So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[zoltani]

This article goes into what I was discussing some pages back.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/andrew-sullivan-kanye-west-and-the-question-of-freedom.html

The real question is why we GAF about Kanye in the first place. Or, what's really "corroding the norms of liberal democracy" is bread and circuses.

Did you consider he is used as an example to illustrate a larger point?

[Malloy]

This article goes into what I was discussing some pages back.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/andrew-sullivan-kanye-west-and-the-question-of-freedom.html

Can you explain this? I don't get it.  Doesn't the fact that Kanye is out there running around saying whatever he wants disprove this whole point?

Sure, his career might suffer because the people who buy his music think he's gone nuts.  But this is how it works.  I don't remember this conservative wailing when, say, the Dixie Chicks had their careers torpedoed for saying mean things about Bush.  Did Andrew Sullivan write pretentious bullshit about the integrity of the individual artist about them?   Now, they really were censored.  Radio stations refused to play their music.  I..kinda don't remember conservatives being so mega into their 1st amendment rights back then.  It's this kind of hypocrisy that is really galling.  Whatever your reaction to the Dixie Chicks was, have the same one for Kanye.  And remember that they are all agents of the free market.

Or is Kanye some larger symbol of the erosion of civil discourse?  But if so, why were the Dixie Chicks not that same symbol?  They got booed at awards shows.  And, you know what, I wonder if some of those people being dicks to them ever step back and think they kinda had a point about Bush being a terrible president.

[DavidAnnArbor]

  Did Andrew Sullivan write pretentious bullshit about the integrity of the individual artist about them? 

You hit the nail on the head, Andrew Sullivan is a pretentious talking head. Nothing to learn from him.

[tralfamadorian]

Sure, his career might suffer because the people who buy his music think he's gone nuts.  But this is how it works.  I don't remember this conservative wailing when, say, the Dixie Chicks had their careers torpedoed for saying mean things about Bush.  Did Andrew Sullivan write pretentious bullshit about the integrity of the individual artist about them?   Now, they really were censored.  Radio stations refused to play their music.  I..kinda don't remember conservatives being so mega into their 1st amendment rights back then.  It's this kind of hypocrisy that is really galling.  Whatever your reaction to the Dixie Chicks was, have the same one for Kanye.  And remember that they are all agents of the free market.

Your comments remind me very much of the questions raised by last week's This American Life:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

where the university of Kansas was pressured by conservatives to fire a liberal teacher, citing safety reasons, then turned back around and refused to expel an admitted white supremacist with violent aspirations, because that evidently is not a safety issue.

[caracarn]

Sure, his career might suffer because the people who buy his music think he's gone nuts.  But this is how it works.  I don't remember this conservative wailing when, say, the Dixie Chicks had their careers torpedoed for saying mean things about Bush.  Did Andrew Sullivan write pretentious bullshit about the integrity of the individual artist about them?   Now, they really were censored.  Radio stations refused to play their music.  I..kinda don't remember conservatives being so mega into their 1st amendment rights back then.  It's this kind of hypocrisy that is really galling.  Whatever your reaction to the Dixie Chicks was, have the same one for Kanye.  And remember that they are all agents of the free market.

Your comments remind me very much of the questions raised by last week's This American Life:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

where the university of Kansas was pressured by conservatives to fire a liberal teacher, citing safety reasons, then turned back around and refused to expel an admitted white supremacist with violent aspirations, because that evidently is not a safety issue.

Of course it is not a safety issue because the student makes them money whereas the teacher costs them money. 

[DarkandStormy]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?445674-1/president-trump-hosts-california-sanctuary-state-roundtable&live

In case there was any confusion on whether or not the President* is a racist.

President* Trump on immigrants to the US: “They’re not people. They’re animals.”

[MDM]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?445674-1/president-trump-hosts-california-sanctuary-state-roundtable&live

In case there was any confusion on whether or not the President* is a racist.

President* Trump on immigrants to the US: “They’re not people. They’re animals.”

People may hear what they want to hear, regardless of what is said.

E.g., in the President Trump Calls Gang Members Animals clip, there is nothing overtly racist.

Some will claim "but you know what he really means, wink-wink, nudge-nudge" while others will claim "MS-13 gang members" do indeed behave in undesirable ways, and race has nothing to do with it.

[sol]

Some will claim "but you know what he really means, wink-wink, nudge-nudge" while others will claim "MS-13 gang members" do indeed behave in undesirable ways, and race has nothing to do with it.

So what you're saying is that there are very fine people, on both sides?

[Glenstache]

Full quote from The Hill:
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in, we’re stopping a lot of them, but we’re taking people out of the country, you wouldn’t believe how bad these people are," Trump said during a meeting with California officials who oppose the state's "sanctuary city" laws.

“These aren’t people. These are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a rate that’s never happened before," Trump added.

This is also likely how policies supporting family separation are supported. Or slashing water bottles in the desert. etc.

[MDM]

Some will claim "but you know what he really means, wink-wink, nudge-nudge" while others will claim "MS-13 gang members" do indeed behave in undesirable ways, and race has nothing to do with it.

So what you're saying is that there are very fine people, on both sides?

Of course there are!  And it would be good for all to remember that.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I'm finally getting optimistic that Trump's 'reality TV' experiment will be cancelled after the first episode.  Calling anyone animals (on record), even if it's an immigrant group you don't like, shows that you are insecure and unable to open your mind to anything that doesn't immediately meet your approval.  The spin machine will try to optimize the idea that it's the MS-13 latino drug dealing rapists that were animals, but Trump is showing his real hand.  It worked fine for a campaign rally, but there is nuance to immigration and Trump is totally oblivious. 

America is a land of immigrants, so ultimately, Trump is trying to save an America that never existed from the people that actually do fervently want to be Americans making America to be great. 

[MasterStache]

I'm finally getting optimistic that Trump's 'reality TV' experiment will be cancelled after the first episode.  Calling anyone animals (on record), even if it's an immigrant group you don't like, shows that you are insecure and unable to open your mind to anything that doesn't immediately meet your approval.  The spin machine will try to optimize the idea that it's the MS-13 latino drug dealing rapists that were animals, but Trump is showing his real hand.  It worked fine for a campaign rally, but there is nuance to immigration and Trump is totally oblivious. 

America is a land of immigrants, so ultimately, Trump is trying to save an America that never existed from the people that actually do fervently want to be Americans making America to be great.

I disagree. It barely budges the needle on the long laundry list of shitty Trump things. I would even say it plays into what the overwhelming majority of his base truly thinks of immigrants.

[Kris]

I'm finally getting optimistic that Trump's 'reality TV' experiment will be cancelled after the first episode.  Calling anyone animals (on record), even if it's an immigrant group you don't like, shows that you are insecure and unable to open your mind to anything that doesn't immediately meet your approval.  The spin machine will try to optimize the idea that it's the MS-13 latino drug dealing rapists that were animals, but Trump is showing his real hand.  It worked fine for a campaign rally, but there is nuance to immigration and Trump is totally oblivious. 

America is a land of immigrants, so ultimately, Trump is trying to save an America that never existed from the people that actually do fervently want to be Americans making America to be great.

I disagree. It barely budges the needle on the long laundry list of shitty Trump things. I would even say it plays into what the overwhelming majority of his base truly thinks of immigrants.

I agree with MasterStache. Calling immigrants animals actually plays well to his base, and encourages them to think of immigrants as even less worthy of human treatment.

And Trump is slightly up in the polls these days.

And there is no one at the national level who is emerging as a good Democratic presidential nominee yet.

And GOP MOCs are all still in lockstep with him, except McCain, and one small statement by Lindsey Graham against the staffer that made that horrible remark about McCain dying. None of the Republicans are taking a stand, and the Democrats are pissing into the wind.

[nereo]

I agree with MasterStache. Calling immigrants animals actually plays well to his base, and encourages them to think of immigrants as even less worthy of human treatment.

And Trump is slightly up in the polls these days.

It plays well to his supporters, but not to the broader country, which he'll need to get re-elected.  I strongly suspect what he is doing and saying now is a heavy-handed attempt to rile up his base and get them to vote in the midterms. Right now enthusiasm from dems far outstrips that from the GOP in basically every special election and primary thus far.

Further down the line, it's not the approval rating that matters the most but the disapproval rating.  Time will tell but he's still deep underwater here.

And there is no one at the national level who is emerging as a good Democratic presidential nominee yet.

There's a pretty deep bench for the Dems at the moment, and most do not carry the baggage that HRC had. In most presidential races the challenger(s) didn't really emerge as national contenders until the year of the election (often not until after the first few primaries).

And GOP MOCs are all still in lockstep with him, except McCain, and one small statement by Lindsey Graham against the staffer that made that horrible remark about McCain dying. None of the Republicans are taking a stand, and the Democrats are pissing into the wind.

The GOP still see their fates tied to DJT.  His 'counterpunching' means they suffer politically anytime they speak out against the most egregious comments.  I agree that the GOP has abdicated all of their moral authority here.  There's only so much the minority party can do - play the outrage card and keep their base enthusiastic about turning up at the next election. So far the Dems have been reasonably effective about this.

If the GOP takes big loses in the midterms and loses at least the house I expect more of the GOP will turn on DJT, if only because they'll see their own political fate in the balance.  But not the ones from deeply red states and not the ones where DJT still dominates the popularity contest.

[thd7t]

Some will claim "but you know what he really means, wink-wink, nudge-nudge" while others will claim "MS-13 gang members" do indeed behave in undesirable ways, and race has nothing to do with it.

So what you're saying is that there are very fine people, on both sides?

Of course there are!  And it would be good for all to remember that.

Well, I'm going to put this back in context a little.  Sol is paraphrasing Trump's response to the Nazi rally on August 11 in Charlottesville, here.  The thing about that is that once someone marches with literal unashamed Nazis and doesn't oppose them, they've given up their status as "very fine people".  The line is bright, about a mile wide, and they only cross it if they really, really want to. 

[Kris]

I agree with MasterStache. Calling immigrants animals actually plays well to his base, and encourages them to think of immigrants as even less worthy of human treatment.

And Trump is slightly up in the polls these days.

It plays well to his supporters, but not to the broader country, which he'll need to get re-elected.  I strongly suspect what he is doing and saying now is a heavy-handed attempt to rile up his base and get them to vote in the midterms. Right now enthusiasm from dems far outstrips that from the GOP in basically every special election and primary thus far.

Further down the line, it's not the approval rating that matters the most but the disapproval rating.  Time will tell but he's still deep underwater here.

And there is no one at the national level who is emerging as a good Democratic presidential nominee yet.

There's a pretty deep bench for the Dems at the moment, and most do not carry the baggage that HRC had. In most presidential races the challenger(s) didn't really emerge as national contenders until the year of the election (often not until after the first few primaries).

And GOP MOCs are all still in lockstep with him, except McCain, and one small statement by Lindsey Graham against the staffer that made that horrible remark about McCain dying. None of the Republicans are taking a stand, and the Democrats are pissing into the wind.

The GOP still see their fates tied to DJT.  His 'counterpunching' means they suffer politically anytime they speak out against the most egregious comments.  I agree that the GOP has abdicated all of their moral authority here.  There's only so much the minority party can do - play the outrage card and keep their base enthusiastic about turning up at the next election. So far the Dems have been reasonably effective about this.

If the GOP takes big loses in the midterms and loses at least the house I expect more of the GOP will turn on DJT, if only because they'll see their own political fate in the balance.  But not the ones from deeply red states and not the ones where DJT still dominates the popularity contest.

I’m not convinced. Especially about the Dems’ deep bench. Nor about the DNC learning any lessons from the past two years, frankly.

I predicted Trump would be elected about a year before the election. Turned out, I was right.

We’ll see, I guess. I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.

[GuitarStv]

Why would calling immigrants animals be any more disturbing or surprising than calling Mexicans drug dealers, criminals, and rapists?

[thd7t]

Why would calling immigrants animals be any more disturbing or surprising than calling Mexicans drug dealers, criminals, and rapists?

While it's not surprising coming from Trump, it is more disturbing coming from the office that he occupies.  In the previous example, he was an aspirant to the office.

[Davnasty]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?445674-1/president-trump-hosts-california-sanctuary-state-roundtable&live

In case there was any confusion on whether or not the President* is a racist.

President* Trump on immigrants to the US: “They’re not people. They’re animals.”

People may hear what they want to hear, regardless of what is said.

E.g., in the President Trump Calls Gang Members Animals clip, there is nothing overtly racist.

Some will claim "but you know what he really means, wink-wink, nudge-nudge" while others will claim "MS-13 gang members" do indeed behave in undesirable ways, and race has nothing to do with it.

Indeed they do, maybe you should have another listen. What I heard was the president suggesting that a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants are bad people and gang members when compared to the rest of the population, which is not supported by the data. Excluding the crime of illegal residency, illegal immigrants commit less crime per capita than legal residents.

Even if he were referring directly to gang members, saying things like "these aren't people" is not ok. learn your history if you don't know why.

[DarkandStormy]

Why would calling immigrants animals be any more disturbing or surprising than calling Mexicans drug dealers, criminals, and rapists?

[Davnasty]

Why would calling immigrants animals be any more disturbing or surprising than calling Mexicans drug dealers, criminals, and rapists?

Trump quote

Agree with the reasoning that dehumanizing is worse (even though his past statements do so as well, just in a less direct manner), but let's not start attributing false quotes. Unless that quote is from a statement other than the one we're discussing, that is not what he said. Stuff like this is what let's people like MDM dismiss Trump's critics as just making it up.

[GuitarStv]

Why would calling immigrants animals be any more disturbing or surprising than calling Mexicans drug dealers, criminals, and rapists?

While it's not surprising coming from Trump, it is more disturbing coming from the office that he occupies.  In the previous example, he was an aspirant to the office.

Yeah, but when he was running for president he said the first set of comments . . . and then people voted him into office.  Pretending to be shocked when he says similar as president is pretty silly.

Trump shares similar qualities as Hitler in his view of the truth, his preferred political language, railing against the 'elites', a demonstrated fondness for nazis, his egomania . . . but Hitler orchestrated the murders of hundreds of thousands of people.  That's what people know him best for.  As much as I dislike Trump, comparing him to Hitler is simply invalid because Trump has never done anything approaching that kind of action.

[Kris]

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

[cliffhanger]

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

Children held in HHS custody spend an average of 45 days in the government’s care, the HHS official said, and they are provided with educational and recreational opportunities. The agency conducts background checks on potential sponsors for the minors, and in 85 percent of cases the children are released to a parent or other adult relative already present in the United States, the official said.

and

The use of military bases to hold immigrant children is not without precedent. At the peak of the 2014 child-immigration crisis, the Obama administration used bases in Oklahoma, Texas and California to house more than 7,000 children over a period of several months.

What a monster

[Kris]

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

Children held in HHS custody spend an average of 45 days in the government’s care, the HHS official said, and they are provided with educational and recreational opportunities. The agency conducts background checks on potential sponsors for the minors, and in 85 percent of cases the children are released to a parent or other adult relative already present in the United States, the official said.

and

The use of military bases to hold immigrant children is not without precedent. At the peak of the 2014 child-immigration crisis, the Obama administration used bases in Oklahoma, Texas and California to house more than 7,000 children over a period of several months.

What a monster

Yes. Obama's use of bases to hold children was to house children who had come over the border by themselves. Unaccompanied. Not children who had been forcibly removed from their parents.

[Freedom2016]

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

Children held in HHS custody spend an average of 45 days in the government’s care, the HHS official said, and they are provided with educational and recreational opportunities. The agency conducts background checks on potential sponsors for the minors, and in 85 percent of cases the children are released to a parent or other adult relative already present in the United States, the official said.

and

The use of military bases to hold immigrant children is not without precedent. At the peak of the 2014 child-immigration crisis, the Obama administration used bases in Oklahoma, Texas and California to house more than 7,000 children over a period of several months.

What a monster

Monstrous is separating kids from their parents, period. Good background reading: https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/rights/gbv/resources/1450-betraying-family-values

One of my good friends works in the immigration field and visits these centers. She is pretty appalled by how families are treated. Parents often have little information on what's happened to their kids, don't know their rights with respect to their kids, have no way to contact their kids, and get no info in how/when/where they will be reunited with their kids. Think about how confused, if not terrified, these kids must be. They've done nothing wrong. So, yeah, I do call that monstrous.

[caracarn]

My two cents here, is that my wife and I who have been lifelong Republicans are strongly considering just voting a straight Democratic ticket until Bozo is out of office.  It's bad enough in our eyes that even that worst Democrats can't create a worse spectacle in this country than an incompetent buffoon who does not seem to understand what to say about people (and other things) that any fifth grader would know.  Maybe Foxworthy should start up his show again and rename it "Are you smarter than a president". 

I'd be more than happy of going back to a lot of the non-progress and bickering over nothing we had before than the crap show we have to deal with every day right now.  I did not vote for him the first time, but he is making me consider taking more radical action than I would have thought about had he not behaved as he has in office and is therefore swinging Republican votes.  I am pretty comfortable in saying my wife and I are likely not the only ones who feel this way.

[MDM]

People may hear what they want to hear, regardless of what is said.
E.g., in the President Trump Calls Gang Members Animals clip, there is nothing overtly racist.
Some will claim "but you know what he really means, wink-wink, nudge-nudge" while others will claim "MS-13 gang members" do indeed behave in undesirable ways, and race has nothing to do with it.

Indeed they do

At least we agree on that.

maybe you should have another listen. What I heard was the president suggesting that a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants are bad people and gang members when compared to the rest of the population, which is not supported by the data. Excluding the crime of illegal residency, illegal immigrants commit less crime per capita than legal residents.
Even if he were referring directly to gang members, saying things like "these aren't people" is not ok. learn your history if you don't know why.

I heard him responding to a specific reference about MS-13, and have no problem with his characterization in that context. 

There is plenty of material for one to disagree with Trump, but consider also Dabnasty's point:

Why would calling immigrants animals be any more disturbing or surprising than calling Mexicans drug dealers, criminals, and rapists?

Trump quote

Agree with the reasoning that dehumanizing is worse (even though his past statements do so as well, just in a less direct manner), but let's not start attributing false quotes. Unless that quote is from a statement other than the one we're discussing, that is not what he said. Stuff like this is what let's people like MDM dismiss Trump's critics as just making it up.

[cliffhanger]

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

Children held in HHS custody spend an average of 45 days in the government’s care, the HHS official said, and they are provided with educational and recreational opportunities. The agency conducts background checks on potential sponsors for the minors, and in 85 percent of cases the children are released to a parent or other adult relative already present in the United States, the official said.

and

The use of military bases to hold immigrant children is not without precedent. At the peak of the 2014 child-immigration crisis, the Obama administration used bases in Oklahoma, Texas and California to house more than 7,000 children over a period of several months.

What a monster

Yes. Obama's use of bases to hold children was to house children who had come over the border by themselves. Unaccompanied. Not children who had been forcibly removed from their parents.

These children are legally considered 'unaccompanied', but they are not always children who have come over the border by themselves. Freedom2016 posted a good article that explains how families can be separated under current policy.

Good background reading: https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/rights/gbv/resources/1450-betraying-family-values

Nobody wants to see these families separated, except for cases of abuse, failure to provide basic needs, etc. This administration seems to think that it will dissuade families from crossing illegally. It may not work in reality, but I can understand the motive behind it.

I think it's just disingenuous to take everything Trump and immediately applying a bad motive to him. I'll speculate that it's not as bad as you make it, and people see through it. Doing this is only going to create more Trump supporters.

[Roadrunner53]

Sarah HuckaSanders was on TV today using the word animals, animals, animals...

Trying to make Donny's use of the word animals seem 'normal'.

So now I guess this word will be used quite often by all of the Donny administration.

[DarkandStormy]

I think it's just disingenuous to take everything Trump and immediately applying a bad motive to him.

Think you forgot the "/s" here.

[Kris]

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

Children held in HHS custody spend an average of 45 days in the government’s care, the HHS official said, and they are provided with educational and recreational opportunities. The agency conducts background checks on potential sponsors for the minors, and in 85 percent of cases the children are released to a parent or other adult relative already present in the United States, the official said.

and

The use of military bases to hold immigrant children is not without precedent. At the peak of the 2014 child-immigration crisis, the Obama administration used bases in Oklahoma, Texas and California to house more than 7,000 children over a period of several months.

What a monster

Yes. Obama's use of bases to hold children was to house children who had come over the border by themselves. Unaccompanied. Not children who had been forcibly removed from their parents.

These children are legally considered 'unaccompanied', but they are not always children who have come over the border by themselves. Freedom2016 posted a good article that explains how families can be separated under current policy.

Good background reading: https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/rights/gbv/resources/1450-betraying-family-values

Nobody wants to see these families separated, except for cases of abuse, failure to provide basic needs, etc. This administration seems to think that it will dissuade families from crossing illegally. It may not work in reality, but I can understand the motive behind it.

I think it's just disingenuous to take everything Trump and immediately applying a bad motive to him. I'll speculate that it's not as bad as you make it, and people see through it. Doing this is only going to create more Trump supporters.

I highly doubt that. Pretty sure his base is his base, and that's about where we are.

Sorry, I'm not taking "everything" Trump and "immediately" applying a bad motive to him. I see this as a very bad thing, on top of a bunch of other utterly disgusting moves he has taken in terms of immigration, to keep his base happy and inflamed.

I am capable of critical thought. I am capable of thinking that certain things he does might possibly have a good outcome -- though I will grant you, that is rarely because I think his reasoning is sound. But I'm not being disingenuous, and I refuse your characterization.

[cliffhanger]

I highly doubt that. Pretty sure his base is his base, and that's about where we are.

Sorry, I'm not taking "everything" Trump and "immediately" applying a bad motive to him. I see this as a very bad thing, on top of a bunch of other utterly disgusting moves he has taken in terms of immigration, to keep his base happy and inflamed.

I am capable of critical thought. I am capable of thinking that certain things he does might possibly have a good outcome -- though I will grant you, that is rarely because I think his reasoning is sound. But I'm not being disingenuous, and I refuse your characterization.

Can you at least understand where this characterization is coming from? You claimed this 'monstrous' administration is putting kids in military camps even though this particular immigration policy has remained largely unchanged from the prior administration.

I would actually tend to agree with you on keeping illegal immigrant families intact as a priority. But it's hard to have a discussion when you attribute the worst possible motive on every most things Trump.

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

[Kris]

I highly doubt that. Pretty sure his base is his base, and that's about where we are.

Sorry, I'm not taking "everything" Trump and "immediately" applying a bad motive to him. I see this as a very bad thing, on top of a bunch of other utterly disgusting moves he has taken in terms of immigration, to keep his base happy and inflamed.

I am capable of critical thought. I am capable of thinking that certain things he does might possibly have a good outcome -- though I will grant you, that is rarely because I think his reasoning is sound. But I'm not being disingenuous, and I refuse your characterization.

Can you at least understand where this characterization is coming from? You claimed this 'monstrous' administration is putting kids in military camps even though this particular immigration policy has remained largely unchanged from the prior administration.

I would actually tend to agree with you on keeping illegal immigrant families intact as a priority. But it's hard to have a discussion when you attribute the worst possible motive on every most things Trump.

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

We are really, really gonna have to disagree that physically separating children from their families at the border, and putting unaccompanied children in camps, are two policies that are "largely unchanged" from one administration to another.

[caracarn]

I'd agree with Kris.  Just because the word "camp" was used in both policies does not make them remotely similar.  I am not as familiar with the details, so I am responding assuming that the differences spelled out (Obama was children coming over alone, this administration is separating intact families).  If that is accurate these are not similar in any way other than where the kids end up.

[cliffhanger]

I highly doubt that. Pretty sure his base is his base, and that's about where we are.

Sorry, I'm not taking "everything" Trump and "immediately" applying a bad motive to him. I see this as a very bad thing, on top of a bunch of other utterly disgusting moves he has taken in terms of immigration, to keep his base happy and inflamed.

I am capable of critical thought. I am capable of thinking that certain things he does might possibly have a good outcome -- though I will grant you, that is rarely because I think his reasoning is sound. But I'm not being disingenuous, and I refuse your characterization.

Can you at least understand where this characterization is coming from? You claimed this 'monstrous' administration is putting kids in military camps even though this particular immigration policy has remained largely unchanged from the prior administration.

I would actually tend to agree with you on keeping illegal immigrant families intact as a priority. But it's hard to have a discussion when you attribute the worst possible motive on every most things Trump.

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

We are really, really gonna have to disagree that physically separating children from their families at the border, and putting unaccompanied children in camps, are two policies that are "largely unchanged" from one administration to another.

What specific policy and/or protocol has or will change in regards to this? I'd be happy to give my thoughts, but 'Trump is going to rip apart families' is not a policy.

This, I believe, is a great resource on current policy. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied-section-1

[Glenstache]

Implementation matters.

[Kris]

I highly doubt that. Pretty sure his base is his base, and that's about where we are.

Sorry, I'm not taking "everything" Trump and "immediately" applying a bad motive to him. I see this as a very bad thing, on top of a bunch of other utterly disgusting moves he has taken in terms of immigration, to keep his base happy and inflamed.

I am capable of critical thought. I am capable of thinking that certain things he does might possibly have a good outcome -- though I will grant you, that is rarely because I think his reasoning is sound. But I'm not being disingenuous, and I refuse your characterization.

Can you at least understand where this characterization is coming from? You claimed this 'monstrous' administration is putting kids in military camps even though this particular immigration policy has remained largely unchanged from the prior administration.

I would actually tend to agree with you on keeping illegal immigrant families intact as a priority. But it's hard to have a discussion when you attribute the worst possible motive on every most things Trump.

^^^ Agree.

Although, apparently now this administration will be separating child immigrants from their parents at the border, and putting them in camps. They are literally looking at military camps right now.

Not gas chambers. But monstrous, nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-preparing-to-shelter-migrant-children-on-military-bases/2018/05/15/f8103356-584e-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on

We are really, really gonna have to disagree that physically separating children from their families at the border, and putting unaccompanied children in camps, are two policies that are "largely unchanged" from one administration to another.

What specific policy and/or protocol has or will change in regards to this? I'd be happy to give my thoughts, but 'Trump is going to rip apart families' is not a policy.

This, I believe, is a great resource on current policy. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied-section-1

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kelly-family-separation-policy-illegal-border-crossing-2018-5?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

http://www.businessinsider.com/parents-separated-from-children-in-trump-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy-2018-5?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/05/15/3-texas-military-bases-may-house-children-separated-parents-trumps-border-crackdown

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-challenges-trump-administration-practice-forcibly-separating-asylum-seeking-parents-and

[cliffhanger]

Kris, THANK YOU. Sincerely.

So just a couple thoughts on these links

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kelly-family-separation-policy-illegal-border-crossing-2018-5?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

http://www.businessinsider.com/parents-separated-from-children-in-trump-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy-2018-5?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

My understanding is that DHS will now arrest and seek to prosecute everyone who illegally comes to the country? Explicitly enforce the current law? That will inadvertently lead to families being separated if parents are prosecuted. So I'll go ahead and chalk this up to me being generally against the specific law, but reluctantly supportive of the enforcement of the law. I'm sure there's a better way we could go about handling families who come over (even illegally), but it's the executive branch's duty to enforce the law that the legislature passes. I take this position because there may be a day that a president comes along that picks and chooses which laws to ignore.

Also I've gotten into the habit of asking myself "Compared to what?" when faced with any Trump administration stories. OK so DHS will prosecute %100 of illegal immigrants. What was that number under Obama administration? What happened to those who weren't prosecuted? How many families were separated because of this? We don't even have a baseline to figure out the possible impact of this policy because no one reports on either Trump or Obama fairly.

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-challenges-trump-administration-practice-forcibly-separating-asylum-seeking-parents-and

If this story played out the way ACLU lays it out, then this is a major abuse. Pardon me for being skeptical until more facts are known, though. Immigration granting the mother and child initial asylum then being forcibly separated four days later without cause seems like there's more to this story. If you want to rub it in my face when the court ruling comes out, be my guest. I'll withhold my final judgement until then.

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-to-decide-aclu-request-to-stop-ice-family-separation/

[Kris]

Kris, THANK YOU. Sincerely.

You're welcome.

[DarkandStormy]

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-stormy-daniels-payment-justice-department-930088

I like how there was so much shit this week that almost no one noticed that OGE OPENLY REFERRED POTUS's financial disclosure to DOJ.

I mean, think about that statement under any other President (save Nixon) in the last 100 years...it would be THE DEFINING SCANDAL and calls for impeachment would be immediate.

[caracarn]

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-stormy-daniels-payment-justice-department-930088

I like how there was so much shit this week that almost no one noticed that OGE OPENLY REFERRED POTUS's financial disclosure to DOJ.

I mean, think about that statement under any other President (save Nixon) in the last 100 years...it would be THE DEFINING SCANDAL and calls for impeachment would be immediate.

"Trump claimed he was unaware of Cohen's payment to Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, until his new lawyer Rudy Giuliani revealed earlier this month that the president had reimbursed Cohen."

I want to have so much money one day that I could just have $130K go somewhere and I not even know it happened because it was a rounding error.  The wastefulness and uncaring about one's finances is amazing from this single statement.

[sol]

The wastefulness and uncaring about one's finances is amazing from this single statement.

Nice try, but let's not pretend that the problem here is that trump is rich.  The problem here is that trump is a liar.  He lied about the affair (not illegal), he lied about the hush money payment (maybe illegal), and he lied on his financial disclosure forms (definitely illegal).

But it won't matter.  DS pointed out that this matter has been "referred to the justice department" but that doesn't mean anything anymore.  Jeff Sessions will just bury it.  The president has committed so many worse crimes than this one that I doubt they'll even assign an agent to investigate. 

If he gets indicted, I'm pretty sure it won't be over fraudulent paperwork. 

[Glenstache]

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-stormy-daniels-payment-justice-department-930088

I like how there was so much shit this week that almost no one noticed that OGE OPENLY REFERRED POTUS's financial disclosure to DOJ.

I mean, think about that statement under any other President (save Nixon) in the last 100 years...it would be THE DEFINING SCANDAL and calls for impeachment would be immediate.

"Trump claimed he was unaware of Cohen's payment to Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, until his new lawyer Rudy Giuliani revealed earlier this month that the president had reimbursed Cohen."

I want to have so much money one day that I could just have $130K go somewhere and I not even know it happened because it was a rounding error.  The wastefulness and uncaring about one's finances is amazing from this single statement.

That is a very generous read of that sequence of events. I read it as Trump denying and lying until he was backed into a corner by Avanetti and then having a surrogate spill it in a  friendly space (Hannity). In short, he lied until the consequences of not lying would be worse (campaign finance issues). 

[caracarn]

Sol was not trying to indicate it is because he is rich.  I just really had the thought of "wow, I can't even imagine how oblivious you need to be to not know you make $130K payment".  I get "he" did not make it, someone working for him did, but still it all flows into something I cannot imagine (nor do I think anyone on this forum can because we all are more careful with our money).

[sol]

I just really had the thought of "wow, I can't even imagine how oblivious you need to be to not know you make $130K payment". 

I think you're still being too generous.  I think trump knew exactly how much he spent, for exactly what purpose.  He knew he had to keep his martial infidelities from becoming public before the election, so he and his lawyer worked together to pay off a porn star (and a bunny and at least one other woman).  Then he denied the affairs, then backtracked and denied the payments existed, then backtracked and denied he knew about the payments, then backtracked and denied the payments were an illegal loan.  All lies.  Of course he knew!

I have a lawyer.  He does not spend my money without my express permission.  He is legally prohibited from doing so.

[Glenstache]

Pulling out the wayback machine, some folks have speculated that this little bit is part of why Trump is so intent on seeking vengeance on Obama (start around 3 min):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

Seth Meyer's follow up from the evening probably did not go over well, either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv4MzaGk2VI

[Kris]

Our president is an idiot and an asshole.


https://www.facebook.com/TheRawStory/posts/10156490863827235

[Glenstache]

Our president is an idiot and an asshole.


https://www.facebook.com/TheRawStory/posts/10156490863827235

It is part of the long held GOP platform of free markets and the government not picking winners and losers, right?

[Roadrunner53]

Prison reform, ha, ha, ha...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-prison-reform-tweets_us_5aff37f8e4b07309e057f6a9