Trump says he won't sign legislation banning separation of children from parents

[annabenedetti]

Exactly like the Democrats.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[lifeisgood]

Again: It's political commentary. I'll say that as often as you say (incorrectly) that it's fraud, because I think you're being willfully blind.

Please answer the question I've asked a couple times now. If the cover was drawn as a political cartoon, would you be having this outsized overreaction?

The cover is political commentary.

Certainly you have to know that Trump wasn't actually standing there in the original photo looking at the little girl, right? Because you're not saying "the cover is fraudulent, Trump was NOT standing there with the Border Patrol!" But it's his policy, he's responsible, thus the cover.

What an odd thing to say. Didn't you read my post to you where I quoted the father as saying he was proud that his daughter represented all the children who've been separated?

I understand the cover, annabenedetti, it is a LIE.
It is NOT the first time TIME has done this.

 

[annabenedetti]

I understand the cover, annabenedetti, it is a LIE.
It is NOT the first time TIME has done this.

You didn't answer the question. I wonder why?

 

[lifeisgood]

I know you are, but what am I?

No, I am an Independent and was not put on the voting list and when went to vote couldn't do so. The first time I wanted to vote for Obama (was not able to do so because the young lady probably ripped my application as I am sure you have seen on TV did happen in many instances.) The second time I made sure way before voting night that my name was in the voting list and did not vote for Obama.

BTW: A Democrat running for local office made sure that my name was put on the voting list and told me that if I did not receive a letter stating that I had been registered to call him and he would fix it (even though he was not pleased that I wanted to register as an Independent).

 

[lifeisgood]

You didn't answer the question. I wonder why?

I did answer the question, however, you did not accept the answer. No can do nothing about that.

 

[lifeisgood]

Again: It's political commentary. I'll say that as often as you say (incorrectly) that it's fraud, because I think you're being willfully blind.

Commentary based on a LIE. No can made decisions based on a LIE.

 

[lifeisgood]

Please answer the question I've asked a couple times now. If the cover was drawn as a political cartoon, would you be having this outsized overreaction?

Yes, I did answer the question you have asked a couple of times.

Yes, because it is a LIE. It is a LIE. It is a LIE.

 

[lifeisgood]

The cover is political commentary.

Yes. It is a LIE.

 

[lifeisgood]

Certainly you have to know that Trump wasn't actually standing there in the original photo looking at the little girl, right?

Really? Wow what a discovery!!!! I knew it was a LIE the first time saw the cover.

 

[lifeisgood]

Because you're not saying "the cover is fraudulent, Trump was NOT standing there with the Border Patrol!" But it's his policy, he's responsible, thus the cover.

Thank you for letting me know that you base certain decisions on a LIE.

 

[lifeisgood]

What an odd thing to say. Didn't you read my post to you where I quoted the father as saying he was proud that his daughter represented all the children who've been separated?

The daughter cannot be representative of all the children who've been separated BECAUSE the child WAS NOT, NEVER WAS, separated from her mother. Therefore, the cover was a LIE. Commentary was a LIE.

I would not want my daughter to be USED to FOMENT a LIE by Time magazine.
If I could I would sue Time magazine for USING my daughter to foment their LIE without my consent.

annabenedetti, hope I have answered all your questions. If I missed one, please let me know and I will answer to the best of my ability.

 

[lifeisgood]

We already know that. Why does the cover concern you more than the plight of the thousands of children who have been separated?

Ah, because the cover was a LIE.

Now, we have a president that used his pen to be just like President Obama respecting children being separated at the border and the DEMOCRATS ARE OUTRAGED by it. How dare President Trump use his pen to unify the children with their parents.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/donald-trump-family-separation-executive-order-obama-policy/

You do know that President Trump is going against the Flores agreement by using his pen, right?

 

[annabenedetti]

The daughter cannot be representative of all the children who've been separated BECAUSE the child WAS NOT, NEVER WAS, separated from her mother. Therefore, the cover was a LIE. Commentary was a LIE.

The father was proud she was representative. Are you saying he's wrong?

I would not want my daughter to be USED to FOMENT a LIE by Time magazine.
If I could I would sue Time magazine for USING my daughter to foment their LIE without my consent.

That's your opinion. It's not his opinion. Is his opinion as valid as yours?

annabenedetti, hope I have answered all your questions. If I miss one, please let me know and I will answer to the best of my ability.

Thank you. Here they are:

If the Time cover had been drawn as a political cartoon would you be as outraged?

Does your outrage over the cover weigh more heavily on you than the plight of the thousands of children who've been forcibly separated from their parents as a result of Trump's policy?

 

[annabenedetti]

How dare President Trump use his pen to unify the children with their parents.

Your above can be best illustrated by something I saw elsewhere:

Me: *Starts stabbing dogs*

Everyone: "Uh, stop that"

Me: "It's not me"

Everyone: "We see you"

Me: " I have decided to stop the cruel policy of dog-stabbing"​

 

[Danoh]

No, it's really not. Again: If the cover was a drawing, would you be making such a fuss?

In support of your argument, Anna.

What you are attempting to point out there doesn't matter, either way.

In that both those images in that image (each obviously from two originally different contexts) were obviously combined into one image that represents the issue both individuals in that image have come to represent.

The so called "right" does that kind of thing as well, all the time.

Meaning that what actually matters is whether or not the issue the resulting image is speaking of, is true, or not.

Meaning that any two other images that together might represent the abuse of power at the expense of ANY child ANYWHERE by ANYONE, would also communicate the intended communication.

If anything, compared to disgraceful imagery some within both the so called "left" and the so called "right" very often stoop to, that Time cover is very..."conservstive."

 

[lifeisgood]

Your above can be best illustrated by something I saw elsewhere:

Me: *Starts stabbing dogs*

Everyone: "Uh, stop that"

Me: "It's not me"

Everyone: "We see you"

Me: " I have decided to stop the cruel policy of dog-stabbing"​

Is that how you see how 'suave' President Obama acted? Oh, I forget, 'suave' President Obama did things in the darkness of night and you could not see it.

 

[lifeisgood]

The father was proud she was representative. Are you saying he's wrong?

A father that is proud of a daughter being USED to foment a LIE is not someone I would consider to be right.

 

[lifeisgood]

That's your opinion. It's not his opinion. Is his opinion as valid as yours?

I, personally, would be very sad to eventually know that MY FATHER would be proud of me being USED to foment a LIE.

 

[lifeisgood]

Thank you. Here they are:

If the Time cover had been drawn as a political cartoon would you be as outraged?

Yes. As I have said previously, IT IS A LIE.

 

[lifeisgood]

Does your outrage over the cover weigh more heavily on you than the plight of the thousands of children who've been forcibly separated from their parents as a result of Trump's policy?

Where was your outrage when 'suave' President Obama did likewise but in the darkness of night and you could not see it?

You should be thankful that 'rude' President Trump brought this to the light and you can rile against him instead of looking toward 'suave' President Obama doing things in the darkness of night.