Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 180: The Summit All Fears

(+) Yeah! (+)

I've been saying it for years. The first principle of the modern Republican Party is the end justifies the means. Now the envelope is pushed farther and farther.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The most disgusting lie Trump is telling at he moment is his blatantly false claim that he has no choice but to separate families at the border because of the Democrats refusing to change the law

The law has not changed since he became president, and the Obama administration wasnt ripping kids away from their parents and essentially jailing them. Furthermore, Jeff Sessions and John Kelly have explicitly said that they made this policy change in the hopes that such cruelty would act as a deterrent.

He cant even own his own fucking human rights abuses. What a piece of shit.

Lindsay Graham of all people called him out on this.

Said if he wanted to stop the separation of children from parents, all it would take is for Trump to make one phone call.
---

Graham's been pretty consistently against Trump's random bullshit on immigration.
---

Graham and McCain have been RINOs on immigtation for 13 years.
---

Immigtation - you won't believe it's not immigration!
---

If McConnell or someone starts calling it out, there might be action but Graham and McCain are effectively Democrats on this issue.
---

And "it's Biblical to enforce the law" is a terrible misreading of the Bible. That passage was about obeying Roman civil laws, like paying taxes. It was not about the morality of the government enforcing the laws.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Graham and McCain have been RINOs on immigtation for 13 years.

Before Trump, wasnt the Republican stance on immigration a lot more tolerant?

Some form of amnesty was very favored by people like the Bushes
---

Using the bible to justify anything the government does goes against the constitution.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Ashethan posted...

The absolute worst thing about Trump is that his supporters will blindly support him because "It makes the libs mad"

You mean like this trash

https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1007291904948670465

Her claim to fame was posing for senior pictures with rifles... at Kent University, which kind of has a history with guns on campus.

The funny thing to me about those pictures was that she posted them with the statement Come and take it!

A rifle on your back thats 75% as big as you are would be pretty easy to take
---

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/05/Kaitlin-Bennett-Kent-University-AR-10-twitter-640x480.jpg

Like, I feel pretty confident that I could take that gun before she shot me.
---

Hey, I went there!
---

What if another armed citizen saw her, and mistook her for a school shooter, and shot her?
---

That student would be a hero, of course!
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Ashethan posted...

The absolute worst thing about Trump is that his supporters will blindly support him because "It makes the libs mad"

You mean like this trash

https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1007291904948670465

Her claim to fame was posing for senior pictures with rifles... at Kent University, which kind of has a history with guns on campus.

Shes...sitting on the flag.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Graham and McCain have been RINOs on immigtation for 13 years.

Before Trump, wasnt the Republican stance on immigration a lot more tolerant?

Some form of amnesty was very favored by people like the Bushes

The Bushes were big RINOs, that's why they're friends with the Clintons. <emoticon>

But I can't see a solution at this point. I can't see how they can devise a bill that lets illegal immigrants stay without Republicans being afraid it will turn into Democrat votes within one generation. It needn't even actually do that, the fear of it is enough to sink a prospective bill.
---

And I know Trump is big on DACA for the wall, but he isn't going to be running in 20 years. The wall reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Act.....confers little in benefits upon the people who wanted it, but looks amazingly bad and will turn public opinion against its supporters.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And I know Trump is big on DACA for the wall

Didn't the Democrats call his bluff on that? IIRC at one point they offered a significant amount of wall funding and Trump and the GOP balked.

Could be recalling wrong though because there were like 9 different proposals.
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And I know Trump is big on DACA for the wall

Didn't the Democrats call his bluff on that? IIRC at one point they offered a significant amount of wall funding and Trump and the GOP balked.

Could be recalling wrong though because there were like 9 different proposals.

I think Trump withdrew his offer, yeah. Actually, that deal could be attractive for Republicans, IF it got no Democrat support. But if it looks like the Democrats are getting DACA and Republicans are getting the wall, it makes Dems look compassionate and Republicans look mean.

Now, usually, a few Trump tweets is enough to get Democrats to oppose anything, but it didn't happen in this case. A rare spot of good thinking from congressional Dems.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Graham and McCain have been RINOs on immigtation for 13 years.

Before Trump, wasnt the Republican stance on immigration a lot more tolerant?

Some form of amnesty was very favored by people like the Bushes

The Bushes were big RINOs, that's why they're friends with the Clintons. <emoticon>

But I can't see a solution at this point. I can't see how they can devise a bill that lets illegal immigrants stay without Republicans being afraid it will turn into Democrat votes within one generation. It needn't even actually do that, the fear of it is enough to sink a prospective bill.

Maybe if Republicans focus on conservative values without putting down non-white people they'll make some head way. This is one of the reasons why the turn-out rate for immigrants are low.
---

charmander6000 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Graham and McCain have been RINOs on immigtation for 13 years.

Before Trump, wasnt the Republican stance on immigration a lot more tolerant?

Some form of amnesty was very favored by people like the Bushes

The Bushes were big RINOs, that's why they're friends with the Clintons. <emoticon>

But I can't see a solution at this point. I can't see how they can devise a bill that lets illegal immigrants stay without Republicans being afraid it will turn into Democrat votes within one generation. It needn't even actually do that, the fear of it is enough to sink a prospective bill.

Maybe if Republicans focus on conservative values without putting down non-white people they'll make some head way. This is one of the reasons why the turn-out rate for immigrants are low.

Romney tried that and managed the worst showing Republicans have ever gotten with minorities. Trump did better with minorities, so that's probably the direction the GOP will go....
---

It wasn't so much that Romney did poorly, but Obama did well.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

You mean like this trash

https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1007291904948670465

Her claim to fame was posing for senior pictures with rifles... at Kent University, which kind of has a history with guns on campus.

she claims to be the grassroots director of a libertarian media outlet lmao

obviously trump is the epitome of libertarianism.
---

She basically spends her time trying to get attention on Twitter, particularly by trying to start a fight with David Hogg with super bitchy tweets, but luckily he has completely ignored her
---

red sox 777 posted...

Romney tried that

I mean, not really, though.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

She basically spends her time trying to get attention on Twitter, particularly by trying to start a fight with David Hogg with super bitchy tweets, but luckily he has completely ignored her

It amazes me how hard it is for conservatives to not attack a school shooting survivor.

Like they can't just disagree, they gotta attack him personally.
---

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1007683912070463488

HMM
---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1007785599129047040

lmao
---

Well it's par for the course for this administration:

JIM ACOSTA (CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT): On these children who are being separated from their families as they come across the border, the attorney general earlier today said that somehow there's a justification for this in the Bible. Where does it say in the Bible that it's moral to take children away from their mothers?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS (WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY): I'm not aware of the attorney general's comments or what he would be referencing. I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible. However -- hold on, Jim, if you'd let me finish. I'm not going to comment on the attorney's specific comments that I haven't seen.

...

ACOSTA: How is it a moral policy to take children away from their parents?

SANDERS: It's a moral policy to follow and enforce the law.

ACOSTA: Can you imagine the horror these children must be going through? When they come across the border, they're with their parents, and then suddenly they're pulled away from their parents? Why is the government doing this?

SANDERS: Because it's the law, and that's what the law states.

ACOSTA: It's not. It doesn't have to be the law. You guys don't have to do that.

SANDERS: You're right. It doesn't have to be the law, and the president has actually called on Democrats in Congress to fix those loopholes.

...

PAULA REID (CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT): First of all, there is no law that requires families be separated at the border. This was the administration's choice to move from civil matters on immigration to criminal, criminally prosecute people who come across the border illegally, and therefore you have to separate families. So why did the administration find that this was necessary? And if it continues to not have much of a deterrent effect, will you continue this policy?

SANDERS: Again, the laws are the ones that have been on the books for over a decade, and the president is enforcing them. We would like to fix the broken system and fix our immigration problem. However, until Democrats are willing to actually fix this problem, it's going to continue. But we would like to see it fixed.

REID: This administration doesn't want to take responsibility for its policy change from handling them as civil matters to criminal prosecutions.

SANDERS: It's not a policy change to enforce the law. That's been this administration's policy since the day we got here.

REID: No. Jeff Sessions made a decision in April that he was going to move from handling it from a civil matter to criminal.

SANDERS: It has been our administration's policies --

REID: Your administration said it was a deterrent. They're separating families to deter people from coming here illegally.

...

BRIAN KAREM (EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY SENTINEL): Don't you have any empathy? Come on, Sarah, you're a parent. Don't you have any empathy for what these people are going through? They have less than you do.

SANDERS: Brian. God. Settle down.

KAREM: Seriously. Seriously.

SANDERS: I'm trying to be serious, but I'm not going to have you yell out of turn.

KAREM: You're telling us it's the law. These people have nothing. They come over here with nothing.

SANDERS: Hey, Brian, I know you want to get some more TV time, but that's not what this is about.

KAREM: It's not about that. It's about you answering the question, Sarah. Honestly, answer the question. It's a serious question. These people have nothing, they come to the border with nothing, and they throw children in cages. You're a parent. You're a parent of young children. Don't you have any empathy for what they go through?
---

Sadly, the most surprising thing to me there is that the press actually kept asking the question and didn't just give up after the first time. Not that it appears to have gotten them much.

Still, it's something they should keep doing. On all issues really. Keep pressing if they try and dodge or lie.
---

Good on Reid and Karem for not dropping the question and pushing back on SHSs blatant lies
---

Someone should cite Leviticus 19:33-34 to them.
---

xp1337 posted...

Sadly, the most surprising thing to me there is that the press actually kept asking the question and didn't just give up after the first time. Not that it appears to have gotten them much.

Still, it's something they should keep doing. On all issues really. Keep pressing if they try and dodge or lie.

Agreed 100%.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Shes...sitting on the flag.

Sshhhh, using the flag to wipe your ass isn't nearly as bad as kneeling!
---

TheRock1525 posted...

KAREM: It's not about that. It's about you answering the question, Sarah. Honestly, answer the question. It's a serious question. These people have nothing, they come to the border with nothing, and they throw children in cages. You're a parent. You're a parent of young children. Don't you have any empathy for what they go through?

Spoilers: She doesn't.
---

Is Sarah Huckabee Sanders really Corrik?
---

xp1337 posted...

Sadly, the most surprising thing to me there is that the press actually kept asking the question and didn't just give up after the first time. Not that it appears to have gotten them much.

Still, it's something they should keep doing. On all issues really. Keep pressing if they try and dodge or lie.

There's that and I am also genuinely surprised they didn't remove them from the room
---

Inviso posted...

Is Sarah Huckabee Sanders really Corrik?

It sure seems like it!
---

What exactly did Sessions say?

Also I wonder if Trump will have to pick a side between Sessions and the Press on this one
---

he justified separating children from parents with a passage from Romans, the same passage used to justify slavery
---

Well Sessions would probably be openly pro-slavery if he lived 100 years earlier so thats not surprising.

No that timeframe is not a typo.
---

Sessions is openly pro-slavery now, he just calls it prison labor.
---

Sessions is named after the president of the CSA and a CSA general. I guess he could argue that "Jefferson" is after the USA president too, but I'm betting it was the CS president!
---

SgtSphynx posted...

he justified separating children from parents with a passage from Romans, the same passage used to justify slavery

Oh ffs. Jesus is pretty explicitly anti-slavery. Literally the sermon on the mount had explicit instructions telling slaves to nonviolently protest their masters:

https://cpj.ca/defiance-not-compliance-turning-other-cheek

Wink goes on to examine the phrase if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. Why, Wink asks, does Jesus reference the right cheek specifically? The answer is both challenging and enlightening. Jesus lived in a right-handed world where left hands were reserved only for unclean tasks. Therefore, we can assume that the person doing the hitting would have used their right hand. The only way to strike someone on the right cheek with your right hand is a backhanded slap. Such a blow connotes an insult, not a fistfight, and was a normal way to reprimand someone over whom you had power (e.g. masters to slaves, husbands to wives, Romans to Jews). To strike your equal in such a manner was socially and legally unacceptable, carrying with it a huge fine.

With this new understanding of the context Jesus was speaking in, picture the scenario with yourself as the oppressor. You are a wealthy, powerful person whose slave has displeased you in some way. You reprimand your slave with a backhanded slap. The response you expect is the response you have always received from your slaves the response you yourself would give if someone higher than you treated you the same way. You expect your slave to cower, submit, and slink away. Instead, your slave defiantly turns their other cheek and challenges you to hit them again. What can you do?

You would like to give your slave another backhanded slap to show them their place, but to do that you would have to use your left hand which would admit that your action is unclean. You could hit them on their left cheek, instead, but it would be embarrassing to hit your slave the way you should hit your equal. Youre confused. You dont know what to do. Flustered, you could order the slave be flogged, but the slave has already made their point. They have shown you that they are a human person with dignity and worth. You dont own them, you cannot control them, and they do not submit to your rule.

---

The passage Sessions used can't justify slavery any more than it can justify any other law. The argument (not really in Romans) is that if something is legal, it must be right. That isn't what it means. If it were, it would kind of eliminate the need for the rest of the Bible. Whatever a government made law would be right.
---

"When a foreigner resides with you in your land, you must not oppress him. You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34

I would very much like to see how Jeff Sessions can argue around this one. This seems like a pretty clear command to me.
---

Anybody see this Chris Cuomo/Corey Stewart interview? I dont know how Cuomo didnt lose his shit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2chGnwOa1z0" data-time="
---

red sox 777 posted...

The passage Sessions used can't justify slavery any more than it can justify any other law.

I'm not saying it does or can, I'm saying that in the past, people used it that way. Frankly, I think the second you try to justify a law using religion that law should be unconstitutional.
---

The only reason conservatives got triggered by "creeping sharia" was that it wasn't a religion they approved of. And they assumed that since they wanted to make christianity the state religion of the US, then surely everyone else must be pushing some state religion as well.
---

SgtSphynx posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The passage Sessions used can't justify slavery any more than it can justify any other law.

I'm not saying it does or can, I'm saying that in the past, people used it that way. Frankly, I think the second you try to justify a law using religion that law should be unconstitutional.

ten commandments says murder is bad

alright off to off my neighbor see y'all in a bit
---

fucking fallacy fallacy
---