Wide spread election fraud 2020

[Spartanmack]

I think Trump being exceptionally divisive better satisfies Occam's Razor.

I have no doubt that you do.

 

[Spartanmack]

Before Trump there was a flood of unaccompanied minors. So Obama started putting kids in cages. But they didn't separate families as a matter of policy, only when they thought the claim that they were a family was a lie or when there were crimes other than just crossing the border involved. I don't understand why people think that's the same thing.

anyone who is arrested for committing a crime gets separated from their children. The fact that it happens at the border to people who come to the US illegally doesn't suddenly make it a humanitarian crisis or low-down dirty behavior.

 

[Spartanmack]

My first sentence that you quoted was ?His language probably won?t be seen as rising to the level of criminal.?

More than one thing can be true.

I assume you meant to quote me and not yourself - I agree more than one thing can be true. I'm just saying I don't agree with McConnell, Cheney or any other Republican or Dem who says Trump incited, encouraged or is responsible for the riot at the capitol

 

[Michchamp]

anyone who is arrested for committing a crime gets separated from their children. The fact that it happens at the border to people who come to the US illegally doesn't suddenly make it a humanitarian crisis or low-down dirty behavior.

If you could go down there and look at those people and say that, you would be a sociopath

 

[Gulo Blue]

anyone who is arrested for committing a crime gets separated from their children. The fact that it happens at the border to people who come to the US illegally doesn't suddenly make it a humanitarian crisis or low-down dirty behavior.

This isn't true. Trump's policy was reversed.



And it is low-down dirty behavior. Shouldn't even have to say it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Fuck, man. Shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Are you kidding me?

 

[Spartanmack]

If you could go down there and look at those people and say that, you would be a sociopath

no, a sociopath is the kind of person who would be totally unsympathetic or even take pleasure in it - the way you do whenever someone you don't like passes away (like Sheldon Adleson) or their house burns down (Lou Holtz). You exhibit far more sociopathic behavior than anyone on this board - and it's not even close.

 

[Spartanmack]

This isn't true. Trump's policy was reversed.



And it is low-down dirty behavior. Shouldn't even have to say it.

If you don't think it's true, go rob a liquor store or drive drunk or break into your neighbors house - see if you get separated from your kids or your dogs if you don't have kids.

It was reversed because of political pressure probably largely influenced by lies about illegal immigration.

Edit: and by the way, lots of those kids were separated from adults who weren't their parents. Some of them were victims of human trafficking. It's a nearly impossible situation and if you want to slag the administration for screwing up the tracking of these kids and delays reuniting and deporting the families, slag away. But the idea that they should have been kept together or entire families should be released into the US to report to court on their own sometime in the future is nuts. And you can't put them in detention with other potentially dangerous adults just to keep them with their parents. That's completely irresponsible.

 

[byco42]

Imagine how much of what goes on that has been ignored to date will be brought to relief and how much that goes on to date that is in relief will be ignored -- beginning tomorrow.

And nothing at all will have changed.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If you don't think it's true, go rob a liquor store or drive drunk or break into your neighbors house - see if you get separated from your kids or your dogs if you don't have kids.

It was reversed because of political pressure probably largely influenced by lies about illegal immigration.

Edit: and by the way, lots of those kids were separated from adults who weren't their parents. Some of them were victims of human trafficking. It's a nearly impossible situation and if you want to slag the administration for screwing up the tracking of these kids and delays reuniting and deporting the families, slag away. But the idea that they should have been kept together or entire families should be released into the US to report to court on their own sometime in the future is nuts. And you can't put them in detention with other potentially dangerous adults just to keep them with their parents. That's completely irresponsible.

Adding child separation from families to a misdemeanor crime, not out of necessity, but as a deterrent, is immoral and it should have been universally recognized as unamerican. Pointing to the human trafficking cases to defend separation in cases that had nothing to do with trafficking, in light of what's already been said in this conversation, is difficult for me to take a charitable view of.

 

[Michchamp]

Imagine how much of what goes on that has been ignored to date will be brought to relief and how much that goes on to date that is in relief will be ignored -- beginning tomorrow.

And nothing at all will have changed.

The Biden administration is already weaseling out of the promise of getting $2000 checks in everyone's (eligible) hands if the Dems won in GA.

 

[Spartanmack]

Adding child separation from families to a misdemeanor crime, not out of necessity, but as a deterrent, is immoral and it should have been universally recognized as unamerican. Pointing to the human trafficking cases to defend separation in cases that had nothing to do with trafficking, in light of what's already been said in this conversation, is difficult for me to take a charitable view of.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree - it's neither immoral or unamerican to enforce the law. And separating children at the border is both necessary to protect the children and a deterrent - probably one of the more effective ones. It's not always easy to tell who is being trafficked and who isn't. I couldn't care less how about how charitably you view my position - you're going to have to do better than simply reading something I'm not saying into my posts to claim the moral high ground here.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree - it's neither immoral or unamerican to enforce the law. And separating children at the border is both necessary to protect the children and a deterrent - probably one of the more effective ones. It's not always easy to tell who is being trafficked and who isn't. I couldn't care less how about how charitably you view my position - you're going to have to do better than simply reading something I'm not saying into my posts to claim the moral high ground here.

I don't have to read into anything. "and a deterrent - probably one of the more effective ones." You've said it plainly enough.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't have to read into anything. "and a deterrent - probably one of the more effective ones." You've said it plainly enough.

all punishments for crimes are designed to be deterrents - what would be the point otherwise? all you've done is selectively quote part of a post to falsely frame my position so you can claim the moral high ground. it's weak.

 

[Gulo Blue]

all punishments for crimes are designed to be deterrents - what would be the point otherwise? all you've done is selectively quote part of a post to falsely frame my position so you can claim the moral high ground. it's weak.

Selected for brevity and focus, not to edit meaning. What possible other part of what you said redeems your statement? separating children at the border is necessary to protect the children? Obviously not always true and not the case here. The policy was to separate children regardless of the impact on the safety of the children.

 

[Spartanmack]

Selected for brevity and focus, not to edit meaning. What possible other part of what you said redeems your statement? separating children at the border is necessary to protect the children? Obviously not always true and not the case here. The policy was to separate children regardless of the impact on the safety of the children.

My statement doesn’t need redemption, but clearly for you it needs explaining, again. Children were separated at the boarder not only to protect them from human traffickers but also to protect them from adults also in detention. When you cross the boarder illegally, you’re sent to a detention center, not the local Hilton. There are some bad actors in those places, many of whom we have no criminal history - it’s not appropriate to put while families in that environment, nor is it incumbent on the US to provide family accommodations for the massive amount of illegal boarder crossers. So to protect the children, they are detained separately. Of course that should be a disincentive for any good parent to cross the boarder illegally but that doesn’t mean it’s not for the safety of kids.

edit: I shouldn't have said many of whom have no criminal history, I meant many of whom we can't identify and/or know their criminal history.

 

[Gulo Blue]

My statement doesn’t need redemption, but clearly for you it needs explaining, again. Children were separated at the boarder not only to protect them from human traffickers but also to protect them from adults also in detention. When you cross the boarder illegally, you’re sent to a detention center, not the local Hilton. There are some bad actors in those places, many of whom we have no criminal history - it’s not appropriate to put while families in that environment, nor is it incumbent on the US to provide family accommodations for the massive amount of illegal boarder crossers. So to protect the children, they are detained separately. Of course that should be a disincentive for any good parent to cross the boarder illegally but that doesn’t mean it’s not for the safety of kids.

Some kids wre with dangerous people, some weren't. They were with their families. The policy was to do it to everyone, whether it was for the safety of the kids or not. Doing it just one time to send a message rather than for the kids safety is immoral. This has already been said. There's no reason you should still be mashing the two together like you can't have one without the other, but there you are, pretending it's a rational position.

 

[Gulo Blue]

But for Tinsel (and any others that heard this was how it was under Obama), maybe you'd be interested in the Department of Justice's review:
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/21-028_0.pdf
The summary states that in April of 2018, Sessions announced a zero-tolerance policy that required the prosecution of all illegal border crossing violations, including misdemeanors. It says this was a change from prior practices where families that previously would have faced deportation proceedings as a family unit, would now be separated so the adults could be prosecuted as individuals.

 

[Spartanmack]

Some kids wre with dangerous people, some weren't. They were with their families. The policy was to do it to everyone, whether it was for the safety of the kids or not. Doing it just one time to send a message rather than for the kids safety is immoral. This has already been said. There's no reason you should still be mashing the two together like you can't have one without the other, but there you are, pretending it's a rational position.

those kids with their families shouldn't be held in a detention center with adults that holds other potentially dangerous adults. Keeping kids out of that environment is not immoral, it's the right thing to do. They also shouldn't just release their entire families into the population in the hopes that they show up for a court date - they've already tried to get into the country illegally, how can they be trusted to suddenly respect our laws and be released on their own recognizance? Why should they be? Obviously, this has already been said, but apparently I need to keep "mashing it together" to get it through to you. The border has been a complete mess - it's not incumbent on the US to build hotels for detaining families together or to let the problem with the porous border fester while any such facilities are built. Separation both protects children from potential threats and has the added benefit, like all other punishments are designed to do, of being a deterrent to potential law breakers.

 

[Gulo Blue]

those kids with their families shouldn't be held in a detention center with adults that also has potentially dangerous adults. Keeping kids out of that environment is not immoral, it's the right thing to do. Obviously, this has already been said, but apparently I need to keep "mashing it together" to get it through to you.

When was that ever an issue? Or are you making up more nonsense?