Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[PhaelixWW]

donald and republicans are focused on the serious issues

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...-polls-2064949

he needs to know why his polls are so low so he's going to have that investigated

Answer:

he fucking sucks and people hate him

The judges will accept this answer as well.

[Draco-Onis]

Answer:


The judges will accept this answer as well.

The DOJ is his own personal attack dog, he will try to drown these news outlets and pollsters in legal fees and prying investigations.

[PhaelixWW]

The DOJ is his own personal attack dog, he will try to drown these news outlets and pollsters in legal fees and prying investigations.

I mean... too late? The polls just announce opinion that's already shifted.

Whatever degree those polls might engender even more discontent where none existed before would likely be matched by news about the DoJ going after pollsters over it.

[Draco-Onis]

I mean... too late? The polls just announce opinion that's already shifted.

Whatever degree those polls might engender even more discontent where none existed before would likely be matched by news about the DoJ going after pollsters over it.

The point isn't to stop these polls but future ones because even Trump realizes that his numbers will get worse when shelves get empty, recession hits and mass layoffs run amok. We are a month or two out from the Tsunami of bad news from the tariffs even if he reverses course now it's too late.

[Xath]

I mean... too late? The polls just announce opinion that's already shifted.

Whatever degree those polls might engender even more discontent where none existed before would likely be matched by news about the DoJ going after pollsters over it.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984

[PhaelixWW]

The point isn't to stop these polls but future ones because even Trump realizes that his numbers will get worse when shelves get empty, recession hits and mass layoffs run amok. We are a month or two out from the Tsunami of bad news from the tariffs even if he reverses course now it's too late.

No, the point is that the polls are not driving the discontent, so stopping future ones will do nothing. Except maybe stop making Trump look his failure in the face. So he may try to do it, sure, but... too late.

- - - Updated - - -

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984

If people can ignore that they're being hurt economically by Trump's actions, then the polls are going to do nothing for them anyway.

[tehdang]

did the administration make any attempt to place the child with family?

i mean, i love how we're treating the administration as acting in good faith what with all the other "accidental" wrongful deportations and arrests and detainments of lawful us citizens and folks with valid residency or literal just tourists and shit

I mean other than asking the mother with legal custody whether she wanted the child placed with other relatives.

The presumption standard you call for is actually not the one you've been operating under. It's something like "presume the worst." It takes no presumption of good faith to question the evidence, the record, what the lawyer said or didn't say.

As the judge very clearly pointed out, we do not know that she stated her intent to have her minor child be with her. We know that ICE claims she did, but nobody was actually allowed to talk to her to confirm that. You also seem to be ignoring that the father of the 2 year old stated his intent to have his minor child be with him.

We don't know the basics of the father. Why he didn't have legal custody, if he was also in the country illegally, if he's wanted for anything else. Sorry, but news articles parroting what the lawyer says to the media or judges is insufficient.

And just gonna say that the mother's wish to have a 2 year old stay with her cannot be automatically discarded.

[Draco-Onis]

No, the point is that the polls are not driving the discontent, so stopping future ones will do nothing. Except maybe stop making Trump look his failure in the face. So he may try to do it, sure, but... too late.

- - - Updated - - -


If people can ignore that they're being hurt economically by Trump's actions, then the polls are going to do nothing for them anyway.

But this is Trump's philosophy

Bird flu raging throughout the nation erase the data and reporting

Measles outbreak getting worse erase the data and reporting

They've scrubbed everything that could make Trump look bad from every government site, they just want to do the same for the press. I think you are right but this is the Peekaboo president if he doesn't see it then it doesn't exist.

[Edge-]

I mean other than asking the mother with legal custody whether she wanted the child placed with other relatives.

Did they? I don't take their word for it, so I don't know.

The presumption standard you call for is actually not the one you've been operating under. It's something like "presume the worst." It takes no presumption of good faith to question the evidence, the record, what the lawyer said or didn't say.

I operate based on the past history of these people and this president. That includes remembering their extensive dishonesty and frequent glee with which they discuss being cruel towards others.

Just like their currently ignoring a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling they lost, which apparently Donald only learned he lost very recently because nobody apparently told him.

We don't know the basics of the father. Why he didn't have legal custody, if he was also in the country illegally

Quick reminder: Being in the country without documentation is not a criminal offense.

if he's wanted for anything else.

Or, what if he doesn't know? Not every is reading the news and he could be unaware.

Sorry, but news articles parroting what the lawyer says to the media or judges is insufficient.

Then the word of this administration should be equally as insufficient, yet you repeat it uncritically time and time again.

Curious, innit?

[NED funded]

Still very much reliant on "according to a lawyer."

The default should be that a mother of a 2 year old would of course want to be together with her young child. The rest of the factual record is not stated. The basic "what we know now" was that she stated her intent to have her minor children be with her, and was deported.

Untested claims otherwise by a lawyer aren't dispositive.

All kind of hearsay potential bullshit. Is he also subject to a due-process removal order? I gather what's unsaid is that the parents weren't together and weren't married, based on what was said about "legal custody." This is to say, if it turns out the mother had legal custody of her children, and wanted to be with them (very natural), it's not likely that a non-custodial parent could force her to part with her minor children.

Of course, if the situation were reversed, we would be talking about the malicious act of separating a mother from her children, just because the mother was in the country illegally. So, yeah, let's see further developments on why that father didn't have legal custody of his children, and all the things that a lawyer wouldn't bring up to sympathetic news outlets. The entire course of the last two months should establish that news outlets are acting as mouthpieces for immigrant lawyers.

I'll also add that child US citizens are still eligible to return, the provisions of a valid US port of entry and guardianship notwithstanding.

I mean the factual statements as is that ICE deported this child without even having the mother go in front of a court and state that she wants to take the child with her. Which is the major issue. You have seen the note in my post right? ICE literally had her write in a hotel notebook. This is despite the judge, the lawyers, the father of the child going through the process of having her stay in the country. The judge literally requested that ICE bring her to the court so she can say that she wants to take the child. Its a custody issue, an issue that ICE resolved by deporting an american child of 2 years old.

Like even if you dont have the lawyers statements, we have the statements of the judge and the note. The judge is literally going to open a case bc they suspect ICE skipped due process in deporting a US citizen

[Breccia]

(continues to avoid question about Trump wanting criminal investigation into negative polls)

Translation: I admit I am a traitor to my own country, and I admit it with pride.

[tehdang]

I mean the factual statements as is that ICE deported this child

What is all this gibberish? ICE deported his mother, and asked the mother if she wanted to take her child and leave it with the relatives. Seeing as how she had legal custody, it was her choice.

ICE literally had her write in a hotel notebook. This is despite the judge, the lawyers, the father of the child going through the process of having her stay in the country.

Her child is naturally welcome to return if something's been worked out with the consent of the mother. But ultimately it's her choice. And I'm seeing a lot of pure speculation that it wasn't her choice. Which is why it's nice to have her sign a document of her intentions.

Her child is a citizen. If there's green card holders or citizens that want to raise her, and it's ok with mom, that is still process. Lawful port of entry for a citizen.

The judge literally requested

If you read my post, you'll know that I'm not relying on what a judge requests. It's legal custody and her intention to take her child. Which is totally understandable given that the child is 2. Now, if you want shoot pure speculation on alternative facts into the wind, just acknowledge that.

deporting a US citizen

Pablum. A 2 year old in the care of her mother was not deported. The mother was. She has every right to take the child with her and i suspect we would be hearing about a marriage and shared custody if that was the case.

Did they? I don't take their word for it, so I don't know.

That's the whole post. Argument from ignorance. When there's contrary claims, I'm not going to dismiss a mother's signed statement or some lawyer's statement to a judge or media. Even if you are prejudiced against one or the other.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...es-lawyers-say

In a Thursday court filing, lawyers for the father said ICE indicated that it was holding the 2-year-old girl in a bid to induce the father to turn himself in. His lawyers didn’t describe his immigration status, but said he has legally delegated the custody of his daughters to his sister-in-law, a U.S. citizen who also lives in Baton Rouge.

More a Ned funded thing, but the "induce the father to turn himself in" told me instantly that there's more to this story than the lawyer or the father are telling. If this is the case that mom and dad aren't talking/together/shared custody, then maybe she never was cool being separated from her 2 year old daughter. A lot rides on the thought that she went through due process, received a removal order, but failed to communicate who should raise her daughter (the daughter raised apart from her being her wish in that case).

Once you have that removal order, if you're the parent of a citizen, decide whether to keep the family intact, or leave them with people you can name to ICE when they effect the lawful removal order.

[Breccia]

Her child is naturally welcome to return

Translation: It's okay that we act in unConstitutional illegal ways that violate human rights. The two-year-old child can always come back for seconds.

[Edge-]

More a Ned funded thing, but the "induce the father to turn himself in" told me instantly that there's more to this story than the lawyer or the father are telling.

wait, i missed that bit in particular.

you're saying (well, NPR/the lawyer) that ICE is holding the girl to try to get the father to turn himself in?

that sounds like...i dunno...kidnapping?

if i'm reading correctly?

because it seems that the girl should be with the sister-in-law who appears like she would have legal custody and not with ICE?

if i'm reading correctly, feel free to correct if i'm not.

[Veggie50]

wait, i missed that bit in particular.

you're saying (well, NPR/the lawyer) that ICE is holding the girl to try to get the father to turn himself in?

that sounds like...i dunno...kidnapping?

if i'm reading correctly?

because it seems that the girl should be with the sister-in-law who appears like she would have legal custody and not with ICE?

if i'm reading correctly, feel free to correct if i'm not.

Nooo you got it allllll wrong, that’s not kidnapping!

…it’s a hostage situation, sure… but not kidnapping. The Trump administration is very particular about committing domestic terrorism against their citizens.

[draynay]

I'll remind you:

And consider that conservatives also get off on not doing anything, which they can fairly well accomplish if they hold any one of the three, whereas Democrats need all three to generally get anything meaningful done.

They [republicans] don’t do much regardless of who is in office [of the presidency].

I can see how my post could have been unclear.

[PhaelixWW]

They [republicans] don’t do much regardless of who is in office [of the presidency].

I can see how my post could have been unclear.

Ah, yes, I definitely misunderstood.

Mea culpa.

[tehdang]

wait, i missed that bit in particular.

you're saying (well, NPR/the lawyer) that ICE is holding the girl to try to get the father to turn himself in?

that sounds like...i dunno...kidnapping?

if i'm reading correctly?

because it seems that the girl should be with the sister-in-law who appears like she would have legal custody and not with ICE?

if i'm reading correctly, feel free to correct if i'm not.

A two-year-old, being a minor, is in the care of their parent, parents, guardian, whatever.

The hope, I think, for the anti-ICE side is that the mother wanted to leave her 2-year-old in the states, but some coercion or rushing happened when she declared to ICE that she would be taking her daughter with her.

Now, if I'm reading correctly, it sounds like you want to separate mother and daughter against the mother's wishes. I'm a little less happy doing that than you, with all we know now, but it's not like I can force you to change your mind.

[Doomcookie]

A two-year-old, being a minor, is in the care of their parent, parents, guardian, whatever.

The hope, I think, for the anti-ICE side is that the mother wanted to leave her 2-year-old in the states, but some coercion or rushing happened when she declared to ICE that she would be taking her daughter with her.

Now, if I'm reading correctly, it sounds like you want to separate mother and daughter against the mother's wishes. I'm a little less happy doing that than you, with all we know now, but it's not like I can force you to change your mind.

Why not just let them stay?

Or, do you simply hate minorities as much as you clearly despise women?

[NED funded]

What is all this gibberish? ICE deported his mother, and asked the mother if she wanted to take her child and leave it with the relatives. Seeing as how she had legal custody, it was her choice.

Her child is naturally welcome to return if something's been worked out with the consent of the mother. But ultimately it's her choice. And I'm seeing a lot of pure speculation that it wasn't her choice. Which is why it's nice to have her sign a document of her intentions.

Her child is a citizen. If there's green card holders or citizens that want to raise her, and it's ok with mom, that is still process. Lawful port of entry for a citizen.

If you read my post, you'll know that I'm not relying on what a judge requests. It's legal custody and her intention to take her child. Which is totally understandable given that the child is 2. Now, if you want shoot pure speculation on alternative facts into the wind, just acknowledge that.

Pablum. A 2 year old in the care of her mother was not deported. The mother was. She has every right to take the child with her and i suspect we would be hearing about a marriage and shared custody if that was the case.

I mean what the judge requests matters. Bc again, we dont really know if that is what the mother said. I have to insist that all the evidence that we have that this is what she wanted is that according to ICE, so we are already relying on their version of the facts, she wrote in a note that she wanted to have her child with her. And that note is a written piece of paper and we dont know the context in which she wrote that. Not to mention that the child was detained with her. Something that should not have happened you cant detain US citizens without cause!

And I agree the whole separation of children is a messy issue that is why the judge wanted to confirm some stuff. But instead of going through that process, ICE simply decided to deport a US citizen (she was deported alongside her mother) after unlawfully detaining her.

Lets put a pin on this however. There is a hearing on MAY 16 and there we can see the truth. I dont trust ICE given their extensive track record of "administrative mistakes". Who knows this might be one of those mistakes