Trump's National Address

[JonathanL]

I don't really find them funny, but for whatever reason I just don't find absurdist humor to be funny in the slightest, no matter the context.

The American Gothic homage made me chuckle though.

It's one thing to not find certain types of humor funny. It's another thing altogether to think that people who find things humorous which you personally don't are somehow less grown up than you.

And voicing that opinion like Starlight did is more a sign that you find it exceedingly important to let everyone know just how mature and grown up you are, rather than it actually being a sign of maturity. Just like how his not infrequent mentions of how educated and smart he is reveals more about his incessant need to let everyone know how smart he is, than it does about his actual intelligence and learning.

[carpedm9587]

7 year old kids enjoy funny pictures.

I actually enjoy funny pictures as well - and political cartoons have a long and storied history in this country and other's. I was just curious to see if Rogue thought they actually were productive or contributed in the context of a political discussion. Mostly, I find them counter-productive in that context.

Outside, however, they can be amusing. My wife loved the roll of Trump toilet paper I put in her stocking this year.

[Cow Poke]

By the way, Trump's national address, at the moment, is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

[carpedm9587]

By the way, Trump's national address, at the moment, is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

You better run....

[lilpixieofterror]

7 year old kids enjoy funny pictures.

So sayeth the man that post funny pictures in a regular bases.

[lilpixieofterror]

Most of the above is simply rehash of things I have already responded to - so I'll let me previous responses stand. Further repetition is pointless. For the last statement, you seem to be equating "explanation" with "excuse." Knowing how something happened and why it happened is not equivalent to "excusing it." The situation under Obama should never have happened - and I have never said otherwise. What caused it (local decisions versus presidential policy), how it was responded to (immediately upon its discovery versus only after many days of mounting public pressure), and accountability (Obama taking responsibility, versus Trump blaming everyone else) are the differences. The fact of children in cages is deplorable in either situation.

My issue is you extending grace to Obama that you don’t extend to Trump. You seem to read Obama in a much better light than you read Obama and you also tend to gloss over the simple fact that Trumps detractors have spun numberous lies and lie at at least the same rate as you frequently accuse Trump of doing. The difference is you claim to have ‘addressed it’ but you haven’t, you make your same assertions, claim you’re answered when you haven’t, and simply pretend your assertions are true because you said so.

Hopefully that will clarify things for you.

It does, you’ll just assert you’re answered things you haven’t and pretend you repeating that makes it magically true. Sorry, but you haven’t.

ETA: Reflecting on this a bit, I'm not sure that I place fault with the Border Patrol for how the children were housed in 2014. Putting myself in their place, I have no idea what I would do with an overwhelming flood of children that exhausted my resources to house them. I certainly wouldn't want them to be outside unaccompanied. I would hope that the children were so-housed simply because the Border Patrol agents had no other alternative. But the reality is I don't know what their specific situation was, and whether or not they exhausted all possible avenues before making that choice. If they did, they have my understanding for doing the best they could in a bad situation. If they didn't, then the choice they made was reprehensible.

The fact is that is child abuse and no CPS agent would buy that excuse if it was parents doing it to their children.

https://www.businessinsider.com/migr...plained-2018-5
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/l...n/65-600537320

Finding resources is a bit difficult, because most searches bring up articles/discussion about the Trump family separation policy.

And what dates were those articles written? 2018, so are you trying to prove my point for me?

BTW - you should really lay off the popcorn. It'll make you fat.

Considering that I can run a mile and a half, in 13:38 and regularly do 5k’s twice a week, . It would take a lot of popcorn for that to happen.

No - I mean you interpreted my words incorrectly. "Wrong," the way you used it, implies a value judgement. I have no idea what your motivations might be or if you had any. I'm simply telling you that your interpretation of my post is not correct. You can do with that what you wish.

Apply that reasoning to Trump and his speeches.

[carpedm9587]

My issue is you extending grace to Obama that you don’t extend to Trump.

Trump explicitly put in place a policy of family separation. Obama (and Bush before him) did not.

You seem to read Obama in a much better light than you read Obama

Because I find Obama a reasonable human being with some flaws, and I find Trump a vile human being with a couple saving graces.

and you also tend to gloss over the simple fact that Trumps detractors have spun numberous lies and lie at at least the same rate as you frequently accuse Trump of doing.

Already responded to.

The difference is you claim to have ‘addressed it’ but you haven’t, you make your same assertions, claim you’re answered when you haven’t, and simply pretend your assertions are true because you said so.

My assertions are true if they align with the observable facts - and false if they do not - as with all assertions.

It does, you’ll just assert you’re answered things you haven’t and pretend you repeating that makes it magically true. Sorry, but you haven’t.

Your perspective is noted.

The fact is that is child abuse and no CPS agent would buy that excuse if it was parents doing it to their children.

If the Border Patrol was overwhelmed, and used holding areas as a last resort - there is no fault. If they had alternatives and used holding areas - there is fault. As best I can tell - what happened under Obama was the former - and what happened under Trump was the latter. If you have other facts to offer, by all means cite them.

And what dates were those articles written? 2018, so are you trying to prove my point for me?

I have no idea how this is relevant.

Considering that I can run a mile and a half, in 13:38 and regularly do 5k’s twice a week, . It would take a lot of popcorn for that to happen.

I'll take your word for it.

Apply that reasoning to Trump and his speeches.

I do.

At this point, I find this discussion has run its course and is now repetitive. I'll leave the last word to you.

I'm sure that will earn me a "dodging" or "handwaving" or some such...

[rogue06]

Trump explicitly put in place a policy of family separation. Obama (and Bush before him) did not.

As a result of law suits from the ACLU and others complaining that the families were being incarcerated together. This was explained in detail multiple times in the various threads concerning this topic.

[carpedm9587]

As a result of law suits from the ACLU and others complaining that the families were being incarcerated together. This was explained in detail multiple times in the various threads concerning this topic.

Both Bush and Obama considered the family separation issue. Both elected not to do it for humanitarian reasons. Both then, in keeping families together, found themselves essentially holding entire families in holding facilities. That is what led to the lawsuits and the subsequent, court-mandated, change in policy. The courts placed an upper limit on how long families with children could be held in detention. IIRC, it was around 3 weeks (20 days?).

At no point did either administration have a policy of separating children from their parents.

[Starlight]

political cartoons have a long and storied history in this country and other's.

Oh, actual thought provoking and satirical pieces with intellectual value, sure. I post the occasional thought-provoking political cartoon.

But the kind of sad gifs that get bandied around here that you were complaining about, are the kind of 7-year old point and laugh ones that even a teenager would be too mature to want to be associated with.

I was just curious to see if Rogue thought they actually were productive or contributed in the context of a political discussion. Mostly, I find them counter-productive in that context.

I would say he clearly does and he's clearly wrong on that as usual.

[carpedm9587]

Oh, actual thought provoking and satirical pieces with intellectual value, sure. I post the occasional thought-provoking political cartoon.

But the kind of sad gifs that get bandied around here that you were complaining about, are the kind of 7-year old point and laugh ones that even a teenager would be too mature to want to be associated with.

I would say he clearly does and he's clearly wrong on that as usual.

Don't get me wrong, Star. I'm not complaining, per se. I was curious to know if Rogue thought they were a productive part of the discussion. I recognize that individuals are free to engage in any way they wish. I too find the memes more than a little childish, which is why I don't use them. But it is, after all, a free country.

[One Bad Pig]

Don't get me wrong, Star. I'm not complaining, per se. I was curious to know if Rogue thought they were a productive part of the discussion. I recognize that individuals are free to engage in any way they wish. I too find the memes more than a little childish, which is why I don't use them. But it is, after all, a free country.

Well, aren't you a virtuous little grup. (Star Trek reference, if you're wondering)

Your 'holier than thou' virtue signaling got old a decade or so ago, carpe. Not that you care.

[One Bad Pig]

Oh, actual thought provoking and satirical pieces with intellectual value, sure. I post the occasional thought-provoking political cartoon.

You're a trip, Starlight.

[Sparko]

Please find any place where I have claimed to be a "centrist." While it has been said multiple times about me, it is not a claim I have ever made. I have claimed to be a moderate, which means that most of my views tend to be more centrist than they are extreme. But each view, on each topic, leans left or right to some degree.

You have continually claimed to be in the center, Carp. slightly to the left actually but very close to the center.

OK - another place where my "centrist" POV comes to the fore.

Well, I can tell you what MY centrist position looks like, but if you are right-leaning you'll call me a leftist, and if you are left-leaning you will call me a rightist.

Yes - I am more centrist than extreme - and (as noted) slightly left of that centerline as an average. I am most definitely not neutral. I have fairly passionately held beliefs, though I hope not SO passionately held that I won't hold them up to scrutiny now and again.

No - I'm not liberal. I have some positions that are way to the left - some that are way to the right - some that are more centrist. On average, I am probably slightly left of center.

I am slightly left of center - no doubt about it (as I acknowledged).

Another anecdotal piece of evidence is the distribution of the articles on www.allsides.com that resolate with me: they are mostly classified as centrist with a slightly stronger incidence of left-leaning articles than right.

[Mountain Man]

Both Bush and Obama considered the family separation issue. Both elected not to do it for humanitarian reasons.

A lot of this hand-wringing about family separation started when liberals gleefully vilified Trump with pictures of children in cages, before hastily deleting their social media posts when it was pointed out that the pictures were actually taken while Obama was in office.

Meanwhile, photos of the safe, comfortable, and clean facilities that children were kept in by the Trump administration received almost no media coverage.