[Politics] Trump and Concentration Camps

[tstorm823]

It is true. The Obama administration put families into family detention and got sued based on a settlement from the 90s for having kids in prolonged detention. Now we're not allowed to detain families together. That leaves the options of releasing whole families or detaining the parents and not the kids. And even ignoring the moral issues with just releasing people caught committing a crime, choosing to not detain only people with children just incentivizes doing stupid things like swimming across the Rio Grand with a small child. It wasn't evil people trying to rip children from their parents arms who put forward that lawsuit, it was advocates for migrants and children trying to have the child safety rules enforced.

Citation needed.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9067877/family-detention-immigration-flores

July 2015

There are strict legal standards for when and how the government could legally keep children in immigration detention. Those were set in 1996, when the government settled a lawsuit filed by advocacy groups, an event known the Flores settlement. Under the terms of the Flores settlement, the government has to hold children in the least restrictive conditions possible. That generally means "unsecured" facilities (in other words, places that run more like shelters than prisons) that are licensed for taking care of children.

Immigrant rights advocates invoked the Flores settlement to challenge the current detentions. The government argued that key parts of Flores didn't apply because the children were being detained with their parents. But on Friday, after months of negotiation, federal Judge Dolly Gee sided with the advocates. She ruled that the government was holding children in secured, prison-like, unlicensed facilities, and that violated the 1996 agreement.

The irony is that it's the Obama administration itself that ended the last experiment in detaining immigrant families: the Hutto Residential Center in Texas... It was the Obama administration that actually stopped detaining families at the Hutto facility, in 2009 ? which advocates took as an admission that "there's no way to detain families humanely."

If Trump could detain families together, I guarantee he would. But that practice has been smacked down multiple times by the courts. Meaning the only way to detain parents is to separate them from their children. Which sort of makes sense from a certain perspective, you don't throw kids into jail when their parents get arrested. And now courts have determined family separation itself is illegal, which means there's no way in court compliance that you can detain people who jump the border if they bring their kids with them. The rules right now are formulated such that bringing your child with you through the desert is a get out of jail free card, and that's somewhere between problematic and heinous.

Our immigration laws are a disaster, they need major reforms from the legislature. The laws were made with good intentions, but they're an unworkable mess. Obama went with the spirit of the law, trying to give kids the best environment by leaving them with their parents, and got chastised for it. Trump went with the letter of the law, having separate children's facilities licensed for child care, and got even more chastised for it. There currently is no legal solution to the problem. We need massive changes in laws to get people to stop border-crossing illegally.

 

[Saelune]

It is true. The Obama administration put families into family detention and got sued based on a settlement from the 90s for having kids in prolonged detention. Now we're not allowed to detain families together. That leaves the options of releasing whole families or detaining the parents and not the kids. And even ignoring the moral issues with just releasing people caught committing a crime, choosing to not detain only people with children just incentivizes doing stupid things like swimming across the Rio Grand with a small child. It wasn't evil people trying to rip children from their parents arms who put forward that lawsuit, it was advocates for migrants and children trying to have the child safety rules enforced.

Citation needed.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9067877/family-detention-immigration-flores

July 2015

There are strict legal standards for when and how the government could legally keep children in immigration detention. Those were set in 1996, when the government settled a lawsuit filed by advocacy groups, an event known the Flores settlement. Under the terms of the Flores settlement, the government has to hold children in the least restrictive conditions possible. That generally means "unsecured" facilities (in other words, places that run more like shelters than prisons) that are licensed for taking care of children.

Immigrant rights advocates invoked the Flores settlement to challenge the current detentions. The government argued that key parts of Flores didn't apply because the children were being detained with their parents. But on Friday, after months of negotiation, federal Judge Dolly Gee sided with the advocates. She ruled that the government was holding children in secured, prison-like, unlicensed facilities, and that violated the 1996 agreement.

The irony is that it's the Obama administration itself that ended the last experiment in detaining immigrant families: the Hutto Residential Center in Texas... It was the Obama administration that actually stopped detaining families at the Hutto facility, in 2009 ? which advocates took as an admission that "there's no way to detain families humanely."

If Trump could detain families together, I guarantee he would. But that practice has been smacked down multiple times by the courts. Meaning the only way to detain parents is to separate them from their children. Which sort of makes sense from a certain perspective, you don't throw kids into jail when their parents get arrested. And now courts have determined family separation itself is illegal, which means there's no way in court compliance that you can detain people who jump the border if they bring their kids with them. The rules right now are formulated such that bringing your child with you through the desert is a get out of jail free card, and that's somewhere between problematic and heinous.

Our immigration laws are a disaster, they need major reforms from the legislature. The laws were made with good intentions, but they're an unworkable mess. Obama went with the spirit of the law, trying to give kids the best environment by leaving them with their parents, and got chastised for it. Trump went with the letter of the law, having separate children's facilities licensed for child care, and got even more chastised for it. There currently is no legal solution to the problem. We need massive changes in laws to get people to stop border-crossing illegally.

Sometimes I ask for citation cause I doubt the person can provide any. Other times though, such as this one, I ask for citation expecting it will prove the person wrong.

You have provided evidence that Trump has made things worse. Obama opposed seperating children from families and decided AGAINST torturing children. Trump decided torturing children was fine by him.

And your guarentee is unfounded.

Trump and his children are more dangerous to this country than all these families combined.

 

[tstorm823]

Sometimes I ask for citation cause I doubt the person can provide any. Other times though, such as this one, I ask for citation expecting it will prove the person wrong.

You have provided evidence that Trump has made things worse. Obama opposed seperating children from families and decided AGAINST torturing children. Trump decided torturing children was fine by him.

And your guarentee is unfounded.

Trump and his children are more dangerous to this country than all these families combined.

I'm not sure you read that right. Obama opposed separating children from families, correct, and got sued over it. And lost the suit. In the ruling stating they couldn't detain families together: "Gee's ruling was harsh. She called it "astonishing" and "shocking" that 20 years after the Flores agreement, the government still hadn't figured out how to meet its own standards for humane treatment of children."

Because the Flores settlement dictated that migrant minors essentially had to be transferred to child care facilities if there wasn't a parent or guardian in America to release them to, and the rulings against the Obama Administration established that this applied to minors detained with their parents as well as unaccompanied minors. These rules were not made to torture children. They were made to protect children.

 

[Saelune]

Sometimes I ask for citation cause I doubt the person can provide any. Other times though, such as this one, I ask for citation expecting it will prove the person wrong.

You have provided evidence that Trump has made things worse. Obama opposed seperating children from families and decided AGAINST torturing children. Trump decided torturing children was fine by him.

And your guarentee is unfounded.

Trump and his children are more dangerous to this country than all these families combined.

I'm not sure you read that right. Obama opposed separating children from families, correct, and got sued over it. And lost the suit. In the ruling stating they couldn't detain families together: "Gee's ruling was harsh. She called it "astonishing" and "shocking" that 20 years after the Flores agreement, the government still hadn't figured out how to meet its own standards for humane treatment of children."

Because the Flores settlement dictated that migrant minors essentially had to be transferred to child care facilities if there wasn't a parent or guardian in America to release them to, and the rulings against the Obama Administration established that this applied to minors detained with their parents as well as unaccompanied minors. These rules were not made to torture children. They were made to protect children.

No, I read that right. Yes, the rules were made to protect children. That is why Obama followed them and stopped. Trump on the other hand, decided to torture children by following these rules in a 'Fine, if I cant punch them, I will kick them' way.

 

[Saelune]

When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

 

[tstorm823]

When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

If you think we can do better, good, I agree with you. If you make no attempt to understand the situation because comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is more important to you than helping and protecting people, then I'm going to have to disagree.

 

[Saelune]

When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

If you think we can do better, good, I agree with you. If you make no attempt to understand the situation because comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is more important to you than helping and protecting people, then I'm going to have to disagree.

You defend concentration camps and child torture.

Letting all immigrants run free is the better option to concentration camps and child torture. And the option better than both wont be reached until we stop thinking emulating the Nazis is reasonable.

 

[tstorm823]

And the option better than both wont be reached until we stop thinking emulating the Nazis is reasonable.

I could not disagree with this more.

I mean firstly, I clearly disagree with the claim that we're emulating Nazis. But for the sake of argument, I'll take the statement as it is. If we're emulating nazis, it's because the laws are written in a way that emulates nazis. That's a problem on its own. Those laws need to be changed, not ignored. I'm sure you agree with me on lots of changes I'd like: quicker asylum processing, easier attained US residency regardless of asylum status, better communication with illegal entrants about their rights on US soil, fewer incentives to risk lives crossing the border in the wilderness. I'd like to think taking more asylum claims not just literally at the border would help, but even then, people don't want to wait homeless in Mexico for their appointment to come up.

Imagine a theoretical with me: imagine the US made an arrangement with Mexico. We took the same sorts of detention facilities we have, but built them just a bit into Mexico. Have people living in the same conditions as now, waiting for their asylum case to be heard, the only difference is that they can walk out the front door into Mexico as they please. Change that one aspect, instead of having to leave for good if they want to leave for Mexico, they can leave and come back as they see fit. Still hostel conditions. Still run by armed border patrol. Still likely regulations on the treatment of children. Is that still a concentration camp? Is that still emulating Nazis?

 

[Saelune]

And the option better than both wont be reached until we stop thinking emulating the Nazis is reasonable.

I could not disagree with this more.

I mean firstly, I clearly disagree with the claim that we're emulating Nazis. But for the sake of argument, I'll take the statement as it is. If we're emulating nazis, it's because the laws are written in a way that emulates nazis. That's a problem on its own. Those laws need to be changed, not ignored. I'm sure you agree with me on lots of changes I'd like: quicker asylum processing, easier attained US residency regardless of asylum status, better communication with illegal entrants about their rights on US soil, fewer incentives to risk lives crossing the border in the wilderness. I'd like to think taking more asylum claims not just literally at the border would help, but even then, people don't want to wait homeless in Mexico for their appointment to come up.

Imagine a theoretical with me: imagine the US made an arrangement with Mexico. We took the same sorts of detention facilities we have, but built them just a bit into Mexico. Have people living in the same conditions as now, waiting for their asylum case to be heard, the only difference is that they can walk out the front door into Mexico as they please. Change that one aspect, instead of having to leave for good if they want to leave for Mexico, they can leave and come back as they see fit. Still hostel conditions. Still run by armed border patrol. Still likely regulations on the treatment of children. Is that still a concentration camp? Is that still emulating Nazis?

I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

 

[tstorm823]

I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

 

[Saelune]

I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

This is what I mean when I say you don't argue in good faith.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

This is what I mean when I say you don't argue in good faith.

This exchange is really bugging me, because it's a symptom of a much larger pattern I've noticed with you. So I'm just going to address this as calmly as I can.

No one in this thread is in favor of children being harmed. No one here is in favor of suffering. No one here wants fascism. Can you please for the love of god, understand this main idea?

When you tell people they're "defending" nazis or "defending" concentration camps or "defending" child abuse, that feels like a baseless personal insult. Let me show you what this looks like from the other side.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1057252-POLITICS-Incident-in-Canada-regarding-a-transgender-woman-sueing-for-not-getting-a-brazilian-wax?page=3

This thread consists of you "defending" a pedophile and defending sexual assault against women. I'm sure you find that accusation insulting. But calm down for a second, take your finger away from the capslock button, and at least try, bare minimum, try to follow me here. You defend LGBT rights to your last breath and detest Religion. This absolute, immovable moral stance coats your perception of everything, which will inevitably lead to bias. Everyone there is trying to tell you how this situation is not all fessible, and your only issue appears to be "fuck religion" while finding excuses as to why the woman you feel emotional hatred towards is somehow wrong. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.

(This is not to indicate that I'm not also guilty of bias at times, because I've on this forum I recently had an incident of having inaccurate data which was corrected by people arguing against me. That's the point though. You need to be open to discussion and be willing to reexamine thing)

Assholes and bigots have tried to twist your words. I'm sorry about that. But you're honestly being paranoid. Not everyone is out to manipulate you. They just don't see the world the way that you do. You take an absolute moral stance and have already made up in your mind the exact actions that need to be taken to get things fixed. When people disagree with you. They are not always defending the atrocities. They disagree with either your problem solving methods, or think you've oversimplified a complex problem and haven't identified the root causes and how to fix them in a practical way. Its a problem of idealism vs realism. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bigot. People may well be arguing in good faith, but because you fail to put your emotions aside and think about what they're actually arguing, you likely miss it.

When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

No. No. 100 times No. I don't know Kyle personally, but I doubt he's an absolute authority on this matter. In his post he even welcomed opposing opinions provided they had evidence. If people you're upset with haven't gotten warnings or bans, they likely haven't violated the forum rules. The Bias here is that they've commited an infraction worthy of punishment. And because they haven't been punished, the system must obviously be corrupt. You keep getting infractions but you obviously did nothing to deserve it. Your feelings aren't being validated, so it must be everyone else's fault. I would honestly go as far as to call this a victim complex.

I empathize with what you go through. I understand the fear and the hostility. I have to live with the repercussions of an asshole president, in the middle of a red state, as a minority, knowing if she gets as bad as you think it will get, I'll be on the chopping block. But I don't let that interfere with my day to day life. I don't let that take away my happiness. And I try to not let it affect my judgement or coat my perception of people. And obviously I fail at that, and let my judgement be clouded. But I actively work on it. You appear to just let yourself get bitter and full of hate and expect everyone to just deal with it because you're being oppressed. Life doesn't work this way.

I'd like for you to feel safe in this country. I'd like to see you happy. But you're holding onto a lot of bitterness and resentment and its not doing you any favors. People around here go easy on you because they're sympathetic. But as a result they coddle you. You need to stop being a victim. And no, this isn't victim blaming. It's about empowerment.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Spoiler

I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

This is what I mean when I say you don't argue in good faith.

This exchange is really bugging me, because it's a symptom of a much larger pattern I've noticed with you. So I'm just going to address this as calmly as I can.

No one in this thread is in favor of children being harmed. No one here is in favor of suffering. No one here wants fascism. Can you please for the love of god, understand this main idea?

When you tell people they're "defending" nazis or "defending" concentration camps or "defending" child abuse, that feels like a baseless personal insult. Let me show you what this looks like from the other side.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1057252-POLITICS-Incident-in-Canada-regarding-a-transgender-woman-sueing-for-not-getting-a-brazilian-wax?page=3

This thread consists of you "defending" a pedophile and defending sexual assault against women. I'm sure you find that accusation insulting. But calm down for a second, take your finger away from the capslock button, and at least try, bare minimum, try to follow me here. You defend LGBT rights to your last breath and detest Religion. This absolute, immovable moral stance coats your perception of everything, which will inevitably lead to bias. Everyone there is trying to tell you how this situation is not all fessible, and your only issue appears to be "fuck religion" while finding excuses as to why the woman you feel emotional hatred towards is somehow wrong. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.

(This is not to indicate that I'm not also guilty of bias at times, because I've on this forum I recently had an incident of having inaccurate data which was corrected by people arguing against me. That's the point though. You need to be open to discussion and be willing to reexamine thing)

Assholes and bigots have tried to twist your words. I'm sorry about that. But you're honestly being paranoid. Not everyone is out to manipulate you. They just don't see the world the way that you do. You take an absolute moral stance and have already made up in your mind the exact actions that need to be taken to get things fixed. When people disagree with you. They are not always defending the atrocities. They disagree with either your problem solving methods, or think you've oversimplified a complex problem and haven't identified the root causes and how to fix them in a practical way. Its a problem of idealism vs realism. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bigot. People may well be arguing in good faith, but because you fail to put your emotions aside and think about what they're actually arguing, you likely miss it.

When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

No. No. 100 times No. I don't know Kyle personally, but I doubt he's an absolute authority on this matter. In his post he even welcomed opposing opinions provided they had evidence. If people you're upset with haven't gotten warnings or bans, they likely haven't violated the forum rules. The Bias here is that they've commited an infraction worthy of punishment. And because they haven't been punished, the system must obviously be corrupt. You keep getting infractions but you obviously did nothing to deserve it. Your feelings aren't being validated, so it must be everyone else's fault. I would honestly go as far as to call this a victim complex.

I empathize with what you go through. I understand the fear and the hostility. I have to live with the repercussions of an asshole president, in the middle of a red state, as a minority, knowing if she gets as bad as you think it will get, I'll be on the chopping block. But I don't let that interfere with my day to day life. I don't let that take away my happiness. And I try to not let it affect my judgement or coat my perception of people. And obviously I fail at that, and let my judgement be clouded. But I actively work on it. You appear to just let yourself get bitter and full of hate and expect everyone to just deal with it because you're being oppressed. Life doesn't work this way.

I'd like for you to feel safe in this country. I'd like to see you happy. But you're holding onto a lot of bitterness and resentment and its not doing you any favors. People around here go easy on you because they're sympathetic. But as a result they coddle you. You need to stop being a victim. And no, this isn't victim blaming. It's about empowerment.

If I may?

What you did here is something that we need more of. Attempts of Empathy. It will actually serve us better as a race if we could do this more often.

However.

I can not imagine what is going through Saelune's head now. The broad spectrum of people, from intelligent to bigot spend a lot more time trying to curb Saelune's speech than Neo-Nazi's. Than white nationalist movements that have been cropping up in this country with frightening regularity.

The Party of Family Values [https://www.gop.com/issue/family-values/canonical/] seem to be ok with what's happening to families and children in their own country. There has been no one who has visited this Detention Camps without being affected, they just twist the conditions for their political gains. The Hypocrisy is staggering. Yet when certain bigot parties claim that these Illegals don't have rights because they aren't citizens, The Constitution already foresaw said claims to dismiss them [https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/].

The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring noncitizens' speech or suppressing the practice of their religion. The Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment ensures that noncitizens' property can only be taken by the government for a public use, and only if just compensation is paid.

Should a noncitizen be charged with a crime, he has exactly the same Fifth and Sixth Amendment procedural rights as a citizen, including the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and protection against self-incrimination. If convicted, the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from subjecting aliens to ?cruel and unusual punishment? in exactly the same ways as it does with citizens.

And if we wouldn't stand for nearly 400 grown male citizens smushed together in a cage [https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2019/07/12/vice-president-pence-tours-detention-facilities-border-defends-administration-treatment-migrants/u4s28j0LswH0uCZ5I9PBOM/story.html], only receiving water when it was asked for... then we can not stand for it when it's done to any other person on our soil.

But we do.

And we tell people like Saelune to quiet down, or to not be so testy, or whatever.

I honestly think more people need Saelune's fire over this. As with the rise and acceptance of Neo-Nazis, who seek to harm everyone's rights that aren't white male.

The Truth is, we're more likely to confront a Saelune over a white nationalist because out of the two, we expect more trouble from a white nationalist and we don't want to deal with that. And without naming names (I don't know if I'd get a warning for doing so), we've all seen people who skirted that definition as hard as they could in this very forum.

And it's much, MUCH more pressing for Saelune than just 'regular minorities' because this Administration has already taken it upon itself to start stripping LGBTQ rights [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-stonewall/world-pride-in-new-york-celebrates-lgbtq-advances-but-mourns-setbacks-under-trump-idUSKCN1TR15T].

The Trump administration has banned transgender people from the U.S. military, cut funding for HIV and AIDS research, supported the right of medical providers and adoption agencies to deny services to LGBTQ people, and aborted plans to gather data about sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2020 census.

Women, not to have it devalued in anyway, 'only' has had their reproductive rights challenged. Women have won some victories [https://progressive.org/dispatches/three-rulings-block-trumps-latest-anti-woman-attacks-pettway-190429/]. The Trump Adminstration has been looking to rollback Civil Rights by looking to changing or outright removing the concept of Disparate Impact [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/7/18167275/disparate-impact-civil-rights-trump-administration]. While these fights are ongoing, the LGBTQ community has been handed more Definite L's than wins [https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/06/05/all-of-trumps-anti-lgbt-actions-since-last-pride-plus-a-few-welcome-moves/].

Spoiler

(-) 1. Embracing the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling last year in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, many observers saw the decision as limited. After all, justices declined to find the First Amendment right Phillips asserted to refuse to make custom-made wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

But the Trump administration fully embraced the decision as a win for "religious freedom." White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the court "rightly concluded" the Colorado Civil Rights Commission "failed to show tolerance and respect" for Phillips' religious beliefs.

Soon after, the Labor Department issued guidance to ensure enforcement of LGBT non-discrimination rules complied with the ruling's deference to religious freedom, even though the Trump administration wasn?t required to take that action.

(-) 2. White House meeting with Ginni Thomas
President Trump continues to meet with anti-LGBT activists in the White House, including a recent high-profile discussion with Ginni Thomas, the wife of conservative U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

The New York Times reported Trump met in January with anti-LGBT activists led by Thomas in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. As Trump was reportedly "listening quietly," members of the group denounced transgender people serving in the U.S. military.

In addition to decrying transgender military service, the anti-LGBT activists said women shouldn't serve in the military "because they had less muscle mass and lung capacity than men." They also said the Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality is "harming the fabric of the United States" and sexual assault isn't pervasive in the military, according to the New York Times.

(-) 3. Coming out against the Equality Act
In the same week the U.S. House voted to approve the Equality Act, legislation that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban anti-LGBT discrimination, Trump came out against the bill.

In an exclusive statement to the Blade, a senior administration official said Trump opposes the Equality Act based on unspecified "poison pill" amendments to the legislation.

"The Trump administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all; however, this bill in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights," the official said via email.

(+) 4. AIDS advisory council restaffed
One year after firing all members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS without explanation as first reported by the Blade, Trump restaffed the advisory body with 11 new appointees.

Carl Schmid, deputy director of the AIDS Institute, and John Wiesman, secretary of health in Washington State, were named as co-chairs for the advisory council. Months later, the Department of Health & Human Services named nine additional members to PACHA from a variety of professions, including the pharmaceutical industry, activism and academia.

(-) 5. Trans military ban implemented
After the U.S. Supreme Court essentially green lighted Trump?s ban on transgender people in the military, the Defense Department implemented the policy in April.

Denying the transgender ban is, in fact, a ban, the policy prohibits anyone who has undergone gender reassignment surgery from enlisting in the military and requires anyone who identifies as transgender to serve in their biological sex (which would be a small number of transgender people.) Although transgender people who were already serving openly won an exemption, individuals who are diagnosed in the future with gender dysphoria or obtain transition-related care would be discharged.

(-) 6. Brief against trans protections under Title VII
In a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to take up a case seeking clarification on whether anti-trans discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under federal law, the Trump administration asserted the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals wrongly decided transgender people have protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

"The court of appeals' conclusion that gender-identity discrimination categorically constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII is incorrect," the filing says. "As discussed above, the ordinary meaning of 'sex' does not refer to gender identity?The court's position effectively broadens the scope of that term beyond its ordinary meaning. Its conclusion should be rejected for that reason alone."

(-) 7. List of anti-LGBT appointments grows
The U.S. Senate continues to confirm Trump's appointments, many of whom have long anti-LGBT records. The latest will reportedly be former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who once said homosexual acts are "against nature and are harmful to society," for a position at the Department of Homeland Security

Other confirmations include U.S. District Judge Howard Nielson of Utah, who as an attorney argued a gay judge shouldn't be able to decide the case against California's Proposition 8, and U.S. District Judge Chad Readler of Ohio, who as acting assistant U.S. attorney general penned his name to briefs in favor of the transgender military ban and against LGBT protections under Title VII.

(+) 8. But a few are from the LGBT community
A handful of Trump?s appointments are from the LGBT community. Among them is former Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper, whom Trump appointed to a senior position at the State Department for political-military affairs. The Senate confirmed Cooper in April.

Other new LGBT appointments are Mary Rowland, a lesbian with ties to the LGBT group Lambda Legal whom Trump named to a federal judgeship in Illinois; and Patrick Bumatay, a gay federal prosecutor whom Trump named for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Both nominations are pending before the Senate.

(-) 9. Draconian anti-trans memo leaked
An explosive report in the New York Times last year exposed a planned memo within the Department of Health & Human Services that would effectively erase transgender people from federal law, igniting a massive outcry among transgender rights supporters.

The proposal reportedly asserts Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination in schools, doesn?t apply to transgender people and calls for government agencies to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of sex "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable." A dispute about one?s sex, the New York Times reported, would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

(-) 10. Anti-trans 'conscience rule' is final
The memo as described by the Times never came to light, but months later HHS did implement an anti-trans "conscience rule" allowing health care providers to opt out of procedures over which they have religious objections, including abortions or gender reassignment surgery.

Trump announced the rule was final during a speech in the White House Rose Garden on the National Day of Prayer.

(-) 11. HHS seeks to undo trans health rule
HHS wasn't done. Weeks after the conscience rule was final, the department announced a proposed rule seeking to undo regulations in health care against anti-trans discrimination.

The Obama-era regulations asserted Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which bars sex discrimination in health care, also covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Under the Trump rule, HHS would disavow those protections. (The Obama-era rule was already enjoined by a federal judge.)

(-) 12. Ending visas for unmarried partners of diplomats
The State Department last year cancelled visas for the unmarried same-sex partners of diplomats to the United States.

By canceling these visas for these partners, the State Department forced these partners to either marry or get out, which complicated matters if these diplomats are from countries where same-sex marriage isn?t legal. At the time of the decision, only 25 countries recognized same-sex marriage.

(-) 13. Proposal to gut trans protections at homeless shelters
Despite assurances from Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Ben Carson LGBT non-discrimination rules for federally funded housing would remain in place, HUD has proposed a rule that would gut transgender protections at homeless shelters.

The HUD proposal would allow homeless shelters with sex-segregated facilities ? such as bathrooms or shared sleeping quarters ? to establish policy consistent with state and local laws in which operators consider a range of factors when determining where to place individuals looking to stay, including "religious beliefs."

(+) 14. Trump announces HIV plan in State of the Union
Trump in his State of the Union address announced an initiative to end the HIV epidemic by 2030, asserting "remarkable progress in the fight against HIV and AIDS" in recent years.

"Scientific breakthroughs have brought a once-distant dream within reach," Trump said. "My budget will ask Democrats and Republicans to make the needed commitment to eliminate the HIV epidemic in the United States within 10 years. We have made incredible strides. Incredible. Together, we will defeat AIDS in America and beyond."

The plan seeks to reduce new HIV diagnoses by 75 percent within five years, and by 90 percent within 10 years. Efforts will focus on 48 counties, D.C., and San Juan, Puerto Rico and seven states where the epidemic is mostly in rural areas.

(+) 15. And the budget follows through with that request
Trump's budget request for fiscal year 2020 made good on his pledge in the State of the Union address, seeking $300 million in new funds for domestic HIV programs.

The bulk of the $300 million figure is an additional $140 million requested for HIV prevention at the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, which is a 19 percent increase in its overall budget from fiscal year 2019. The rest is $70 million for the Ryan White Health Care Program, $50 million for PrEP services at HRSA centers and $25 million to screen for HIV and treat Hepatitis C.

(-) 16. But NIH and global AIDS programs slashed
But the same budget sought to slash funds for the National Institutes for Health, which conducts HIV research, and global AIDS programs like PEPFAR. Moreover, the plan sought to make Medicaid a block-grant program, even though 40 percent of people with HIV rely on it. Congress ended up rejecting the cuts, fully funding NIH and global AIDS programs.

(-) 17. Giving Pete Buttigieg nickname of 'Alfred E. Neuman
Consistent with his track record of giving his political opponents nicknames, Trump gave an unflattering moniker to Pete Buttigieg, the gay presidential candidate with growing support in the Democratic primary.

Trump dubbed him "Alfred E. Neuman," the Mad Magazine character famous for the phrase, "What Me Worry?" In a dog whistle that perhaps gay people could hear, Trump said, "Alfred E. Neuman cannot become president of the United States."

(+) 18. Recognizing global initiative to end anti-gay laws
In his tweet recognizing June as Pride Month, Trump also acknowledged his global initiative to decriminalize homosexuality. Currently, same-sex relations are illegal in 71 countries.

The project is spearheaded by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the highest-ranking openly gay person in the Trump administration.

Previously, Trump seemed unaware of the project. Asked about it by reporters, Trump said, "I don?t know which report you?re talking about. We have many reports."

(-) 19. No State Dept. recognition of Pride Month, IDAHO
In contrast to Trump, the State Department in 2019 issued no statement recognizing Pride Month, nor weeks before did it recognize the International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia.

In 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued statements recognizing Pride Month and IDAHO. Coming off a confirmation process in which he was criticized as homophobic, Pompeo said "too many governments continue to arrest and abuse their citizens simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex."

(-) 20. Refusing to recognize birthright of child to gay couple
Consistent with the policy of cracking down on immigration, the Trump administration refused to recognize the birthright citizenship of the son of U.S.-citizen Andrew Dvash-Banks and his Israeli husband Elad Dvash-Banks.

The couple had two twin boys conceived via a surrogate mother in Canada. The State Department, however, required a DNA test to prove the children were related to the couple to provide them U.S. passports. One child, Aiden, was deemed a citizen because he's the biological son of Andrew, but the other, Ethan, wasn?t because he?s the biological son of Elad.

(-) 21. And appealed a court ruling for the couple
When the couple sued the Trump administration, a court sided with the couple in granting birthright citizenship to Ethan.

However, the State Department refused to accept the decision and appealed the ruling to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending. A mediation document reveals the State Department insists on its policy of "a biological relationship between a U.S. citizen parent and a child born outside the United States" to grant citizenship.

(-) 22. LGBT protections watered-down in USMCA
An initial version of the USMCA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico contained at the behest of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau language a call for countries to adopt policies "against sex-based discrimination, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."

But Trudeau publicly buckled when asked about his commitment. After additional negotiations with the Trump administration, a footnote was added to USMCA stating Title VII in the United States, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex in the workforce, was sufficient to meet the requirements of the deal.

(-) 23. DOJ?s 'Religious Liberty Task Force'
Before he was sacked by Trump, former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a summit at the Justice Department on religious freedom featuring Masterpiece Cakeshop's Jack Phillips and Catholic leaders.

At the summit, Sessions established the Religious Liberty Task Force. The goal of the task force was to ensure his memo on "religious freedom" ? widely seen as guidance in support of anti-LGBT discrimination ? was being implemented throughout the federal government.

(+) 24. Hailing PrEP deal with Truvada as 'great news'
The Department of Health & Human Services reached a deal with Gilead to make PrEP available for generic production one year earlier and to secure a donation of the medication for up to 200,000 individuals each year for up to 11 years.

Trump took to Twitter to hail the agreement: "Great news today: My administration just secured a historic donation of HIV prevention drugs from Gilead to help expand access to PrEP for the uninsured and those at risk. Will help us achieve our goal of ending the HIV epidemic in America!"

(-) 25. Deleting trans employee guidance on OPM website
In a little-noticed development over the holidays, guidance on the Office of Personnel Management's website for federal workers who are transgender was deleted without explanation.

The Obama-era guidance spelled out the definition of terms for transgender identities and expectations for respecting transgender workers. The guidance ensured transgender people could dress according to their gender identity, be addressed by their preferred gender pronouns and use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.

(+) 26. U.S. joins OSCE in calling for Chechnya investigation
Under the Trump administration, the United States joined 15 allied countries at the U.S. Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe in the creation of a probe to investigate alleged anti-gay human rights abuses in Chechnya.

The report concluded, as the United States and human rights organizations long believed, Chechen government officials engaged in human rights violations, including "harassment and persecution, arbitrary or unlawful arrests or detentions, torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions." Victims were LGBT people, human rights defenders, journalists and members of civil society.

(-) 27. But U.S. didn?t sign U.N. statement against atrocities
Months later, the United States was nowhere to be found on a United Nations statement signed by more than 30 countries calling for a thorough investigation of the Chechnya atrocities. The State Department said the United States didn't sign because it withdrew from the U.N. Human Rights Council "and no longer participates in its sessions."

(-) 28. State Department proposes 'natural law' commission
LGBT rights supporters are viewing with skepticism a State Department proposal to create a "natural law" commission, which is set to "provide fresh thinking about human rights discourse where such discourse has departed from our nation's founding principles of natural law and natural rights."

The term "natural law" has been used to express condemnation of LGBT identities in religious discourse.

(-) 29. Eliminating LGBT youth data question in foster care
The Trump administration has proposed eliminating requirements for case workers to ask LGBT youth in foster care about their sexual orientation of youth for data collection purposes.

Although the Department of Health & Human Services concluded it was "intrusive and worrisome," LGBT rights advocates say the questions are necessary to ascertain disparities facing LGBT youth in the foster care and adoption systems.

(-) 30. Trump stands with anti-LGBT adoption agencies
In a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump expressed solidarity with religious-affiliated adoption agencies, who are bristling over LGBT non-discrimination requirements to obtain federal funding.

"My administration is working to ensure that faith-based adoption agencies are able to help vulnerable children find their forever families while following their deeply held beliefs," Trump said.

(-) 31. And defends Karen Pence teaching at anti-LGBT school
In the same speech, Trump also defended second lady Karen Pence for her decision to teach art at a Christian school in Virginia, which has a policy against employing LGBT teachers or admitting LGBT students.

"She just went back to teaching art classes at a Christian school," Trump said, "Terrific woman."

But here's the thing. I have to evoke Niem?ller [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists] because it's never been more true than it is today.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out... because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out... because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out... because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak for me.

Look around. They are coming at all of us at once with big movements for these groups (Illegal Aliens, LGBTQ), while trying to sneak in smaller incidents with the others (Women, Civil Rights). And we look to people like Saelune and say "Hey, take it easy".

Why are ANY of us taking it easy? Saelune can't play the victim when being continued to being Victimized by this Government. That's called "Just being a Victim"

 

[tstorm823]

No, people are not less likely to confront a white supremacist than Saelune. There just aren't nazis here to confront. Anyone who is even perceived to defend white supremacy here gets dogpiled, and rightly so. My adamance that I'm not defending concentration camps or bigotry is because I respect the righteousness of rejecting those things.

I promise from experience that being even marginally conservative gets you an unmanageable quantity of refutations here. Neo-nazis aren't getting a free pass anywhere, but especially not here.

 

[Saelune]

I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

This is what I mean when I say you don't argue in good faith.

This exchange is really bugging me, because it's a symptom of a much larger pattern I've noticed with you. So I'm just going to address this as calmly as I can.

No one in this thread is in favor of children being harmed. No one here is in favor of suffering. No one here wants fascism. Can you please for the love of god, understand this main idea?

When you tell people they're "defending" nazis or "defending" concentration camps or "defending" child abuse, that feels like a baseless personal insult. Let me show you what this looks like from the other side.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1057252-POLITICS-Incident-in-Canada-regarding-a-transgender-woman-sueing-for-not-getting-a-brazilian-wax?page=3

This thread consists of you "defending" a pedophile and defending sexual assault against women. I'm sure you find that accusation insulting. But calm down for a second, take your finger away from the capslock button, and at least try, bare minimum, try to follow me here. You defend LGBT rights to your last breath and detest Religion. This absolute, immovable moral stance coats your perception of everything, which will inevitably lead to bias. Everyone there is trying to tell you how this situation is not all fessible, and your only issue appears to be "fuck religion" while finding excuses as to why the woman you feel emotional hatred towards is somehow wrong. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.

(This is not to indicate that I'm not also guilty of bias at times, because I've on this forum I recently had an incident of having inaccurate data which was corrected by people arguing against me. That's the point though. You need to be open to discussion and be willing to reexamine thing)

Assholes and bigots have tried to twist your words. I'm sorry about that. But you're honestly being paranoid. Not everyone is out to manipulate you. They just don't see the world the way that you do. You take an absolute moral stance and have already made up in your mind the exact actions that need to be taken to get things fixed. When people disagree with you. They are not always defending the atrocities. They disagree with either your problem solving methods, or think you've oversimplified a complex problem and haven't identified the root causes and how to fix them in a practical way. Its a problem of idealism vs realism. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bigot. People may well be arguing in good faith, but because you fail to put your emotions aside and think about what they're actually arguing, you likely miss it.

When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

No. No. 100 times No. I don't know Kyle personally, but I doubt he's an absolute authority on this matter. In his post he even welcomed opposing opinions provided they had evidence. If people you're upset with haven't gotten warnings or bans, they likely haven't violated the forum rules. The Bias here is that they've commited an infraction worthy of punishment. And because they haven't been punished, the system must obviously be corrupt. You keep getting infractions but you obviously did nothing to deserve it. Your feelings aren't being validated, so it must be everyone else's fault. I would honestly go as far as to call this a victim complex.

I empathize with what you go through. I understand the fear and the hostility. I have to live with the repercussions of an asshole president, in the middle of a red state, as a minority, knowing if she gets as bad as you think it will get, I'll be on the chopping block. But I don't let that interfere with my day to day life. I don't let that take away my happiness. And I try to not let it affect my judgement or coat my perception of people. And obviously I fail at that, and let my judgement be clouded. But I actively work on it. You appear to just let yourself get bitter and full of hate and expect everyone to just deal with it because you're being oppressed. Life doesn't work this way.

I'd like for you to feel safe in this country. I'd like to see you happy. But you're holding onto a lot of bitterness and resentment and its not doing you any favors. People around here go easy on you because they're sympathetic. But as a result they coddle you. You need to stop being a victim. And no, this isn't victim blaming. It's about empowerment.

I did not just decide my views, I came to them after experience and evidence proved what is and is not. People call it bias to realize religion is used to justify terrible things, but it is as biased to say 2 + 2 = 4. Silent Protagonist claims it is my bias that makes me defend trans people when it is their bias that makes them believe I am unable to make informed opinions.

With the exception of LilDevils, who I believe I know why they disagree with me, the people opposing me in that topic are the same people who oppose me in every other topic. CM156, Silent Protagonist, Leg End, dirty hipster. And only CM156 is making any actual legit attempt to debate me (along with Devils).

The CoC here says bigotry is against the rules, but I am more likely to be punished for pointing out bigotry than bigotry is punished. I do not think the rules here are fairly followed. That defending concentration camps and child torture is more acceptable than being mad at bigotry is absurd.

 

[Saelune]

Only learned of this last night, but relevant.

 

[tstorm823]

Only learned of this last night, but relevant.

You may want to look up the plot of that movie. That scene is the transformation of a failed and suicidal news anchor into a populist icon exploited by the entertainment industry.

 

[Saelune]

Only learned of this last night, but relevant.

Video snip

You may want to look up the plot of that movie. That scene is the transformation of a failed and suicidal news anchor into a populist icon exploited by the entertainment industry.

You may want to look up the plot of the Holocaust and Hitler's rise to power.

 

[tstorm823]

You may want to look up the plot of the Holocaust and Hitler's rise to power.

If you insist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany]

Mein Kampf contains the blueprint of later Nazi propaganda efforts. Assessing his audience, Hitler writes in chapter VI:

"Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.[5]"

As to the methods to be employed, he explains:

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.[5]"

Bolded emphasis is my own. Basically, if you'd like to follow the instructions of literally Hitler, you get people to disregard truth and instead focus in on the fact that they're as mad as hell, and they're not going to take this anymore.

Since you posted that clip with little context, I can't know exactly why you found it relevant to this discussion. But if you find that monologue resonates with your feelings, that means you aren't thinking straight.

 

[Saelune]

You may want to look up the plot of the Holocaust and Hitler's rise to power.

If you insist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany]

Mein Kampf contains the blueprint of later Nazi propaganda efforts. Assessing his audience, Hitler writes in chapter VI:

"Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.[5]"

As to the methods to be employed, he explains:

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.[5]"

Bolded emphasis is my own. Basically, if you'd like to follow the instructions of literally Hitler, you get people to disregard truth and instead focus in on the fact that they're as mad as hell, and they're not going to take this anymore.

Since you posted that clip with little context, I can't know exactly why you found it relevant to this discussion. But if you find that monologue resonates with your feelings, that means you aren't thinking straight.

So you're saying that someone doing these things is acting like Hitler?