Hey, there! Log in / Register

Baker won't send National Guard troops to Mexican border because Trump is being 'cruel and inhumane'

NBC Boston reports the governor has changed his mind on sending even just a single helicopter and some support staff because of the "cruel and inhumane" Trump, his attorney general and ICE are breaking families apart as they come into the US.

Topics: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

In one fell swoop. Was that so difficult, national Republicans? That's how your mission is supposed to work. And he didn't even cite millennia-old mythology.

up
Voting closed 3

When I see unemployed trumpthumpers mopping up slaughterhouse floors and picking crops like the Joads, I will believe that this is about "American Jobs".

up
Voting closed 3

Wasn’t this the hysterical headline in the New York Times two weeks ago? Now you are angry because they are keeping the children. It’s all theater. You don’t care about the children.

up
Voting closed 1

My takeaway is that Baker announced he's deploying Mass. National Guard voluntarily June 1 even though two days prior he objected to the policy of separating children from parents on wbur. He should explain that, and why it took him 17 days to change his mind. Charlie Baker's spin.

up
Voting closed 18

Nobody has to buy a barometer while Charlie is in charge: you can always tell when there's been the slightest bit of breeze in a different direction. (If he was going to make a principled stand against the gestapo in Texas, why did he wait until this week to do it? Why didn't he try to distance himself from the national party when they started goosestepping behind Trump, rather than waiting until it was political suicide to support his monstrous immigration policies?)

up
Voting closed 13

Baker would send every last guardsman on duty if he didn't have to pander to centrist and progressive voters. We need to kill this myth that there is some sane branch of the GOP. There are just those without shame who deviate from their core values just to stay in power. Charlie is one of those people.

up
Voting closed 11

You believe that all Republicans are monolithically "insane" and follow the exact same agenda, and that it's only "centrist and progressive voters" that keep some in line? That's just childish. You can call yourself a Republican and still be opposed to some (or even most) of the party's positions.

up
Voting closed 2

People like you claerly don't represent a meaningful voting bloc in American politics. You could probably leverage your way into a NYT Op Ed column, though!

up
Voting closed 12

Looks like Drumpfart has lost the agnostics and the Catholics on this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/opinion/trump-base-midterms-moderate-...

up
Voting closed 3

Watch the ABC News video

Vox:

Polls: Trump’s family separation policy is very unpopular — except among Republicans
One finds 66 percent of Americans opposed and only 27 percent in favor.
up
Voting closed 3

I'm sure this latest scandal will be the one that takes him down, yes sir, any day now...

up
Voting closed 4

You believe that all Republicans are monolithically "insane"

Yes.

Not awake for the Southern Strategy post Civil Rights? That's been 50+ years and Mass. Repubs still haven't moved on from the party. You helped create this monster. You've had 50+ years to disown this messaging that Trump actually has the balls to say out loud rather than simply through signaling and dog whistles that Lee Atwater put to paper.

Wake me up when the Mass. GOP doesn't vote for Trump in droves like they did in 2016 (Trump received the most primary votes of a GOP candidate by a good margin over Romney in 2008/2012). Until then you're just ratcheting up the cognitive dissonance.

up
Voting closed 4

So making policy decisions based on your constituents wishes is considered "pandering"? I applaud Charlie for breaking from party lines when it is clearly the will of the people he represents.

up
Voting closed 4

The US has always separated children from parents ever since Bill Clinton signed the policy into law. Bush did it. Obama did it. Now Trump is doing it. The current outrage seems disingenuous and I'd like to see some new agencies do some real reporting of the facts instead of fanning the flames of political indignation.

up
Voting closed 0

of this horrifying story is that it's caused the internet to spontaneously divide itself into two camps: (1) people who think it's a bad thing to rip breastfeeding infants off of their mothers and impound them in concentration camps, and (2) people who need to be dragged out back and beaten to death with a shovel. Thanks for identifying yourself as the latter, anon!

up
Voting closed 24

So me and Obama then? k

up
Voting closed 4

In both cases. Smarten up, eh?

up
Voting closed 11

The fact that you can't separate facts isn't really surprising since you also can't see that I did not post as "anon" but that's ok. I get it. You wanted to post, not read. And post you have...
Beat me with a shovel? Anyone who disagrees with you shall be met with violence? Death? You're a little too emotionally involved to be able to discuss this rationally obviously. I doubt Adam will allow this reply to be made public since he too has his agenda to defend.
But I'll say it again - beat me with a shovel but you'll also have to beat Clinton and Obama too for they could have changed this law and they didn't.
Perhaps for good reason? Maybe someone should ask them?

Oh how I long for the fair and balanced days...

up
Voting closed 3

Fair and balanced days ended in August 1987. Thanks, Dennis Patrick.

up
Voting closed 0

And you have presented no facts to show that it is correct (because you can't ). The simple fact is that Trump is doing something dramatically different from his predecessors, which is why so much work is being done to arrange for the facilities, because they weren't needed before. And trump has made it very clear why he is doing it. He wants to force the Democrats to accept his racist immigration policies. He is literally holding children hostage to pass his policies.

'Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it' Nazi propaganda chief Dr Joseph Goebbels

up
Voting closed 12

And I WILL beat you with a shovel.

You are simply a morally challenged fake news sucking idiot.

I'm sure you're all cool with this, tho - it was all legal and shit. Must be okay by you:
IMAGE(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kuow/files/styles/medium/public/201612/slavemother2-e1399616778238.jpg)

Here's a nice soundtrack for you to fall asleep by! Hope you are feeling all tingly now and moral and lawful and shit! Hooray! Kids are being ripped from their families ... the sweet sweet sound of AMURKIN FREEDUMB BITCHES!!!!

The ONLY reason this trailer trash girl has a goddamn tooth in her head is because of the generational grace of a Japanese dentist and his son, born in the INTERNMENT CAMPS. My grandad a barter relationship with the elder dentist and he safeguarded their property ... AND HE HAD SERVED IN CHINA during the time that the Imperial Japanese Army raped and tortured and pillaged the civilian population. He knew what the Japanese were capable of, yet he still found the mercy and the compassion and the loyalty to do what was right and good in the world.

THAT IS WHAT MORAL COURAGE LOOKS LIKE BEV! Not making stupid bureacratic excuses for evil - that's some pure Pontius Pilate shit.

up
Voting closed 4

As you've seen, Adam will gladly post your comment if it follows his guidelines. (Which are not political.)

Adam makes his agenda clear in his posts and comments and gives a wide berth to comments across the spectrum.

Be polite and not ad hominem and I'd be shocked to see your comment not posted. And I've been reading for almost 10 years.

Get a user name and your comments will be posted without review and will continue to be if you follow /adam's very lenient guidelines.

(BTW I choose not to get a user name on principles of maintaining online anonymity but Adam has always been fair to this anon.)

up
Voting closed 3

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

One top Jesuit called the policy, under which Border Patrol agents have locked hundreds of children in cages, "pure evil" and "wantonly cruel"

up
Voting closed 3

but, Bev, you are so wrong.

up
Voting closed 1

I think it's okay to still think it's outrageous, even if other presidents did it. Like if Obama and Trump both ate puppies, I would still be against it, regardless of how long it had been going on for. Actually, no, the longer it went on, the more outraged I'd be.

up
Voting closed 3

If Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer both killed people and ate them, it would still be a bad thing to do. But Mother Theresa didn't kill people and eat them. As far as I know.

up
Voting closed 8

She denied untold poor desperate people even basic health care or comfort b/c she believed suffering was virtuous.

Mother Theresa caused more suffering and death then Dahmer ever did. Incalculably.

Look it up.

up
Voting closed 10

A cluster of rumors about the controversial separation of families at the border held that the policy came before the Trump administration, either stemming from a 1997 “law” or purported policies of previous administrations. Those claims were false. No federal law required or suggested the family separation policy announced by Attorney General Sessions in several sets of remarks during April and May 2018.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-law-separate-families-passed-1997/

up
Voting closed 0

I'd like to send some glossy "brochures" to Beauregard that advertise the Lake Of Fire Retirement Estates - since he's going to hell for this, he might as well go first class!

up
Voting closed 6

up
Voting closed 3

You're citing a case where the federal government returned a boy to his father by use of force? And where, before they received that order, they placed him with his family in the US?

up
Voting closed 0

The bowling green massacre with his jade helm.

up
Voting closed 0

This is not true. This current policy of separating parents and children comes from a Trump administration reinterpretation of a 1997 law and a 2008 bipartisan human trafficking bill, using those to say that they are required to separate families. Previously, those coming to apply for asylum were held in immigration detention until a hearing to determine whether they'll be deported. Now, they are being charged with a crime upon arrival and sent to federal jails where children cannot be held. There is no law that requires immigrant families to be separated. The decision to charge everyone crossing the border with illegal entry — and the decision to charge asylum seekers in criminal court rather than waiting to see if they qualify for asylum — are both decisions the Trump administration has made. Neither Obama or Bush did that. Unaccompanied minors were taken into custody, but families were not separated.

up
Voting closed 3

Where are the children that previous presidents have seperated from parents? Why is there a sudden rush to build tent city to store these kids now? I think you may have had your facts handed to you by Mr. "bullshit artist" Trump.

up
Voting closed 3

Part of the reason the facilities now are such a mess is because this was dumped on Health and Human Services without any warning or even asking their input on viability. It was just "deal with these kids" and HHS was left scrambling. If this has been going on for "years" the department would have policies, memorandums, operational procedures, and oh yeah, actual facilities to put these kids. The most basic objective look at the situation now proves how much bullshit the claim is, but then, trumpsters don't understand things like facts, so there you go...

up
Voting closed 9

Stop spewing shit. The real reporting is out there, time for you and your ilk to bone up on it (as if that will do any real good):

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/06/18/here-what-you-need-kn...

"In the past few days, the furor has intensified over the Trump administration’s practice of separating children from their parents when apprehended at the US-Mexico border.

Here are four things you need to know about the controversy:

Who is responsible for the family separations?

President Trump and his administration are. They have falsely argued that they are merely enforcing the law. But there is no law that requires families to be separated at the border. The separations began after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced this spring that all unlawful immigrants will be prosecuted as criminals. When they are taken into custody, the parents are separated from their children.
Advertisement

The White House has also interpreted a 1997 legal agreement and a 2008 bipartisan human trafficking bill to require separating families — a position that was not taken by either president George W. Bush or Barack Obama."

up
Voting closed 4

An election year!

up
Voting closed 3

If the Governor keeps doing stuff like this then he has my vote.

up
Voting closed 3

I hope someday acting in accordance with the barest minimum of human decency will not be considered a heroic political act.

up
Voting closed 2

"You're not supposed to put kids in cages, you low-expectation having (expletive!)"

up
Voting closed 4

If the troops are federalized then Baker doesn't get a say in the matter. This is election year posturing on Baker's part.

up
Voting closed 0

... cannot be used for domestic policing functions. It is only governors who can authorize such activity.

up
Voting closed 0

WGBH:

The deployment was a response to a proclamation signed by President Trump in April calling on National Guard troops to assist in securing the border. The request was made by invoking a statute of U.S. law known as “Title 32,” which allows governors to review requests for National Guard troops and deploy at their own determination, and troops remain under state control. (A “Title 10,” request, on the other hand, is involuntary and troops operate under federal control.)

Does anyone know if Puerto Rico FEMA emergency response to Hurricane Maria was also a Title 32 deployment? New England Journal of Medicine did a study that estimated the death toll was 4,645 not 45 as official records state, and that about 1/3 of those deaths were from lack of access to health care in other words avoidable.

up
Voting closed 6

...he'll be coming out with a strong announcement condemning kitten sodomy, pistol-whipping nuns (without cause) and eating pizza with a fork. #ProfilesInCourage

up
Voting closed 3

story, but I'll settle on the heinousness of the policy itself, rather than the fact that Trump is the kind of yammering coward who made the policy decision himself but is now trying desperately to pin it on Democrats, or the fact that his supporters are too blockheaded to grasp that that's a naked lie.

I personally don't care if people see Baker as acting purely out of political expediency. He's doing the right thing not to support the monstrous bigotry and cruelty of Trump and Stephen Miller and the rest of his gang of morally unspeakable shit-piles.

up
Voting closed 3

They are incredibly block-headed but I firmly believe they completely understand this policy and the bullshit Trump excuses to pin it elsewhere. They're craven and complicit.

Agree on Baker. Guy's middle names should be "political expediency." He's a fucking bum but he's not a bum today.

up
Voting closed 2

For Massachusetts politicians to act shocked for actions initiated by the Clinton administration is rather pathetic. Every year in the state of Massachusetts thousands of mothers are held in pretrial detentions because of their inability to pay relatively minor bail and court costs. In over sixty percent of these cases the outcome was either dismissal or continued without a finding. In 2012 it was estimated that over 5300 children were affected by their mothers detention in the state of Massachusetts. These families deserve to have their voices heard.

up
Voting closed 4

As has been widely outlined elsewhere here, this is a brand-new Trump policy purportedly architected by our own little Goebbels, the loathsome white supremacist Stephen Miller.

But your stats on MA are interesting: any citations? I am willing to believe that there's hypocrisy in Baker's current outrage, but that would just mean that there's another battle to fight at home as well as on the national stage. Baker is still correct in resisting this unconscionable Trump policy.

I understand Trump playing consistently to his critical-thinking-impaired, self-sabotaging, racist base, but I think he's overplaying his hand with more moderate Republicans and swing voters. It would only be fitting to see this kind of hateful, fear-mongering gambit backfire on him in November. But oof, that base: a profoundly disheartening reflection on modern America, so goddamned backwards. I especially have some choice rejoinders for any moralizing Christian who has somehow found a twisted way to rationalize supporting Trump. Jesus wept.

up
Voting closed 2

The Massachusetts Women's Justice Network

up
Voting closed 5

the statistics you're citing. Is it safe to assume that since you quoted them, you could link directly to them as well? That would be helpful.

up
Voting closed 0

The 3rd Amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in people's houses. Maybe Baker could try quartering undocumented immigrant kids in soldiers' houses.

up
Voting closed 3

Do you walk to school or do you bring a lunch?

up
Voting closed 12