feeder wrote:
How do people so stupid get such important positions?

 Ouze wrote:

 feeder wrote:
How do people so stupid get such important positions?

Well, they're not just stupid, they're also unfathomably cruel.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I will concede that there are solutions to this. Not easy... but definitely doable.

First off, it's very, very easy, because this is a Trump policy that was rolled out informally a month ago. He could end it this morning with a single phone call and go back to how he, himself, was administering this policy 2 months ago. That's the very definition of easy. Yes, a long term fix needs to be done by Congress. Guess who is also responsible for that?

Spoiler:

The election is over. Hillary Clinton lost. The GOP holds the house, the senate, the presidency, and a majority of the SCOTUS, and have done so for a year and a half. At some point you need to hold your party responsible for the fact they're actually in charge of the country now, and have been for some time.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Stay classy, Fox, stay classy

For the work blocked, Corey Lewandowski (on fox) makes a "womp womp" sound while Zac Petkanas talks about a 10-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who was separated from her mother, then proceeds to try and cover it up by talking about laws/illegal border crossing.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Jeff wrote an Op-Ed
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/19/jeff-session-we-dont-want-separate-parents-kids-editorials-debates/36192703/

Jeff Sessions: We don’t want to separate parents from kids

Jeff Sessions 

Published 12:04 p.m. UTC Jun 20, 2018

Some years ago, it was decided that law enforcement might arrest adults who crossed the border illegally by themselves, but anyone who brought a child with them would not be prosecuted, a form of immunity.

Word got out about this loophole with predictable results. The number of aliens illegally crossing with children between our ports of entry went from 14,000 to 75,000 — a fivefold increase — in just the past four years.

These trends undermine the integrity of our system. That’s why the policy that is causing them must end, too.

Ending this blanket immunity means prosecuting adults for illegal entry whether they have children with them or not. That is what we are doing at the Department of Justice.

OUR VIEW: Zero tolerance makes zero sense

But we will not put the children in jail. Instead, the children must be cared for by the Department of Health and Human Services, as the law requires.

And these children are well cared for. In fact, they get better care than a lot of American kids do. They are provided plenty of food, education in their language, health and dental care, and transported to their destination city — all at taxpayer expense.

In total, HHS is spending more than one billion taxpayer dollars a year providing quality care.

Separations are temporary and rare. The vast majority of children in custody came to this country by themselves.

Many unaccompanied children have been abused by smugglers or recruited by criminal gangs such as MS-13. There is nothing humane about encouraging human trafficking — but that is what open borders policies do. Everything the Trump administration is doing is helping put traffickers out of business.

If people have a genuine asylum claim, they can come to a port of entry, make their claim legally, and remain with their children while their case is processed.

We do not want to separate parents from their children. What we want is a safe, lawful system of immigration that would end this question altogether. We want to build a wall to prevent illegal entry. Congress could make that happen quickly — and they should.

Those who want to come to this country can and should apply legally. We have the most generous immigration laws in the world — but they should be enforced. At the Department of Justice, that is what we intend to do, and we ask Congress to be our partners in this effort.

Jeff Sessions is the attorney general of the United States.

Somehow I don't think the argument that you treat them better than American children is a great defense at all. Well that and the other bollocks.

it is interesting how this has gone from "not policy" to "yeah this is totally policy" in the space of 3 or 4 days with this administration.

Its also especially interesting how Sessions notes that asylum seekers should go through ports of entry...where they are actively and categorically being denied entry.

 feeder wrote:
Speaking of Godwin, ICE director Thomas Homan, speaking to Fox, used this staggeringly tone deaf defense that his office is not like the Nazis:

Thomas Homan wrote:“I think it’s an insult to the brave men and women of the border patrol and ICE to call law enforcement officers Nazis. They are simply enforcing laws enacted by Congress.”

And of course Fox just let it slide like the sycophantic little toadies they are.

How do people so stupid get such important positions?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Stay classy, Fox, stay classy

For the work blocked, Corey Lewandowski (on fox) makes a "womp womp" sound while Zac Petkanas talks about a 10-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who was separated from her mother, then proceeds to try and cover it up by talking about laws/illegal border crossing.

In case anyone is still wondering, here's your evidence of the basket of deplorables being a real thing.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I will concede that there are solutions to this. Not easy... but definitely doable.

First off, it's very, very easy, because this is a Trump policy that was rolled out informally a month ago. He could end it this morning with a single phone call and go back to how he, himself, was administering this policy 2 months ago. That's the very definition of easy. Yes, a long term fix needs to be done by Congress. Guess who is also responsible for that?

Dems: TRUMP IS A PRESIDENT! ERMAGAHD! <proceeds to lose their minds>

The same dems: Trump should pick and choose laws to follow when it comes to immigration. :finger wagging galores:

Spoiler:

Even better: Schumer turns down GOP proposal to address this issue by saying and I'm paraphrasing 'Mr. President, Use that 'God damn' pen of yours'.

You can see where this goes right?

Trump: "Okay, done... while I'm at it, I'm using my pen to build a border wall".

Do you not see where this is going?

The election is over. Hillary Clinton lost. The GOP holds the house, the senate, the presidency, and a majority of the SCOTUS, and have done so for a year and a half. At some point you need to hold your party responsible for the fact they're actually in charge of the country now, and have been for some time.

Ok. :sits down, leans eranestly: Please do elaborate on how I should hold my party accountable?

Just in: Trump is going to sign to EO or law to address the border issue. Not clear how tho... (the obvious thing is to suspend it pending congressional act).

Also, the House has scheduled a vote for this immigration fix tomorrow... so, we'll see how that goes.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I will concede that there are solutions to this. Not easy... but definitely doable.

First off, it's very, very easy, because this is a Trump policy that was rolled out informally a month ago. He could end it this morning with a single phone call and go back to how he, himself, was administering this policy 2 months ago. That's the very definition of easy. Yes, a long term fix needs to be done by Congress. Guess who is also responsible for that?

Dems: TRUMP IS A PRESIDENT! ERMAGAHD! <proceeds to lose their minds>

The same dems: Trump should pick and choose laws to follow when it comes to immigration. :finger wagging galores:

Even better: Schumer turns down GOP proposal to address this issue by saying and I'm paraphrasing 'Mr. President, Use that 'God damn' pen of yours'.

 whembly wrote:
That's a given... especially since I didn't even vote for Trump in the last election.

It's also a given that the Democrats need to earn my votes too. So, I'm mostly left with strategically voting in a way that I *don't* want the other candidate elected.

Just once in my life, I want a candidate that I'm willing to vote *for*, not to keep the other candidate out of office.

 Spinner wrote:
If being called deplorable is enough to get people to support toddler internment camps, they were going to support toddler internment camps anyway.

Call them what they are.

It's not like the deplorables ever wondered if slinging around 'snowflake', 'libtard', or 'SJW' pushed people further left.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's a given... especially since I didn't even vote for Trump in the last election.

It's also a given that the Democrats need to earn my votes too. So, I'm mostly left with strategically voting in a way that I *don't* want the other candidate elected.

Just once in my life, I want a candidate that I'm willing to vote *for*, not to keep the other candidate out of office.

See, there is your problem right there. Playing the team again. Also, not voting for Trump is a big whoop. You live. In Missouri, who did you vote for in the Governors election?

 Wolfblade wrote:
Wasn't Greiten the guy who had an affair (which sounded more like rape according to the account), then basically blackmailed the woman to keep he quiet THEN illegally obtained and used a charity donor list?

And HE'S the one you consider the lesser of two evils?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Wasn't Greiten the guy who had an affair (which sounded more like rape according to the account), then basically blackmailed the woman to keep he quiet THEN illegally obtained and used a charity donor list?

And HE'S the one you consider the lesser of two evils?

To be fair, that wasnt known at election time.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Wasn't Greiten the guy who had an affair (which sounded more like rape according to the account), then basically blackmailed the woman to keep he quiet THEN illegally obtained and used a charity donor list?

And HE'S the one you consider the lesser of two evils?

To be fair, that wasnt known at election time.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
If being called deplorable is enough to get people to support toddler internment camps, they were going to support toddler internment camps anyway.

Call them what they are.

It's not like the deplorables ever wondered if slinging around 'snowflake', 'libtard', or 'SJW' pushed people further left.

Don't think I could have said it better myself.

 SkavenLord wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
If being called deplorable is enough to get people to support toddler internment camps, they were going to support toddler internment camps anyway.

Call them what they are.

It's not like the deplorables ever wondered if slinging around 'snowflake', 'libtard', or 'SJW' pushed people further left.

Don't think I could have said it better myself.

At the same time though, wouldn’t namecalling defeat the purpose of trying to convince people to understand where you’re coming from? While it might not work, perhaps adding more detail to the argument as to why you think it is wrong can get them to agree at least somewhat with what you wish to express. Namecalling might also destroy that chance of convincing others, however small it looks. Just my opinion anyway, I could be wrong.

 Spinner wrote:

 SkavenLord wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
If being called deplorable is enough to get people to support toddler internment camps, they were going to support toddler internment camps anyway.

Call them what they are.

It's not like the deplorables ever wondered if slinging around 'snowflake', 'libtard', or 'SJW' pushed people further left.

Don't think I could have said it better myself.

At the same time though, wouldn’t namecalling defeat the purpose of trying to convince people to understand where you’re coming from? While it might not work, perhaps adding more detail to the argument as to why you think it is wrong can get them to agree at least somewhat with what you wish to express. Namecalling might also destroy that chance of convincing others, however small it looks. Just my opinion anyway, I could be wrong.

I can see where you're coming from, honestly, but I don't think the evidence bears it out. People have been spending an admirable amount of time trying to cut through the haze of lies and misdirections Trump and his goons have been throwing around for years now, and while plenty of people have left that ship, I think it's become increasingly obvious that the hard-core base that stuck with him isn't going to be swayed by detailed arguments; they're not even going to hear them. Whether it's because they cheer Team Red just because it's Team Red or they're all for these abhorrent policies doesn't have much of a distinction any more.

There's also another facet to this, which is that toddler internment camps are blatantly wrong, our country already has an ugly history with forcing people into camps, and this needs to be stopped right. Now. There are children out there who are just going to get lost in the system. Parents who will never see their kids again. Mothers and fathers who were told that their kids were being given a bath, and then whoops, Junior's gone and you're getting deported. We don't need to wring hands about whether calling the man who mocked the plight of a ten-year-old with Down's Syndrome in her family a grandma insult is going to upset people. People should already be upset.

This is the point where the left ought to stop worrying about hurting the feelings of people who claim not to care about them.

 feeder wrote:
Years of being called a libtard cuck hasn't driven me into the arms of the gakkiest elements of the left.

Why does being called a deplorable send droves into the arms of the gakkiest elements of the right?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Years of being called a libtard cuck hasn't driven me into the arms of the gakkiest elements of the left.

Why does being called a deplorable send droves into the arms of the gakkiest elements of the right?

You got to wonder though, in the context of her saying half and not all, what does it say if you feel personally attacked with the criteria she put out?

 SkavenLord wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
If being called deplorable is enough to get people to support toddler internment camps, they were going to support toddler internment camps anyway.

Call them what they are.

It's not like the deplorables ever wondered if slinging around 'snowflake', 'libtard', or 'SJW' pushed people further left.

Don't think I could have said it better myself.

At the same time though, wouldn’t namecalling defeat the purpose of trying to convince people to understand where you’re coming from? While it might not work, perhaps adding more detail to the argument as to why you think it is wrong can get them to agree at least somewhat with what you wish to express. Namecalling might also destroy that chance of convincing others, however small it looks. Just my opinion anyway, I could be wrong.

 Easy E wrote:
To be fair, this is also the group that latched onto "Clinging to the bible amd guns" and "You didn't build that".

Lefties have done the same things with a few quotes of our own, but they never seem to catch on as well in Leftlandia.

Edit: The ones I can think of fromt eh D's are.....

"Covfefe"- Trump

"Heckuva Job, Brownie"- G.W.

"Mission Accomplished"- G.W.

"Corporations are people too!"- Mitt

 Easy E wrote:
To be fair, this is also the group that latched onto "Clinging to the bible amd guns" and "You didn't build that".

Lefties have done the same things with a few quotes of our own, but they never seem to catch on as well in Leftlandia.

Edit: The ones I can think of fromt eh D's are.....

"Covfefe"- Trump

"Heckuva Job, Brownie"- G.W.

"Mission Accomplished"- G.W.

"Corporations are people too!"- Mitt