TakeYouToTasker

I remember when Batman used to wear tights.

At least 2/3 of the population doesn't accurately understand the issue then. The issue, by and large, is about preventing the trafficking of children, which is a massive problem both in scope and tragedy. When children arrive at our border with adults, with no documentation, they need to be separated from those adults.

It only appears that way when you're so blindly partisan that you're unable to acknowledge any of the good the President is doing domestically and around the globe.

That's a terrible safe word.

I'm only housebound because that's where all the sweet love making happens...

Strange that these persecuted individuals would be running towards those actual, literal Nazi's this time...

I'd offer that the militant neo-Marxists are making a competitive game of it.

The President does not have "emergency war powers". What happens, during a time of civil war, is that the President violates the Constitution, and assumes dictatorial powers he was never intended to have. In war, law breaks down, and this is extremely problematic for the people, who exercise exactly zero power over their government in these situations, and can only hope that they are not plunged into a permanent state of despotism; as once an Executive has taken these steps he has normalized and legitimized them within his system, and as world history has amply demonstrated, he almost never gives them back. Something to consider, partially borrowed from a very compelling argument a close friend of mine, a career military man, made to me in the past: It is physically possible for the Department of Defense to assume control of the government at any time. No other part of the government has the resources to stop them. The civilian population has no means to stop them. There could/would certainly, to some degree or another, be a guerilla insurgency resembling Iraq in our own streets; so I do not mean to imply that there would be no open resistance, but the government would be under direct control of junta. Make no mistake. There are, however, very good reasons why this simply does not happen. To do something like that, to borrow a phrase, would be the final extremity. A leap there is no returning from. It is the domestic equivalency of total war, and once done, could not be undone, and more importantly could be done again. This is an incredibly important concept to understand: Until what you are describing, and I have expanded on, is done, it simply cannot be done. BUT once it is done, it is easy to do again because it would be normalized as a proper response. Further, it would bring, in no uncertain terms, and absolute end to the Great American Experiment of Constitutional Government. It would mean it's abject failure as a system, and would bring us from the lofty perch of (capitalized for effect) Things That Simply Do Not Happen Here into the harsh realities of South America which we read about in the news.

What post?

Try them for what? What is the crime? Who gets to decide what the truth is? Who gets to decide if they were lying, or if the were wrong? Can you think of any reasons this might be a terrible idea?

Again, we're talking about stifling political dissent by creating an official ministry of information who directs and determines what is true and not true, and punishes news outlets and reporters accordingly. That is actual fascism.

Joe, you should feel free to take as much time as you want between posts. Mussolini's trains ran on time at least. Just sayin'. The way this plays out in your vision is a child's vision of Christmas. Answer my questions please.

Absolutely tremendous.

You didn't answer my questions, Joe. Quite the opposite, you neatly avoided them. Again, you're advocating for state sanctioned press and speech. This cuts both ways. So, I'll ask a second time: Do you think Donald Trump is going to be President forever? Perhaps King? Or do you think that at some point people who might disagree with you may hold office again, and use the powers you've assigned to this President against you to silence dissenters? Is this a tool you think President Obama or a Hillary Clinton Presidency should have had? Or will you pass a law which draws distinctions between different political ideologies, creating a political apartheid state where those with views differing from you don't enjoy having their rights protected? How does this play out in your warped dystopian world view?

I'm right when I'm right, Joe; it's just that in this case, contrasted with the wrongheadedness of your fascist preferences, it's much easier to see. The government should not be restricting the press, Joe. Or do you think Donald Trump is going to be President forever? Perhaps King? Or do you think that at some point people who might disagree with you may hold office again, and use the powers you've assigned to this President against you to silence dissenters? Is this a tool you think President Obama or a Hillary Clinton Presidency should have had? Or will you pass a law which draws distinctions between different political ideologies, creating a political apartheid state where those with views differing from you don't enjoy having their rights protected? How does this play out in your warped dystopian world view?

Nowhere in the article does it suggest putting journalists who have committed no crimes on lists and jailing them, Joe. You're no different than your enemies.

Exactly. The solution has no political value to them, so they have no interest in solving the problem, or helping the people impacted. What they want is precisely for Latinos to suffer so that they can use them as a voting block by controlling the issue. It's the exact same motivations they have for keeping black Americans in poverty.

Tell her to stay away from the cooks.

She knows she'll have access to the prison orthodontist.

Does it strike anyone else how similar Gary Cohen and Kevin O'Leary look?

To be clear, we're talking about prosecuting journalists. Not toppling the global elite, but actually putting journalists behind bars for what they choose to write. And we're talking about doing this not because the broke the law, but because it appears they broke ethical standards.

I can imagine it. Its the same argument we've been having forever. Monarchists v republicans. The argument never changes, just the characters.

I defend the rule of law. Full stop. You're advocating for tyranny. I'm advocating the import of the process. You're advocating outcome at all cost. I'm advocating for a long term, peaceful solution to the problem. You're advocating for a fascist dictatorship empowered to crush it's political enemies. Id rather be on my side.

I can appreciate this position. I find it completely reasonable for someone not willing to, or who hasn't yet, Fung themselves into deep diving independent research in the topic. On a personal level, I think this place benefits from your voice, however. We need more introspective dissent down here. More intelligent, respected, well thought out, introspective individuals who buck the regular trends. There are important conversations that need to happen, and they shouldn't be one sided. Please consider this. You'll note that you're the first person to declare anyone guilty. I've never used that phrasing. My words are carefully chosen. I don't know if Rosenstein is guilty of anything at all. I know he's involved as a major player, and has a massive role to play. I know where my educated suspicions lie, and I know the difference between justice and the the proper application of the powers we afford the law, and the Mueller investigation. I suspect you do as well.

I'm an avid memorabilia and sports card collector, but most of my focus is now on vintage baseball and boxing cards (pre-WWII era) and authentic Negro League(s) memorabilia. In my travels I come across a good deal of stuff, however. Is there anything specific you'd like me to keep an eye out for? As a fellow collector, you clearly know that a lot of this is luck of the draw when you're going through old collections, but I'm more than willing to keep an eye out for you, and more than willing to pass stuff or simply the opportunity to buy to you with no obligation, and no markup. PM me any specifics.