|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 4, 2024 22:07:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 4, 2024 22:20:51 GMT
As Biden Prepares to Address the Nation, Poll Finds More Than 6 in 10 Americans Doubt His Mental Capability Time |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 4, 2024 22:41:55 GMT
The article is long but worth reading. Just a few sections www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/11/joe-bidens-last-campaignFor decades, there was a lightness about Joe Biden—a springy, mischievous energy that was hard not to like, even if it allowed some people to classify him as a lightweight. For better and worse, he is a more solemn figure now. His voice is thin and clotted, and his gestures have slowed, but, in our conversation, his mind seemed unchanged. He never bungled a name or a date. At one point, he pulled out a white notecard inscribed with some of Trump’s most alarming comments: his threat to terminate the Constitution, his casual talk of being a dictator on “Day One,” his description of immigrants as “poisoning the blood of our country.” Biden tossed the list on his desk and gave a look of disbelief. “What the hell! ” he said. “If you and I had sat down ten years ago and I said a President is going to say those things, you would have looked at me like, ‘Biden, you’ve lost your senses.’ ”
I last interviewed Biden in 2020, when he billed himself as a “transition candidate” and praised “an incredible group of talented, newer, younger people.” But, in office, he has presided over the passage of ambitious legislation, the end of the covid pandemic, and an economic revival beyond anyone’s expectation—and declared his intention to run for a second term. I asked Biden if there was ever a time when he doubted that he would run again. “No,” he said. “But, look, if I didn’t think that the policies I put in place were best for the country, I don’t think I’d be doing it again. I’m running again because I think two things: No. 1, I’m really proud of my record, and I want to keep it going. I’m optimistic about the future.” He continued, “And, secondly, I look out there, and I say, ‘O.K., we’re just—most of what I’ve done is just kicking in now.’ ”
If you spend time with Biden these days, the biggest surprise is that he betrays no doubts. The world is riven by the question of whether he is up to a second term, but he projects a defiant belief in himself and his ability to persuade Americans to join him. For as long as Biden has been in politics, he has thrived on a mercurial mix of confidence and insecurity. Now, having reached the apex of power, he gives off a conviction that borders on serenity—a bit too much serenity for Democrats who wonder if he can still beat the man with whom his legacy will be forever entwined. Given the doubts, I asked, wasn’t it a risk to say, “I’m the one to do it”? He shook his head and said, “No. I’m the only one who has ever beat him. And I’ll beat him again.” For Biden, the offense of the contested election was clearly personal. Trump had not just tried to steal the Presidency—he had tried to steal it from him. “I’d ask a rhetorical question,” Biden said. “If you thought you were best positioned to beat someone who, if they won, would change the nature of America, what would you do?”
By the usual measures, Biden should be cruising to reëlection. Violent crime has dropped to nearly a fifty-year low, unemployment is below four per cent, and in January the S. & P. 500 and the Dow hit record highs. More Americans than ever have health insurance, and the country is producing more energy than at any previous moment in its history. His opponent, who is facing ninety-one criminal counts, has suggested that if he is elected he will fire as many as fifty thousand civil servants and replace them with loyalists, deputize the National Guard as a mass-deportation force, and root out what he calls “the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”
Besides, Trump—just four years younger than Biden—was already so prone to signs of age that the DeSantis campaign set up a social-media account called the Trump Accident Tracker. He had confused Jeb Bush with George W. Bush, talked about Obama when he meant Biden or Hillary Clinton, and called the Hungarian Prime Minister “the leader of Turkey.”
Like many Democrats, Axelrod has turned his critiques to the opposition. “Now I think the question is: how do you make the best argument for Biden in a race against Donald Trump?” he told me. “Both these guys are old. The difference between them is one of them is actually working on the project of building a better future—not for himself, but for the country and for our kids and grandkids. And then you have on the other side a guy who’s not looking to the future but is consumed by his own past.”
When I asked whether he thinks that Trump will concede if he loses in 2024, Biden said no. “Losers who are losers are never graceful,” he said. “I just think that he’ll do anything to try to win. If—and when—I win, I think he’ll contest it. No matter what the result is.” ♦
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 4, 2024 22:55:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 4, 2024 23:06:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 1:39:30 GMT
Trump is a threat to our democracy and our basic fundamental rights. Project 2025 is a further threat to our democracy and our civil rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 1:50:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 2:09:59 GMT
Voting for Biden, even if he is receiving last rights, is not a sign of a cult. It's a sign of confidence in VP Harris, her ability to do her job and confidence in Democrats. It is a vote for democracy. Also, it is a vote against Trump and against Republicans.
some of the comments
100%. Im not American, but if I was, they could wheel Joe Biden out on a wheelchair drooling from the mouth and I would still vote for him over Donald Trump.
Even if we were watching a sequel to "Weekend At Bernie's", I would still vote for Biden... not because I like him, but because the alternative is NOT an option. 😠
I’d vote for a rock covered in mongoose shit before I vote for the criminal Trump.
I'd vote for Jimmy Carter in his present condition over Trump.
I'd still vote for Biden over Trump even if Biden was dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 2:19:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 5, 2024 19:01:14 GMT
Nobody gives a shit about biden's stutter, that's nothing but a strawman argument. So stop using it, because the bullshit of it is way too obvious and diminishes any credibility you "might" have. Biden spews his own conspiracy theories, his own racist nonsense, and the "dinner with nazis" is a more hoaxist bullshit. Fuentes was NOT invited and trump had no idea of his background. So to present it as an informed choice to "have dinner with nazis" is pushing a hoax. Again. NBC News |
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,617 
|
Post by jayfab on Mar 5, 2024 19:12:09 GMT
Nobody gives a shit about biden's stutter, that's nothing but a strawman argument. So stop using it, because the bullshit of it is way too obvious and diminishes any credibility you "might" have. Biden spews his own conspiracy theories, his own racist nonsense, and the "dinner with nazis" is a more hoaxist bullshit. Fuentes was NOT invited and trump had no idea of his background. So to present it as an informed choice to "have dinner with nazis" is pushing a hoax. Again. NBC News  You sound desperate. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 5, 2024 19:15:22 GMT
Nobody gives a shit about biden's stutter, that's nothing but a strawman argument. So stop using it, because the bullshit of it is way too obvious and diminishes any credibility you "might" have. Biden spews his own conspiracy theories, his own racist nonsense, and the "dinner with nazis" is a more hoaxist bullshit. Fuentes was NOT invited and trump had no idea of his background. So to present it as an informed choice to "have dinner with nazis" is pushing a hoax. Again. NBC News You sound desperate. You're projecting. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 21:32:27 GMT
I think it's really significant that a lot of former Trump staff and advisors are openly speaking out against Trump, openly voting against Trump and in some cases, even pledging to support Biden. When former staff and advisors don't have confidence in Trump, what does that say about him?
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 21:36:52 GMT
When members of the same party don't support a candidate and the likely nominee, that's not a good sign. But as both Trump and his daughter-in- law both said, they don't need anyone who doesn't support Trump. Trump's takeover of the Republican Party will be complete. Republicans on his orders voted against the bipartisan border bill and a bill to protect IVF. Republicans will probably pay for both of those votes in November.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 21:39:22 GMT
Anecdotal, but I think Trump has a real problem with Haley supporters. The fact that he's not winning every race with 80-90 % of the votes as essentially an incumbent is telling. It's not like he doesn't have name recognition. People recognize his name and just don't like him. We'll see what happens today, but a lot of her supporters will not support him.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 21:45:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 21:47:40 GMT
People who are listening to Trump's speeches and psychologists are warning about Trump's apparent decline. Other than the media and Hur, no one is sounding the alarm about President Biden's capabilities. Biden meets with lots of people every day from his own staff to Republicans to foreign dignitaries. And no one is reporting that he's slipping or incapable of doing his job.
Occupy Democrats
@occupydemocrats
BREAKING: Donald Trump supercharges the reports of his cognitive decline at a jaw-dropping campaign event by rambling about "languages" from "the planet Mars" and other deeply bizarre remarks.
Trump's mind is totally cooked and it's only getting worse...
"You know what people are coming from parts unknown, countries that you've never heard of, languages that nobody in this country speaks," Trump told the right-wing interviewer.
"You know we don't even have teachers of some of these languages," he went on. "Who would think that? We have languages that are like from the planet Mars. Nobody knows how to, you know, speak it."
This is a new talking point of Trump's and it's still unclear what he's talking about. Most migrants at the southern border speak Spanish. Obviously, Trump can’t speak it but tens of millions of Americans can.
During another point in the conversation, Trump dusted off some of his blatant Nazi language.
"What they're doing is they're poisoning our country by allowing people to come in by the millions," said Trump. "I believe we have fifteen million people now and it could be close to twenty million by the time this whole horrible nightmare ends and we're gonna have to just solve that problem."
Trump also claimed that under him we had the "greatest economy in the history of our country" and "probably in the history of the world," which is the kind of insane lie that only a deeply ignorant MAGA cultist would believe.
The truth is that Trump cratered the American economy by mismanaging the pandemic and then left office with the worst jobs record since the Great Depression.
Perhaps the best part of the conversation was when Trump decided to shoot himself in the foot electorally by stating that he doesn't need any more support.
"I don't need votes, we have all the votes we need," said Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 21:52:57 GMT
Here is George Clooney’s response after Trump accused him of being a "Hollywood elite."
"Here’s the thing: I grew up in Kentucky. I sold insurance door-to-door. I sold ladies’ shoes. I worked at an all-night liquor store. I would buy suits that were too big and too long and cut the bottom of the pants off to make ties so I’d have a tie to go on job interviews. I grew up understanding what it was like to not have health insurance for eight years.
So this idea that I’m somehow the “Hollywood elite” and this guy who takes a shit in a gold toilet is somehow the man of the people is laughable.
People in Hollywood, for the most part, are people from the Midwest who moved to Hollywood to have a career. So this idea of “coastal elites” living in a bubble is ridiculous. Who lives in a bigger bubble?
He lives in a gold tower and has twelve people in his company. He doesn’t run a corporation of hundreds of thousands of people he employs and takes care of. He ran a company of twelve people!
When you direct a film you have seven different unions all wanting different things, you have to find consensus with all of them, and you have to get them moving in the same direction.
He’s never had to do any of that kind of stuff. I just look at it and I laugh when I see him say “Hollywood elite.” Hollywood elite? I don’t have a star on Hollywood Boulevard, Donald Trump has a star on Hollywood Boulevard! Fuck you!"
- George Clooney
actor, philanthropist, humanitarian & activist
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 22:05:17 GMT
Trump and his daughter in law are literally pushing people out of the party, threatening Haley supporters they won't be welcome back etc. This is not how to win over moderates or independents. Seems obvious, but he needs their support to win in November.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 22:28:06 GMT
Trump's understanding of economics is really poor. And his policies did not and will not help most Americans. www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-cut.htmlTrump’s Tax Cut Fueled Investment but Did Not Pay for Itself, Study Finds The most detailed research yet on corporate response to the 2017 Republican tax law shows modest gains for workers and high cost to the federal debt. The corporate tax cuts that President Donald J. Trump signed into law in 2017 have boosted investment in the U.S. economy and delivered a modest pay bump for workers, according to the most rigorous and detailed study yet of the law’s effects.
Those benefits are less than Republicans promised, though, and they have come at a high cost to the federal budget. The corporate tax cuts came nowhere close to paying for themselves, as conservatives insisted they would. Instead, they are adding more than $100 billion a year to America’s $34 trillion-and-growing national debt, according to the quartet of researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University and the Treasury Department.
Republicans set many of the individual cuts to expire at the end of next year, in order to hold down the budgetary cost of the 2017 law. Whether to renew them, all or in part, will be an immediate challenge for either President Biden, if he wins re-election in November, or Mr. Trump, if he is successful in returning to the White House.
Congress is already wrestling with whether to renew the immediate expensing provision, which began to phase out last year. A bipartisan bill to extend it by two years, coupled with a temporary increase in the generosity of a tax credit for parents, passed the House earlier this year but has stalled in the Senate.
Mr. Zidar said in an interview that the new study suggests a possible compromise for lawmakers looking to most efficiently spur investment without further inflaming the budget deficit: extend the expensing provision, but pay for it by raising the corporate rate. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 5, 2024 23:22:05 GMT
www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-cut.htmlTrump’s Tax Cut Fueled Investment but Did Not Pay for Itself, Study Finds The most detailed research yet on corporate response to the 2017 Republican tax law shows modest gains for workers and high cost to the federal debt. The corporate tax cuts that President Donald J. Trump signed into law in 2017 have boosted investment in the U.S. economy and delivered a modest pay bump for workers, according to the most rigorous and detailed study yet of the law’s effects.
Those benefits are less than Republicans promised, though, and they have come at a high cost to the federal budget. The corporate tax cuts came nowhere close to paying for themselves, as conservatives insisted they would. Instead, they are adding more than $100 billion a year to America’s $34 trillion-and-growing national debt, according to the quartet of researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University and the Treasury Department.
Republicans set many of the individual cuts to expire at the end of next year, in order to hold down the budgetary cost of the 2017 law. Whether to renew them, all or in part, will be an immediate challenge for either President Biden, if he wins re-election in November, or Mr. Trump, if he is successful in returning to the White House.
Congress is already wrestling with whether to renew the immediate expensing provision, which began to phase out last year. A bipartisan bill to extend it by two years, coupled with a temporary increase in the generosity of a tax credit for parents, passed the House earlier this year but has stalled in the Senate.
Mr. Zidar said in an interview that the new study suggests a possible compromise for lawmakers looking to most efficiently spur investment without further inflaming the budget deficit: extend the expensing provision, but pay for it by raising the corporate rate. Maybe you're not aware, but other people do have access to the internet. We don't need you to post the entire Internet here, every hour, several times an hour, every single damn day. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 23:27:23 GMT
This is someone who has already proven he can't be trusted with national secrets or classified documents www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-may-briefed-us-intelligence-raises-concern-1876173David Priess, who served in the CIA during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations as an intelligence officer, noted the speculation in a series of posts as he posed a question about "what will happen this year to the tradition of classified intelligence briefings for the major party presidential candidates."
The tradition began in 1952, when President Truman—reflecting on his sudden succession to the presidency in April 1945—offered classified briefings to both candidates (Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson) seeking to succeed him," Priess said.
However, as speculations continued to grow, some have taken to X to question the notion Trump should have access to U.S. intelligence given his ongoing legal cases.
Hugo Lowell, Political investigations reporter at the Guardian noted the possibility of Trump receiving a briefing while he prepares for trial in his classified documents case.
Priess continued by stating a years-long tradition that major-party presidential candidates have been offered intel briefings during their respective campaigns since 1952. However, it is not a law as it is considered just a courtesy for presidential candidates.
"Coming soon: Trump potentially receiving intel briefings as a presidential candidate while he prepares for trial in Florida over his retention of classified docs," Lowell wrote on X.
Civil rights attorney, Andrew C Laufer, Esq wrote on X, "Why do I hear the sound of cash registers come from Trump's mind? This is so painful."
Author Sophia A. Nelson said, "It seems there is a huge conflict here. Trump is a national security risk? What are we doing?!!!"
Meanwhile, X user Kami Lerner questioned if there is a way to stop Trump from receiving the briefing, citing his classified documents case. "Isn't there a way we can stop him from getting classified information considering that's the thing that he is under indictment for? Stealing classified documents? And what about the top-secret classified documents at Mar-a-Lago when Orbon goes there this weekend?" |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 5, 2024 23:38:56 GMT
www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-cut.htmlTrump’s Tax Cut Fueled Investment but Did Not Pay for Itself, Study Finds The most detailed research yet on corporate response to the 2017 Republican tax law shows modest gains for workers and high cost to the federal debt. The corporate tax cuts that President Donald J. Trump signed into law in 2017 have boosted investment in the U.S. economy and delivered a modest pay bump for workers, according to the most rigorous and detailed study yet of the law’s effects.
Those benefits are less than Republicans promised, though, and they have come at a high cost to the federal budget. The corporate tax cuts came nowhere close to paying for themselves, as conservatives insisted they would. Instead, they are adding more than $100 billion a year to America’s $34 trillion-and-growing national debt, according to the quartet of researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University and the Treasury Department.
Republicans set many of the individual cuts to expire at the end of next year, in order to hold down the budgetary cost of the 2017 law. Whether to renew them, all or in part, will be an immediate challenge for either President Biden, if he wins re-election in November, or Mr. Trump, if he is successful in returning to the White House.
Congress is already wrestling with whether to renew the immediate expensing provision, which began to phase out last year. A bipartisan bill to extend it by two years, coupled with a temporary increase in the generosity of a tax credit for parents, passed the House earlier this year but has stalled in the Senate.
Mr. Zidar said in an interview that the new study suggests a possible compromise for lawmakers looking to most efficiently spur investment without further inflaming the budget deficit: extend the expensing provision, but pay for it by raising the corporate rate. Maybe you're not aware, but other people do have access to the internet. We don't need you to post the entire Internet here, every hour, several times an hour, every single damn day. Maybe you need a better search engine given your falsehoods like the secretary of state's involvement in the effort to remove Trump from the ballot, factual inaccuracies about family separation policy and misinformation about the bipartisan border bill. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 6, 2024 2:27:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 6, 2024 2:42:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 6, 2024 4:09:40 GMT
Maybe you're not aware, but other people do have access to the internet. We don't need you to post the entire Internet here, every hour, several times an hour, every single damn day. Maybe you need a better search engine So you admit you sit around and search for things to post the entire Internet here, every hour, several times an hour, every single damn day. Well you can stop now. We ALL have access to the internet. I'll update it so you can focus more on the point of the post instead of losing your mind over one possible inaccuracy that was really beside the point... The Supreme Court are the ones SAVING democracy. ANY extremists that wanted Trump off the ballot were trying to DESTROY democracy. He is more popular than biden (per the NY Times) and you don't want him on the ballot? That is COMPLETELY AT ODDS with a party/group supposedly fighting so hard to "save democracy". THAT sort of thing is precisely WHAT is pushing people TO vote for Trump. They are not a cult. They just don't want a government that would support destroying democracy while claiming the other side is. And yes, under Clinton kids WERE TOO separated from their families because their parents were arrested for breaking the law. Not one of you had a problem with it under "your guy". Not until you could weaponize it against Trump, did you EVER see a problem with it. Vox"It limited "cancellation of removal" to immigrants who'd been in the US for at least 10 years. Instead of having to show that the immigrant herself would suffer "extreme hardship" if she was deported, she'd have to show that a US citizen (like her spouse or child) would suffer "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE FAMILY WOULD BE SEPARATED IF SHE WERE DEPORTED WOULDN'T COUNT. And the US could only grant this to 3,000 immigrants each year." Personal story on how the law under Clinton separated families. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 6, 2024 4:58:07 GMT
Funny that you lose your mind when anyone else has a slight inaccuracy like Trump suggesting we should study disinfectant, but it's perfectly OK for you or anyone you quote to be slightly inaccurate. Forget admitting that you were perhaps wrong about something. The Vox article was written in 2016, prior to the election and before Trump's family separation program. Nothing in the article even remotely suggests that the Clinton administration is at fault or participated in something similar to Trump's family separation. Again, Trump's family separation policy was intentionally cruel, unprecedented and permanently separated families without any plans to reunite them. Maybe you could argue that the law Clinton signed led to some of the current immigration problems, making it harder to immigrate legally and easier to deport people. However, in no way did Clinton's bill lead to Trump's family separation policy. That cruelty and responsibility rests squarely on Trump and his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. I think we can acknowledge there are mistakes in a 30 year old bill that for the record, Republicans pushed hard for, negotiated and signed. If Congress passed Obama's immigration bill or the current bipartisan border bill, some of those problems could be solved. A major factor in today's immigration challenges is the fact that the laws are really outdated and in desperate need of new legislation and funding. Just to repeat, in case you missed these fact checks the first time The Clinton and Obama administrations did not separate families, except in rare circumstances if a parent was arrested on drug charges. www.npr.org/2019/04/09/711446917/fact-check-trump-wrongly-states-obama-administration-had-child-separation-policyFACT CHECK: Trump Wrongly States Obama Administration Had Child Separation Policy President Trump repeated a false claim to reporters Tuesday, wrongly blaming the Obama administration for instituting a policy in which children were separated from their parents at the Southern border.
"I'm the one that stopped it," Trump said. "President Obama had child separation."
Trump's false claim that child separations were carried out by the Obama administration has been frequently refuted.
"The Obama administration did not do that, no. We did not separate children from their parents," former Obama domestic policy adviser Cecilia Muñoz told NPR in May 2018. "This is a new decision, a policy decision put in place by the attorney general," which Muñoz said "puts us in league with the most brutal regimes in the world's history."
It was then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions who instituted the "zero tolerance" policy at the Southern border in April 2018, which resulted in children being separated from their parents who were taken into custody for criminal prosecution.
apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-5409040005 Under the Obama administration, a “minuscule” number of children were removed from their parents but only in rare cases, such as a parent being arrested on a drug charge, former U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Protection commissioner Gil Kerlikowske said in a June 2018 Associated Press report.
The false claim about the number of children separated under Obama appears to stem from a 2016 Senate subcommittee report that found his administration oversaw the placement of nearly 90,000 children who arrived at the border alone or without a legal guardian between October 2013 through 2015. Those children were placed with sponsors living in the U.S., typically a parent or legal guardian, according to the same report.
apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-5936890291 Clinton did not create a law separating families at the border
CLAIM: President Bill Clinton passed a law in 1996 that separates parents and children entering the U.S. illegally and President Barack Obama enforced that law. Now, President Donald Trump is being demonized for enforcing it.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There is no law that requires parents and children to be separated if they are entering the country illegally. Thousands of children were separated from their families after passing into the country illegally last year as a result of a temporary zero-tolerance policy under the Trump administration.
THE FACTS: Posts on Facebook wrongly assert that Trump is being criticized for enforcing a law that Clinton passed in 1996.
Immigration reforms, which toughened illegal immigration penalties and quickened the pace of deportations, were passed under President Bill Clinton in 1996, but the legislation did not call for children and parents crossing the U.S. border illegally to be separated.
“Family units and children were very rare” at the U.S.-Mexico border in the 1990s and early 2000s, Rick Su, an immigration and law expert at the University at Buffalo, told The Associated Press.Trump permanently separated children with no plans to reunite them. The Biden administration is still trying to reunite families. www.splcenter.org/news/2022/03/23/family-separation-timelinewww.pbs.org/newshour/show/hundreds-of-migrant-children-remain-separated-from-families-despite-push-to-reunite-themIt’s been two years since the Biden administration took on the task of reunifying children with their families after they were separated at the southern border under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy. While the Biden administration has succeeded in uniting some 600 children with their parents, about 1000 remain separated. Geoff Bennett spoke with Caitlin Dickerson about the process.
So, the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy, we know from your reporting, separated more than 5,000 children from their parents with no process for reuniting them. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 6, 2024 6:57:26 GMT
Funny that you lose your mind Calmly correcting a flat out lie is not "losing my mind".  That is not what you said. You insisted he wanted people to inject bleach, and that is not a slight inaccuracy. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was a flat out lie. Apples and oranges. ME getting something wrong and adjusting my statement, is UNIVERSES away from smearing someone with something based on an out right lie and continuing to repeat it for years, despite it being repeatedly debunked. *I* admit when I'm wrong. I just admitted it this morning. When waFunny that you lose your mind Calmly correcting a flat out lie is not "losing my mind". That is NOT what you said. You insisted he wanted people to inject bleach, and that is not a slight inaccuracy. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was a flat out lie. Apples and oranges. ME getting something wrong and adjusting my statement, is UNIVERSES away from YOU smearing someone with something based on an out right lie and continuing to repeat it for years, despite it being repeatedly debunked. I admit when I'm wrong. I just admitted it this morning. When is the last time you did? YOU telling ME about admitting when you're wrong is absurdly laughable. Yes, with a zero tolerance policy they separated more families under Trump than Obama, but they absolutely DID separate families under Clinton and Obama. CNN "Biden falsely claims the Obama administration didn't separate families" And those "detention facilities" that Obama built DID suddenly become "cages" when Trump took office, showing off the Left's absolute screaming hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 6, 2024 11:13:15 GMT
heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-5-2024-tuesdayTrump is expected to win today’s Republican contests, but observers are watching to see what percentage of the vote challenger Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, takes from him. As I write this, she appears to have won Vermont and run strongly elsewhere, especially in the suburbs. Three states conducted exit polls and they, too, show warning signs for Trump as 78% of Haley voters in the North Carolina primary, 69% in California, and 68% in Virginia refused to say they would support the party’s nominee no matter who it is. Just as voters don’t appear to know much about what the administration has done to make their lives better, a recent study from a Democratic pollster suggests that voters don’t seem to know much about Trump’s statements attacking democracy. When informed of them, their opinion of Trump falls. Trump has called for mass deportations of immigrants and foreign-born U.S. citizens; on February 29, he said he would use local police as well as federal troops to round people up and move them to camps for deportation. Asked yesterday by a Newsmax host if he would “order mass deportations if you win the White House,” Trump answered: “Oh, day one. We have no choice. And we’ll start with the bad ones. And you know who knows who they are? Local police. Local police have to be given back their authority, and they have to be given back their respect and immunity.” On the one hand, caps to credit card late fees and an attempt to address price gouging; on the other hand, local police with immunity rounding up millions of people and putting them in camps, for deportation. And, in between the two, an election. People had better start paying attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 6, 2024 11:21:13 GMT
Justifying the cruel, horrific, traumatic, inhumane policy of the Trump administration by falsely claiming the other guy did it, too is unbelievable . Again, the situations were not the same and it was not the same policy. Yes, families were arrested under the Clinton and Obama administrations, but only in rare circumstances if a parent was arrested for drug charges. The Trump administration had a blanket policy for all families. Not the same at all. The CNN article While the Obama administration didn’t systematically separate families, it did happen under certain circumstances.
Separations did sometimes occur under Obama, but they were non-routine and much less frequent, according to immigration experts and former Obama officials.
They occurred in exceptional cases. Examples include those where the parent was being criminally prosecuted for carrying drugs across the border or other serious crimes aside from illegal crossing, those where human trafficking was suspected and those where the authorities could not confirm the connection between the child and the adult.
The separations didn’t happen as a result of a blanket policy, however, as was the case during the Trump administration’s controversial “zero tolerance” policy last year.
The truth is that the Clinton and Obama administrations did not in fact separate families, except in rare circumstances if a parent was arrested on drug charges. Not the same thing at all and not the Democrats weaponizing something. The policy under the Trump administration was so horrific and traumatic, the government just reached a settlement with the families. www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-approves-historic-settlement-in-aclus-family-separation-lawsuitSAN DIEGO — A federal court has approved a historic settlement involving the American Civil Liberties Union’s years-long lawsuit on behalf of thousands of traumatized children and parents who were forcibly torn from each other under the Trump administration’s illegal zero-tolerance practice of separating families at the border.
The settlement was first announced in October, noting pending approval from the court. During today’s hearing in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw verbally granted that approval from the bench, with the settlement to take effect Monday, Dec. 11. The judge also cited a recent statement from the ACLU that noted that while it has settled hundreds of lawsuits in its 103-year history, none has been more important than this one.
Family separation marked one of the most shocking and high-profile issues of the Trump-era. The ACLU challenged family separation in Ms. L v. ICE and won a nationwide injunction in 2018 that ended the practice. The ACLU and its partners continue to work to reunify families.
Details of the settlement include:
An estimated 4,500-5,000 children and their parents are covered under this settlement.
The government will continue to identify families that were separated, fund their reunification in the U.S., and provide a pathway for them to seek asylum here.
Families will have access to benefits to get them on their feet, such as work authorization, housing and legal assistance, and medical services.
The government is barred from reenacting the zero-tolerance policy over the next eight years.
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead attorney in the lawsuit, had this reaction to today’s court action:
“This settlement is a critical step toward closing one of the darkest chapters of the Trump administration. Babies and toddlers were literally ripped from their parents’ arms under this horrific practice. Thousands of families were torn apart.
“While this settlement alone can’t fix the unfathomable damage done to these children, it does provide hope and support that didn’t exist before. But there remains enormous work ahead to implement this settlement, including reuniting the hundreds of children who are still separated from their loved ones after all these years.
“No family should be forced to go through this nightmare and tragedy ever again.”
www.npr.org/2023/12/08/1218336878/immigration-family-separation-judge-settlement-borderFederal judge prohibits separating migrant families at the border DECEMBER 8, 2023 A federal judge in San Diego has approved a settlement prohibiting U.S. officials from separating migrant families at the border. The settlement, reached in October, was awaiting approval. It goes into effect on December 11th.
The lawsuit was filed in 2018 by the ACLU. It sued to block the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy, which separated undocumented parents from their children when they attempted to cross into the United States.
Adults were sent to detention centers and minors to shelters. More than 5,000 families crossing the U.S.-Mexico border were separated, with no plan for reunification. Images of children alone in detention facilities generated outrage; the youngest child separated from their family was only 6 months old at the time.
The Trump administration halted the policy. But the ACLU says around a thousand children remain separated. These children remain scattered across the U.S., living with extended relatives, family friends, or under state supervision. Lee Gelernt, the ACLU's lead counsel in this case, said the Trump administration's record-keeping was disastrous. He told NPR "it appears that the Trump administration tracked property more diligently than they tracked the whereabouts of little children," he said. "We have been searching for years for these families."
In an interview with NPR, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas signaled that the current White House has no plans to split apart families. "It is vital that we adhere to our country's fundamental values, and we will not deviate from that," he said.
Former President Donald Trump has said several times, that if elected again, he wouldn't rule out reimplementing the policy, which he said was effective in deterring immigration. "If a family hears that they're going to be separated, they love their family, they don't come," Trump said during a town hall in May. "I know it sounds harsh."
But today's settlement, approved by U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw states that for the next eight years, crossing the border illegally will no longer be a reason to separate a family.
This settlement does not give monetary compensation. Officials ended those negotiations back in 2021, after Republican lawmakers expressed outrage, saying the amounts under consideration were too high. It does stipulate that the U.S. government will continue to pay to help reunify families.
It also offers aid to those affected by the policy: they may apply for humanitarian protection in the U.S., work permits, and housing assistance.
Mayorkas told NPR that families will be given access to mental health resources as well. "I have met with reunited families," he said. "The trauma does not end with reunification. There is a great deal of healing needed. And we are committed to doing that which is to necessary to restoring these individuals, their health and well-being." |
|
