ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm not saying Obama did right on the border, but going on about how bad he was isn't going to make him do anything. Barry doesn't have cause to give a fuck, not anymore — and little power, even if he did.

I don't know where, but you're misunderstanding something that I said.

I'm not talking about Obama every time Trump does a goof-up, I mentioned Obama once, and only in the context of Trump's immigration policy.

That despite all the scare tactics, it's just politics as usual, not some new devious Trump law that specifically targets children.

"

On the other hand, calling out politicians currently in office for their current failures might, if the volume is loud enough, get something to happen — whether at their hand, or the hand of a newly elected replacement.

Yeah, forcing politicians to do things by intimidation isn't exactly what I would call a solution here. You're just making it easier for them to pass anti-protest laws, for their own peace of mind if nothing else.

We're going down the road of a dictatorship when we start using mob mentality rather than a conversation.

"

Let the whole lot of them now that you're holding them all accountable, and if they don't deliver they can kiss your vote goodbye.

Maybe in the ideal world this would happen, where voters would actually hold politicians accountable for everything they did.

But yeah, who are kidding here?

Voter's have a memory span of a few years, and then they tend forget important issues.

It's why special interests, billionaires, and large corporations control politicians. They actually remember, when you fuck them over.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Not a lie? Trump still repeats this stupid lie. Everyone but the most delusional Trump fans knows Trump lost the popular vote.

Well, the reason I said that, was because for some reason. You forgot we both agreed he probably lied.

Which indicates to me, you aren't thinking straight, and are in some psychotic episode.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Allow me to choke down a quip about children in cages for a moment, and ask: what policies has Trump implemented that protect people? Maybe I just don't hear about it from my bubble, but I legitimately do not know what you're talking about on this one.

-S.178 Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act
-H.R.1306 - Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act
-S.1766 - SAFER Act of 2017 (Sexual Assault)

Hold the phone - SAFER passed in 2013. The 2017 bill is two paragraphs long, and while it's not a bad thing, it's the kind of common-sense maintenance you'd expect from any competent government.

Similarly, HR1306 was introduced by a democrat in the house. It's hardly a major breakthrough; 21 square miles of territory for a native tribe is not a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but it's hardly groundbreaking new legislation.

And more to the point, it's not exactly Trump's agenda. If we're going to give the guy credit for signing uncontroversial maintenance bills that cross his desk, then it won't be hard to come up with a list like this for any president. There's a reason this stuff doesn't tend to make the news, and I haven't heard about it - and it's the same reason you probably haven't seen similar lists about the Obama administration. Are any of these notable Trump policy wins, in line with building the wall or repealing Obamacare? Like, don't get me wrong, most of these are pretty straightforwardly good (why yes, if you're convicted of human trafficking you shouldn't be put in a position that enables you to do it again, not arguing with that one), I just question whether "doesn't veto common-sense legislation" helps us establish that Trump's main schtick is helping people.

"

He also does a few other just generally good policies like Executive Order 13779, which gives more money to historically black colleges, and 13828, which is aimed at poverty.

EOs are considerably more telling of Trump's actual agenda in this case, and EO 13779 is a pretty basically good thing. (As usual, it's worth noting that an EO pretty much equivalent to this has been offered by every president since Carter.)

EO13828 is... not. It's "aimed at poverty", but in the typical republican way of making it harder for people to get on welfare. I assume we're going to run into some disagreements here, but my understanding of the data is that work requirements do very little to actually encourage work, and hurt a lot of people. They make sense if your goal is to shrink the welfare state; they do not make sense if your goal is to help people in poverty.

When I think of the Trump Administration, I think of what it has campaigned on, what it has advertised, and what it has pushed hard for. Bills like the ones you've listed don't tend to make that list. Instead, you end up with things like his attempts to repeal Obamacare (and subsequent attempts to cripple it via the executive branch). You end up with things like his big Tax Cut bill, which somehow managed the unique achievement of being an unpopular tax cut. You end up with his wall, and his willingness to shut down the government, regardless of how much damage it does, to get it. I think of his muslim ban. I think of his family separation policy.

These bills do offer some perspective that you often don't get reading the news, though, so thank you for that.

"

Also, on the note of caged children.

The appalling conditions are the result of a lack of funding (housing), and procedures which requires DHS to hold immigrant families, till their filing date (either that or release them).

And all of this also happened under Obama, under similar circumstances. So, unless you want to claim Obama was a heartless fuck, you can't really complain about him doing it.

(bolding mine)

So just so we're clear, you literally cannot google the family separation policy without running across a half-dozen sources pointing out that the bolded part is simply not true. The Bush and Obama administration separated families under specific circumstances - mostly when there was legitimate concern that the children were the victims of trafficking. It was a rarity. Trump made this standard operating procedure. To quote Tim O'Shea and Theresa Brown:

"

The use of criminal charges against parents caught crossing the border triggers a legal situation that necessitates separating children, while the use of civil immigration detention and removal does not require this to occur. When adults are detained and prosecuted in the criminal justice system for immigration offenses, their children cannot, by law, be housed with them in criminal jails, so the family unit is separated. The children are placed with the Department of Health and Human Services in shelters until they can be released to a family member, guardian, or foster family in the United States.

Previous administrations used family detention facilities, allowing the whole family to stay together while awaiting their deportation case in immigration court, or alternatives to detention, which required families to be tracked but released from custody to await their court date. Some children may have been separated from the adults they entered with, in cases where the family relationship could not be established, child trafficking was suspected, or there were not sufficient family detention facilities available. Both the Obama and Trump administrations have tried to establish more capacity to detain families and children, rather than releasing them until their hearing date. However, the zero-tolerance policy is the first time that a policy resulting in separation is being applied across the board.

In fact, we've since received signed documents from DHS that prove that the family separation program was intentionally meant as deterrence - showing not only that this was a clear break with Obama-era policy, but also that the cruelty was the point. Not that we needed it, given that Jeff Sessions said as much publicly.

Anyone telling you that the actions taken by the Obama administration are the same thing or comparable in scope is lying to you.

"

Makillda wrote:

Nobody gives a rat's ass about the "popular vote" except crybaby liberals because THAT'S NOT HOW OUR ELECTIONS WORK.

I can name at least one person who cares a whole awful lot about the popular vote - enough to repeatedly lie about it. And while I cannot guarantee he's not a crybaby, I can confirm that he is, in fact, not a liberal.

"

Makillda wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

RPGlitch wrote:

You know at some point, you should go to a therapist. I can't imagine any of this behavior is healthy for you.

Not a lie? Trump still repeats this stupid lie. Everyone but the most delusional Trump fans knows Trump lost the popular vote.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about the "popular vote" except crybaby liberals because THAT'S NOT HOW OUR ELECTIONS WORK.

Read a book, FFS.

HAHA! The point is that Trump is the only person that cares about the popular vote in 2016. The amusing part of the situation is how twisted into logical knots the Trump fans get trying to believe the lie that he won the popular vote just because the pathological liar claims to have won the popular vote.

edit: It looks like one Trump fan is back tracking a bit and says we agreed that maybe he lied. Which is a lie because I never agreed to that! I always said it was a whopper of a lie, not a maybe lie. :-)

(RP - thanks for the laughs but you do realize that I'm trolling you. I mean everything I said was true but it was still some fun trolling.)

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Makillda wrote:

Nobody gives a rat's ass about the "popular vote" except crybaby liberals because THAT'S NOT HOW OUR ELECTIONS WORK.

I can name at least one person who cares a whole awful lot about the popular vote - enough to repeatedly lie about it. And while I cannot guarantee he's not a crybaby, I can confirm that he is, in fact, not a liberal.

Actually, I can agree Trump is not a liberal but he's not really a conservative either. I think he takes whatever position he thinks is politically best at that moment and he is really good at deciding what his audience would like to hear, especially in a rally type setting.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Actually, I can agree Trump is not a liberal but he's not really a conservative either. I think he takes whatever position he thinks is politically best at that moment and he is really good at deciding what his audience would like to hear, especially in a rally type setting.

It's almost like Trump is a populist.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Actually, I can agree Trump is not a liberal but he's not really a conservative either. I think he takes whatever position he thinks is politically best at that moment and he is really good at deciding what his audience would like to hear, especially in a rally type setting.

It's almost like Trump is a populist.

Yes, a populist is a good term. Populist white nationalist would be even better, I think.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, a populist is a good term. Populist white nationalist would be even better, I think.

Hey, you elect whoever gives you your preference. Meanwhile, President Donald J. Trump is helping minorities in ways no previous president has done. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, a populist is a good term. Populist white nationalist would be even better, I think.

Hey, you elect whoever gives you your preference. Meanwhile, President Donald J. Trump is helping minorities in ways no previous president has done. =^[.]^=

I'm sure there's some reality in which what you said makes sense. Problem is... this is earth. And here, Trump's symbols and slogans have been adopted by white nationalist movements across the globe. They certainly think he's a white nationalist. And why wouldn't they? After all, there were fine people on both sides at Charlottesville.