Fresh8686

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think it's chosen anger because Trump is in the WH.

It makes me sad that you're that cynical.

I just came back from lunch with my wife and she broke down crying over a segment on these children. I have to mute the TV when they play recordings of the children because it hurts her too much. She's a counselor, an ordained minister, and a child abuse survivor herself.

This **** hurts her soul. It hurts my soul.

Again, this is not tribal or political for many people. I hope you can take the time to seriously consider what I'm saying and accept that it holds true for many people across the country.

We're angry and hurt by this. And personally, I'm so ****ing scared over the fact that we have heard nothing about the girls and toddlers. Where are they? Why haven't we seen or heard anything about their conditions? I pray to God that none of these dirty mother****ers have abused or sexually assaulted them.

19 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Yes I do.  I think this is yet the latest Trump "Outrage".  That also doesnt mean that we all shouldnt come up with a solution.  But crying now about kids in detention centers is crocodile tears.  I want to find a solution too.  I just dont know what it is.  It shouldnt be splitting up kids and arresting parents.  But if we allow them to stay while being processed, where does that occur?  And if we allow everyone to claim asylum, come in and THEN verify whether the asylum claim is legit, well that's the loop hole everyone will use knowing our system is too overwhelmed to keep track of everyone.

You actually think we are reacting with fake or insincere anger? Maybe you're projecting on that one, but in my house we know too well what their going through and there is nothing fake with what we're feeling and I think many other people on here feel the same. This isn't some tribal ass political game, this is real life for us. We actually care about human decency, as an inherent principle, it is not a talking point or a veiled political strategy.

If your fears over abuse of asylum were warranted we'd be seeing everyone already trying to take advantage of the "loophole". It takes a lot for people pick up and move and go through the ordeal of migrating here. It's not some easy thing to just coast on in. You still would have screening for amnesty eligibility and we could still add more people to the process. It wasn't hard for them to increase the numbers of border patrol agents, how hard will it be to supplement the amnesty process and provide proper care?

Do you honestly think the system would be more overloaded with your amnesty "loophole" than it already is right now with this zero tolerance policy? Choosing the former over the latter, would actually reduce the load, and that's ignoring the inherent flaw in your "loophole" argument in the first place.

 

27 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Are you cool with the fact they would be kept in 'cages' even if they arrived w/o parents?

 

 

 

Of course not and they wouldn't be. These "camps" are occurring purely because this bull-**** no tolerance policy is overloading the system with way more kids than HHS was prepared to handle.

I still have problems with the whole vacant "big lots" setup, because they are still treated like they're incarcerated and we can just straight up do better for these kids. But, damn at least they had their own beds, a/c, licensed medical professionals on staff, and recreation opportunities.

They went from that weak ass ****, to cages in 100 degree south Texas heat. There will be kids who die from that exposure. Grown men would die in prison from similar during the summer when I was a federal resident.

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

People should be outraged that Trump has manipulated the laws to create this outrage.  

 

But I see a lot of people claiming to be outraged about kids being detained.  Which in turn allows Trumpsters to claim that Dems did it too (which did happen) and there weren’t cries of protest about it. 

 

It plays right into his hands

It only plays into his hands if a person does not have the will or mental faculty to see the distinct differences between the two situations. It’s not hard to kick away bull**** whataboutisms or false equivalency. 

And what the hell do you mean by claim? I’m ****ing furious about this ****. Do you actually believe we’re playing games with our anger about this? 

And how does our anger “in turn” allow trump to blame the dems? He’s doing that all by himself. The only thing that allows him to make that claim is the passivity of people who don’t challenge it for the lie it is. 

Trump’s hands are too small to hold this. This is going to backfire on him, especially when it comes to suburban women and the midterms. 

I don't understand how some people are cool with kids being kept in cages because their parents may have committed a misdemeanor or were seeking asylum. How are you cool with just automatically saying, "well they deserved it" or "they should have stayed where they were" (completely dismissing the fact that they were most likely fleeing such a place because their life was in danger).

This administration is caging children to "send a message". And you're cool with that? Are you not smart enough, willful enough to think of a better way to do things than this?

I've experienced first-hand how people feel they have license to treat you like utter ****, like less than an animal, because you broke the law. You see some of the worst atrocities committed by people when they feel like they have government approval to do so. These kids are getting that treatment right now. As we sit on our computers in our air-conditioned rooms, going from thread to thread, there are children sitting in cages who are feeling constant stress and fear, who are being traumatized, who are being inflicted with wounds that will last the rest of their life and be a millstone around their necks.

Do you know what it's like to sleep on cold concrete with a little mat and a blanket while officers watch you on the other side of your cage? I do. I know how cruel they can be, the abuse they get away with. And again these are ****ing kids having to deal with this, whose only "crime" is a misdemeanor.

I wish for just one day I could make these ****ers feel just a fraction of what these kids are going through. If you want to throw away kids to the rules of the jungle, than you better be prepared to handle that action yourself.

There is a protest against this **** on June 30th, I know damn well I'll be there.

But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. ~ Matthew 18:6
 

Forgot about Warsaw, but it makes sense. Never been there but knew a couple people who transferred from there to Orange County. It’s a step down from Alexandria. It’s gonna be a harsh transition for manafort if he’s never experienced jail time before. 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

My wife @thegreaterbuzzette texted me at work today that Manafort was going to jail.  She also said something about they were having trouble deciding what jail to send him to.  Assuming it had something to do with where could he be protected.  Anyone heard anything about that part of the story?

I'm watching the news now and from what I've seen so far, they don't know which jail he'll be going to.

If he's in DC's jail, he's in for a rough ride, but he's federal so he could also be going to Alexandria County jail which is where federal inmates are normally held. If he goes to Alexandria he'll be in protective custody on the 2nd floor. That's really his most likely destination unless the federal marshals move him somewhere else for security concerns. But, if they do the only other jail i know of that hold's federal inmates is in Orange County, VA which is pretty far south. If he goes there, he's about to be on some deliverance ****.  That place is dirty as hell and your jumpsuit is the old school whites and stripes.

Alexandria isn't a walk in the park either, but that's his best shot. The other two options would be more likely to break him, but also greater chance of him getting snuffed out.

Edit: This is assuming that things haven't changed in the last ten years since I've been a guest of the above establishments.

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

What's interesting to me is that if all these lawsuits against Trump were happening while he wasn't President I have no doubt 90% of the population would believe he was guilty of all of it. Let's say in alternative universe he had lost the election and he was merely still just a rich a-hole....I can almost guarantee a lot of the people who support him now and cry out "fake news" about anything  related to Trump breaking the law, would be part of the "of course he is guilty" choir had he never entered the political arena. 

 

It says a lot how politics have morphed Trump into a good human being to half this country.

Yup, he's their franchise player in this tribal game. An underdog bully, ready to be the wrecking ball to these coastal "elites". Or at least that's the con.

When you don't know much about how government runs, especially the effort needed to keep it afloat, it makes it easier to take it for granted. To treat it like a game. So many of these people have zero outside awareness of the things at stake.

One thing I love about being multi-racial is I get to see with clear eyes how ****ing dumb it is for a person to base their identity on skin color. I get to side-step all that bull**** and just focus on my identity being based upon my choices, principles, and behavior.

God, what a dumbass mental construct that stuff is and these snowflake, persecution-complex having bigots just eat that **** right up.

This feels like giving up Cousins for nothing all over again.

9 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Most of my social circle are sheltered conservative Southern Whites.  It's not a coincidence that almost all of the Southern Whites that I know who are liberal are things like teachers and healthcare workers who are much less sheltered.

 

It's easy to not care about that which you're sheltered from.

It's hard for me to trust people who haven't been through things in life.

I think of it like balancing and bridging fire and ice. Too much fire (struggle/scarcity) can break and twist you, make you too hard and bitter. Too much ice (comfort/shelter/abundance) and it numbs you, so the real struggle of others becomes a game or entertainment and you are unable to accurately judge the costs of things.

The best way to live is to have a best of both worlds approach. Struggle and risk for the right things at the right intensities so you have skin in the game and have enough history of pain to share in the struggle of others (to actually feel inter-dependency and the benefits of abiding to a social contract). Plus, shelter for the right things at the right intensities so you know what trust and home feel like, so you have something you don't want to lose and instead want to protect and build for yourself and others.

You have to have both. Any other combination tends to breed people with ****ed up ways of relating to the world.

You can attack the post, but not the poster Zoony

I love how the supposed self accountability party blames the election of trump on Hillary. People lose so much credibility when they say stupid **** like that. 

That is NOT the MAIN reason why Trump won. 

Also, many democrats recognize how Hillary came across, while also recognizing she was far more competent than trump regardless. 

Are you you guys just latent victim blamers? If you see someone get cheated and your first thought is it’s her ****ing fault for getting cheated, you might be a victim blamer. 

If you see a flawed establishment candidate with no charisma, who got hit with Russian propaganda that reached 132 million people, who only lost by 77,000 votes, (but won the popular election) to a con man who sexually assaults women and you think she’s the main problem. You might be a victim blamer. 

How about the main problem (but not only problem) is that not enough people are doing their due diligence and making balanced, rational, and informed decisions about a candidate? This holds more weight because it is still valid when considering the primaries and puts the responsibility on each individual.  

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

Yo wtf Spain.

 

Literally everyone knows that Russian Interpol warrants aren't worth the paper they're written on.

For real. If Russia gets their hands on Browder, he's as good as dead.

30 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Again. The owners disagree with your view of things.  And now there is something specific in the rules.  Before there was not.  Now it is just like the nba.  If a player is on the field.  He must stand respectfully for the anthem. 

 

So again i ask.   Who is going to fight this with more than just angry words?   Who will step up and now ACTUALLY protest it?  

 

And my fuether point is that that those that don’t, are choosing sides just like everyone else.  

Actually, unless something has changed that I don't know of, this thing has yet to be formally voted in and a couple of the organizations abstained and a third said they would cover the costs and protect their players.

Oh and man, I'm so glad you put in that word respectfully. Can we take a moment and just all acknowledge that certain people have completely hijacked the narrative of this discussion by insinuating that this protest is in any way disrespectful to anyone (other than racists and cops who abuse their power when it comes to minorities)?

In the real world there is zero disrespect occurring here. If you actually listened to the protestors there is ZERO disrespect intended. Again, zero intent of disrespect. Further, historically speaking keeling is a sign of deference, and I'm pretty confident that there is near zero historical precedent of kneeling being used as a vehicle for the disrespect of another.  In the legal world, intent and precedent are pretty big markers, why not here when making a judgement about respect?

They are showing more respect, more deference to the flag when kneeling and protesting abuse than any fan or trainer, or staff member, or concession stand worker who is moving around during the process of the national anthem (some of whom are also under contract with the very same employer).

Regarding your last couple sentences. Are you trying to insinuate that they weren't actually protesting before? Don't you think you got the focus in the wrong place when you're both castigating players for protesting and then telling them they need to do more to actually fix the problem of abuse of power? What do you want them to do, run a blitz on congress or intercept a bill?

When the people who are supposed to fix the **** fail, people have to protest and get the attention of said people, so they do their job. That almost always involves people with high public visibility, like public role models and figures, getting the message out. We have a history of activism occurring across many different kinds of work places, that occur with no problem whatsoever. The only difference is the right wing push-back in this case and a troglodyte president and vp exerting pressure. People with a history of subverting things and hijacking a narrative, for nefarious reasons.


 

7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think it’s clear that the owners feel that this is their time

And what are you trying to say with that exactly? 

Their employer paid for them to show up and play a game. That's what they are there to do. If there is nothing specifically stated in a handbook about what must be done during the anthem (and I bet there isn't or else this dumbass vote would never have happened), then them just being present, sufficiently fulfills the requirement they owe their employer.

Just for the record, I am not calling these mother****ers owners in the context of this thread. They will be referred to as employers. They own the team, but they are these grown men's employers not owners.

I'd like to examine this whole "on employer's time" thing.

During the anthem, there is nothing they would be doing that is part of their job as football players other than standing there. They are not halting the game or delaying the game. The same amount of time still passes and the game and stats are still 0-0.

How are they negatively impacting their employer's time during the anthem? It's not like their a worker protesting at 10AM during a 9-5 hour shift. If anything their being respectful of their employer's time and doing their protest during their break.

There is no impact whatsoever to the "time" their employer is contractually obligated to receive and a person should be able to exercise their constitutional rights, especially when they are doing so without interrupting the flow of the game they are being payed to play.

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Wrong. It may be good for the NFL. But the players are protesting something important. The best thing that can happen here is people like you support thier cause. 

Exactly. It’s posts like the previous that show how some people give zero consideration for the importance behind why their protesting in the first place in their mental calculus. 

If people want to deem football as a national pastime then that also means it’s a social institution and platform as well as a business. The business doesn’t get to enjoy the perks of being embedded in the social fabric without the responsibilities and challenges that come along with it. If the players have to take on the responsibility of being role models for children, shouldn’t the owners do so as well?

I hope they keep protesting and if it takes football grinding to a halt for the rest of the country to realize we need to treat each other better and look out for each other when people in authority abuse their power, then **** it, I’m all for it. 

n/m

I hate this mother****er soooo ****ing much. 

How does that not qualify for a hate crime enhancement to his sentencing?

17 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Only because it has been in the news for a while that we were planning on and now are doing this.  That is all.  Not trying to make any kind of grand statement.  And I said I dont agree with them doing this.

Ah ok, cool, I knew from your post you weren't advocating for it. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding where you were coming from on that point