Just because these stories need to be heard... from a Latino family/friend's Facebook page:
"Last night I had to comfort my youngest who has heard enough about
recent events to be terrified that someone may target his father for
being Latino.....he no longer wants his father to [go to work] for
fear that he will be attacked or arrested. He kept asking me what we
will do if his papa doesn't come home one night........and I don't know
what to say. I don't know what we will do. I don't want to think about
it, and yet, we have to.
Many members of our own family voted
for, and still openly defend and support, Trump. My son does not feel
safe. He stays awake worrying, crying, begging for all of this to stop.
I am at a loss for how to protect my children when even those who love
us cannot see how much hatred is being stoked by the president they
voted for, and continue to defend him.
I am not calling out
people by names, and my anxiety runs high even as I write this. But if
you love us, if you love my children and husband, then now is the time
to help us feel loved, safe, and supported. Because even if you do not
mean for your politics to be personal or include us, it IS very personal
when it means that my kids do not know who they can trust, and that
they might be hurt for being Latino, or. even for not fitting the
traditional "male" stereotype with their long hair and preferences for
artsy or sparkly things.
I am not interested in fighting.....I
just want folks to know where we stand, how we feel, and how my heart
breaks with this reality. If you need to unfollow me or unfriend me,
feel free."
And for those who worry about shit like this, this is a "documented" family. This is how team Trump is making regular citizens of these United States feel, how they're terrorizing children and families. Shit like that's got to make you feel like a Big Man, right?
78 comments:
At the risk of starting another expletive filled rant, it seems like some additional information might be helpful.
1. How old is the child?
2. Is there an actual threat or a perceived threat?
3. Are the family believers?
4. Can this child or the parents point to any specific statements or acts that lead them to believe they are in danger?
I ask these not to provoke, but because these factors (among others) would have a bearing on how I would talk to this family.
I'd also wonder how helpful this kind of thing is in contributing to the larger conversation. I'm not sure that picking one anecdotal story and trying to extrapolate big picture solutions is the best way to move the conversation forward in a constructive manner. I really see no value in simply offering competing anecdotes regarding how people feel. In my daily safety talk, I talk about the importance of feeling safe as opposed to being safe. Clearly it's more important to actually be safe, but if people don't feel safe it affects how they do things. Both of those conditions are valid, but the solutions are different.
I would counsel this woman to explain to her child that he should not listen to leftist/Democratic descriptions of Trump's positions and character on the matter. I would suggest she have some of their friends and neighbors reassure the kid that his father is under no more risk because of Trump than before Trump was elected. You know...tell the kid the truth.
First, this:
I ask these not to provoke, but because these factors (among others) would have a bearing on how I would talk to this family.
Not to provoke, but I would just point out that the family was not asking for a talk, just letting folk know the fear that their family lives in. They were looking for comfort and to let people know. Thus, I comforted and let other people know, to meet their needs for what they want, rather than offer unwanted advice (not that you're suggesting offering unasked for/unwanted advice)
Secondly, I don't want to do anything to out this family in any way so I'm speaking in generalities, but the generalities represent stories I've heard first and second hand.
To your questions, then:
1. This is a grade school child (one of many, many we are hearing about who are living in fear or just plain not coming to school because of fear of ICE)
2. Both.
There are actual people being picked up for being Latino. They are sometimes detained for not being able to prove that they are "legally" here... which is not to say that they are undocumented, just that they are detained without warrants, without arrest, due to suspicion that they may be "undocumented." Thus, the fear is from an actual threat. And from a perceived threat. Both.
We've heard this directly from lawyers working on these cases. There are people who are basically being kidnapped off the streets, away from their families, sometimes with no way to let their families know what's going on (since ICE is not arresting them, they are not under any compulsion to give them their rights), and then it appears that they are moved from place to place, apparently to keep them well-"disappeared."
Again, this is what we are hearing from lawyers working these cases and from Latinos living this life. It's an actual fear based on actual real world threats.
3. In this case (and in many cases, since Latinos are often believers), yes, not that I see what that has to do with anything.
4. The news. Their daily lives. What they hear from their friends and in school.
We work with lawyers and are aware of others doing the same who are busy helping Latinos (documented and not) prepare Power of Attorney documents, wills and other legal documents so that, in case they are "disappeared" or detained, their children have legal options for receiving care.
How helpful is it to tell stories of what's happening in the real world? Very helpful, from everything I read.
For one thing, it documents the legitimate fears that many people have, telling them they're not alone nor are they forgotten and that they have allies. For another thing, I think the more stories are known about people and their lives, the more difficult it is to oppress them or otherwise cause harm.
This has worked amazingly well in the realm of protection of rights for the LGBTQ community. Conservatives lost that battle thanks in large part to gay folk telling their stories, bravely coming out and saying, "We're not the monsters you all think we are, we are just Us." It's a great tool for fighting for rights, community organizers will tell us, as will research.
And you are correct, if people don't feel safe, there are serious, real world consequences.
~Dan
Clearly I had no intention of trying to intervene in a situation with l no direct knowledge. My point in asking what I did is that the response/support would be different based on the specific situation.
"It's illegal for U.S. immigration authorities to hold Americans in detention.
However, an NPR analysis of data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request shows that hundreds of American citizens each year find themselves in a situation similar to Palma's. Those data show that from 2007 through July of last year, 693 U.S. citizens 1 were held in local jails on federal detainers — in other words, at the request of immigration officials."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say-you-re-an-american-but-what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
"For instance, last week's ICE arrests included "collateral damage," or people who were picked up despite not being targeted in the operations — because, for example, they were in the same place as a person who was targeted, and did not have documentation."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/13/515032423/75-percent-of-immigration-raid-arrests-were-for-criminal-convictions-dhs-says
As noted in a previous post, somewhere around half of the immigrants here and "undocumented," have literally not committed a crime. They came here with "legal" visas and overextended, which is literally not a crime. It's a civil mistake, like a parking ticket.
The other half committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border in an inappropriate fashion, but are not "illegal immigrants," as such a thing does not exist. We don't go out and seek out and stop/detain any other group of people for "misdemeanors," but these folk, we are, and we're separating families and behaving in a dick-ish manner towards them. Thus, they are increasingly living in fear even here, in the land of the free... in the land of "give us your poor, your tired huddled masses..."
It's a shame and I think the more these stories are told, the more people will recognize how immoral and irrational it is to target these people (almost certainly in an unconstitutional manner at times) for thuggish retribution for their parking ticket or misdemeanor.
Please pass it on. Let the people decide.
Indeed, according to polls, most of us ARE united in our opposition to "rounding up" and deporting the undocumented immigrants.
74% of US voters think that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay (given meeting some requirements) and NOT be deported.
Even amongst the most dickish group of Trump supporters (according to this poll) 42% of them don't favor deporting immigrants!
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/25/5-facts-about-trump-supporters-views-of-immigration/
Let the people be heard!
~Dan
I almost thought a reasonable conversation might be happening, but you had to...
Equate the US INS with Salvadoran death squads.
Intimate that people are being snatched off the streets without due process.
Take a shot at conservatives.
Trying to bring in LGBTQwgateverthehellesleistheextraletterdujour.
But perceived safety is important, but if the perception is unfounded then the remedy is to tell the Truth about the situation.
Actually, telling the Truth seems like a good plan in most circumstances.
Sorry, one last point of agreement.
We've found that telling stories of actual people's situations or giving them the forum to tell their own stories. After decades of working with thousands of immigrants and lower income non immigrant families, we've also found the value of sticking to the factual narrative and minimizing the desire to embellish or otherwise try to create a more sympathetic narrative. In my experience with hundreds of immigrant families I've found the reality is usually much more compelling and doesn't usually need much enhancement.
Real people, telling real stories, is real effective.
Let the people be heard, indeed. By all means let's see some attempt at a bipartisan immigration bill in congress. But I'm not sure making decisions about laws by polling is the best option.
Equate the US INS with Salvadoran death squads.
I'm sorry, but that is a real story. Do you want people's real stories to be told, or do you want to clean it up and create a "nicer ICE" story? "Disappeared" is the word that the immigrants I'm hearing from and about are using.
I am not suggesting that ICE is killing people (you can tell by the way I never said that). In fact, I don't think it's at all to the awful degree of what happened in Salvador (with US support, by the way). It's not similar in the numbers (I'm pretty sure, although those numbers are not disclosed) nor in any killing or physical abuse (I'm pretty sure, although those details are also not disclosed.
The point is, some immigrants just go missing after being picked up by ICE, according to the data I've heard from families left behind. We don't know what happens to them because of the secrecy/lack of transparency.
Perhaps that is another area where we can find agreement: There should be no such secrecy in how we are treating immigrants who are here and picked up by ICE, yes? Indeed, that is part of what causes immigrant children to lose sleep/live in fear.
As to letting immigrants tell their stories, that is literally just what I did. Her words, her reality. No embellishment. It is plenty sympathetic as it is.
Are you suggesting that this real person is not telling the truth? Embellishing? Or just agreeing that yes, we should be telling these stories?
Take a shot at conservatives.
Who's taking a shot? I pointed out that conservatives have lost the argument over LGBTQ rights, by and large. How is that a shot?
Again, real story. Real fact.
~Dan
I'm all for following the due process of law. Like it or not "disappeared" is a loaded word to use given the association with historical events.
Yes, bringing in your opinion of whether of not conservatives have "lost" anything is taking a shot at conservatives. To claim that one side or another has "won" on something that is an ongoing discussion is both hubris and unrelated to your point.
But, I know how hard it is to leave the lgbtqwhaterverthehellotherintialistheinitialdujour out of discussions. But perhaps it's not the most effective choice.
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm wondering if you as you "speak in generalities" representing "stories you've heard second and third hand", you might have succumbed to the temptation to embellish or craft the language you used to perhaps generate more sympathy in your readers.
I'm simply saying that in my experience with hundreds of immigrants over the past decade, that the strictly factual stories are usually the most effective.
I can't believe you'd disagree.
Pointing out that the Confederacy lost the civil war or that they fought to defend slavery is NOT taking a shot at the South, it is an accurate statement of reality. Saying that the conservatives have lost their battle against affirming rights for the LGBTQ community (or, as they'd put it - taking an actual shot at liberals - "the battle against liberals for family values") is likewise an accurate statement of reality.
And it's not an on-going discussion. I mean, sure, conservative Christians and Muslims are no doubt still debating against it, but societally, that page has turned. Gay folk are not losing their rights they fought for and gained, just as women and black folk are not losing their rights.
Are you suggesting that society would abide a rolling back of rights for gay folk? Maybe moving back to criminalizing "sodomy..." (when the "sodomy" is gay, not when its straight...)? It ain't happening. If nothing else, the young folk wouldn't stand for it. You've lost the generation or two, it's over. When those over 40 die out, there will be only a small remnant who still rant about "the gays," (or, as you mock it, the lgbtqwhateverthehell...), just as there are only a relatively tiny remnant of conservatives who rant against "miscegenation."
How is it not anything but an accurate portrayal of reality? But that is a digression. Just making an apt analogy using facts and stuff. Don't need to chase that one or answer that question.
To the "disappeared," it is the word that many Latinos use in telling their stories. They often DO disappear and we don't know what happens to them. Do you prefer "kidnapped..."?
I don't see how this is legal, in either situation and hope that the more stories of what's happening out there people here, the even greater the support against deportation will be.
~Dan
I'm simply saying that in my experience with hundreds of immigrants over the past decade, that the strictly factual stories are usually the most effective.
I can't believe you'd disagree.
Craig, if you will point to ONE non-factual point I made in citing the literal words of an immigrant's family, I will gladly apologize. I'm citing the factual story.
Are you suggesting she's making up the fear in her child's heart?
Are you suggesting that the lawyers and families we've heard from are making up the reality that people have "disappeared" from their lives? That they're using that word?
I'm not disagreeing about factual stories. You just made that shit up. Ironically.
Yes, please, Craig, stick to the facts.
~Dan
I'm suggesting that your own words which I quoted, make it pretty clear that you are "speaking in generalities" and repeating "second and third hand" stories. I fail to see how "generalities" and "second and third hand stories" get you to any "literal words". Perhaps you should choose one or the other and clear up your self contradicting statements before you get so worked up.
As to your hubris, if you want to believe that we've seen the final outcome on these issues, feel free. Maybe you should try to force people to accept your beliefs on more things.
Conservatives lost the battle of truth, as the sexually immoral won the day without a shred of it. But the culture war rages on. Just clarifying the issue a bit. Carry on.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politics/ice-immigrants-should-be-afraid-homan/index.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gage-cohen/ice-director-we-do-not-conduct-sweeps-or-raids
http://americanlookout.com/harsh-truth-acting-ice-director-explains-why-its-not-ok-to-be-in-the-u-s-illegally-video/
As to legal immigrants being detained and/or deported, it seems that having documentation at the ready might be a good idea. If one looks to be "foreign", and maybe even speaks with an accent due to the neighborhood in which that person was raised, having documentation close at hand might be a good idea also. If someone is presumed to be in the country without authorization, ICE can't be blamed for doing their job. Those who pity the poor immigrant might want to educate him on protecting himself in the event of such an honest mistake. Then, the "fear" might be mitigated to some extent. A state ID might also be a good idea, if for no other reason than to provide more information that can be checked by officials looking to do the job right.
Also, and I don't expect Dan to be astute or street smart enough to know...some people simply lie. Of course, to Dan that would mean only the GOP, but actually others lie as well. As such, anecdotal stories hold no water.
It seems like the issue is due process. People can get arrested or detained for multiple reasons, not all of which include having committed a crime. Where the problem lies, if there is one, is in denial of access to the process designed to sort things out and allow for redress. It appears that Dan is focused on one step in a larger process. It's possible that if one takes a broader look, that the overall system is working more appropriately than if one looks at a narrow slice.
I would agree that in any case where one is in a country where one is not a citizen, that it would be prudent to have appropriate documentation available when it's needed.
And what if one only LOOKS like a non-citizen or talks with an accent? Should they live in such fear that they take their IDs, birth certificates, passports around with them?
What if they pulled you over today and didn't accept your word that you were an American citizen? Should they be allowed to detain based upon a suspicion that maybe you aren't one?
Hell no.
Now, of course, that won't happen to people like you and me. We're white. But other people live with this fear now and, while it may be a long-shot that it'd happen to them, it's a real fear, nonetheless, because it's really happened.
~Dan
I guess that whole due process concept might be foreign to you. Or you just didn't quite read what I said.
Personally, to me, it seems prudent to keep ones identification with one. Failure to provide valid ID has always been a reason for detention, as part of a larger process. There are limits to what can be done in terms of time one can be detained and access to legal counsel etc. So far you haven't actually demonstrated that anything being done violates any existing law, nor that due process isn't being followed.
I know it's easy to throw out words like "detained" and make it sound like being sent to a gulag or something, but I've been in a detention cell, it wasn't that big of a deal.
Maybe you should "Storm the Bastille" and free the vast numbers of the unjustly detained if your so "fucking" "pissed as hell" about it.
Really. And if the lawyer of one of these people affirms the story of the client, must we just accept the word of the lawyer who is paid to defend the client? Are we to just accept that no lawyer defending one accused of unauthorized existence in the country is giving an honest representation of the facts, as opposed to coloring them to his client's advantage?
I doubt too many legal immigrants, or even citizens who speak with an accent due to the neighborhood in which they were raised, spend much time worrying about being wrongly detained. There's paranoia and there's guilty consciences. Then there are those who take steps to mitigate possibilities because they're smart enough to face the realities of the day. That anyone should "fear" is not a consequence of those tasked with enforcing the law. It is a consequence of the fact that so many have, and continue to, break the law. This, too, does not make the law immoral.
And btw, if any of us white guys are stopped by a cop and cannot produce ID, I guarantee that we will be detained. Oh. The. Horror!
These lawyers, by and large, are volunteering the services. Do you know why? A dedication to liberty and human rights and the Constitution and fears that we are rejecting basic human values.
Why would they make up details? And beyond that, I'm hearing the same stories first and second hand from people whom I know and trust, about people they know and trust.
My point remains: We should NOT criminalize the mere moving from one space to another space for the sake of safety or improving one's life/not starving/keeping one's family from starving.
For those who choose to make a "crime" out of such behavior, there are consequences. One of those consequences are that children fear for their families and can't sleep at night and miss school/drop out of school.
My point is: Shame on those cowards who criminalize such behavior. Shame on those who say, "You SHOULD feel guilty for trying to take care of your family, for trying to escape those who'd cause harm or oppression."
Thanks for your thoughts, however awful they may be. Unless you have something constructive to say on the topic of finding positive solutions that don't involve terrorizing children, move on. You've had your say, just move on.
~Dan
And besides skirting the law, what are your "positive" solutions. Be specific and detailed if you please.
1. Decriminalize immigration. It's an irrational and immoral policy. We ought not have or endorse irrational and immoral policies.
2. Offer paths to citizenship more easily. When immigrants are no longer forced to hide in the shadows, then they can more easily go to school, pay taxes, be productive citizens (which they mostly are currently, but it makes it easier).
This is what most citizens want, let the people be heard.
3. Be smarter about and more generous with foreign aid - whether that comes from the federal gov't or private enterprise. If people are more secure and making a decent living in their own nations, they would have very little impetus to come here.
Here, too, studies suggest this is what most citizens want (actually, in surveys, they tend to say they want to "cut" foreign aid, but they want to cut it back to less than 10% (we actually give less than 1%)...
"Americans believe the federal government devotes 15 to 20 percent of the country's expenditures to aid. The actual figure is far less than 1 percent..."
http://foreignpolicy.com/2005/03/01/think-again-u-s-foreign-aid/
Additionally, those who think that those with the most have an obligation to give the most would indicate that the US should be more generous. While we are the wealthiest nation, we give much less in foreign aid as a percentage of our income than other nations (I think we come in about 16th place, in terms of generosity).
https://www.brookings.edu/research/american-public-support-for-foreign-aid-in-the-age-of-trump/
4. End the drug war. It's an irrational and immoral policy that contributes to immigration problems.
Also, it's what the people want. Let the people be heard...
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2014/04/new-pew-poll-confirms-americans-ready-end-war-drugs
For starters.
~Dan
By all means, let's make laws by following polls and move towards an unfettered democracy, that sounds like an awesome plan.
Of course it seems irrational and immoral to not include in a list of specifics any means to block immigration to those who might not be brings value to the nation. Why not have the US taxpayers subsidize the cost to move those who can't afford it and cover the living expenses for a few years. Given the incredibly responsible spending and balanced budget we have this should be no problem at all.
It's also good to know, according to Dan's standards the entire world is now "irrational and immoral".
I do think it's a great idea to increase both the annual deficit as well as the long term national debt to increase foreign aid, that sounds like a great idea.
Not suggesting that we should do a strict democracy, rather than a Republic. But, I am pointing out that the people doing the leading are not heeding the wishes of the people they represent and that is something worth considering?
Perhaps you think the leaders should just ignore the will of the people? (that line of attack can go both ways...)
~Dan
---The United States already takes in more immigrants every year than any other country (those who came via legal means) and also takes in more refugees. How much more generous do leftists, who seek to make their fellow man spend the money, expect us to be? What is the limit or acceptable amount that will satisfy the leftists who expect others to pay for it? With this in mind, how much easier must the current path to citizenship be in order to satisfy the left? It seems clear that a totally open borders policy is the goal, as no other policy can help but prevent someone from entering who may also be in need.
---Today's paper reports that the Finnish police are calling a fatal knife attack by an 18-year old Moroccan asylum-seeker an act of terror. Clearly this is fake news because as Dan has told us, immigrants and refugees just don't do such things.
---Dan likes to rely on polls, as if less than two thousand people are a good representation of the attitudes of a nation of over 300 million. His drug survey was around 1800 people polled. It is also notable that the smallest group politically was Republican. But then, to the left, numbers determine morality.
---Foreign aid is more problematic, as it is difficult to insure that aid actually goes to those who need it. This is true even with dealing with charitable groups. The percentage of monies donated often skew toward administrative costs, including large salaries for those who run the organizations. Too often in foreign countries, the money gets commandeered by the despots running the place and the poor and oppressed never see any. What's more, foreign aid does nothing to alter the situations in countries where aid is sent.
---There is too much leftist marketing with regards to the issue of immigration to trust any poll. Just as with LGBT activism, lies and omissions of facts skew public perception.
---The "drug war" is neither irrational nor immoral. Dependence on drugs is. Legalizing drugs will not alter that reality, nor lower dependence. Nor will moral relativism. Worse, however, is that the legalization of drugs won't take into consideration who will foot the bill for drugs related consequences of legalization. If Dan wishes to move toward a completely free market health care system, where everybody pays for their own bad choices, then we can talk about legalizing harmful substances. Until then, the war should rage on and those who whine about incarceration should probably stop using.
In case you slept through history in grade school, the point of a representative republic isn't to follow every whim expressed in an opinion poll. If one accepts your line of thought, then the confederate monuments should stay up.
The way it works is that if those people want things to change they vote for representatives who will enact the changes they want. This notion of government by polling is just silly.
And please, let's legalize meth. That's a great idea. Heroin too. Nothing but good can come from that.
Do you think the very costly drug war is working? It's not. It's operating based on the premises of those ignorant of how addictions work. I advise looking to expert opinion if you want to find workable solutions.
Of course, if your goal is to disenfranchise and imprison vast swaths of the poor and minorities at a devastating cost, it's working pretty well.
Dan
Are you suggesting the addiction occurs without the addict first purchasing and then indulging in the illegal substance? Are you suggesting that because "vast swaths of the poor and minorities" are found guilty of buying, selling and possessing illegal substances that the problem is the law? You seem to have an incredibly warped notion of what makes a law immoral or a cause unjust. The war on poverty has been equally impotent, if not more so, than the war on drugs. Should we give up on helping the poor?
It's inane to think a cause is unworthy of time, money and effort simply because the results leave a little to be desired. It's not the intention...it's the means. Whether or not drugs are legal, the addiction aspect will remain and until health care is no longer in the hands of gov't, whereby bad behaviors become the responsibility of everyone, including those who do not engage in bad behaviors, continuing to outlaw substances that are now illegal is essential.
It's idiotic to suggest that we legalize that which we cannot totally eliminate. By your thinking (I use the term very loosely in your case), stealing, murder and a host of other illegal activities should be legalized simply because current laws and efforts have failed to eliminate those behaviors.
If the law is to be truly blind, the economic or ethnic status of perpetrators has no bearing on who is arrested and how many. One either abides the law or one suffers the consequences for not doing so.
The goal, you liar, is abiding and enforcing the law.
A quick look suggests that drug use is not rising and that the 3 most expensive drugs are actually legal (medical costs).
So let's introduce more incredibly addictive drugs into legal circulation. But at least we'll save money and improve humanity by letting these folks kill them selves off early. It has the added benefit of allowing the government to profit from their misery and to increase the tax burden on the poor and marginalized.
It's a win/win.
Are you two unaware of what experts in the field say, based on research and experience with the actual problem?
If not, you should really begin there.
Or do you distrust the experts?
I'll get you started.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/war-on-drugs-legalization/
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/156099/war-drugs-not-work-un-expert
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/12/us-disastrous-toll-criminalizing-drug-use
And literally, I could go on and on. The data is there. It's a failed policy. If you want to end the destructive results of drug use/abuse, criminalizing it is exactly the wrong solution. Specifically and directly unhelpful.
It only "helps" in the sense of putting more black and poor people in jail and giving non-addicts the smug satisfaction of "being tough on crime," even if it's a demonstrably stupid and ineffective method of dealing with the issue.
Marshall, IF criminalizing murder had an adverse affect on murder rates... if by criminalizing murder, it could be shown that murders went up and more lives were ruined, it would be world class stupid to criminalize it, wouldn't it?
I'm talking about going where the data takes you, not holding on to punitive ideas because it makes you feel good or you, in ignorance of reality, think it must be the right answer because "crime," and whatnot.
Begin by reading the reams of research on the topic then come back sometime.
~Dan
Like I said make it all legal, it culls the herd and saves/makes money. The fact that its government profiting from people's misery is just gravy.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics
Yes because the NIH knows absolutely nothing about health and drug issues.
Since none of you links work, I've done a little looking on my own and haven't found nearly the agreement you seem to think exists.
This is the last I'll comment on this off topic issue, but again and finally, I would point you to the experts and to research. Like this...
"The best-known consequence to decriminalizing marijuana: The criminal-justice system saves money and resources. We've seen strong scientific backing on this because it's a relatively easy outcome to measure.
Drug-related arrests and prison sentences decrease, which may fall in line with the majority American attitude that the government spends too much enforcing marijuana laws, anyway.
Exactly how much money will a state will save in prosecution costs? That's under intense debate. Different studies of California have found savings ranging from hundreds of millions of dollars to more than a billion dollars--an unhelpfully big range.
Do people use marijuana more after their home state decriminalizes it?
No, or not much. Studies of use after decriminalization generally find either no effect or a small increase in use."
http://www.popsci.com/science-decriminalize-legalize-drugs-marijuana-weed
"Based on this report, here are four countries that show how decriminalization does not encourage or promote drug use and the harms often associated with it, but quite the opposite...
What we do know about decriminalization in Australia is that it is keeping Aussies out of the criminal justice system and away from the secondary harms linked not to drugs, but the criminalization of users.
Portugal’s decriminalization of drug use and possession in 2001 was widely hailed a milestone in drug policy reform, though of course prohibitionists sounded alarms. The results of the policy are often cited as evidence that health-centered drug policies are much more effective than criminal justice responses."
http://theinfluence.org/these-four-countries-prove-that-decriminalization-works-better-than-prohibition/
I literally could go on and on. The data is there.
And look, I'm not saying that that there isn't some data that raises questions, but at best, it means that it's less than clear that decriminalization is the best method, but "less than clear" that prohibition is wrong/ineffective/stupid and costly-as-hell is not a support for continuing it. The data is strong enough and the damage of criminalization of drugs well-documented and costly and obvious enough that at best, we need to end it and reconsider and not re-implement until data supports it.
It's a failed policy and an adventure into expensive and expansive Big Brother/Big Gov't intrusion into people's lives. End it. Come back when you have conclusive data that says it's the right way.
But your side really just doesn't give a damn about data and research and science, do you all? Tell me true, if you knew that 90% of researcher agreed that Prohibition is stupid as hell and ineffective and counterproductive, would you then begin to demand the end of it? You sure don't sound like it would make a difference to you.
~Dan
And all the links work fine for me. But here, I'll make it easier for you...
The destruction comes in different forms. For starters, the criminalization of drugs fuels a violent international narcotics trade, which is eye-wateringly expensive to police. The US, for example, spent $1 trillion trying to get on top of the problem over a 40-year period.
It not only drains government coffers, it also lines the pockets of criminals. An illicit market is by its very nature difficult to quantify, but 2013 estimates had the drugs trade valued at $430 billion – with every single cent going to drug lords who have helped foment unrest and violence, from the slums of MedellÃn to the inner cities of Chicago.
And while the leaders of international drug cartels escape punishment, otherwise law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals. In the US, for example, every 25 seconds someone is arrested for personal drugs possession. As a recent report from the ACLU found, the effects can be devastating: “I met people who were prosecuted for tiny amounts of drugs – in one case an amount so small that the laboratory couldn’t even weigh it. That man was sentenced to 15 years in Texas.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/war-on-drugs-legalization/
But what the hell difference does $40 trillion dollars matter, here or there. As long as it keeps not working, let's keep spending it, right? That's not insane.
~Dan
Sorry, $1 trillion. Typo. The point stands.
~Dan
So, your argument to legalize Meth is weed. You admit that the data is not conclusive but demand that we ignore that and accede to your experts. Sounds good to me.
"Otherwise law abiding citizens". Murderers are "otherwise law abiding citizens", if you over look the killing people. That's a pretty irrational position on its face.
If avoidance of harm is the foremost human endeavor, how does one justify legalizing substances that are by their nature harmful.
Yes, a person hurting themselves with drugs is comparable to murder.
Don't be an idiot. Look at the data. Have you read the data, talked to experts in the field? Why assume you know better than experts and researchers?
All I can say is let's operate based on data, not ignorance. "Inconclusive" is not grounds for locking people up and destroying lives.
Dan
Once again, you've chosen to make something up and pretend I said it. If harm is bad, in fact the ethic by which we should live, then how is legalizing any substance which is 100% harmful an ethical decision. Further, isn't profiting from inflicting harm even less ethical.
"Marshall, IF criminalizing murder had an adverse affect on murder rates... if by criminalizing murder, it could be shown that murders went up and more lives were ruined, it would be world class stupid to criminalize it, wouldn't it?"
The opposite would be the case. De-criminalizing murder would most likely result in an increase in murder...of-freakin-course.
As to your links, which I haven't had time to review as yet, I don't know that there is sufficient time to make an accurate assessment regarding how much more drug use there would be, and if they can even accurately track such things, as if everyone would be willing to admit that they indulge in such things.
As always, if you can't or won't answer questions, go away. Stew in ignorance, curse the light and boast about it elsewhere.
Dan
Well since no one is "stewing in ignorance", "cursing the light", or whatever I guess we're ok. I've done my own research, I see no reason to uncritically accept a bunch of links you throw out as "experts". So, I have and I don't. But thanks for ignoring what I did say, in favor of some crap you made up.
While we're talking abou "wars on" that haven't worked how about that war on poverty. That's done wonders for alleviating poverty.
So, what does your research do with the data that shows prohibition doesn't work? Ignore it?
And the war on poverty - while not perfect - is not making things worse. Indeed, it's helped huge swaths of people. So, I will rely on the data, not fearful ignorance.
I suggest you do the same.
Dan
One, I haven't seen any data that demonstrates conclusively that prohibition "doesn't work", nor any that suggests conclusively that blanket legalization will "work". What I have seen is, for example, that drug use is down significantly over the past 25 years, that "legal" drugs exact a significant cost to society, and that things like meth and heroin have absolutely zero value. So, when I see equivocal data, or data that isn't conclusive, I generally don't assume that making a wholesale 180 degree change in drug policy is automatically the best choice. I also don't see how government profiting from this ruinous behavior is ethical.
I guess it really depends on what your goal is. If the goal is to reduce drug use and the damage that goes with it, then legalizing any and all drugs doesn't seem like the best option. If the goal is simply to let a bunch of folks out of prison who you believe shouldn't be in there, then sure decriminalizing stuff will accomplish that. I haven't seen any data to suggest that society would benefit from that, but if you say so...
Really, the "war on poverty" has been a success? Why don't you do a google search for Larry Elder making an excellent case against that position. Please don't be put off by the fact that he's clearly a racist, just listen to the data.
https://youtu.be/ZlogvKq1gsA
Here, you don't even have to google.
Just watched that interview in its entirety, along with the next one Rubin did with Elder. Very good stuff, indeed.
As for drug decriminalization, I would argue that there is too great a focus on how many goes to jail and the cost of "the war" not being simply diverted to health care. One doesn't need treatment if one does not indulge. But, in order to demonstrate that I actually look at the issues deeply, I offer the following that I doubt Dan will take the trouble to truly peruse:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/20/7-harmful-side-effects-pot-legalization-caused-colorado/
https://www.policefoundation.org/projects/colorados-legalization-of-marijuana-and-the-impact-on-public-policy-a-practical-guide-for-law-enforcement/
http://www.in.gov/ipac/files/August_2014_Legalization_of_MJ_in_Colorado_the_Impact%281%29.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/legalizing-marijuana-why-citizens-should-just-say-no
The above are mostly related to pot, with the last one referring to the debate in California at the time the report was written. But they speak to consequences that would only be compounded by the legalization/decriminalization of all recreational drugs.
I thought I had a detailed report about the situation in Portugal, but apparently I didn't save it after all. Don't feel like trying to find it now, but the just is this: The reforms in Portugal did not legalize anything but possession. Before the reforms, there was little enforcement of laws prohibiting possession so that the reforms merely codified the prevailing attitudes. This is important when trying to compare costs, number of users, etc, pre- and post enactment of reforms. I've been unable to find anything that compares how things were prior to their lax attitudes about personal use. I say this in hopes of preventing the use of Portugal as an example of the good of decriminalizing or legalizing drugs in the U.S.
If one is concerned that the war on drugs is not succeeding, one would be wiser to consider changing tactics. Legalizing is surrender. Treatment of addicts is not the same as preventing addiction in the first place. If one was to hold with the notion that one is responsible for the cost of one's own choices, then perhaps a case could be made. But even then, there is collateral damage that is not considered or even factored into the equation.
Again, if preventing harm is the prevailing ethic, wouldn't keeping people off drugs in the first place be the goal? It seems like allowing more access to harmful drugs, but making the treatment for the results of that access more accessible is simply allowing harm then hoping it can be fixed without too much permanent damage.
Here soon, I'll create a post on the failed Drug War and why it's ridiculous to continue this costly and incredibly harmful policy. For now, a few things:
1. We should criminalize behavior that causes harm TO OTHERS, Craig, not to one's self. By that measure, you'd support the notion of criminalizing twinkles and large soft drinks and other negative dietary habits that we have. But usually, that's one area that conservatives have it right: It's not the gov't's business what I do or don't ingest. If I engage in behavior or diet that's bad to ME, that's not within the gov't's purview. Yes, the gov't can regulate/stop behavior like drunk driving that harms/potentially harms OTHERS, but being drunk? Not so much.
2. Again, if we're going to criminalize substance abuse, then cigarettes and alcohol should both be banned, too. Yet, are you all advocating for that?
3. Marshall speaks of " One doesn't need treatment if one does not indulge" and this is the language of someone who is ignorant of the problems of addiction, not from someone trained and experienced in the field. Criminalizing drugs does not prevent addictions, it merely forces the problem underground and makes it more difficult to deal with, AND has the added bonus of being an extra burden to poor folk and black folk who get caught by drug abuse more than the wealthy. By and large, our prisons are not filled with the wealthy who've done drugs, only the poor and minorities.
More later in another post.
1. That makes sense, you're willing to stand by and watch others harm themselves and wait with some sort of safety net when they go to far. How compassionate. If you were truly advocating a libertarian approach to this where you were giving freedom but presuming responsibility, I'd probably be more sympathetic to your position. But simply asserting that the "solution" is to legalize everything and then treat the casualties, doesn't seem to be based on compassion at all. As long as you won't define what "works" means or what your goal is, then it seems presumptuous to be proposing such an extreme "solution". Your little rant ignores the fact that actual governmental entities, run by progressives like yourself, have been doing exactly what you pretend to be shocked by. They are limiting, banning or restricting all sorts of legal products with the express purpose of protecting people from themselves. Ban menthol, legalize meth.
2. Philosophically no. In a real practical world, I don't see how it's workable. The big difference is that it's possible, and normal, to use alcohol without harming oneself. With most illegal drugs this isn't the case. It's also theoretically possible to smoke with minimal harm, but virtually no one does. The problem with this argument, is that it's too much apples/oranges.
3. First, please don't presume to lecture me on addiction. I spent years watching one of my siblings struggle and probably die from a combination of substance abuse and mental illness. The addiction issue is complex and doesn't lend itself to quick explanations. So I'll say this. If you accept that addiction is a disease, then legalizing all drugs is the equivalent of encouraging someone diagnosed with lung cancer to smoke unfiltered cigarettes. Making more addictive drugs more accessible doesn't benefit addicts at all. Of course this doesn't count the folks who say "It's legal, I'll try it." who end up getting physically addicted quickly.
Had, you read the link I posted you would have noticed that the three highest medical cost drugs are all currently legal, and somehow you think legalizing more destructive/addictive drugs to that will make things better.
Dan assumes also that I am without experience in the understanding of addiction. I have two siblings who do not deal well with alcohol, neither of whom should ever go near the stuff, with one having extreme episodes in her life. I've been in the middle of both long enough to have great understanding.
In addition, I was a tobacco smoker for way too long, so I have a bit of experience personally with addictions. My point was really both simple to understand for even those like Dan, but absolutely factual and true: don't partake of addictive substances and one will not likely form an addiction. As such, addiction to narcotics is 100% preventable and as such to demand that my tax dollars go toward helping those who needn't have developed the addiction in the first place is nonsense.
As one of my links stated (or perhaps one of those I chose not to post), alcohol is not always for getting buzzed. Wine with dinner, for example, does not necessarily lead to intoxication and is considered healthy for the heart. I've never known anyone who toked who didn't expect a buzz. For that matter, which illegal narcotic exists that users take without the expectation of intoxication?
There's also the case that alcohol, mostly in the form of wine, goes back to the beginning of civilization, and tobacco almost as far. The same is not true of most narcotics, and for those that may be, such as opium and weed, they were not seen as good things typically, for the reason of intoxication being immoral (even for the non-religious).
I would encourage you, Dan, not to waste your time with your post on the "War on Drugs" unless you're willing to examine other ways of fighting it, rather than merely surrendering and shifting the cost from law enforcement to treatment, both of which, as things stand now, makes it MY cost either way. It would be a case of pissing down our backs and saying it's raining.
I hadn't included long time tobacco use for me either.
I do think that there are essentially two forms of addiction though. I think that there is a physical addiction that comes from the use of the substance, which would be avoided by not ever using the substance. There are also some people who are sort of wired for addiction and that's a whole other thing.
Those two don't really include those who abuse as a form of self medication.
The point being, that even the word addiction covers a lot of territory and isn't quite as simple as it seems.
This is why Dan's legalize everything philosophy is troubling. Because by doing so you will create physical addicts, who most likely wouldn't use if things weren't legalized.
Not according to the data.
But who gives a damn about data?
Apparently not conservatives.
And I won't even bother to point out that what I've talked about is decriminalizing and regulating drugs, as opposed to legalizing them. No doubt, the distinction would be lost on the anti-data/anti-research crowd.
~Dan
Actually, given that the data I've found has been inconclusive, and that you have given virtually zero specifics as what the hell you're talking about, I'm not sure what's gotten you so worked up. The fact is that decriminalize/legalize is more of a semantic distinction than anything, and I've alluded to the results of "regulating" multiple times.
So, maybe only using data to confirm your preconceptions and lack of clarity on your part could possibly be issues as well.
But please continue to make broad unfounded generalizations if you somehow think it's valuable.
1. I am sorry that you both - we all - have had loved ones having to deal with these issues. The problem is indeed everywhere and affecting us all.
2. I used to hold the pro-drug war position. Data and research and experience with the issue led me away from my preconceptions.
3. In a post not on drugs, you're concerned I haven't gone in-depth with solutions? Really?
Dan
1. I guess it's too much to hope for an apology for presuming, but I appreciate the thought.
2. You are assuming that I/we hold a position similar to the one you used to hold. In fact, you're assuming that we're "pro drug war", while not defining what "pro drug war" means to you. It's possible, and rational, to look at the less than convincing scope of the data and land somewhere between "change nothing", and "decriminalize/legalize everything". It's possible that not being convinced by your opinion, is not the same thing as unquestionably supporting the policy articulated in the 70's. Perhaps you should consider that possibility.
3. No. I'm simply pointing out that you failing to correct misimpressions based on your lack of specificity, isn't completely our problem. The fact that you're hanging virtually all of your complaint on the semantic difference between legalization and decriminalization doesn't help you here.
The irony is thick, here.
Dan
I have to note how differently you treat "off topic" when you introduce the topic as opposed to others. Although I did see that you tried to stop the "off topic" at least once.
The irony of how you deal with "off topic".
The irony that you have problems with people who disagree with you.
The irony that.,.
Oh never mind, it won't make a difference anyway.
Here's another racist, convicted of his crimes, that the racist defending Trump has pardoned. The man is beyond just a racist. He is a sick bastard. Where is the outrage from the Right demanding Trump be stopped? Demanding that he be tested for basic fitness?
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/08/wait-do-people-actually-know-just-how-evil-this-man-is
I have seen a few people mildly say, "I disagree with this decision by Trump," but this is way beyond the pale. The GOP has a real problem appearing to either be racist or defend racists. Y'all really need to start to step up the criticism and lead the way in stopping an out-of-control deviant.
~Dan
Why, so you can destroy Pence? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Arpaio (who doesn't appear to be white/Anglo) was convicted of contempt of court. I'm also pretty sure that he's an 85 year old man who's been financially ruined by his conviction. I'm not actually sure that racism is a violation of the US legal code, so he literally couldn't be a "convicted racist". Past presidents have pardoned some pretty unsavory characters, so I'm not likely to be any more anti-Trump than I already was.
If your measure of morality is that people have to engage in this rabid Trump hatred you demonstrate then you'll probably be "pissed as hell" at millions of people who don't like him, but aren't prepared to lynch him.
Didn't Jesus (as well as other NT writers) talk about the role of government in the Kingdom of God and I don't see any instance where the early Church engaged in this sort of partisan attack politics. But then Trump is way worse than the Romans.
Before you go nuts and accuse me of being a Trump living sychophant, just stop and consider the possibility that not everyone will respond in this showy, outward, public manner. Also, that just because we don't vomit our every disagreement we have with everyone all over social media/blogs, doesn't mean that we aren't doing anything. One other thing to consider, perhaps Trump will simply be emboldened, and become more intransigent as a reaction to the vitriol, so maybe there are other tactics that might be more effective.
Just a few things to consider before you damn everyone who doesn't publicly react the way you think they should, it's possible you could be wrong.
WHEN it already appears that you are a party of racists, WHEN there is a literal history of you all being on the wrong side of racism, WHEN your presidential candidate repeatedly played to/appealed to racists, THEN you damn well better make a showy, outward public protest of the racists in your midst.
And that is why you all are viewed as the party of racists and racist supporters.
Just fyi.
You're welcome.
I hope you all collectively learn from this information and make use of it.
~Dan
Thanks so much for you deciding that your perception should be other people's reality. I'm sure that the millions of good decent conservatives will be pleased to know that you've passed judgment on them and found them wanting. Not because they've been silent, but because you perceive a lack of vitriol that you've decided to engage in. Your lack of acceptance of the possibility that there are other ways to respond is troubling. Your insistence in passing judgment on an entire group based on your opinions of the actions of a small minority is concerning.
It's almost like you are so afraid that Trump might actually do something successful that you've decided to stoke this fire red hot before he can.
So, yes, by all means, continue to imply that everyone who doesn't act the way you think they should is a racist. That's an effective strategy on both a personal and political level.
Not implying anything.
I'm saying:
1. The GOP has a racism problem. They are perceived by many to be harboring racists. This is just a point of fact.
2. The GOP's racism problem didn't arise from nothing. It's based on real world events and words from conservative types.
3. There ARE racists in the GOP/right wing, point of fact. Yes, it's also true that there are racists in the DNC/left wing, but not to the point that it's as big a problem as with the Right. We don't know how large the numbers of racists/nazis/scumbag types there are in the GOP, but it appears to be a significant number. Trump could not have won without the votes of racists/"alt-right"/nazis.
4. We warned you all (indeed, many conservatives warned us all) that Trump was invoking racist language and empowering racist groups back when he was campaigning. It was obvious enough/clear enough that many conservatives noted it.
5. And those warnings went unheeded, and now we have a president who has made nazis/KKK-types/racists feel comfortable and emboldened to crawl out from under their rocks. The nazis/racists will tell you that they have been emboldened by Trump and that "wing" of the conservative movement.
So, while we don't know the number of racists/nazis/white supremacists in the party, they are having their day and their way with the Trump presidency. The GOP/Right Wing is in a crisis because of this maniac and is not doing enough to stop it.
Disagree all you want, the data is there. I just hope enough of the Good Conservatives grow some spines and start taking courageous steps to (non-violently) end this fiasco.
In the meantime, we on the Left will keep fighting racists and nazis, it's kind of what we do. I just hope you all can swallow your pride and join us at some point. Redeem yourselves.
~Dan
1. Perception is not reality
2. Perceived problems are not real problems.
3. There is a tiny number of racists in both parties.
4. Many people noted many problems with Trump. Many people noted many problems with Clinton.
5. Seems a bit of a stretch, but now that they're "out" all that's happened is they've been reviled and marginalized. It's not like they've accomplished anything or like Trump has praised or encouraged them.
But if it comforts you to believe that "the left" is the primary group fighting racists and NAZI's you keep right on believing that.
It's sad when self congratulating myopia is all you have to stand on.
I was doing some research yesterday and it's uncanny how this whole Trump hatred campaign is in such alignment with Alinsky's rules.
1. Says you. Prove it.
2. Says you. Prove it.
That's the point, Craig.
Given that Trump has clearly been courting racists (misogynists, xenophobes, etc) and given that he handily won in the GOP, the numbers appear to be much larger than your "tiny fraction" you toss out as if that settles things.
You all could begin to dispel the appearance of racism by fighting harder against Trump and his racist/nazi minions. That you fail to do so/have failed to do so is part of your collective problem.
Look, here's the thing: Trump could NOT have been elected as a Dem, running the way he did. His racist campaigning would have undone him. As would any of a dozen things he did over and over. He would have been a non-starter with us.
He wasn't with the conservatives.
Thus, you all have a problem that only you all can begin to solve.
5. It ain't a stretch. It's reality.
You all need to deal with the nazis/racists in your midst. Fast.
He will undo you.
We don't hate Trump. We hate fucking racist nazis who assault women and brag about it.
You all need to start acting like that, too.
~Dan
1a. Your perception is not reality either.
Prove it.
You can say "nuh uh!" all day long, but Trump's poll numbers show a deplorable ~25% who support him in spite of his racism and idiocy and evil.
What we are telling you is that YOU ALL have a problem. If we had a problem in any group I was associated with that was to this level, you can bet I'd be out there every day saying, "This man associated with us MUST GO. He does not speak for us!"
Damn, what does it take to motivate you all? Does he literally need to lynch a black or hispanic man in the middle of the street for you all to begin taking decisive actions?
Trump and his racist supporters are an embarrassment to our nation and in our history and the silence of the people on his "side" is deafening.
It's gonna take more than an occasional mealy-mouthed, "um, I disagree with this, you know, a bit..."
So, unless you're prepared to offer some proof to support your claim, quit commenting Craig. The onus is on you. Any further comments that aren't offering proof of what you say will be deleted.
Dan
There goes Dan, lying about Trump again. From "assaulting women and" bragging about it, to courting and leading nazi "minions". Dan is off the deep end big time. Prove any of this, while I laugh at the demand that anyone must prove that Perception is not reality.
Prove it. You have LOST 90+% of the African American vote. Do you think they are idiots? You have lost a large majority of hispanic votes. Do you think they are idiots?
The onus is on you to prove that Trump isn't winning due to racism, xenophobia and misogyny, because frankly, we don't believe your empty claims. We've seen the data and we've "heard" the silence and complicity.
Prove it or don't comment here and just go hide in a corner until you're finally so embarrassed by this idiot man-boy pervert that you're ready to admit that you were wrong.
Any further comments that don't offer data in support of your unbelievable claims will be deleted. I insist.
~Dan
Craig, you made a claim. that m perception is not reality. That there IS no "racism problem" in conservative circles.
I'm asking you to either prove it (which you can't, as you appear to recognize) or admit that you overstepped your claim. That you do NOT KNOW that there is no racism problem in conservative/GOP circles, maybe there is, maybe there isn't. At best, you can say, "I do not THINK that there is a serious and widespread racism problem in conservative circles, but I can't prove it..."
If you want to back off your claim and admit that, you can say so and I'll let it stand.
Dan
I made one claim. Really more a statement of reality.
"Perception is not reality."
That was the extent of my claim, anything beyond that is the product of your imagination.
So, if you're not going to prove your claims, what makes you think I should be proving some claim you just made us.
Perception IS reality, sometimes. It depends on what is being perceived.
If a man says that all the 50 women that accused him of rape all "asked for it," and we perceive that the man is a lying scumbag rapist, our perception is quite likely right.
You made that claim as if to say that the widespread perception that the GOP has a race problem is not reality. Is that not what you were saying?
Do you agree then that the GOP DOES have a racism problem, not that it's a false perception, but a likely reality? And that this perception is not made up out of thin air, but is caused by the actions of people like Trump, the Nazis and white supremacists who support him and others, like the idiot and incompetent and criminal Sheriff Joe?
Also, you said specifically MY perception is not reality. I'm saying prove it. Or back off. Or go away.
~Dan
Craig, from a deleted comment...
I made the claim that "perception is not reality", more specifically that "your perception is not reality". Anything else you choose to add to the simple reality I've stayed is not mine to prove
But you are mistaken. "Perception is not reality" is not a fact, not reality.
Now, one could say, "Perception is not necessarily reality" and you'd be in the realm of factual and your statement would be fine.
Do you recognize reality or not? Your comments will not stand until you verify this simple reality.
Dan
Another false point/goofy suggestion you all keep making... that those who are outraged by Trump's lies, by his appeals to racism, by his stupidity and his idiotic appeals to ignorance are outraged by these behaviors. We hate lies, we hate racism, we hate gross stupidity/ignorance in places of great authority. As should all reasonable adults.
I don't give a rat's ass about Trump. He is a buffoon, a clown, a jackass, but I don't hate him. He's a rotten amoeba on a flatulent flea. He's nothing.
By himself.
But his lies and appeals to racists and gross immorality and stupidity in the office of the president is dangerous. He is an abject embarrassment to the US and to those who support him specifically.
Hating lies, stupidity and gross immorality is what we SHOULD be doing.
~Dan
Because two commenters keep commenting even after being asked to cease (until they answer the question asked of them or admit they can't), I'm closing comments on this post. If you have something to say, let me know and I'll be glad to post constructive commentary.
Thanks.
Post a Comment