Immigrant Children Cry Out in Audio Recorded at Detention Center

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Randyandyuni said:

I am aware pictures are nothing but optics, I said a misleading picture provided better optics

Absolutely. As I already said - Misleading pictures are used all the time to provide better optics.

 

Trump's tweet about the border wall looked better by having photos of a wall being constructed, when in reality the photos were on maintenance on existing fencing. Misleading? Yes. Helped his message? Also yes.

[Dashinka 24,493]

23 minutes ago, bcking said:

Doesn't sound like the picture was "staged", it's more like the picture was used to represent a crisis that it actually wasn't part of. I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the woman and the child weren't actual immigrants. It's just that they weren't separated. Likely someone saw the photo, saw the child and said "that would look great" and started using it to represent the crisis.

 

It's actually not that uncommon that photographs are used to represent something that they weren't originally intended to represent.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/photography/2006/08/dont_believe_what_you_see_in_the_papers.html

https://nppa.org/news/fake-or-altered-images

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-most-misleading-photos-ever-taken - I particularly like the one of "Adolf Hitler" as a baby. Poor woman (and child).

 

Here's a couple more recent examples from our current Administration:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/28/trump-border-wall-construction-photo-tweet

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/15/trump-sarah-sanders-clarifies-misleading-photo-syria-strike

It may not have been staged, but it was certainly misrepresented, but of course the Dems and their media allies have a long history of misrepresentation.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

It may not have been staged, but it was certainly misrepresented, but of course the Dems and their media allies have a long history of misrepresentation.

Everyone has a long history of misrepresentation - Hence my other examples.

 

The Trump Administration is constantly misrepresenting. Toss this one in the pile with "All politicians lie". It's a pretty much universal thing.

 

My favorite most recent "misrepresentation" from Trump was his tweet about how North Korea was suddenly "No longer a nuclear threat" despite the agreement with them having no concrete details regarding denuclearization. A complete misrepresentation, but quite commonplace from the President. As for photos - I already provided examples.

Edited June 22, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5869829/Father-two-year-old-face-child-separation-crisis-speaks-out.html

EXCLUSIVE: 'They're together and safe': Father of Honduran two-year-old who became the face of family separation crisis reveals daughter was never separated from her mother, but the image of her in tears at U.S. border control ‘broke his heart’

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

An "influx of children" is non specific. I don't care about rhetoric and verbage. I had asked for your source on numbers since it sounded like you actually had some. You replied with some more language that didn't provide any helpful details.

 

"Record numbers", "influx of children" - not helpful

 

It is common sense that if you quote something, you should actually address what you are quoting.

 

I was asking for your source on your data. If you aren't going to actually respond to that, then don't quote me. Just make your post however you like. It didn't pertain to my post, so no need to quote. 

 

At the very least you could have said "no sorry I don't have a source for any of this", and then proceeded to say whatever else you wanted to say. Instead you just avoided the question.

I could make a post saying that Obama was president before Trump, and unless you are daft, you shouldn’t have to ask for links proving such.  The fact that there was an influx of kids (both unaccompanied and with coyotes) right after Obama signed DACA into effect is well known and has been discussed here.  I am pretty sure you have been part of at least one or two of those convos, so forgive me if I expected you to understand to what I was referring.  Everyone else seemed to.

 

But for simplicity sake, here’s a link, and I even selected one from a left-preferred site for ya:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/politics/children-immigrant-crossings/index.html

 

Here’s another perspective:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children/waves-of-immigrant-minors-present-crisis-for-obama-congress-idUSKBN0E814T20140528

 

And if you actually take the time to read either one, you wil quickly see that the current 2,000 or so kids potentially being detached and housed separately from their parents really isn’t all that large of a number, and the US already has the means to handle them, at least short-term.  At least they did with the 60,000 in 2014 and the almost-double that amount in 2015.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

5 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I could make a post saying that Obama was president before Trump, and unless you are daft, you shouldn’t have to ask for links proving such.  The fact that there was an influx of kids (both unaccompanied and with coyotes) right after Obama signed DACA into effect is well known and has been discussed here.  I am pretty sure you have been part of at least one or two of those convos, so forgive me if I expected you to understand to what I was referring.  Everyone else seemed to.

 

But for simplicity sake, here’s a link, and I even selected one from a left-preferred site for ya:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/politics/children-immigrant-crossings/index.html

 

Here’s another perspective:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children/waves-of-immigrant-minors-present-crisis-for-obama-congress-idUSKBN0E814T20140528

 

And if you actually take the time to read either one, you wil quickly see that the current 2,000 or so kids potentially being detached and housed separately from their parents really isn’t all that large of a number, and the US already has the means to handle them, at least short-term.  At least they did with the 60,000 in 2014 and the almost-double that amount in 2015.

 

 

I thought the same thing when i read that. Some things you would just expect most literate people that pay attention to daily events to know.  You would have to live under a rock to not know about the influx of children after Obama signed DACA. I think it's more of a deflection tool than anything

Edited June 22, 2018 by Nature Boy Flair

[Boiler 45,486]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I thought the same thing when i read that. Some things you would just expect most literate people that pay attention to daily events to know.  You would have to live under a rock to not know about the influx of children after Obama signed DACA

That is what I do not get, all these issues are widely know, have been for years. If you set up a system that encourages a certain type of behaviour well guess what happens.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I could make a post saying that Obama was president before Trump, and unless you are daft, you shouldn’t have to ask for links proving such.  The fact that there was an influx of kids (both unaccompanied and with coyotes) right after Obama signed DACA into effect is well known and has been discussed here.  I am pretty sure you have been part of at least one or two of those convos, so forgive me if I expected you to understand to what I was referring.  Everyone else seemed to.

 

But for simplicity sake, here’s a link, and I even selected one from a left-preferred site for ya:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/politics/children-immigrant-crossings/index.html

 

Here’s another perspective:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children/waves-of-immigrant-minors-present-crisis-for-obama-congress-idUSKBN0E814T20140528

 

And if you actually take the time to read either one, you wil quickly see that the current 2,000 or so kids potentially being detached and housed separately from their parents really isn’t all that large of a number, and the US already has the means to handle them, at least short-term.  At least they did with the 60,000 in 2014 and the almost-double that amount in 2015.

 

 

Yes if you want to speak "generally" about things that's fine.

 

If you want to speak about specifics, you should have number. It's a pretty simple concept that has been discussed now for pages in this thread. I don't know why I try here anymore.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Yes if you want to speak "generally" about things that's fine.

 

If you want to speak about specifics, you should have number. It's a pretty simple concept that has been discussed now for pages in this thread. I don't know why I try here anymore.

to be fair a discussion requires two people talking 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, bcking said:

Yes if you want to speak "generally" about things that's fine.

 

If you want to speak about specifics, you should have number. It's a pretty simple concept that has been discussed now for pages in this thread. I don't know why I try here anymore.

Many times, you so seem to try and present cogent arguments.  Not so much this time around.  Sometimes it’s just best to admit you were wrong, lick your wounds (if needed), and move on to another topic.  I know your heart is in the right place (when it comes to presenting facts), but sometimes your thoughts are a bit skewed because of your internal dislike for a certain world leader. 

Who has done more good for the US in 18 months than others have done in 96.  

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5869829/Father-two-year-old-face-child-separation-crisis-speaks-out.html

EXCLUSIVE: 'They're together and safe': Father of Honduran two-year-old who became the face of family separation crisis reveals daughter was never separated from her mother, but the image of her in tears at U.S. border control ‘broke his heart’

oddly enough, the fact that this mother took the child without the father's permission/knowledge across international borders has not even been mentioned by the left wing media.............

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

oddly enough, the fact that this mother took the child without the father's permission/knowledge across international borders has not even been mentioned by the left wing media.............

And is a well-known reason for detention and questioning at the border, even in Canada.  Even without the recent following the laws already in place that we now seem to be doing for the first time in a long time.

[bcking 3,157]

25 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Many times, you so seem to try and present cogent arguments.  Not so much this time around.  Sometimes it’s just best to admit you were wrong, lick your wounds (if needed), and move on to another topic.  I know your heart is in the right place (when it comes to presenting facts), but sometimes your thoughts are a bit skewed because of your internal dislike for a certain world leader. 

Who has done more good for the US in 18 months than others have done in 96.  

My request for information on this subject has nothing to do with Trump. The issue is most of what people have talked about in this thread has been conjecture and assumptions. People present issues as problems, without any information regarding the scope of the issues (which is critical when deciding how big of a problem it is).

 

Children presenting to the border with "false parents"? Sure that may happen, but how often?

Children getting raped by "false parents"? Sure that may happen, but how often?

etc...

 

This are critical questions for us to decide how best to solve the issue. It's okay if we don't have the data, but we just need to admit that. Instead people skirt around that issue. I guess because they feel uncomfortable saying that they are making vague statements without a full understanding of the problem. There is no problem with that. We have to use what information is available to us. People just keep trying to pretend as if they know more than they really do.

[bcking 3,157]

30 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

to be fair a discussion requires two people talking 

Oh tell me about it. I feel that way all the time here when people quote me, but don't actually address what they are quoting.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

      1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

to be fair a discussion requires two people talking 

31 minutes ago, bcking said:

Oh tell me about it. I feel that way all the time here when people quote me, but don't actually address what they are quoting.

 

 

 

I can't handle you guys agreeing ... it freaks me out