Trump

[Hank001]

Bishop149 posited:

God I hope this is what finishes him / them off

Nice post there!

I'm afraid the worst is only beginning.
One thing you can assure youself of
and that's if the Republicans feel they'll
loose their majority after thhe midterms,
then the US constitution is dogmeat.
They will not let a little thing like that
or democracy stand in their way.

Trump's playing to the crowds saying,
"It's the Democrat's law" when it an obvoius lie
and the Reoublican Party simply nodding their heads
put's this in perspective: In times of war the law falls silent.
Hail our new Caesar!

[Bishop149]

Probably a good moment to remember that there have been reports in the past that the US government gave immigrant children to child traffickers who used them as slaves.

Indeed, The US government treating asylum seekers as an irritating problem to be solved as quickly and as cheaply as possible, rather than as people in need of protection is not at all new. Nor is it unique to the US, it is unfortunately the attitude of many developed state entities, including my own.

To all those Americans who would advocate their right to bear arms as defence against an unjust or tyrannical government, might I ask when exactly you would exercise that power?
The current (and possibly past) barbarism on the boarder is obviously not sufficient, no?
Well, the obvious next step for Trump and co (if they follow historical precedent) would be to expand these or similar policies to US citizens via the removal of that citizenship from those they wish to get rid of. Criminals or those they deemed insufficiently "American" by some metric or other. Might I suggest that if THAT happens it would be an excellent time to either put up or shut up.
Or do the tanks have to rolling up your own street before you'd consider exercising your "right".

[mrbadger]

Europe and the UK have no high ground to sit on and critisize the US. The regugee problem more than anything revealed the flaws of the EU in its current form.

[clakclak]

Europe and the UK have no high ground to sit on and critisize the US. The regugee problem more than anything revealed the flaws of the EU in its current form.

The EU and UK may not have any high ground, but I will damn well keep criticising the US for their immigration policy, the same way I am criticising my own country and the EU. All of them are worthy of criticism.

[RegisterMe]

Yay, a Space Force.

[Hank001]

Just sat with a friend watching CSPAN. The legistature was grilling the FBI chief and the Inpector General.

Both tried to sidestep the question: "Does anything in this report support Trump's conclusion that it exonerates him from collusion or obstruction of justice?" Though enough "No" leaked out that if I were they I'd be brushing up that resume (CV).

Homeland Security Chief is going to be with Sarah Sanders at the daily press briefing, no doubt denying she insinuated the US is kidnapping children to pressure the opposition party into caving on immegration and build her boss the damn wall. Sanders refused to answer questions about the subject of child internment and with DHS giving that press conference that flatly stated there is no "law", just policy, this should get interesting.

It hasn't quite been stated yet, but sounds like Trump might ask the party to pass immigration by "going nuclear" and use a simple majority. That will get real interesting!

Here's DHS's press conference:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics ... index.html

[Rapier]

Yay, a Space Force.

I'm tired, so I keep reading this as 'Space Farce'. It remains to be seen how others will react, but I can imagine this (if it actually goes ahead) means the end of EU and other collaborations with NASA.

[Hank001]

Nothing really new, the USAF almost had a US Space Force in the bag in 1991, but Bill Clinton won the election and nixed the idea.

The thing is we really need one since space mission under the Joint US Space Command has to deal with 5 budgets and a consolodation is badly needed. Though for GOD Sake I hope they nixed the idea of black uniforms!

(That would be.... ) Ugh..Ly!

[Observe]

It remains to be seen how others will react, but I can imagine this (if it actually goes ahead) means the end of EU and other collaborations with NASA.

Why? I expect NASA would retain its research and exploration charter pretty much unchanged. This new Space Force, would presumably handle military/police functions relating to space that neither NASA nor any other specific entity is funded or managed for. At least that's my take on it.

[Hank001]

Observe noted:

...At least that's my take on it.

You nsiled it, but I expecting Trump to make some sop to DOD
after pulling the rug from under them in South Korea.

Now everybody's going to rush to lobby for basings, contracts, basically hash out the dimensions of the trough so that only the fattest get to belly up... Usual games but with DC now a buyers market it's probably got Trump seeing $$$.

[Morkonan]

Space Force = WTF?

Hey, it sounds cool and all, but seriously... WTF? We have better things to work on.

On separating families at the border: Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants...

[Observe]

On separating families at the border: Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants...

And neither are they 'migrants'. When did refuges and asylum seekers become migrants? Talk about WTF.

[Mightysword]

To all those Americans who would advocate their right to bear arms as defence against an unjust or tyrannical government, might I ask when exactly you would exercise that power?

The answer to your question is simple: almost half of the country voted him to be the president. No matter how much you hate Trump, it doesn't mean everyone share your sentiment. And I know he's been doing a lot of things to piss a lot of people off, I'm not sure if anything would be qualified as 'tyrannical' to the Americans.

The coming sentences are supposed to be a tongue in cheek (just in case sarcasm is lost on the internet): I'm fairly sure if it comes to that, there will be actually many use the right to bear arm to defend 'their' president. And if you look at the statistic of gun distribution on the electorate map, that part of the population maybe outnumbered, but certainly will have the other parts outgunned. So bad suggestion all around.

On separating families at the border: Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants...

And neither are they 'migrants'. When did refuges and asylum seekers become migrants? Talk about WTF.

And neither domestic violent is a valid reason for refugee status. Tbh I didn't know it's even a thing until know, but at least I'm glad it's being stopped ... assuming the decision hold.

It doesn't matter if someone think this is politically-incorrect, it makes absolutely zero sense. If something like domestic violence is considered to be a valid reason for asylum than most places on the planets will have people qualify for it. Hell, I imagine some country would have literally half of its population apply for asylum on the ground of domestic violence. Except, most will also lack a mean to arrive at the border. Try to apply for asylum on that ground at your local consulate/embassy and see how that gonna fly. A lot of these debates about valid reasons for refugee/migrant/asylum seekers seem to all avoid the biggest elephant in the room: when it comes down to it, 99% of the argument is based on the assumption of: "hey, we manage to show up on your door, whatever the reason was now we are YOUR problem".

[RegisterMe]

I agree that domestic violence should not be considered valid as a reason to claim asylum. Separating children from their families is deliberately cruel, it's barbaric.

[Hank001]

@ Mightysword

Best do some fact checks on Trump's popularity. Not that you haven't fell into a carefully prepared trap. The polls released by Trump's White House was the ONLY.... Only poll where he shows over 50% approval. The only ones polled were REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, national and state. Now only 58% of those polled approve of the Trump administration's immigration policy. Though you'll have to dig to find out it wasn't a general party poll. Trump's OVERALL popularity? Even his people are quoting it's BELOW 30% and he might be now facing running a country with 75% disapproving of his administration. ADMINISTRATION.
Now there's questions about the recent Gallop Poll showing Trump has 50% popularity that concerns who they polled. Which boils down to 50% of white middle class homeowners. Go figure. Gallop doesn't want to lose their backers and were pressured to show what they showed. The bottom line is that since Trump is squeezing hard and none in the governmental bureaucracy DARE say a word against him, you should take ANY... any "facts" and "figures" related to ANYTHING out of DC with more than a grain of salt. The data will show the biases whomever put out the poll. Where Gallop screwed up was publishing a 50% approval which any look at the real situation would say if he's only got a 58% approval rating among lawmakers in his OWN PARTY how could have a 50% approval rating overall? He couldn't. Granted the Trump administration is just started slanting their data, the Obama administration were masters at figure twisting. I used to collect party polling data until it became so slanted as to be useless and started delving into shear fantasy, "alternate facts" and in some cases outright falsified. So my advice is take any polling data for what it is. What the pollers WANT you to believe and no more.

[Bishop149]

Europe and the UK have no high ground to sit on and critisize the US. The regugee problem more than anything revealed the flaws of the EU in its current form.

True, although as far as I am aware we have yet to make the systematic human rights abuse (arguably torture) of migrants and asylum seekers an official government policy.
Not that I'd put it past certain EU countries.

The answer to your question is simple: almost half of the country voted him to be the president. No matter how much you hate Trump, it doesn't mean everyone share your sentiment. And I know he's been doing a lot of things to piss a lot of people off, I'm not sure if anything would be qualified as 'tyrannical' to the Americans.

Look if you ever get a tyrannical government in the US chances are good it will be voted in.
So let me rephrase, what would Trump have to do to lose that support. Will those that voted for him EVER be able to admit they were wrong? Or will their egos basically just give him carte blanche?
Speaking personally If hypothetically I was a Trump voter he would have crossed the line with what he's doing on the border. However much I might support his economic or foreign policy he'd have lost my support over this one and would be one step away from a more active form of resistance.
So where's that line for your average Trump voter?
Selective revocation of US citizenship?
Pogroms?
Forced relocation?
Gas chambers?
Where?

Sadly I think the truth is that many Americans support him because of his racism and willingness to selectively disregard the human rights of certain groups rather than in spite of these things.

A lot of these debates about valid reasons for refugee/migrant/asylum seekers seem to all avoid the biggest elephant in the room: when it comes down to it, 99% of the argument is based on the assumption of: "hey, we manage to show up on your door, whatever the reason was now we are YOUR problem".

Yes they are, the right to claim asylum is a right protected by both international and US law. You are therefore obligated to hear their case and to treat them with respect whilst you do so. Not just assume guilty until proven innocent and imprison and abuse them without due process.
If after said due process you find that claim to be invalid then you are free to deny them and facilitate their onward journey to somewhere else. At no point during this process should they be treated as a criminal, seeing as they have committed no crime. Quite the opposite in fact, they have requested the protection of the law.

The US in particular would do well to remember it history in this regard, you are an entire nation of asylum seekers and economic migrants. So much so you inscribed a sentiment expressing such on your most famous national symbol.

[Ketraar]

Yes they are, the right to claim asylum is a right protected by both international and US law. You are therefore obligated to hear their case and to treat them with respect whilst you do so.

Yet again a great demonstration of hypocrisy by US officials, its tragic and funny at the same time. That failed project of a human called Sessions, went on a stage quoting the/a Bible to make a point that people should uphold the law and use that to separate children from their parents, while at the same time failing to uphold the law of treating these people accordingly.

This is so obvious it pains to watch and all I would hope is for a magic flyswatter to appear every time these idiots contradict themselves and smack them in the face.

MFG

Ketraar

[Hank001]

Bishop149 posed:

Sadly I think the truth is that many Americans support him because of his racism and willingness to selectively disregard the human rights of certain groups rather than in spite of these things.

Sadly to a perhaps smaller part than you might think, you're right.

Really (as I tried to make clear in my previous post) figures on Trump's exact support are becoming so twisted as to be worse than useless. Most Americans are not rabid, ignorant, semi-violent, bigoted, loud and foul mouthed, gun toting lunitics who think anyone south of the American boarder coming across should be shot on sight. However Trump seems to have that constituency pretty much in the bag.

edit: ketaar just noted:

That failed project of a human

. I think I'll keep that one!
Nailed it!

[Santi]

Europe and the UK have no high ground to sit on and critisize the US. The regugee problem more than anything revealed the flaws of the EU in its current form.

True, although as far as I am aware we have yet to make the systematic human rights abuse (arguably torture) of migrants and asylum seekers an official government policy.
Not that I'd put it past certain EU countries.

We are far more clever, we actually pay other countries to do the human right abuse for us. Billions to Turkey, money and preferential treatment to Morocco and a brand new Coast Guard and a blind eye to slavery to a Libyan warlord.

The problem in the USA is Trump criminalization of entering the USA illegally (zero tolerance policy), that to clarify matters, does not make you an asylum seeker, but an illegal immigrant and as such you are breaking the law.

What happened before was that you either got deported straight away back to Mexico, or you went into a provisional facility, and the USA will look at your case and make a decision, wherever you are deported or can claim asylum.

Now, you cross the border illegally and get caught, you are sent to jail, because you are a criminal. So to the matter of the children, great headlines, so much feelings, such injustice. This is what triggers me, are people actually saying that families should not be separated and the children should go with their parents to adult jails? Are you mad?

The press and politicians should stop scoring points talking about the children and start talking about the "zero tolerance policy" that is what is causing this mess and try to revert to the previous arrangement. Where the whole family was interned in special immigration centers.

But they will not, because right now you cannot be pro immigration (not the flavour of the month), but it is not socially acceptable to be anti immigration either. So lets play the feelings card and claim for families to be reunited, ignoring the fact that it actually means getting thousands of children into adult jails.

Not kidding, but looking at these measures and others to come, I rather secure the border and build the wall.

[Hank001]

Well it's clear now the the seperation of chilldren from their parents on the border as the plan as far back as a year ago proported my General Kelly (Now the White House Chief of Staff) at the time he was the Director of Homeland Security in interviews witth the media.

http://www.businessinsider.com/kelly-pr ... 017-2018-6

Attorney General Sessions gave interviews a year ago that said almost the same and that a zero tolerence policy would include seperating children from parents as a "deterrent" to ilkegal immegration. Now he admits it's his POLICY:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... nt-sot.cnn

Since the present DHS is puttiing herself out front and saying the opposite KNOWING it's bull___t then we have a consumate liar as the head of every US law enforcement organization. Not to mention what's coming down from our nation's Attorney General.

Well here's the story from the NY Times about where this stems from:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/us/p ... iller.html

Makes me wonder where the laws are against huuman rights violations? Think they'll arrest themselves?