You just don't understand Trump's Zero Tolerance policy at all, do you? — Jeremiah

Whose zero tolerance policy?

Whose zero tolerance policy? — tom

Trump's, clearly.

Trump signed an EO ending child separation at the border — Jeremiah

Not necessarily, unfortunately. The EO here, states that:

It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.

"Where appropriate and consistent with the law and available resources" is fairly in-determinate language, providing wiggle room for the administration to separate families for vague, unclear reasons.

The EO then further states:

It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.

"Separating alien families to effectively enforce the law" strongly suggests that the Administration nevertheless considers family separation to be not only within the realm of "The Law", but an "effective" was to enforce it. Chilling stuff.

Whose zero tolerance policy? — tom

None these politicians enacted a policy to separate families at the border. Looks like you're just another 'Google Search Conservative'.

And would you like to admit you were wrong here, when I correct you here and here?

None these politicians enacted a policy to separate families at the border. Looks like your just another 'Google Search Conservative'. — Maw

Why should the USA not be allowed to police its border?

No one suggested otherwise, anywhere.

"Where appropriate and consistent with the law and available resources" is fairly in-determinate language, providing wiggle room for the administration to separate families for vague, unclear reasons. — Maw

Separating children from their parents if those parents are criminally prosecuted is within the law. So basically nothing needs to change based on that language.

So when will it ever be a post - post 9.11 world? Even children grow up and stop hiding under the blankets some day.

Trump has got to be the dumbest US president of modern history and maybe even all of US history. — Jeremiah

Nope. The myth of dumb presidents isn't useful - except to the dumb presidents. He is the most ignorant man ever to be president. I'd be interested in any substantive claim that he isn't.

Why ignorant? Because only a profoundly ignorant man would do and say the things he does and says. There might be some who would argue that, because he "gets away with it" he's not so dumb, or not dumb at all. IF he only represented himself, that might be an argument to be addressed. (And, I'm thinking that when he is no longer president - whenever that happens - the IRS is going to dismantle him.) That is, criminals have their run - before they're put away.

But he doesn't represent himself. He represents us, and his ignorance creates an energy that will come back at us everywhere. The world is Donald Trump's ground zero. Those closest are hurt the most, of course. But everyone is hurt by him.

The author Scott Peck wrote a book titled The People of the Lie. He describes them and what they do, and calls their actions evil, which he troubles to define. It's a misuse of language to call a person evil unless it's understood as a label of convenience, meaning just that the person's actions and their motives, insofar as their motives can be established, exemplify evil in action and evil intent. By these standards, Trump is evil.

It leads to an interesting question: what do we do about it? The founders understood we could have a bad president. To remedy that they gave us impeachment. To forestall it they gave us the electoral college. But the members either failed their job or did not understand it - or lacked the courage to perform it.

The founders likely did not have a modern grasp of evil, though. Or if they did, they may have supposed that whatever person the evil was realized in would have met an untimely end well before any possibility of becoming president.

To my way of thinking, if we ever learn the story of the money - and I pray Robert Mueller is getting it, book and verse - it will show that Russia owns Trump, and that he repays them by serving their interests to a degree that will be shown to be treason, if it's ever shown at all.

You've made several claims which are false. Stop trying to shift goalposts and own up to your mistakes. Aren't conservatives all about "personal responsibility"?

The man is a giant idiot.

Nope. The myth of dumb presidents isn't useful - except to the dumb presidents. He is the most ignorant man ever to be president. — tim wood

And the least stable. And the least diplomatic. And a proper condemnation of US society as degenerate.

Why should the USA not be allowed to police its border? — tom

Daily reminder that the U.S., following the signing of the 1951 & 1967 UN Convention on Refugee status cannot legally refuse asylum seekers, nor even simply discourage it.

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.html

I am concerned about the economic bubble he is currently inflating by releasing so much previously protected land. Companies naturally use the "low hanging fruit" - but once that is gone, taken with no thought towards regeneration - there will be a sharp contraction.

Unsustainable practices are always a temptation for those with ostensibly short term interests, such as politicians and CEOs. It requires character to eschew those gains for future generations.

Something interesting is happening inside the Republican party. Members are questioning what it means to be a conservative given the current state of affairs. To think that it took so much effort (read 'cognitive dissonance') to get them thinking, and all thanks to Trump.

Thanks Trump!

So having had his biggest reversal yet, Trump organises a stadium full of supporters who will applaud and cheer hysterically whatever he says. So that when he kvetches about the terrible treatment he's getting - I mean, poor man, look at what he has to put up with! The treatment from the press! So then he can take solace, after a tough week at work, by standing there and listing all of his complaints against the media and those awful Democrats, and have his ardent supporters cheer him, and boo them, with the customarily ceremonial chants of 'Lock her up! Lock her up!' Nothing like being bathed in the adulation of a swooning crowd to balm the bruised presidential ego. Tragic.

[Delete] @Baden

‘Donald Trump said the public uproar over his administration’s policy was a distraction by Democrats to hide the crimes of Hillary Clinton and the FBI.’

We can surmise that those present would be willing to believe him.

Gaslighting or delusional?

Actually ‘gaslighting’ is an idiomatic expression that I’m not familiar with apart from it’s use in the Steely Dan song, ‘Gaslighting Abbie’ and even there, I don’t know what it really means. But I can’t fathom how there’s enough American voters to support his nonsense. My only thought is, poor education and too much exposure to television.

Made fun of a guy (a protester) for having long hair too. This was the first time I listened to one of his speeches in its entirety. Unimpressed.

https://www.polisci.washington.edu/events/2017-02-27/gaslighting-government

“Gaslighting” refers to the phenomenon in which someone insists so strenuously on a false version of events that those listening start doubting the reality right in front of their eyes. Since Donald Trump took office, the term has made its way into the popular consciousness. Editorials say that the Trump administration regularly puts a spin on what should be straightforward facts, whether it’s accusing the national media of “fake news” or claiming attendance numbers at the inauguration were as high as Obama’s in 2008. Is the president deliberately trying to manipulate our perception?

Right. Seems a polite term for ‘bullshitting’ but definitely on the mark.

My only thought is, poor education and too much exposure to television. — Wayfarer

That's too simple and dismissive. Koch brothers and their ilk voted Conservative because of the tax benefits, some voted because they've always voted Republican, some voted because the racism appeals to them, some voted because of their dislike of Hillary, etc. etc. And yes, some voted because they're stupid.

In the end, the American political system doesn't offer real political choices due to its effective two-party system, extensive lobby apparatus, lack of political accountability and minimal differences between Democrats and Republicans to begin with. Voting for the Dems is just more of the same. The amount of "fighting" between Democrats and Republicans in that respect is rather hilarious from my point of view, where I'm used to an election sporting 23 different parties of which 13 ended up in parliament, ranging from a xenophobic, conservative party to a socialist party.

voted Conservative — Benkei

It’s not about ‘conservatism’. Many conservatives are deeply hostile to Trump, and Trump doesn’t represent conservative values or policies. It’s a hostile take-over of the GOP by a demagogue skilled in manipulating TV. Where the Conservatives can be truly faulted is in lying supine and allowing Trump to do what he likes to their party.

It’s a hostile take-over of the GOP — Wayfarer

A hostile takeover? First thing, as Benkei said, dems and repubs are not particularly different. Well, history shows this in the cosy friendship Bill Clinon has with G W Bush along with their wars, Obama's wars included.

It has been a hostile resistance, on the whole, from the GOP.

@Wayfarer

Conservatives have been split on issues for some time though: neoconservatives and paleoconservatives, fiscal conservative and cultural conservatives, etc. which predate Trump's presidency.

I'd be cautious in holding up neoconservatives like Bill Kristol (love his Conversations though!) and Max Boot as exemplary models of what a principled conservatism looks like by way of juxtaposition with Trump.

So stupid of me — Maw

Indeed.

The FBI got the needed information from the 3rd party. A private company that the DNC decided to use — Jeremiah

You can't see any irony?

The "needed" information?

Yeah. They just needed anything to STOP them actually inspecting the server. The last thing the Comey lead FBI wanted to do was compromise their relationship with Clinton and put themselves in a position to lie about what was in the server.

If they don't see the server then it is less likely the FBI will be in trouble.

Comey took over HSBC bank, did he not, just when the bank got caught knowingly laundering terrorist's millions and Mexican drug cartel's millions?

HSBC was found guilty. So while under Comey The deal was made that HSBC was fined the equivalent of 5 weeks profit.

Millions of dead people as a consequence of help from HSBC Bank.

These are the types that run the FBI.

So you trust it to be an absolute fact because the FBI have said so, even though you haven't personally seen the evidence? — Michael

Only under pressure of questions before congress did they admit this fact.