The Trump Presidency

40511523_1863041187116551_704973316330356736_n.jpg
 
So, placing this in context...”rapists and murderers” is pretty indisputably racist. The comments about Curiel are racist, according to Jaw, Paul Ryan, etc. Those comments were directed towards “Mexicans.” But when the administration enacts a draconian policy with disproportionate impact on Mexican and South/Central American immigrants, it’s out of bounds to place it within that context?
 
Julio3000 said:
So, placing this in context...”rapists and murderers” is pretty indisputably racist. The comments about Curiel are racist, according to Jaw, Paul Ryan, etc. Those comments were directed towards “Mexicans.” But when the administration enacts a draconian policy with disproportionate impact on Mexican and South/Central American immigrants, it’s out of bounds to place it within that context?
Click to expand...

context isn't everything and sometimes can be applied in a misleading way...but it cannot be ignored...certainly not with respect to Trump and Mexicans and other Hispanics

ditto the travel ban and Muslims

he is a scapegoater and bigot of the the first magnitude

for some of his supporters that is a bug...but for all too many it is a feature they find appealing
 
Last edited:
Julio3000 said:
So, placing this in context...”rapists and murderers” is pretty indisputably racist. The comments about Curiel are racist, according to Jaw, Paul Ryan, etc. Those comments were directed towards “Mexicans.” But when the administration enacts a draconian policy with disproportionate impact on Mexican and South/Central American immigrants, it’s out of bounds to place it within that context?
Click to expand...

They are enforcing illegal immigration laws.

Goodness, Obama deported more people than any President in US history. Was he racist?

I don't agree with the policy at all but I can also recognize that it is not so simple as just being racist
 
sturg33 said:
They are enforcing illegal immigration laws.

Goodness, Obama deported more people than any President in US history. Was he racist?

I don't agree with the policy at all but I can also recognize that it is not so simple as just being racist
Click to expand...

I think Obama’s deportation record was deplorable. He also enacted DACA, etc, and was willing to sign the comprehensive reform bill that the Freedom Caucus torpedoed. So there’s at least a patina of good-faith progress there.

I’m not sure if you’re following what I’m saying. The family separation policy/zero tolerance is a policy change, not merely “enforcing the law.” Given who it targets. I’m asking why we can’t frame it within the context of the demonstrated racist/Nativist sentiment of Trump (and, frankly, Trump’s base).
 
Ozzie's Chainz said:
Trump needs to stay off of social media for sure.
Click to expand...

His criticisms of Sessions over and over show that he thinks Sessions' main job is to bend justice to his benefit.


edit: Btw, is there not a law that prevents the President from declaring to the Attorney General (publicly, even) that he is expected to run the Justice Department to the benefit of him and his own political party? Is this not grounds for immediate arrest and detention as an Enemy of the State?

When are the Dems going to wake up and realize that Trump and the GOP have declared war on the institution of democratic govt? When they are in the gulag?
 
Last edited:
Runnin said:
His criticisms of Sessions over and over show that he thinks Sessions' main job is to bend justice to his benefit.


edit: Btw, is there not a law that prevents the President from declaring to the Attorney General (publicly, even) that he is expected to run the Justice Department to the benefit of him and his own political party? Is this not grounds for immediate arrest and detention as an Enemy of the State?

When are the Dems going to wake up and realize that Trump and the GOP have declared war on the institution of democratic govt? When they are in the gulag?
Click to expand...

since it is not a specific operational directive to Sessions I dont believe so

but there is the broader issue of abuse of power or abuse of office...just because something happens in broad daylight does not make it less of an impeachable offense
 
Hawk said:
Jesus H Christ
Click to expand...

why are you OK with a president reprimanding the AG for prosecuting criminals?
shouldn't they be prosecuted, regardless of political affiliation?
would you have been OK with obama saying something similar about hillary?
 
nsacpi said:
since it is not a specific operational directive to Sessions I dont believe so

but there is the broader issue of abuse of power or abuse of office...just because something happens in broad daylight does not make it less of an impeachable offense
Click to expand...

Clearly a blatant abuse of power and any serious lawmaker should be calling for his immediate resignation. It's the only way to check him.
 
Super said:
why are you OK with a president reprimanding the AG for prosecuting criminals?
shouldn't they be prosecuted, regardless of political affiliation?
would you have been OK with obama saying something similar about hillary?
Click to expand...

Is that the extent of your takeaway here? That the insinuation was they should not have been prosecuted, at all? How about reframing that into a criticism of judicial timeline?

In general, I think it’s below the office of the President to muckrake in party business, but it’s a new world and I can think of many other policy related issues to get all consternated and enemy of the state-y about.
 
57Brave said:
alright Hawk, here we go again>

I am still confused over which idiom of the verb to plead should be used.
There was this feed:

Lobbyist W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty Friday to acting as an unregistered foreign lobbyist,

and admitted to lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee and

funneling a Ukrainian oligarch's money to Donald Trump's

Presidential Inaugural Committee

Had I been the editor I would have published Samuel Patten pled (plead ?) guilty.
..............

Below the picture of Patten was this:

Lobbyist pleads guilty, says he helped

steer foreign money to Trump

inaugural and lied to Congress


Tell me if I am wrong, "pleads" indicates present tense and apparently the news report was in real time

????
Click to expand...

I don’t know — but let’s start with the definition of idiom.
 
Jaw said:
The policy is absolutely reprehensible. I would have made them fire me before I would have enforced it if I worked for Border Patrol. I can't understand people who would do that to kids, or what their parents were thinking when it happened. It's disturbing.
As for the example of a Scandinavian kid, it doesn't fit the narrative so we won't know if it's out there or not. Just like we didn't see the cage photos from the Obama years until they were used to ding Trump. But I suspect they don't exist or rarely exist due to geography.
Click to expand...

If you come into the United States illegally, you risk jeopardizing your family.

It’s a tactic, y’all.

What’s the alternate messaging? Come here illegally and - if caught - we’ll fly you and your family back home, at taxpayer expense.
 
Hawk said:
If you come into the United States illegally, you risk jeopardizing your family.

It’s a tactic, y’all.

What’s the alternate messaging? Come here illegally and - if caught - we’ll fly you and your family back home, at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...

Being a “tactic” justifies it morally? I guess drone strikes on the border would be a tactic, too.

There’s no humanitarian burden to keep families together while they are detained and deported? There’s a legal burden for due process (yes, even for noncitizens) which is very blurry here, too...court hearings for 2-year-olds being a decent example.

Congrats, though. I didn’t think anyone would actually speak out in favor of this.
 
lets just put them in labor camps and slowly starve them to death. I bet that will deter them. Cant do the time, dont do tbe crime.
 
Julio3000 said:
Being a “tactic” justifies it morally? I guess drone strikes on the border would be a tactic, too.

There’s no humanitarian burden to keep families together while they are detained and deported? There’s a legal burden for due process (yes, even for noncitizens) which is very blurry here, too...court hearings for 2-year-olds being a decent example.

Congrats, though. I didn’t think anyone would actually speak out in favor of this.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing where temporarily separating families is egregiously amoral.
 
Hawk said:
I'm not seeing where temporarily separating families is egregiously amoral.
Click to expand...

Then I’d suggest reading a handful of the many testimonial accounts of said policy, then check in with what relevant mental health professionals, etc, have to say on the matter.

I cannot imagine taking the most cursory peek under the hood of this and coming to that conclusion. That’s just ****ed up and well-nigh sociopathic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top