I am never sure who I am most disappointed with, Trump for lying or foolish citizens for believing him.
For reference: List of Trump Lies
"The President said earlier this month that: "we have to break up families ...the Democrats gave us that law. It's a horrible thing, we have to break up families."
But there is no law requiring the government to separate kids of undocumented migrants or asylum seekers from their parents -- least of all one passed by Democrats.
It is the Trump administration's own policy to refer every person caught crossing the border illegally for federal prosecution, with the result that children are separated from their parents because they cannot legally follow them into the federal prison system.
The law on that issue was a bipartisan initiative, approved by unanimous consent and signed by Republican President George W. Bush, as CNN's Jake Tapper and FactCheck.org have reported. It does not require parents and children to be separated at the border."What fascinates me is that the Trump True Believers do not seem to mind being manipulated by him and his lies... He "sings" and they dance to his tune every time... Even now they are out there likely cursing the DEMs for making Trump break up families and lose children. Even though these are Trump's policies and his "government" losing the kids.
For reference: List of Trump Lies
74 comments:
They know what Trump is. I think what they like about Trump is his ability to irritate people they don't like.
--Hiram
Good Point...
Care to correct your TDS post here? The pictures causing all this faux outrage was actually taken during the OBAMA administration. Those kids are not "lost," but have been claimed by carefully-vetted "sponsors"-- generally family. And the law is indeed the law. Failure to prosecute it in one case is not a reason why it should not be prosecuted in another, and lawbreakers should expect to pay some sort of penalty, including perhaps being separated from your children. Why should "foolish citizens" NOT expect the law to be followed?
Is Obama's cruelty a justification for Trump's cruelty? Asking for a friend.
--Hiram
No, but it is not an excuse for outrage at one and not the other. And it only needs justification if it is cruelty, and not simply following the law as written.
Jerry,
As usual... Sources?
What law needs to be enforced?
Please remember that the vast majority of immigrants concerned here come to the border and ask for refuge. They have broken NO LAWS.
It get a lot more outraged about Democrats than Republicans, as it happens. Like Republicans, I try to hold Democrats to a higher standard.
--Hiram
The immigration laws get broken. About 90% of asylum requests turn out to be fraudulent, usually after some years of living in this country illegally. Every DACA parent either broke the law with their kids in tow, or willingly separated from them before crossing the border. Worrying about these kids is like the boys who killed their parents and then asked for mercy from the court because they were orphans.
It just never ceases to surprise me. Democrats pass laws with good intentions and little else, expecting those good intentions to simply materialize out of everybody's best nature. Then, when those laws are actually enforced, they blame the executive branch for enforcing those laws while steadfastly refusing to fix them.
Source please...
They look like this...
WAPO Fact Check
VOX Clarifies Issue
Bear in mind that illegal immigration is a problem that solves itself, because the children of illegal aliens are citizens.
--Hiram
Source-- ICE. What I make from VOX is that border crossers seem surprised that it is illegal and has penalties. Gee, if we just had a wall maybe it would be more obvious.
Interesting point about "anchor babies." What choice do you recommend for a 5-year-old citizen to make when his parents are deported?
Source: ICE is inadequate.
You know how to do links...
Didn't need a link. The guy was on Fox news this morning saying exactly that, at length.
And you seem unable to argue the substance unless you have a source to challenge. How about just defending your side of the question assuming that there is another?
No Thanks.
You have failed to provide any data that backs up your opinion.
Or that of the opinion talking heads of FOX news for that matter.
"How about just defending your side of the question assuming that there is another?"
The problem with our political debate these days is that we have been conditioned to believe that all issues have two equal sides. Sometimes the Nazis kill run people over, and we shouldn't say they are fine people.
Moose
So, the director of ICE is a "Fox talking head"??? You always do that-- ask for a source and then dismiss it out of hand. Fact is that half of the people in the country probably agree with that particular source, or some like it, and you do not. You are entitled to any opinion you like, but you will not change mine unless you can offer sound reasons for your position. "You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not first reason himself into." I depend on reason for my opinion, not "sources."
Moose, to your point, the two sides do not NEED to be equal for the minority to be right and the majority to be wrong, or vice versa. The "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, not a good reason, and it is certainly not the way to find the truth of a matter. If 97% of scientists believe in manmade catastrophic global warming (which is a complete fabrication, but) that does not make the 3% wrong, unless someone can offer convincing proof of one side or the other. And even then many will remain unconvinced, preferring opinion to truth.
Face it, the vast majority of us think we know more than we actually do, considering the broad range of subjects we are exposed to. The best we can do, sometimes, is to fall back on some basic knowledge and precepts that we learned back in high school, like math or statistics or history. When we hear "coffee is bad for you" and then "coffee is good for you," we don't have a leg to stand on, debate-wise. We can quote "sources" on either side, but that gets us nowhere near the truth and, even if it did, would that affect your choice of morning beverage?
Take this topic as an example. Is it true that the government "lost" hundreds of children? No. Is it true that illegal immigration is illegal? Duh. So what is the debate, here?
Without evidence that supports your positions, we'll just have to chalk them up to your 'feelings'.
And Liberals are called snowflakes. LOL
Furthermore, you've proved my point. Sometimes, there is simply a correct answer and an incorrect answer. That would mean there is no "other side" to defend. You are either correct or not. It is never correct to support what the Nazis in Charlottesville did, yet many Americans, including the Current Occupant, failed to fall on the correct side.
Moose
Godwin's law notwithstanding, I consider the statement "illegal immigration is illegal" to not require "evidence." Calling my reasoned opinion "just your opinion" is not in the least persuasive. Go ahead, talk me out of it, if you can.
Jerry,
The questions of this post is...
Why is the Trump administration separating so many children from their parents?
And how is supposedly the fault of the DEMs?
When it seems to pretty clearly be Trump's choice to break up families.
This is kind of funny and related.
Two words: Elian Gonzalez
Why do you object to the Trump administration following the law?
Elian Gonzalez
You have yet to explain which law.
The law that says illegal immigration is illegal.
Most of these folks are asking for refugee status.
Which is very legal.
except, again, that some 90% or more of those claims of refugee status are later found to be entirely bogus. should fraud be rewarded?
Again... Source please.
Again, ICE director, Fox News interview.
Fox News. LOL
Moose
Moose, are you saying that the man who knows did not say what he said? What is LOL about the truth, regardless of who reports it correctly?
Also, one of the few times I watched Fox News.
Fox News wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face.
Moose
"Fair and balanced." Your truth may be different, but that does not automatically make it true for everybody. Sorry to burst your bubble. Even CNN gets something right occasionally.
And to my original question: Are you denying that the director of ICE said what he very clearly said?
Again... Where is the link to what he said???
In my head. I saw it. You doubt me, look it up.
In your head is likely an interesting place... :-)
Oh, it is. Like the Library at Alexandria.
Burned to the ground and it no longer exists?
Moose
Good one, Moose. Irrelevant, slightly insulting, but not completely lacking in humor. Fortunately I remember most of it-- read it in grade school. :-)
Again, you doubt me, look it up.
Moose,
I like that answer... We will need to use it when Jerry doubts us. :-)
"Again, you doubt me, look it up."
Of course it does nothing to convince others that one knows what they are talking about.
Go ahead. The point of a debate is that one side takes the affirmative proposition, and offers up facts, reason, and sources that support that side of the argument. The other side can do likewise, or can simply point out the (often massive) flaws in the affirmative case. Since you often take up the affirmative by simply introducing the topic, it is your obligation to convince ME, who finds himself generally skeptical of propositions that do not conform to what I know of basic human nature.
You have the burden of proof. I have sound reasons for what I believe to be true, and telling me that I did not see and hear what I just saw and heard is insulting to both of our intelligences.
Jerry,
If you fail to prove your point with sources... You fail to prove your point...
It is just that simple.
Please feel free to keep writing down your opinions, but that is all they will be considered if they are not backed up with credible sources.
I am fine with that, the question is if you are ok with being perceived as that Far Right talking head who spouts Team Rights latest talking points.
"...what I know of basic human nature."
Flawed and incomplete as it is.
Moose
"If you fail to prove your point with sources... You fail to prove your point...
It is just that simple."
Back at ya, but I would substitute "facts and logic" for the word "sources."
I can find a source that says black people are naturally mentally inferior. That should not convince you it is true. You can find a source that says mankind is destroying the climate. That doesn't make it true, either.
The burden of proof lies with the one who presents the idea, and they (you in most cases, just to be clear) may use sources, known facts, and logic to persuade that they possess Truth. The opposition only needs to establish doubt about the applicability of the sources, the reliability of the facts, or the illogic of the proposition.
Really, Sean does a much better job of proving me wrong. Take a lesson. Again, you don't convince me just by telling me I am wrong.
Take this argument. You seem to be arguing that illegal immigration is not illegal. That seems illogical to me, regardless of other facts.
Unfortunately we have no judge here so, we are both free to see the other person as failing or illogical.
As for Sean, I miss him too... :-)
Absolutely right. We are both entitled to our opinion. We are even entitled to someone else's opinion. But opinion unmoored from Truth is kinda worthless. Two old sayings:
Yes, it's just my opinion, but let's remember WHOSE opinion it is.
Opinions are like *holes. Everybody has one, no two are alike, and nobody wants to hear any of them.
The good news then...
We are all correct... At least in our minds...
I am sure you are familiar with the age-old complaint often posted on these discussion blogs, namely that no minds are ever changed. I believe the reason for that is one of three things: a) that at least one side lacks a convincing train of agreed fact and logic that would establish truth as being on their side or B) that both sides have a credible claim to truth or, what I find most frustrating, C) that one side offers a convincing (at least to themselves) argument and the other side simply dismisses it out of hand or posits only an ad hominem argument.
Our discussions are fundamentally difficult because you must first convince me that your side of the proposition is plausibly true, and then you must go on and convince me that my own explanation is not equally true and is perhaps incorrect. We rarely clear even that first hurdle.
First mistake... "you must first convince me"
Please remember that G2A is not here to convince anyone of anything... Remember the Web Page Statement...
"Give2Attain: Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc."
Second mistake: "no minds are ever changed"
As I have noted before: a variety of my views have changed as I have studied the links people provide me. I may have not have changed drastically, however it has been very enlightening.
silly me. I had thought that you were raising topics so that we could "improve our… Country" by agreeing on the definition of a problem AND on possible solutions. Some problems we will agree cannot be solved, like the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. Other problems are intractable because of their entanglement with political ideology, like how to save Social Security. Some CAN be solved, like the problem of State taxpayer money flowing through childcare agencies to terrorist organizations overseas. In those cases, depending on which side of the proposition you wish to take, it is at least my obligation here to convince you to change your mind. Or, as we debate, you may convince yourself of something different than where you started, or that you are even more convinced of your own position. That's all good. I will henceforth look for such mental flexibility on your part. We all know I have none. :-)
For better or worse I accept that am a small voice of reason in a big country... But I do what I can to help people stop and think...
Serenity Prayer
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
forever in the next.
Amen.
Now you know another one. Come, let us reason together.
And by the way, I never bought that "God's Will" idea. I think we have free will and we're bound to disappoint Him. A lot.
On the other hand, I know God works miracles every day. I've seen it. You just have to look.
That's why I bolded the first part... I did not even know there was a second part until today...
You are not going to "improve... the country" if you simply accept what is. Courage to change the things you can includes being able to convince others, regardless of how skeptical they may be.
That is why courage to change the things I can is bolded.
And why I am still doing this hobby after nearly 10 years.
Give2Attain is still generating about 125 hits per day right now. Which is excellent given the weather outside.
As a piece of trivia, since I began G2A has had:
1846 published posts...
266,538 page views... Of course probably of them were hackers... But ~186,000 views still makes me happy. :-)
Now if we could more people to contribute their views and knowledge...
Bravo. Imagine if you were a bit more encouraging of other viewpoints?
I love all view points.
I just disagree with the irrational / extreme ones. :-)
People are free to state them all they want...
And then I will restate the logical one. :-)
We are discussing process, not the issue, and that is fine. As you often point out, "extreme" is in the eye of the beholder, and has no bearing on the issue. "Even if I am all you say, that still does not make me wrong."
As for logical, well, I am waiting to see it. :-)
Reasoning from a false premise is pretty common. Selecting a specific set of facts that prove the point is more common, and sounds logical, but it is equivalent to an opinion.
"Imagine if you were a bit more encouraging of other viewpoints?"
So the Liberal and Conservative voices here are usually diametrically opposed and my views are usually somewhere in between.
How do you envision "encourage" other views" while being part of the discussion and respecting the vast differences between you folks?
"Reasoning from a false premise is pretty common."
Goodness. I couldn't agree more.
Like...because we have souls (false premise), I can't bake you a wedding cake.
or...because a human embryo is a person (false premise), you can't have an abortion
Moose
Moose, that's more like a difference in the facts chosen. The human soul is every bit as real to those who believe as is your corporeal being. And you should not demand that I tarnish mine for your trivial consumer desires-- that's just simple golden rule stuff.
Now we are back to faith arguments...
You are sounding a bit like one of those "just believe me" folks.
Of course we are. Moose has an OPINION that a baker's religious rights must be subservient to some "right" for some particular couple to buy a wedding cake from that particular baker. The existence of both rights is purely imaginary and has no basis in fact unless you BELIEVE that such rights exist, either in Man's law or in God's law. It is not a "false premise" to hold either view.
Perhaps the other piece of Moose's post is more relevant. The human embryo IS a human being-- that is scientific fact. What someone chooses to do about that human being-- kill it or not-- is a matter of opinion. It is not "reasoning from a false premise" unless you are saying that the fetus is NOT a human being and can therefore be killed with impunity.
When cells become a human being is definitely an opinion thing...
If a human being has a soul also is...
As is should everyone treat each other with respect...
Or should humans be allowed to treat some others as pariahs...
And that it why we humans form a government to help us develop social norms and laws.
"When the DNA is joined" is the definition of a human being. That is scientific fact. When that cell or cells acquires a soul, or if it acquires one at all, THAT is opinion.
We humans form a government to create laws AROUND social norms; we CANNOT (as we have been attempting) to create social norms out of laws.
I will not make this one-sided, as I believe it is, but we seem to have lost all respect for one another unless we are of the same tribe and, even then, one small failure to rigidly follow tribal dogma gets you ostracized.
I disagree. Source?
Okay. LGBT acceptance and rights are becoming the social norm. And now the laws are beginning to change.
I have no desire to ostracize anyone... I just want folks to accept that they can believe in A... And another person can believe in B... And it is okay.
Certainly you can believe anything you want. But for us to "get along," and have a discussion, we have to concede that both sides have valid facts and reasoning for their position. I have sometimes found that to be true here, but not always, though certainly above the dismal level I find in the general political discourse.
That is why I never put driving consensus into my mission statement...
"Give2Attain: Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc."
Is your point that we do not need to agree on how to do these desirable things, that each of us must operate individually according to our own, possibly twisted, personal beliefs and opinions? Should you be objecting to the Muslim daycare operators taking money from State government, delivering little or no childcare, and sending the money off to El Shabab? It is their "belief and action" is it not? Who are you to criticize, and on what basis?
The reality is that our time on G2A is just discussion, and possibly some learning.
You are free to be against LGBT Rights no matter how twisted the rest of us consider that to be.
Moose can support letting a Mother slit the throat of a 26 weeks old fetus no matter how twisted the rest of us consider that to be.
I can demand that "welfare queens" not be allowed to birth / raise for more than 2 kids no matter how twisted the rest of you consider that to be.
We all have our own beliefs, priorities, logic, etc. All G2A does is give us a safe space to dialogue and disagree.
To accomplish things in the real world one needs to get into the real world and vote / volunteer.
Thinking about your last 2 questions. I loved the idea of G2A when I started it almost 10 years ago.
The reality is that no one is in our face forcing us to take part in a discussion that makes us uncomfortable. We are all here reading and writing of our own free will. Even Laurie who gets so frustrated at times that she yells at me and leaves for awhile. :-)
No one beyond my readers who come here voluntarily even know that I expressed and opinion or belief. (ie like a tree falling in the woods) And since I live in America I am allowed to criticize and comment about pretty much anything I wish. It is a constitutionally protected right, I do not need to prove my qualifications, ask permission or even have a good reason.
I LOVE AMERICA !!!
And God Bless you for giving us your opinions to "shoot at." I used to blog, and it was highly cathartic, but I found myself wanting more-- knowing that others agreed with me, or not. I thought I could multiply my offline efforts in a desirable direction if I could influence others to agree on at least the principle, and though only remotely possible, a course of action. Or, if I am wrong, which I NEVER am :-) someone can save me from banging my head on the wrong wall.
Post a Comment