Oh no! All this time I thought historical racism counted three fifths of contemporary racism.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 6:39 pmContemporary racism trumps historical racism by a ratio of 5:2 - which means you have to find at least two and a half recent racist quotes from Tucker Carlson for every single past racist quote. Them's the rules bro'.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... jZ-_iaWkCsHuman society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life
Scientists reveal 1 million species at risk of extinction in damning UN report
You're not achieving anything but bringing further discredit to yourself when you resort to such dishonesty. The fact is that when the order was rescinded, there was no system in place for reuniting families separated under the zero-tolerance policy. The inspector general's report states that unequivocally. While the government was eventually able to reunite most of the families, that doesn't change this fact.Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:34 pmYour claim is that there wasn't an effective means of reuniting families, despite the fact that 98.2% were reunited. Leaving 55 kids, says the article, in custody, and the article provides no explanation as to why the kids remain in custody (for example, that the adult did not want to be reunited, that the child was not the child of the adult, or that the person is still in custody for one reason or another). IN your view, 98.2% reunification rate is "no effective means" of reuniting.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:48 amThere was no system in place, and at that time the UAC portal you tout listed 'about 60' links to parents out of nearly 3,000 children separated from their parents. Previous to the order being rescinded, the Trump administration hadn't bothered to effectively document family relationships for 98.2% of the separated children. The whole point of the article is that the Trump administration instituted the zero tolerance policy but didn't set up an effective means of reuniting families. Your attempted denial of this plain fact, while not surprising, is ridiculous.
The administration had made no plan for reunifying families and only began to build one when it was forced to do so. It was unable to comply with the court ordered timeline for reunifying families. If there had really been 'no trouble' then 30 days would have been ample time. Nobody is claiming that most of the families were not eventually reunited--that's a straw man you've constructed and sneeringly demolished all on your own.Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:34 pmIf by "cobble together" you mean "look up the parent in DHS data" and "look up the child in HHS data" then sure. The reality that you are ignoring is that DHS knew exactly where the adult was, because the adult was in custody, and HHS knew exactly where the children were, because they were in HHS care. The trouble identified in the email was in printing out a merged report. However, there were no missing people, and there was no trouble reuniting people. The article itself shows that - All the article is doing is bleating on about an email talking about merging multiple data sets. It does NOT say that they couldn't reunite people. They DID reunite people. It happened.
You fail to cite a source for this claim regarding the supposed ease of reunifying families. In contrast I've cited multiple sources to support the claims made in the article. In a portion of my post that you conveniently failed to address, I cited an internal government email that shows that when the policy was rescinded the UAC portal had only about 60 documented links between parents and their children in the 'ORR system.' The government had to manually establish thousands of such links in order to comply with the court order because of this. A month after the court ordered deadline, approximately 500 children had still not been reunited with their families.
Yes, I think you've already made clear that you think that there's really no problem with the Trump administration setting out to purposely traumatize children in an effort to scare families into not attempting to claim asylum in the US. Many of these families cross dangerous country etc. because they are fleeing violence and terror in their homes. They don't make the decision lightly, but in desperation to provide a better environment for their children. Your attempt to make these people out to be somehow irresponsible, to denigrate their motives and portray the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy as apparently acceptable because its purpose was to stop people from trying to get to the US to claim asylum shows an amazing lack of empathy. My opposition to that policy has nothing to do with a political agenda, and that you would think that it does is further evidence of a lack of empathy. It seems you think the only reason a person would oppose it is because of politics.Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:34 pmTraumatize children whom adults charged with their care had dragged hundreds and even thousands of miles through dangerous country, across open desert and grasslands, crossing an international border without inspection, led by coyotes in a knowingly illegal process, threatening their own children's very lives - and sometimes dragging other people's children across in order to take advantage of a system that does not, like European countries do, allow families to be detained together. And, the agenda being to get people to stop fucking doing that.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:48 amThe article makes clear that the Trump administration was ready and willing to separate families and traumatize children to further its agenda,
Right. Your own political agenda is showing.
The sources I've cited show that isn't true, and you've failed to cite a single source that actually contradicts those that I've cited.Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:34 pmThere was a system in place. That's the system that did reunite them. As adults were released, they were reunited with the kids. There was no delay. If there was no system in place, then they would not have been able to be reunited.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:48 ambut until it was forced to it didn't bother to put a system in place to reunite them with their parents.
You're misrepresenting what the article says and what I have said. I have never disputed that most of the children were eventually reunited with their parents. The issue is the failure of the Trump administration to put in place a system for reunifying children with their parents when the zero-tolerance policy was initiated, and its continued failure to put such a system in place until public backlash and a court order forced it to stop separating children from their parents and begin the process of reunifying families.Forty Two wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:34 pmThe article - and you - make it sound as if this was some mystery that just couldn't be solved - that the admnistration had no idea where anybody was and "couldn't" reunify them -- they were reunified. Will you admit that 98.2% were reunified, by your own article's own terms? So they were successful, and you are bitching about a non-issue?
Virtue signaling!L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 6:33 pmYour attempt to make these people out to be somehow irresponsible, to denigrate their motives and portray the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy as apparently acceptable because its purpose was to stop people from trying to get to the US to claim asylum shows an amazing lack of empathy. My opposition to that policy has nothing to do with a political agenda, and that you would think that it does is further evidence of a lack of empathy. It seems you think the only reason a person would oppose it is because of politics.
This year's march was supposed to be like all the others; attendees would march down Main Street, listen to speeches and offer prayers to commemorate and remember the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis during World War II.
Except white supremacists showed up holding Nazi flags, marching down an otherwise deserted sidewalk and signs that read, "The Holocaust didn't happen but it should have," while screaming references to Holocaust victims as "your imaginary 6 million."
Kyle Mullica, a Colorado lawmaker who carried a bill making it harder to opt out of immunizations, is scared for his life as well as the lives of his family members after receiving a threatening email. State Rep. Mullica is a first-term lawmaker who took on one of the session’s most controversial issues, introducing a bill requiring parents who want to opt their kids out of vaccines to get a standardized form from the health department first. He says he knew it would be controversial.
...
“I care for children that come into the ER and that have preventable diseases. I’m terrified that we’re going to see an outbreak here in Colorado and that we’re going to see children hurt,” he said.
But after the bill passed the house Saturday, Mullica received an email saying, “You deserve death… The world would be better if your home burned down with you and your family in it.”
Colorado State Patrol is trying to identify the individual or individuals who sent the email and is providing protection for Mullica and his family.
A White Campground Employee Pulled A Gun On A Black Couple Trying To Have A Picnic
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/la ... ism-couple
Franklin and Jessica Richardson, along with their 2-year-old dog, decided to have a lakeside picnic on Memorial Day. They went to Oktibbeha County Lake, near Starkville, Mississippi, a site run by Kampgrounds of America (KOA).
Within minutes of their arriving, a woman in a yellow KOA employee shirt appeared in a truck.
When she got out she had a gun in her right hand, her finger on the trigger. The woman identified herself as the campground's manager and told the couple to leave, that they didn't belong, and that they needed reservations.
"This lady literally just pulled a gun because we out here and din't have reservations for a lake we didn't even know we had to have reservations for," Jessica Richardson says in a video she took of the confrontation and posted to Facebook.
"The only thing you had to do was tell us to leave, we would have left, you did not have to pull a gun," Richardson tells the woman.
“You can feel the intent behind it. I felt it. I felt the heat from it. I felt it in her eyes. I knew exactly what it was,” Richardson told local news station WCBI.
She also told the station she was shocked that the woman told them to "get, get," like what you'd say to an animal.
“Time stopped. Everything stopped. I was confused as to what was going on. It’s not like we posed a threat to anybody out there walking our dog. There’s nothing harmful about that,” Richardson told WCBI.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
