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

5,541 posts in this topic

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
7 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

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.

 

This line of discussion is unproductive. Americans cannot move forward on the concerns of the people who are morally and ethically the worst of us. We move forward by mobilizing the best of us.

1

Share this post


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

 

This line of discussion is unproductive. Americans cannot move forward on the concerns of the people who are morally and ethically the worst of us. We move forward by mobilizing the best of us.

 

Mobilizing is very good, the question is, whether the mobilization focuses on the underlying conflicts or on the symptoms of the conflict. One of the problems I have with the approach that many American liberals have taken is conflation of cause and effect and an excessive focus on superficial procedural conflict rather than the emotional and political/ideological underpinnings of the conflict.  Just like the refugee crisis in Europe, the US southern border is the type of conflict in which the reality of the situation defies any attempt at procedural fix or appeal to legal interpretation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Eupathic Impulse The mobilization focuses on getting the Fanta Menace out of the White House, your opinion of American civic culture aside. 

1

Share this post


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

 One of the problems I have with the approach that many American liberals have taken is conflation of cause and effect and an excessive focus on superficial procedural conflict rather than the emotional and political/ideological underpinnings of the conflict.

 

There is indeed a lot of superficial chit chatting and point scoring going on. It is difficult to discern from either side an inclination to examine matters in a critical and emotionally insightful manner. A manner in which compromises need to be made and points conceded.

 

At what point did people stop listening to each other and start talking over each other instead? Do they not realise they have become the very thing the claim to despise?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're actually implying that both sides are bad? What an original concept! So insightful,

1

Share this post


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

@Eupathic Impulse The mobilization focuses on getting the Fanta Menace out of the White House, your opinion of American civic culture aside. 

1 hour ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Mobilizing is very good, the question is, whether the mobilization focuses on the underlying conflicts or on the symptoms of the conflict. One of the problems I have with the approach that many American liberals have taken is conflation of cause and effect and an excessive focus on superficial procedural conflict rather than the emotional and political/ideological underpinnings of the conflict.  Just like the refugee crisis in Europe, the US southern border is the type of conflict in which the reality of the situation defies any attempt at procedural fix or appeal to legal interpretation.

Why isn´t anybody talking about the societies these poor refugees come from? It surely can´t only be about Trump? Who is causing this misery in El Salvador, Nicaragua and the rest of them in Central America? They have their own Trumps. And their own latifundarios and street gangs etc. It is not ONLY about the US.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

So you're actually implying that both sides are bad?

 

Who is implying what exactly to whom? Which sides? You have lost me here.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

So you're actually implying that both sides are bad?

 

You are not talking about refugees I guess?

0

Share this post


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

So you're actually implying that both sides are bad? What an original concept! So insightful,

 

I thought s/he was implying that people should be morally required to negotiate with those that view them as non-human or as deserving of fewer rights. I thought it was just a really moronic thing to say.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, john g. said:

Why isn´t anybody talking about the societies these poor refugees come from? It surely can´t only be about Trump? Who is causing this misery in El Salvador, Nicaragua and the rest of them in Central America? They have their own Trumps. And their own latifundarios and street gangs etc. It is not ONLY about the US.

 

You should open a thread for that and then read news coming out of the US. Tons of people are talking about it, but not on the "How do we get rid of this orange idiot" thread.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Donald Trump has repeatedly struggled to explain why the number of jobs created during his presidency compared unfavourably with the new employment figures under Barack Obama.

Presented with a chart which depicted the unemployment rate from the peak of the recession, the president was asked to account for slower rate of job creation since he entered the White House.

In the interview on NBC’s Meet the Press – after Mr Trump had claimed his economy was “great” – Chuck Todd said: “Your economy is great. I’m not saying it’s not great.

“But this recovery started and in the 28 months that you’ve been president and the last 28 months of Obama’s presidency, he averaged more new jobs than your first 28.”....

 

 

the rest

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Attorney George Conway lashed Republicans in a scathing op-ed published Saturday, warning them to hold Donald Trump to the same standards they applied to Bill Clinton and take a new rape accusation against the president seriously.

Conway, husband of White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway, pointed to Republican furor after retired Arkansas nursing home operator Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape, which he denied. Trump, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by 23 women, seated Broaddrick in a front row during one of his 2016 campaign debates with Hillary Clinton.

The new accusation against Trump of rape in a Bergdorf dressing room was detailed in a New York magazine piece by renowned advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. That accusation “rests upon a significantly stronger foundation than Broaddrick’s,” Conway argues in his piece in The Washington Post

While Carroll went public with her accusation, Broaddrick denied for years — including under oath — reports that she had been sexually assaulted by Clinton, Conway notes.

Carroll’s account is also “supported by the sheer number of claims that have now surfaced against Trump ... [including] unwelcome or forcible sexual conduct or assault against them. These claims — all denied by the president — far outnumber the publicized sexual misconduct incidents that involved Clinton, which mostly concerned rumors or allegations of consensual affairs,” he writes. (Conway represented Paula Jones, who accused Clinton of sexual harassment.)

Conway says Carroll’s account of the alleged sexual assault is also supported by Trump’s “depraved” 2005 remarks on an “Access Hollywood” tape that surfaced during his 2016 campaign in which he boasts about how he treats women: “When you’re a star ... you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy.” He also preened that he “just starts kissing women ... I don’t even wait.” 

Conway writes: “Whatever else he may have done, Clinton never made a video like that. What Trump described on the video is exactly what Carroll says he did to her.”

Trump has insisted he has “never met this person in my life” — which Conway slammed as another “utterly brazen, easily disprovable Trumpian lie.” Carroll included a photo with her article of Trump with ex-wife Ivana apparently speaking to Carroll at a gala. 

Conway concluded: “Republicans or conservatives who promoted Broaddrick’s charges would be hypocritical if they fail to champion Carroll and condemn Trump.”

 

 

 

 

2

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