I hope not. — Baden

You hope they would not follow their own philosophy?


Right. Says a lot.

One rule for oneself but for others not.

What would have to be provable? That they were discriminating? Isn't that how things stand? — Baden

How things stand where?

Maybe you do not know what country you live in. — raza

That's a good one. Can you write a poem about it?

Never mind, I will.

There was a young lad called Baden,
Who knew not what country he lived in,
raza called him out true,
And he got really blue,
So he grabbed Sarah Sanders and kissed him

(Little bit of poetic license there.)

(Little bit of poetic license there.) — Baden

You won't need to license it. It's already protected as being definitively yours by the mere fact others will not want to claim it as theirs.

(It is merely my humor, however cynical it may be. It's not necessarily a product of offence taken. I try never to blame another for any offence I choose to take.)

You don't have to apologize, I'm pretty sure that's an accurate assessment. ;)

The Red Hen owner had a different view to Sanders. The Red Hen owner had a discriminatory view of Sanders. — raza

Don't forget to discriminate in your understanding of "discriminate." As to Sanders, of course Himmler must not be disturbed in his private time.

(Little bit of poetic license there.) — Baden

You inspired me to start a new project...

The Almighty Trump ( A Rough Draft)

There was a man named Trump,
His skin was oddly orange and
his gut was overly plump.

His hair style stumped all
that viewed it, while his tongue
constantly forked into lies
as he played the back nine.

He decried any blame
that befell his name with
a finger always pointing,
without shame, to the other side.

His words laced with hate left
a venomous stain on the brain, which
made all those who listened a bit insane.
From this madness he grew his fandom
into a new brand of fanaticism.

Against the voice of the many,
he was put into the Oval Office
with the aid of Putin’s mysterious
ways. And history set the stage for him to
write his own presidential page.

He declared he would build a great wall,
for the benefit of all. So he latched onto
fear and hatched his apartheid but
to his dismay, many cried out in pain
as he rounded up children and
locked them all away.

Trump then called to all his sheepeople to follow
him to the pentacle of the steepest steeple.
Where he assured them to greatness they
would all fly, but when they got to top and jumped
out into the sky, all they did was fall down and die.

I like how the Republican Congress is going to take a 10 day recess while 2000+ children still remain separated and immigration is in a total mess. They break everything then take a break.

:grin:

A federal judge in California has issued a nation wide injunction to bar the practice of child separation and ordered the parents be reunited. 17 US states have also challenged the legality of these practices.

I guess it was not as in line with our laws as some here argued.

The judge noted this:

“The government readily keeps track of personal property of detainees in criminal and immigration proceedings. Money, important documents, and automobiles, to name a few, are routinely catalogued, stored, tracked and produced upon a detainees’ release, at all levels—state and federal, citizen and alien. Yet, the government has no system in place to keep track of, provide effective communication with, and promptly produce alien children. The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property.”

I guess it was not as in line with our laws as some here argued. — Jeremiah

You were right,I was wrong. You solved the illegal immigration issue and have made our nation's border all safe again. The policy has been removed and the nation borders are now open for freely crossing and the only bump in the road is getting caught and released within the USA.

Seeing as you know exactly how to handle such complex issues as illegal immigration, could you please provide the address of where 10k of the minors who crossed the border without a guardian, that were NOT separated from their parents could go?

You were right,I was wrong. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That is what I kept trying to tell you. The rest of your post is of course hyperbolic nonsense.

That is what I kept trying to tell you. The rest of your post is of course hyperbolic nonsense. — Jeremiah

Whew! I am glad we agree on something!
Now, where would you like to house the 10K unaccompanied minors?
They are not nonsense, they are kids without parents.
Now what?

Whew! I am glad we agree on something!
Now, where would you like to house the 10K unaccompanied minors?
They are not nonsense, they are kids without parents.
Now what? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Not sure what this has to do with the accompanied minors that were removed from their parents who were accompanying them. Why you would think that somehow justifies child separation I have no clue and you are very obviously engaging in a straw man. Do you understand that? Do you know what a straw man is? Do you understand that the presence of unaccompanied minors is not an excuse to make more unaccompanied minors?

Now what? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

How about the lazy Republican congress doesn't take a break, and they don't take a recess until the job is done? Could we start there maybe?

I never claimed to have all the answers, my position was and still is that child separation is wrong. One does not have to be all knowing to know that.

A judge tries to end child separation and she/he is pissed over it. I thought the Left was the supposed emotional side.

We're getting ready for his visit.

So the Capital Gazette is said to have a left-center bias.

Name calling , i.e. 'clueless idiot' and is not really a hallmark of reasoned philosophical discourse, nevertheless I am content with that. At least to establish that some have made up their mind to talk about the president in this way. So be it. It explains a lot, and most of all, that the way people speak about President Trump has more to do with their vitriol means of expressing themselves rather than anything the President has done or is.

One only has to look at the campaign against Obama by none less than the Clinton Campaign to see how undeserved it was. Or was it.

" A village in Kenya is missing and Idiot" Remember that one?

not really a hallmark of reasoned philosophical discourse, — FreeEmotion

One does not have to be nice to be right. Trump has done and said many things which demonstrates he is on the lower end of the intelligence scale and his lack of experience is well known; as such, he is a clueless idiot. It is a fitting description and the fact that you find it crude has less to do with "philosophy" and more to do with you personally. Philosophy is the love for the pursuit of truth, that and only that, and all this conceptual decor you subjectively find pleasing is extra baggage you decided to drag along. This is exactly why I turned from philosophy and literature to science and math. I am not interested in who can be the most agreeable, I am interested in the truth.

Modern "philosophy" is far too subjective and it seems some people are in the habit of using the word as a slap on sticker label to superficially elevate their arguments.

We are in the Lounge category, so this is not a philosophical discussion (plus again, see the OP). If it were a philosophical discussion, it would need to be moved to the Political Philosophy category. Ergo, reasoned philosophical discourse is not required here. I would hope that we would get at least reasoned discourse. But it's not unreasonable to assume that some politicians are actually idiotic and/or clueless. Trump may be one of those. Certainly on foreign policy, every analyst that I've heard comment on him has described him in words that can be considered synonymous. Obama, on the other hand, regularly demonstrated a high degree of knowledge on foreign (and domestic) policy in speeches and public pronouncements. So, it's quite probable that those calling him an idiot were wrong (presumably, they were idiots). The point being that it's silly to assume that just because one politician is unfairly called an idiot or clueless that it's unfair to call all politicians that. That in itself could be seen as a partisan attempt at false equivalency depending on how it's stated.

FreeEmotion is right that name-calling has no place in reasoned discourse wherever one may happen to break out. Call Trump an idiot and you have resigned from serious discussion. That's just the way it is.

That's just the way it is. — frank

No it's not. And you've just made a bare assertion without trying to reason for it, so that puts you in a self-defeating position here regarding reasoned discourse. Of course, you have to back the charge up with evidence and qualifications. But it's just a fact that some politicians are idiots or idiotic, at least in certain respects. On foreign policy, I don't think it's unfair to call Trump an idiot. There is a massive amount of evidence he is. In business, he's not. But the word "idiot" is most definitely not barred from inclusion in a serious point. It's just a synonym for very stupid and or ignorant. I'd agree that its emotive and can be unhelpful at times, but it's sometimes apt.

Yeah, when Trump repeatedly calls the press "enemies of the people" or "fake news", "bad for the country", and a deluge of other anti-press rhetoric over the past 2+ years, and who then, after yesterdays shooting leaves five journalists dead, states in a press meeting, "Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job", I have to think to myself, hmmm, there are ways to analysis this, but surely including the idea Trump is a fucking idiot is simply not acceptable.

And again, I don't know how many million times I have to mention this, but we're in the Lounge in a discussion that is meant to include, for example:

3) Shouting whatever you want at Trump.
4) Laughing, crying, hating, liking Trump. — René Descartes

So, please let's save the philosophical virtue signaling for actual philosophical discussions, many of which could do with more of it, and understand the context here.

So, please let's save the philosophical virtue signaling for actual philosophical discussions, many of which could do with more of it, and understand the context here. — Baden

It's not virtue signaling. StreetlightX has already folded independent threads into this one because they happened to have Trump as the topic. So what is the stance of this website on discussing Trump? The way you're presently managing it tends to eliminate serious discussion instead of fostering it.

that name-calling has no place in reasoned discourse wherever one may happen to break out [...] you have resigned from serious discussion. — frank

Do you apply that same standard to Trump?

I'm not in a position to have a discussion with Trump. I could have one with you, though.