The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

[Seabass]

He defended Trump's child separation policy. He's either a partisan hack, a sociopath, or both.

[Sean Hayden]

You can't accept that 42 is a partisan hack, Sean? 42 is a hyper partisan hack! Everything is partisan with him.

I can't accept he's just a partisan hack. I don't accept that he doesn't know what he's doing. I guess that's not a requirement for partisan hacks, but I tend to view most people that might be called partisan hacks as more or less innocent and just in the throes of an ideology. I don't view 42 that way. Does that make sense?

[pErvinalia]

I think the ideology is conservatism. And the Repub party fits the ideology pretty well. In any case, 42 can answer the charge of whether he is a partisan hack or not.

[Sean Hayden]

But 42 is a liberal...or a moderate...right?

[pErvinalia]

He's an ideological liberal. But I consider ideological liberalism to be ultimately conservatism. I've made the argument in a few places on the forum. It's too early in the morning for me to make it again..

[Hermit]

I can't accept that he's just a partisan hack. --sorry, I know I keep beating that drum, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Forty Two echoes just about every talking point in the defence of Trump that you can read in the Daily Caller, listen to on Sky News or find on any partisan site supporting Trump. He does so with the regularity and reliability of a quartz crystal. If it quacks like a duck...

[JimC]

Aside from the Trump fixation, 42 can produce intelligent commentary on a variety of issues...

[Hermit]

Aside from the Trump fixation, 42 can produce intelligent commentary on a variety of issues...

"Intelligent sexism"
"Intelligent Friedmanism"
"Intelligent individualism"

All he needs to add to his Intelligent commentary is

"Intelligent design"

and he'll have the full set.

[Forty Two]

Intelligent Friedmanism is redundant, as is intelligent individualism (individualism being a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control).
I don't believe in intelligent design, and I'm not sexist at all. I oppose both of those concepts.

[Forty Two]

I can't accept that he's just a partisan hack. --sorry, I know I keep beating that drum, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Forty Two echoes just about every talking point in the defence of Trump that you can read in the Daily Caller, listen to on Sky News or find on any partisan site supporting Trump. He does so with the regularity and reliability of a quartz crystal. If it quacks like a duck...

I'll just hand-wave the hand-waver.

[Forty Two]

He defended Trump's child separation policy. He's either a partisan hack, a sociopath, or both.

It wasn't a "child separation policy."

It's a problem with the law - and I merely explained what the problem was. One can simply react in knee-jerk fashion and with a simplistic "kids separated from momma = bad" reaction, but then one would miss the issue altogether.

Kids get separated from parents for the commission of offenses all the time. If, for example, a single mom shoplifts or commits some other offense and gets busted, she might be separated by being placed in the pokey for a while.

Here, what's happening is that there is a simple way not to get arrested. Go make your claim of asylum at the official border crossing. Nobody gets arrested there, or separated, and the asylum petition will be processed in due course.

What's happening with the separated people is that they're trying to get into the country illegally without ever making an asylum application. that's why they are taking the long way - the dangerous way - and they're taking their kids through the desert for 100s of miles, with violent coyotes leading the way, jammed into vans and trucks, trying to sneak in. They get caught and THEN make an asylum claim.

That would normally be fine, and is fine, as person who does that would simply be detained in a detention facility, and await processing of their claim of asylum or deportation. However, when there are kids involved, the American courts have ruled that the kids cannot be detained with the parents, except for a very short period of time which is insufficient to process the claims. The law said they must be separated if the parents are to be detained, in which case they would be placed with a relative or put in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services while the parents are detained. The only alternative was to simply not prosecute illegal entrants, release them into the general populace with a notice to appear some months down the road, and pretty much never see them again.

So, what did Trump do? He signed an executive order which allowed the kids to be held in detention centers with their families together. However, that process is not over. The executive order is in violation of the court cases that control. So, Trump's executive order directs the agency to "prioritize" hearings for families in detention to speed up processing and also directs Attorney General Jeff Sessions to file a request in federal court to modify a longstanding federal court decree — known as the "Flores settlement" — that prohibits the government from holding children in detention for longer than 20 days.

So, if the federal court denies the modification of the Flores settlement, then we'll be back to square one, where the kids can't be held for more than 20 days. Hopefully, it will allow the extension of time. But, what that means is that kids are just going to be held in detention centers, albeit with their parents.

The intent of the practice before Trump's executive order was to force Congress' hand to fix the immigration law problem. They didn't want that hot potato, though.

So, I never "defended child separation." I explained the situation in more that bleeding heart terms. Of course nobody wants innocent children to be "separated" - I don't want that to happen when anyone breaks the law. However, I also am not going to imprison kids with their lawbreaker parents. Sometimes, you have to have kids go to family, friends, or to a government agency or foster system. It happens. What's forgotten is that what these folks are doing is committing violation of the law by crossing without inspection. Everyone knows it's illegal to do so. They are not doing it find a way to make a valid claim of asylum - they are doing it to avoid that process, and enter illegally.

Moreover, I did point out that there really aren't countries doing it better. So much finger pointing at Trump, but what do other countries do? Just let illegals walk in? You have a kid in tow (who may or may not be your biological kid), so you get released into the general population? That can't be a reasonable policy. Nobody does that. What happens is, they get detained in a detention facility, identified, processed, and then deported (or granted asylum, if they qualify). That's all the US is trying to do.

[Forty Two]

Oh yeah, Trump's a rich know nothing.

Forty Two's okay, but he sure is toeing the party line on the Russia investigation, and that's too bad.

I was just taken to task on another thread a few days or weeks ago that the Russia investigation is not about Trump - it's about the 2016 Russia interference and "sow discord" shenanigans, and it wasn't specific to Trump - it's a neutral investigation looking to see wherever the Russian interference leads.

When I said it was an investigation into Trump, I was resoundingly corrected....lol.

But, I don't tow any party line on the Russia investigation. My position is that no evidence exists that Trump has done anything wrong relative to Russia and their 2016 election activities, same with Trump's campaign. The allegations are that Russia may have tried to hack computer systems (which everyone has known they've been trying to do since there have been computer systems), and they have been engaging in propaganda activities on Facebook/Twitter etc. (both for and against Trump), and organizing rallies (both for and against Trump). What else is there? Not much.

If someone comes forward with some evidence, I'd love to see it. I'll write my congressman asking to support impeachment if there is any.

One big question, as an aside, just as an aside - if Hillary won the election, do you honestly think that there would be this Russia hysteria going on? Why not? Wouldn't Russia's conduct be the same regardless of who won? I don't think it's arguable -- nobody would be talking about Russia if Hillary won. I think anyone honestly looking at this would say the same thing.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

In-line solecism correction fail.

[Seabass]

I don't think it's arguable -- nobody would be talking about Russia if Hillary won. I think anyone honestly looking at this would say the same thing.

That's because you're nuts. Russia's influence on Trump, his campaign, his political party, and the NRA would be of a matter of grave concern irrespective of the victor of that election. There would probably be a little less media coverage if Trump had lost since we'd actually have a legitimate president in the White House, but there would certainly still be an investigation.

Seriously, have you ever suffered a traumatic brain injury? Lead poisoning perhaps? Or is your twisted, mangled, distorted view the the world entirely the result of having spent years ensconced in an extreme right-wing propaganda/conspiracy bubble?

[pErvinalia]