DeSantis? The one who decided to sabotage his state's budget by a couple billion dollars in order to punish a private corporation for making a statement on a political issue, which is pretty much the most perfect example of first amendment protected speech one could imagine? How the fuck is that "capable"? By rights he shouldn't be considered eligible to hold office, he has fully and entirely rejected the concept of constitutional rights as a thing people can have.
Yep. That guy. Find me an honest fucker and you might have an argument.
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
I think "does not actively, loudly, and publically declare that the Constitution is utter shit and he hates it" is a very, very, low bar.
"This guy is currently stabbing you with a knife." "Yeah, but I think the other guy might be dishonest."
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I think "does not actively, loudly, and publically declare that the Constitution is utter shit and he hates it" is a very, very, low bar.
"This guy is currently stabbing you with a knife." "Yeah, but I think the other guy might be dishonest."
Are you still idealistic? Assuming you were before? In the same vein as your Great White President…. C’mon Man. You can’t be that naive.
No, I'm quite cynical.
But I'm also lucid. So I can distinguish between "people actively trying to kill me" and "people who are probably pursuing marginal power and wealth gains for their ingroup in ways that don't benefit me".
It's not that I don't understand that politicians are dishonest. It's that I can distinguish between "probably doesn't actually hold any particular ideals and will advance stupid legislation" and "literally putting children in cages".
Like, I get that it's all cool and edgy to say "no they're all horrible", and they are pretty much all horrible, but that doesn't mean that they're all the same amount horrible.
Boris Johnson is horrible, but Putin is actually dramatically worse. Shinzo Abe did a bunch of shady shit, but Kim Jong Un is, in fact, just actually unambiguously worse. Biden isn't a great person with no moral failings, but Trump has made genuine and sincere efforts to destroy the country, and DeSantis has made it clear that he thinks Trump's key failing is not trying hard enough to fully unperson the queers and assert absolute government authority over all public discourse, including universities and private enterprise.
Please leave the Ow The Edge act to the teenagers, they're better at it.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Trump did not put children in cages, they were there thanks to his predecessor. And piss on you for making me defend him.
No, that was 100% a lie. It was a new policy under the Trump administration. The Obama policy was wildly different, the Trump policy was to actively try to separate families, separating more families in the first couple of days of the policy than had been separated during the previous administration, and the previous policy did it only temporarily, even if this required htem to release parents they otherwise wouldn't have.
The Trump administration adopted the policy specifically because they wanted the outcome to be horrible so it would be a deterrent.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
They separated them temporarily because and contained them1) so they would not get sold into sex trafficking and 2) so the parents would not be tempted to skip their court dates after being let in which 99.9999999 percent of them do. You really don’t think Obamas administration had them in cages? He was probably the one saving them for Jeffery Epstein.
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
They separated them temporarily because and contained them1) so they would not get sold into sex trafficking and 2) so the parents would not be tempted to skip their court dates after being let in which 99.9999999 percent of them do.
This is 100% bullshit and it's not even lucid bullshit.
Did you read literally any of the court filings, etcetera, about this? The Trump administration fully lost over a thousand of these kids, simply could not find them again, because they made no effort to track them or keep them associated with their families. There was nothing, ever, at all, to do with "sex trafficking" here. That's just part of the standard right-wing made-up talking points, it's not an actual thing that is a factor in how any of these policies work.
They put in writing that the purpose of the thing was to be a horrifying and traumatic experience so it would deter people.
Every excuse you offer is a failure to acknowledge that they did actually just directly state, in their internal discussions, that they were doing it in order to create a deterrent. None of the excuses you're offering now are supported by the actual written documents they produced.
Quote:
You really don’t think Obamas administration had them in cages? He was probably the one saving them for Jeffery Epstein.
No, I don't think they had them in "cages", because the number of children being detained wasn't so large that they needed to fill large buildings with cages to hold them all.
Trump is the one who actually visited Epstein's island. Obama didn't.
You have to stop just unconditionally accepting absolutely anything negative anyone says about Democrats without even thinking about it, let alone checking it. You're just spouting off random disconnected bits and pieces of half a dozen conspiracy theories, and you're ignoring all the stuff that is actually in court findings that resulted from actual investigations using evidence.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
They separated them temporarily because and contained them1) so they would not get sold into sex trafficking and 2) so the parents would not be tempted to skip their court dates after being let in which 99.9999999 percent of them do. You really don’t think Obamas administration had them in cages? He was probably the one saving them for Jeffery Epstein.
Clippy is here to say, "You seem to be defending the separation of children, is that how you wanted this to come across?"
Yeah, if we just ignore all the kids being entirely lost because no one was tracking them or wanted to reunite them with their families, and just imagine a policy of "we will detain the children separately to keep the parents from skipping court dates", actually, honestly, if we have to choose between "take small children away from their parents for weeks or months to keep the parents from absconding" and "don't, and the parents successfully abscond", I think we should just go ahead and take the latter outcome.
Like, I don't know how to explain this, but the central premise of Sophie's Choice isn't that it's good to finally see the people charged with guarding the borders take a stand on something.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Amazingly, this isn't the most illucid defense I've seen of the child separation policy.
Credit for that goes to the assertion that they were forced to do it by the huge surge in migrants in 2019.
Note that the policy in question was early 2018. I cite to "linear time" as my counterargument against that excuse.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Amazingly, this isn't the most illucid defense I've seen of the child separation policy.
Credit for that goes to the assertion that they were forced to do it by the huge surge in migrants in 2019.
Note that the policy in question was early 2018. I cite to "linear time" as my counterargument against that excuse.
The various defenses don't need to be coherent. Republicans hate the children for the same reason they hate their parents: they're brown. The rest is handwaving.
You have to stop just unconditionally accepting absolutely anything negative anyone says about Democrats without even thinking about it, let alone checking it. You're just spouting off random disconnected bits and pieces of half a dozen conspiracy theories, and you're ignoring all the stuff that is actually in court findings that resulted from actual investigations using evidence.
I assume Miss Shelby makes these trollish posts when she's cornered into defending something that she's not actually ready and willing to defend. It's kind of a thought-terminating cliché as a self defense.
You're welcome to get angry about it, but I don't think she put a lot of rationality in anything she said. I can't imagine the position of "Obama did it first, Trump just did it worse." as an argument to be proud of.
Yeah. It wouldn't be that hard to just actually condemn it, but then we get to "so why exactly did you vote for someone who said he'd do things like that, and then actually did them", and people just need it not to be that horrible so they don't have to feel bad.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
So, my mum's a Canadian Tory, making all the predictable Overton window leaps that have been horrifying and fascinating to watch. She also has all the inability to imagine themselves in anyone else's shoes Gen X knew to call 'mom' but I digress.
A number of years ago Trudeau made a speech that had a line (paraphrase) "And if you grow the economy, the budget will balance itself."
So the Tories ran ad after ad with that clip "the budget will balance itself" entirely stripped of the larger context. My brother and I remind her of the greater context every time she parrots it, and she has, numerous times over the years, and every time it's like a switch flips in her head and purges the information as soon as it arrives, and despite having had the same conversation over and over for years now, she does not even remember it.
Other exchange:
Mum: Trudeau has done nothing for the west.
Me: Buying that pipeline was entirely about getting Albertan oil to the ports.
And mother dearest appeared to suffer an instant migraine, physically pained by this information.
It may not be Alzheimer's but is sure the fuck is some sort of dementia. The kind brought on by stewing one's brain inside the conservative ( ) fishbowl since 1970.
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
Yeah, once people are welded to a partisan position, it's really upsetting to confront "possibly I was being stupid".
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Yeah, once people are welded to a partisan position, it's really upsetting to confront "possibly I was being stupid".
I have readily admitted being wrong in the past so take that confirmation bias theory and shove it. You really think Trump went in there and started caging children and people in horrible conditions consisting of what? Hay and water and a tin pot to piss in? (I am exaggerating that point) You really actually believe the Obama adminstration wasn't doing similar things and Trump walzed in and initiated it. No, you believe what you're told by the sources you trust and you don't look at anything else.
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
You really actually believe the Obama administration wasn't doing similar things and [the] Trump [administration] walzed in and initiated it.
Yes.
The sad thing is, to some, that makes him a better president than Obama.
You seem to be arguing away one of Trump's main selling points, that he is extra cruel to brown people.
"A misleading Spanish-language TV ad from a group backing President Donald Trump claims that then-President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden “separated families and put children in cages” while it shows images of minors who were temporarily detained after crossing the southern border on their own — without a parent or guardian.
..."
__________________
“Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few engage in it.” —Henry Ford
Yeah, once people are welded to a partisan position, it's really upsetting to confront "possibly I was being stupid".
I have readily admitted being wrong in the past so take that confirmation bias theory and shove it. You really think Trump went in there and started caging children and people in horrible conditions consisting of what? Hay and water and a tin pot to piss in? (I am exaggerating that point)
I mean, yes, that's exaggerated, but... Yes? That is what happened. Courts looked into it and found that, yes, this was the case. Giant rooms with 24/7 lighting and insufficient heat, no blankets.
Like, this isn't actually a genuinely disputed point. We have video of it, we have court rulings, and so on.
Quote:
You really actually believe the Obama adminstration wasn't doing similar things and Trump walzed in and initiated it.
Yes, because that is the facts, as established by multiple different investigations into the matter. The giant rooms with cages full of crying children were, in fact, a new thing instituted by the Trump administration.
What happened here is, when the backlash was stronger than anticipated, some of the right-wing news sources claimed that this was actually just an existing policy, which isn't really true, but there's a sort of existing thing where it was theoretically possible for people to separate children from parents in some rare cases. But then "the policy of detaining the children existed" got repeated from one person to another as a defense, and they played telephone, and ended up with this claim that the children-in-cages thing had been happening all along.
But that isn't true. It doesn't even show up in the court filings. The Trump administration didn't actually make that claim in any of their defenses that I saw, and I assure you, it would have been quite relevant. If it had been true, they would have brought it up!
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
It's also conflation of unaccompanied children being detained with purposely separating young children from their parents.
Under Obama (and Biden), unaccompanied children could still spend some time in detention while the administration looks for relatives or foster parents to place them with. There are pictures of these children in detention and they're used to confuse the issue. The Trump apologists do this because you can't distinguish children in detention who arrived without parents from children in detention who were taken from their parents, in either case it's a picture of just children.
Under Trump, they started also taking children who were accompanied by their parent(s) and separating them, for the purpose of traumatizing them and their parents as a deterrent against immigration. They also, as seebs pointed out, did not keep track of them, and lost hundreds of children who may never be reunited with their families. They gave children to American parents even though their parents had arrived with them, and in many cases the parents were deported without their children. As of a year ago, about one thousand children were still not reunited with their families.
Essentially, they stole their children. The purpose was to send a message to migrants trying to enter the country illegally: "If you cross the border, we will take your children from you and you may never see them again." That was the purpose. It was intended as deterrent, as seebs said, not as some sort of bail bond to get them to show up in court. Trump's chief-of-staff himself referred to it as a deterrent.
This is not the same thing as Obama did. I understand why Miss Shelby doesn't want to defend it outright and has to flail around with her bullshit.
Re: Good King Trump
) fishbowl since 1970.
Linear Mode
