America - The Official Thread

[Scaff]

WI don’t think I’ve seen you post 1 positive thing about the current President either, hell, you come across as the next likely person to make some ugly comment about his actual life.

Is that now a requirement?

 

[McLaren]

Young immigrants detained in Virginia center allege abuse


Gets better and better

Been going on a while sadly. But, are we only upset now the media brought it to attention bc it relates to Trump’s current circus?

The abuse claims against the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center near Staunton, Virginia, are detailed in federal court filings that include a half-dozen sworn statements from Latino teens jailed there for months or years.

Most children held in the Shenandoah facility who were the focus of the abuse lawsuit were caught crossing the border illegally alone. They were not the children who have been separated from their families under the Trump administration's recent policy and are now in the government's care.

The teen fled an abusive father and violence fueled by drug cartels to seek asylum in the United States in 2015.

After stops at facilities in Texas and New York, he was transferred to Shenandoah in April 2016 and diagnosed during an initial screening by a psychologist with three mental disorders, including depression. Besides weekly sessions speaking with a counselor, the lawsuit alleges the teen has received no further mental health treatment, such as medications that might help regulate his moods and behavior.

It was not immediately clear whether any separated children have been sent to Shenandoah Valley since the Trump administration in April announced its "zero tolerance" policy toward immigrant families, after the lawsuit was filed.

No it doesn't.

It does.

Under the 1997 settlement, DHS could detain unaccompanied children captured at the border for only 20 days before releasing them to foster families, shelters, or sponsors, pending resolution of their immigration cases. The settlement was later expanded through other court rulings to include both unaccompanied and accompained children.

It was not a federal law and did not have a zero tolerance policy, but the idea isn’t new to any recent administration.

Is that now a requirement?

I’m not the one claiming we can say good and bad things. It’s an ironic statement to make if you have no interest in actually saying anything good.

 

[baldgye]

Been going on a while sadly. But, are we only upset now the media brought it to attention bc it relates to Trump’s current circus?

Apparently upset is not the correct term.

It was not a federal law and did not have a zero tolerance policy, but the idea isn’t new to any recent administration.

The legislation Trump brought in made it so thousands of children where separated from their parents, without a meaningful way for them to be reunited. This included people seeking asylum rather than illegal immigrants. The idea might not be new, but the actual implementation is. Hence the outcry.

I’m not the one claiming we can say good and bad things. It’s an ironic statement to make if you have no interest in actually saying anything good.

What?

 

[McLaren]

Apparently upset is not the correct term.

Neither is a “better and better” sarcastic remark. The abuse according to that article pre-dates Trump and doesn’t include any children he separated.

The legislation Trump brought in made it so thousands of children where separated from their parents, without a meaningful way for them to be reunited. This included people seeking asylum rather than illegal immigrants. The idea might not be new, but the actual implementation is. Hence the outcry.

Which is what I said originally. It traces back to Clinton’s administration. The outcry is justified, but to act like Trump thought this whole thing up himself is stretching it.

 

[baldgye]

Neither is a “better and better” sarcastic remark. The abuse according to that article pre-dates Trump and doesn’t include any children he separated.

My sarcastic remark was actually perfect. Because not only does it comment on that article, but then also comments on the general state of America. It's supposed to be improving and getting better, when it fact, it seems to be very clearly getting worse. New problems are created and old ones ignored. But I guess because it doesn't directly link back to Trump, it is thus just media trying to bring up a storm over nothing?

Which is what I said originally. It traces back to Clinton’s administration. The outcry is justified, but to act like Trump thought this whole thing up himself is stretching it.

Except it isn't.

 

[ryzno]

That doesn't prevent you answering a completely different point:

I'd give y'all an answer if I knew what he did. So much damn news I'm lost...

 

[McLaren]

My sarcastic remark was actually perfect. Because not only does it comment on that article, but then also comments on the general state of America. It's supposed to be improving and getting better, when it fact, it seems to be very clearly getting worse. New problems are created and old ones ignored. But I guess because it doesn't directly link back to Trump, it is thus just media trying to bring up a storm over nothing?

That’s a big meaning behind such few words that could easily imply anything but a comment on America and not on Trump’s inhumane decision to separate children as the tip of the iceberg....

It’s the media looking to create a headline that will get people upset and naturally, attribute blame to Trump even though the article actually writes that a key allegation of abuse started in 2016.

Unless we want to give credit to Trump for indirectly causing the media digging for similar stories to stumble upon an older issue that needs addressing. But I know that’s too far fetched and our media dug this up out of legitimate concern.

 

[Danoff]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...equire-online-retailers-collect-sales-n873416

The supreme court just opened a bit of a pandora's box by allowing states to require internet retailers to charge sales tax. For some companies it won't be a big deal, Amazon and Walmart are already doing it. But for small businesses it could be a major problem. I'm trying to imagine keeping track of sales tax for 50 states and sending off payments to 50 states each year. You have to wonder what happens to sites like Ebay, especially if you have higher volume ebay stores. "Ok our buyer is in Texas, no sales tax. If it had been south Dakota we'd have had to charge tax and ship it to them at the end of the year." What about premium registration fees for sites like GTPlanet?

There are shipping companies that will give you a custom address in whatever state you like and will then forward the product to you so that you can hide your location from the place you purchase. Would that get around this? Will suddenly everyone ship to 0189750192401974 Bay Number 5, Delaware? The package might not even go there, it's just code to enable the online retailer to avoid collecting tax.

The article says congress needs to act on this. I'd imagine that's pretty spot on.

 

[baldgye]

That’s a big meaning behind such few words that could easily imply anything but a comment on America and not on Trump’s inhumane decision to separate children as the tip of the iceberg....

It’s the media looking to create a headline that will get people upset and naturally, attribute blame to Trump even though the article actually writes that a key allegation of abuse started in 2016.

Unless we want to give credit to Trump for indirectly causing the media digging for similar stories to stumble upon an older issue that needs addressing. But I know that’s too far fetched and our media dug this up out of legitimate concern.

Yeah fair play, Trumps done good this time. By orphaning children he’s directed the media into uncovering institutional child abuse in detention centres. I’m sure he’ll get them sorted.

By the way, that was sarcasm too

 

[huskeR32]

I'd give y'all an answer if I knew what he did. So much damn news I'm lost...

Ten already provided that information for you:

It's interesting that Strzok wrote the memo that arguably lost Clinton the election

Strzok co-authored the now-infamous memo, where Comey informed Congress that he was re-opening the investigation into Clinton's emails. In fact, at the time, he even supported re-opening the investigation, despite his recently revealed disdain for Trump. Seems to me that he's perfectly capable of keeping his private thoughts and his job duties separate.

So, when you come in here hollering about this situation, the rest of us have been noticing the rather large hole in your theory. If Strzok ever actually intended on acting on his anti-Trump bias, why on Earth did he write the memo that in all likelihood handed Trump the win?

 

[McLaren]

Yeah fair play, Trumps done good this time. By orphaning children he’s directed the media into uncovering institutional child abuse in detention centres. I’m sure he’ll get them sorted.

By the way, that was sarcasm too

Trump’s killing their parents now? Wow.

Glad to see we’re back on the topic of the border. Your concerns over that facility seem short lived.

 

[baldgye]

Trump’s killing their parents now? Wow.

Glad to see we’re back on the topic of the border. Your concerns over that facility seem short lived.

Amazing post, I guess this is a good summation.

 

[huskeR32]

Trump’s killing their parents now? Wow.

A whole one page ago, it was pointed out that the US legal definition of orphan doesn't require that the parent was killed.

 

[baldgye]

A whole one page ago, it was pointed out that the US legal definition of orphan doesn't require that the parent was killed.

I have to say, after posting over the last few pages, even if Trump was literally murdering these children with his own bare hands... would these users condem him? Or would ‘we’ only care because of the media hyping it up? I mean, prisons kill people who’ve committed crimes all the time, after all...

 

[TexRex]

I don’t think I’ve seen you post 1 positive thing about the current President either, hell, you come across as the next likely person to make some ugly comment about his actual life.

I mean...he did sign an executive order repealing that awful policy after saying he couldn't do so--strong leadership for sure. He put on a nice show of it, too; held it up for everyone to see and made some poignant comments in a manner that anyone unfamiliar with him might believe were genuine.

Shame about that nasty business of it being his own administration's policy he was repealing, and anyone unfamiliar with him probably wouldn't have seen his comments. Oh, and why couldn't he sign an EO to that end? It's not like him to claim an inability to do something with his strong leadership. He really is quite the showman showboat...oops.

Oh yeah, and ugly people* tend to attract ugly comments.

*Ugly on the inside.

It’s the media...

Pity that poor horse can't get a reprieve from the beating even in death.

A whole one page ago, it was pointed out that the US legal definition of orphan doesn't require that the parent was killed

I have the nagging suspicion that he's actively ignoring me since our previous exchange, so he wouldn't have seen it if that proves to be the case.

 

[McLaren]

Amazing post, I guess this is a good summation.

You said Trump was orphaning kids; last I checked, orphans are kids without parents so that’s headline news there.

 

[ryzno]

Ten already provided that information for you:



Strzok co-authored the now-infamous memo, where Comey informed Congress that he was re-opening the investigation into Clinton's emails. In fact, at the time, he even supported re-opening the investigation, despite his recently revealed disdain for Trump. Seems to me that he's perfectly capable of keeping his private thoughts and his job duties separate.

So, when you come in here hollering about this situation, the rest of us have been noticing the rather large hole in your theory. If Strzok ever actually intended on acting on his anti-Trump bias, why on Earth did he write the memo that in all likelihood handed Trump the win?

I don't have an answer for that. I'm not in his head. He could've simply been following orders.

 

[McLaren]

Blah blah blah
Pity that poor horse can't get a reprieve from the beating even in death.

Ah, the second common habit you have. Deleting everything except for a couple words and then only attacking that. And you wonder why you’re ignored.

I have the nagging suspicion

Better get it checked out.

 

[McLaren]

I have to say, after posting over the last few pages, even if Trump was literally murdering these children with his own bare hands... would these users condem him? Or would ‘we’ only care because of the media hyping it up? I mean, prisons kill people who’ve committed crimes all the time, after all...

I’m sorry, please refer which side of this user base is the one that actually wished a doctor would refuse life saving treatment on Trump and then come back to hypotheticals about who supports the killings of others.

 

[TexRex]

I’m sorry, please refer which side of this user base is the one that actually wished a doctor would refuse life saving treatment on Trump and then come back to hypotheticals about who supports the killings of others.

Yeah, you're leaving out the bit about it being a test of his then-new policy of supporting the refusal of medical attention on the basis of religious beliefs.

Shame you had to bring that up immediately after digging at the convention of selective quotation; it kind of undermines both points.

Also, the legal (as in United States law) definition of "orphan":

https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/orphan/

 

[AbeFroman75]

A civil misdemeanor punishable by a fine, as I asked before, does the US make a habit of doing the same for speeding offences?

I see someone does not understand the difference between a misdemeanor and an infraction.

Here you go darling.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/misdemeanor-traffic-offenses.html

By all means don't let facts get in the way of an emotional argument.

 

[huskeR32]

I don't have an answer for that. I'm not in his head.

You seemed to be fairly sure the other day that his thoughts had somehow influenced the investigation. Why the sudden reluctance to be a mind reader now?

He could've simply been following orders.

I guess you ignored the part of my post (and the linked article) that said Strzok personally agreed with re-opening the Clinton investigation?

 

[Scaff]

I see someone does not understand the difference between a misdemeanor and an infraction.

Ah I see, do because the comparison is not exact you think it invalidates the point.

It doesn't.

Here you go darling.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/misdemeanor-traffic-offenses.html

I'm flattered, but I'm married and I really don't think of you in that way.

By all means don't let facts get in the way of an emotional argument.

I'm not and it still doesn't, but if you want you can guess your logical fallacy.

 

[McLaren]

Yeah, you're leaving out the bit about it being a test of his then-new policy of supporting the refusal of medical attention on the basis of religious beliefs.

Were these doctors refusing also calling the medical-seeking patients infidels and making snide remarks about what they eat.

Because you put it so beautifully when you did.

If only a Muslim doctor is available when that dense column of McDonald's, KFC and Taco Bell stretching from anus to amygdalafinally acts to end the "infidel" Donald J. Trump's life

Shame you had to bring that up immediately after digging at the convention of selective quotation; it kind of undermines both points.

There’s the quote above. Spin it however you want.

But don’t worry. Mr. Tree also hoped Trump would fall down a flight of stairs and resign as a result, so you’re in good company for disgusting comments.

Also, the legal (as in United States law) definition of "orphan":

https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/orphan/

I sure do see a lot of “may be considered” requirements when the first line is “an
orphan generally is a person without living parents to care for them“, the same thing that pops up multiple times when you search for the term.

 

[ryzno]

You seemed to be fairly sure the other day that his thoughts had somehow influenced the investigation. Why the sudden reluctance to be a mind reader now?



I guess you ignored the part of my post (and the linked article) that said Strzok personally agreed with re-opening the Clinton investigation?

Cause he said "we'll deal with it". I still stand by that.

 

[huskeR32]

Cause he said "we'll deal with it". I still stand by that.

Stand by something that nobody is disputing? Okay.

ALL available evidence says he never acted on it. Which leads me back to another still-unanswered question I posed to you:

Think about this for a second; if they didn't act on their biases, then punishing them amounts to punishing people for their thoughts. Are you really okay with that notion?

 

[ryzno]

Stand by something that nobody is disputing? Okay.

ALL available evidence says he never acted on it. Which leads me back to another still-unanswered question I posed to you:

That's a double edge sword question. Should they be punished no. Should they be removed from their position yes. Even though they didn't do anything I believe they are a hindrance to the administration since it's been exposed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't have an answer for that. I'm not in his head. He could've simply been following orders.

Right. So at least we're at a point where you seem to accept that somebody's personal opinion doesn't necessarily stop them from doing their professional job. Which often boils down to 'following orders'.

Cause he said "we'll deal with it". I still stand by that.

He probably, like a lot of people, expected Trump to come up on a criminal charge somewhere at some point. In any case I'm not sure that there's anything unusual in extreme banter between very good friends or lovers.

You said Trump was orphaning kids; last I checked, orphans are kids without parents so that’s headline news there.

The last time you checked you clearly didn't check the full definition. It's in the recent posts on this thread, if that helps.

I see someone does not understand the difference between a misdemeanor and an infraction.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/misdemeanor-traffic-offenses.html

Is this going to be another of your chase-the-definition exercises? The (usually) three classifications vary from state to state, as you'll most likely know. Chasing that down is moot though - the point was about the procedure for jailing people, something that can happen for a speeding offense (or development of non-paid speeding fines) in the US.

EDIT:

Even though they didn't do anything

Why should they be punished if they didn't do anything? Isn't that starting to go down the path of Thought Police?

 

[AbeFroman75]

Is this going to be another of your chase-the-definition exercises? The (usually) three classifications vary from state to state, as you'll most likely know. Chasing that down is moot though - the point was about the procedure for jailing people, something that can happen for a speeding offense (or development of non-paid speeding fines) in the US.

It's so cute how, like clockwork, you always rush to his defense no matter how wrong he may be.

Hey did you ever find where in the Swiss constitution the right to bear arms was a fundamental human right? If so please post in that thread.

 

[Scaff]

It's so cute how, like clockwork, you always rush to his defense no matter how wrong he may be.

Hey did you ever find where in the Swiss constitution the right to bear arms was a fundamental human right? If so please post in that thread.

No you right, it's nothing like a misdemeanor.

It's actually a whole lot less serious (crossing the border without papers), I linked to the source that shows it being a civil issue with fines under a grand.

A traffic misdemeanor would actually be a lot more serious, thanks for further illustrating just how extreme the separation of families is based on the scale of the offence.