Right, because they have blankets and soap and toothbrushes.
9 Likes
15 Likes
DON’T YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE BEDS IN THE CAMPS /s
7 Likes
I DON’T WANT THEM TO HAVE THE CAMPS 
13 Likes
it would be immoral to release them /s
6 Likes
3 Likes
If? IF?, you seem to suggest that people that would intentionally miss the point, that would argue semantics as a barrier to discuss morality, would not be able to if they were only presented with the platonic version of this argument.
Yes she is, she is specifically defending that these are not necessary things. She is not arguing that it is not possible to provide these, she is arguing that there is no need to provide them under the law, hence they haven’t been provided.
The argument attempts to obfuscate what basic necessities are as if they were not obvious.
The context that you refer to, that this is not new is important, crucial even. But not to the narrow point of how basic necessities are denied. To children. Without relief in sight. And arguing that this is OK under a literal interpretation of the law.
An inhuman sort of interpretation that has been used when we start thinking of groups of people as less than human.
Why should context mitigate outrage? How could it?
12 Likes
To be super picky, she’s arguing that the Government can deny children in its care soap and blankets if it wants to. But I don’t see how that’s any less monstrous.
6 Likes
9 Likes
As I’m the regular poster most prone to making comments highlighting the fact that this bastardry has a history much longer than just the Trump presidency, allow me to make one thing clear:
My point is not “Obama did it too, therefore it’s okay that Trump does it”. Nor is my point to pretend that there has not been an escalation of evil in the Trump era.
My point, which I think is pretty fucking obvious when my posts are read in context, is: this is unacceptable now, and it was unacceptable then too.
And the implication of this is that “let’s just return things to normal, back to how they were before Trump” or “vote blue no matter who” is a grotesquely inadequate response to the situation.
Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
There are substantial numbers of people on Twitter and other places right now making that exact argument, without the sarcasm.
11 Likes
Extra nitpicky:
She’s arguing in front of the court that the government denying indefinitely detained children soap, running water, sleeping surfaces, tooth brushes and blankets at night meets the standard of “safe and hygenic”.
It’s literally the kind of shit they pulled at concentration camps in WWII. Arguing the government’s disfavored populations don’t need basic human necessities, and neglecting them to death.
13 Likes
The Dem establishment are true to form as well, I see…
What stunning leadership! What dedication to liberal democratic values! If there was any doubt about how she’d handle impeachment, here’s a preview.
12 Likes
Fuck Hillary for walking back that comment! She was never more correct with that.
3 Likes
Or not. Because Obama is not in charge now. Trump is and this crap is not only still going on, but got a shitload worse. Its 2019, if you are still saying “But Obama” when the subject is our current president, you are just an evasive SOB who is trying to avoid discussing the shitshow in charge now.
9 Likes
No. There is literally NO sound reason for this policy. None.
12 Likes
You know, where I work, we have this saying “Just because we never noticed [thing] previously, doesn’t mean we can look away now that we’ve seen it.”
The fact that this happened under Obama and probably Bush and Clinton doesn’t change the fact that it is also happening now. Just because we ignored it or were ignorant before doesn’t make it okay that it’s still happening. It isn’t hypocrisy to point it out, just because Trump is in charge. It means that we’ve finally fucking seen it, because this admin is too incompetent to keep it quiet.
12 Likes
I hate to say “I told ya so” to the Pelosi defenders, but I did call that she folds like a lawn chair.
7 Likes
Agreed. And Biden is preparing to run the exact same campaign.
4 Likes
3 Likes
That won’t stop them from explaining how the folding is a strategic move based on her long tenure in office.
ETA: Although if they phrase it as they usually do – “I trust someone who’s been folding like a lawn chair professionally for a decade over a random Internet critic like you” – they would make some sense.
6 Likes
