TakeYouToTasker

Correct. His intention was to put an end to a very lucrative modern human slave trade, one of the major hubs of which is our Southern border. This is a global enterprise worth billions of dollars by official government estimates, which are low by magnitudes, as they have no way of truly calculating black market impacts. The people who control this global market are wealthy, powerful, and extremely well organized. Like every other billion dollar industry, they have lobbyists who buy politicians, and enrich them to support their business agenda. This is no different. He's issued executive orders to those ends, and has had major successes because of it. The President's work in chasing the bad actors out of DPRK and Saudi Arabia were an effort on this front as well, as those dark holes of human right's abuses were central to the problem, as individuals were actually being bred in captivity there. First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html  https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico  Various government and international organizations: https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border   https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking The situation at our southern border is entirely bound to this. Families entering the country through our check points are not separated. The people who are separated are adults traveling with children who work to avoid our border check points. They are separated because that's how children are trafficked into this country, and it's a massive problem, not to mention the largest human rights issue we face in America today.  I'll reiterate the most important piece for your consideration: Human trafficking is an annual multi-billion dollar industry; possibly larger since it's a black market which is nearly impossible to track. Like any other massive global industry, there are massive business operations which co-ordinate and own the lion's share of the marketplace. And like any other multi-billion dollar industry operating within the United States, these business interests have lobbyists who work to buy politicians to promote policy to protect their interests. The DPRK "stunt" was a direct takedown of one of the largest prongs of global human trafficking in the world; and was being propped up by bad actors within our own intel community. It's the policy I care about, not the man. It would be nice if the President had a more pleasant public persona, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.

https://www.newsbud.com/2017/08/29/breaking-journalist-interrogated-sacked-for-exposing-cia-nato-arming-of-terrorists/

You'd piss yourself. And you support traitors.

Oh, I get the feeling you'd do absolutely no such thing. You wouldn't even consider trying it. You wouldn't even think about it without pissing yourself. Your service doesn't excuse anything else you do. It's honorable to serve, but it's isolated, and it's not a moral get out of jail free card for other transgressions. For example, you served, and that's honorable; but you're a really ****ty person, and I hold absolutely zero respect for you or anything you stand for. I find you to be a morally bankrupt, boorish clown educated far beyond your own intelligence, and not really all that useful or interesting when discussing ideas with other adults. Oh, and if you're interested, I'll be sure to let you know the next time I'm attending a Bills game. You can come over to my tail gate, and I'm happy to tell you exactly this directly to your face. Cheers!

Horseshit. He's essentially the founding father of ISIS.

Well, for starters I never conspired with our enemies to kill Americans. John McCain is a traitor to this country, and anyone who supports him supports a traitor. That's you. You support traitors.

Should our federal government be empowered to go on blind fishing trips seeking to find evidence of any kind of criminality of it's citizens without being first prompted by evidence that these citizens had committed a crime? No, they do not. That's why they were referred to state AGs.

Our service men and women are not above reproach. A decorated war hero who comes home and becomes a rapist, for instance, deserves no deference or favorable treatment because of their service. John McCain is a traitor to his nation, and his service undoes exactly zero of that. John McCain conspired with our nations enemies to enact false flags and other subterfuge in order to drive us into wars of choice. These wars of choice caused the deaths of thousands of soldiers, real heroes, who deserved John McCain's honor, but instead were given his boot heel. The world needs fewer John McCains, and thankfully, soon that will be the case.

I was hoping he'd be exposed as the treasonous piece of trash he is before he died, destroying his legacy. It will be harder to do that posthumously.

If this is a new standup routine I like it. Hilarious stuff.

Of course not. The Browns/Jets game influences where the Bills pick.

Back to your cloak of parsed words I see. But again, that's fine. The world can see who you are. Unimpressive.

So you're saying that you wouldn't bet anything, that you have absolutely no conviction in the thoughts that you're expressing, and that no one should place any value in the things that you say because you don't mean them?

Again, this is a message board. It records what you say so everyone can see it. Everyone reading can scroll up and see the entirety of this conversation. They can all witness your intellectual dishonesty, followed closely by your refusal to be accountable to your own words, your hissy fit, and your personal attacks. That's your brand. It's your personal reputation, which you are choosing to craft. This is no one's fault but your own.

I didn't call you a liar, you named yourself a liar. I've already explained how, and rather than own it you attempted to cloak yourself in parsed language. But, by all means, please carry on with your hissy fit. It's a great look.

This is a message board. It records what you say so everyone can see it. Its not mine, nor anyone else's fault that you're intellectually dishonest, and then throw hissy fits like a petulant child when you have your feet held to the fire for it. If you don't like it change your behavior. If you won't change your behavior, own it.

Looks like someone can't handle being called out for not being able to own their words, and not being intellectually honest. Pro tip: Telling someone to !@#$ off in place of holding a defensible position is both comical and telling. If I conducted myself in the same manner you do, I'd be absolutely ashamed. That you aren't speaks to a lack of character.

You're clearly making a habit of saying things, with conviction, which you don't honestly believe. Quit hiding behind the parsing of language. Own your words.

Own your words.

Own your words.

Is it your contention that I am a racist because I'm opposed to genocide? Using that logic, those who support ethnic cleansing are not racist? Or is it only wrong to oppose genocide when the victims are black or brown skinned? How does that reconcile with the Holocaust? The European Jews were largely light skinned, as were those who perpetrated the violence. Or is genocide morally acceptable when it's committed against the ancestors of oppressors, colonists, or conquerors? What, then, of the Bantu's who conquered the lands held by other tribes prior to being colonized by the Dutch? Once the current black residents of South Africa have finished with their ethnic cleansing, should they immediately be looking over their shoulder fearing a just genociding of their own by the original tribes indigenous to the area? Once the genocide is complete, and the white farmer has been expelled or eradicated, and the people of South Africa fall into starvation (Which will happen, by the way. Each SA farm feeds 3000 people on average, and are currently barely producing enough to feed to population; and 70% of all farms seized over the past several decades now lie fallow.) is the international community obligated to feed those who just perpetrated a genocide? Along the same lines, when those fleeing the starvation caused by their own actions begin flooding into Europe, should Europeans take them in? Finally, speak to the group about the positive morality of supporting genocide, and please explain why ethnic cleansing is a good thing. Thank you.

That's fine, I'm just glad you took the opportunity to respond and name yourself a liar.

You'd be willing to bet anything? I'll hold you to that. If it doesn't have ramifications on the Trump/Russia collusion investigation, you'll agree to stop posting on the entire message board. Or are you a liar?

I'm practically rabid...

I'm a believer in process rather than in people. I don't subscribe to the "Great Man" view of history, and believe that all men are terribly flawed; which is why I look past the person and straight into the policy. The real legacy of any President is the government structure they leave behind them, and the ripples it sends out over the long arch of history. This President has built a legacy of breaking down the unaccountable regulatory and intel states, putting an end to modern day human slavery and child sex trafficking, has improved America's economic lot by ripping up old trade agreements and building new ones which will better benefit the American worker, has dismantled the bad actors in what former President Bush called "the Axis of Evil" making America and the world safer, and has heeded Eisenhower's warnings about the MIC.