*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

Trump is in the UK. Naturally, Twitter is in meltdown, more so than when Saudi Princes come here.

[OngBonga]

HE SAID "STOPED"
OH MY FUCKING GOD
WHAT AN ABSOLUTE RETARD
HE MADE A TYPO
IMPEACH HIM NOW

[OngBonga]

Someone ever referred to CNN as "free press".
But the typo...

[OngBonga]

So far I've been blocked by two anti-Trump morons for my sarcastic but non-offensive replies to their retarded tweets.

What a wonderful world Twitter is. If someone disagrees with you, pretend they don't exist.

[oskar]

I don't recall ever calling Trump a retard because of a typo. I call him a retard in point of fact.



The banana challenge to find any clip of Trump as president saying something smart still stands as far as I'm concerned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYWz...youtu.be&t=129

[oskar]

^^ These are both from last week fwiw. I'm not going out of my way to make the man look bad.

[OngBonga]

Why does anyone give a shit if Kim is firing missiles into the sea?

If you wanted to get me to nod in approval, you could have quoted him saying that it's fake news that he called Meghan "nasty",when he was recording using that exact word. That is dumb, not a tweet giving zero fucks about Kim's missile adventures.

[Poopadoop]

Lets a maniac develop a nuclear program - no problem.

Insults a Royal - arrrrgghgghggh!!

[OngBonga]

"Lets a maniac develop a nuclear program"

Implies Don is President of the World.

[OngBonga]

Obviously I don't care if he insults the Royals, I regularly do so. Just don't pretend you didn't when you were recorded doing so.

[Poopadoop]

I was just teasing you; I don't actually have you down as a Royalist.

[OngBonga]

Indeed, but obviously it's xenophobia, since they're German.

[oskar]

Why does anyone give a shit if Kim is firing missiles into the sea?

If you wanted to get me to nod in approval, you could have quoted him saying that it's fake news that he called Meghan "nasty",when he was recording using that exact word. That is dumb, not a tweet giving zero fucks about Kim's missile adventures.

"I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me, & also smiled when he called Swampman Joe Bidan a low IQ individual, & worse."

Why do I have to point out that that's the retarded part? Does that sound like something someone who's not retarded would say?

[Poopadoop]

Indeed, but obviously it's xenophobia, since they're German.

Yeah but so are you, Anglo Saxon.

[OngBonga]

Yeah but so are you, Anglo Saxon.

Germanic people originally came from Scandanavia. The country "Germany" is named after the territory Germanic people occupied, the ethnic group are not named after the nation of Germany. If anything, I'm of Swedish heritage, as are the Germans.

Nice try though.

[OngBonga]

"I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me, & also smiled when he called Swampman Joe Bidan a low IQ individual, & worse."

Why do I have to point out that that's the retarded part? Does that sound like something someone who's not retarded would say?

Why's it retarded? Because he thinks Kim will keep a promise? Why does Trump "have confidence"? If I said to you "we can either be friends or I can punch you in the face", and I'm a world class boxer while you're a skinny nobody, then you probably opt to be friends. I would even go as far as to say I would have "high confidence" that you would choose that option.

Or is the retarded part the bit where Trump takes pleasure in mocking Biden? Or maybe the retarded part is spelling his name wrong.

Please, do elaborate.

[oskar]

I'm not even bothered by the content. It's a completely disjointed sentence. I don't understand how this doesn't bother you. You don't do that. You have never sounded as dumb as the president of the US, and I'm sure you've been every stage of drunk and high while posting.

It's all levels of retarded. Yeah, it's retarded on the face to say you have confidence in someone's promise when the preceding sentence conceded that he broke that very promise. Then period, ampersand, poop pants "and also smiled..." total non sequitur. Second half of the sentence has no relation to the first and introduces an entirely new thought... the thought being that Kim smiled when he called Joe Biden low IQ. Ok. There's your statement from the leader of the free world.

[oskar]

Also, I understand that this is a tough challenge but if you happen to stumble upon a Trump quote that sounds semi coherent, then feel free to post it right up. I know it's tough, but that's my point.

[OngBonga]

I don't understand how this doesn't bother you. You don't do that.

I don't understand why it bothers you. You're not even American.

You have never sounded as dumb as the president of the US, and I'm sure you've been every stage of drunk and high while posting.

I don't think I am as dumb as Trump. It's a shame intelligence isn't what gets you places, because if it was, I'd be doing better than he is.

Yeah, it's retarded on the face to say you have confidence in someone's promise when the preceding sentence conceded that he broke that very promise.

You know what promises Kim made? I don't. Maybe he didn't promise not to fire small weapons into the sea.

There's your statement from the leader of the free world.

Maybe you should stop putting the POTUS on such a pedestal. Leader of the free world? No he's not. Maybe I don't give a fuck because he doesn't speak for me.

...if you happen to stumble upon a Trump quote that sounds semi coherent, then feel free to post it right up.

Ok, this is semi-coherent, and only posted ten minutes ago...

Just had a big victory in Federal Court over the Democrats in the House on the desperately needed Border Wall. A big step in the right direction. Wall is under construction!

[oskar]

Do I sound like a conspiracy theorist if I say this sounds like a staff tweet? Many flags: "big", not very big, not the biggest in history... Democrats in the House - accurate language. huge flag! "Big step in the right direction" Not Trump vocabulary. And of course the most egregious: "Wall is under construction" Not "Finish the wall!"
The only trumpian thing about this is the weird capitalization.

I very much prefer video evidence.

You know what promises Kim made? I don't. Maybe he didn't promise not to fire small weapons into the sea.

You're right to point out that we don't know what he promised because Trump never had Kim put it in writing - he basically paid Kim for the vegetable remains of Otto Wambier, he cancelled troup exercises with SK and elevated KJU on the world stage in exchange for nothing. He claimed "total denuclearization," but ldo NK resumed nuclear proliferation just months after the summit.

[OngBonga]

You can't stump the Trump.

Skip to 2:00

[OngBonga]

I know, that was lazy, but I'm eating my dinner. I'll find something later.

[oskar]

I don't know pre-presidential Trump at all, it's possible he became demented or syphilitic but used to be mentally abled. My claim that he's properly retarded is confined to his time as president.

[OngBonga]

Ok I'm currently watching his speech today in the UK. First 15 mins or so is scripted, both May and Trump reading from notes and blabbering about our special relationship and the Normandy Landings, but they go off script when they start taking questions from the press. Skip to 17:15 and listen to him talk about our Mayor. Not only is he right, he's coherent. Theresa May bottled it, I'd have fucking howled in approval if she answered the question posed to her with a simple "yes". But that's irrelevant.



I'm not having any difficulty understanding what he's saying.

[Poopadoop]

Germanic people originally came from Scandanavia. The country "Germany" is named after the territory Germanic people occupied, the ethnic group are not named after the nation of Germany. If anything, I'm of Swedish heritage, as are the Germans.

Nice try though.

You could have just gone with the obvious ones, like the Angles were from Denmark, or that you probably have Viking, Celtic, Roman and French blood in you as much as German. But I'm impressed you just made up your own version of history for the sake of argument instead.

[OngBonga]

I can't be fucked to check the historical accuracy of my comments. My point is that the English are not German... both the English and the Germans are largely descended from the same people... Germanic people. At no point in history have Germany invaded England and fucked our women to contaminate our blood.

I don't know if I'm Celtic or Anglo-Saxon, so that one was best left alone. The Normans (the French who conquered us) were descended from Vikings, who were indeed Germanic people. Were the Vikings German? Nope, they were Norse (Norwegian). So Germanic does not mean "from Germany", does it? At least not in the context of the Germanic people. It refers to the ancient culture of Northern Europe, including parts of Germany, but also Scandinavia. It's a broad term.

Germany was named after the Germanic people who occupied it. That much is accurate.

[oskar]

What do you think Trump said about the mayor of london? Did he say anything besides: 'The mayor of london is bad. I am good.' I think that's a perfect summary that doesn't leave out any information. He doesn't qualify his statements, he doesn't say what he's referring to... it's a carbon copy of what he says about everyone he dislikes.

"I don't think he should be criticizing a representative of the US" Why not. He doesn't say why... because it's a retarded thing to say and there is no reason why Sadik Khan shouldn't criticize Trump.

OMG I just now went back and listened to the question. The question is: 'Jeremy Corbyn has criticized you... could you imagine making a trade deal with him?' - She didn't name Corbyn by name, and "the london mayor" was the only subject Trump recognized, so he latched on to that. He did not answer the question because, being a fucking retard, he didn't even understand the goddamn question!

NEXT!

[OngBonga]

What do you think Trump said about the mayor of london?

He called him a loser who's doing a bad job, pointing out that crime is on the increase in London. Trump pointed out that Khan should not be insulting the elected leaders of allies, which is absolutely true.

"I don't think he should be criticizing a representative of the US" Why not. He doesn't say why... because it's a retarded thing to say and there is no why.

It's obvious why. I'll ask you, why does Trump need to go into intricate detail about what he thinks of a plonker who takes pot shots at him in order to boost his flailing popularity? He's on a state visit and has better things to talk about, such as trade.

He did not answer the question because being a fucking retard, he didn't even understand the goddamn question!

So it's his fault the dumb newswoman incorrectly clarified who she was talking about? He asked her directly if she's referring to the Mayor of London, and she said "yes". Why aren't you calling her a retard?

[oskar]

He said criticize, not insult. He shouldn't be insulting foreign leaders, sure, but saying Khan shouldn't criticize them is r e t a r d e d.

Even if the woman who asked the question nodded (she didn't say yes) to Trump asking to clarify "you were talking about the major of London, is that who you said?" I wouldn't fault her for not seeing this as a deliberate misdirection but rather that he might have misheard. But of course he didn't mishear, it's clear as day that she was asking about Corbin and used two examples of Corbin criticizing Trump to ask if he could imagine making a trade deal with Corbin in light of this... Which is a really bad question, but not ill-formed.

Anyone not fucking retarded knows that that Khan wasn't the subject of the question. I expect more from a 12 year old in terms of comprehension level. This was not a hard question, Trump, being a mentally disabled person just had no clue who the opposition leader is, so he had to make the question about something he can run his boilerplate bad guy monologue on.

"Did I hear that name in there somewhere?" BOOM "Many people have said many bad things and many things, they say are in a very bad way, but we've been doing a tremendous job."

He's on a state visit and has better things to talk about, such as trade.

HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT TRADE!
He chose to answer a different question. Why do you think that is? I have a pretty solid theory over here if you want to take a gander!

[OngBonga]

He said criticize, not insult.

Splitting hairs.

but saying Khan shouldn't criticize them is r e t a r d e d.

He's not critisising his policy, he's saying stupid shit like he's become a "poster boy for the far right", which is nothing more than a political pot shot. There's no substance, just rhetoric that is designed to appeal to his leftie supporters.

Critisising policy is fine. I won't argue with that. But political jibes are insults, not critisisms.

Even if the woman who asked the question nodded (she didn't say yes)

You're right, but I have to assume she nodded, because he went on to discuss Khan. But even if she didn't nod, she didn't clarify her question.

I wouldn't fault her for not seeing this as a deliberate misdirection but rather that he might have misheard.

I would. She should clarify her question. "No, Jeremy Corbyn. Can you work with him regarding trade?".

But of course he didn't mishear

This is your assumption, and is subjective.

it's clear as day that she was asking about Corbin

Not at all, the woman literally asked May straight after if she though Khan was a "stone cold loser". So it's completely understandable why Trump thought that was who the question referred to. Again, this is your subjective opinion (and mine), not an objective fact.

Anyone not fucking retarded knows that that Khan wasn't the subject of the question.

Subjective.

HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT TRADE!

Didn't he quickly move on to specifically discuss trade?

He chose to answer a different question. Why do you think that is? I have a pretty solid theory over here if you want to take a gander!

Let me guess... it's your subjective theory not based on objective fact? Fire away.

[oskar]

I know I'm going into this with a very colored perception, but I think I'm treating this fairly. I have lowered the bar for Trump quotes I will be reviewing from "smart" down to "coherent" and the first thing you dig up is him answering the question if he would consider making a trade deal with Jeremy Corbyn by saying he thinks Sadiq Khan is a bad major and crime is up in london. How would you judge that on coherence?

[OngBonga]

Coherence is being understood. I have no problem understanding what he's saying.

And I only posted this because, truth be told, I can't be bothered to dig through old speeches from Trump. I had an interest in what he had to say yesterday, so I watched that. At no point did I find him incoherent, nor did he say anything I thought was retarded.

And yes, you're definitely viewing this with a huge amount of bias.

[oskar]

Coherence is being understood. I have no problem understanding what he's saying.

And I only posted this because, truth be told, I can't be bothered to dig through old speeches from Trump. I had an interest in what he had to say yesterday, so I watched that. At no point did I find him incoherent, nor did he say anything I thought was retarded.

And yes, you're definitely viewing this with a huge amount of bias.

No, coherence is being coherent. Like having the second part of your sentence be in any way connected to the first part, or when being asked a question to answer that question and not a different question. That is coherence. If you ask me if the sky is blue and I say the ocean is a beautiful color today, that would make me incoherent even though you can understand what I'm saying. Trump was incoherent in that clip.

He's not critisising his policy, he's saying stupid shit like he's become a "poster boy for the far right", which is nothing more than a political pot shot. There's no substance, just rhetoric that is designed to appeal to his leftie supporters.

Critisising policy is fine. I won't argue with that. But political jibes are insults, not critisisms.

Again, you are making Trump way smarter than he is. Trump said he shouldn't criticize. He didn't say anything about the content of Khans criticism. If I ever said someone shouldn't criticize someone else for any reason, it would have been just as stupid. Anyone can criticize anyone for any reason, and if you have a problem with the criticism you should address the content of the criticism and not the person delivering it.

[OngBonga]

If you ask me if the sky is blue and I say the ocean is a beautiful color today, that would make me incoherent even though you can understand what I'm saying.

Ok fair enough. But If you ask me what colour the ocean is, and I ask "did you ask what colour the sky is" and you either nod or remain silent, then when I answer "it's grey because it's cloudy", it's hardly my fault I'm incoherent.

If he didn't ask for clarity, you'd have a valid point.

Again, you are making Trump way smarter than he is.

Once again, in your opinion. I don't think he's as smart as he thinks he is, but I think he's smarter than you think he is. Regardless, how smart either of us think he is is very much subjective.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1136146240582955008?s=20

“I did say, ‘Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are based on all statistics.’ And it’s even getting better because I agree with that we want the best water, the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean, has to be crystal clean clear.”

“I believe that there is a change in weather. And, I think it changes both ways.

"Don’t forget: it used to be called ‘global warming’ – that wasn’t working. Then, it was called ‘climate change.’ Now, it’s actually called ‘extreme weather’ - because, with ‘extreme weather,’ you can’t miss."


ceaseless stupidity

[oskar]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ars-tweet-nasa

"Trump’s declaration shocked many space enthusiasts, because the moon has not traditionally been regarded as part of Mars."

[Poopadoop]

"Trump’s declaration shocked many space enthusiasts, because the moon has not traditionally been regarded as part of Mars."

Key word there is 'traditionally'. Lots of things people traditionally believed, like that obstruction of justice is a crime and that children shouldn't be separated from parents, are facing reconsideration these days.

[oskar]

...or that the forest needs to be swept to prevent fires, or that windmills cause cancer, or that only Einstein understands magnets and that's why steam is better.

[oskar]

[dwarfman3]

I don't understand your goal here. This quote is from the context of me criticizing this police officer for participating in a wide spread systemic issue in policing. To bolster my point, I make it clear that I'm not an ACAB drooler. Being anti-cop is nonsensical. No one actually wants to live in a society without police. You might say the words, you might think you mean them-- but when you get down to the nuts and bolts, when you actually understand the implications, it's not what you want.

Being anti-cop is a childish response to a serious set of issues. It's akin to the people who hear about a rapist going to prison and proclaim their hope that they themselves get raped. It's dumb. Mulling it over for half a second makes it abundantly clear how dumb of a position it is.

Off topic but I preferred when you were called boostNslide, it had a much better ring to it.

[oskar]

Oh, thanks for bumping that!

I think the police has much too broad a spectrum of responsibilities. For handling domestic disturbances it would make a lot more sense to send someone whose skill set is closer to that of a social worker. Traffic cops don't need to be armed any heavier than a train conductor, and the people who deal with actual crime should have more extensive training.

There's a universal problem with police officers covering for each other. This goes beyond camaraderie - electricians and construction workers sue the shit out of each other all the time for shoddy work, and they expect their colleagues to do the same. Do your job right or gtfo. When a police officer is sued, the police investigates itself which results in an absurdly low rate of convictions. This is near universal. There is a clear structural problem, as you said, and it's so widespread and so pervasive the only way to remedy it imo is a fundamental structural change that would redefine what the police is.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/Blackmediagrp/st...942584320?s=20

Guess which one went to jail?
And guess which one thinks he's jesus incarnate:

https://www.instagram.com/ohnoitsdapopo/?hl=en

He's so not racist that every picture of him ever taken has at a minimum one black person in it!

[Poopadoop]

Oh, thanks for bumping that!

I think the police has much too broad a spectrum of responsibilities. For handling domestic disturbances it would make a lot more sense to send someone whose skill set is closer to that of a social worker. Traffic cops don't need to be armed any heavier than a train conductor, and the people who deal with actual crime should have more extensive training.

There's a universal problem with police officers covering for each other. This goes beyond camaraderie - electricians and construction workers sue the shit out of each other all the time for shoddy work, and they expect their colleagues to do the same. Do your job right or gtfo. When a police officer is sued, the police investigates itself which results in an absurdly low rate of convictions. This is near universal. There is a clear structural problem, as you said, and it's so widespread and so pervasive the only way to remedy it imo is a fundamental structural change that would redefine what the police is.

Another problem is that in the US at least, being fired for gross misconduct is not the end of the career for a police officer. They just move to another city and get another job, then go on being a shitty cop.

[OngBonga]

Send a social worker to domestic disturbances? Are you implying that you don't think a man beating his wife is "actual crime"?

I agree with regards traffic wardens. And you're absolutely right about the police investigating themselves. This is why we have an independent body to investigate complaints against the police. America should follow suit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Where I grew up, a domestic dispute involved a cop coming out, telling people to calm down, writing down everyone's story and offering a card to contact someone about restraining orders.

In domestic cases, the line about "who started it." is often blurred to all hell, and when 2 people choose to attack each other, that's not a crime. If it's not clear that one person was an unwilling victim of assault, then what's the cop to do?

It's your choice to have a home MMA match.
So long as both people are free to leave, and neither leaves, then there's no victim and no crime, IMO.

[oskar]

Send a social worker to domestic disturbances? Are you implying that you don't think a man beating his wife is "actual crime"?

Why would you assume their gender?

MMM was faster. Unless there's an ongoing beating, they're just referring the case to social services anyway.
Here's a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq-LPQin7zk
Social worker trying to get autist playing with a toy truck off the street, then police comes to help. Officer got acquitted of all charges. For how much of their work puts them in contact with people with psychological problems or mental disabilities, they receive just about zero training in that area.

[OngBonga]

Why would you assume their gender?

Sorry, I'll refer myself to the hate crime police first thing tomorrow.

Sure, most domestics will be a waste of time. But what happens when a social worker gets beaten by a man (or very strong woman, or indeed someone who is neither man nor woman)? What happens if the social worker is unable to intervene and a child is hurt? That's when people start saying "this is a job for the police".

[oskar]

Putting aside the fact that the words "this is a job for the police" have never entered my mind, I'd wager there are more cases of the police exacerbating a situation than the police helping a situation when it comes to family stuff.
I'm not saying send a social worker to a hostage situation, I'm saying send the appropriately trained people on the appropriate call.

[OngBonga]

I'm not saying send a social worker to a hostage situation, I'm saying send the appropriately trained people on the appropriate call.

I agree with this. So have specially trained domestic police officers, rather than sending any old plod round. I'm sure police have exacerbated domestic disturbances before, but if the police are specially trained, this shouldn't happen.

Whoever goes to investigate needs to have the power of arrest, needs to have a weapon of sorts (truncheon or tazer, not a gun) and needs to have a body cam.

[oskar]

Mark your calendars because the dumbest thing is about to happen!

[Poopadoop]

Here's a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq-LPQin7zk
Social worker trying to get autist playing with a toy truck off the street, then police comes to help.

Wow, that is so fucked up. I've seen a lot of fucked up cop shit on youtube, but that really takes the cake and eats it too.

[oskar]

Horror as Trump Administration Plans to Detain Migrant Children at Former Japanese Internment Camp

[OngBonga]

Just curious... were you horrified when Obama did exactly this?

[Poopadoop]

Just curious... were you horrified when Obama did exactly this?

Come again?

https://www.apnews.com/dc11025f23a746b2bf858f7ca1d01c4c

[MadMojoMonkey]

As Time pointed out, the horrific practice of detaining immigrants at the site of a former internment camp did not begin with Trump.
"In 2014, the Obama administration placed around 7,700 migrant children on bases in Texas, California, and Oklahoma, including Fort Sill. The temporary shelters were shuttered after four months," Time reported. Under Obama, Fort Sill was used to detain around 200 children.

.

[OngBonga]

Thanks mojo.

[Poopadoop]

Thanks mojo.

But it's not a relevant question is it? It's like saying 'are you ok with Hitler putting people in concentration camps, but not Trump?'. Well no, he didn't say that...

Moreover, Trump is the one doing it now, so it seems timely to comment on what's happening now rather than 4 (or 80) years ago.

[oskar]

.

Can you put your thoughts into words?

[MadMojoMonkey]

"read the link oskar posted"
seems clear enough

"Thanks Mojo"
Ong got it.

"but it's not a relevant question"
-poop to ong's prior question that was elucidated to be different than poop originally answered because my post quoting the link in your post clarified it.


What's your beef?

[oskar]

You're implying something by quoting that section. I want you to put into words the thing that you're implying. I'm not asking much. One short sentence telling me why you're quoting that section. EZ.

[oskar]

Hello?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Really?

fine.

ong said, "why you no so upset that Obama did it, too?"
poopy said, "Obama didn't separate families."
MMM said, "this isn't about family separation, it's about putting immigrants and children in places that were once Japanese internment camps, which Obama did"
Everyone else: TY, got it.

oskar: I don't understand what you mean by quoting the thing I posted in its direct context to explain a misunderstanding.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Hello?

sup

[OngBonga]

But it's not a relevant question is it? It's like saying 'are you ok with Hitler putting people in concentration camps, but not Trump?'. Well no, he didn't say that...

Moreover, Trump is the one doing it now, so it seems timely to comment on what's happening now rather than 4 (or 80) years ago.

This isn't "whataboutism", I'm simply curious if oskar, or indeed you, hold Trump to different standards to other Presidents. And your language here is deliberately provocative. Do you suppose these children are being kept in the same conditions as prisoners of war? I don't.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama or Trump using secure military complexes to temporarily house immigrant children, so long as the conditions are suitable, and by that I mean they are getting proper medicine, education, exercise, food, care, entertainment etc, and so long as there is action with regards to finding a longer term solution.

First and foremost these children should be somewhere safe while they are processed.

[Poopadoop]

This isn't "whataboutism",

It absolutely is.

I'm simply curious if oskar, or indeed you, hold Trump to different standards to other Presidents.

And I'm simply pointing out that it's irrelevant because Obama is no longer in charge. If Obama were currently ruling a different country and doing the same thing as Trump, and we chose to only criticize one but not the other, you'd have a point.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama or Trump using secure military complexes to temporarily house immigrant children, so long as the conditions are suitable, and by that I mean they are getting proper medicine, education, exercise, food, care, entertainment etc, and so long as there is action with regards to finding a longer term solution.

First and foremost these children should be somewhere safe while they are processed.

I agree, and if you'd said that in the first place I wouldn't have taken issue with your post.

[oskar]

Everyone else: TY, got it.

Got what? Do you really think that my assessment on whether or not it is moral to forcibly separate children from their parents with no plan of reuniting them depends on who's doing it? Is that really what you think? I really don't get it. Is that really it? That was supposed to be a gotcha, and I'm supposed to go "oh shit! Obama did it? Well I guess it's ok then!" - ??? What the fuck is wrong with you?

This isn't "whataboutism", I'm simply curious if oskar, or indeed you, hold Trump to different standards to other Presidents. And your language here is deliberately provocative. Do you suppose these children are being kept in the same conditions as prisoners of war? I don't.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama or Trump using secure military complexes to temporarily house immigrant children, so long as the conditions are suitable, and by that I mean they are getting proper medicine, education, exercise, food, care, entertainment etc, and so long as there is action with regards to finding a longer term solution.

First and foremost these children should be somewhere safe while they are processed.

No, Ong, just saying "it's not whataboutism" doesn't make it not whataboutism. It is the dictionary definition of whataboutism. Person A points out that Y did a thing, then Person B says: but person Z also did that thing! It means nothing. So what!

Btw I'm with you in the last paragraph. As of last week there will be no education, no outdoor activities and no legal aid in these camps. The death toll is up to 22 in the past 2 years (ICE detention included). These are concentration camps. They are not nazi death camps, but they are concentration camps where undesirables are being held indefinitely. The forced family separation is cruel and unnecessary and it is being done with shameless neglect. Thousands of children have been taken from parents with no records kept. They cannot be reunited because the Trump administration did not document whose children they took. The UN has called it child abuse, which it obviously is. The Trump administration openly calls it a 'deterrent.' - They are hoping the prospect of having their child ripped from them will deter people from seeking asylum. This will be what Trump era US will be remembered for. An utterly impotent congress and blindsighted electorate during one of the worst human rights abuses in modern history.

[oskar]

[OngBonga]

No idea how credible vice are. 22 dead 2 years is not what I'd call a concerning figure when we talk about a population of 10k+. There's no context at all. How many kids per thousand have leukemia? How many kids per thousand die of flu? What conditions are these kids arriving in?

Honestly, I have no idea what to believe. I find it very hard to believe they're not letting kids play football. It's practically free. That's the easiest way to stop them from getting bored. You think they're just being left unattended in these buildings with nothing to do? They'd be crawling the fences to get out. If you're telling me you believe that someone somewhere is making a decision to not allow these kids to play football as a matter of policy, then I have to question your ability to apply critical thought to the information you absorb.

Source for UN claim of child abuse? What I'm finding is a statement relating to kids in Mexico, not in USA camps. I find UN statements to be a credible source. Am I just bad at googling? What specifically did the UN refer to as child abuse?

[oskar]

“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable. I call on the United States to immediately end the practice of forcible separation of these children,” Zeid said in his final speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council before his term in office ends.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1JE0NA

This was a year and a half ago.

Treating asylum seekers humanely is not a financial issue for the richest country in the world with one of the lowest population densities and a very boring net migration rate. It is policy that they are not to be treated humanely.

[oskar]

If you're telling me you believe that someone somewhere is making a decision to not allow these kids to play football as a matter of policy, then I have to question your ability to apply critical thought to the information you absorb.

The Trump administration said Wednesday that it would begin restricting or canceling education, legal aid and playground recreation for migrant children housed in government shelters as a result of financial constraints created by the “crisis at the border.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/u...-services.html

[oskar]

And ldo UN officials are being stonewalled: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019...P=share_btn_tw

[OngBonga]

Not an official UN statement, then NY Times and Guardian links.

Maybe I apply too much critical though, idk.

[oskar]

Not an official UN statement, then NY Times and Guardian links.

Maybe I apply too much critical though, idk.

Oh, don't worry about that!
What part do you doubt and what news source would you find acceptable?

[oskar]

Will you take the actual email from HHS?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/conte...=.6c25b22c1f48

... which was two clicks away from the NYT article btw.

[OngBonga]

I mean, that email is also missing context, for example the sender, and whether it came from an official email address.

I don't find any MSM news source credible. That's why I was hoping for an official UN statement.