US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Legal or legitimate is to be determined by a court or an immigration officer at the border, not the applicant ...

I'm not talking about the end of the process, I'm talking about the start. Someone coming to a port of entry and asking for asylum is not an illegal immigrant, and they're being turned away, illegally.

NarrowBandFtw said:
A fair number of the articles linked here speak of illegal immigrants, not asylum seekers, they are most definitely criminals until they actually apply for asylum

How did you manage to get this exactly ass-backwards? A criminal judgement in court makes you a criminal, they aren't criminals automatically.

And again, it's a misdemeanor, like jaywalking or graffiti. It's grotesque behaviour, regardless.
 
Steve Wagner, HHS official on DHS conference call right now: "We expect the new policy will result in a deterrence effect." Sec. Nielsen and other Trump admin officials have been insisting for days that family separation is:

A) not new
b) not a policy
c) not about deterrence

Of course, Sessions and Miller have also been contradicting each other at every step. Vile liars, all of them.
 
Yeah that logic might work if you vote for the winners, doesn't work so well if you vote for the losers.

Actually no, it's irrelevant who you voted for, winner or loser - by voting you legitimise both the process and the winner, even if the winner isn't the person you voted for.
 
President Trump: “We want to solve family separation. I don’t want children taken away from parents, and when you prosecute the parents for coming in illegally — which should happen — you have to take the children away.” (link: https://cnn.it/2ym0FGE) cnn.it/2ym0FGE
 
Actually no, it's irrelevant who you voted for, winner or loser - by voting you legitimise both the process and the winner, even if the winner isn't the person you voted for.

You dont need to vote to legitimise the winner, the law does that. Voting for a loser clearly means you dont support the winner.
 
President Trump: “We want to solve family separation. I don’t want children taken away from parents, and when you prosecute the parents for coming in illegally — which should happen — you have to take the children away.” (link: https://cnn.it/2ym0FGE) cnn.it/2ym0FGE
Exactly this. But the libtards already turned it into a political mess so no solution will be found.
 
"Have to take the children away?" Really, rietrot? Why?

I don't agree with the manner in which children are being taken away or how they are being treated afterwards. However if you're going to prosecute someone you cant exacly keep children with them in adult detention centres.
 
I don't agree with the manner in which children are being taken away or how they are being treated afterwards. However if you're going to prosecute someone you cant exacly keep children with them in adult detention centres.
Well it will actually be a major accomplishment for Trump if he manages to get better legislation passed now because of all the outrage. Lets not pretend this is a new problem.
 
Well it will actually be a major accomplishment for Trump if he manages to get better legislation passed now because of all the outrage. Lets not pretend this is a new problem.

Immigration isn’t new. Kids being taken away from their parents is *all* Trump.

Also, better legislation? Trump loves this and young Gargamel thinks this is a winning play for the mid-terms.
 
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/michael-cohen-criminal-lawyer-guy-petrillo/index.html
Donald Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen has signaled to friends that he is "willing to give" investigators information on the President if that's what they are looking for, and is planning on hiring a new lawyer to handle a possible indictment from federal prosecutors.

"He knows a lot of things about the President and he's not averse to talking in the right situation," one of Cohen's New York friends who is in touch with him told CNN. "If they want information on Trump, he's willing to give it."
 
And in a first for me on MyBB, I get to post a Playboy link about theocracy, Jefferson Beauregard, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and evangelical adoption... Enjoy.

Religious organizations play an outsized role in foster care and adoption in the United States, often discriminating against members of the LGBTQ community while receiving tax money and, despite being registered as non-profits, running themselves essentially like businesses. One massive evangelical adoption agency, Bethany Christian Services, had an annual budget of 9.1 million dollars in 2010, only 694,000 dollars of which was spent directly on serving children, according to journalist and researcher Kathryn Joyce’s powerful exposé The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking and the New Gospel of Adoption.

Evangelicals who adopt children often do so in the spirit of a missionary project, and organizations like Bethany—which has issued its own statement condemning the policy of separating children from their families—have a long record of engaging in highly deceptive and manipulative practices, including pressuring birth mothers into signing away their children.

How seriously, then, should we take evangelical criticisms of Trump’s child separation policy? Will the white evangelicals, who may end up adopting some of these essentially trafficked children, shed any tears for their brown birth mothers as they alienate them from their cultural heritage and funnel them into their program of “raising up warriors for Christ?” More likely, they will carry on pushing America toward a Gilead-style theocracy without ever owning up to the harm they have done in supporting the current president. Blessed be the fruit.

https://www.playboy.com/read/the-book-of-sessions-america-blearily-awakens-to-a-new-theocracy
 
Well it will actually be a major accomplishment for Trump if he manages to get better legislation passed now because of all the outrage. Lets not pretend this is a new problem.

Trump hasn't articulated anything close to a proposal for better legislation. I don't even know if he's capable of it.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...e-gop-in-closed-door-immigration-meeting.html

House Republican leaders’ plan was for President Trump to meet with House Republicans at the Capitol on Tuesday night, for him to tell them that their “compromise” immigration bill was the greatest bill in legislative history and that he would sign it with a tremendous pen, and for the president to provide the assurances members have been looking for since last week, when he said he “certainly” would not sign it.

So. Did President Trump explicitly and proudly endorse this immigration bill negotiated by moderates and conservatives, the only one of the two the House will vote on this week that has a chance to pass?

“I guess,” North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones told reporters. He found it “hard to follow everything [Trump] says. He’s kind of like a bouncing ball.”

New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance, when asked whether Trump endorsed the bill, said sure, but that was only his “understanding” of what Trump did.

Even Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo—one of the principal moderates who negotiated the bill—couldn’t say squarely that Trump said he would sign the measure. Instead the congressman said that Trump “indicated” he would and, later, that Curbelo was “pretty sure” he would.
 
Trump hasn't articulated anything close to a proposal for better legislation. I don't even know if he's capable of it.

Yup, the words "Trump" and "articulated" really don't belong in the same sentence...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X