WWTBAM Bored

This is quoted from an article on the father of the little girl in the picture Time Magazine is using for their cover:

He revealed that his wife had previously mentioned her wish to go to the United States for a 'better future' but did not tell him nor any of their family members that she was planning to make the trek.

'I didn't support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day.'

He said that Sandra had always wanted to experience 'the American dream' and hoped to find a good job in the States.

Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes, explained that things back home were fine but not great, and that his wife was seeking political asylum.

He said that Sandra set out on the 1,800-mile journey with the baby girl on June 3, at 6am, and he has not heard from her since.

Yeah, just the kind of horrific life 'political asylum' is there for.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I still believe what was/is being done to the families (whatever percentage of them are authentic families) should never happen, but the left has gone hysterical with it, as usual.

It's neither hysterical nor irrational to hate someone who is choosing to do hateful things. It's an entirely appropriate response, and I won't apologize for it. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I still believe what was/is being done to the families (whatever percentage of them are authentic families) should never happen, but the left has gone hysterical with it, as usual.

It's neither hysterical nor irrational to hate someone who is choosing to do hateful things. It's an entirely appropriate response, and I won't apologize for it. --Bob

Well then, I could hate you and all your hysterical comrades. You show and practice your hatred every day for all to see. But I try not to hate anyone, except terrorists who kill people just to kill people.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: But I try not to hate anyone.

No, it's just that the thought of these people being right clouds your judgment so much that you buy every ridiculous self-serving argument from Trump and his enablers.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: But I try not to hate anyone.

No, it's just that the thought of these people being right clouds your judgment so much that you buy every ridiculous self-serving argument from Trump and his enablers.

I wrote you a lengthy post a couple of weeks ago. Go back and read it and PLEASE put on your comprehension cap.

Anyone remember how Bill Clinton's Administration treated a child who was seeking asylum here named Elian Rodriguez?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Anyone remember how Bill Clinton's Administration treated a child who was seeking asylum here named Elian Rodriguez?

Yes. The Clinton Administration returned the child to his custodial parent. It did so over significant domestic political opposition based on nothing more than the fact that the child's custodial parent had chosen to remain in Cuba. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Anyone remember how Bill Clinton's Administration treated a child who was seeking asylum here named Elian Rodriguez?

Yes. The Clinton Administration returned the child to his custodial parent. It did so over significant domestic political opposition based on nothing more than the fact that the child's custodial parent had chosen to remain in Cuba. --Bob

Treated, bob-tel. Did you call out Clinton for ripping a child away from his parent? With guns? I think not.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Anyone remember how Bill Clinton's Administration treated a child who was seeking asylum here named Elian Rodriguez?

Yes. The Clinton Administration returned the child to his custodial parent. It did so over significant domestic political opposition based on nothing more than the fact that the child's custodial parent had chosen to remain in Cuba. --Bob

Treated, bob-tel. Did you call out Clinton for ripping a child away from his parent? With guns? I think not.

They ripped the child (Elián Gonzáles) away from his father's uncle in order to hand him over to his father, his only living parent. Moreover, they waited until a judge decided that it was best for the child to live with his father. What else could they have done?

jarnon wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Yes. The Clinton Administration returned the child to his custodial parent. It did so over significant domestic political opposition based on nothing more than the fact that the child's custodial parent had chosen to remain in Cuba. --Bob

Treated, bob-tel. Did you call out Clinton for ripping a child away from his parent? With guns? I think not.

They ripped the child (Elián Gonzáles) away from his father's uncle in order to hand him over to his father, his only living parent. Moreover, they waited until a judge decided that it was best for the child to live with his father. What else could they have done?

A judge? Like the ones that said minors couldn’t be incarcerated with their parents? Or a different kind.?

The two main strands of this thread, the Korea summit and uniting families, join together in this story:

North, South Korea to hold reunions for families long separated by war

A small concession (the reunions are shorter than the ones on Survivor) but important to the lucky families.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You show and practice your hatred every day for all to see.

I'm sort of curious to know what your reaction is to Trump's antics in Nevada last night, referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahantas" and Jacky Rosen as "Wacky Jacky." Is that better or worse than Bob##'s referring to Trump as Donny? And does Trump, as the President of the United States have any type of greater obligation towards civility than do Trump haters like Bob and me?

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You show and practice your hatred every day for all to see.

I'm sort of curious to know what your reaction is to Trump's antics in Nevada last night, referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahantas" and Jacky Rosen as "Wacky Jacky." Is that better or worse than Bob##'s referring to Trump as Donny? And does Trump, as the President of the United States have any type of greater obligation towards civility than do Trump haters like Bob and me?

So what you’re saying is you and Bob are like Trump? I do like your honesty.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You show and practice your hatred every day for all to see.

I'm sort of curious to know what your reaction is to Trump's antics in Nevada last night, referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahantas" and Jacky Rosen as "Wacky Jacky." Is that better or worse than Bob##'s referring to Trump as Donny? And does Trump, as the President of the United States have any type of greater obligation towards civility than do Trump haters like Bob and me?

I did not watch his speech.

As per his penchant for giving people nicknames, I think it's juvenile and petty, and not the way I'd like my President to act. But the thing is that he has not changed his personality and gone for a false, squeaky clean image like the professional politicians do. That, at least, is a bit refreshing. I just wish we had elected a President who could say what he means more eloquently and tactfully.

You like to portray trump as a liar. I will give you that. He is a serial liar. But he is not alone. Can you name even one of the politicians who sell themselves as a image, like Warren, who does not lie as much or more than he does? These people are not saints. They are not nobility. They are just people who for whatever reason want to have a position of power and prestige and mounted a campaign, created a public image and attracted enough voters and money to get themselves elected. Their election does not bestow upon them higher brain functions, or instill upon them a higher moral authority.

Warren lied about her ancestry to obtain a personal advantage. trump did not originate the nickname 'Pocohontas' but he uses it often to remind people of that. I am pretty certain that if she posted on this board, she would be a female version of bob-tel. Arrogant, self-righteous and self-serving. Based on the lambasting he gets for everything he says or does, I think Warren is getting off easy.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You show and practice your hatred every day for all to see.

I'm sort of curious to know what your reaction is to Trump's antics in Nevada last night, referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahantas" and Jacky Rosen as "Wacky Jacky." Is that better or worse than Bob##'s referring to Trump as Donny? And does Trump, as the President of the United States have any type of greater obligation towards civility than do Trump haters like Bob and me?

I did not watch his speech.

As per his penchant for giving people nicknames, I think it's juvenile and petty, and not the way I'd like my President to act. But the thing is that he has not changed his personality and gone for a false, squeaky clean image like the professional politicians do. That, at least, is a bit refreshing. I just wish we had elected a President who could say what he means more eloquently and tactfully.

You like to portray trump as a liar. I will give you that. He is a serial liar. But he is not alone. Can you name even one of the politicians who sell themselves as a image, like Warren, who does not lie as much or more than he does? These people are not saints. They are not nobility. They are just people who for whatever reason want to have a position of power and prestige and mounted a campaign, created a public image and attracted enough voters and money to get themselves elected. Their election does not bestow upon them higher brain functions, or instill upon them a higher moral authority.

Warren lied about her ancestry to obtain a personal advantage. trump did not originate the nickname 'Pocohontas' but he uses it often to remind people of that. I am pretty certain that if she posted on this board, she would be a female version of bob-tel. Arrogant, self-righteous and self-serving. Based on the lambasting he gets for everything he says or does, I think Warren is getting off easy.

What proof do you have that Elizabeth Warren has lied about her ancestry?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: trump did not originate the nickname 'Pocohontas' but he uses it often to remind people of that.

That's a new one. Spreading ethnic slurs about someone is okay as long as you don't originate them.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Warren lied about her ancestry to obtain a personal advantage. trump did not originate the nickname 'Pocohontas' but he uses it often to remind people of that.

What proof do you have that Elizabeth Warren has lied about her ancestry?

Here's what as neutral a source as you're going to find has to say about his (read the entire article for the complete discussion):

No proof has emerged that confirms that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is, as she has claimed, part Native American. Likewise, no proof has surfaced that Warren was previously hired as a professor by any university based on her alleged heritage.

Her claim to Indian heritage is based on anecodotal family history, which, of course, may or may not be accurate but is a source for what a lot of people claim about their own ancestry without commissioning a genealogical history to prove or disprove the matter.

As for the claim that she tried to use this heritage for employment advantage, here's what former Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan Charles Fried had to say about it in the same article:

Charles Fried, a former U.S. solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, also vouched for Warren. Fried, a Harvard Law School professor who was on the appointments committee that recommended hiring Warren in 1995, told the Herald that Warren’s heritage never came up during the hiring process there. “It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty,” he was quoted saying.

In a 2012 statement released through Harvard, Fried added: “Elizabeth Warren was recruited (she did not apply — one does not apply for these positions) to be a tenured professor at Harvard because she was preeminent in the fields of bankruptcy and commercial law, two fields in which we had strong teaching needs.”

So the Trump apologists and Warren haters are basing these slurs on the fact that she can't prove something of which accurate records are very probably non-existent that they can't disprove (and there is evidence that the Indian story has been going around in the Warren family for decades, as a family newsletter indicated), while Ronald Reagan's solicitor general denies that these claims had anything to do with her hiring. In other words, par for the course with these people.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/eliza ... ntroversy/

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Warren lied about her ancestry to obtain a personal advantage. trump did not originate the nickname 'Pocohontas' but he uses it often to remind people of that.

What proof do you have that Elizabeth Warren has lied about her ancestry?

And you know what the answer is? It doesn't matter whether it's true or false. Because it's in the public domain now. We will NEVER know if it's true or false. Even if it is proven one way or another, there will always be people that are fixed to one side or another. Just like the daily revelations about trump. Just like "Hands up, Don't Shoot". It doesn't matter if they're true or false, just as long as they get into the public domain. Then people take their sides.

And that's beside the point.

trump uses 'Pocohontas' because it's in the public domain and it's a way to disparage someone who disparages him. Junior High School stuff. I'm surprised BJ isn't one of his fans, because they debate on the same level.

I truly don't care whether she lied about it to gain advantage or not. It's the policies that she advances that repulse me about her. And the same thing in reverse for trump. His personality and approach to campaigning repulse me about him, but on some of the more important policies, I agree with him.

Of course, in Warrens case, it is a double whammy. I can't stand her personality either.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: And you know what the answer is? It doesn't matter whether it's true or false. Because it's in the public domain now. We will NEVER know if it's true or false. Even if it is proven one way or another, there will always be people that are fixed to one side or another.

So, using thinly veiled racial slurs against a political opponent to spread unproven accusations is okay because it's in the public domain and because you don't happen to like that opponent's tactics. Got it.

Funny, I never heard Ronald Reagan or either of the Bushes resort to tactics like this. It's no wonder that Trump's approval rating among Republicans has gone up, because more and more people who are repulsed by these antics are leaving the Republican party and what's left are increasingly hard core deplorables or those for whom the end justifies the means.

silverscreenselect wrote:... because more and more people who are repulsed by these antics are leaving the Republican party ...

Do you have a cite that shows this is true IRL?

So, using thinly veiled racial slurs against a political opponent

Why does everything come down to race with you?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

So, using thinly veiled racial slurs against a political opponent

Why does everything come down to race with you?

The question is why does Trump have to bring race into these debates over and over again, using just enough covering language to allow his followers to claim it's not racial.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 902837001/

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:... because more and more people who are repulsed by these antics are leaving the Republican party ...

Do you have a cite that shows this is true IRL?

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence including well known conservatives like George Will and Steve Schmidt. But, here are some statistics

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

https://www.salon.com/2017/05/18/young- ... s_partner/

Trump is maintaining his support level among Republicans because Republicans are more and more likely to be Trump supporters.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:... because more and more people who are repulsed by these antics are leaving the Republican party ...

Do you have a cite that shows this is true IRL?

According to the Gallup poll, the number of people who say they're Republicans hasn't changed in the last few years.

jarnon wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:... because more and more people who are repulsed by these antics are leaving the Republican party ...

Do you have a cite that shows this is true IRL?

According to the Gallup poll, the number of people who say they're Republicans hasn't changed in the last few years.

Well, from February 1, 2017 (the first poll in Trump's presidency) until now, it's dropped 5%. Or to put it another way, about 1/6 of the people who said they were Republicans at the time of Trump's inauguration no longer identify as such.