with the stroke of a pen. We can't establish a precedent of paying them off to not act like Nazis, since this will normalize Nazi behavior and let them use it as a threat to get whatever they want in the future.

I understand. But in some cases, such as this, I think it can be dealt with. Focus entirely on ending the separation of children from parents. Should those who enter the country illegally be sent back? That is not part of the discussion. The discussion is strictly limited to not separating children from parents. Any discussion of a wall is left for another day, any discussion of who should be allowed to stay is left for another day, the discussion is focused on not separating children from parents. I should think this could be done. I have now written to Van Hollen, I will get to the other two, but if they really cannot figure how to keep families together they are not going to be looking very good to anyone. Some families will be sent back, as a family. Some will be allowed to stay, as a family. We really cannot work out how to do that? I don't believe it.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-June-19, 14:43, said:

I understand. But in some cases, such as this, I think it can be dealt with. Focus entirely on ending the separation of children from parents. Should those who enter the country illegally be sent back? That is not part of the discussion. The discussion is strictly limited to not separating children from parents. Any discussion of a wall is left for another day, any discussion of who should be allowed to stay is left for another day, the discussion is focused on not separating children from parents. I should think this could be done. I have now written to Van Hollen, I will get to the other two, but if they really cannot figure how to keep families together they are not going to be looking very good to anyone. Some families will be sent back, as a family. Some will be allowed to stay, as a family. We really cannot work out how to do that? I don't believe it.

I doubt any families coming from non-Aryan countries are gaining access:

Quote

According to the aide,....Trump asked why America would want immigrants from "all these shithole countries" and that the U.S. should have more people coming in from places like Norway.

Still, children and families should be kept together.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-June-19, 14:51, said:

I doubt any families coming from non-Aryan countries are gaining access:

And you and everyone else would be free to argue this point. But while you and everyone else are arguing this point, the families would be together. That's basically my whole point.

There have been, there are, there will be arguments about immigration policy. There should not be an argument about keeping families together. So we keep the families together. I don't see how doing so would affect any other argument. Trump can still argue for his wall. Those who wish for a liberalization of immigration laws can can argue for a liberalization of immigration laws. But while we are doing all of this arguinig, we keep the kids with their parents.
I am not addressing any practical problems, I am not a lawyer, there are many aspects to this of which I am totally ignorant. But I very much believe that if we make it clear to our representatives that while they are arguing for and against whatever else it is that they want to argue about, while they are doing that, the kid gets tucked in by his mother.

The win would be for the family. And for our own sense of self-respect.

[ldrews]

 kenberg, on 2018-June-19, 15:25, said:

And you and everyone else would be free to argue this point. But while you and everyone else are arguing this point, the families would be together. That's basically my whole point.

There have been, there are, there will be arguments about immigration policy. There should not be an argument about keeping families together. So we keep the families together. I don't see how doing so would affect any other argument. Trump can still argue for his wall. Those who wish for a liberalization of immigration laws can can argue for a liberalization of immigration laws. But while we are doing all of this arguinig, we keep the kids with their parents.
I am not addressing any practical problems, I am not a lawyer, there are many aspects to this of which I am totally ignorant. But I very much believe that if we make it clear to our representatives that while they are arguing for and against whatever else it is that they want to argue about, while they are doing that, the kid gets tucked in by his mother.

The win would be for the family. And for our own sense of self-respect.

I very much want to keep the families together. The next question is: How? Do you put the children in the adult prisons with the parents? Do you build special facilities for imprisoning families? Do you just release the families to the public with the hopes that they will return for their court appearance (apparently most don't). And if you release them to the public, isn't that an incentive for bringing children with you when you enter the US illegally? Isn't that an incentive for an increase in child trafficing? (Apparently a large number of the children are not related to the adults that they enter with).

Anyone have any practical solutions to this situation that addresses both the short term and long term?

[helene_t]

 ldrews, on 2018-June-19, 21:04, said:

I very much want to keep the families together. The next question is: How? Do you put the children in the adult prisons with the parents?

Anyone have any practical solutions to this situation that addresses both the short term and long term?

Since I have been volunteering in an asylum seeker centre in the Netherlands, I can say a bit about how it works in practice:

Asylum seekers are accommodated in makeshift barracks. 4- or 6-bed rooms for single adults, families get a room for themselves, but they share kitchens etc with neighbors.

It was a great experience to provide entertainment for the children. While the adults were often war traumatized and struggled to learn Dutch, the children assimilated in the Dutch culture quickly. They always spoke Dutch to each other, even between children that both had (say) Arabic or Kazakh as native language.

It is not a prison but people have to ask for permission to stay overnight outside the centre. For example, there was a Bosnian basketball player who played for a Dutch top team and he would sometimes need to leave for a weekend for training. Another example was an Iraqi musician who played in a local band that sometimes gave concerts elsewhere in the country.

This was some twenty years ago so I suppose it has become more comfortable by now. I also visited a Danish centre around the same time. It was placed on a small island so the risk of people disappearing from there was smaller. It was not barracks but a normal, albeit somewhat old-fashioned, apartment block. And families had their own bathrooms.

[Winstonm]

Travesty. https://www.yahoo.co...-023106551.html

[PassedOut]

“Where’s my Peter?” Trump said

Quote

Trump, who limited his remarks to about 20 minutes, veered from his script to the usual potpourri of topics, according to attendees. He began the meeting by citing the pictures of children in cages along the Mexican border and said it was a “dangerous issue” for the GOP, two attendees said, calling the pictures “bad for us.” Trump said his daughter Ivanka Trump had talked about the issue with him, according to two attendees. The White House did not respond to two requests for comment Tuesday on Ivanka Trump’s opinion on the policy.

But he soon veered into his prowess in negotiating fighter jet contracts, even ticking off specific planes such as the F-35, what he sees as a vast imbalance on trade and the administration’s tax cuts. Trump tried to reassure the Republican members on trade — many have questioned his tariffs — by urging them to have faith in his negotiating skills.

“Biggest tax cuts ever,” Trump said to the room, even though they are not the biggest tax cuts ever. He asked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to stand up for praise and said he was defending him on TV. “Where’s my Peter?” Trump said, referring to Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

He said the North Koreans had assured him they would not use nuclear weapons. “They are going to denuclearize,” he said with supreme confidence, unlike the assessment of many of his aides and experts. Trump said that Democrats and Republicans wanted him to trash Kim Jong Un but that he did not plan to do it because it was not his form of “manners,” one attendee said.

Mr. Manners