Tradition!

Please like, share & subscribe for more hilarious memes

If that's even real, I mostly just feel sorry for them.

But I mean if that's what they feel they need to sleep well at night, more power to them I guess. Do they live in a bad neighborhood?

Actually, are those airsoft guns? lol

Yeah. Slap a big 'ol "yikers" on it!



Probably, I don't know if underbarrel grenade launchers are legal in most states.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-stop-separation-immigrant-children-families/

Turns out when you have progressive politicians running, they give a **** about issues before it's cool to give a ****.

“Every time you Share this, a Liberal’s head explodes”

share what, a gun with an abused kid?

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border

All the crying about the unique cruelty of Trump's policy is falling flat; it's becoming increasingly clear that the difference is a difference in degree from Obama's, not in kind. Democrats need a more subtle moral position than what they currently have. It's also pretty clear, though, why they find this strategy of overblown moral outrage so useful to them. Taking an extreme, binary position (such as: Trump is a Nazi and his policies are fascistic) lets them get away with not taking a real position on the issue that would involve real tradeoffs. Democrats really don't want to have to take a position, because any position that they do take will be appealing to some, but hated by others: it'd be divisive and would split the Democratic base.

Trump’s policy of unconditionally detaining parents and children separately is substantively different from Obama’s policy of unconditionally detaining illegal aliens as families. I do not agree with your position and the article you linked does not support it.

That would be true if you think everything hangs on whether or not children are separated from their parents.

(I do agree that the Democrats are garbage. But... what did Geraldo Rivera say to Hannity the other day? Just because you’re incapable of feeling a sincere emotion doesn’t mean I am?)

I'm not challenging anyone's sincerity. People can have sincere feelings that are based on double standards and half-thoughts.

Children are highly dependent on their parents, especially babies and toddlers. Contact with parents is both psychologically and physiologically essential for the wellbeing of a child. When a kid is denied contact with their parents, or a parent-child relationship, it’s torture. It ****s em up for life.

This is why we don’t have orphanages anymore dude. As problematic as the foster system is, it’s still much better than raising kids in a clinical setting.

So yes, unconditionally separating children from their parents is a uniquely immoral and harmful policy. Sometimes it is necessary for some cases, but it’s never a good thing when it must be done either. Doing it regardless of circumstances is criminal.

It’s not a double standard just because you don’t comprehend how two things are different.

You're awfully insistent on claiming that I'm only talking about the child separation policy here. Hint: that's not what I'm talking about.

The immigration issue is not reducible to whether children are separated from their parents.

Hint: Obama and Trump are different in kind and you don’t get to ignore all of the ways they are different that other people point out just because you are on a mission to prove they are the same.

No, but the issue of Donald Trump torturing children is. You can disapprove of both Obama’s non-torture immigration policies and Trump’s torture immigration policies, and recognize that they are different in kind, too!

you (eversor) spend an awful lot of time defending trump and attacking obama. whats the deal, dude?

Because there are no credible conservative viewpoints tempering the liberal echo chamber on this board. If we're just knocking down cartoon straw men rather than the strongest possible defense of conservatism, it damages our own credibility.

I'm not defending Trump and I'm not attacking Obama. I'm pointing out that Democrats are moving further to the left, and that the myth that Trump constitutes some radical rupture in American politics is concealing to them the fact that there's actually much more continuity between Trump's immigration policies and Obama's. Subsequently, there's a double-standard to their position.

The fact that Trump's child separation policy is so cruel colors the way in which the rest of border enforcement is perceived, so that more mundane features of the immigration policy are seen as extensions of Trump's unique cruelty. For example, some on the left have been criticizing Trump and calling him a fascist or a nazi because of the living conditions in the detention centers (specifically, the fact that detained migrants are held in chain-linked fences, or cages). But this system wasn't constructed in the past year and a half since Trump became president. It was built a long time ago. The thing that they find so troubling now is only under increased scrutiny because Trump is doing it. In other words, this very strong reaction against Trump is pushing Democrats further to the left, so that the left is more and more frequently presenting arguments that were once only right-wing caricatures of the left's arguments (e.g., some one the left are arguing that borders are inherently inhumane, and, therefore, the only moral position is to give up on border enforcement altogether).

It's easy to describe border enforcement as fascistic. It's easy to look at pictures inside those detention centers and to say that they're as morally offensive as concentration camps. It's almost tantalizingly easy, and seductive: after all, there is undoubtedly a semblance of truth to the comparison. But as soon as you do that, you're adopting a view which is entirely impractical and unrealistic.

Hence, the observation that I was making: criticizing Trump is enabling the Democrats to avoid actually taking a definite stance on this issue, and it's also pushing us further to the left, and to a more hard-lined position. It has lead to obstructionist bull**** like this: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects-gop-proposal-to-address-border-crisis

Schumer refused to pass legislation that would address the problem because he wanted to let Trump flounder, because it was politically advantageous? I don't care that it didn't take Trump long to flip. We're losing the moral high ground.

From the article I just posted:



If Trump can impose constraints upon himself, he can also free himself of those constraints by himself whenever he wants -- and so could a future president. Schumer is giving up an opportunity to use the power of his office to limit presidential power because it's good politics. How shortsighted. It's straight from the GOP playbook from 2010 onward.

I'm not sure whether you're not being sarcastic here, but I wouldn't say that it damages our credibility. I would say, though, that it makes our position weaker, at least potentially, because it robs us of a (potential) chance to examine some of our unexamined assumptions.

You have odd beliefs about the left.

The left and people who like Obama are separate entities pretty much entirely. The people who praise Obama wholly but now are freaking out about immigrants are being hypocritical, sure. But you're arguing against a specter here. Nobody on this forum is like that.

Honestly, Eversor, I think you spend way too much time reading op eds written by beltway Gen X doofuses who have spent too much time with their heads up their asses. The fact that you associate "the left" with "people who are big fans of Obama" says alot. You have to virtually know nothing about any left-wing movement in the US to think that's who the left is.

Liberals are not the left.

I didn't accuse anyone on the forum of being like that.

Relax. By the left, I meant it in the more generic sense that includes center-left liberals and the far left. I'm surprised that you didn't recognize that.

Yeah. If you want to criticize people who believe Trump is responsible for everything bad in America, then do so. Don’t complain if people misinterpret a statement like “criticism of Donald Trump is falling flat” to mean what you’ve written.

by liberal, I meant it in the more generic sense that means “someone who thinks people should have the slightest amount of agency”

I could've been a little more precise I suppose. But you were also pretty hasty to criticize my views before you even knew what they were.

Okay, we're cool. By linking the Sanders page earlier I was giving a criticism of the sorts of people who are suddenly anti-ICE now that it's part of the #resistance hysteria movement, whereas people who are left enough have been against ICE and how they handle immigration for longer. So I actually was giving a similar sentiment, that these people who are only on board because of Trump are hypocrites. So we agree!

The correct response to those people is, I think,

“Yes, it is terrible what Dorito Mussolini is doing. We should change the legislative system so that such actions by an executive are no longer possible, and perhaps even change the culture that produces such people in the first place.”

and that’s how you turn liberals into socialists.

I was being totally serious.



Right!

Fake liberal media is at it again. :/

[quote=The Washington Post]
The widely shared photo of the little girl crying as a U.S. Border Patrol agent patted down her mother became a symbol of the families pulled apart by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy at the border, even landing on the new cover of Time magazine.

But the girl’s father told The Washington Post on Thursday night that his child and her mother were not separated, and a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed that the family was not separated while in the agency’s custody. In an interview with CBS News, Border Patrol agent Carlos Ruiz, who was among the first to encounter the mother and her daughter at the border in Texas, said the image had been used to symbolize a policy but “that was not the case in this picture.”
[/quote]

Yeah, we do. I'm not coming at it from a far left anti-establishment position, but yes: my primary intention was to point out the hypocrisy of the center-left.

Bernie's views may have evolved and I may be stitching together different stages in the development of his position, so anyone who knows can correct me if I'm wrong. Bernie's recent material the immigration on talks about how important it is to treat migrants humanely, and to cut down on the excesses of ICE and other who carry out border enforcement. On the one hand, in an interview with Vox, he said that an open borders immigration policy is:



Obviously, there's nothing contradictory about holding these two positions: a person can say that people need to be treated humanely while they're processed in the United States, while also wanting to reduce the number of immigrants who are allowed to remain in the country. But it doesn't really address the underlying problem, which is that people are fleeing desperate conditions back home. You can't really deport people who are in that position, if you care about being humane. It seems like, ultimately, the way to deal with this problem is to address the problems that are making people flee their countries of origin in the first place. And that may require some amount of interventionism (e.g., through aid and/or advisors). State-building, actually, which I'm totally for.

It's true. We're hypocrites if we take an ends-justifies-the-means approach to the truth. That's exactly what we've been complaining about Republicans doing for years. And it's exactly what Trump is criticizing the media of doing.

To be fair, I am sure that the border policy has made more than a few children cry. It's just that as far as I can tell, members of the press are champing at the bit to savage Trump, even before all the facts are clear.

For example, I remember reading that the photographer who took that photo said they felt torn up inside just by witnessing the girl cry, probably even before they knew all the facts of the circumstances, and probably because they connected it with the press's narrative of the developing story.