wishful thinking.

From my perspective, that makes you a traitor.


Yes, it is.


Do you ever THINK about what you're saying Mikey? I don't think you do. People have been talking about how the left wants to rewrite the Constitution and yet there is ZERO evidence that anyone is making any such effort. It's just something idiots say, like "I'm dying of starvation" (because it's been 4 hours since breakfast).

Meanwhile, the evidence that Trump is trying to block the Constitution from protecting American citizens is ABUNDANT! I'll just use forced arbitration as one of the more obvious examples.


Baseless conjecture.


The only ground we are losing are the laws that Trump has been able to repeal and the agreements he has rescinded and even then, his impact is far less than you would think because local governments are refusing to honor his decisions and our allies are maintaining their agreements with out him. But when it comes to democratic activity, we have been gaining ground faster than ever and the odds are pretty good that we will be taking he government back pretty soon. Our allies are patiently waiting for it. If we can take back the federal government before Trump sends us to war, it would be easy to reverse everything he did.

And Trump's presidency is anything but pro-American. I really don't know why you support the fascist pig, but from what I can tell most of his supporters are either complete morons, obsessed with racist hangups, or exceedingly wealthy individuals that want to cannibalize the American Republic including Russian oligarchs.

LOL, yeah - I do misspell that word almost every time. 'Not sure why. In any case, you got the point. And when it comes to government handling of children, I would say confined is better than lost.


I've been concerned about slavery in the U.S. since the 90's when I started hearing about it. I don't write about EVERYTHING that concerns me on OPP Loki... It might be better of you stick to attacking things that I do say, rather than making assumptions about things I haven't said.


The stats are based on convictions, so if the bastions of human rights and dignity are the governments working hardest to crack down on trafficking, the stats would show more cases in those states than anywhere else. So keep looking for lose threads to pull, Loki, 'cause you're not unraveling anything yet.

What are you trying to do Loki? I already told you the SCOTUS ruling is only part of the bigger fight to push arbitration. I already told you that in this context my reference to Trump is a reference to his administration and cronies. I already told you that the SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with Neil Gorsuch (Trump's appointee) writing the opinion. I already told you how Trump sent Pence in to break the tie in Congress over whether or not to kill the rule that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) added to prohibit banks from forcing customers into arbitration. I already told you how Trump himself uses arbitration agreements to block his own employees from the courts.

So, what's with this weak little stab? "uh... did Trump order the SCOTUS ruling?" Simple answer... no. Simple observation... makes no difference.

Says the guy who responds to my point about swapping the OBJECT of a sentence with a pedantic "lesson" about swapping SUBJECTS in a sentence. The OBJECT in both your sentences is the hamburger, Sparky. You DO understand the difference between the object and the subject, right?

Here's how ridiculous this argument has been... (objects in red, subjects in blue).

You: do you still support the right of all employees to pay confiscatory union dues, whether they want to or not?

Me : You're asking if I support a mandatory right... Is that like forcing someone to have a right to free speech?

You: I'll try again in a simpler manner, without any sarcasm or nuances which so easily confuse you. Do you support the right of unions to force workers to pay confiscatory union dues, whether the workers want to or not?

I didn't say you swapped the subject, the subject is clearly the same in both sentences... I said you swapped the OBJECT, which you did, and that DOES change the meaning of the sentence. Your second sentence made sense because you are asking if I think unions have a right to force workers to pay dues. The first sentence did NOT make sense because you were asking if employees have a right to be forced to pay dues.

If you are a smart as you seem to think you are you would have noticed your error and it would have been very easy to just say something like "may bad, let me rephrase." I wouldn't have thought anything about it... people make grammatical mistakes all the time. But you chose to be insulting... and you continued to attack MY understanding of the language because I pointed out your error. I was just going to let it go, but when you put on the sock puppets I decided to put this whole argument to rest and now you have to deal with being b*tch-slapped because of a stupid grammatical error.

Loki... TRY to pay attention... The decision in question was not decided by a lower court. It was decided by the Supreme Court. Even if ALL the other judges in the world are liberals THAT fact doesn't change.

You should heed your own advice eagle. ;)

The oil company, Royal Dutch Shell has been running a simulation model for several years now, in which they project the effects of peak oil on global politics. For years their assessments suggests to possible futures for the world. One is called "blueprints" and the other is called "the scramble".

https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios.html

What you are suggesting about the millennials (and I hope you are right) is that they are interested in the global cooperation that aligns with Shell's "blueprint" scenario. This is where all the nations cooperate in a civilized manner to manage global challenges in a sensible and effective manner. This is also the scenario that most of the world leaders are angling for... because most of the world leaders are smart people.

Trump is not part of that and this is why he was the odd-man out at the G7 summit, where they might has well set up a high chair and a bib for him at the table. Trump is basically a short-seller where he is willing to destroy something as long as he or someone he owes can get something out of it. It's the kind of selfish motive that created the Russian oligarchy and causes the analysts at Shell to project a potential "scramble" scenario.

Most Americans (not just millennials) oppose Trump. He is president because the electoral college elected him. The people clearly did not. Those are the facts, everything else, Russian influence, illegal votes... these are all unproven theories that may or may not explain the numbers but the numbers themselves are facts confirming the ironic truth... Trump is an unpopular "populist". That means he needs to focus on the minority of Americans that are dumb enough to actually support him... I just call them deplorables - they know who they are. We all do. This is why he never really addresses the union like previous president have always done... Instead, he holds "Trump rallies" where it's insured that the "really huge crowds" are all "deplorable".

But this charade can't last forever... Sooner or later, even the slowest Americans will be faced with the undeniable truth that we are no longer living in the 20th century on the apex of hegemony. In the meantime, it's our duty as patriots to oppose every effort Trump and his cronies make to secure a police state and disable our democracy. If we can prevent this, then we stand a chance of joining the rest of the world in managing global issues like mature adults.

That's your response? STFU? I don't even know why you bother. There's nothing in the original post that isn't true. Trump *IS* an old man. So are you just offended and "STFU" is your way of being a baby about it?

Well, I'm glad to see that you DO recognize the act of forcibly separating a family is inherently wrong. (And it's OK, you don't have to be a Christian to have morals.) But I disagree with your exception. I can agree that conditions in holding facilities may be compelling enough to relocate the children, but this was being done before. I remember how conservatives got all pissed off when Obama was spending money on facilities for children who "don't deserve it". Previous administrations have all had to deal with illegal immigrants and what to do with their children. What makes the Trump administration different is the severity of the separation. Under previous administrations, the separations were minimized and families were reunited as soon as possible. That's not the kind of separation being questioned here. The Trump administration is maximizing the separation to the extent where families may never see each other again and that is exactly the example being used to scare potential immigrants from the border... It is according to Jeff Sessions, the purpose of the policy.

So, I'm not sure it's worth asking you again... I suspect a lot of people with similar arguments to yours harbor an element of inexcusable resistance that makes it difficult to confront moral honesty without side-steps and lunges, but that might not be the case with you. Feel free to revise your response if you think I've revised the question.

Both examples, I think can be challenged by the 8th Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment. Thank God we have a constitution to put the reins on authoritarians like Trump. But he's as slippery as a greased pig and so is Jeff Sessions. They know that immigrants have limited access to the courts to attain a constitutional ruling and they are already adjusting policies to remove that limited access entirely. (If the strategy isn't obvious by now...)

So just like I said... You are contrasting immigrants based on their legal status to avoid the moral question. The moral question is whether or not families should be forcibly separated. Your answer is to push that moral responsibility off on the "criminals" who are themselves responsible for the crime of improper entry and therefore legally deserving of whatever punishment the law demands. You use legal immigrants as a contrast to show that when immigrant families abide by the rules, they don't get separated. So it's all down to the decisions they make... You do the crime, you do the time.

But that doesn't answer the moral question and it's the moral question that challenges the law in the first place. This is the responsibility of a democratic republic such as ours, to question the laws and challenge them. The moment we all accept the law as the final word is the moment we become a totalitarian system.

Obviously, the president that was accounting for the children, not the one who is loosing them.

Actually, I'm not a lawyer. If I was, I probably would have noticed the Title 18 references in 8 U.S. Code § 1325 a lot sooner ;)

So don't worry about not having the depth of knowledge to address my post. I barely have the depth of knowledge to make it. But I think the whole legal issue is a distraction anyway. I think the point being made on this topic is that forcibly separating children from parents, for any reason other than the safety and the well-being of the children, is morally wrong. I don't think we need to consult lawyers and legal definitions to figure that one out. A good Christian upbringing should be sufficient. From my perspective, reverting to immigration laws to qualify the policy of forcibly separating families is a little bit like paging through law books to see if killing someone with a chainsaw is actually a murder.

Do you have a moral opinion on this?

I'm not disagreeing, I find her to be one of the more courteous people here. But even the most courteous people can be sarcastic and/or sanctimonious on occasion. I know I am.