Punishing protesters to own the libs. Got it. — Maw

Read those rules again. They do not stipulate rules for one side only. You are imagining things.

Please take 5 minutes to watch this video and try to understand the impact on our nation.
And I ask you, at what point does the necessity of self preservation come in? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Did anyone actually watch the link I provided? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes. Here's the link again for anyone who missed it. I also recommend watching it. (It has nearly 5 million views, so don't feel guilty about giving him a few more.)

There's some question about his numbers, but even if he's off by an order of magnitude, the point would stand that we cannot solve world poverty by taking in a million people a year, and inviting all the poor people in the world to move to America is probably Not A Great Plan™.

I suspect BS King (linked above) slightly missed the boat on why this video went viral: it's because people see that little tiny brandy glass on the left and imagine pouring ALL of the world's poor gumballs into it. I suspect Roy Beck knows that's what people will imagine while he's talking. Evidently you did, because you remember this as a video about the threat to America, which is not what it's supposed to be about at all. He blathers on about this and that, demolishing a position no one holds, spewing out numbers (which again are probably wrong) but the important thing is the visual people will remember: a massive gumball horde that must be held at bay.

That's dangerously irresponsible. Someone with reasons to immigrate illegally should never leave his family back home to suffer in his place. — Akanthinos

Border crossing is not dangerous? How so?

It's in fact in breach of the ICPCR treaty that the USA signed up to:

Article 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

Article 24

1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.

2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name.

3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality. — ICPCR

I do understand the actual purpose of it. It's part of the racket to protect criminals. — raza

I would love for you to substantiate that without the use of overly imaginative speculation on out of context news clips. As I don't think you really have a in-depth understanding here, or even a common understanding. I think your comprehension level on these matters is closer to wading-in-the-kiddie-pool.

Wait, can you even tell the difference between speculation and evidence?

Wait, can you even tell the difference between speculation and evidence? — Jeremiah

Yes. That the hopeful speculation is that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the election and the evidence for this is zero.

Admittedly, legal ease is not my forte which is why I surround myself with folks such as yourself, @Hanover @Ciceronianus the White and @sheps.

Let me try to explain this as simple as it is Monday:

If asylum seekers, present themselves at a port of entry, they are not breaking any USA law. They, parents and children, will be kept together until they have seen the judge and have been permitted or declined political asylum, at which time they will be moved through the USA channels of placement or turned back to return to their own country. Full stop.

If asylum seekers, travel over the USA/Mexico border, NOT at a port of entry and they are caught, they have broken the law. IF they are traveling with children, whose parents have broken the law, the children will be separated from their parent who is charged with breaking the law. Until the parent sees a judge, the children are not allowed to stay where their parents are being held, in a correction facility.

Children in America get taken away from their parents, when their parents have been convicted of a crime or are in a detention center waiting to see the judge about their crime.

Why would we treat a non US citizen breaking the law, any differently than we would a citizen breaking the law?

Y

Do you know why James Comey was criticized in the IG’s report? You know the report says nothing at all about there being any kind of conspiracy to interfere with the election on the part of the FBI, right? And that Trump shows no sign of comprehending what the report said, right? You know that Paul Manafort, who was Chairman of the Trump Campaign, is in jail facing criminal charges? So yes, will watch, with interest. — Wayfarer

The FBI knew about Paul Manfort's dealings years before he worked for Trump. Check the timeline of Manafort crimes. These crimes occurred under Obama. Manafort did his worse stuff in conjunction with a lobbying company owned by the brother of the former Bill Clinton chief of staff; Podesta. This connection might explain why Obama did not act, since it would not look good for the Clintons, even if they were not personally involved. I often wonder if it was a coincidence that the DNC was hacked through Podesta, who was the brother of a person connected to Manafort. They had dealings with Ukraine.

One may then ask, If Russian collusion was so threatening, why didn't Obama warn Trump of Manafort's shady dealings? They knew of his dealing years before Trump hired him. Why wait and let Trump walk in into a potential spying trap, and then try to pin the past, more connected to friends of the Clintons, onto Trump? It was a set up to deflect and attack.

Manafort was initially protected by the swamp, until he became a tool of the swamp. Manafort is holding out, because of the double cross, not because of his loyalty to Trump. Manafort does not trust the swamp's latest offer, since they double crossed him in terms of an earlier Obama offer.

If you ever worked in government, it is all about selfish bureaucrats playing company politics. Little gets done beyond the expected out of fear of looking bad. Comey was acting in the spirit of company politics, kissing up to both sides, hoping whatever happens, he will come out ahead. He threw a bone to the Republicans, when bringing up Hillary's problems before the election. He also threw a bone to the Democrats when he deemed she had no ill intent. He was trying to kiss everyone's butt, so when the election was over, he would keep his job and/or not be a target with bull's eye on his back.

The IG report discusses company politic problems, but it also appears to be protecting the traditions of the FBI and intelligence agencies. In other words, this set of circumstances should not be considered justification, to throw out the baby with the bath water. The IG wrote in the same style as Comey; bureaucratic kiss everyone's butt. It tells the crimes but forgives them at the same time.

We may need to be a second special council, who can use this report as a map. The second council can fumigate the house without destroying the house.

I thought you said you understood the point of the Russian investigation; clearly you don't.

The central focus is not Trump; investigating Trump is consequential and rightfully so. This is about Russia's meddling in our 2016 election and this interference has been confirmed by the FBI and the CIA. Considering Russia's clear intended aim was to aid Trump in the election, so obviously the Trump campaign should be under heavy scrutiny. You don’t need to be a detective to understand that line of thought.

Abandoning this investigation just because Trump is incredibly thin skinned, and allowing Russia to continue their behavior leaves American sovereignty exposed to a new age of mass political interference by a hostile foreign power. That is just stupid beyond belief, and yet the current administration and its mindless drones seem far more vested in party politics, and for those interest they are more than willing to leave us exposes to these threats.

However, you have made it clear that you loyalty is to Pussy Grabber and not America, and for that end you seem to eagerly engage in the nonsense this administration and its state media spins.

No you misunderstand my point. To "own the libs" is a meme that makes fun of right-wing self-destructive, or self-debasing, or just plan stupid behavior in an attempt to "score points" over liberals. Punishing protesters with expulsion is an example of that.

And if you've abandoned defending Trump's heinous zero-tolerance policy, and it looks like you have, then I think we're done here.

The FBI knew about Paul Manfort's dealings years before he worked for Trump. Check the timeline of Manafort crimes. These crimes occurred under Obama. Manafort did his worse stuff in conjunction with a lobbying company owned by the brother of the former Bill Clinton chief of staff; Podesta. This connection might explain why Obama did not act, since it would not look good for the Clintons, even if they were not personally involved. I often wonder if it was a coincidence that the DNC was hacked through Podesta, who was the brother of a person connected to Manafort.

One may then ask, If Russian collusion was so threatening, why didn't Obama warn Trump of Manafort's shady dealings? They knew of his dealing years before Trump hired him. Why wait and let Trump walk in into a potential spying trap, and then try to pin the past, more connected to friends of the Clintons, onto Trump? It was a set up to deflect and attack. — wellwisher

Presumably Trump wasn't informed because a) it was an active investigation and Trump, not being the President(-elect), wasn't allowed to know about it, and b) for some of that period the investigation was stopped because of a lack of evidence, and only later reinstated after new evidence uncovered.

Considering Russia's clear intended aim was to aid Trump in the election, — Jeremiah

There is no evidence that this is true.

There were ad bots, which are ineffectual, promoting either candidate.

Russia is made up of many business entities. These entities also compete with each other. No different than US business entities that compete with each other for business in other parts of the world. This is also what lobbyists do.

One can pluck out the entities and isolate them from the others in order to suit one's political and business ends.

Considering Russia's clear intended aim was to aid Trump in the election — Jeremiah

There is no evidence that this is true. — raza

Yes there is. The intelligence community and the Senate Intelligence Committee agree on that.

Abandoning this investigation just because Trump is incredibly thin skinned, and allowing Russia to continue their behavior leaves American sovereignty exposed to a new age of mass political interference by a hostile foreign power — Jeremiah

I understand that this is what you have been lead to believe.

The "investigation" ("insurance policy") will not be abandoned due to Trump's supposed thin skin.

It will just likely fall on it's own sword.

The intelligence community and the Senate Intelligence Committee agree on that. — Michael

Have you seen this evidence?

The central focus is not Trump; investigating Trump is consequential and rightfully so. This is about Russia's meddling in our 2016 election and this interference has been confirmed by the FBI and the CIA. Considering Russia's clear intended aim was to aid Trump in the election, so obviously the Trump campaign should be under heavy scrutiny. You don’t need to be a detective to understand that line of thought. — Jeremiah

I agree with you, but the Democrats are going to lose out if we do this. One way to combat Russian interference, in future elections, is to tighten voting rules and requirements. One tool is to require voter ID's. Democrats do not like having people use ID's, but this will have to happen.

Voter ID's have been blocked by the Democrats, using racial bias arguments, which is all about emotions. This has been effective until now. Russian interference argument can now compete in terms of emotions, and may even trump, the racial arguments. The result of having to show an ID, will adversely impact the Democrats more, than the Republicans, since they are the one's who complain all the time this will happen.

The Democrats threw a sucker punch; Russian interference, with the hope that would end the fight before it begins. Trump was staggered but he got back up and now he gets to thrown the same punch for a 2020 KO.

Is your memory only a few pages thick? This is a result of Trump's Zero-tolerance policy. The law does not always take children away and the most desirable goal is to always keep the children with their parents. If you run a stop sign should your children be taken away?

At any rate, all this talk about law is pointless, as it is MORALLY WRONG. Trump created this situation and he could stop it; the fact that he is allowing it to continue is just inhuman.

Have you seen this evidence? — raza

Of course not. I'm a British nobody, not someone with a high-level U.S. security clearance.

Of course not. I'm a British nobody, not someone with a high-level U.S. security clearance. — Michael

And that is what they rely on. They could release ALL the evidence to back this claim...but no.

If it was released then it would be scrutinized by those who are not in the club.

Right, so we're back to your baseless assertion that this is all just some conspiracy by a corrupt FBI, DOJ, and Congress, all out to get Trump because they just don't like him – or something to that effect?

And you accuse others of believing things without evidence. Pretty hypocritical.

Right, so we're back to your baseless assertion that this is all just some conspiracy by a corrupt FBI, DOJ, and Congress, all out to get Trump because they just don't like him? — Michael

These are politicians. This is government. Government is corporate.

This isn't heaven and these aren't angels.

These are politicians. This is government. Government is corporate.

This isn't heaven and these aren't angels. — raza

Therefore they must be corrupt and this must all be a conspiracy against Trump and his campaign/administration, who perhaps are angels and haven't committed any of these crimes they've been accused of?

Therefore they must be corrupt and this must all be a conspiracy against Trump? — Michael

It's an internal power struggle, Effectively a global internal power struggle.

There is no interest in what is true. The interest is in what can be sold as true.

Let's just wildly speculate about everything, make lots of vague generalizations, and speak in cliches, then we'll surely get to the bottom of all this.

There is no evidence that this is true.

There were ad bots, which are ineffectual, promoting either candidate.

Russia is made up of many business entities. These entities also compete with each other. No different than US business entities that compete with each other for business in other parts of the world. This is also what lobbyists do.

One can pluck out the entities and isolate them from the others in order to suit one's political and business ends. — raza

What on Earth are you talking about?

The USIC released a statement that Russia was behind the e-mail compromise in an effort to disrupt and direct the US election. That was a joint statement of 17 different civilian and government intelligence agencies. Do you think that was in benefit of Trump? Was it done to damage Clinton? Let's use some common sense here. It is not a secret that Putin is no fan of Clinton, as she as proven herself as an assertive opponent of Russia. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed Russia's goal was to aid Trump and damage Clinton. That has not really been in question; the dispute is over possible collusion with Russia. You do understand the difference, right?

Is your memory only a few pages thick? This is a result of Trump's Zero-tolerance policy. The law does not always take children away and the most desirable goal is to always keep the children with their parents. If you run a stop sign should your children be taken away?

At any rate, all this talk about law is pointless, as it is MORALLY WRONG. Trump created this situation and he could stop it; the fact that he is allowing it to continue is just inhuman. — Jeremiah

Okay, I don't think the insults are necessary in this discussion but do as you please.
Running a stop sign is a civil violation, unless you are traveling at an extremely high rate of speed, reckless and hit a kid in a school cross walk. THEN the parent would be arrested and if there is no one to care for the child, the child is placed in Protective Services. A ranch up the street takes in such kids and their stay is about 3 days on average and from the visual you would never know the difference between our two ranches, as they are discreet. I whole heartedly agree that keeping the family in tact, is the ideal but how can you do that when our ports of entry are overwhelmed?

And to suggest that the folks crossing the border do not know about Trump's Zero tolerance policy, is to just reinforce a need for a physical barrier along the border except for the entry points. That would end any speculation that those seeking asylum were confused as to what would happen if they enter illegally.

I think we as a nation have witnessed the indiscriminate "Zero Tolerance" policy work and when it has failed.

One way it works is that the speed limit is 75 on AZ highways with a Zero Tolerance policy for anything over 75 mph. If you are traveling at 90 mph in a 75 mph speed zone, that is an offence and a criminal offence at that and you will be arrested on scene and your car impounded until you see the judge.

Conversely, we have seen the Zero Tolerance policy in California, in regards to drug offenders, in issuing the Three Strikes and your out, no matter what the first two offences were. California had a Zero Tolerance policy at 3 strikes, with no discretion allowed to the judge and what a cluster mess it created and we are trying to untangle one inmate at a time.

Again I ask, what would you suggest we do?

What?

This is about cyber security, so how is requiring voter ID suppose to stop that?

Let me try to explain this as simple as it is Monday:

If asylum seekers, present themselves at a port of entry, they are not breaking any USA law. They, parents and children, will be kept together until they have seen the judge and have been permitted or declined political asylum, at which time they will be moved through the USA channels of placement or turned back to return to their own country. Full stop.

If asylum seekers, travel over the USA/Mexico border, NOT at a port of entry and they are caught, they have broken the law. IF they are traveling with children, whose parents have broken the law, the children will be separated from their parent who is charged with breaking the law. Until the parent sees a judge, the children are not allowed to stay where their parents are being held, in a correction facility.

Children in America get taken away from their parents, when their parents have been convicted of a crime or are in a detention center waiting to see the judge about their crime.

Why would we treat a non US citizen breaking the law, any differently than we would a citizen breaking the law? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Simply being in the US without the appropriate documentation is not a crime, it's considered a civil matter under US law. Deportation is a civil penalty, not a criminal punishment. As a result, the separation of parents and their children is illegal under the treaties the US has signed up to.

Again I ask, what would you suggest we do? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your memory is only a few pages thick. Sorry it is insulting, but it is also the truth.