Bit late, but whatever...
The new pictures of the camps are worse than the stock photos they used from Obama's time.
By all accounts, when Obama had kids in cages, they only kept them for a few days, not years, before letting them go. AKA Catch and release, because of the Ninth Circuit Court's reinterpretation of the Flores agreement which requires that children could not be detained for more than 20 days, with or without an adult. After that long they are required to put them in shelters, or release them inside the country to await their court date, because that's the humane Jesus way of doing it. He even shut down shelters when they weren't up to humane standards.
Trump is keeping the kids in detention for the same period of time. Nothing has changed from a legal or standard point of view in terms of how ICE manages these detention facilities. What has changed is the Left's very public and very media driven outcry about these things, specifically with the cries about "separating children from their parents", which was happening under Obama too (had to happen since the kids could only be held for 20 days, right?). The Left just decided to make hay out of the same thing when Trump was president that they didn't care about when Obama was president. Which is kind of the point I've been making here. It's manufactured outrage. If you weren't pissed off about it 5 years ago, but you are today, then it's not really you being upset about it, but you deciding to be upset based on who the president is right now. Which makes it not about the policy, but the person.
Trump's zero tolerance policy is arresting more than they can hold, care for, and feed, keeping them for longer than they should. On top of that 2/3 of the agents are in a facebook group bragging about how badly they treat the people they interact with daily.
Literally, nothing in that statement is true.
45's administration also destroyed documents that are legally required to be kept.
Page 18 of the Mueller report, and the 5 boxes of evidence from Omarosa's office.
Page 18 of the Mueller report is entirely blanked out except for one line defining "troll". Care to try again?
A word search of the pdf does not find any match of the name Omarosa. "Newman" shows up only once as a reference in the appendix. It's not "in the report". This comes from claims she made on various Left leaning news programs after the fact, and even then in extremely vague and purely speculative terms. Funny thing. I don't take the word of disgruntled former employees very seriously. They always make claims like this. They were treated unfairly, there was unspecified dubious stuff going on, etc. Always. Take with huge grain of salt here.
That's not why he fired Comey though.
Holt, May 11: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Holt: Did you ask for a recommendation?
Trump: What I did is, I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not —
Holt: You had made the decision before they came in the room.
Trump: I was going to fire Comey. There’s no good time to do it, by the way.
Holt: Because in your letter you said, “I accepted their recommendation.”
Trump: Well, they also —
Holt: So, you had already made the decision.
Trump: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.
Trump: [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.
I'm sorry. Where in there is there any evidence that Trump fired Comey in order to prevent an investigation of his campaign vis-a-vis "collaboration with the Russians to rig the election"? If anything, he's saying that he wanted to fire Comey anyway, and the calculation was that the claims about the collusion were BS, but nothing he could do would change that, so there was no good time to fire Comey anyway, so may as well just do it now.
Which is what I was arguing. Trump knew that Comey was a loose cannon, who was playing political games. The wildly veering actions he took in 2016 showed that he wasn't acting on evidence in cases, but on which direction he thought the political winds were blowing at any given moment and in the process had alienated both sides of the political spectrum. He had to go. And as Trump himself said. There was no good time to do it. Any time would have been seen as some kind of political play, payback, etc. It can even be argued that Comey's actions at the time were designed specifically to make it more difficult for Trump to fire him. Think about it. He knows he's screwed up. He knows he's pissed too many people off. So he jumps on the "Russian collusion" bandwagon, pushes publicly for an investigation, so that if Trump fires him, it'll look like exactly the form of retaliation or opposition you are claiming (ie: You're being played here). It was a gambit to make Trump think twice about firing him.
Trump doesn't play those games though, and fired him anyway. At least, that's how I read the entire scenario. You're free to fall head first into the political trickery if you want, however.
It's not the number of connections, it's what kind.
Uh hun. And past presidential candidates haven't had folks on their campaign staff with similar "kinds" of past relationships with foreign governments? You still haven't bothered to establish this. Carter Page's background is not uncommon for the kind of people who are picked up and tasked to be foreign policy experts in campaigns and administrations. You don't get that experience without having those kinds of connections.
Once again, it's false outrage by pretending that something that is common and ordinary is rare and extraordinary but only when your political enemies do it. That's selective. It's also false.
Another tu quoque fallacy with a bit of special pleading fallacy sprinkled on top.
That fallacy only applies if the action of the first party is actually "wrong". Given that Page was investigated as a result of "attempts to recruit him", but was found to have not been successfully recruited, he didn't do anything wrong or illegal. So saying "he didn't do anything wrong, just like lots of other people who did the same thing didn't do anything wrong", isn't a fallacy.
I'll point out, for the record, that the Mueller report also found that Page did not commit any crimes, and was therefore not indicted for anything. Shocking, right? So the guy you're hinging this entire line of argument on, didn't do anything wrong, thus his connections were not illegal or wrong, thus anyone else doing the same thing wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong (You know, like I've been saying all along), and thus arguing that Trumps campaign was somehow doing something wrong by merely having him there is also... wait for it. WRONG.
Crazy, huh? See how the house of cards falls apart when facts show up?
You're literally avoiding seeing that trump actually has been begging for Kremlin's favor his whole life, and then Russians do something awful for him that they can gain from. He is weakening our country for personal gain. The voting machines are hacked, and you don't care because "your team" is winning. That's as unamerican as it gets.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that it's irrelevant. The charge here isn't: "Had past business dealings in Russia (as well as numerous other countries around the world), which involved blowing the usual smoke up people's butts to make them like you that people who do business around the world do". The charge is "colluding with the Russians to affect the outcome of the election in Trump's favor". Nothing you've said comes anywhere close to this. I'll also point out that the Intelligence report on this clearly stated that no election machines were hacked, by the Russians or anyone else. So I'm not sure where that's even coming from. You're just spewing garbage and hoping something sticks.
quasi-timeline for you to try to wrap your head around why trump was investigated:
trump tries to get a hotel in moscow
carter page loves russia too much for any normal american
manafort does some bad stuff for russia
trump runs for president with roger stone, rick gates, paul manafort, george papadopoulos at his back
papadopoulos sets up meetings with kremlin, hears about some emails
roger stone gets into contact with guccifer 2.0 about them emails
wikileaks drops the emails
russian social media propaganda machine intensifies, anyone but hillary
trump asks russia for the rest of the emails on live tv
within hours russia responds by getting those emails
2 days after trump is "elected" obama warns him not to put flynn in there
trump does anyway
flynn gets investigated
trump asks comey to stop
comey indicts flynn
trump fires comey
meuller is appointed
jeff sessions recuses himself
trump rebukes him for not keeping a chilling effect on the department of justice
trump tells mcgahn to fire meuller
trump bullies sessions until he quits
barr shuts down meuller investigation
Ok. Where's the collusion in there? Nothing in there is illegal. Want to try again, this time actually making something remotely close to an argument in support of your position?
What does it take for you to see that this is a lot of crap to just let slide?
Um... The point that it is, as you say, crap. It doesn't mean anything. It's a bunch of random stuff you've listed, that doesn't paint any sort of picture at all. Edited, Aug 9th 2019 4:03pm by gbaji