International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Trump immigrant family separation policy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330118)

Shalamar 20th June 2018 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke2se (Post 12333955)
Why do you even bother?

Because I actually know the answer. I find threats against ICE employees and their children horrible, deplorable, and such people should be prosecuted under the law.

But ripping brown children from their families? That's a-ok in the eyes of the right! Which is why I said 'womp womp'. Because the 'Righteous Right'tm doesn't care. They declared 'womp womp' when faced with the whole mess about putting children in cages. They just don't give a ****.

logger 20th June 2018 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 12333878)
Trump and his supporters admitting they got this one wrong? Yeah, I'll enjoy it.

I'm kidding, of course. They never do this.

We’ll have to see what he comes up with first. I don’t think your sides going to like it.

At least Senator Shumer and all the leftists showed their hand.....once again.

The Big Dog 20th June 2018 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 12333946)
Do you support putting children in cages?

peter Fonda does, with pedophiles

Shalamar 20th June 2018 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12333968)
peter Fonda does, with pedophiles

Do you support putting children in cages?

The Big Dog 20th June 2018 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12333966)
Well have to see what he comes up with first. I dont think your sides going to like it.

At least Senator Shumer and all the leftists showed their hand.....once again.

They don't like it already, it is already pure politics. Did you see the post that said was Trump was a coward for doing it, but added "good for the children" as a complete afterthought?

Segnosaur 20th June 2018 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSSBB (Post 12333951)
Quote:

Who did you vote for for congress?
I voted for August (O'Neill) Deuser, Republican

Ok, so you voted for someone who lost. Yet had they won, that would have been one more republican in Congress.

Now, I don't have a crystal ball to know how exactly he would have voted for legislation if he were in congress, but given the fact that he has a 'pro-life' link on his web page, I rather suspect he would have followed the majority and supported Trump.

So yes, you are illustrating my point for me perfectly... the "I'm really against Trump" voter who is still voting in a way that still benefits Trump indirectly.

Captain_Swoop 20th June 2018 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12333953)
And the whole "less powerful than Trump" bait and switch red herring derail is utterly specious.

Someone recommended attacking the children of ICE employees.
He is not as influential as Trump.

I guess the left does feel the threats are acceptable, because they sure have done nothing to "deplore" them.

One idiot making a threat = all the 'left'

The White House making threats = no problem.

BobTheCoward 20th June 2018 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12333976)
Ok, so you voted for someone who lost. Yet had they won, that would have been one more republican in Congress.

Now, I don't have a crystal ball to know how exactly he would have voted for legislation if he were in congress, but given the fact that he has a 'pro-life' link on his web page, I rather suspect he would have followed the majority and supported Trump.

So yes, you are illustrating my point for me perfectly... the "I'm really against Trump" voter who is still voting in a way that still benefits Trump indirectly.

Where does that end? Are you employed? Do you purchase stuff? Your activity is contributing to the economy and unemployment figures. A healthy economy benefits Trump indirectly and makes it easier for him to enact his agenda.

The Big Dog 20th June 2018 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 12333969)
Do you support putting children in cages?

Absolutely not.

xjx388 20th June 2018 11:47 AM

A voter can absolutely abhor this policy of Trump's yet still support other political goals of the GOP, especially locally. A little too much generalization here.

uke2se 20th June 2018 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12333991)
A voter can absolutely abhor this policy of Trump's yet still support other political goals of the GOP, especially locally. A little too much generalization here.

You can support the party of Trump while abhorring Trump? No, not rationally, you can't.

BobTheCoward 20th June 2018 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke2se (Post 12333996)
You can support the party of Trump while abhorring Trump? No, not rationally, you can't.

He isn't the party.

Segnosaur 20th June 2018 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12333991)
A voter can absolutely claim that they abhor this policy of Trump's yet still support other political goals of the GOP, especially locally.

Fixed it for you.

Captain_Swoop 20th June 2018 11:51 AM

Will the kids previously taken from parents be returned?
No one seems to be asking.
If the EO doesn't decree their return will it happen?
Who is responsible?

uke2se 20th June 2018 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12334001)
Will the kids previously taken from parents be returned?
No one seems to be asking.
If the EO doesn't decree their return will it happen?
Who is responsible?

From what I read, many if not most will not be returned. Many will be "lost".

Trump is responsible, and at length, the people who voted for him.

xjx388 20th June 2018 11:56 AM

Glad to see that Trump has agreed to do the right thing. Doesn't excuse the initial policy change but it at least shows that he will cave to political pressure and do the right thing. Call it saving himself, whatever. At least he's ending the practice.

Segnosaur 20th June 2018 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12333999)
Quote:

You can support the party of Trump while abhorring Trump? No, not rationally, you can't.
He isn't the party.

Yet Trump still enjoys a majority approval rating among Republican voters.

More importantly, every republican senator (many of whom are now complaining about child separation) voted to confirm Jeff Sessions.

If they are a member of the republican party (either a candidate, or a recent republican voter) then your vote played a role in the current child separation issue.

BobTheCoward 20th June 2018 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12334010)
Yet Trump still enjoys a majority approval rating among Republican voters.

More importantly, every republican senator (many of whom are now complaining about child separation) voted to confirm Jeff Sessions.

If they are a member of the republican party (either a candidate, or a recent republican voter) then your vote played a role in the current child separation issue.

And many issues that the person does support.

ponderingturtle 20th June 2018 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 12333928)
Yeah, there's really no place for traditional conservatives anymore. The radical right has taken over the Republican party and it must be soundly defeated. I would feel bad for classic conservatives, but they stood by idle while this cancer spread through their party. They were plenty happy with all the votes the dogwhistle politics brought in, so they own this disaster.

There's been a lot of of apathy in American politics, and lord knows that Hillary was a terrible choice to crack through that apathy. But we've been given an abject lesson in the importance of elections. Elections matter, voting matters.

I held my nose and pulled the lever for Hillary in '16. I'll pull the lever ecstatically for any D in '18 so long as they are anti-Trump. The R's are dead to me until they fully reckon with what they did to us.

Hillary was to the right of Nixon though, seriously would a classical conservative have to vote Bernie?

Shalamar 20th June 2018 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12333986)
Absolutely not.

So glad to have you here on the left. Have a cookie.

TomB 20th June 2018 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12333903)
Even if he though Johnson would be the best leader, there was no chance he could have won the election, which in the states typically comes down to Democrat vs. Republican.

So, a vote for Johnson was (indirectly) a vote that favored Trump.

Not in Illinois it's not.

Illinois is a Blue state. It was obvious that Clinton was going to win Illinois, so there was no need to vote for the candidate whose underlying philosophy you disagree with in order to prevent Trump from winning. Illinois voters who voted for Johnson did not contribute to Trump winning the election because Clinton won Illinois. If every voter in Illinois had voted for Clinton, it would have had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election because Illinois electoral votes went to Clinton. As it is, Clinton got 56% and Trump got 39%.

Illinois has 18 Representatives: 11 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

Two of the republicans ran unopposed as the Democrats did not field a candidate.

Another, (LaHood) is the son of Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican who previously represented the district and was also Obama's Secretary of Transportation. I no longer live in Peoria, so I'm not all that familiar with the younger LaHood, but from his Wikipedia page, it appears that he is fairly moderate and has not been a Trump cheerleader. On a personal note, my wife thinks very highly of the senior LaHood. His office was instrumental in arranging an honor guard for my father-in-law's funeral. (Retired Air Force sergeant who served in Korea and VietNam) The younger LaHood defeated a Breitbart editor in the primary.

My point is that sometimes a district's voters have connections with their representatives that transcend politics. They see them as people/individuals first.

It's also good to remember most people in Illinois expected Clinton to win the presidency. Therefore, the idea that they needed vote for an opposition candidate they disagreed with in order to keep Trump in check would not have occurred to them. Since they expected a Clinton victory, they logically would have expected to rely on Congress to keep her in check instead.

I also voted for Gary Johnson, mostly to support a third party. (I don't vote a party line for either party. To quote Richard Pryor in Brewster's Millions: "Vote None of the Above.") I don't recall who I voted for for Congress, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Rodney Davis (R) because I was in the mood to vote against incumbents that day.

Segnosaur 20th June 2018 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12334013)
Quote:

If they are a member of the republican party (either a candidate, or a recent republican voter) then your vote played a role in the current child separation issue.
And many issues that the person does support.

The fact that Trump is a racist nut-bag, who both campaigned using bigoted rhetoric and proposed racist policies should override any and all consideration of those other issues that a person does support.

"Hey, I'm getting a tax break. Guess that makes up for the hundreds of children forcefully taken from their parents".

And, of course, this assumes that whatever issues a person happens to agree with Trump on are ones that Trump is willing and able to deliver coherent policy. Which we have seen is rarely the case.

LSSBB 20th June 2018 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12333976)
Ok, so you voted for someone who lost. Yet had they won, that would have been one more republican in Congress.

Now, I don't have a crystal ball to know how exactly he would have voted for legislation if he were in congress, but given the fact that he has a 'pro-life' link on his web page, I rather suspect he would have followed the majority and supported Trump.

So yes, you are illustrating my point for me perfectly... the "I'm really against Trump" voter who is still voting in a way that still benefits Trump indirectly.

He had a snowballs chance on Venus of winning. Thanks to gerrymandering. I fully knew that going in. My vote was a protest against Bobby Rush. Are you defending Bobby Rush? Is it Democrat or die?

ponderingturtle 20th June 2018 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12333991)
A voter can absolutely abhor this policy of Trump's yet still support other political goals of the GOP, especially locally. A little too much generalization here.

How locally though? At least they got the deficits they wanted so that is something that traditional conservatives can feel good about.

Skeptic Ginger 20th June 2018 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12333934)
Where have you been for the last decade or so? The documentary series CSI has documented that you can get a DNA match done within minutes!

I get hep C and HIV PCR antigen tests (viral loads) in less than 24 hours. It depends on if you are looking for markers or testing the whole genome. Testing the whole genome would not be necessary.


The reason for the back-ups in testing rape kits is funds and resources, not the time the test takes.

acbytesla 20th June 2018 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12333968)
peter Fonda does, with pedophiles

No he does not.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12

xjx388 20th June 2018 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke2se (Post 12333996)
You can support the party of Trump while abhorring Trump? No, not rationally, you can't.

Of course you can, especially in local elections. Put it this way: If a conservative has a choice between a Sandersesque candidate for Senator and the GOP alternative, it would make little sense to vote for the Sandersesque candidate.

Even nationally, if we are offered a situation in 2020 where we maybe have a candidate like Bernie Sanders with a Dem controlled congress, it would be stupid for a conservative to vote for Sanders if they support the majority of policies the GOP favors and absolutely oppose the majority of Sanders' policies. Even if Trump were the GOP candidate I wouldn't blame a conservative for holding their nose and voting Trump.

Like I said, way too many generalities here.

ponderingturtle 20th June 2018 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12334018)
Not in Illinois it's not.

Illinois is a Blue state. It was obvious that Clinton was going to win Illinois, so there was no need to vote for the candidate whose underlying philosophy you disagree with in order to prevent Trump from winning. Illinois voters who voted for Johnson did not contribute to Trump winning the election because Clinton won Illinois. If every voter in Illinois had voted for Clinton, it would have had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election because Illinois electoral votes went to Clinton. As it is, Clinton got 56% and Trump got 39%.

Illinois has 18 Representatives: 11 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

Two of the republicans ran unopposed as the Democrats did not field a candidate.

Another, (LaHood) is the son of Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican who previously represented the district and was also Obama's Secretary of Transportation. I no longer live in Peoria, so I'm not all that familiar with the younger LaHood, but from his Wikipedia page, it appears that he is fairly moderate and has not been a Trump cheerleader.

Is standard bearer much better than cheerleader?

LSSBB 20th June 2018 12:11 PM

I can see, on these very pages, why politics has become increasingly polarized. If you are One Drop of Conservative or Liberal, by gum your all of that side.

Concrete thinking run amok.

ponderingturtle 20th June 2018 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12334030)
Of course you can, especially in local elections. Put it this way: If a conservative has a choice between a Sandersesque candidate for Senator and the GOP alternative, it would make little sense to vote for the Sandersesque candidate.

Yep the conservative will do what ever trump wants but then that is what conservatism means now. A trump lapdog is exactly what you want. But then you pretend to take issue with his racism and the like.

uke2se 20th June 2018 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12334030)
Of course you can, especially in local elections. Put it this way: If a conservative has a choice between a Sandersesque candidate for Senator and the GOP alternative, it would make little sense to vote for the Sandersesque candidate.

Even nationally, if we are offered a situation in 2020 where we maybe have a candidate like Bernie Sanders with a Dem controlled congress, it would be stupid for a conservative to vote for Sanders if they support the majority of policies the GOP favors and absolutely oppose the majority of Sanders' policies. Even if Trump were the GOP candidate I wouldn't blame a conservative for holding their nose and voting Trump.

Like I said, way too many generalities here.

And that's horrendous.

You are basically proving the point. According to you, a conservative would be better off voting for a proto-fascist, racist bafoon than a social democrat. That is why "conservatives" should have no more place in the US.

ETA: Actual conservatives - that is, people who aren't racist or racism enablers - are welcome in the Democratic party.

ponderingturtle 20th June 2018 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSSBB (Post 12334035)
I can see, on these very pages, why politics has become increasingly polarized. If you are One Drop of Conservative or Liberal, by gum your all of that side.

Concrete thinking run amok.

And we saw in south carolina what happens when a republican tries to not support trump in every way. He is the pure conservative model that the republican party needed and he has unified them more than any other president.

Craig B 20th June 2018 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12333953)
And the whole "less powerful than Trump" bait and switch red herring derail is utterly specious.

Someone recommended attacking the children of ICE employees.
He is not as influential as Trump.

I guess the left does feel the threats are acceptable, because they sure have done nothing to "deplore" them.

A "switch red herring derail" (which does really sound nasty) could have been averted if only you had quoted the whomp whomp supposedly uttered by the Left in reaction to the threats.

SuburbanTurkey 20th June 2018 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12334039)
And we saw in south carolina what happens when a republican tries to not support trump in every way. He is the pure conservative model that the republican party needed and he has unified them more than any other president.

Sanford had a lot of personal baggage too. I was at Clemson when he went on his infamous Appalachian Trail hike. I was pretty surprised he was able to get that seat after his disgrace, don't know what to make of his inability to hold it.

Segnosaur 20th June 2018 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12334018)
[i]Re: Illinois in the election[i]...

Another, (LaHood) is the son of Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican who previously represented the district and was also Obama's Secretary of Transportation. I no longer live in Peoria, so I'm not all that familiar with the younger LaHood, but from his Wikipedia page, it appears that he is fairly moderate and has not been a Trump cheerleader.

While he may not be a "trump cheerleader" LaHood still voted for the republican Tax cut bill. You know, the ones that Trump is bragging about (the one that increases the debt load and will eventually increase the tax rate on lower and middle income Americans.)
Quote:

My point is that sometimes a district's voters have connections with their representatives that transcend politics. They see them as people/individuals first.
While they may be "voting locally", their vote STILL had the side effect of benefitting Trump. Sad that it has to be that way, but there you go.
Quote:

It's also good to remember most people in Illinois expected Clinton to win the presidency.
Irrelevant. As I pointed out before, even if there were little chance of Clinton losing in the state (which nobody should ever completely rule out), at the very least a vote for Clinton would have been symbolic... a way to say "We really don't want a racist nut-bag running our country". Instead, people who picked a 3rd party voted in a way that said "Errrr... we really don't care either way much if a racist nut-bag runs the country"

TomB 20th June 2018 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12334031)
Is standard bearer much better than cheerleader?

Are those the only two choices? I don't think it's honest to say so.

Steve 20th June 2018 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12334003)
Really, care to cite them? My earlier posts were supplying information, and virtually all of my posts today have been pointing out the violent threats from the left.

What, all of them? Nobody has that much time.

varwoche 20th June 2018 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12333953)
And the whole "less powerful than Trump" bait and switch red herring derail is utterly specious.

Someone recommended attacking the children of ICE employees.
He is not as influential as Trump.

I guess the left does feel the threats are acceptable, because they sure have done nothing to "deplore" them.

While I avoid labeling myself, and can't speak for "the left", I unequivocally deplore what Fonda said.

Your outrage over it, however, earns a womp womp.

The Big Dog 20th June 2018 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12334048)
What, all of them? Nobody has that much time.

So, none, we know. thanks for posting.

lobosrul5 20th June 2018 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12333936)
Separate children from parents detailed for committing a crime.
The Left: Won't somebody think of the Children?

People call for violent attacks on ICE employees' children and threaten to murder Congressmen's kids.
The Left: Whomp whomp

So, you don't see the difference between the actions of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as directed by THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and some has been actor spouting off on twitter :confused:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.