Sorry, that is a mis-type on my part. I apologize. You do know what I meant though.
This.
I was going to suggest it’s gopher fans
Could've just stopped here.![]()
So on the "both sides" thing- nobody seems to have found any reasonable information justifying taking kids from parents.
What is the other side to that argument?
Should we be taking kids from parents who are caught speeding, or jaywalking? Both are endangering their kids, after all- and both are roughly the same crime as illegally crossing the border (in terms of crime classification).
As for the people seeking asylum- we should not forget that this administration CLOSED the opportunity to ask for asylum at the border, forcing people to either stay in Mexico or cross illegally. Which makes the "cross at a proper crossing" suggestion total BS. And also justifying jailing people who are seeking asylum. In the process taking their kids.
What kind of country are we when we think it's ok that kids can be taken from parents who were leaving their country for the safety of their kids???
So a gold star for anyone with a reasonable "other side" to this issue.
There isn't a "reasonable" other side. But there is an other side. The Herpaderps claim that this will force a new immigration policy. Drastic measure to take? Yes, but if that is what it takes.....
This is what they think, along with Trump.
I'm not saying it's reasonable nor right. That's what WE believe. The Herpaderps think this a reasonable way to get things done.So I'm supposed to accept kids for a new law?
And we know that's no longer the case, since dumpy has tweeted to congress to stop any work. So if that was actually true, there would be some interest from the white house for new legislation.
Basically, dumpy himself has already debunked that "reason".
So find another one that is applicable.
I'm not saying it's reasonable nor right. That's what WE believe. The Herpaderps think this a reasonable way to get things done.
Here's the issue that Fade has recently brought up, in essence. Just because it's ridiculous to you and me, doesn't mean it's ridiculous to someone else.
Just because someone else doesn't think it's ridiculous doesn't make it any less ridiculous in fact. And it definitely doesn't mean the media or anyone else has to acknowledge it as a legitimate counter point.
There isn't a "reasonable" other side. But there is an other side. The Herpaderps claim that this will force a new immigration policy. Drastic measure to take? Yes, but if that is what it takes.....
This is what they think, along with Trump.
I'm not saying it's reasonable nor right. That's what WE believe. The Herpaderps think this a reasonable way to get things done.
Here's the issue that Fade has recently brought up, in essence. Just because it's ridiculous to you and me, doesn't mean it's ridiculous to someone else.
So that "other side" should be weighed and measured with the same seriousness and gravity as the argument about not taking kids?
Cause that's what your "both sides" means. Both sides have equally valid and serious reasons for doing the things they do supporting the policies that they do, believing the things that they do.
Except both sides don't. And that needs to be pointed out. Not just by us liberals. But by you self-proclaimed "centrists" as well.
Let's put it in simpler terms: if no opposing view were ever presented to the societal norm, there would be no growth of knowledge and cultural advancement.
Both sides need to be heard, so that the majority of people can make a decision based on the viewpoints of both sides. I haven't said anything different. Keep trying, though.
If only one side is heard, that is biased reporting.
But both sides don't need to be given equal validity, which is what your "both sides"-erism is all about.