The debate "The most recent trump scandal sumarized by their responses" was started by
June 20, 2018, 7:17 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
MrShine posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
historybuff, Nemiroff, Andji and 9 visitors agree.
MrShine, mlowe and 1 visitor disagree.
It wasn't unsubstantiated, it was sourced that most were resolved in a day. "Maybe" in the context that the claim exists suggests no scope on how often a lengthy separation is. It may have only happened once, as tragic as once may be, but that is also "possible" when a large scale prosecution occurs. Therefore, unremarkable since it is at a state of conjecture rather than widespread previous instance. A large scale prosecution that would 'seperate' families would be expected to follow the same policies it has but with new rules, it is also possible to claim there has been no established method. Sophism, but in the end these claims are backed with exploitation of circumstance rather than the full scale itself. Based on previous handling by the same method on a slightly smaller scale suggest no issue, it could be a week realistically, two weeks possibly, less realistically a year. Maybe is very little to go off of.
In regards to the wrong file number, the link doesn't say that, it implies it with a "different file number" once separated. They may not even be separated from their parents but people they have travelled with, in some cases by human trafficking. How many are included in the statistics provided for separated kids? Based off of cases found outside of a Zero Tolerance Policy over a year, it was 191.Think that number has risen? At the very least, the article does not provide enough information for the majority of separations if it is even relatives. Trafficking? General abuse? Not family but close? For now it isn't much more than bait in the article, I don't bite, but if I did bite there would be too many questions. It could be remarkable information, but the follow up details aren't enough to make the claim.
Backpedaling only really occurred in later steps that acknowledged the separations as an issue Democrats could have solved. The separation was not the end goal. Agreeing would suggest a permanent separation, which by comparison is not the case. While legitimacy has been admitted as a possible challenge point pivoting from a suggested end goal to a justified mechanic is less backpedaling and more of a shift in topic to the practice, then exaggerated difficulty of reuniting family members. The executive order also only lasts for 20 days so it is not a permanent solution by any means, so it isn't 'solved' since legal action still needs to be taken. Legal action by legislation or enforcing border laws in place? Yes for both.
to summarize the key point (not my thread but I believe buff will agree), even if you perfectly defend the policies in question, that will still not explain the numerous contradictory explanations, which by definition cannot all be true, meaning at least 80% of it is lies, and if someone is making contradictory statements, it's likely all lies.
and I can understand that it is difficult to defend belligerent lies, but most of your points regarding the underlying issues are off topic and not relevant to the question on this thread. having a good policy (debateable) is not an excuse for lying about it. if you have a good policy, why would you lie about it?
as for how long it takes to reunite parents, that is an incredible statistic because the real answer maybe "a very long traumatic time" as the administration has put forth no plan to reunite the kids already separated, put the parents and kids thru different legal paths with different time tables with a high possibility they will be deported at different times, and the parents were given a card to locate their kid, which in many cases HAD THE WRONG NUMBERS.
I think this makes it a far too "remarkable" separation unlike your unsubstantiated belief on the subject.
but once again, even if they are absolutely justified in doing this, what's the excuse for the shifting and contradictory explanations? that is the question of this thread.
"I didn't say the terms we're interchangeable, but the terminology has changed to reflect a change in understanding, hasn't it?"
"I suppose if we have to split hairs, climate change has been around as a statement, and while global warming was a niche in the idea in climate change the popularity of the idea and it's use wasn't so widely used."
I think your getting your science from pop culture and mass media. before this whole thing became a national regular lay people may not have known the distinction (before it became a dinner table topic) just like many regular people today or maybe just a few years ago, didnt know the difference between tumor and cancer. that doesnt mean the terms are new or have changed.
climate change and global warming have been co existing terms in their current forms with distinct uses for at least half a century. this is not a new issue, the only thing that's new is the controversy.
and all of this is just an off topic distraction because even if we assume that climate change is fake or natural or whatever excuse you want to provide atm, the concern here was why the right keeps changing its story and excuses?
this is not a climate change thread, this is a "why do they keep contradicting themselves" thread, so regardless of your opinion on climate or immigration, their fu*king lying to us and you. so there is no need to try to defend skepticism as that's not the topic here.
"-It was originally called global warming, so the general consensus of what is happening has been changed at the very least."
and going back to this claim, please, look up the definitions of those terms and please let me know when you think this definition changed so I can pull up dozens of articles from decades before using both terms and establishing that your sources on this topic are horrendously uninformed.
I suppose if we have to split hairs, climate change has been around as a statement, and while global warming was a niche in the idea in climate change the popularity of the idea and it's use wasn't so widely used. If we were to consider the consensus alone there was a general mental change among the public, when an idea is expanded upon.
How long do you think? Incredible claims require incredible statistics, and going off of what is known the numbers are unremarkable.
I didn't say the terms we're interchangeable, but the terminology has changed to reflect a change in understanding, hasn't it? At the very least, the settled science had a bit of unexpected factors. I suppose my whole argument goes out the window with that?
And yes, a wall is a fix for 40% of illegal border crossing, which under current laws may anchor illegal immigrants to a country they do not legally below, and clearly unfair to those that are trying to emigrate legally.
So I suppose you read Ted Cruz's proposition? I mean, I didn't say Trump but focusing on him he does want an end to deferred action on illegal immigrants, that's how 5 time offenders continue to appear over the border again. Unless I suppose they managed to overstay a visa 5 times?
Monster hyperbole, yet I see only one party saying 'Think of the children'. These children are not hostages, they are going back to where they were born. Hardly a crime isn't it?
also, trump wasn't interested in fixing the issue. he said he would only accept a fix that included numerous stupid things, like billions spent on a stupid wall etc. he wanted to use it as a negotiating tool to get other things. if they introduce legislation right now only relating to this one issue, Democrats would likely be happy to fix it.
only a monster uses imprisoning children as a bargaining chip.
how long do you think it takes to reunite the parent and child currently?
and you should Google the terms global warming and climate change. they are not interchangeable. it was not "renamed". it was never interchangeable.
I have no idea where this talking point came from but it doesnt show understanding of the subject
Based off of the time it takes to judge and reunite an individual adult, it's hardly a remarkable separation. The statement is specific enough that as a generalization it sounds like an end goal(which it isn't-deportation is). Upon elaboration, it does occur, but based on linked content is isn't so severe and may even be important in some cases. It was a method, albeit one not enforced so often due to catch and release and not pursuing each case.
Backpedaling did occur once it was stated as important and that Democrats were the ones that needed to fix it. I will grant that much, but based off of what I shared it is an important distinction that Democrats could have fixed it on a vote. This executive order that was signed will expire, and has shown a partisan end by it's critics that in spite of separation it is the pursuit of punishment for illegal entry that is the real "humanitarian crime". Again, supporting evidence also suggests the degree is not as severe.
I would wonder when the claim that 'everyone called Trump out on it' wouldn't be used. At the very least, it is a statement I've heard before, along with America being a laughing stock.
I suppose I should address the Climate denial claim as well. It's a bit different, but circular patterns imply too much.
-It was originally called global warming, so the general consensus of what is happening has been changed at the very least. At most, a generalized statement on it's perception and effect are lumped in to create an agreed fact. But of course, changing minds to new information or supporting information isn't exactly terrible...
-There are many natural factors, industrial age production did advance the condition but cows (yes, living cows, or just methane sh*t) are a major contributor.
-China is one of these unnatural contributor's whom we have no control over and contributes enough for it to affect California to a minor degree (still, distance is no joke)
-Everyone else doing something, such as the wind and solar panel project in Germany that happened to be a failure, the climate agreement that is backed by money and incentives rather than transitioning technology. Paltry and unreliable attempts which do not bear progress or even an encouragement in the right direction.
-Unnatural China benefits, because they propose even mindset shifts to avoid the smog issue. A full circle to foreign scam seems less likely than the claim "China will benefit" or "China supports us for Financial reasons".
I mostly wanted to point out the absolute insanity of their answers.
they went from outright lying that they are doing it, they were. to admitting they were doing it but that it was no big deal. to saying it was a big deal but it was impossible to fix. to saying only the Democrats (for absolutely no logical reason) could fix it. to trying to score political points about how humane trump is by ending a crisis he started and had refused to fix until the Democrats caved to his stupid demands.
the whole thing was a complete shitshow. he got called out by everyone for this. from the pope to the far right party leader in France, Le Pen. when even French extremists think you have gone too far, you've gone really too far.
maybe the Republicans were against the ACA cause they were scared it might cure their constituents' chronic amnesia
you can have all the explanations for why the program is valid, but I don't think you can come up with a valid reason why they kept giving various alternative reasons that keep contradicting each other.
I can show the same patter with their climate change denial
1. it's not happening
2. it's happening but its natural
3. it's not natural but theres nothing we can do about it
4. we can do something about it but it's too expensive and no one else is doing it
5. everyone else is doing it but the voluntary unenforced deal is somehow unfair to us
6. full circle to it's a chinese scam
Minus catch and release programs to alleviate previous detention centers, human trafficking to take advantage of child policy laws, prior ability to vote for a different solution, the open possibility to separation available in 2015 at the very least, the scope of the prosecution is the only real thing that had changed.
Supposing you want a fact check, you may go for the direct claim and say it wasn't mandatory to run this policy, and you could be correct. However it was also a possibility in handling mass immigration and a pushback against policies that allowed for illegal immigration to go unpunished. Less stare decisis, but certainly enough grounds to be less of a leap and more of a step considering the actual conditions of separation (sourced later). Perhaps an executive order could work as a temporary change in direction,but the people calling for solutions decided to not vote on a proposition by Ted Cruz.
Not exactly as the Executive order is now, but certainly close enough for the family unit aspect. Perhaps the decision isn't entirely pragmatic towards securing families, and more of a moral whistle.
The separation is for a trial, and conviction within the same day, in which reuniting the majority of families takes several hours, not weeks. In fact, don't most citizens get separated from their kids if they commit a crime because their children don't go to jail or the same detention center? Not making an equivalency, but there is certainly a degree that isn't quite met for sure. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-border-patrol-center-20180617-story.html
And human trafficking? There has been a 314% increase over the past year of instances where a minor was used for fradulant 'family units'. In other words, to gain entry. Perhaps not punishing the crime of illegal immigration by using children works as an incentive to commit further human trafficking.
I can't entirely argue against backpedaling, but by parsing the political attitudes a certain way it is possible to infer it completely, and admittedly wholesale deportation is much more difficult to handle than prosecute everyone immedietly. However it is not the moral or human crime that it has been played out to be.
"We aren't separating families at the border and, frankly, that is offensive to suggest.
Okay, we ARE separating families at the border, but it's cool because the Bible says so.
Okay, this is a vile, horrible thing to do to children, but there's nothing we can do, it's the law and we can't change it.
Okay, we can change it, but it can't be through an Executive Order. Only the Democrats can fix this.
Okay, we're signing an Executive Order to stop separating families. Look how humane we are, guys!"