This list was posted
on Facebook by a friend of mine, whom I will not name, because I
don't want to embarrass them. The questions are from their post.
The answers are my own. If they embarrass me, then so be it. The words in bold, italicized type are from their post. The answers are my own.
~
Copied in part...You
call this great? I don’t.
Do you support
separating families at the border.....put them into concentration
camps? They are applying for asylum.....what he is doing is against
international law. You do realize that?
- Okay, let's take
this a bite at a time:
- If these same
people were caught burglarizing homes, or stealing cars, or killing
people, or committing any other crime, they would be separated from
their children. People who are in holding awaiting trial for crimes
they are accused of get separated from their children. Like it or
not, entering this country illegally is a crime. It's a crime in
every nation in the world. Just out of curiosity, why don't you find
out what the penalty is for entering Mexico, or Guatemala, or China,
or Luxembourg for that matter, illegally.
There is an
alternative, though. Make it not illegal. It's a matter of passing
a law, which would require electing representatives committed to
doing just that. What you are asking the government to do,
essentially, is let there not be a border. If crossing the border
brings no penalty, then you don't have one. If you're cool with
that, talk about that and not some bull**** thing about whether or
not lawbreakers get treated like lawbreakers.
In the interest of
having access to the necessary information to make an intelligent
choice, I've done a little research into immigration laws in the
countries I flippantly listed above. Here's the link to a website
called Mexperience, and the page that discusses immigration to
Mexico.
https://www.mexperience.com/mexico-immigration-guide-published/
On the page is a link to the 2019 immigration guide, provided to
them by the government of Mexico. It doesn't discuss any penalties
for illegal immigration, and I've had difficulty finding this
information. Plus, here's a link to a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia
article on immigration to Mexico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico
Answers.yahoo came up with a penalty of two to five years in prison
for illegally entering the country, but I haven't been able to verify
the sources.
No luck finding
information on penalties for illegally crossing borders into
Guatemala. Here's a link to an article on immigration to Guatemala:
https://legalbeagle.com/5465314-guatemala-immigration-requirements.html
I don't know what the political leaning of legalbeagle is, or if
they have one.
Here's a piece from
the South China Morning Post on illegal immigration into China:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1272959/under-chinas-new-immigration-law-harsher-fines-illegal-foreigners
Apparently, there are harsh penalties. The article dates from 2013.
The most I can
found about illegal immigration into Luxembourg are news articles
complaining about how many there are, and how it should be stopped.
I'll leave it up to you to find them. Trust me, it's not difficult.
And, I've seen nothing about whether or not your children are taken
away in any of these countries if you bring them in illegally. I
would guess that whatever would happen would happen no matter what
crime you committed there.
Btw, here's an
interesting piece from factcheck.org:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/
I don't know what their political leaning is. They are funded by
the Annenberg Foundation, which also does a lot with the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, so I suspect if there is a leaning, it is
liberal/progressive.
- Concentration
camps? Do you even know what one of those is? From the reports I've
seen, even the ones put out by MSNBC, NPR, NYT, etc, they don't even
really count as prisons, much less concentration camps. Comparing
them with Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc is ridiculous.
- Are they all
applying for asylum? All of them? How do you know? What's your source? And,
what happens to them while they're waiting? Maybe you didn't know
this, but there's a legal process to applying for asylum. They've
committed a crime. (See above)
- International
law? Which international law? Would you please quote it? We are
not subject to international law. We are, in this instance, subject
to the laws of the United States. International law does not apply
to someone who burglarized a house, or steals a car, or murders
someone, or speeds on the interstate. And the United States has
borders. Did you know it's illegal to cross a nation's borders
without proper authorization? Any nation? (See above)
Do you support him
because he likes to grab women by the pussy?
- Now, let me think
about that a minute. Do I support Donald Trump . . . BECAUSE he
likes to grab women by the pussy? Uh . . . no. Although, I must
say, it's not why I DIDN'T support Bill Clinton. I don't consider
Bill Clinton a good president because I think his policies proved to
be severely flawed. (That is, when he bothered to have policies.
The worst thing about Clinton was, he didn't really do much. The
best thing about him was, he didn't really do much. Which, after
Reagan/Bush41, was a good thing. Still, it would have been nice to
see some good and necessary things done.) Same with Teddy Kennedy,
and many other misogynist politicians, Democrat and Republican. I
think what you're asking is, would I hire Donald Trump as a
babysitter for my daughters? No.
Do you support him
because he makes fun of the disabled?
- Oh, there's
another good one. Y'know, I was going to vote for Hillary, but then
Trump made fun of a disabled guy, and that convinced me to vote for
him instead. C'mon, now!! I suppose there are people who voted for Hillary
specifically because she DIDN'T make fun of a disabled person. At
least, not in public. Of course, it would be all right for her to
make fun of a disabled person IF they disagreed with her. Then, it
would be all right. But since it was Trump, it doesn't matter what
his policies are, or if they improved the country and made people's
lives better. He said something you find distasteful. And you know
what? I did, too. But I also know why he said it; because the guy
was cutting him down. He didn't send the FBI to take him in, he just
gave back in kind. Didn't take away his job, didn't put him in jail,
didn't have a couple of Arkansas state troopers shoot him, he said
words.
Do you support him
because he has increased our national debt by 4 trillion dollars
making us financially insolvent?
-Ooo! Check your
figures. How much did Barack Obama's administration increase the
national debt? I'll leave it up to you to find out the answer to
that one. If the country is insolvent, it's because the previous
administration brought us to the brink of insolvency. Or does that
not count, because your preferred news sources said that the money
was spent on good stuff? Y'see, that's what happens when you only
get your news from one side. You find yourself repeating lies.
And when you double-check the figures, please send me the links. You will note at the bottom of the picture on the right, its sources are listed.
Do you support him
because he is a racist?
- Another good one.
Let me make one thing clear; I don't care if he's a racist. Let me
repeat that; I do not care what his personal feelings about people's
race is. Are. Whatever. What I care about is, what are his
policies going to do? I don't actually know if he's a racist. And,
news flash, you don't either! If you go by his policies, black, Hispanic, and Asian unemployment in this country are at historic
lows.
Do you know what that means? It means, those people, those
demographic groups, have more jobs. Maybe I'm wildly off the beam
here, but I think the biggest problem facing these demographic groups
is, they're poor. Doesn't having a job kinda help that?
I think it's funny,
any time I watch a sporting event, I see the same ads. Did you know
the state of New York – one of the bluest, most liberal states in
the country - publicly promises a tax break for businesses that are
willing to move there? They've been running those ads for years.
Why do you think they do that?
No matter what
liberal/democratic/socialist politicians say, they all know that
lowering taxes stimulates the economy. Reagan proved it. And before
you think about how altruistic they are, remember that the stock
market stayed strong during the Obama administration, in spite of the
economy slowly turning to part-time jobs and the “gig economy.”
Manufacturing was draining away, but Wall Street was booming. But
I'm sure that's just a coincidence. >wink<
In a nutshell, if
Trump is a racist, he's a stupid one. His policies seem to be
helping the very people he's accused of hating. And these
accusations didn't start until he was elected President. So, I don't
care if he's a racist, any more than I care about his hair or the
color of his socks. What I care about is what he does in the office
of the Presidency. I hope he's not a racist, but I've seen no
conclusive evidence that he is. And Don Lemon's opinion doesn't
count as conclusive evidence.
By the way, not
sure where this appropriate to include, but the Center for Responsive
Politics puts out a publication called the Blue Pages. It's a
directory of companies, rated by their politics and practices
(quoting the cover). Basically, it tells you who the listed
companies donate to, so far as politics and political causes.
Interesting to just thumb through it.
Do you support him
because he has taken all the ecological restrictions away destroying
the earth for future generations?
- Careful. All the
ecological restrictions? All of them? Or are you talking about the
Paris Climate Accords? Have you read them? Here's the link, so that
you can:
And that's the
actual UN Framework Convention on Climate Change website, not some
conservative blog. If you're going to talk about something, you
should know what you're talking about. And, this link (found in the
opening paragraphs) compares the Paris agreement with the Kyoto
Protocol:
The two main
arguments I've heard against both of these agreements are:
1) they are
agreements. They have no teeth. It's just the governments of the
signatory countries saying that they want these things to happen, but
there are no consequences if they fail. I would be curious to know
how many of the 192 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol actually met
the stated goals.
2) they seem to
have more to do with giving governments control over businesses, than
restoring the environment. The “essential elements” section of
the first page talk about “appropriate financial flows,” among
other things. There's also a link to the complete text of the
agreement, on the right side of the opening page of the link above.
And if you can't find it, let me know. I downloaded the PDF file,
and can send it to you.
Also, here's an
article about the mixed success of the Kyoto protocols:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/
New Scientist is a British magazine, published since 1956. I have
been unable to find any discussion on their political leanings, which
means they may not have any.
I have argued for
years that the whole climate change debate isn't about climate
change. It's about division. Riddle me this, Batman; what is the
alleged cause of climate change? I can answer that in one word:
Pollution. Too much foreign matter and chemical compounds in our
air, water, etc. When you break it down to that basic fact – if,
in fact, climate change is even real – then it's easy to sell.
Try this experiment
sometime, if you have the courage; go to some person's house that has
a swimming pool. Now, urinate in it. The pretty blue water is very
likely to turn a pretty green, slowly spreading to the whole pool.
Then, somebody kicks your ass or runs you off, but that's a side
effect.
This simple
experiment PROVES that one person can negatively affect an ecosystem.
There are other
examples. I remember seeing two pictures in a magazine – I think
it was Newsweek, or maybe Time, in the late '80's – that showed two
images of Los Angeles from about five miles off shore. One was taken
in 1962, and all you could see was the tops of a few buildings. The
rest of the city was blanketed in a gray haze, although it was a
sunny day with a blue sky framing the top of the photo. The second
one was, I believe, from 1988. There was still a gray haze, but you
could clearly see the city, and it was a similarly bright, sunny day.
That tells me that we've actually made progress, even if no one on
the left is willing to admit it.
The other pictures
were of the shore in Antarctica. One showed a shoreline of snow and
ice. The other, a wide patch of green grass. These pictures as well
were supposedly taken some 30 or more years apart. Now, the
publisher of these pictures didn't happen to mention what seasons
they were each taken in, but the message is clear.
But the cure is
simple, and almost universally agreed upon: Pollution is bad. If
you find anyone that disagrees with that simple statement, “pollution
is bad,” let me know and we can go together to pee in their pool.
Whether it's changing the climate or not is irrelevant, isn't it?
The swimming pool experiment proves that pollution is bad, whether or
not the temperature of the pool goes up.
So why isn't
pollution the issue, instead of climate change?
Because climate
change is something that we DON'T agree on. And look how much money
changes hands, and how much power, keeping both sides spun up! If
you believe in climate change and I don't, but we both agree that
pollution is bad, then we can both agree on a solution. Argument
over. Then, what would Rachael Maddow and Sean Hannity scream about?
But when you ask
about “all ecological restrictions,” you're suggesting that we're
back to using freon, leaded gasoline, asbestos, and many other things
that we've stopped using decades ago. I haven't seen anything about
Trump demanding a return to freon, etc.
Do you support the
lack of respect he has for officials that do not agree with him?
- Yes, actually, I
do. I don't respect them, so it comforts me that he doesn't either.
Most of them are left over from previous administrations anyway,
dating back to probably Nixon in some cases.
Here's a pop quiz
for you; do you know where most bills presented to Congress are
written? If your answer is, the offices of Congressmen and Senators,
I'm sorry, thanks for playing, and don't forget your copy of the home
game. The correct answer is, K Street in Washington. Where a lot of
lobbyists offices are located. So, which officials are we really
referring to, here? The official officials, or the unofficial
officials they work for?
Did you support all
those federal employees he used as pawns to try and get approval from
Congress for his wall?
- I think his
biggest campaign promise was the wall. It got him elected, so those
who voted for him expect him to come through. And to do that, he's
going to have to twist appendages. When Ronald Reagan left office,
he warned that there was already a crisis because of illegal
immigration. At the time, 1988, the estimate most popular was that
there was possibly 3 million illegal immigrants in this country. The
figure being thrown around for the last decade is 11 million, so it's
hopelessly out of date. A Yale study (linked above; the FactCheck
article) says it's probably twice that many.
Democrats AND
Republicans have been lying ever since about fixing that problem.
And they continue to get away with their lies. It's a problem, they
all know it, and they lie when they say they're going to fix it.
Which makes me
wonder; why? Why don't they just fix it? Why aren't they jumping at
the chance to finally secure our borders for really real? To me, the
wall makes sense. They actually do work. If you don't believe it,
ask the residents of East Berlin. Or the Palestinian territories,
where incursions by terrorists into Israel have been cut almost to
nothing. The much-touted “high-tech virtual wall” disappears the
second its funding is cut. It would be great to have that to
supplement a real, physical wall, but the real, physical wall would
be just as expensive to take down as it will be to build. And even
its physical existence would be a major deterrent to illegal
immigration. Not all immigration, btw, just illegal. Trump did,
after all, also promise a big, beautiful door.
So . . . why, if
most of the country wants a real, actual border, and all the
politicians know it, and keep promising to do it . . . why don't
they?
I'm just guessing
here, but it might be because their patrons don't want it. Maybe,
just maybe, they like having an army of available workers who have no
legal standing and can't do things like demand minimum wage or decent
conditions. Have you ever done any research on how illegal
immigrants live? I read a piece a few years ago about Latino
illegals living in Chicago and working for Ty, the company that
produces Beanie Babies among other things. Squalid living
conditions, ridiculous hours, poor pay and working conditions. And
their only choice is to not work, and therefore not make any money,
because they have no legal recourse. I did save the link to the
article, but the last time I clicked it, the article didn't exist any
more. How convenient. It was from the Yahoo news feed; I forget the
original source.
So, just how
compassionate is it to let these “asylum seekers” in to roam
free? Again, it comes down to law. If anybody can come in, and have
legal status, then do we actually have a border? If that's cool,
then say so. Completely open borders. Advocate that, and I'll
believe that you actually mean what you say, and that you've thought
that far about it. No passports, no background checks required, you
get here, you're a citizen, period. Even if I disagree, at least I
could respect someone who advocates for that and honestly believes
it's right for everyone. And if there's actually anything between
borders and no borders, would you please explain it to me?
Do you support his
lies.....daily lies? Is that the character you like to see in a
president. You wouldn't tolerate it in a friend....why would you
tolerate it in a president?
- I don't respect
anybody's lies. I don't respect Mitch McConnell's, or Barack
Obama's, or John McCain's, or Jean Shaheen's, or anybody's. But I
think it's funny for somebody who probably liked President Bill
Clinton to be so huffy about character.
And, I do tolerate
it in friends. If I know they're lying, I shine it on in order to
maintain my friendship. I try not to lie myself, especially to my
friends. I've even told truths that harmed friendships. So, I have
repeatedly, continually, put up with lies from politicians, because I
honestly care more about how they do their jobs. And I do my best to
keep track of when they lie, and about what, so I can parse who to
vote for next time around.
I don't honestly
think that Donald Trump lies a tenth as much as he gets credit for.
I've looked through the ever-growing lists published on line about
how many lies he's told, and most of them are horse pucky. Some have
turned out to be true. Some of them are strictly up for
interpretation, like regarding whether or not you believe in climate
change.
And a lot of what
he says is just to keep the pot stirred. The more people over-react
and go ballistic, the more they show themselves for the tools they
are. In my experience, most people have an active bull**** meter,
and when somebody is spouting mindless hyperbole, it puts them in a
bad light.
Unless, of course, you've emotionally invested yourself
in their point of view. So, when somebody keeps coming back with; “I
know you are, but what am I” and getting rabid foam-at-the-mouth
responses, I know which one looks like an idiot.
Give me a reason to
support any decision or statement he has made and I will give you 10
reasons why that is not sound judgement.
- First of all, I
would be skeptical of anyone who didn't have the “judgment” to
even consider trusting their spell-check. (Btw, I copied the
questions directly from your FB post, and you obviously didn't catch
the mistake.)
10 reasons? Is
that you, or just the K-Street cubical mouse that put out the
original list? Okay, I would like to hear your 10 reasons why I
shouldn't support each of the following:
- Tax and
regulation cuts that stimulate the economy,
- Secure borders,
- Challenging
deep-seated corruption in our government,
- Naming judges who
respect the Constitution,
- Demanding real
solutions to real problems, instead of offering promises they don't
intend to keep.
I've said this in
another blog post, but maybe you missed it. I believe that there are
certain things that everybody wants: Peace, prosperity, equality,
security, and freedom. In as equal measures as possible. I've
watched the deterioration of this country for more than six decades
now, while people I put my trust in lied through their teeth about
fixing it. If I see somebody who understands what those five things
actually are, and has a track record of getting things done, they've
got my vote.
