Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

5,699 posts in this topic

 

Quote

 

In a first-person account published Friday in New York magazine, writer E. Jean Carroll said she was raped by Donald Trump in the 1990s.

Trump denied the allegation in a statement from the White House late Friday.

Carroll, a longtime columnist for Elle magazine and the author of five books, details an encounter with Trump in the mid-1990s in the upscale Bergdorf Goodman department store in midtown Manhattan. Carroll was in her early 50s at the time. Trump and Carroll recognized each other in the store, and Trump told her he needed to buy a gift “for a girl,” according to Carroll’s account.

The alleged assault occurred in the dressing room after Trump suggested Carroll try on a lace bodysuit. Carroll says Trump pushed her against the wall, and “forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.” After three minutes, she was able to break free and run from the dressing room.

Carroll joins at least 16 other women who have made sexual assault allegations against the president. In December 2017, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said all those women were lying...

 

 

the rest

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5d0e6e77bb489_ConcentrationCampPaulFell0

 

If outrage against these camps isn't sufficient to do it, nothing will topple Trump. :( 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, katheliz said:

5d0e6e77bb489_ConcentrationCampPaulFell0

 

If outrage against these camps isn't sufficient, nothing will topple Trump. :( 

 

If any normal American household failed to provide soap, toothbrushes and toothpaste,  and proper bedding, the children would be taken and the parents arrested.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Trump administration never made, nor are they making now, plans for returning these children to their parents, I believe these poor kids are fated to grow up in these misnamed shelters, in poor health, uneducated, unloved, mistreated, unrespected, and unprepared for any life outside the camps.  This is a crime against humanity, and the US will be scorned for decades to come.  We treated slaves like this.  We treated Native Americans like this.  Now we're treating other countries' children like this.  We've shown this to be in our blood.

 

EDIT - Sorry, I left out the Germans interned in WWI and the Japanese in WWII, some of whom were even US citizens.

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you not think Trump and his advisors have thought this through and want the children to get really sick.

Then he can claim that he was right all along and that they are bringing in diseases to America. Modern day Hitler.

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9oSAgOXsAECNu3.jpg

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the point of maltreating children in these camps is to demand that Democrats send more money to fund them, which will then be used to expand the detention camp system, which will then be individually underfunded leaving more children in squalid conditions, and so on.  The political benefits of this are vast: convincing the border control rubes that the invaders (children) are being punished for making them feel unsafe, sending money to their cronies, who charge rates per child far higher than expensive hotels, and so on.

 

What is happening to those children is what borders are for.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

Part of the point of maltreating children in these camps is to demand that Democrats send more money to fund them, which will then be used to expand the detention camp system, which will then be individually underfunded leaving more children in squalid conditions, and so on.  The political benefits of this are vast: convincing the border control rubes that the invaders (children) are being punished for making them feel unsafe, sending money to their cronies, who charge rates per child far higher than expensive hotels, and so on.

 

What is happening to those children is what borders are for.

 

Except this is not the position they just argued in court. The Trump DOJ literally just argued that toothbrushes, toothpaste,  soap, and bedding are not included in any definition of safe and sanitary.  The judge, per news reports, was markedly incredulous. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

 

Except this is not the position they just argued in court. The Trump DOJ literally just argued that toothbrushes, toothpaste,  soap, and bedding are not included in any definition of safe and sanitary.  The judge, per news reports, was markedly incredulous. 

 

What they argued in court and what I wrote are not incompatible. To the court, they will argue that they don't have to give the basics of existence to small children in their power if they don't want to. To Congress, they will argue that if Congress does want to give the basics of existence, it should allocate more money to the camps. To DHS/ICE, they will say, take any new money and build more camps, but deny the basics to small children as a deterrence. If Congress denies them the money, they will say to their supporters in the public, "See? Even the Democrats don't really believe their own moral posturing, they won't give any more money to the children in the camps," and as you probably know, their supporters will eat it up.

 

It's all win-win for them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

What they argued in court and what I wrote are not incompatible. To the court, they will argue that they don't have to give the basics of existence to small children in their power if they don't want to. To Congress, they will argue that if Congress does want to give the basics of existence, it should allocate more money to the camps. To DHS/ICE, they will say, take any new money and build more camps, but deny the basics to small children as a deterrence. If Congress denies them the money, they will say to their supporters in the public, "See? Even the Democrats don't really believe their own moral posturing, they won't give any more money to the children in the camps," and as you probably know, their supporters will eat it up.

 

It's all win-win for them.

 

Illinois just enacted a law prohibiting for profit detention centers. Other states are on the way. Whatever venal motivations the Trump Republican regime has, there are still many ways to counter it. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlexTr said:

 

Illinois just enacted a law prohibiting for profit detention centers. Other states are on the way. Whatever venal motivations the Trump Republican regime has, there are still many ways to counter it. 

 

I saw this link on facebook:  https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/inside-a-texas-building-where-the-government-is-holding-immigrant-children

 

The kids are sleeping on the cement floor, maybe with an army blanket at best, they are not able to shower or brush their teeth, they are not getting clean clothes, the older children are expected to take care of unrelated 2-3 year olds and this is costing $775 per day per child?! :huh:

 

Me thinks some ppl are making an awful lot of money.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeonG said:

 

I saw this link on facebook:  https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/inside-a-texas-building-where-the-government-is-holding-immigrant-children

 

The kids are sleeping on the cement floor, maybe with an army blanket at best, they are not able to shower or brush their teeth, they are not getting clean clothes, the older children are expected to take care of unrelated 2-3 year olds and this is costing $775 per day per child?! :huh:

 

Me thinks some ppl are making an awful lot of money.

 

And there you have it in one,the real reason for these camps.

Wasn`t there a rumour that one of Trumps cabinet had a share in one of the companies running these camps ?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeonG said:

 

I saw this link on facebook:  https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/inside-a-texas-building-where-the-government-is-holding-immigrant-children

 

The kids are sleeping on the cement floor, maybe with an army blanket at best, they are not able to shower or brush their teeth, they are not getting clean clothes, the older children are expected to take care of unrelated 2-3 year olds and this is costing $775 per day per child?! :huh:

 

Me thinks some ppl are making an awful lot of money.

 

 

5d0f91a92ec92_fark_h_hqyns_-CNjXx1SO9isM

 

Cue alt-bicus criticizing me for "virtue signaling" again.

 

Conqy used to defend the baby prisons. That was before we knew they were baby concentration camps.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Jeffo said:

Conqy used to defend the baby prisons. That was before we knew they were baby concentration camps.

 

You would think it's all good to some ppl as long as the kids don't hold US passports as well as they're a bit too brown :blink:

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AlexTr said:

 

Illinois just enacted a law prohibiting for profit detention centers. Other states are on the way. Whatever venal motivations the Trump Republican regime has, there are still many ways to counter it. 

 

I appreciate efforts to curtail the enormously corrupt business of prison (especially, but not only, in the USA), although it will take more than forbidding for-profit detention centers, which are just the tip of the iceberg. There is an entire supply and procurement chain, down to the jobs for the guards, that also creates bad political incentives to expand the prison/detention/whatever population. 

 

But it is not only venality, in a monetary sense, that is at issue. There is also self-aggrandizement, of course, and a deep ideological nucleus that has brought this about.  People move. Children move. If you want to stop them from moving, you have to punish them. The punishment must be severe enough to outweigh the cost/benefit analysis of moving.  In this world, that punishment must involve conditions one would otherwise consider to be torture.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

 

5d0f91a92ec92_fark_h_hqyns_-CNjXx1SO9isM

 

Cue alt-bicus criticizing me for "virtue signaling" again.

 

Conqy used to defend the baby prisons. That was before we knew they were baby concentration camps.

 

The old chap did that? I don't come around these parts very often these days. It's so in character. I assume his Guatemalan neighbours (he must have these? He's best friends with every other ethnic minority, I'm given to understand) have assured him that it is normal in their culture to keep children forcibly separated from their parents by strangers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

People move. Children move. If you want to stop them from moving, you have to punish them. The punishment must be severe enough to outweigh the cost/benefit analysis of moving.  In this world, that punishment must involve conditions one would otherwise consider to be torture.

 

All of this assumes that applying for asylum is illegal and, therefore, punishable. It is not. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Asylum seeking border crossings did not cause the Trump regime's cruel policy; the cruelty existed and the existence of asylum seeking border crossers gave it a stage.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

 

All of this assumes that applying for asylum is illegal and, therefore, punishable. It is not. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Asylum seeking border crossings did not cause the Trump regime's cruel policy; the cruelty existed and the existence of asylum seeking border crossers gave it a stage.

 

Who said anything about legal or illegal here? From the perspective of Trump's supporters, crossing a border uninvited in a moral offense against them, a source of paralyzing fear; that's all that matters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now