All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Kevinroc]

Exposure to different arguments.

If you're just going to regurgitate right wing talking points, I wonder how much attention you're paying to the liberals/progressives in this thread.

[Mister Mets]

Oh dear. Oh no! A woman didn't ask for a blood test in order to check up her family's verbal history! The horror!

No wonder why he always has to bring up random **** in order to keep his follower's appeased. It's all bull.

It's not about the DNA test, as much as her continuing to claim something that isn't backed up by evidence. Someone who is pushing 70 should realize that family verbal history is often bullshit, and shouldn't be referencing it in speeches.

If you're just going to regurgitate right wing talking points, I wonder how much attention you're paying to the liberals/progressives in this thread.

You guys can be good aggregators for left-wing talking points.

[Tazirai]

Good Jeebus, Chuck Schumer and pelosi, have no clue how to go forward.
Morons.

[Tazirai]

Ugh....

[Tami]

Trump team says it tore apart a family that ‘might be’ US citizens

The Trump administration now admits that at least one child it is holding in custody as part of its “zero tolerance” policy at the U.S.-Mexico border might be an American citizen.

The latest development highlights just how out of control Trump’s family separation policy that he unilaterally imposed has become.

The ACLU has sued the federal government over Trump’s policy, demanding that the 102 children under age 5 who have been taken from their parents immediately be returned to their families.

The government claims to have reunited 38 of those children, but says that 47 children may not be reunified in time for the July 10 deadline imposed in a previous court decision.

In a joint court filing, the Trump administration admits that one parent and child cannot be reunified because the parent has been missing for over a year, and “records show the parent and child might be U.S. citizens.”

Based on the filing, it seems American citizens are now being hauled into the racism-fueled dragnet of this administration’s immigration policies.

Trump has cast about for blame on his family separation policy. He tried to blame Democrats and previous administrations, but neither President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush prosecuted all border crossers to trigger family separations.

The blame falls squarely on Trump.

The Trump administration might have separated a child and parent who are both US citizens

The Trump administration said in a court filing Tuesday that it was on track to reunite 38 young immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border — though dozens more would need more time.

A federal judge had set Tuesday as the deadline for the government to reunite 102 children in its custody under the age of five, but the Trump administration provided a list of reasons that the remaining 64 children wouldn't be reunited on time.

In one stunning example, the government listed one child who "cannot be reunified at this time because the parent's location has been unknown for more than a year," and "records show the parent and child might be US citizens."

The court filing didn't clarify the circumstances of that child's separation or why it occurred so long ago. The majority of the family separations took place in recent months after the Trump administration implemented its "zero tolerance" policy to criminally prosecute adults who cross the border illegally.

[Tami]

Vacation turns into ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ when Customs demands to know why woman didn’t take husband’s name

A mother and daughter were flying back from a European vacation when an agent at Customs and Border Protection couldn’t understand why their last names were different.

“I was asked if Sybonae was my daughter and I said yes,” Sylvia Acosta wrote on Facebook. “Then they asked why if she was my daughter I didn’t have the same last name. I told them I had already established my career and earned my doctorate with my last name Acosta so I had decided not to change it.”

The officer then said “maybe you should have taken your husband’s last name so you could prove you were her mom.”

She explained that she had plenty of proof that the girl was her daughter without needing their last names to match. She was then taken into another room where she and her daughter were interrogated. When she was asked again why she kept her maiden name, she once again was told she should just take her husband’s name.

“I then proceeded to tell them that they were perpetuating an institutionalized misogynistic system which required that a woman take her husband’s name and after that and a whole lot more about what I thought about what they had said to me that they let us go,” she continued. “I am furious.”

She even went so far as to include the full statement from the Customs and Border Patrol statement and a “revised” comment from the spokesperson.

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reviewed the audio and video of the encounter between a CBP officer and a woman travelling [sic] with her daughter, and found that the video does not support the claim as it has been reported. The audio and video prove that there weren’t any inappropriate questions discussed,” the first statement read.

The statement then went on to urge that any parent traveling with a child who has a different last name, get a note from the other parent, in this case, the woman’s husband.

“CBP strongly recommends that unless a child is accompanied by both parents, the adult traveling with the child have a note from the child’s other parent (or, in the case of a child traveling with grandparents, uncles or aunts, sisters or brothers, friends, or in groups*, a note signed by both parents),” the statement said.

[Tendrin]

So here's an important thing to bear in mind when talking about Doug Jones.

If all of the GOP Senators hang together, then the votes of guys like Jones and Manchin are actually irrelevant. You will only see them vote for Kavanaugh if there's zero chance of defeating them. The only real drama is how long it will take Murkowski and Collins to fold and declare that they're sure Roe is settled law and he respects precedent and so on. It's all theatre.

[numberthirty]

So here's an important thing to bear in mind when talking about Doug Jones.

If all of the GOP Senators hang together, then the votes of guys like Jones and Manchin are actually irrelevant. You will only see them vote for Kavanaugh if there's zero chance of defeating them. The only real drama is how long it will take Murkowski and Collins to fold and declare that they're sure Roe is settled law and he respects precedent and so on. It's all theatre.

While I see what you are saying, I don't really feel like "Actually Irrelevant" is the right way to put it.

They will exist in a bigger picture than just this one nomination. They are relevant in that bigger picture.

[Malvolio]

Brett Kavenaugh is very happy about all the protest votes in 2016.

And all of the people who didn't vote at all because "Hillary had it in the bag."

[Dalak]

I prefer him over Roy Moore. But if Alabama democrats are the same as Alabama Republicans, it wouldn't make a difference, whether a democrat or a Republican won the Alabama elections.

He is in office for only one year. It's too early to compare him to Manchin. Give Senator Doug a chance.

So here's an important thing to bear in mind when talking about Doug Jones.

If all of the GOP Senators hang together, then the votes of guys like Jones and Manchin are actually irrelevant. You will only see them vote for Kavanaugh if there's zero chance of defeating them. The only real drama is how long it will take Murkowski and Collins to fold and declare that they're sure Roe is settled law and he respects precedent and so on. It's all theatre.

Irrelevant or not, Jones wasn't elected to vote with Trump's cowardly cronies and he should know it. Standing up for his principals isn't going to lose him any of the Dem votes he received and if he's going to lose the seat to the next halfassed GoP candidate who's not a kiddy diddler anyway then I say have some fucking backbone! Sadly even folks like McCain who are dying can't do more than a symbolic act of resistance at best and usually just unleash some mealy mouthed platitudes before falling in line to vote.

And all of the people who didn't vote at all because "Hillary had it in the bag."

Yes, people who voted in ways they knew were meaningless are painted with the same brush as those who chose not to vote for whatever reason IMO. People who voted for Trump and continue to support him have proven they can't be trusted as they'll give a pass on naked corruption and profiteering as long as it's someone they agree with.

[Tendrin]

While I see what you are saying, I don't really feel like "Actually Irrelevant" is the right way to put it.

They will exist in a bigger picture than just this one nomination. They are relevant in that bigger picture.

They're irrelevant in so far as their vote makes a difference to this guy getting onto the Supreme Court. What has to happen is vulnerable blue-state GOPers need to be peeled off. The only thing that voting for him does is show independence from the party that might help them stay in their seat and, like it or not, there's no Dem majority without red-state Dems.


For the record, I do agree that they shouldn't vote for him in any case but these are the factors that have to be weighed. The same is true of vulnerable blue state GOPers, of which there are few going into this election. Collins is, unfortunately, widely respected despite her constant disingenuousness.

[Dalak]

They're irrelevant in so far as their vote makes a difference to this guy getting onto the Supreme Court. What has to happen is vulnerable blue-state GOPers need to be peeled off. The only thing that voting for him does is show independence from the party that might help them stay in their seat and, like it or not, there's no Dem majority without red-state Dems.


For the record, I do agree that they shouldn't vote for him in any case but these are the factors that have to be weighed. The same is true of vulnerable blue state GOPers, of which there are few going into this election. Collins is, unfortunately, widely respected despite her constant disingenuousness.

I understand the potential benefit of tactically voting for the Trump pick in this case, but considering the partisan feelings out there right now I don't think any olive branch is going to convince your average GoPer not to vote against the Dem. Then there's the negative effect on the liberals that worked so hard to get Jones into office voting for this SCOTUS pick would cause, as they'd have little reason to put in such efforts again. Oh they'd probably still vote for him but they wouldn't put in the efforts that I believe were necessary to get him elected in the first place. Considering how much support Moore got in the end I don't think that any lessening of that enthusiasm is worth it at this point, whereas showing some backbone would fire that up even more.

[Tendrin]

I understand the potential benefit of tactically voting for the Trump pick in this case, but considering the partisan feelings out there right now I don't think any olive branch is going to convince your average GoPer not to vote against the Dem. Then there's the negative effect on the liberals that worked so hard to get Jones into office voting for this SCOTUS pick would cause, as they'd have little reason to put in such efforts again. Oh they'd probably still vote for him but they wouldn't put in the efforts that I believe were necessary to get him elected in the first place. Considering how much support Moore got in the end I don't think that any lessening of that enthusiasm is worth it at this point, whereas showing some backbone would fire that up even more.

I honestly don't disagree with this. It's similar to my own feelings, but don't be surprised if people with their ears closer to the ground than either of us feel differently.

You know?

TBH, I do think Jones will wind up voting against him due to the amount of support he received from pro-choice forces that helped elect him.

[Dalak]

I honestly don't disagree with this. It's similar to my own feelings, but don't be surprised if people with their ears closer to the ground than either of us feel differently.

You know?

TBH, I do think Jones will wind up voting against him due to the amount of support he received from pro-choice forces that helped elect him.

Yeah, I get it. Locals might feel differently but as a Blue voter in a Red state I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about here. Of course it seems everything's different in Texas so who knows for sure?

[Tendrin]

Yeah, I get it. Locals might feel differently but as a Blue voter in a Red state I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about here. Of course it seems everything's different in Texas so who knows for sure?

I mean, your state DID elect Ted Cruz.