Tens of thousands of Bostonians braved the heat and humidity today to rally at City Hall Plaza and on Boston Common to support immigrant families, especially the ones locked up and separated under the policies of the Trump administration.
Organizers walked around City Hall Plaza and later the Common with bottles of water for sun-beaten protesters. The speakers' stand was set up in front of the JFK federal building.
This one's for Marco Rubio:
Among those at the rally: US Rep. Joe Kennedy (photo by Molly Lanza):
One of the paths people took from City Hall Plaza to the Common went by the Common carousel:
A Trumpie in jeans, a long-sleeved T-shirt and a Patriots cap took a quick swing through the crowds but was chased back to his conclave of about a half-dozen even more warmly dressed Nazis by a group of protesters yelling slogans such as "No hate, no fear, Nazi scum not welcome here."
Down at their little warren, closer to the Brewer Fountain, the Nazis, looking like some Blue Man Group rejects in heavy clothing, stood around as protesters gathered to scream at them. A pushcart vendor who normally plies his wares right there quickly folded up shop and moved away as the mass of protesters arrived.
The members of the Blue Kid Group were protected by a cordon of Boston bicycle cops who were in turn surrounded by volunteers from the main protest and Veterans for Peace, who formed a ring to keep the protesters and Nazis separate.
One of the Nazis took out a copy of "Win Bigly" and sat for a spell and at least pretended to read the book as protesters continues to scream "Nazis out!" and "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Nazi bigots go away!" After ten minutes or so, round 1:10, the blue kids signaled to the police they were done.
The cops lined up around them and escorted them up to Beacon Street, as the protesters followed and yelled at them. The police held traffic on Beacon, then directed the balaclava gang down Bowdoin Street - and used their bicycles to form ad-hoc barricades so that the protesters could not follow them.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Isn't there a middle ground
By Stevil
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 3:38pm
Can't the right figure out how to enforce the law humanely?
Can't the left realize we can't have completely open borders?
The best solutions are probably somewhere closer to the middle - but it's hard to get headlines with reason - so the maniacs are out in force on both sides.
Right?
By Brian Riccio
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 3:58pm
Why, oh why, can't we follow the laws as interpreted by the regime of a sociopath racist swindler who has laughed in the face of the law his whole fucking life?
And when, oh when, will they start putting Canadian kids in cages whose parents sneak across the border to shop at Trader Joe's?
See above
By Stevil
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:01pm
For the dictionary example of my point
There's a point?
By Brian Riccio
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:12pm
Sorry, I must have missed it. Must be the weed.
" Must be the weed."
By dmcboston
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:01pm
Probably explains why you retired so young, chauffeur.
Meanwhile, I am outta here in a minute...gotta take the ragtop on a trip.
Sigh...
By Brian Riccio
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 7:11pm
Jealous?
straw man alert
By anon
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 4:29am
This crisis is Trump-admin. created. They don't believe in asylum because the don't like the people who are coming so they block ports of entry and arrest families that cross elsewhere. Then they separate kids from parents on purpose and unnecessarily which is traumatizing to dissuade asylum-seekers. Then they prosecute the parents for illegal entry and deport them without giving them a cause for asylum hearing, which is their right under US and international law. Meanwhile their kids have been shipped to 17 states and the Trump administration hasn't kept track of which kids belong to which parents.
Zero-tolerance is a bid to shut down asylum by getting Congress to change the law. In the meantime the Trump admin. will violate the law by denying asylum hearings, Humiliate the US in the eyes of the world by taking children from their parents and putting children taken from their parents in child internment camps or one of 17 states.
When you block ports of entry you have closed borders not 'completely open borders.' When you deny asylum seekers a hearing you have completely closed borders. Stevil is ignorant or he is lying.
Whut?
By Stevil
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 8:18pm
That doesn't even make logical sense!?
You draw lines between completely disconnected concepts and then attribute them to me.
And for the record, Trump has humiliated us in the eyes of the world long before he started this crap.
Your point
By SamWack
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 10:12am
I believe your point met the actual mathematical definition of a point, being utterly without extent.
The point
By Stevil
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 12:14pm
Is that there actually isn't a point. More like a range that vacillates around a statistical distribution close to the mean. And nowhere near the tails.
There is and there isn't
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:27pm
The fundamental problem is that enforcement of laws that prevent people from doing things they have strong incentives to do is inherently "inhumane" from the perspective of the person against whom the enforcement takes place.
The guy looking to make a better life for his kids by doing X can always be viewed sympathetically, whether X is swimming across the Rio Grande or breaking into a pharmacy to steal medication or swiping an unsecured bicycle from a front porch to sell for food money.
The question is whether the societal good from making X illegal (and enforcing it, since there's no point to banning something in law without enforement) outweighs the societal good from allowing X to happen. And while there are utilitarian arguments to be made about property rights, or economic opportunities, or the value of uniformly enforced laws and so on and so forth, the question here is whether the societal good that comes from picking and choosing whom we let in outweighs the bad from keeping people out who might otherwise be entirely unobjectionable.
We righties see what's going on south of the border and north of the border and we say yes. Lefties see the same thing and say no. Those are caricatures but the conflict between values is there and the metaphorical middle ground only exists insofar as a leftie can be persuaded that strict border enforcement is a necessary evil that is necessary to guard against the bad outcomes that come from an uncontrolled border or a rightie can be convinced of the opposite.
Where we have done a poor job is in communicating what those bad outcomes can be and why they are a real possibility. That's a hard thing to communicate because this is a rich country and has been for many generations and it is at peace and has been for generations. So the sort of rich white people who scream the loudest online and at these protests are (in my opinion informed by decades of observation) instinctively unable to believe that their material prosperity and physical security can be threatened by anything. Most of them will go back to their secure jobs in their homes in safe neighborhoods regardless of what happens at the border, just like they go back to their secure jobs and safe neighborhoods regardless of what happens on the South Side of Chicago or what goes in at the Mildred Hailey Apartments. Or they believe instinctively that they will.
And, if we're being honest, it's a hard sell too because the left has done a good job in training their people to instinctively close their ears if the person on the short end of the stick has skin of a certain shade.
So what's the point? The first point is to keep your ears open and not dismiss whatever you hear from the other side as dog whistles and hate for the sake of hate.
The second point is be at peace with the unfortunate fact that bad things will happen to good people. No public policy can fix that. Either people get turned away at the border today or the chaos that they're fleeing from will take root here tomorrow.
You can dismiss that as fear, to which I say it is fear, but it is not irrational fear. Most people are perfectly fine, but if one out of a hundred or even one out of a thousand is a sociopath...what's the magic number for you to start locking up your bicycle or locking your door when you're out? What's the magic number for you to start thinking the border needs to be enforced?
You hit the nail on the head.
By dmcboston
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:11pm
" The first point is to keep your ears open and not dismiss whatever you hear from the other side as dog whistles and hate for the sake of hate."
Which happens to be my forte here and ironically enough, my hearing sucks. I make a point, I'm a nazi, or a moron, or a racist, or whatever I'm not in real life. It's because that's all they got and it ain't good enough...so they just close down and spew hate.
That was a long, well thought out post you wrote.
I wonder if it's pearls before swine.
I have said it before, I will repeat it, but it won't matter...[i] If you present yourself alone, or your family members with you, to a port of call, you will not be separated by the authorities.[/i]
Yikes!!!
By Stephen Bickerton Sr
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:27pm
All that BS for just 9 thumbs up.
I lock my bike anyway
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:53pm
But, hey, it isn't undocumented immigrants I'm concerned about when I do but the homegrown idiots who are far more numerous and far more likely to commit criminal acts.
That's because I'm not a terrified little bitch afraid of my shadow and I know what facts and statistics are.
God you're dense
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 7:19pm
I mean really really really dense.
Exactly 100% of illegal immigrants are guilty of committing a crime. That crime is illegal entry. Is illegal entry going to break into my house in the middle of the night? Perhaps, perhaps not.
But if today the border is ceded, then that's one bit of the rule of law that's no more. And respect for the concept of the rule of law is eroded that much more. And [i]that[/i] might metaphorically break into my house in the middle of the night some years down the line and that is what I would like to see prevented.
Check your facts
By Roslindaler
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 7:36pm
Crossing the border is not a crime. It’s a civil offense. Before you craft an entire ideological argument around something at least get your facts right. Native born Americans commit way more crimes than immigrants. Probably because they spend most of their time working, like three jobs. I think both of those things is what is really driving all this fear from the right. If your issue is immigrants “taking” native born jobs then get on your high horse about enforcing employment laws against employers who are the ones who actually “own” those jobs and can give them to whomever they feel like and hire illegal immigrants. Stop berating a bunch of poor people trying to make a better life for themselves and trying to justify taking children away from their parents. It’s barbaric. You have more in common with these people than you think at least economically.
Jesus, you're dense
By bgl
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 1:24am
Hoping/Crossing the boarder without inspection/etc is a misdemeanor. Overstaying a VISA (which is where much of the undocumented/"illegal" population comes from) is a civil offense, nor criminal.
Furthermore, as defined explicitly by 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum:
Anyone, irregardless of immigration status or how they entered the country may apply for asylum, which is what many are trying to do (and do completely legally).
Keep reading
By Roman
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 9:34am
Frivolous applications for asylum result in the applicant getting blacklisted.
"Refugee" is defined in 1101 (42) as persecution on the basis of religion, race, membership in a social group, or political opinion. "My neighbor who looks like me in every way is threatening to kill me" is awful but not grounds for asylum. Reciting magic words that the coyote give you, on the other hand, does look like a frivolous application.
And last of all, despite all that, no one is being prevented from applying.
Would you even knoiw?
By lbb
Mon, 07/02/2018 - 9:42am
Would you even know? They're just throwing these people into prison. They're not getting a hearing.
You have no sense of shame, Roman. You came to this country and now you want to slam the door on anyone else coming in. You have no decency and no sense of shame. You are wrong with this country and I'm sorry you got in.
Nothing to be ashamed of
By Roman
Mon, 07/02/2018 - 6:33pm
I've seen what's on the other side of the wall and I'm telling you that it needs to be there. You're welcome to live there for a few years so you can compare instead of just making grand pronouncements from your nice and safe and comfortable perch on the good side of the wall.
Oh really?
By lbb
Tue, 07/03/2018 - 7:49am
Even though there is no wall? Suuuuuure you have.
Toddlers whose families are applying for asylum?
You are a selfish and cruel person, the proverbial dog in the manger. Our country would be better off without immigrants like you.
Strawman, going straight to the devil
By Pete X
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:43pm
"The left" isn't calling for completely open borders! Maybe once you realize the fallacy in your framing, you'll see "the left's" solutions are reasonable. Treating asylum seekers humanely shouldn't be a big ask.
If you believe that...
By Stevil
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:56pm
You aren't standing in the right place to see or hear. I find it funny that my far-right relatives say the same thing about the left. I laugh at both of them. It's the only thing that keeps me from crying.
Again, unbelievable.
By Pete X
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:03pm
So you're saying I'm deaf and blind to what people are saying all around me? You can't give me evidence that the mainstream left is calling for open borders, because there is no one in a position of power on the mainstream left who is saying that. Why are you trying to tell me what my own frigging position is? Just stop, there's nothing to argue here. We already have the middle ground. Join us.
Gotta laugh
By dmcboston
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:10pm
" Just stop, there's nothing to argue here. We already have the middle ground. Join us."
Nope. Sorry. Just hibernate for thirty years or so. Or get some professional help.
Professional Help?
By Pete X
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:20pm
All you have as an argument are childish insults. As this is classic troll behavior, I'll remember to never take what you say seriously. Have a nice day.
Put up or shut up
By lbb
Mon, 07/02/2018 - 9:44am
If there is any truth to what you say, you will be able to provide quotations, with context. Do so. Put up or shut up.
""The left" isn't calling for completely open borders!"
By dmcboston
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:58pm
Meanwhile, in New York...
[img]https://i.imgur.com/62m7LIB.jpg[/img]
"...you'll see "the left's" solutions are reasonable."
Right. You're full of baloney.
Reasonable
By Pete X
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:50pm
"Abolish ICE" doesn't mean open borders. ICE doesn't even handle border enforcement.
"Abolish Profit" Means don't use for-profit prisons to house asylum seekers. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
You left out...
By dmcboston
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:07pm
"no borders''
Abolish profit...sure, it works OK...until it doesn't...
[img]https://i.imgur.com/nUme5Tz.jpg[/img]
Nice meme
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:56pm
Got any facts? Statistics? Historical analysis?
Of course not. Just a picture. And some VERY BIG WORDS IN ALL CAPS ON IT. Swell.
Go on Swirly
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 7:14pm
Put that MIT PhD to work and explain to us in short (preferably four-letter) words how Venezuela, and North Korea, and the Soviet Union, and Mao's China, and Castro's Cuba, and the Khmer Rouge regime, and East Germany, and the rest of them were really a worker's paradise that we country-fried rubes are just too dumb to understand.
For the country-fried rubes
By lbb
Mon, 07/02/2018 - 9:46am
Venezuela, and North Korea, and the Soviet Union, and Mao's China, and Castro's Cuba, and the Khmer Rouge regime, and East Germany really have fuckall to do with one another. Start with that simple lesson, and when you've digested that, we'll go on to more advanced topics. Until then, sit your ass down at the kiddie table, grownups are talking.
Yeah, nothing at all
By Roman
Mon, 07/02/2018 - 6:34pm
Pay no attention to the men behind the curtains all professing the same ideology and kinship with eachother. Putz.
"Putz" means "penis"
By lbb
Tue, 07/03/2018 - 7:51am
You're an idiot, Roman. Once again, you demonstrate it. Want to stop demonstrating it? Stop using words whose meaning you don't know.
Now please, break it down for us. Demonstrate how the individuals in your dumbass meme "all professing the same ideology and kinship with eachother[sic]". You made the claim, burden of proof's on you.
What?
By bgl
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 1:30am
You do realize that ICE didn't exist before 2003, right? Calling for it to be abolished doesn't mean open boarders - if anything its a pretty conservative thought to roll back the expanded federal powers brought on via ICE in the wake of 9/11 and return to a system that worked before without elevated powers that could impinge upon the Constitutional rights of Citizens. But, then again, like the Patriot Act and so many other ilks and power grabs, the "conservative" party has shown its true hypocritical self in pushing for bigger, stronger, and more consolidated Federal powers where it suites them that trample our Bill of Rights.
Steevil, which Democratic
By bibliotequetress
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:48pm
Steevil, which Democratic/left/liberal elected official wants "completely open borders?" I follow this pretty closely, and I cannot think of one.
I also can't think of *any* Democratic agency head, appointee, or SES fed in my lifetime who wants/wanted open borders. But maybe you know of one?
Read the signs
By Stevil
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:06pm
Probably most of the people that marched today. Or at least those that were carrying signs?
"Abolish ICE", Don't deport families, welcoming immigrants (the ones that sneak across the border? really?), and then they came for the immigrants - again the sneakers?, no human is illegal.
And those are just the signs in Adam's post.
Maybe not fully "open" but definitely - if you sneak over in the middle of the night you get to stay here?
Not just signs
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:13pm
Ayanna Presley...could be a Congresswoman.
Alexandria Casio-Cortes...will be a Congresswoman.
Kirsten Gillebrand...is a sitting United States Senator.
Jerry Brown...signed a sanctuary state law into effect in California.
That's a whole bunch of powerful government officials saying they don't want to enforce the border. Which while technically is not the same thing as outright calling for an abolition of the border is effectively the same thing. The rhetorical figleaf is there, but it's not much of one.
None of them are calling for "completely open borders."
By bibliotequetress
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:34pm
None of them are calling for "completely open borders.".
Not one person you named.
Yes, they are
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 7:11pm
If they are calling for abolishing or defunding the agency whose job is to enforce immigration laws, and they are calling for de facto open borders. Especially when they are against physical barriers being constructed, and when the people supporting them are changing "no borders no nations fuck your deportations."
There's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. Either the border is enforced and there are penalties for crossing it without authorization and law enforcement to enforce those penalties or there aren't.
Liberals love to gaslight this way. Open borders advocacy isn't advocating open borders. "You didn't build that" and "Let's spread the wealth around" don't mean what they mean. Bernie Sanders isn't on video praising Maduro's Venezuela and Castro's Cuba. Hillary Clinton's emails aren't important because they aren't important. Free college is a good idea because too many people wasted their money on worthless degrees so let's print money so more people can waste four years on a worthless degree.
Bull. Shit.
At some point you're either not thinking before you speak or you're knowingly not telling the truth.
Hillary's emails
By Will LaTulippe
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 11:32pm
They were important because she straight up ignored the best practices suggested to her by an IT professional. The email thing painted Hillary as somebody who was (and is) going to do as she pleases, maybe to the detriment of the American people.
So, of course, we ended up with a President who does do as he pleases, absolutely to the detriment of the American people. (Expletive) our electorate. This country deserves every bit of scorn and mockery it gets.
Big difference
By anon
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 4:36am
Big difference between calling for ICE to be abolish and reconstituted, and calling for border patrol to be abolished. You know they're not the same, right?
I can't find one report of a pol calling for open borders
By anon
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 5:40pm
Lets go Fox News Bingo!
By bgl
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 1:32am
You seem pretty triggered there, kid.
Roman, I had assumed that you
By bibliotequetress
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 10:12am
Roman, I had assumed that you are at least middle aged. Perhaps you are too young to remember this, & not much of a history fan, so let's break it down:
Perhaps you missed my response yesterday, but ICE is a fairly new agency. We haven't had open borders since the 1920s. Prior to 2002/03, US Customs & Border Patrol, and INS, had the majority of the responsibility for controlling borders: USCBP patrolled, INS questioned & processed immigrants at entry. Other agencies, like Treasury, also did some border work, although with specific charges, like addressing the import of counterfeit money from Canada during Prohibition.
ICE has only existed since 2002. For 79 years, the border was patrolled, but not by ICE. When Bush II pushed through the shotgun marriage that created DHS, ICE was created as a new department. Abolishing ICE does not, at all, mean that the borders are unpatrolled and unattended. Maybe you did not know that.
The borders were fully protected under Obama, on the north and the south, in airports, in harbors, everywhere. The borders were never open, and people could not merely cross at any location with impunity.
No president, since the establishment of border patrols, has advocated open borders.
I suspect that you do not understand what "open borders" means. I think you may be conflating it with immigration policy and enforcement. Strangely, the most de facto liberal immigration policy in modern US history-- the largest number of people entering the US with the least oversight-- was not under Obama, but occurred under Reagan. You probably are not aware that entering the US without the documents required by regulation is not a criminal offense, any more than filing for your Social Security retirement without submitting appropriate proof of a name change is; both are civil issues, but rectifiable. Reagan proposed very broad forgiveness of civil violations of immigration regulations, and signed in the diversity visa lottery program.
Obama strongly enforced deportation of immigrants with criminal violations of US law, including some very minor ones. He did not advocate enforcing deportation for only civil violations. If an unrectified civil violation rose to the level of fraud, though, the immigrant was deported.
It's a beautiful day, & a rare Sunday off, for me, so I'm not going to spend more time on this. Have a good weekend.
And let me break it down some more
By Roman
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 11:42am
You are quite right in that the president has exercised varying levels of discretion allowed the president over the past several decades.
You are way off base in
1. Claiming that the calls to revert back to CBP/INS/whatever are not advocacy of de facto open borders. This claim does not hold water when the signs and the chants that accompany "abolish ICE" are "No borders, no nations, fuck your deportations." That's catchy too, no?
2. The big one. Is it a good policy or a bad policy to exercise that discretion by removing all illegal aliens? I say it is on the grounds that a country with 12 million people and growing flouting the law is not on a trajectory that preserves the rule of law for future generations.
Enjoy the weekend.
Obviously
By John-W
Tue, 07/03/2018 - 10:09am
...some chants and signs in a crowd are an accurate and complete representation of the policy position of politicians, activists, academics, citizens, etc. who aren't actually at that rally - a policy position that you set up and scope out with the only reference being tweets and slogans. Make sure you get all that straw tucked in their sleeves. It'll burn that much better.
Those 11-12 million people who have flouted our immigration law are statistically far more law abiding than native born citizens. But I am sure they will be directly responsible for the trajectory of lawlessness in this country. Not Wall Street. Not Washington. The guy working three jobs and supporting his family - he's the criminal.
None of them are elected officials, Steevil
By bibliotequetress
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:56pm
Again, what elected officials are calling for "completely open borders?"
And, we didn't have open borders before ICE (and DHS) was established in 2002. We don't need ICE to have control over the borders.
Meanwhile.
We have elected officials, agency leaders,and appointees on the right who have not only not enforced the law inhumanely, but have sabotaged their underlings attempts to do so. I can name Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump, and Kirstjen Nielson off the top of my head.
Are there any Democratic senators or congresspeople calling for open borders? Any leftist senators or congresspeople? Heck, did any appointees under Obama call for open borders?
(edited for typo)
Did I say anything about that
By Stevil
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:46pm
Where do I mention "elected officials". But many/most of these people seem perfectly happy to open our doors to pretty much anyone - until of course they take their jobs.
Better question - what are people like Ayanna actually proposing to keep people from sneaking across and getting rid of people that do manage to sneak in? I can't tell from her website which is all peace love and kumbaya (I like her -but she is listed in the Guinness book of world records for ratio of words to saying anything actually meaningful).
Oh no, a whole army of strawmen.
By Pete X
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:56pm
There you go again. Just inferring that people want open borders without ANY evidence. Can't you see you're the one who's not being reasonable? I can assure you, pretty much everyone I know on "the left" wants reasonable borders with humane treatment for asylum seekers. That's a good starting point for common ground, right?
Only elected officials &
By bibliotequetress
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:04pm
Only elected officials & agency heads have the power to do anything about how the borders are managed, Stevil; that's why it's silly to point to people carrying a sign at a march & think the sky is falling.
Trump could change the border policy. Sessions could. Nielson could modify it and/or could have asked for more time before implementing "no tolerance."
One last note: I didn't see anyone marching today who had an "open borders" sign, so even if you're worried about the grass roots, you can calm your fears.
You have got to be joking
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 7:23pm
Obama decided that he was not going to enforce the border for millions of people (without any legal authority to do so) by using the rhetorical figleaf of prosecutorial discretion. That's an open border. How do I know? With a thought experiment: if the border were being enforced, a person who crossed it illegally would be subject to deportation while if the border were open a person who crossed it illegally would not be subject to deportation. Under Obama, a whole big group of people who crossed illegally were not subject to deportation, thus the border was open for them. Completely.
Jesus
By bgl
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 1:34am
Obama was probably the strictest president we have had in decades on the boarder as can be witnessed by the massive amount of deportations and stopped boarder crossing - the most of any president. He, however, generally did them humanely and without treating people like animals.
Do you ever get tired of your lies and propaganda that you have swallowed hook line and sinker?
I think what you're missing
By Ian D Osmond
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 1:07pm
I think what you're missing is, when one side is right, and one side is wrong, halfway in between is wrong.
"Separating kids from their parents and putting them in cages on bare floors is wrong" isn't a radical notion. That's the mainstream position.
Halfway between "normal" and "evil" is "less evil but still evil." There ISN'T a compromise when one side's position is already the moderate, normal, mainstream position, and the other side's is whackadoodle crazy.
Only a tiny minority of the people there were for completely open borders, The vast majority was for humane laws enforced humanely. You're asking for a compromise between what you think the compromise is, and what evil is. Somewhere in the middle between the reasonable position and the psychotic position is still wrong.
When someone has shoved the Overton Window so far over that authoritarian fascist xenophobic evil horrible people have fit into the window, going halfway into the window isn't an option any more. You are asking for "Can we just have Evil Lite?"
Look. The COMPROMISE was Hillary Clinton. That was the mainstream, basically corporate, establishment, not crazy compromise.
No she wasn't, not anymore than Trump
By Roman
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 4:59pm
The only, and I stress this again, the only two differences between the two of them was the kind of corruption they were going to engage in (but it was going to be corruption and of the same magnitude if a different direction) and the fact that Hillary had better propaganda by virtue of having cultivated uncritical media coverage the way Obama cultivated uncritical media coverage.
Obama cultivated uncritical media coverage?
By Brian Riccio
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 8:21pm
Maybe you missed Herr Trump screaming about his birth certificate and the crack team of still missing investigators he was sending to Hawaii to get the real dope?
You know, Mr Central Park Five himself? And tell me, how many times had the media in the bag for Obama even took two minutes of airtime to ask about any other President's birth certificate before the black guy won?
Bullshit. Actually, potentially dangerous bullshit.
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:01pm
The left has been referring to enforcement of laws it doesn't like as fascism or Nazism for the last seventy years. Especially when it can't win on the merits in a calm discussion.
And it's gotten to the point where, if I am to understand correctly, any stance other than a vehement defense of de facto open borders is now considered inhumane and immoral. Anyone who supports anything other than open borders is branded a literal Nazi. And if anyone says "hold on, let's talk this out" then they're branded as defenders of literal Nazis and not worth talking to.
That's just plain immoral to paint a target on people's backs like that for the sole reason that you don't agree/don't understand/choose not to understand their political opinions, which for the record, are literally not Nazism. Calling it literally Nazism is shouting fire in a theater. You shouldn't do that, for reasons I hope are still obvious.
Once again...
By Brian Riccio
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:10pm
Roman pops in with the rule of law crap when he's referring to an Administration whose Cabinet members also laugh at the law all day. Like Scott Pruitt. Or Ryan Zinke. Or Wilbur Ross. Or Stephen Menuchin.Or Betsy Devos, who has a pal that makes a nice living in the detention center business.
Another guy with a little who is too narrow minded to see that he's being used by those with a lot to hate those with nothing and citing the rule of law as interpreted again by people with no morals or respect for the law whatsoever.
Yup, it's the weed.
By dmcboston
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:21pm
"Roman pops in with the rule of law crap..."
You're a friggin idiot.
Nah
By boo_urns
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 5:48pm
He actually called Roman out over his virtue signaling over rule of law when it comes to immigration, whereas he turns a blind eye to all of the cabinet members Riccio listed. It was well done and a sound argument. It's just blatant hypocrisy on Riman's part. The worst part about it is he knows it, because that's what trolls do.
Sorry it triggered you.
The LOL is very strong in this one, grasshopper.
By dmcboston
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:03pm
" It was well done and a sound argument. It's just blatant hypocrisy on Riman's part. The worst part about it is he knows it, because that's what trolls do.
Sorry it triggered you."
Naw, I live for this bullshit from you clowns. He ain't a troll. You, on the other hand are nekulturny.
So, let's see what's up in the exciting world of 'Obama, I didn't do it':
http://abc3340.com/news/local/did-security-set-up-...
"Clinton had wrapped up a fundraiser and roundtable discussion in Phoenix and was set to fly out when sources say he delayed his take off to meet with privately with Lynch.
Fast forward two years and the release of the Office of the Inspector General report regarding various actions by the FBI and Department of Justice before the 2016 election.
Deep in the heart of the more than 500-page report, new testimony generates new questions and provides some answers.
Clinton and Lynch have maintained the meeting was not planned. However, the IG’s report may suggest otherwise. Or at least that not all parties were aware.
"On page 203 of the report, “The OPA (Office of Public Affairs) Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail to let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch.”"
Hmmmm
By boo_urns
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 5:27pm
Interesting use of nekelturny, comrade. If you think that Clinton meeting with Lynch was a-ok in my eyes, you'd Ben wrong, but that's not even relevant to the topic at hand. What a poor attempt, but not even close to a credible retort.
I'm not blind
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 6:30pm
I do, however, choose my battles. Trump's cabinet is crooked, but to me it doesn't look worse than Obama, W, or Clinton before him. I don't like any of it, but I'm not going to be of the opinion that a president has to be pure for me to agree with any of his policies.
In fact, to be exact about it, as a Republican I expect corruption out of government, which is why I advocate for less of it. The exception being the legitimate duties of a limited government, of which border enforcement is one. So I come to the end with the assertion that Trump's corruption (and Obama's, W's, Clinton's, etc) are a necessary evil. See the theme here?
Yeah I see a theme alright
By boo_urns
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 5:28pm
Obfuscate and argue in bad faith. Continually trolling. Thematic, indeed. "They're all corrupt" is a lazy, bullshit argument.
I'm not obfuscating
By Roman
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 6:49pm
In fact, I'm doing the exact opposite: I'm acknowledging your point but telling you why it is irrelevant. I am also telling you why the very things you're pointing to and screaming bloody murder about make me believe the things I believe. Your arrogance is your blindness.
What a putz...
By Brian Riccio
Sun, 07/01/2018 - 8:27pm
You try to equate the Obama Cabinet with the Trump coterie of thieves and moral reprobates?
Gee, last two guys to be Energy Secretary under Obama were both physicists, unlike the moron from Texas who had to be explained what the fucking Department did after not remembering what the name of it was when he planned for it's closing during the debates.
Good call,Roman. Well done.
You know what I love?
By Brian Riccio
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 7:28pm
How much I get under your skin.
Second Lieutenant Obvious is at his duty station
By Roman
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 7:54pm
Riccio, it's blazing evident to everyone that getting under people's skin is the only thing that ever got you off in your entire life.
Oh, I don't know
By Michael
Sat, 06/30/2018 - 4:20pm
Try not defending throwing children in camps in the desert because their parents committed a misdemeanor, and I think you'll find accusations of Nazism go down probably 85-90%
Pages
Add comment