"Protesting doesn't work." A statement I've seen countless times, and a statement that has countless times also been proven wrong. This is one more example of the power of protest and public backlash.
"Protesting doesn't work." A statement I've seen countless times, and a statement that has countless times also been proven wrong. This is one more example of the power of protest and public backlash.
Mostly I was asking for more information, is there a larger protest you are joining? If so can you direct me to a website to see if there is a local group in my area that I can join up with
Mostly I was asking for more information, is there a larger protest you are joining? If so can you direct me to a website to see if there is a local group in my area that I can join up with
What other reason, other than the massive outcry and pressure to change it from all sides, would Trump have to reverse his own administration's policy?
What other reason, other than the massive outcry and pressure to change it from all sides, would Trump have to reverse his own administration's policy?
Can you people for once be happy with something Trump does? Do you not want this to be changed? Why are you going out of your way to hate on literally everything Trump ever does, no matter what it...
Can you people for once be happy with something Trump does? Do you not want this to be changed? Why are you going out of your way to hate on literally everything Trump ever does, no matter what it is? He could've just done nothing at all on this matter, but he did. Constantly trying to hate on him isn't going to make anything better. He's here to stay for at least 1 term, and just out of spite to everyone who has nothing better to do than hating him on every action, I sincerely hope he gets another one.
Because when he does good things, it’s not because he’s a good person. He has corrupt or, at best, amoral motives for so much of his behavior; why not this too? And if he really is emotionally...
Because when he does good things, it’s not because he’s a good person. He has corrupt or, at best, amoral motives for so much of his behavior; why not this too? And if he really is emotionally affected by the suffering he and his administration caused, and that’s why he reversed the policy, that still doesn’t absolve him. He still did something terrible with no remorse, and continues to do many other terrible things. He got shouted into stopping the most emotionally charged part of a larger change to enforcement policy, and I disagree vehemently with the overall change, and almost everything else he’s doing that’s being shadowed by that outrage (e.g. sent dozens more court nominees to the Senate in the same day he signed this EO, most of which are young, barely qualified, super right wing, activist judges who will get through confirmation without a sweat) and I’m supposed to be happy that he unmade (for now) an absolutely horrendous problem he himself created? Give me a break.
Apparently there was some remorse, as it was reversed. Or at least he's trying to reverse it. The least you could do is acknowledge that he is trying to do some good things, but I guess that's not...
He still did something terrible with no remorse
Apparently there was some remorse, as it was reversed. Or at least he's trying to reverse it.
The least you could do is acknowledge that he is trying to do some good things, but I guess that's not as fun as hating someone all the time.
This wasn't a reversal. A reversal would be to reverse the zero tolerance policy for all people, including refugees, which is against international human rights agreements. This is Trump's way of...
Apparently there was some remorse, as it was reversed. Or at least he's trying to reverse it.
This wasn't a reversal. A reversal would be to reverse the zero tolerance policy for all people, including refugees, which is against international human rights agreements.
This is Trump's way of only having to reverse the indefensible caging of children without their parents but still needing hostages to negotiate with for his wall.
The least you could do is acknowledge that he is trying to do some good things, but I guess that's not as fun as hating someone all the time.
He's leading one of the most influencing country in the world. Sorry that he didn't realize it, but you cannot make mistake so lightly like he does when that's your role. Especially when those...
He's leading one of the most influencing country in the world.
Sorry that he didn't realize it, but you cannot make mistake so lightly like he does when that's your role.
Especially when those mistakes cause great harm to portion of people that are already in objectively difficult situations.
The president before him didn't get nearly this much flak for his mistakes, and was praised to the high heavens whenever he reversed some bad policies. What I'm saying is that the amount of hate...
The president before him didn't get nearly this much flak for his mistakes, and was praised to the high heavens whenever he reversed some bad policies. What I'm saying is that the amount of hate he gets is extremely disproportionate even if he does something positive. If you actually care about the USA, it would be in your best interest to work together, instead of just spewing hatred over the fence all the time.
The president before him wasnt a shady business man who strong armed and cheated people out of getting paid. The president before him didnt cheat on his current wife with his future wife nor did...
The president before him wasnt a shady business man who strong armed and cheated people out of getting paid.
The president before him didnt cheat on his current wife with his future wife nor did he pay a porn star for sex while married.
The president before him never told someone he could sexually assault women and nothing would happen.
This pile of orange peels was a cesspool BEFORE he got voted in so he deserves a super critical spotlight and all the rancor he gets when he makes a shit decision or signs off on one.
He started a fire and then put it out. Why should I be celebrating this? I, personally, have not done so. I cannot speak for others. Actually no he couldn't have, because it's policies under his...
Can you people for once be happy with something Trump does?
He started a fire and then put it out. Why should I be celebrating this?
Why are you going out of your way to hate on literally everything Trump ever does, no matter what it is?
I, personally, have not done so. I cannot speak for others.
He could've just done nothing at all on this matter, but he did.
Actually no he couldn't have, because it's policies under his presidency that lead to the meteoric rise of the separation of children from their parents. He already did something.
Now to be fair, he did reverse a widely unpopular policy. He could have ignored the cries and left it in place. So it could be worse, but it's not worth celebrating either.
Be happy he potentially ended a problem he created? Why? Are you saying we should be happy the ordeal he created is over? If so, then - yes - of course we are happy that Trump has finally realized...
Be happy he potentially ended a problem he created? Why? Are you saying we should be happy the ordeal he created is over? If so, then - yes - of course we are happy that Trump has finally realized what the policy he put in place was horrible and, in spite of the fact that he said it was impossible for him to do so, he has reversed it - sort of. It is still not over. There are still 2000+ children that have been separated from their parents that need to be reunited. So - that's where "we" stand.
Yes, be happy that he's trying to fix it. He can't undo the past, he can only try to fix it. He also could've done nothing, in which case you'd still be angry, so that's clearly not a solution...
Be happy he potentially ended a problem he created?
Yes, be happy that he's trying to fix it. He can't undo the past, he can only try to fix it. He also could've done nothing, in which case you'd still be angry, so that's clearly not a solution either.
It is still not over.
Indeed, but that's no reason to just continue to be angry at everything he does. Trump seems to enjoy it when he feels like people love him. Why don't you try to give him some slight praise when he does something right, and see if that will make him to try to do more good things? Hate has clearly been tried for a long time now, and it doesn't seem to have much effect.
I'm not saying you can't ever criticize his actions, there's plenty to criticize. But to only look at his bad actions, and spin all his (relatively) good actions into more bad actions is not the way to go about it.
You act like we need to treat Trump as some invalid child, requiring praise everytime he doesn't poop his pants. He is literally the president of the United States with tons of policy experts at...
You act like we need to treat Trump as some invalid child, requiring praise everytime he doesn't poop his pants.
He is literally the president of the United States with tons of policy experts at his disposal. Attempting to fix his fuckup is his problem and he can't even do it correctly, probably because it wasn't a fuckup in the first place but a malicious act by a horrible person.
His actions must actually be good to be considered good. "Less shitty than caging children in concentration camps" does not apply the label of good, it just clears the lowest of bars.
He is the president, he does not have the luxury of being able to make absolutely stupid "mistakes" repeatedly, over and over and over and over. The president also gets reduced benefit of the...
He is the president, he does not have the luxury of being able to make absolutely stupid "mistakes" repeatedly, over and over and over and over. The president also gets reduced benefit of the doubt when fixing their mistakes. He could call up basically any expert in the US if he wanted to, but he doesn't.
I would lambaste any president that has fucked up as stupidly and regularly as what Trump has done.
Trump will praise from me when Trump deserves praise. He doesn't here so he won't. That is not what is happening here. You are either presenting a straw man or simply wrong. In the case we are...
Yes, be happy that he's trying to fix it.
OK - but he is trying to fix a problem he created. So - as I said:
yes - of course we are happy that Trump has finally realized what the policy he put in place was horrible and, in spite of the fact that he said it was impossible for him to do so, he has reversed it - sort of. It is still not over.
We are happy for what we should be - the fact it is over. We are not happy for what we shouldn't be - Trump doing something "good" when it was a situation of his own making. I don't praise my kids cleaning up a mess they purposefully made.
You said:
He can't undo the past
He sort of can - at least he can make as right as possible the situation that he made. That is - he can stop separating families and get all those that he already has back together. That is all we asking.
Trump will praise from me when Trump deserves praise. He doesn't here so he won't.
But to only look at his bad actions, and spin all his (relatively) good actions into more bad actions is not the way to go about it.
That is not what is happening here. You are either presenting a straw man or simply wrong. In the case we are talking about - he does not deserve praise - so none is being given by "us". If you truly want to discuss - then provide other examples of where he actually deserves praise and we can discuss and debate the relative merits of those. This is not such a case. So - provide examples or move on.
Just to be clear, he didn't reverse his policy. The zero-tolerance policy requires detention and prosecution of every illegal entry. That will continue. What the order does is allow the...
Just to be clear, he didn't reverse his policy. The zero-tolerance policy requires detention and prosecution of every illegal entry. That will continue. What the order does is allow the administration to detain children indefinitely along with their parents while they await prosecution, even though the law requires children to be released after 20 days. The order is headed for a court battle, and rightly so.
This is one of the most low effort attempt of turning words against the speakier, I've ever seen. Even if the Flores Agreement didn't exists, it takes a special kind of glasses to see as "good" a...
Are you saying you disagree with the order to keep families together?
This is one of the most low effort attempt of turning words against the speakier, I've ever seen.
Even if the Flores Agreement didn't exists, it takes a special kind of glasses to see as "good" a reversal that says "Ok then, kids can stay with their parents indefinitely in a concentration camp".
I would like to know who woud agree with this decision.
I'm just asking, no need to start off so hostile. I am not aware of every agreement made in every country, ever. I think most people don't know about everything from everywhere.
I'm just asking, no need to start off so hostile.
I am not aware of every agreement made in every country, ever. I think most people don't know about everything from everywhere.
The hostility you (probably rightly) feel from crius is probably the same I feel reading your comments. Either you are a troll and your question comes off as begging people to agree that the order...
The hostility you (probably rightly) feel from crius is probably the same I feel reading your comments. Either you are a troll and your question comes off as begging people to agree that the order is "good" and will actually keep families together - which, as has been pointed out will likely not be the case - or you are not a troll and are simply ignorant of the facts. Considering how actively you are posting here, you are obviously will to invest time in this subject. Considering that, it seems more likely the former is true - you are a troll - since investing a little time in googling would have told you what crius already know - such as what Flores is about and how this is likely to play out. That said, perhaps you are simply ignorant and my (and perhaps crius') reaction to you is wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, which is why I said you seem to be either trolling or ignorant. A simple google search of the latest news on this matter would tell you about Flores. So - either you have done no such search...
Yes, which is why I said you seem to be either trolling or ignorant. A simple google search of the latest news on this matter would tell you about Flores. So - either you have done no such search and subsequent reading or you are trolling. The more I read your comments, the more I feel it is the latter. Change my mind...
So I must either do extensive research before I'm allowed to ask a simple question, or I must be a troll? I'm literally asking a single-line question based on your comment, which doesn't provide...
So I must either do extensive research before I'm allowed to ask a simple question, or I must be a troll? I'm literally asking a single-line question based on your comment, which doesn't provide the complete context of the situation. Not everyone who asks a question once is immediately a troll.
For what it's worth, I did look it up once you mentioned it, but I don't think you care about that at all since I must be a troll for asking a simple question...
It doesn't require "extensive research" - it would require less time than the time you have obviously invested posting in this thread. Perhaps you are not a troll and you are simply "just asking...
It doesn't require "extensive research" - it would require less time than the time you have obviously invested posting in this thread. Perhaps you are not a troll and you are simply "just asking questions". Perhaps...
I'm saying the order runs contrary to an existing law. But if you're asking my opinion, yes, I believe the order is misguided. Trump is trying to challenge a law with an executive order in order...
I'm saying the order runs contrary to an existing law.
But if you're asking my opinion, yes, I believe the order is misguided. Trump is trying to challenge a law with an executive order in order to detain children with their parents indefinitely. It's not really a solution as it will probably be struck down in the courts, which means nothing will change.
Two much better options are 1. ending the zero tolerance policy and release parents with their children (the existing policy) or 2. expedite illegal entry prosecutions by hiring more judges so that the parents cases can be decided by the time the children are released.
That's a fair criticism. Does this mean that if you manage to survive for 20 days, you don't have to face any repurcussion for illegal entry? This sounds like a decent solution, though at a big...
It's not really a solution as it will probably be struck down in the courts, which means nothing will change.
That's a fair criticism.
ending the zero tolerance policy and release parents with their children (the existing policy)
Does this mean that if you manage to survive for 20 days, you don't have to face any repurcussion for illegal entry?
expedite illegal entry prosecutions by hiring more judges so that the parents cases can be decided by the time the children are released.
This sounds like a decent solution, though at a big financial cost. I think there's plenty of money to go around to solve the issue with this option, though.
It means priority for leniency goes to those with families, yes. If that's not palatable, the administration could always go with option 2: hire more judges.
Does this mean that if you manage to survive for 20 days, you don't have to face any repurcussion for illegal entry?
It means priority for leniency goes to those with families, yes. If that's not palatable, the administration could always go with option 2: hire more judges.
This is good news. It also, I think possibly highlights the way social media can be used as a 'bully pulpit' (circa Theodore Roosevelt) to build public sentiment outside of the confines of the...
This is good news. It also, I think possibly highlights the way social media can be used as a 'bully pulpit' (circa Theodore Roosevelt) to build public sentiment outside of the confines of the press and the beltway. To be fair, this article sites First Lady Trump as a driving force behind this reversal, but I wonder that there is not a well known national aggregator site that people can log their public opinion on issues such as this. Right now there are all sorts of professional pollsters that can build any picture they want.
Incidentally, there was a science fiction novel that had this in the form of a public electronic "Oracle" that people would log into on many issues, based upon the "wisdom of crowds". I haven't been able to find the book anywhere and don't recall its author. I'd love to hear if anyone knows of this. I remember it as Heinlein or Asimov, but my searches haven't turned up anything.
This isn't necessarily good news. The order allows for the administration to hold children indefinitely, where he is required by law (the Flores settlement) to release children after 20 days. In...
This isn't necessarily good news. The order allows for the administration to hold children indefinitely, where he is required by law (the Flores settlement) to release children after 20 days. In other words, his solution to keeping families together is to illegally detain children indefinitely, when he could legally release parents along with the children and keep them together that way. This order is in for a court battle, and rightly so.
Sounds like Norman Spinrad, "A World Between" (1979)
Incidentally, there was a science fiction novel that had this in the form of a public electronic "Oracle" that people would log into on many issues, based upon the "wisdom of crowds". I haven't been able to find the book anywhere and don't recall its author. I'd love to hear if anyone knows of this. I remember it as Heinlein or Asimov, but my searches haven't turned up anything.
Sounds like Norman Spinrad, "A World Between" (1979)
This is definitely a step forward, but the order doesn't do anything to change the "zero tolerance" policy of detaining everyone who crosses the border. At least now the families will be together,...
This is definitely a step forward, but the order doesn't do anything to change the "zero tolerance" policy of detaining everyone who crosses the border. At least now the families will be together, but, as an American, it's absolutely shameful that we're still going to be locking up those who are fleeing to us for asylum.
This country was built on the idea of coming here in search of a better life. What sort of hypocrites are we if we punish others for doing just that?
It is unfortunately difficult to explain the difference between a misdemeanor first time border crossing (which still requires you to go to court) and a felon or someone who is a repeat offender...
It is unfortunately difficult to explain the difference between a misdemeanor first time border crossing (which still requires you to go to court) and a felon or someone who is a repeat offender of border crossings (which is also a felony).
Imprisoning everyone isn't helping the issues and will only create a whole new set of problems.
It’s “unfortunate” (i.e. disgusting/inhumane/terrifying) that it ever occurred in the first place but at least Trump is reversing course on this. It’s not much nor nearly enough... but at least...
It’s “unfortunate” (i.e. disgusting/inhumane/terrifying) that it ever occurred in the first place but at least Trump is reversing course on this. It’s not much nor nearly enough... but at least it’s something. IMO the next step should be getting some independent watchdogs, NGOs and legal advocate groups into those ICE facilities to ensure the people there are being treated humanly and being fairly represented.
He's almost certainly overstepping presidential authority to do this. But I couldn't think of many better steps toward turning America into a monarchy.
He's almost certainly overstepping presidential authority to do this. But I couldn't think of many better steps toward turning America into a monarchy.
He's not overstepping his authority at all with the reversals. The family separations are a result of his administration's policy (anyone claiming it's from a previous administration is either...
He's not overstepping his authority at all with the reversals. The family separations are a result of his administration's policy (anyone claiming it's from a previous administration is either misinformed, being intentionally misleading, or flat out lying). There's no law requiring it. The executive order is just him directing the executive branch (which he is the head of, and it's literally his job to direct) to detain families together instead of separately.
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. The Flores settlement states that children can only be detained for 20 days, after that they have to be released. This is what the administration...
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. The Flores settlement states that children can only be detained for 20 days, after that they have to be released. This is what the administration cited when claiming they were required to separate families. Of course there is no legal reason the parents couldn't be released along with the children. It also doesn't explain why children are being detained separately.
The order that Trump just signed allows the children to be held together with the parents indefinitely. This violates the Flores settlement so this order will end up in court and is possibly an overstep of his authority.
Just to reiterate, Trump just signed an order, that may be illegal, that allows his administration to incarcerate child refugees indefinitely.
Oh come on man. The is intentionally false and you know it. The only thing this order changes is how people are processed, not if they are; rather then splitting up families for no reason, it...
Oh come on man. The is intentionally false and you know it. The only thing this order changes is how people are processed, not if they are; rather then splitting up families for no reason, it allows the children to stay with their parents. The children can't be charged or punished in any case. If you are truly concerned about the increasing authoritarianism in this country, the blatant corruption among many of his cabinet members, the way he hands out major policy concessions for praise, or the way he openly talks about the law not applying to himself are all far, far more serious concerns then Trump, for once, actually doing his job - correcting the execution of the law (and mind you, a shitty execution he put in in the first place).
With a monarchy, the king doesn't have to appease special interest groups, worry about re-elections, buy votes with inappropriate promises, etc. He is free to act as he considers best for his...
With a monarchy, the king doesn't have to appease special interest groups, worry about re-elections, buy votes with inappropriate promises, etc. He is free to act as he considers best for his subjects.
If we accept our king to be Donald Trump, then he very much favors special interest groups. Have you seen him openly take on what we would consider the alt-right, in any decision? Or remember...
king doesn't have to appease special interest groups
If we accept our king to be Donald Trump, then he very much favors special interest groups. Have you seen him openly take on what we would consider the alt-right, in any decision? Or remember about the time he took on the various evangelical churches. Yeah, me neither.
worry about re-elections
Okay, I'll give you that one, he would not. But what does an election represent to you?
buy votes with inappropriate promises
...You know you're talking about a man who is a chronic liar, correct? He admits, himself, that we will lie and bullshit whenever and however he feels like. He doesn't make inappropriate comments around elections, he makes inappropriate comments all the time.
He is free to act as he considers best for his subjects.
...You are aware Donald Trump is notorious for caring very little for those beneath him right? He treats his staff like garbage, and he cares even less for you or anybody else who hasn't served him at all. I understand you probably think of a monarch as a benevolent figure who tries to make the decisions he thinks are best for his people, but a person like Donald Trump is the exact illustration of why that doesn't work out. He has the lowest total approval rating of any president in US history, and this fact doesn't bother him (or his supporters) one bit. He cares absolutely nothing for what you think, only whatever he feels he likes.
It also orders society more correctly, even with a bad monarch, as this reddit user explained well.
That post makes no sense, as I understand it, if I'm misinterpreting it I'm open to correction if you're willing to explain how. For starters though, it defines "morality" as "submission to another being". There are plenty of scenarios that involve submission that one would certainly consider immoral (I hope). For example, if a student rightly corrects his teacher, and the teacher orders him to submit for a beating, this post's philosophy explains that the only moral action is for the student to do so. And yet, by any reasonable standard of logic, there is no justification for why a correct action (pointing out a mistake) yields a punishment, or "bad" result (a beating). And the reason for that is that there is no rationality or reason in this case; by the author's own admission, the only moral thing is whatever the teacher says. Well if the teacher gets to decide whatever is moral, now it's the teacher who's setting the "want" and the students are all obeying that, rather then the teacher setting any sort of guidance based on an "ought". This line of reasoning is self-contradicting and can't ever be guaranteed to be anything, much less moral, because one person can arbitrarily redefine anything to be moral.
Ah, but you say, in a religious monarchy, that one person submits themselves to a higher power, right? Well, let's take this one step further. Who does god submit to? How does he know if he's moral? He can't, because there is no power to submit to. Therefore, if he can't submit or accept the divinity of anything higher then himself, then logically, you have to conclude that he is an immoral being - as this post lays out, one who only obeys whatever he feels like, rather then any sense of obedience to a higher power. Therefore, anything sworn under him is also immoral, because they are not following the suggestions or guidance of duty, merely obeying the whims of a being who is immoral himself. Well, you say, why would the people under him be immoral? Could it just be that god is immoral and everyone underneath him is moral? As we pointed out, that doesn't work, because the people underneath him are only submitting to his own arbitrary whims and wants - but okay, let's take that irrational possibility as true. Now let's compare it to a democracy, a form of liberalism, as this post defines it. Who tells a citizen in a republic what to do? His government, which sets the laws and regulations he must live by. Who tells the government what to do then? Everyone else. If everybody is moral because they're following a higher power, then it can only follow that the government itself has to be moral, because everything it does it directly controlled by perfectly moral beings. And in turn, because every citizen is operating under the control of a perfectly moral source of authority, then each citizen is, by definition, perfectly moral. Therefore, even though an aristocracy can only ever be (n-1) moral in this broken assumption, a democracy could be perfectly moral.
However, this is all bullshit; morality is not based on only submission and obedience. Morality is ultimately based on being just, which has nothing to do with how power is distributed, but how it impacts the world (or the citizens themselves). For example, if you're deciding how to allocate land, whether the exact same order is given by a democratic government or a king makes no difference; only how that land division impacts the people living on it does. The reason why a democracy is superior in morality to a monarchy is because it gets what we would consider "just" results far more often then a monarchy would. If everyone meets together to decide how land will be divided, everyone will get a say, and as a result, the final result is far more likely to please everyone. If only one person gets to decide, the final result is much more likely to skew in their favor over everyone else's.
Then you wouldn't have said he's overstepping his boundaries, because a true monarch doesn't have any. A monarchy by definition has all power and authority concentrated in one person.
Then you wouldn't have said he's overstepping his boundaries, because a true monarch doesn't have any. A monarchy by definition has all power and authority concentrated in one person.
...? But if you believe he should be a monarch, then why would you worry about him overstepping his bounds? After all, wouldn't you prefer he not have any...?
...? But if you believe he should be a monarch, then why would you worry about him overstepping his bounds? After all, wouldn't you prefer he not have any...?
...Then what's the point of mentioning he's overstepping his bounds, and using the word "but" after it? I mean, I accept you support a monarchy, I can see in the reddit post your username is...
...Then what's the point of mentioning he's overstepping his bounds, and using the word "but" after it? I mean, I accept you support a monarchy, I can see in the reddit post your username is mentioned, that part I understand. But that first part is really confusing. As an example, it's sort of like, if a new president were elected, I say, "well, he's almost certainly breaking divine rule, but he's taking steps to make us a democracy again". There's no reason why I should be concerned he's breaking divine rule, since I'm not a monarchist, right...? I just don't get where the self-contradicting statement comes from. I'm guessing it was just a misright of what you meant to say, and I'm overthinking it?
Ends don't justify the means. Just because the possible end of monarchy might be good, it doesn't necessarily justify breaking the existing rules to get there.
Ends don't justify the means. Just because the possible end of monarchy might be good, it doesn't necessarily justify breaking the existing rules to get there.
"Protesting doesn't work." A statement I've seen countless times, and a statement that has countless times also been proven wrong. This is one more example of the power of protest and public backlash.
I'm still protesting on the 30th.
Explain?
Explain what I'm protesting or why?
Mostly I was asking for more information, is there a larger protest you are joining? If so can you direct me to a website to see if there is a local group in my area that I can join up with
https://act.moveon.org/event/families-belong-together_attend1/search/
awesome thank you!
How do you know that the protests are what caused this?
What other reason, other than the massive outcry and pressure to change it from all sides, would Trump have to reverse his own administration's policy?
to distract from one of the many other fires he also started?
to take credit for "fixing" a fire he started?
Can you people for once be happy with something Trump does? Do you not want this to be changed? Why are you going out of your way to hate on literally everything Trump ever does, no matter what it is? He could've just done nothing at all on this matter, but he did. Constantly trying to hate on him isn't going to make anything better. He's here to stay for at least 1 term, and just out of spite to everyone who has nothing better to do than hating him on every action, I sincerely hope he gets another one.
Because when he does good things, it’s not because he’s a good person. He has corrupt or, at best, amoral motives for so much of his behavior; why not this too? And if he really is emotionally affected by the suffering he and his administration caused, and that’s why he reversed the policy, that still doesn’t absolve him. He still did something terrible with no remorse, and continues to do many other terrible things. He got shouted into stopping the most emotionally charged part of a larger change to enforcement policy, and I disagree vehemently with the overall change, and almost everything else he’s doing that’s being shadowed by that outrage (e.g. sent dozens more court nominees to the Senate in the same day he signed this EO, most of which are young, barely qualified, super right wing, activist judges who will get through confirmation without a sweat) and I’m supposed to be happy that he unmade (for now) an absolutely horrendous problem he himself created? Give me a break.
Apparently there was some remorse, as it was reversed. Or at least he's trying to reverse it.
The least you could do is acknowledge that he is trying to do some good things, but I guess that's not as fun as hating someone all the time.
overwhelming negative backlash from ~75% of the country including members of your own party in congress is not the same thing as remorse.
This wasn't a reversal. A reversal would be to reverse the zero tolerance policy for all people, including refugees, which is against international human rights agreements.
This is Trump's way of only having to reverse the indefensible caging of children without their parents but still needing hostages to negotiate with for his wall.
That would require him to do something good.
He's leading one of the most influencing country in the world.
Sorry that he didn't realize it, but you cannot make mistake so lightly like he does when that's your role.
Especially when those mistakes cause great harm to portion of people that are already in objectively difficult situations.
The president before him didn't get nearly this much flak for his mistakes, and was praised to the high heavens whenever he reversed some bad policies. What I'm saying is that the amount of hate he gets is extremely disproportionate even if he does something positive. If you actually care about the USA, it would be in your best interest to work together, instead of just spewing hatred over the fence all the time.
That he himself implemented or that were implemented by others and he reversed? It's kind of a big difference.
The president before him wasnt a shady business man who strong armed and cheated people out of getting paid.
The president before him didnt cheat on his current wife with his future wife nor did he pay a porn star for sex while married.
The president before him never told someone he could sexually assault women and nothing would happen.
This pile of orange peels was a cesspool BEFORE he got voted in so he deserves a super critical spotlight and all the rancor he gets when he makes a shit decision or signs off on one.
He started a fire and then put it out. Why should I be celebrating this?
I, personally, have not done so. I cannot speak for others.
Actually no he couldn't have, because it's policies under his presidency that lead to the meteoric rise of the separation of children from their parents. He already did something.
Now to be fair, he did reverse a widely unpopular policy. He could have ignored the cries and left it in place. So it could be worse, but it's not worth celebrating either.
Be happy he potentially ended a problem he created? Why? Are you saying we should be happy the ordeal he created is over? If so, then - yes - of course we are happy that Trump has finally realized what the policy he put in place was horrible and, in spite of the fact that he said it was impossible for him to do so, he has reversed it - sort of. It is still not over. There are still 2000+ children that have been separated from their parents that need to be reunited. So - that's where "we" stand.
Yes, be happy that he's trying to fix it. He can't undo the past, he can only try to fix it. He also could've done nothing, in which case you'd still be angry, so that's clearly not a solution either.
Indeed, but that's no reason to just continue to be angry at everything he does. Trump seems to enjoy it when he feels like people love him. Why don't you try to give him some slight praise when he does something right, and see if that will make him to try to do more good things? Hate has clearly been tried for a long time now, and it doesn't seem to have much effect.
I'm not saying you can't ever criticize his actions, there's plenty to criticize. But to only look at his bad actions, and spin all his (relatively) good actions into more bad actions is not the way to go about it.
You act like we need to treat Trump as some invalid child, requiring praise everytime he doesn't poop his pants.
He is literally the president of the United States with tons of policy experts at his disposal. Attempting to fix his fuckup is his problem and he can't even do it correctly, probably because it wasn't a fuckup in the first place but a malicious act by a horrible person.
His actions must actually be good to be considered good. "Less shitty than caging children in concentration camps" does not apply the label of good, it just clears the lowest of bars.
No, I act like you need to treat Trump as a human.
He is the president, he does not have the luxury of being able to make absolutely stupid "mistakes" repeatedly, over and over and over and over. The president also gets reduced benefit of the doubt when fixing their mistakes. He could call up basically any expert in the US if he wanted to, but he doesn't.
I would lambaste any president that has fucked up as stupidly and regularly as what Trump has done.
Trump will praise from me when Trump deserves praise. He doesn't here so he won't.
That is not what is happening here. You are either presenting a straw man or simply wrong. In the case we are talking about - he does not deserve praise - so none is being given by "us". If you truly want to discuss - then provide other examples of where he actually deserves praise and we can discuss and debate the relative merits of those. This is not such a case. So - provide examples or move on.
Just to be clear, he didn't reverse his policy. The zero-tolerance policy requires detention and prosecution of every illegal entry. That will continue. What the order does is allow the administration to detain children indefinitely along with their parents while they await prosecution, even though the law requires children to be released after 20 days. The order is headed for a court battle, and rightly so.
Are you saying you disagree with the order to keep families together?
This is one of the most low effort attempt of turning words against the speakier, I've ever seen.
Even if the Flores Agreement didn't exists, it takes a special kind of glasses to see as "good" a reversal that says "Ok then, kids can stay with their parents indefinitely in a concentration camp".
I would like to know who woud agree with this decision.
I'm just asking, no need to start off so hostile.
I am not aware of every agreement made in every country, ever. I think most people don't know about everything from everywhere.
The hostility you (probably rightly) feel from crius is probably the same I feel reading your comments. Either you are a troll and your question comes off as begging people to agree that the order is "good" and will actually keep families together - which, as has been pointed out will likely not be the case - or you are not a troll and are simply ignorant of the facts. Considering how actively you are posting here, you are obviously will to invest time in this subject. Considering that, it seems more likely the former is true - you are a troll - since investing a little time in googling would have told you what crius already know - such as what Flores is about and how this is likely to play out. That said, perhaps you are simply ignorant and my (and perhaps crius') reaction to you is wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
For this you first need to know it exists.
Yes, which is why I said you seem to be either trolling or ignorant. A simple google search of the latest news on this matter would tell you about Flores. So - either you have done no such search and subsequent reading or you are trolling. The more I read your comments, the more I feel it is the latter. Change my mind...
So I must either do extensive research before I'm allowed to ask a simple question, or I must be a troll? I'm literally asking a single-line question based on your comment, which doesn't provide the complete context of the situation. Not everyone who asks a question once is immediately a troll.
For what it's worth, I did look it up once you mentioned it, but I don't think you care about that at all since I must be a troll for asking a simple question...
It doesn't require "extensive research" - it would require less time than the time you have obviously invested posting in this thread. Perhaps you are not a troll and you are simply "just asking questions". Perhaps...
I'm saying the order runs contrary to an existing law.
But if you're asking my opinion, yes, I believe the order is misguided. Trump is trying to challenge a law with an executive order in order to detain children with their parents indefinitely. It's not really a solution as it will probably be struck down in the courts, which means nothing will change.
Two much better options are 1. ending the zero tolerance policy and release parents with their children (the existing policy) or 2. expedite illegal entry prosecutions by hiring more judges so that the parents cases can be decided by the time the children are released.
That's a fair criticism.
Does this mean that if you manage to survive for 20 days, you don't have to face any repurcussion for illegal entry?
This sounds like a decent solution, though at a big financial cost. I think there's plenty of money to go around to solve the issue with this option, though.
It means priority for leniency goes to those with families, yes. If that's not palatable, the administration could always go with option 2: hire more judges.
This is good news. It also, I think possibly highlights the way social media can be used as a 'bully pulpit' (circa Theodore Roosevelt) to build public sentiment outside of the confines of the press and the beltway. To be fair, this article sites First Lady Trump as a driving force behind this reversal, but I wonder that there is not a well known national aggregator site that people can log their public opinion on issues such as this. Right now there are all sorts of professional pollsters that can build any picture they want.
Incidentally, there was a science fiction novel that had this in the form of a public electronic "Oracle" that people would log into on many issues, based upon the "wisdom of crowds". I haven't been able to find the book anywhere and don't recall its author. I'd love to hear if anyone knows of this. I remember it as Heinlein or Asimov, but my searches haven't turned up anything.
This isn't necessarily good news. The order allows for the administration to hold children indefinitely, where he is required by law (the Flores settlement) to release children after 20 days. In other words, his solution to keeping families together is to illegally detain children indefinitely, when he could legally release parents along with the children and keep them together that way. This order is in for a court battle, and rightly so.
Sounds like Norman Spinrad, "A World Between" (1979)
Also sounds like Alastair Reynolds "The Prefect" (2007), but that might be a bit recent for OP to mentally file with Heinlein and Asimov.
This is definitely a step forward, but the order doesn't do anything to change the "zero tolerance" policy of detaining everyone who crosses the border. At least now the families will be together, but, as an American, it's absolutely shameful that we're still going to be locking up those who are fleeing to us for asylum.
This country was built on the idea of coming here in search of a better life. What sort of hypocrites are we if we punish others for doing just that?
It is unfortunately difficult to explain the difference between a misdemeanor first time border crossing (which still requires you to go to court) and a felon or someone who is a repeat offender of border crossings (which is also a felony).
Imprisoning everyone isn't helping the issues and will only create a whole new set of problems.
It’s “unfortunate” (i.e. disgusting/inhumane/terrifying) that it ever occurred in the first place but at least Trump is reversing course on this. It’s not much nor nearly enough... but at least it’s something. IMO the next step should be getting some independent watchdogs, NGOs and legal advocate groups into those ICE facilities to ensure the people there are being treated humanly and being fairly represented.
Now the biggest concern is how these children, especially the younger ones, will be reunited with family members.
He's almost certainly overstepping presidential authority to do this. But I couldn't think of many better steps toward turning America into a monarchy.
He's not overstepping his authority at all with the reversals. The family separations are a result of his administration's policy (anyone claiming it's from a previous administration is either misinformed, being intentionally misleading, or flat out lying). There's no law requiring it. The executive order is just him directing the executive branch (which he is the head of, and it's literally his job to direct) to detain families together instead of separately.
There's nothing "monarchial" about it at all.
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. The Flores settlement states that children can only be detained for 20 days, after that they have to be released. This is what the administration cited when claiming they were required to separate families. Of course there is no legal reason the parents couldn't be released along with the children. It also doesn't explain why children are being detained separately.
The order that Trump just signed allows the children to be held together with the parents indefinitely. This violates the Flores settlement so this order will end up in court and is possibly an overstep of his authority.
Just to reiterate, Trump just signed an order, that may be illegal, that allows his administration to incarcerate child refugees indefinitely.
I'm ignorant about the Flores settlement, what is the history behind it?
Here's some context. Here's the settlement.
Oh come on man. The is intentionally false and you know it. The only thing this order changes is how people are processed, not if they are; rather then splitting up families for no reason, it allows the children to stay with their parents. The children can't be charged or punished in any case. If you are truly concerned about the increasing authoritarianism in this country, the blatant corruption among many of his cabinet members, the way he hands out major policy concessions for praise, or the way he openly talks about the law not applying to himself are all far, far more serious concerns then Trump, for once, actually doing his job - correcting the execution of the law (and mind you, a shitty execution he put in in the first place).
You may have misunderstood me. I consider monarchy to be the ideal form of government, so it would be a good thing if Trump became a king.
Are you actually serious about this? Please elaborate.
With a monarchy, the king doesn't have to appease special interest groups, worry about re-elections, buy votes with inappropriate promises, etc. He is free to act as he considers best for his subjects.
It also orders society more correctly, even with a bad monarch, as this reddit user explained well.
If we accept our king to be Donald Trump, then he very much favors special interest groups. Have you seen him openly take on what we would consider the alt-right, in any decision? Or remember about the time he took on the various evangelical churches. Yeah, me neither.
Okay, I'll give you that one, he would not. But what does an election represent to you?
...You know you're talking about a man who is a chronic liar, correct? He admits, himself, that we will lie and bullshit whenever and however he feels like. He doesn't make inappropriate comments around elections, he makes inappropriate comments all the time.
...You are aware Donald Trump is notorious for caring very little for those beneath him right? He treats his staff like garbage, and he cares even less for you or anybody else who hasn't served him at all. I understand you probably think of a monarch as a benevolent figure who tries to make the decisions he thinks are best for his people, but a person like Donald Trump is the exact illustration of why that doesn't work out. He has the lowest total approval rating of any president in US history, and this fact doesn't bother him (or his supporters) one bit. He cares absolutely nothing for what you think, only whatever he feels he likes.
That post makes no sense, as I understand it, if I'm misinterpreting it I'm open to correction if you're willing to explain how. For starters though, it defines "morality" as "submission to another being". There are plenty of scenarios that involve submission that one would certainly consider immoral (I hope). For example, if a student rightly corrects his teacher, and the teacher orders him to submit for a beating, this post's philosophy explains that the only moral action is for the student to do so. And yet, by any reasonable standard of logic, there is no justification for why a correct action (pointing out a mistake) yields a punishment, or "bad" result (a beating). And the reason for that is that there is no rationality or reason in this case; by the author's own admission, the only moral thing is whatever the teacher says. Well if the teacher gets to decide whatever is moral, now it's the teacher who's setting the "want" and the students are all obeying that, rather then the teacher setting any sort of guidance based on an "ought". This line of reasoning is self-contradicting and can't ever be guaranteed to be anything, much less moral, because one person can arbitrarily redefine anything to be moral.
Ah, but you say, in a religious monarchy, that one person submits themselves to a higher power, right? Well, let's take this one step further. Who does god submit to? How does he know if he's moral? He can't, because there is no power to submit to. Therefore, if he can't submit or accept the divinity of anything higher then himself, then logically, you have to conclude that he is an immoral being - as this post lays out, one who only obeys whatever he feels like, rather then any sense of obedience to a higher power. Therefore, anything sworn under him is also immoral, because they are not following the suggestions or guidance of duty, merely obeying the whims of a being who is immoral himself. Well, you say, why would the people under him be immoral? Could it just be that god is immoral and everyone underneath him is moral? As we pointed out, that doesn't work, because the people underneath him are only submitting to his own arbitrary whims and wants - but okay, let's take that irrational possibility as true. Now let's compare it to a democracy, a form of liberalism, as this post defines it. Who tells a citizen in a republic what to do? His government, which sets the laws and regulations he must live by. Who tells the government what to do then? Everyone else. If everybody is moral because they're following a higher power, then it can only follow that the government itself has to be moral, because everything it does it directly controlled by perfectly moral beings. And in turn, because every citizen is operating under the control of a perfectly moral source of authority, then each citizen is, by definition, perfectly moral. Therefore, even though an aristocracy can only ever be (n-1) moral in this broken assumption, a democracy could be perfectly moral.
However, this is all bullshit; morality is not based on only submission and obedience. Morality is ultimately based on being just, which has nothing to do with how power is distributed, but how it impacts the world (or the citizens themselves). For example, if you're deciding how to allocate land, whether the exact same order is given by a democratic government or a king makes no difference; only how that land division impacts the people living on it does. The reason why a democracy is superior in morality to a monarchy is because it gets what we would consider "just" results far more often then a monarchy would. If everyone meets together to decide how land will be divided, everyone will get a say, and as a result, the final result is far more likely to please everyone. If only one person gets to decide, the final result is much more likely to skew in their favor over everyone else's.
Then you wouldn't have said he's overstepping his boundaries, because a true monarch doesn't have any. A monarchy by definition has all power and authority concentrated in one person.
He's not a monarch yet.
...? But if you believe he should be a monarch, then why would you worry about him overstepping his bounds? After all, wouldn't you prefer he not have any...?
I'm not worried about it.
...Then what's the point of mentioning he's overstepping his bounds, and using the word "but" after it? I mean, I accept you support a monarchy, I can see in the reddit post your username is mentioned, that part I understand. But that first part is really confusing. As an example, it's sort of like, if a new president were elected, I say, "well, he's almost certainly breaking divine rule, but he's taking steps to make us a democracy again". There's no reason why I should be concerned he's breaking divine rule, since I'm not a monarchist, right...? I just don't get where the self-contradicting statement comes from. I'm guessing it was just a misright of what you meant to say, and I'm overthinking it?
Ends don't justify the means. Just because the possible end of monarchy might be good, it doesn't necessarily justify breaking the existing rules to get there.