Trump immigrant family separation policy - Page 10

Shalamar · 20th June 2018, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

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

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

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

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Do you support putting children in cages?

peter Fonda does, with pedophiles

Shalamar · 20th June 2018, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

peter Fonda does, with pedophiles

Do you support putting children in cages?

The Big Dog · 20th June 2018, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by logger

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.

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

Originally Posted by LSSBB

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

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

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

Originally Posted by Shalamar

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

Originally Posted by xjx388

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

Originally Posted by uke2se

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

Originally Posted by xjx388

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

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

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

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

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

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

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

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

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

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Absolutely not.

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

TomB · 20th June 2018, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

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

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

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

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

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

Originally Posted by xjx388

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

Originally Posted by Darat

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

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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

Originally Posted by uke2se

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

Originally Posted by TomB

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

Originally Posted by xjx388

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

Originally Posted by xjx388

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

Originally Posted by LSSBB

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

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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

Originally Posted by TomB

[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

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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

Originally Posted by Steve

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

So, none, we know. thanks for posting.

lobosrul5 · 20th June 2018, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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

20th June 2018, 11:29 AM	#361
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,274	Originally Posted by uke2se 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 ****.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

20th June 2018, 11:29 AM	#362
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum 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.
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

20th June 2018, 11:31 AM	#363
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 24,889	Originally Posted by Shalamar Do you support putting children in cages? peter Fonda does, with pedophiles
	__________________ Timely reminder: "Please, Please Stop Sharing Seth Abramson’s Very Bad Tweets" Not once, not ever

20th June 2018, 11:31 AM	#364
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,274	Originally Posted by The Big Dog peter Fonda does, with pedophiles Do you support putting children in cages?
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

20th June 2018, 11:34 AM	#365
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 24,889	Originally Posted by logger 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. 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?
	__________________ Timely reminder: "Please, Please Stop Sharing Seth Abramson’s Very Bad Tweets" Not once, not ever

20th June 2018, 11:35 AM	#366
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 11,043	Originally Posted by LSSBB 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.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

20th June 2018, 11:42 AM	#367
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 16,677	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.

20th June 2018, 11:42 AM	#368
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,355	Originally Posted by Segnosaur 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.

20th June 2018, 11:44 AM	#369
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 24,889	Originally Posted by Shalamar Do you support putting children in cages? Absolutely not.
	__________________ Timely reminder: "Please, Please Stop Sharing Seth Abramson’s Very Bad Tweets" Not once, not ever

20th June 2018, 11:47 AM	#370
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,227	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.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,227	__________________ Hello.

20th June 2018, 11:49 AM	#371
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,705	Originally Posted by xjx388 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.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

20th June 2018, 11:51 AM	#372
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,355	Originally Posted by uke2se You can support the party of Trump while abhorring Trump? No, not rationally, you can't. He isn't the party.

20th June 2018, 11:51 AM	#373
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 11,043	Originally Posted by xjx388 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.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

20th June 2018, 11:51 AM	#374
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 16,677	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?

20th June 2018, 11:54 AM	#375
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,705	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop 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.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

20th June 2018, 11:56 AM	#376
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,227	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.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,227	__________________ Hello.

20th June 2018, 11:56 AM	#377
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 11,043	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward 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.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

20th June 2018, 11:57 AM	#378
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,355	Originally Posted by Segnosaur 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.

20th June 2018, 11:59 AM	#379
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,504	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey 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?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th June 2018, 12:01 PM	#380
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,274	Originally Posted by The Big Dog Absolutely not. So glad to have you here on the left. Have a cookie.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

20th June 2018, 12:03 PM	#381
TomB Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 396	Originally Posted by Segnosaur 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.
TomB Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 396

20th June 2018, 12:03 PM	#382
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 11,043	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward 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.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

20th June 2018, 12:04 PM	#383
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 17,327	Originally Posted by Segnosaur 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?
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

20th June 2018, 12:05 PM	#384
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,504	Originally Posted by xjx388 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th June 2018, 12:06 PM	#385
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 68,189	Originally Posted by Darat 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.
	__________________ Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

20th June 2018, 12:07 PM	#387
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,227	Originally Posted by uke2se 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.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,227	__________________ Hello.

20th June 2018, 12:08 PM	#388
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,504	Originally Posted by TomB 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?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th June 2018, 12:11 PM	#389
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 17,327	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.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

20th June 2018, 12:11 PM	#390
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,504	Originally Posted by xjx388 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th June 2018, 12:12 PM	#391
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,705	Originally Posted by xjx388 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.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 Last edited by uke2se; 20th June 2018 at 12:15 PM.

20th June 2018, 12:13 PM	#392
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,504	Originally Posted by LSSBB 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

20th June 2018, 12:15 PM	#393
Craig B Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 22,445	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.

20th June 2018, 12:17 PM	#394
SuburbanTurkey Thinker Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Boston, USA Posts: 242	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle 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.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

20th June 2018, 12:17 PM	#395
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 11,043	Originally Posted by TomB [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"
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

20th June 2018, 12:18 PM	#396
TomB Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 396	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Is standard bearer much better than cheerleader? Are those the only two choices? I don't think it's honest to say so.
TomB Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 396