How far will Trump go? Child Abuse Edition.
Also worth noting that until Trump reassembles the families he already broke apart, his child abuse continues.
ramsraymond72 said:
Thank God for all of you, you are the reason that Donald Trump was elected.
No.......he received fewer votes than his opponent. More frequently this would have sent him home to peddle his name in order to make cash. I understand he no longer builds. However his handlers
understood that it was the winning total in the Electoral College that counted. The Dems seem to have a problem with that concept.
The Trump supporters' lament:
“He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
After Trump signed an executive order to overturn his policy of separating parents and children, supporters at his Wednesday rally in Duluth, Minnesota defended the president.
One woman sobbed over the criticism that Trump has received.
“I see you getting emotional,” an MSNBC reporter told the woman. “Why is that?”
“Because — I just — he just,” the woman said, struggling through her tears. “He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
rawstory.com
GL2 said:
The Trump supporters' lament:
“He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
After Trump signed an executive order to overturn his policy of separating parents and children, supporters at his Wednesday rally in Duluth, Minnesota defended the president.
One woman sobbed over the criticism that Trump has received.
“I see you getting emotional,” an MSNBC reporter told the woman. “Why is that?”
“Because — I just — he just,” the woman said, struggling through her tears. “He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
rawstory.com
I suspect I can find a few people who get equally emotional about Bernie or Obama or HRC. It's symptomatic of the problem where too many people are searching for their Messiah rather than doing the hard work of establishing a political party with a real platform and going through the sausage-making process of getting some or most of what you want.
tjohn said:
GL2 said:I suspect I can find a few people who get equally emotional about Bernie or Obama or HRC. It's symptomatic of the problem where too many people are searching for their Messiah rather than doing the hard work of establishing a political party with a real platform and going through the sausage-making process of getting some or most of what you want.
The Trump supporters' lament:
“He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
After Trump signed an executive order to overturn his policy of separating parents and children, supporters at his Wednesday rally in Duluth, Minnesota defended the president.
One woman sobbed over the criticism that Trump has received.
“I see you getting emotional,” an MSNBC reporter told the woman. “Why is that?”
“Because — I just — he just,” the woman said, struggling through her tears. “He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
rawstory.com
Very good point. People get so aligned with one party, or one candidate, or one elected official that they lose sight of the issues. It becomes all about wins and losses, our team versus their team. And this problem feeds on itself as both sides dig in their heels to try to get the better of the other side.
Unfortunately Trump is the ultimate heel-digger-inner which is a big reason why stuff is so hyper-polarized right now.
Smedley said:Unfortunately Trump is the ultimate heel-digger-inner which is a big reason why stuff is so hyper-polarized right now.
He also orders the government to take children and won't give them back to their parents. I guess opposing that makes me partisan.
GL2 said:
The Trump supporters' lament:
“He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
After Trump signed an executive order to overturn his policy of separating parents and children, supporters at his Wednesday rally in Duluth, Minnesota defended the president.
One woman sobbed over the criticism that Trump has received.
“I see you getting emotional,” an MSNBC reporter told the woman. “Why is that?”
“Because — I just — he just,” the woman said, struggling through her tears. “He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
rawstory.com
I saw that clip on MSNBC. Did you catch the guy who was mock crying over the separated children? I was horrified. There's a special place in hell for people like that.
dave23 said:
Smedley said:Unfortunately Trump is the ultimate heel-digger-inner which is a big reason why stuff is so hyper-polarized right now.He also orders the government to take children and won't give them back to their parents. I guess opposing that makes me partisan.
No, it doesn't. I oppose that as well. I don't believe I said opposing that makes one partisan. If you believe it does that is your prerogative.
Smedley said:No, it doesn't. I oppose that as well. I don't believe I said opposing that makes one partisan. If you believe it does that is your prerogative.
Great. We agree that it's not partisan to oppose things on their merit alone. And if you happen to oppose just about everything a president or party does not necessarily mean it can be reduced to polarization/partisanship.
dave23 said:
Smedley said: No, it doesn't. I oppose that as well. I don't believe I said opposing that makes one partisan. If you believe it does that is your prerogative.Great. We agree that it's not partisan to oppose things on their merit alone. And if you happen to oppose just about everything a president or party does not necessarily mean it can be reduced to polarization/partisanship.
No argument here.
Points I sometimes make (not on this thread) are about where I feel logic and/or common sense and/or consistency are sacrificed at the altar of partisanship. As an independent voter, these points goes to both 'sides' where appropriate.
author said:
ramsraymond72 said:No.......he received fewer votes than his opponent. More frequently this would have sent him home to peddle his name in order to make cash. I understand he no longer builds. However his handlers
Thank God for all of you, you are the reason that Donald Trump was elected.
understood that it was the winning total in the Electoral College that counted. The Dems seem to have a problem with that concept.
You are incorrect. You are one of the people who have a problem with the concept that if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee wins. You "proudly" announced during the 2016 election that you "couldn't vote for her". Too many people took that same advice from people who thought like you.
nohero said:
author said:You are incorrect. You are one of the people who have a problem with the concept that if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee wins. You "proudly" announced during the 2016 election that you "couldn't vote for her". Too many people took that same advice from people who thought like you.
ramsraymond72 said:No.......he received fewer votes than his opponent. More frequently this would have sent him home to peddle his name in order to make cash. I understand he no longer builds. However his handlers
Thank God for all of you, you are the reason that Donald Trump was elected.
understood that it was the winning total in the Electoral College that counted. The Dems seem to have a problem with that concept.
And yet Clinton beat Trump by 500,000 votes in NJ.
ridski said:
nohero said:And yet Clinton beat Trump by 500,000 votes in NJ.
author said:You are incorrect. You are one of the people who have a problem with the concept that if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee wins. You "proudly" announced during the 2016 election that you "couldn't vote for her". Too many people took that same advice from people who thought like you.
ramsraymond72 said:No.......he received fewer votes than his opponent. More frequently this would have sent him home to peddle his name in order to make cash. I understand he no longer builds. However his handlers
Thank God for all of you, you are the reason that Donald Trump was elected.
understood that it was the winning total in the Electoral College that counted. The Dems seem to have a problem with that concept.
Yes, because enough of us ignored the "don't vote for her" advice.
He wanted to be a "free rider", and hoped to be able to spend the 4 years of Hillary Clinton's term telling us, "Well, I didn't vote for her".
The laugh's on him. Actually, it's on all of us, but I'm not laughing.
nohero said:
ridski said:Yes, because enough of us ignored the "don't vote for her" advice.
nohero said:And yet Clinton beat Trump by 500,000 votes in NJ.
author said:You are incorrect. You are one of the people who have a problem with the concept that if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee wins. You "proudly" announced during the 2016 election that you "couldn't vote for her". Too many people took that same advice from people who thought like you.
ramsraymond72 said:No.......he received fewer votes than his opponent. More frequently this would have sent him home to peddle his name in order to make cash. I understand he no longer builds. However his handlers
Thank God for all of you, you are the reason that Donald Trump was elected.
understood that it was the winning total in the Electoral College that counted. The Dems seem to have a problem with that concept.
As well you should. As well anyone should. Who votes for someone because someone else told them to anyway? Look up who's running and make a decision based on whether they represent your beliefs.
I'm not exactly author's biggest fan around here, but he made a decision not to vote for her here in NJ and she still won NJ, so technically even though he didn't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee didn't win.
ridski said:
I'm not exactly author's biggest fan around here, but he made a decision not to vote for her here in NJ and she still won NJ, so technically even though he didn't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee didn't win.
As I wrote, "free rider". He would have been horrified if Trump won NJ. He was counting on those of us whom he insulted.
tjohn said:
GL2 said:I suspect I can find a few people who get equally emotional about Bernie or Obama or HRC. It's symptomatic of the problem where too many people are searching for their Messiah rather than doing the hard work of establishing a political party with a real platform and going through the sausage-making process of getting some or most of what you want.
The Trump supporters' lament:
“He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
After Trump signed an executive order to overturn his policy of separating parents and children, supporters at his Wednesday rally in Duluth, Minnesota defended the president.
One woman sobbed over the criticism that Trump has received.
“I see you getting emotional,” an MSNBC reporter told the woman. “Why is that?”
“Because — I just — he just,” the woman said, struggling through her tears. “He just tries so hard and so many people are so down on him.”
rawstory.com
I'll concede Bernie Bros but the cult surrounding this monster is exceptional IMO.
ridski said:
nohero said:As well you should. As well anyone should. Who votes for someone because someone else told them to anyway? Look up who's running and make a decision based on whether they represent your beliefs.
ridski said:Yes, because enough of us ignored the "don't vote for her" advice.
nohero said:And yet Clinton beat Trump by 500,000 votes in NJ.
author said:You are incorrect. You are one of the people who have a problem with the concept that if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee wins. You "proudly" announced during the 2016 election that you "couldn't vote for her". Too many people took that same advice from people who thought like you.
ramsraymond72 said:No.......he received fewer votes than his opponent. More frequently this would have sent him home to peddle his name in order to make cash. I understand he no longer builds. However his handlers
Thank God for all of you, you are the reason that Donald Trump was elected.
understood that it was the winning total in the Electoral College that counted. The Dems seem to have a problem with that concept.
I'm not exactly author's biggest fan around here, but he made a decision not to vote for her here in NJ and she still won NJ, so technically even though he didn't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee didn't win.
It's a bit of a logical fallacy to talk about a single voter's behavior as dispositive of the outcome. Voting can really only be understood as a group behavior - and author was in the group that can be soundly criticized for their decision, regardless of the outcome.
Last night I learned that a couple started a Go Fund Me to raise money for legal representation for these children and their families. They had a small goal initially but started raising 10,000 an hour. It went to an organization with that purpose. It was up to 15 million.
Started me thinking. Wasn't there a local organized effort, perhaps through a religious group, to sponsor refugee families from Syria? Isn't there something we can do as a community for these families. Maybe some kind of sponsorship?
Smedley said:
Points I sometimes make (not on this thread) are about where I feel logic and/or common sense and/or consistency are sacrificed at the altar of partisanship. As an independent voter, these points goes to both 'sides' where appropriate.
I don't disagree with that, but I sometimes find those who consider themselves independent participate in a certain type of skewing, that trying to stay above the fray has its own price. Talks with North Korea come to mind, where certain posters exaggerated or misrepresented (IMO) people's criticism of Trump and called it partisan.
drummerboy said:
ridski said:It's a bit of a logical fallacy to talk about a single voter's behavior as dispositive of the outcome. Voting can really only be understood as a group behavior - and author was in the group that can be soundly criticized for their decision, regardless of the outcome.
nohero said:As well you should. As well anyone should. Who votes for someone because someone else told them to anyway? Look up who's running and make a decision based on whether they represent your beliefs.
ridski said:Yes, because enough of us ignored the "don't vote for her" advice.
nohero said:And yet Clinton beat Trump by 500,000 votes in NJ.
author said:You are incorrect. You are one of the people who have a problem with the concept that if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee wins. You "proudly" announced during the 2016 election that you "couldn't vote for her". Too many people took that same advice from people who thought like you.
ramsraymond72 said:No.......he received fewer votes than his opponent. More frequently this would have sent him home to peddle his name in order to make cash. I understand he no longer builds. However his handlers
Thank God for all of you, you are the reason that Donald Trump was elected.
understood that it was the winning total in the Electoral College that counted. The Dems seem to have a problem with that concept.
I'm not exactly author's biggest fan around here, but he made a decision not to vote for her here in NJ and she still won NJ, so technically even though he didn't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee didn't win.
Cute but inaccurate. Author favored the man from the North Country. The Senator that was elected on his own merits and not his spouses name. The man who carried no negative baggage and would be our current President if it were not for the DNC. That is the same DNC from which the leader Debbie Wasserman was made to resign and many of his improvements geared to leveling the playing field have been made.
The GOP is the minority party.........and knows it.
The Dems have no one but themselves to blame now for their years in exile
Maybe they can get a side job.
drummerboy said:
ridski said:It's a bit of a logical fallacy to talk about a single voter's behavior as dispositive of the outcome. Voting can really only be understood as a group behavior - and author was in the group that can be soundly criticized for their decision, regardless of the outcome.
nohero said:As well you should. As well anyone should. Who votes for someone because someone else told them to anyway? Look up who's running and make a decision based on whether they represent your beliefs.
ridski said:Yes, because enough of us ignored the "don't vote for her" advice.
nohero said:And yet Clinton beat Trump by 500,000 votes in NJ.
author said:You are incorrect. You are one of the people who have a problem with the concept that if you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee wins. You "proudly" announced during the 2016 election that you "couldn't vote for her". Too many people took that same advice from people who thought like you.
ramsraymond72 said:No.......he received fewer votes than his opponent. More frequently this would have sent him home to peddle his name in order to make cash. I understand he no longer builds. However his handlers
Thank God for all of you, you are the reason that Donald Trump was elected.
understood that it was the winning total in the Electoral College that counted. The Dems seem to have a problem with that concept.
I'm not exactly author's biggest fan around here, but he made a decision not to vote for her here in NJ and she still won NJ, so technically even though he didn't vote for the Democratic nominee, the GOP nominee didn't win.
I'm not going over the rest of this yet again. Neither of you will change your minds about it, and you won't change mine. Fact is, whether author voted or not for Clinton, Clinton still won, which is the opposite of what nohero said.
edited for correct appropriation.
Interesting choice of message apparel the First Lady made on her way to Texas. "I really don't care. Do you?"
A not so subtly coded message to their base? I'll go to show concern to shut up the whining but I really don't care. Wink nudge, wink nudge.
author said:
The man who carried no negative baggage and would be our current President if it were not for the DNC.
I voted for him in the Primary as did you. But one must win the nomination in order to be on the ballot in the General.
As to "baggage" you an I may not see the following as "baggage" but you and I are not typical of the voters nationwide:
Jewish
A Socialist who went to Communist Russia for his honeymoon.
Elderly
From a very small State and virtually unknown
And the foregoing are actually true. By the time the Right-Wing noise machine got done half the people in this country would have been pretty sure that Bernie was not born in the US, or was a convicted criminal, or a drug addict or even partially responsible for Benghazi.
dave23 said:
Interesting choice of message apparel the First Lady made on her way to Texas. "I really don't care. Do you?"
Samantha Bee had the wrong target.
LOST said:
author said:I voted for him in the Primary as did you. But one must win the nomination in order to be on the ballot in the General.
The man who carried no negative baggage and would be our current President if it were not for the DNC.
As to "baggage" you an I may not see the following as "baggage" but you and I are not typical of the voters nationwide:
Jewish
A Socialist who went to Communist Russia for his honeymoon.
Elderly
From a very small State and virtually unknown
And the foregoing are actually true. By the time the Right-Wing noise machine got done half the people in this country would have been pretty sure that Bernie was not born in the US, or was a convicted criminal, or a drug addict or even partially responsible for Benghazi.
I will grant you part of explanation.....but not much
Yes I am not your typical voter
Bernie had one Jewish parent........not both
My wife's brother... a rabid free marketer and his wife went to Russia on vacation
I once spent far more time in what was then Yugoslavia then I intended........sort of a guest of the local government due to some border guards who had no sense of humor
From a very small state where he had lived for years. Not carpetbagged his way down from Chicago
when a Senate seat became open
I met Bernie......he served me coffee. My sister has lived in Vermont for 35 years. She and her
husband are still considered "flatlanders" there.
Anyway one day at a large picnic, there was Bernie and his wife doling out coffee and refreshments
He went from virtually unknown to knocking on the White House doors very quickly.
The Democrats did all they could in order to back a loser.
dave23 said:
Interesting choice of message apparel the First Lady made on her way to Texas. "I really don't care. Do you?"
This made me crazy today. What was the reason? Who was it aimed at? I had watched her with suspicion this morning. I so doubted her good intentions but then I never forgave her for her support of the birther lie. It took a great deal of effort to suffocate my inner mean girl but I did my best and then a few hours later........ the jacket appeared on the news. I hadn't seen a shot of it earlier.
I resurrected my meanest self and was filled with the urge to wallpaper her FB page with pics of Stormy Daniels.
Thanks to David Jolly for saying that it was unforgiveable and a cruel message considering where she was going.
Now where is that pic of Stormy in the Red Riding Hood outfit.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_tren_de_la_muerte
It is indeed crazy the kind of risk people would take to get here. I spent something in the region of a of a couple of thousand dollars so I could hang out with my best friend and marry her legally. But not everyone has that option, and their only hope for something better is to take their chances and go north on the Death Train.
Some of the dangers faced along the route north include: Robbery and assault, extortion, intimidation and threats, corruption, destroying of documents, detention without legal counsel, and sexually aggressive acts. According to a 2012 article for Commonweal Magazine, by Joseph Sorrentino,"The statistics are harrowing. Eighty percent of migrants will be assaulted or robbed. Sixty percent of migrant women will be raped. A lucrative side business for the drug gangs (especially the Zetas) is kidnapping migrants; they can get as much as $2,500 for each victim. Between April and September 2010, Mexico's National Human Rights Commission cited 214 mass kidnappings involving 11,333 people. And those are just the reported kidnappings".