2020 US Elections

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaudion M said:
Fun fact:

Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett are the second and third SCOTUS judges appointed by Republicans who also acted for the Republican Party in the Bush v's Gore court battles. Joining Roberts. So 3 of the 9 Justices have a background in working for the GOP in contesting elections.
Click to expand...

Isn't this entirely common sense?

You have conservative law professionals and you have a a massive case that will hire lots of law professionals.

Why would you consider this strange or corrupt in some fashion?
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I got dogs abuse on here for suggesting that the Trump presidency hadn't actually done much besides troll the permanently outraged - I was immediately castigated by the permanently outraged. I had a peep on his twitter as that's where most of the stuff on here about him comes from, and it looks like he uses it purely to troll people who hate him. I'd be genuinely interested to know how many of his millions of followers are supporters. From the replies to his trolling it would appear hardly any - he feeds his brand on the fuel of well-meaning liberal hatred as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
That is because you are both wrong
 
dave_blue12 said:
This appears to be false.

Who decided to separate families ?
Click to expand...

The odd thing is that even if it were true how the fuck would it justify it continuing under this administration? The defence is ‘well Obama did it’, like that makes it okay?

Every right wing fuck nut does this when you bring it to up, and not one can see the moral void at the heart of their response.
 
dave_blue12 said:
This appears to be false.

Who decided to separate families ?
Click to expand...

It's not, the article actually backs it up.

In 1997, Democrat President Bill Clinton signed the Flores Settlement law that required unaccompanied minors who arrive in the US to be released to their parents, a legal guardian or an adult relative.

If no relatives are available then the relevant government agency can appoint an appropriate adult to look after the child.

And in 2008, Republican President George W Bush signed an anti-trafficking statute that requires unaccompanied minors to be transferred out of immigration centres within 72 hours.

Neither of these recommends separating families.
Click to expand...

We're somewhat arguing semantics here. The separation of children from their families has been occurring for most of the time the legislation has been in place; Trump's addition to this shambles in his "zero tolerance" policy was essentially saying that the thing that was already happening was ok and now aimed.

There's more details on this here:

eu.azcentral.com

First peek: Immigrant children flood detention center

U.S. Customs and Border Protection briefly opened the doors of a holding facility for hundreds of immigrant children shipped to Arizona.
eu.azcentral.com

And the changes here:

www.nytimes.com

Parents of 545 Children Separated at the Border Cannot Be Found (Published 2020)

A new report shows hundreds of cases in which the deported parents of migrant children who were taken from their families cannot be located.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

A lot of this story is semantic anyway, it relies on the wording of "parents". As the NYT article reads, when you expand that to cover other relatives or guardians then the story changes somewhat. The situation is fairly understandable though from a US perspective. To them, immigrants are criminals so they lock up the criminals and put the kids of criminals with other family or as a last resort in the social service because they now have nobody to take care of them because they've just arrested the parents.

Again I'd argue that the problem here is that successive American Governments and arguably the American people/culture have always treated immigrants like invaders rather than some guy in Washington just creating this whole situation on a whim
 
BobKowalski said:
The odd thing is that even if it were true how the fuck would it justify it continuing under this administration? The defence is ‘well Obama did it’, like that makes it okay?
Click to expand...

Because the point we're debating is "this is something that changed under Trump and is irreversible", so whether it changed under Trump or was pre-existing is the key component of that.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I got dogs abuse on here for suggesting that the Trump presidency hadn't actually done much besides troll the permanently outraged - I was immediately castigated by the permanently outraged. I had a peep on his twitter as that's where most of the stuff on here about him comes from, and it looks like he uses it purely to troll people who hate him. I'd be genuinely interested to know how many of his millions of followers are supporters. From the replies to his trolling it would appear hardly any - he feeds his brand on the fuel of well-meaning liberal hatred as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true.

When you posted something similar you got one response which was from me and I called it a load of shite and explained why. 9 people agreed with my post. No one else responded so you didn't get dogs abuse, you actually didn't get any abuse because calling a post shite is not the same as abusing a poster.

Stop playing the victim.
 
Gray said:
If Biden gets in he might not make it to the end of his term at his age?
Click to expand...

He's only 3 years older than Trump and Bidne looks fitter. But it is interesting that over there candidates tend to be in thier 70s these days - seems very odd
 
Damocles said:
Well yes, SCOTUS picks are partisan.

I feel like I'm not really understanding what you're getting at
Click to expand...

See this is part of the lie.

Going back to the Nixon administration, 17 of the 21 supreme court justices were voted in with massive supermajorities. Many of them had 90%+ votes in favour. They were voted for by both parties.

That's because normal practice is to appoint reasonable, well qualified, universally respected judges.


What Trump and Mitch McConnel have done, removing the supermajority requirement and forcing through 3 Supreme Court nominees that were so hyper conservative that not even all the republicans could back is not normal.

It's the ultimate both-sides fallacy. Merrick Garland was not a democratic version of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. He was a moderate, because that's what you did.

The two parties are not the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top