TIME Magazine & CNN exposed pushing fake news imagery and propaganda.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: dragonridr

Too bad that's a lie. Yeah that's why there's a picture of her with her mother AND FATHER???

It was taken BEFORE the mother took the child.

Holy crap, your density is approaching the level of a singularity.

a reply to: projectvxn

It's not density, nobody could be that dense!

It's complete and utter denial, of the clinical sort. Denial and rage, rage at being proven wrong again and again. Rage at not getting her way, outright bitter rage. There are several instances of it just on the last page alone. Statements like...

- Only dumb people believe anything trump says. If he said it was Sunday I'd question it.
Truly only the dumbest would believe anything that liar says. His record speaks for itself.

OR...

- I agree. The answer to that question is yes. It was his policy of zero tolerance.
But he's so good at the blame game and lying his fat flabby ass off he's convinced some low educated folks that it was Obama's policy.
They're all criminals in his eyes. Mom's and babies alike.

OR...

Too bad that's a lie. Yeah that's why there's a picture of her with her mother AND FATHER???

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The problem is that some people confuse image with substance. The cover of Time is just an image. What it symbolically points to is very real, and it is the Trump supporters who refuse to look at that reality. Trump made a major political blunder, told a series of lies to justify and deflect, then eventually caved in to pressure from his party without actually providing a way forward.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: soberbacchus

I agree and even said the same thing earlier but then Time printed a retraction so i was wrong. I guess time did mean to use the girl as an example of Trumps policies.

Kudo's for that !

We need to know what is going on. It is good to stand for something that is worth standing for I think.

a reply to: dragonridr


Yeah, as I said earlier, I don't buy the father's story one little bit. His wife ran away from him, not once but twice, claiming asylum here in the US. He thinks that his daughter's picture's, used for a fundraiser to re-unite families separated at the boarder, gives him access to that fund, to help him to have his daughter returned to him. That's not what the fund was for.

He betrayed and tried to undermine his wife's claim for asylum, and so did the Honduran government. I don't think that woman and child will ever be forced to go back to that man, from which she fled, or that country, from which she fled.

a reply to: DJW001

Look, you asked a question and I responded to it (even though the question was not to me). I'm going to ignore most of your post above because much of it is just argumentative, but let's both be honest for a moment and focus on your question because I do believe it is relevant to finding a solution. (and let's leave the partisanship out of it...just this once. I will, if you will, okay?)

First, I think we can both agree the separation policy is likely more bad than good (regardless of who wrote it, and who enforced it). Second, I'm pretty positive we can agree that no matter how much 'good' might be served by such a policy it would be almost impossible to have any positive optics associated with such a policy, right? I think everyone can agree on the concept of the federal government "helping" rarely achieves any true 'help' and often results in the opposite (republican AND democrat). Still with me?

Okay, now some harder ones (again, non-partisan). The "cage" thing has bad optics, no matter who does it, it just looks bad. No way around it. However, this "cage" thing is being blown way out of proportion; these people were not being treated like animals, but yes, they were being kept together in enclosures which resemble cages...and that's probably not okay. Again, no matter who does it, right? We can blame Trump, we can blame Obama, or Bush, or Clinton. But maybe we should blame ALL of them, not just the current guy, because that would be, well, partisan right?

So let's get down to the real issue...IF there really is an issue (and I believe there is), and it's not just political. Do you agree? The real issue is:

1. Stopping illegal immigration to the USA from Mexico, Central and South American countries. Be careful here; notice I did NOT say stopping 'immigration', but rather stopping 'illegal immigration'. The two are different.

2. Coming up with sensible policies to deal with individuals who do try to illegally immigrate to the US and are apprehended. This includes mothers, their children, migrant workers, gang bangers, murderers, drug smugglers and freeloaders. ALL of them, not just a selected group. They don't come across the border in selected groups, and they don't wear different colored shirts to identify who is who. They all come at random times, in random groups, often times all mixed together. Remember, we have to deal with ALL of them.

Failing the above, the "issue" isn't about immigration, or cages or children...no, the issue is about partisan politics then (BS partisan politics).

So here's the challenge, there are two fundamental types of border control. There is the keeping people "in" kind, and there is the keeping people "out" kind. Some countries people want to escape from, and some countries people want to escape "to". The latter type of border control is far more complex and difficult in both cases.

I have more, but I won't go further until I see where we are. I want to start moving onto solutions, but first I want to see if we're still in agreement up to this point. No sense in wasting time if we're not.

Are we in agreement so far?

trump = jobs !

a reply to: DJW001

If the law is heartless Congress should change it. What are the Democrats doing to ensure bipartisan support in doing so?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So no proof or even evidence of any wrongdoing, but you already have the father convicted.

Sounds about right.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


The proof of wrong doing is that his wife has run away from him twice. The proof is that, apparently, the Honduran government backs his version of events...what events? That he was a good husband and she shouldn't have run away? Or did the Honduran government confirm the location of a woman and child seeking asylum in the USA, that ran from their government and her husband?

The proof that we don't know what happened to them after 48 hours of detention is that we only have the fathers word the US government gave him the location of the woman who ran from him. I don't think so!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's not proof of anything. It could be proof she is a vindictive money grubbing b*tch. So please tell me exactly what he did to her. Specifics please, since you are the one making the allegations.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


And the father's word isn't proof of anything either. He could be a wife beating, murderous drug dealing rapist. We aren't privy to the woman's complaint against her government or her husband. The fact is, we don't know what happened to mother and child after they were turned over to ICE 48 hours later.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

First, I think we can both agree the separation policy is likely more bad than good (regardless of who wrote it, and who enforced it). Second, I'm pretty positive we can agree that no matter how much 'good' might be served by such a policy it would be almost impossible to have any positive optics associated with such a policy, right? I think everyone can agree on the concept of the federal government "helping" rarely achieves any true 'help' and often results in the opposite (republican AND democrat). Still with me?

Absolutely.

Okay, now some harder ones (again, non-partisan). The "cage" thing has bad optics, no matter who does it, it just looks bad. No way around it. However, this "cage" thing is being blown way out of proportion; these people were not being treated like animals, but yes, they were being kept together in enclosures which resemble cages...and that's probably not okay. Again, no matter who does it, right? We can blame Trump, we can blame Obama, or Bush, or Clinton. But maybe we should blame ALL of them, not just the current guy, because that would be, well, partisan right?

As I said, Trump made a huge political blunder which he only exacerbated by excusing and blame shifting. Someone in his inner circle should have warned him about the inevitable blowback. That is actually more disturbing in its way than the policy itself.

So let's get down to the real issue...IF there really is an issue (and I believe there is), and it's not just political. Do you agree? The real issue is:

1. Stopping illegal immigration to the USA from Mexico, Central and South American countries. Be careful here; notice I did NOT say stopping 'immigration', but rather stopping 'illegal immigration'. The two are different.

Correct. What makes me a "liberal" is that I believe we should reduce "illegal" immigration by making "legal" immigration easier for those in need. Most of the people trying to cross the border are, in effect, refugees from failing states. Rather than hiring more guards, building walls, and giving money to private prisons, we need to find diplomatic solutions. Expand the State department's consular corp to educate and vet refugees before they leave their home country, so they can arrive with proper paperwork. Get the FBI working with Central American governments to bring organized crime to heel. Ultimately, the problem in places like El Salvador is that the governments are so violent and corrupt that gangs have as much legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens as the government. This might be something for NGOs to work on.

2. Coming up with sensible policies to deal with individuals who do try to illegally immigrate to the US and are apprehended. This includes mothers, their children, migrant workers, gang bangers, murderers, drug smugglers and freeloaders. ALL of them, not just a selected group. They don't come across the border in selected groups, and they don't wear different colored shirts to identify who is who. They all come at random times, in random groups, often times all mixed together. Remember, we have to deal with ALL of them.

Which is why we need more judges to process everyone.

Failing the above, the "issue" isn't about immigration, or cages or children...no, the issue is about partisan politics then (BS partisan politics).

It sure looks as though Trump thought separating families would give him leverage with Congress.

So here's the challenge, there are two fundamental types of border control. There is the keeping people "in" kind, and there is the keeping people "out" kind. Some countries people want to escape from, and some countries people want to escape "to". The latter type of border control is far more complex and difficult in both cases.

True.

I have more, but I won't go further until I see where we are. I want to start moving onto solutions, but first I want to see if we're still in agreement up to this point. No sense in wasting time if we're not.

Are we in agreement so far?

On key points, yes.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

First, I think we can both agree the separation policy is likely more bad than good (regardless of who wrote it, and who enforced it). Second, I'm pretty positive we can agree that no matter how much 'good' might be served by such a policy it would be almost impossible to have any positive optics associated with such a policy, right? I think everyone can agree on the concept of the federal government "helping" rarely achieves any true 'help' and often results in the opposite (republican AND democrat). Still with me?

Absolutely.

Okay, now some harder ones (again, non-partisan). The "cage" thing has bad optics, no matter who does it, it just looks bad. No way around it. However, this "cage" thing is being blown way out of proportion; these people were not being treated like animals, but yes, they were being kept together in enclosures which resemble cages...and that's probably not okay. Again, no matter who does it, right? We can blame Trump, we can blame Obama, or Bush, or Clinton. But maybe we should blame ALL of them, not just the current guy, because that would be, well, partisan right?

As I said, Trump made a huge political blunder which he only exacerbated by excusing and blame shifting. Someone in his inner circle should have warned him about the inevitable blowback. That is actually more disturbing in its way than the policy itself.

I thought we were going to leave partisan out of this discussion, at least that was my request. Were you unable to honor that? I did. I didn't place blame on anyone

Correct. What makes me a "liberal" is that I believe we should reduce "illegal" immigration by making "legal" immigration easier for those in need. Most of the people trying to cross the border are, in effect, refugees from failing states. Rather than hiring more guards, building walls, and giving money to private prisons, we need to find diplomatic solutions. Expand the State department's consular corp to educate and vet refugees before they leave their home country, so they can arrive with proper paperwork. Get the FBI working with Central American governments to bring organized crime to heel. Ultimately, the problem in places like El Salvador is that the governments are so violent and corrupt that gangs have as much legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens as the government. This might be something for NGOs to work on.

Okay, we can discuss this in a minute, but we need to cover other ground first. It's a complicated subject.

Which is why we need more judges to process everyone.

Now this is just silly. Judges don't process migrants, and there will NEVER be enough judges to process ALL migrants. That's just foolish, and frankly wildly unrealistic in terms of expectations. I'm trying to refocus this discussion on reality and intelligence. You are intelligent, right? Border patrol is conducted by law enforcement personnel, not judges...and to expect there will be a hearing before a "judge" for every single migrant case is off the charts in terms of anything even remotely possible. You don't seriously believe this do you???? Not with the numbers of people crossing the border daily.

It sure looks as though Trump thought separating families would give him leverage with Congress.

Here you go again with the partisan stuff. Truth be told, I'm sure Trump thought enforcing the existing "laws" would give him leverage with not just Congress, but the people who voted him into office! See? It works both ways, but I digress. Can we keep Trump out of this and just get to the root of the problem...or not?

True.

Not taking you out of context here, this is an ATS glitch. Your "true" statement was in response to my 'two different kinds of border control (i.e. "in" and "out) statement. Okay, so we agree here (I think).

On key points, yes.

Again, not taking you out of context here (actually trying really hard to play it straight) I asked if we generally agreed as a closing.

Okay, but we can't possibly work together toward a solution unless we can get past the blame thing. It will just polarize us (as has been evidenced on 23 pages of this thread). Do you want a "solution"...or do you only want "validation" of your political viewpoint???

I've read enough of your posts to know you are not blind, nor dumb as a fence post. I know that. Can you get past it? Do you really WANT a solution?

I sure would!! I honestly would.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Okay, but we can't possibly work together toward a solution unless we can get past the blame thing. It will just polarize us (as has been evidenced on 23 pages of this thread). Do you want a "solution"...or do you only want "validation" of your political viewpoint???

I have suggested several options but you have dismissed them out of hand. Aside from actual criminals, who have other ways to enter the country besides risking their lives in the desert, the humane response is to improve communications, streamline vetting, and improve the conditions that make migration necessary.

As for the "crisis," statistics indicate that illegal immigration has been declining, not increasing:

www.statista.com...

Where, then, does this pressure to solve the "crisis" come from?

ETA: It was you who brought up "optics." That is a political term, and your suggestion that it is being "blown out of proportion" is implicitly partisan.

a reply to: DJW001


I have not dismissed any of your suggestions out of hand (except for the silly 'judges' part, but I'm sure you weren't serious there).

ETA...oh, and I DO believe it is being blown out of proportion...by BOTH sides!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So then you agree, Trump did not create the policies to separate children and put them in cages!

Correct. He is simply the only one heartless enough to cage children at, literally, an industrial level. Private corporations are making money imprisoning children. It's hard not to think that might not be part of the motivation in not scrapping the policy altogether.

I just need to chime in here and say this is 100% garbage. There was a 'scandal' just few weeks back of some lefties posting photos of kids in cages on twitter, and then completely deleting those posts once it turned out it was taken during the Obama presidency (rather than just condemning the action in general).

At the same time there was a rather famous photo of an ICE agent trying to arrest a child and father pointing a firearm directly at them, which was also from an earlier presidency (other posters will know the details of the people involved). I don't see Trump pulling that stunt?

And then only a few days ago, someone else posted the rather under-reported story of the former presidency giving separated children over to legitimate child traffickers. I also don't see Trump pulling that stunt...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Okay, but we can't possibly work together toward a solution unless we can get past the blame thing. It will just polarize us (as has been evidenced on 23 pages of this thread). Do you want a "solution"...or do you only want "validation" of your political viewpoint???

I have suggested several options but you have dismissed them out of hand. Aside from actual criminals, who have other ways to enter the country besides risking their lives in the desert, the humane response is to improve communications, streamline vetting, and improve the conditions that make migration necessary.

Migration is a privilege, not a right. "Necessary" implies a right; it is not.

As for the "crisis," statistics indicate that illegal immigration has been declining, not increasing:

www.statista.com...

Where, then, does this pressure to solve the "crisis" come from?

If it's not a problem, then why do you even care to discuss the subject??????? That's pretty curious!!

ETA: It was you who brought up "optics." That is a political term, and your suggestion that it is being "blown out of proportion" is implicitly partisan.

Yes, yes I did. See above.

I had a very wise man, a business man and senior engineer, once tell me..."Never negotiate against yourself!"...(which is exactly what you are doing!!!)

ETA...That was a very profound statement, and it took me a while to wrap my head around what he meant. He was right though. When you define the boundaries of the solution, before you bound the problem...you've lost. He was never wrong. Not once. You might consider that statement for a while, and then reconstruct your argument.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Migration is a privilege, not a right. "Necessary" implies a right; it is not.

Migration is a right that tyrants violate. It is usually some form of want or tyranny that makes it necessary for survival. Immigration is a privilege.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I have not dismissed any of your suggestions out of hand (except for the silly 'judges' part, but I'm sure you weren't serious there).

Even Trump acknowledges that judges are a part of the process, though he thinks they shouldn't be.