TakeYouToTasker

Morons might thank that. Anyone else would just laugh at you.

History records a lot of stupid things. I mean, look at your contributions to this thread. Pure, unadulterated stupid. All recorded by abject morons for consumption by other morons.

I'm not sure that thread can handle any more stupid... Though it might test it's containment capacity.

... You're a whole new type of stupid I had yet to encounter. I thought I had seen just about every variety, but I'm proud to report that I've discovered a new species. I think I'll name you GatorDungBeetle. Is it your assertion that Jews cannot be born is Austria?

Hitler was Jewish. Does that mean the Holocaust was a Zionist plot?

It will also allow him to shine a light on exactly how bad the trafficking issue has become at the border. He'll be able to plainly state that "families are being kept together, but we are separating children from suspected traffickers".

I don't think you understand the business model restaurant owners are constrained by.

I'm not talking about policy, I'm talking about personal empathy. As an aside, are you really going to hold up Mexico as an example of how our government should function?

Exactly. Five star dining goes right out the window under this model.

I didn't score particularly high on the test either, though I find it fairly sociopathic when individuals can't see their way to feel compassion for others who were plunged into poverty simply by nature of being born into a third world country.

Pity is the wrong word, but you should feel empathy. I don't blame individuals who would seek to come here by any means necessary to provide a better life for their families. As a father, I would do the same. That doesn't mean we should construct our immigration policies based on empathy, however.

Poverty is not a legitimate reason for asylum. We are not, and cannot become, the safety net for the world. In fact, the exodus of motivated individuals from these countries only serves to worsen the plight of their home nations. The struggle for improvement is intergenerational, and when those most motivated for change leave, they set back any chance of improvement.

When you have a house which is need of repairs, let's say the house needs a new roof, exterior paint, new windows, a new boiler, and updated electric and pluming, but the bones of the house are sturdy and the foundation is strong, you do the work to fix the house. However, if a house has been consumed by fire, the framing charred, the building gutted and irreparably damaged, the best way to salvage any value is to tear the house down, and rebuild from scratch. The United Nations Human Rights Council falls firmly into the latter. Our continued membership served only to provide the group with it's last shred of legitimacy, providing cover for the human rights abuses of the worst government actors on the planet. After many years of working through attempted reforms, and having those reforms rejected wholesale, it is simply better for us to leave as a gesture to the world that we will no longer provide cover for their atrocities. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-were-leaving-the-so-called-human-rights-council-1529449869

It could certainly be a valid part of a solution, though I'd want see data on reliability, and cost benefit actuarial data. Please note that I said "part". You'd want much more than that for what I believe are fairly obvious reasons, though what you've presented could have positive impact in working towards a solution.

They won't because he's DOA. They'll try to spin him out as a lone misguided actor whose well reasoned bias drove him to go too far, and in no way representative of larger machinations. Until they can't, because it will be proven untrue like every single other narrative they've spun.

No, Joe. I'm not. As gatorbait has pointed out, someone, in an official capacity, has to decide what is true, or not. That person will be with the government, and based on their decision, press outlets and reporters will be punished for not complying with what the government has decided is the truth. So, yes, it really does require a government ministry of truth to adjudicate. You're literally making the exact same argument supporters of the ACA made about death panels.

Your view necessitates a "government ministry of information and truth" with the power to prosecute those who deviate from it's official standard. That is some absolutely Orwellian stuff, Joe.

AND THAT'S OK. People are allowed to disagree with you, Joe. And they're allowed to do and say things that you disagree with on the platforms that they own. Just as you are free to do the same.