President Trump

Well youre probably not surprised that I think the Trump administration is both malicious AND incompetent. Which is certainly a bad combination. Though I guess you could make the argument it’s a good combination since they tend to screw up all their attempts to do evil acts. Take away kids. Ban muslims. Steal elections. Etc.

Nah. Jeff Miller and company persuaded Trump that it would be the perfect tactic to kill two birds with one stone. It would frighten away those smelly Mexicans from trying to get into the country AND it would get Congress to give them what they wanted on immigration (wall funding, legal limits, end to lottery, etc.) as it would force the hand of the bleeding hearts on the other side of the isle. But this strategy blew up in their face of course. So there you go. That’s evil AND incompetence for you.

Wait is this some variation of "Its all Obamas fault!" again? Last I checked the Republican Congress refused to consider any immigrant legislation despite the President asking for it over and over. And that’s Obama's fault? Trump had an opportunity to get legislation done with a Republican controlled House and Senate and even said we need to fix DACA and he would sign whatever came his way. But when they created a bill he turned around and said forget it. Ive changed my mind. This is all on Trump. He could have had this solved, could have had DACA solved and probably could have gotten a good chunk of wall funding out of the democrats in exchange. But no, he decided that the bigots and soulless scoundrels whispering in his ear were right and that the extremists in his base would get pissy if he gave even an inch to these 'im-mo-grint' lovers. So he walked away and left McConnell and Ryan in the lurch. THEN he turned around and decided to start taking kids away from their parents willy nilly. BOTH things were his fault. So try blaming the man responsible instead of always reaching back at Obama for everything.

Schumer's fear was that the Republicans would likely try to add poison-pill provisions to any immigration bill that came to the floor (he made those comments while the bill was still in discussion in committee). That was still within the realm of possibility and Schumer had been burned by that before: “Unacceptable additions have bogged down every piece of legislation we’ve done” he said. Even the "clean" Cruz bill you mentioned required "merging several ideas being debated by Republicans, including Cruz's bill, into a measure that could win over GOP senators." according to Senator John Cornyn. So, again, I can hardly blame him for not wanting to have this be a hostage situation where the Democrats are forced to vote on a bill that had last minute additions on it that they opposed. I wouldn’t either. Best to nip it in the bud then work on it at length when the immediate danger is over.

We are going round in circles here. It was the ONLY way to resolve the immediate situation. Nothing else would have worked as well or as fast. THIS worked. We are at least back to where we started before he decided to pull a Cruella de Vil. The difference being Trump wont try using this tactic as political leverage anymore because he got burned.

Im curious how this action doesn’t reduce suffering exactly. Im sure the children are at least happier that they don’t have to go to sleep not knowing where their parents are or if they’ll ever see them again. Any emergency bill wouldn’t have done any more than this.

I gave you reasons and I told you why I disagree with your reasons.

Probably but I think weve reached an important point in the discussion. Arguing over whether executive order then legislative action was the ideal approach in this situation or JUST legislative action only is fairly pedantic at this point. Whats done is done. And Im not an enormous fan of executive orders as noted several times. Im just glad kids are better off now. But now we should really be discussing what happens next. Trump has no plans to back off on arresting everyone and everything that comes to the border and since he cant separate kids from parents anymore that means they will need an ENORMOUS amount of physical space to house all these people. I understand hes basically ordering the Pentagon to baby sit all these folks now. Wonder how that’s going to work out. Our military bases are going to become refuge tent cities if thats true. Ive also heard that even though EVERY immigrant is entitled to representation in their hearings, many of them just wont get it and don’t know enough to demand it. That bothers me as well. It seems Trump is content to arrest all of Central America if need be and hold on until November and gamble the Republicans will win big in the mid terms and then he'll get everything he wants as far as his immigration demands. Guess we'll see how that works out...

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

So if that picture had been of a kid that had been separated from their parent just like the 2500 kids that had it would be ok? But because HHS wouldnt let any photographer within 10,000 feet of the facilities where this was actually taking place its somehow "fake news"? Is every editorial cartoon also fake news to you because its not technically a true image of what its talking about? Lets not pretend this is a picture of kids being assaulted in the basement of a pizza restaurant by Hillary Clinton. I can see how if the article stated that the kid was taken away that you would have a case. But simply showing a picture of Trump and a picture of a child and the words WELCOME TO AMERICA is not creating fake news in my book. Its an accurate and fitting symbol.

Again, I havent read the actual article so Im perfectly fine retracting all this if someone can find any mention of the kid being separated in the article.

I also wonder why it is this particular child was not separated from her mother since the Trump administration seemed happy to do it to every other kid. Part of me wonders if the presence of the photographer gave them second thoughts. Who knows. I actually heard an interview with the photographer that took that photo. He never once stated the child was pulled away from her mom in his presence. He specifically stated he didnt know what happened to her. That the border patrol officers and the mother and child all drove away into the compound and he couldnt make any assumptions either way. And this was at least 2 days before this article came out so the photographer seems fully on the level at least. What really struck me was not the picture of her crying as they cuffed her mom but of them forcing her to take her shoe laces out so she couldnt hang herself with them... at 2 years old...

I don't have answers to a lot of the questions, but I will say that had the issue been that patting down mothers caught illegally crossing the border for 2 minutes was traumatizing children due to Trump's policies, then the photo would be more accurate - but we now know what the issue was (and it wasn't that) and the details around the figure in the photo.

It's a good question about editorial cartoons and how they might compare to a Photo-shopped cover of a magazine. Editorial cartoons are pure opinion and artistic expression, and do not represent a form of journalistic reporting. They are satire used to both criticize and entertain. Some could say the same is true for an "artistic" expression on a magazine cover.

It's somewhat grey, but considering what we now know and the reality of the photos vs how they were used and the narrative they were meant to convey, I come down calling this cover a political exploitation as opposed to a satirical piece of artwork.

Didn't Jeff Miller just retire?

I dunno why my statement was taken as an invitation to write Trump-hating fan fiction. Suffice to say, the reality is often stupid or careless, but not often as sinister as we imagine, and I think you're doing an awful lot of imagining here.

I'd affix any number of negative words to Trump, but I don't think "heartless" is a good description of him. He does have a habit of not thinking things through, though. The perfect example of both these things, simultaneously, is when he casually implied during a Republican debate that he maybe favored universal health care by just saying we'd "take care of people."

Ah yes, I'm "always reaching back at Obama"...by briefly mentioning that he has partial culpability in the same paragraph I also blame Trump, half a dozen replies into a lengthy argument. Clearly I just couldn't wait.

I worried I would get some glib deflection like this, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. I guess that's on me. And now I have to semi-seriously respond to something that reads like it was written for a generic conservative stereotype before you even heard what they'd said.

Sarcastically attacking "it's all Obama's fault" is a straw man. Here's what I actually said, and I'd challenge you to actually find a fault with it:

...either the law is written too broadly (defeating the entire purpose of having laws), or the previous administration decided to just sort of ignore the law as written (and did that for years rather than codifying their policy for future administrations). This obviously wasn't handled well, but no administration should have to come in and figure out what laws the previous administration was massaging around the margins.

That partisan hacks will reflexively blame Obama for things doesn't mean you can leap to that conclusion any time someone suggests the previous administration has some culpability. That, itself, is a hacky response.

And I can't help but notice that, in most of our arguments, they start off thoughtful and relatively to the point, and a few replies in you start giving me longer, rant-ier responses that are less and less connected to what I'm actually saying and read more and more like they're written for conservatives (or what you imagine conservatives to be) in general.

Last I checked this was just an overt re-framing of the fact that none of those legislative proposals were meaningful compromises. This is the same kind of standard political theater we always see: ask for more than the other side could plausibly agree too, then blame them when nothing gets done.

I particularly like contrasting this with the following paragraph, and the much more charitable interpretation you have of Democratic intransigence:

I think this is all being retrofitted to the narrative, but as I said, I can't argue with purely hypothetical counterfactuals. I can only point out that the actual verifiable facts indicate otherwise, and you can go on believing that it would have changed or fallen apart in some way.

The part that isn't arguable, though, is that this supposedly clear-headed strategy rested on a petty and mercurial man that you just spent several large paragraphs arguing was evil. So, as I said, you're basically arguing with yourself from one half of the post to the next. Trump is evil and malicious, but it was sound political stratagem to expect him to change his mind about a totally urgent matter? Sounds downright incoherent, to me.

And you taught a megalomaniacal President that it all revolves around him and his whims. Cool, great job. That's definitely what you want to reinforce with a guy like that. I'm sure this won't have any unintended consequences down the line.

You're solving one crisis by making another more likely, by doing the same kinds of end-arounds that brought that crisis into being. Vague laws lead to broad discretion in enforcement, which leads to broad changes suddenly when power changes hands. It's, like, the whole reason to have a democracy rather than a monarchy: so the laws on a given day don't change based on what side of the bed the king got out of.

It really doesn't feel like you're grappling with the moral trade offs involved here, given that we're this far into the discussion and I'm still trying to get a response on the basic objection.

Also, I'd still very much like to know what legal distinction you're making re: the Fourth Amendment question. You obviously understand the concept that sometimes we, as a society, tolerate awful things to preserve the integrity of a system that, if undermined, leads to more awful things in the long-run. Seeing as how that's the core issue here, I think this is a pretty important (and highly relevant) question, and I'm not sure why I'm having so much trouble getting an answer to it, unless it's because the answer is "I don't know."

If the picture was depicting the thing it implied it was depicting? Yes, of course that would be okay.

Another straw man. You can think it's bad and misleading without saying "fake news," whatever that means.

This is another example of trying to use glib deflections to combat glib deflections. It starts when any negative coverage is labeled "fake news." But it continues if, any time someone has a valid media criticism, you sarcastically ask if they're calling it "fake news."

Do people routinely confuse cartoons with pictures of things actually happening? No? Then I guess it's not the same. Which you must already kinda know, since you surreptitiously replaced "photo" with "image," even though that's a huge, relevant distinction in this context.

Because you don't, actually, and I assume it was included just to take the temperature down a little. Which I'd generally appreciate in an argument, except when I'm trying in vain to get basic responses to what I'm saying (and have been saying for some time).

Woops. Steve Miller. The man so terrible I dare not speak his name apparently...

"Fly Like An Eagle" Steve Miller? Abracadabra!

The Stephen Miller (band) is such an awful human being. I don't know why there was so much hate towards Stephen Bannon, who has always appeared sincere, and whose economic nationalism is misinterpreted as racist, even though Bernie Sanders has said the exact same stuff, even about tariffs. Even the two Senators from Ohio (Brown and Kaptur) have supported this despite Trump enacting this... Bannon wanted a 45% income tax rate for the top bracket, and spoke his mind knowing Trump AND Breitbart would fire him... Miller on the other hand has said some horrible things since he was about 10 years old, including not playing with a friend as they went into middle school, because the kid was Hispanic.

I do, and yes it was included to take the temperature down!

I'd argue with you Chris, but we seem to see eye to eye on most of this issue... which is difficult to do because the information from both sides seems to change from day to day and as new related but tangential issues keep popping up.

What part of what I've said (which is only information I've relayed from various news and Internet sources, as I really knew very little about this issue before all the hoopla started) do you wish to contest?

We see mostly eye to eye on the issue of whether the media is being fair covering things, but that's not the only issue being discussed. I'm talking to you about the broader problem of posting curated news, clearly intended to express a viewpoint, that you otherwise refuse to discuss.

This latest reply is a perfect example of what I mean: I've made it quite clear this is what I'm talking about, and you're just talking right past it, straight-up pretending that the only issue is the media criticism issue.

Don't post about contentious topics on a discussion forum if you don't actually want discussion. It's as simple as that.

Oh I think that stuff pretty much writes itself. Although I do take exception to your use of the word "fiction".

Oh I think theres plenty of "sinister" to go around in that administration. And youll note I did say administration in the original reply. I certainly agree that Trump is largely an incompetent buffoon ruled by his ego and his whims and more interested in playing with trucks and space forces and porn stars and cheeseburgers than in real Super Villain stuff (although he does seem to love the despots and tyrants of the world and hate on the democratic leaders who are his allies). But I think you let him off the hook too much by dismissing any aspect of malice in his actions. Because he can certainly be despicable. And this is one example of that. Remember, they said themselves taking kids away was not just technically following the law but was utilized AS A DETERENT to keep immigrants out. That’s THEIR words. And that’s evil to me. Isnt it to you? Now, you can say it was just his administration that did this and not him but I think that’s a bit of denial. At the very least you have to say he has surrounded himself with SOME folks I would put in the evil category. And the criminal category of course. So in the end his administration (with his blessing) has engaged in a number of things I consider outright evil. And the responsibility stops at the top no matter what Trump says.

Partial? Blame Trump? The only thing you said about Trump was that he didn’t handle it too well which you immediately followed up with an excuse as to why that would be. Meanwhile, you focus ONLY on Obama as the one who really screwed things up by not somehow fixing the immigration system so that this could no longer be an option. Obama did not separate families en mass as policy of course. And the "catch and release" practice you are complaining about refers to a collection of policies, court precedents, executive actions and federal statutes spanning more than 20 years that’s been cobbled together throughout Democratic AND Republican administrations. It wasn’t "ignoring" the "law" in the least. It was following within the legal framework he was given. Its not like he had tons of options to choose from. And when he asked the Republican Congress to give him an immigration bill to fix the whole system, he got nothing. And yet this is all (sorry... "partially") Obamas fault because he didn’t magically fix the system himself? And yes your wording there sure does seem to lean heavily on Obama when it comes to the blame for all this compared to Trump. And says nothing about any other administration at all. But I think its clear that, as I keep stating, this issue is about TRUMP'S actions. Not Obamas. Or anyone elses.

Then you should probably reread your own words because I only react to the stimuli Im given. And IVE noticed that you seem determined to spin your wheels in these discussions even after the topic has been pretty thoroughly exhausted on both sides and there may be an impasse or at least we seem to be restating the same points over and over. Ive even noticed when I try to move onto the next logical discussion point and even joke around that youll have none of it and you charge once again into the breach of the same point and perhaps even throw in some wording you know will get a reaction out of me, often when Im trying to lighten the mood. And then you complain Im misjudging you when I react to that wording. Now, that could certainly be me just imagining things. Perhaps that in no way describes your mind set when you are writing these replies. But Im just telling you how it sure SEEMS to ME.

You think this is how Obama approached immigration? What did he ask for that the Republicans couldn’t possibly agree to? And why didn’t they just give him what they wanted and let him veto it then? I don’t think Obama and the mainstream Republicans were really that far off. I just think Boehner and Company was hamstrung by the extremists in his group. That’s hardly Obamas fault. He was as frustrated as anybody else. He felt he broke promises to the hispanic community who supported him.

Not willing to take a chance in this situation.

Hey I was surprised he simply backed down as fast as he did. But it shows even he has political risk limits and saw that game of chicken going against him quickly (although now hes decided ignoring the Constitution is his next safe bet). But you keep trying to paint me as someone who thinks executive order is the best and only solution despite me saying otherwise over and over. How many times do I need to say that the problem isnt solved. That an immigration solution needs to be worked out. And needs to be worked out without a gun to the heads of immigrant children. And I still don’t understand how if an actual clean bill had been passed with NO other riders at all then how would that make us any closer to passing a true immigration bill that touched on all the other issues that are also being discussed. I feel like we would be in the exact same place. Things on hold and seeking a better more long term solution that addresses multiple issues.

No we taught him that America largely hates the idea of torturing children and it’s a bad idea politically. I think that’s pretty clear. Only one way to deal with a bully and its not give in to his hostage demands. That only encourages him. No, you throw his crap back in his face and force him to eat it by making him change his own policy.

This argument is getting old when Im continually endorsing a legislative fix. Just not under the duress of taking children hostage to get one.

I don’t tolerate abuse of children. Not for a "greater cause", not even for five minutes. And I already answered your question. A plaintiff getting off on a technically does NOT guarantee that a child will be abused. Donald Trump enacting a policy of child abuse guarantees a child will be abused. Do you still not see the difference?

Just read Harley's are moving some of its business to outside the US. And the company that got a Trump invitation to the WH.

Let the trade wars begin....

__________________
My Favorite Films

Er, you mean that's the only thing I said in that paragraph. I've criticized this decision plenty, and I shouldn't have to reiterate all of it any time I want to dare suggest that our systematic problems maybe didn't start in January of 2016.

I should be able to make a case for something without having to worry about tripping your Conservative Cliche alarm where you hear the word "Obama" and immediately run whichever argumentative subroutine my words most remind you of. Argue with what I say, please.

This is simply (and demonstrably) false. I did not criticize him for not "fixing the immigration system." I'm talking only about the family separation/detainment issue and the broad enforcement parameters. This is the second time you've tried to conflate the two, and this time it's even after I made it explicit I wasn't talking about the entire immigration debate. Again, argue with what I say, please.

I didn't complain about that at all.

I'm so glad you agree that the law in this area was a mess already. Now, we need to solve the mystery of why it was terrible when I suggested the same basic thing. Was it because I wasn't making that point explicitly in the service of eviscerating Trump (or not doing it quite forcefully enough)?

Hold up. If you misrepresent what I've said and I correct you, you're not in a position to cheekily or sarcastically correct yourself, as if I've made some unreasonable or pedantic request.

The issue is how we handle the family members of detained illegal immigrants. If you just want to unilaterally declare that you're only interested in talking about the aspects of this issue that Trump is responsible for, that's your business, but I'm already in the middle of another discussion where I'm pointing out to someone else that only talking about things from some narrowed preferred frame is kinda lame, and not really how discussion works.

Your reaction is your choice...and your responsibility. I haven't insulted your family or personally attacked you or otherwise forced you into some kind of extreme response.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't feed you any "stimuli" that amounted to "please strip everything I say of nuance and proportion and argue with whatever caricature is left over."

Kinda sends mixed signals to "lighten the mood" with a joke and then tell me I'm supporting pure evil and not caring sufficiently about abused kids.

Also, I haven't said a single thing to "get a reaction out of you." In fact, in every single reply I've gone over what I've written and removed or toned down most of the more provocatively-phrased bits.

The whole posture here is really off. It sounds the way people do when they try to rationalize their temper; you were trying to get a rise out of me, you knew how I would respond, etc. It's placing the onus on someone other than you for how you respond to things.

Nyet. I complain when you argue with stuff I didn't say. Which has happened a lot, and seems to happen more the longer a discussion goes on.

I dunno if you just expect me to say this kinda stuff, and when I don't it throws you for a loop, or what. Maybe you've never had to carry on an argument with even a moderately thoughtful conservative before. Whatever it is, please stop doing it and just argue with what I say.

I have no idea why you would need to assess my "mind set" or why you need to apply a layer of divination to what you're responding to. Just reply to what I say, man.

You can't throw out an unsubstantiated claim and then suddenly expect me to hop to if I bother to question it. You said Republicans refused to give him a hearing on any immigrant policy. If you want a more substantive response, elaborate on and substantiate that, and I'll be happy to respond.

At minimum, though, please stop casually tossing out laundry lists of claims about past events. You're baking commentary and value judgments into these mini-histories as if they were part of the basic facts, which is a problem when you're offering them as some kind of rebuttal. I shouldn't have to painstakingly draw them all out and ask you to corroborate each bit.

You're not willing to take a "chance" on already-drafted legislation, but you were okay betting on the super evil, petty, mercurial wannabe dictator to back down?

See above, where I point out on two more occasions that I'm not talking about a comprehensive immigration solution, never was, and even went out of my way to make this totally unmistakable in an earlier reply.

I'm sorry, but you haven't. You've told me one is acceptable and one isn't, but you haven't explained why and you definitely haven't articulated any kind of scalable/workable legal distinction.

This isn't a response, for several reasons.

First, because (as I pointed out earlier), letting murderers or rapists go free contains the possibility of even worse offenses.

Second, because while it doesn't guarantee this will happen in any one case, the policy in total guarantees it'll happen at some point.

Third, because I can't imagine your legal philosophy is actually that the Fourth Amendment could be thrown under the bus if it somehow was guaranteed.

President Trump gets a huge victory with supreme court agreeing with his travel ban to some islamic countries

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/...w/64751403.cms

Counter to what some claim, there is no mention of religion in the ban and it includes the countries of North Korea and Venezuela.

My reaction was directly in response to what you said in that "same paragraph" as you stated yourself. Not about any other part of the discussion or your overall posting history. Although I disagree with you about your new premise anyway. I see very little in the rest of that post or most of the entire discussion that emphasizes Trumps "culpability" much at all. No one said you were a cheerleader for Trump. Just that you’ve definitely understated Trumps ultimate responsibility in all this and that you quickly fall back on how if it wasn’t for what Obama did or didn’t do this wouldn’t be an issue.

This is a disingenuous response and smacks of either wanting to have your cake and eat it too or being truly unaware of how you sound. The paragraph you wrote was clearly understating Trumps responsibility in this fiasco and shifting most of the ultimate blame on Obama. Of course Im going to have issue with that kind of comment. If you don’t want to come off like that then don’t sound like that.

Again, what exactly was Obama supposed to do that would have fixed even that? In the situation he was in where you had an enormous spike in immigrant children in a short period of time, based on the laws he was forced to operate under, what is it you think he should have done that would have fixed the situation such that it wouldn’t be an issue now?

Wait, are you saying you are perfectly fine with the 'catch and release' approach to dealing with undocumented aliens trying to enter the country? What, exactly, were you fussing about then when you complained that Obama was "ignoring the law" and getting us into this mess earlier?

It was terrible you were willing to allow Trump to take kids hostage to try to get a fix on this one issue. Mystery solved. Although if you still want to continue rehashing past posts we can figure out why you insist on ignoring that Ive repeatedly stated that a LONG TERM fix is paramount and we (they) should be working on getting one done.

That assumes your correction is actually correct.

Well isnt this ironic since Im the one that’s been trying to talk about this and the next steps and you are the one that just seems only interested in playing word games and rehashing and reframing the same disagreed on points over and over. Pointing out that this is Trumps baby (so to speak) in response to you downplaying that point is hardly me refusing to talk about the overall issues. Ive tried to.

When did I say any of that? "Read your words" doesn’t imply any of that. It’s a direct reference to your insistence that I overreact to your "nuanced" and "proportioned" commentary which I often see as neither. And its perfectly legitimate. If you don’t want to be mistaken for a caricature then don’t skirt the edges as best you can then act aghast when I react to it. We all think of ourselves as unique special flowers, sure. Different from all the stereotypes. And we hate being pigeonholed based on assumptions. But I barely know you and only have your words to go on in this entirely two dimensional blind method of communicating. And the fact that you dislike being cordial in a discussion in which there is continued disagreement over a point speaks volumes as well.

Eh I don’t have a problem expressing a serious disagreement with someone on an issue and still joking around with them. I think that’s the healthy way to approach life frankly. You are always going to have disagreements. Why always insist on making them toxic. I feel like its part of the reason weve gotten ourselves in the situation we are in right now in this country.

Really? So have I! What a coincidence!

Sorry just calling it like I see it. I have no need to rationalize my temper or any of my emotions believe me. But Ill speak truth to you when I think you need to hear it. Think of it as me holding a mirror up for you. Trying to turn it back around on me doesn’t mean the image doesnt exist.

This is rich. Maybe you should make that your title so that no one ever forgets how to speak to you properly. Because apparently my approach to how I interact with people depends on the flavor of their politics for some reason. Not, you know, their words...

Its simply an honest observation. And it was a response to you doing it to ME by the way. I do notice you also do that to others. Discuss HOW they reply. What they are attempting to do as if you speak for them or are in their head. Not all the time. But definitely enough for it to be noticeable. But its certainly more than JUST replying to only what I SAY... man...

A bill. And Im not sure why that requires "substantiating" when its common knowledge. I believe the closest they got was a comprehensive and bipartisan bill that passed the Senate in 2013 but was deep sixed in the House by extremist Republicans. But suit yourself.

What is this long list of "claims" you are referring to exactly? And why are "past events" not apropos to this discussion exactly?

Not betting on anything. Youll note I said nothing about an executive order until it actually happened. Because that wasn’t my focus. My focus was "cut it out!". Not "President Trump please save us!". I also note, by the way, that a judgment went down today forcing Trumps hand on a time line to reunite kids with their families based on their age which reinforces exactly what I said about the courts acting as a check for Trumps actions on this.

And, as noted earlier, the possibility is not abuse actually happening like it was with Trump.

Does not apply since in Trumps case, legislation can be enacted AFTER the executive order to specifically fix the situation so no future incidents could happen. The parallel situation cannot happen with your trial example. No legislation can stop people from committing criminal acts.

The fourth amendment would not apply if the accused admitted to his actions and in fact was caught with a child in his possession committing an act of abuse on them. Then, as I stated before, stop him by any means necessary. And that’s the correct analogy to this situation.

Talking about the legal history of the issue and how it helped make this situation possible does not absolve Trump in any way, shape, or form. And auditing each paragraph in a vacuum to see if it contains a sufficient level of Trump blame is ridiculous.

See, this is what I'm talking about. "Quickly fall back." Where does "quickly" come from, given that I wrote thousands of words before mentioning him at all? It's totally made up.

It doesn't absolve Trump at all, let alone apportion blame so that you could say "most of the ultimate blame" was shifted. The two don't even logically touch each other. Someone who creates the possibility for danger and the person who actually causes it are both culpable in completely separate ways that do not relate to the other's.

I think you're cramming an awful lot of assumptions into phrases like "come off like that" or "sound like that." Presumably because these responses would obviously seem extreme and exaggerated if they were just a response to what I literally said. So they go through some mental black box where you parse my motivations, or whatever's going on there, and come out the other end as "hey, that's just how it seems to me."

Advance exactly the same kind of legislation we just saw advanced.

If a President notices they have broad discretion, that means they also know the next President will, too. So if that broad discretion covers a very sensitive area, and they bother to think beyond their own administration or consider precedent at all, they'll see the problem.

Now, Obama is hardly the first President to kick this kind of can down the road. As you alluded to, it's a multi-decade, multi-administration failure. But it is a failure. And in this case, they actually saw the problem and massaged around it through that discretion to stop it from happening as often, so they were obviously aware of this.

Nope. I just didn't express an opinion either way. I'm not sure what I think about it, but I'm pretty confused that you somehow keep thinking I've taken sides on issues I've literally never even mentioned.

"Allow"? Yikes, that's a pretty obvious attempt at rhetoric. They didn't check with me beforehand, and I didn't imply it was okay. And endorsing a legislative fix doesn't validate the decision in any way, either.

Here's the "terrible" idea I actually advanced: laws should not be so broad as to allow individual Presidents to meaningfully change them with their discretion. That's it.

It really seems like there's no actual objection here. The common theme here seems to be that I say something relatively unobjectionable, but it gets a reflexive push back simply because it's not explicitly condemning Trump (or even just not doing it forcefully enough), and anything not doing that must be an attempt to defend him somehow.

I'm not ignoring it: it just has no bearing on any of the points our disagreement. I believe you want a long-term fix and I've never suggested you haven't. I've just said that wanting to use executive orders as a stop gap has bad long-term consequences.

It's not an assumption: I can literally quote my own words alongside your obviously different summaries of them.

It's not word games when I tell you "I didn't say those words."

Trump's enforcement policy is his baby. Immigration law in total is not. And it seems that the only thing someone has to do to be accused of "downplaying" Trump's involvement is to talk about anything else related to the issue.

You didn't. I'm saying those are the kinds of scenarios where my words would necessarily dictate a certain level of response from you.

You think "Trump messed this up, but it shouldn't have been possible in the first place" isn't nuanced? What would be?

First, if you "barely know" me, that doesn't obligate you to assume the worst. It's strange that you think a lack of information is a justification for making uncharitable assumptions. I'd say the opposite is true.

Second, you make it sound as if I've said something ambiguous and you've made some good faith attempt to guess, when in reality I've said straightforward things and you've pretty much immediately contorted them.

Apparently all I have to do to risk being treated like a caricature is occasionally suggest there are problems that predate him, or dare to suggest that maybe multiple people can be to blame in different ways.

I don't think implying someone doesn't care about kids becomes "cordial" with the addition of an emoji.

I agree with this very much as a general statement, I just don't think it's a good description of what's happening here. I like it a lot when people can forge a mutual respect and belief in each other's good intentions even while arguing forcefully, but it really doesn't work once you pass a certain level of accusation or seriousness. There's a point where it becomes dissonant. And I'd say most discussions where you're invoking analogies where kids are burning and the other side is letting it happen are probably past that point.

Cool. But I didn't accuse you of trying to get a reaction out of me.

It's a fun house mirror. If you were really just "holding a mirror up" you'd be content to quote my actual words back, as opposed to parsing them and then arguing with your conclusion about what they really mean.

I didn't realize it was pompous to want people not to treat you like a cartoon.

You obviously wouldn't have played the "oh you always want to blame Obama" card if not for the general "flavor" of my politics, so...yeah, pretty much.

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong. You keep saying stuff like "I call it like you see it" and "sorry, but I'm just responding to you," as if the only question is whether you're being consciously deceptive.

The big, glaring distinction is whether this is done instead of replying to the substance of what they're saying, or in addition to.

I make a point to reply to pretty much everything at face value. Any observations about how they're arguing are addendums to that, and even then it's almost always after several examples, along with an explanation as to how it's obfuscating or derailing the substantive parts.

That they did not get a bill is, indeed, common knowledge. That they did not get it because Republicans refused to consider any compromise (which is what you said) is not.

Huh? There was no third option. So if you were just saying "cut it out!" and dismissing a legislative fix, you were necessarily endorsing an executive one (you even literally said it was the "ONLY way to resolve the immediate situation"). Hence my question: why was the legislative solution taking a "chance," but hoping Trump would change his mind wasn't?

...and as I noted in direct response to that already, the possibility is also that something worse could. I'm sure you would take a guaranteed concussion over a certain probability of death, so obviously there's a little more to the moral calculus here than guaranteed vs. possible harm.

So you'd be okay with temporarily repealing the Fourth Amendment, then bringing it back afterwards?

Again, you're rewriting the question to avoid answering the tough part. You can't just posit that the accused has confessed. They usually don't. So when they don't, you are willing to risk further harm to innocent people to preserve a legal precedent, even though it's obvious they're guilty and they're going free on a technicality, correct? Which means you already understand and agree that the mere existence of people coming to harm is not ipso facto reason to disregard precedent.

An argument can be made for when and how exceptions might be made, but just glibly calling it "stubborn" to care about legal precedent when people's lives are at stake obviously doesn't cut it. Particularly since the people who do care about those things care about it specifically because they think it reduces suffering in the long run.

Geez, you guys are prolific! (And coming from someone who's gotten a lot of "TMTR" replies, that's a compliment!)

As always, happy to boil it down to a few key points. Think I did that once already in this thread, actually.