Trump's National Address

[Mountain Man]

Is it humane to put children behind bars?

Let's apply the "no family separation" policy to every other crime and see how far we get before liberals start screaming about how it's inhumane to incarcerate children with their criminal parents. Because simply not holding the parents accountable when they break the law is not a viable option.

[carpedm9587]

Other than the 50 or so you've posted here, you mean.

Yes - other than those. As I've mentioned in several posts - I initially decided to start posting there because I felt the images were all skewed in one political direction, making the entire thread a right-leaning, conservative "bubble." I stopped posting there when I realized that I had fallen into the trap of just "feeding the trolls" by becoming troll myself - and I stopped. I'm not proud of those posts - and wish I could delete them. However - they stand as a reminder that I'm not perfect, and can get into the gutter with the best of them if I am not vigilant.

Funny how words nonetheless trigger a defensive reaction, even after you've declared you would get out of the business of defending yourself.

Yeah - guilty on that one. No question about it. There's a natural inclination to rise to one's own defense. I definitely need to work on that. I doubt I'll get it right in the near future. I need to practice my zen!

[carpedm9587]

Neither had courts telling them that they were no longer allowed to keep families together. Why did you leave that part out? It's almost like you're trying to be deliberately duplicitous.

Exactly what court ruled that families could not stay together...?

[Cow Poke]

...they stand as a reminder that I'm not perfect...

No such evidence necessary.

[rogue06]

Exactly what court ruled that families could not stay together...?

This was hashed over again and again in the thread about all this. Go look it up.

[carpedm9587]

It's just that you were denying claiming to be centrist to LPOT when you have always claimed to be pretty much centrist all along. In fact it seems to be a point of pride with you that you are in the middle and see both sides and are more fair than the rest of us biased peons.

So "being in the middle" and "seeing both sides" are not the same thing. I can see and understand the arguments made by both sides of the gun, debate, for example. That doesn't change the fact that I am strongly for gun control, and would like to see the second amendment repealed. So on that subject, I can "see both sides" but I am strongly left. Similar thing applies to abortion - but on that one I believe both sides are wrong and stuck in their "my way or the highway" position - dooming the whole discussion to non-resolution pretty much forever.

That is why your denying it to LPOT was such a "what the...?" moment to me. I clearly remember us discussing the political compass in that one thread and you claiming how center you were and then I took the test and I came out more center than you did.

Yep - all of those types of test that I have taken have consistently put me left of center to various (but with minor variation) degrees - as a general average. The problem is that a "general average" doesn't say much. What's missing is the "standard deviation." On average, I am left of center, but I have a very high standard deviation from topic to topic.

It isn't us that is spending so much time about where on the spectrum you sit, it is you yourself who keep bringing up over and over, trying to show how fair and balanced you are.

I don't believe I have ever claimed to be "fair and balanced." If you know of such a claim made by me - by all means link it. Otherwise, you appear to be putting words in my mouth.

[carpedm9587]

Let's apply the "no family separation" policy to every other crime and see how far we get before liberals start screaming about how it's inhumane to incarcerate children with their criminal parents. Because simply not holding the parents accountable when they break the law is not a viable option.

Of course - the separation you are talking about happens AFTER due process has concluded - not before... right?

[carpedm9587]

No such evidence necessary.

Tell me something I don't know (or my wife doesn't regularly remind me about....)

[carpedm9587]

This was hashed over again and again in the thread about all this. Go look it up.

I'm going to guess that you are referring to the ruling that children could not be housed with their parents "in criminal jails." That ruling does not require families to be separated - and both Bush and Obama honored that ruling and managed to keep families together. They did it by not using criminal jails. They also honored the ruling that required children to be released within 20 (21?) days using a variety of techniques (e.g., ankle monitors, domestic sponsors, etc.). Most of those programs showed a very high rate of appearance for subsequent immigration hearings - but several of them were defunded despite that level of success. Guess who defunded them...?

[Mountain Man]

Of course - the separation you are talking about happens AFTER due process has concluded - not before... right?

No. When someone is caught "in the act", the usual process is to arrest them on the spot.

[carpedm9587]

No. When someone is caught "in the act", the usual process is to arrest them on the spot.

And then they are usually given an opportunity for bail. Only for the most egregious crimes where there is a danger to society is bail not offered - but there has to be credible evidence provided for the judge to make that ruling. Somehow, "crossing that man-made, imaginary line between that country and this one" doesn't seem to rise to that level of harm...

[Bill the Cat]

And then they are usually given an opportunity for bail. Only for the most egregious crimes where there is a danger to society is bail not offered - but there has to be credible evidence provided for the judge to make that ruling. Somehow, "crossing that man-made, imaginary line between that country and this one" doesn't seem to rise to that level of harm...

Not for flight risks.

[Cow Poke]

And then they are usually given an opportunity for bail. Only for the most egregious crimes where there is a danger to society is bail not offered - but there has to be credible evidence provided for the judge to make that ruling. Somehow, "crossing that man-made, imaginary line between that country and this one" doesn't seem to rise to that level of harm...

Trump actually said something funny today --- something about the "catch and release", and "we let them go and tell them to come back to court in 2 or 3 years --- but only 2% actually show up for court, and we don't want to keep those ones because they're that stupid".

Yeah, I know, I'm a deplorable person for finding that comical.

[Cow Poke]

And then they are usually given an opportunity for bail. Only for the most egregious crimes where there is a danger to society is bail not offered - but there has to be credible evidence provided for the judge to make that ruling. Somehow, "crossing that man-made, imaginary line between that country and this one" doesn't seem to rise to that level of harm...

So, when somebody breaks the law, who gets to determine that it "doesn't seem to rise to that level of harm"?

[carpedm9587]

Not for flight risks.

True dat - but again, proportional to the crime. And the numbers show that, with the right program, the "flight risk" for an undocumented family at the border awaiting a hearing is minimal. Several programs showed appearance rates above 90% (the sponsorship program had the highest level of success). Of course - they were defunded. We can't actually have something funded that actually works, right? I mean, after all, then how are you going to claim that those "nasty old illegal aliens never show up for their hearings!"