I looked it up:As far as separating families, Obama did the same. Obama also put kids in cages. You could look it up. — fishfry
"Under past administrations ..., — Relativist
Genetic fallacy to reject a claim because of a prejudice you (and Trump) have against them. Show that it's false (good luck with that).LOL. Fact-check from Trump-hating Wapo. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/fact-check-trump-claim-obama-separated-families/index.html?no-st=1557361075 — fishfry
As far as separating families, Obama did the same.
— fishfry
Seriously, you cannot tell the difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama? — tim wood
The main difference is the way the MSM ignored Obama's 2014 humanitarian disaster on the border — fishfry
However unlike Trump, Obama never called Latin Americans "rapists", — Maw
I get that you don't like Trump's style. — fishfry
Confusing rhetoric with policy. I get that you don't like Trump's style. Obama deported record numbers of undocumented immigrants. You could look it up. Perfect illustration of why I won't participate in these insipid political discussions. Obama's actual record on border issues was awful. He always had great rhetoric. And a jump shot. — fishfry
Orange Man Bad. Not conducive to thought. — fishfry
I get that you don't like Trump's style.
— fishfry
Do you like Trump's style, of inciting hatred for the purpose of political advantage? — Metaphysician Undercover
Trump officials say Russia is interfering. Trump shrugs.
....Members of Trump’s own administration say that Russian interference efforts are an ongoing threat. FBI Director Christopher A. Wray recently declared those efforts represent a “significant counterintelligence threat,” adding that he views Russia’s 2018 efforts as a “dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.”
Yet Trump World’s position continues to be: No biggie. Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale recently claimed that Russia “never” helped Trump in 2016. Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner shrugged that this Russian help amounted to “a couple of Facebook ads.”
Trump World’s position is that the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump but you should ignore all its findings on the Russian sabotage effort itself, because it basically never happened. That is, ignore at least the first 50 pages, which concluded that Russian interference was “sweeping and systematic,” and included massive cybertheft directed at Democrats and disinformation warfare to socially divide the country.
Barr is more or less in on this, too. He just had an interview with Fox News and validated Trump’s theory that the early Russia investigation might have been about hobbling Trump. Barr is carrying out Trump’s lawless command to investigate the investigators, implicitly downgrading the legitimacy of an investigation into a foreign attack on our political system.
...
[As Mueller documented] Trump actively and extensively encouraged the Russian attack, hyping WikiLeaks’ findings countless times. His campaign eagerly sought to coordinate with that attack. Trump went to enormous lengths to impede the investigation into it. He and his advisers repeatedly lied to cover up all the dimensions of that broader story.
Now, Trump World’s position is basically that the attack never happened, and the White House position is that [the Democrats'] further fleshing out Mueller’s conclusions about it, to do something about the next one, isn’t a legitimate legislative purpose — even though Trump’s own intelligence officials are waving red flags about it.
How can this really be the position of the White House and the president of the United States?
Citing “multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice” uncovered in the Mueller report, the iconoclastic Michigan lawmaker spared no one in a lengthy Twitter thread on Saturday—calling out Trump, Attorney General William Barr, and other lawmakers he says put partisanship above their own allegiance to the Constitution.
While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct. Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s [sic] jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law — the foundation of liberty — crumbles. — Amash
Trump's zero-tolerance policy treated all border-crossers as criminals, which resulted in separating children from parents whose only crime was crossing the border. — Relativist
No one is denying that the Democrats have been bad on immigration for nearly 30 years at least, but the reason we are focusing on Trump is because he has been president for over two years, and immigration has been his primary clarion call. All fishfry is doing is pure whataboutism. — Maw
“It is really a condescending word. They’re saying family is without merit?," Pelosi said at her weekly press conference.
...
"Are they saying most of the people who have ever come to the United States in the history of our country are without merit because they don’t have an engineering degree?" Pelosi said, drilling into the administration's argument.
If all you know is Orange Man Bad you just can't even think. — fishfry
I get it. Orange Man Bad — fishfry
Orange Man Bad. Not conducive to thought. — fishfry
Is everyone so consumed with hate against the Terrible Orange Man — fishfry
Orange Man Bad, ok. Now try to have ANOTHER thought as well. — fishfry
My views are rooted in the failure to pass the Immigration Bill of 2013. It wasn't perfect, but it was a good start. It passed the Senate (14 of 46 Republicans voted for it, while all 54 Democrats did) (see this). The only reason it didn't become law was because the Tea-Party dominated House failed to pass it. This no-compromise, right-wing group are home to some of Trump's most ardent supporters (see this). What they mostly didn't like was that it granted "amnesty" to illegals. They spoke of deporting all 11 million of them. Trump the candidate even spoke of doing this.I'm simply calling attention to, and expressing my deep frustration with, the bipartisan decades-long legacy of bad decision making and bad policy that's resulted in a terribly inhumane and indecent situation. And if ALL you can see is "Trump separated families," I can only repeat that I find that kind of thinking ignorant (if you simply don't know anything about US immigration policy), disingenuous (if you do, but pretend not to for partisan purposes); and in any event, childish. Yes Trump's border policy sucks. But both parties are to blame for how the situation got to this point. So ignorance doesn't help here. Nor does it convince me that you are trying to make a serious point about immigration. — fishfry
Over the four weeks between the Barr letter and the release of the redacted Mueller report, Trump kept insisting that the Mueller report said more than it did. It said, in effect: We didn’t find sufficient evidence to charge your campaign with conspiracy, and our internal Department of Justice policies forbid us from charging you with obstruction. He wanted it to say: You did nothing wrong. He wanted it to say: Actually, Donald, you were the real victim here—and Hillary Clinton the true criminal conspirator.”
Trump has tried to close that gap by lying about it—and by demanding that other people lie, too. When they don’t and won’t, Trump gets angry. And when Trump gets angry, he takes to Twitter.
...Uncheered by Mother’s Day, the president launched into a sequence of rage tweets that included the line: “The FBI has no leadership.” Trump has fired one FBI director, James Comey, for looking into the Russia matter. He fired an acting director, Andrew McCabe, for the same apparent reason. Apparently, he is now gunning for the present director, Chris Wray. 1
President Trump on Monday directed his former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, to defy a congressional subpoena and skip a hearing scheduled for Tuesday, denying House Democrats testimony from one of the most important eyewitnesses to Mr. Trump’s attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation.
The House Judiciary Committee had subpoenaed Mr. McGahn to appear. The White House, though, presented Mr. McGahn and the committee with a 15-page legal opinion from the Justice Department stating that “Congress may not constitutionally compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”
“Because of this constitutional immunity, and in order to protect the prerogatives of the office of the presidency, the president has directed Mr. McGahn not to appear at the Committee’s scheduled hearing on Tuesday,” Pat A. Cipollone, the current White House counsel, wrote in a letter to the Judiciary Committee.
...
If Mr. McGahn [now an ex-employee and therefore not constrained] ... defies the White House, Mr. McGahn could not only damage his own career in Republican politics but also put his law firm, Jones Day, at risk of having the president urge his allies to withhold their business. The firm’s Washington practice is closely affiliated with the party
That’s pretty remarkable: It is being discussed as a realistic possibility that Trump would threaten to destroy both McGahn’s career and the business prospects of his law firm if he honors a legitimate congressional subpoena designed to get to the bottom of an extraordinary accounting of corruption and wrongdoing produced by a legitimate law enforcement investigation.
My views are rooted in the failure to pass the Immigration Bill of 2013. It wasn't perfect, but it was a good start. — Relativist
So no, it's not just about family separations - but it IS about the intractable position of Trump and his ardent supporters - — Relativist
r u ok? — Maw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.