Ya, I am not being "ruthless", that is a bit of a hyperbole. Also, just a note, but Trump's methods are not new, people just have a short memory when it comes to US history. We are not just now letting these ass-hats have their say, you just don't know your history very well.

Furthermore being pissed off is completely the right reaction to what they are doing to these immigrate families and I am not sure why you seem to think it is somehow the wrong reaction.

If I wake up one day and headlines about little kids being wrongfully taken from their families doesn't cause me outrage, then I also hope that is my last day on Earth.

People subjected to shaming will conform outwardly in order to avoid public humiliation, but they will also harbor grudges against you - which they'll obviously hide until they feel it's safe to come out in the open - for embarrassing them. That's a horrible way to cultivate employee morale (not to mention customer satisfaction!) or good will among fellow citizens. If your employees feel like their superiors are condescending pricks then the level of commitment/job satisfaction drops, and you're left with high rates of turnover, absenteeism, etc.

That's the stereotype of the corporate mentality: your employees are easily replaceable anonymous names on the payroll (who rather than adding value merely eat into your profits) who are lazy, sneaky, shortsighted, etc. and who need to be kept in a constant state of fear. There's some truth to this within that specific context. I would however be cautious in translating that model/mindset to other spheres of life, especially those which do not subordinate human beings to a "system" which sees them in strictly instrumental terms.

In my experience in (small) business it's almost always a better strategy - at least a long-term one - to treat employees like adults. "Hey you lazy idiot I'm going to fire you if you don't pull your head out of your ass!" is translated to, "This is what the job requires and if it's something you can't do consistently then you should seek employment elsewhere." I've disciplined/counseled many a worker in those (calm) terms and have gotten pretty good results, and by "good results" I include parting ways as amicably as possible when differences are irresolveable. More often, though, it results in significantly improved attitude and performance.

I guess my main point here would be to argue against the idea that being an asshole is the best way to convince others of the rightness of your position. They''ll fake it out of fear - as noted there's some truth to that - but the change will be superficial, insincere, and precarious. I'd also add that being a "nice guy" does not necessarily preclude toughness when warranted, so that's a false dilemma. One can be a genuinely solid and compassionate person while not at all being a pushover. That's the sort of leadership that people admire and want to be around.

Now within the context of political debate, in my experience shaming works even less than in the business world - at least not in the sense of leading to genuine change in the other's perspective. What does work every so often, however, is (e.g.) acknowledging the partial legitimacy of their perspective, admitting the limitations of our own, suggesting that their views have been manipulated by people who don't share their noble intentions, etc. So you try to find some common ground and then work from there.

That attempt to foster good will by recognizing the "humanity" or basic decency of our perceived adversaries can make them much more receptive to our position than they'd otherwise be. If you wan't to stir up the "base" who already think like you then yeah, go ahead and shame those who are different. On the other hand, if you want to compel those who may be indecisive, or who may even be on the other side of an issue, then treating them with respect will likely work better. It's a rare person who doesn't get defensive and totally closed off when personally attacked.

There are some evil POS out there who don't deserve any sort of charity, of course, and these should be shamed for their heartless beliefs and/or actions (Trump!). But the main concern IMO should be with those who don't fall into this category, who may be misinformed or misguided. Decent people can hold irrational and/or even unethical views, but getting them to see that requires a bit of subtlety. Maybe others with a background in psychology can chime in here, but getting people (including ourselves!) to see the truth is, or can be, incredibly difficult.

Just my thoughts. We can all get back to the productive exchange of insults now.

The email hack was clearly to damage Clinton. — Jeremiah

No evidence has been presented that the DNC Podesta emails, etc, were hacked.

In fact the FBI were denied access to the DNC server by the DNC.

Now that sentence above is absolute fact and clarified by the FBI themselves.

It would appear the DNC had a disgruntled leaker. The presumption being disgruntlement at the treatment of the Bernie Sanders campaign

If I wake up one day and headlines about little kids being wrongfully taken from their families doesn't cause me outrage, then I also hope that is my last day on Earth. — Jeremiah

Same policy as Obama's. Here is Clinton in 2014 saying this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTmN2wbJ0A

Obama's border policy - His Secretary of State's explanation in 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTmN2wbJ0A

It's stunning how little thought, how little research you've done on this subject. I've seen this trite video being passed around by several Facebook friends today, and I wouldn't be surprised if you haphazardly picked up this video from your social media friends, rather than actually engage in an iota of due diligence on this distressing topic.

First, there's no doubt that Obama's border policy was detestable. It's aim was to detain families (no longer than 21 days), and leverage that to deter additional undocumented immigrants, which as I explain early in this thread, are essentially doomed to fail. I don't think anyone, liberal or not, should defend Obama's immigration policy in this case, as it's arguably the platform on which Trump built his zero-tolerance fiasco (although I have no doubt the Trump administration would have orchestrated family separation either way).

Second, Clinton wasn't Secretary of State in 2014. I mean the goddamn news ticker on the video you provided even shows that she's the former Secretary of State. Again, it looks like you did a five second google search. She's on her 2014 Hard Choices book tour and basically being classic Hillary Clinton where she indecisively vacillates around ideas trying to appeal to both conservatives and liberals, because after Obama's 2012 reelection she was absolutely going to run again for the presidency. Anyway, Clinton's response is vague, with slivers of nuance, but poorly articulated, like her 2016 presidential campaign in a nutshell. She states that undocumented children should be sent back if it can be established that there are responsible adults that can care for them back in their respective countries, and that there are undeniable "concerns if all of them can be sent back", which to me indicates that if a responsible adult is in a precarious position due do cartel threats, etc. then that may not be a viable solution. Either way, it's super fucking vague, and not remotely comparable to Trump's zero-tolerance policy, because instead of ripping children away from their parents when they reach ports of entry or without announcing themselves, what Clinton is articulating is to send children back to their families who live in the Northern Triangle.

I'm going to coin the term "Google Search Conservative", that is, a conservative who establishes or defends his or her position through a quick google search.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

You are so full of it.

The Zero Tolerance policy is Trump's brain child. You are a very dishonest person.

Quoting the criminal cartel of the day.

You are obviously unaware or are in denial that the FBI asked for access to the server. Crowdstrike, the private cyber security firm the DNC used, provided the only report. This report was not verified by government intelligence agencies through means of their own access to the server.

In the coming days or weeks you will be embarrassed.

I'm actually embarrassed now because as I stated just earlier today, there's no point in paying attention to you. Your response only further validates my point. So stupid of me to forget that so quickly.

The FBI got the needed information from the 3rd party. A private company that the DNC decided to use and all this was reviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which concluded along with the FBI that Russia's goal was to damage Clinton in the 2016 election and was responsible for the leaked emails. Also the USIC constitutes more agencies than just the FBI.

You have no clue what you are talking about and have provided zero evidence to support any of your claims. Furthermore why the heck should I listen to you over the USIC? What are your qualifications in such matters?

David Brooks' OP today:

The Trump administration immigration officials have become exactly the kind of monsters that conservatism has always warned against.

For centuries, conservatives have repeated a specific critique against state power. Statism, conservatives have argued, has a tendency to become brutalist and inhumane because a bureaucracy can’t see or account for the complexity of reality. It tries to impose uniform rules on the organic intricacy of human relationships. Statist social engineering projects cause horrific suffering because in the mind of statists, the abstract rule is more important than the human being in front of them. The person must be crushed for the sake of the abstraction.

This is exactly what the Trump immigration policies are doing. Families are ripped apart and children are left weeping by the fences constructed by government officials blindly following a regulation.

This illustrates something crucial about this administration. It is not populated by conservatives. It is populated by anti-liberal trolls. There’s a difference.

https://nyti.ms/2lgOscM

Worth reading in full.

In fact the FBI were denied access to the DNC server by the DNC.

Now that sentence above is absolute fact and clarified by the FBI themselves. — raza

So you trust it to be an absolute fact because the FBI have said so, even though you haven't personally seen the evidence?

And yet when the FBI and other agencies say that Russia interfered to help Trump, suddenly they can't be trusted and public evidence is required.

Your hypocrisy is giving me whiplash.

Is separating children how Trump intends to discourage them from coming? Or is there some other way? If some other way then it's possible to discourage people from coming without separating children.

So I can turn your wild accusations around against you. If Trump cared, why is he doing it? It is within his power to reverse his policy decision.

And if he is separating children so as to discourage others from coming then he's the one using children as pawns (and clearly doesn't care about them).

Don't try to spin this as being a problem with the Democrats. This is entirely Trump. He's the one doing it. — Michael

If American citizens committed various crimes, DHS; department of human services, will take away their children or place them with responsible relatives. It is not fair to make the children go to jail, os they can be with criminal parents or criminal guardians who break the law. This would be cruel to the children who do not deserve this. It is better that they not see their parents in this position, so the criminal parents can lie to them later to perpetuate their trust. It will be hard to lie if the children see and hear that their parents were criminals who knowing broke the law.

Picture a drug dealer who is dealing from his house where there are children. DHS will not take the children to jail for being innocent by-standers. They will separate them from their parents, so the children are not in danger. Paul Manafort's children are not in jail with him. The left does no think beyond the latest con job. Use your brain and be a critical thinker.

This pretend concern for children just so happens to come at a same time when the IG report came out and there are hearings in Congress. This is a distraction, to hide public attention from the corruption that occurred under Obama in the law enforcement and justice departments.

The Democrats pretend there is injustice to children to hide all their injustice to American citizens. If you watch any of the hearings, the Democrats on the committee are also trying to shift the focus away from their crimes, using this latest concern for children scam. This has has nothing to do with the intent of the hearings. It is sort of like Johnny is about to get yelled at for breaking the window, so he rats on his brother to delay, soften and district his mother.

Because in America stupidity, misogyny and racism never gets its say? Is that your argument? Are you new to the USA? — Jeremiah

The economy is dong well under the misogyny and racism of Trump, with unemployment among the blacks, latinos, and women at an all time low. The actions of Trump are having the opposite impact compared to the talking points of the left. The leftist herd needs to learn critical thinking skills and not blindly recite the talking pints coming from their con artists leaders.

There is a saying that one can tell a tree by the fruit is bears. The fruit of Trump's economic tree is pro women, blacks and latino. It has a health impact on the very people the Democrats complain are being screwed.

If you look at Democrat party controlled large cities, like Chicago, the fruit for women and blacks is rotten fruit. There is little representation in the power structure, and there are high rates of poverty and crime for blacks. This tree has rotten fruit, but sounds goods to the those who memorize jingles. In th end results is what matters, not promises you don't keep.

I like how you talk about critical thinking skills then display a complete lack of them.

I am gonna float one of those concepts integral to critical thinking pass you. Now you make sure and let me know if I am going too fast for you.

Ready for it? It is a classic.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Don't worry that you missed that one, people with your level critical thinking often do.

Let's see the economy was doing well before Trump. Unemployment was low and in a downward trend before Trump. So what evidence do you have that Trump caused this?

Also, and more importantly, economic strength does not justify social injustices like misogyny and racism. I don't know why you would even try to make that justification. The South had great economic strength under slavery, but that sure the heck didn't make it right. What you are saying, is that your moral character can be bought off with a pay raise, and that is just sad. I would rather be poor and good than rich and evil, but apparently you, on the other hand, sell your soul cheap.

@Maw
@Jeremiah
Why is it that the posts that analyze the problem are the ones that are responded to and those posts that offer solutions are disregarded?

This kind of response is why we are in the position we are in. The outrage over (insert issue) until we are at a fever pitch, on the verge of chaos or change and then poof....the immediately desired change is made, the outrage is over because the practice has stopped and those that were outraged feel their job is done, without ever finding a solution to the problem.

Why is it that the posts that analyze the problem are the ones that are responded to and those posts that offer solutions are disregarded? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm not an expert on immigration policy, or an immigration lawyer, nor am I in any type of position to activate new immigration policies, so it's rather pointless. But I will say that we should provide immigrants who cross our borders, with good food, safe and comfortable shelter, therapists for those seeking asylum because I can't begin to imagine the horrors they faced in the Northern Triangle, while they undergo the process of being admitted into this country as all the evidence shows that immigrants are good for the country, rather than splitting their families apart and locking them in cages, and this administration is currently doing. Ultimately they should be treated with respect and dignity.

cages — Jeremiah

They're not cages you whiney, left-wing, tree-hugging hippie. They're chain-link fence enclosures. :rofl:

David Brooks once again demonstrates how little awareness he has for the history of conservatism, which has gleefully wielded State power to shape society, or the world, to their ends, whether it be Jim Crow, the War on Terror, McCarthyism, Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBT, Ant-Union, etc. Brooks is unable to acknowledge that American conservatism always been acerbic, and that the Trump administration is not excluded from this historical chain.

Those aren't real conservatists. Tssk. Edmund Burke on the other hand...

Also, as to everything going on in the world and what Trump's doing: just wait and see.

That's the defence of every Conservative in denial of the facts on the ground: that Trump will somehow be vindicated by a) peace with NK or b) anything else of the zillion things he claimed at some point in time. I'm sure that if you bully enough countries, one of those 192 will cave at some point on something. And that will make him a winner in the eyes of his supporters as they blithely ignore the destruction of civil society.

The latest rhetoric from the Trump camp is disturbing. Trump has now tweeted that immigrants are "infesting" the country and a surrogate of his several times called them "invaders" in a TV interview. The portrayal of people, many of whom are asylum seekers trying to escape crisis situations in their country, with language normally used to describe insects, vermin and wartime enemies is straight out of the fascist playbook. A line is being crossed here and anyone who supports Trump in this better be prepared to be judged on where they stood in relation to that line.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/critics-say-trumps-description-of-immigrants-recalls-nazi-propaganda/

"Social commentators pointed out that history has shown, particularly before and during the Holocaust, that “infest” — a term almost exclusively used to describe vermin — dehumanizes a population and is often a precursor to murder or genocide.
...

“‘Infest’ is language used in Nazi propaganda to describe the ‘infestation’ of Jews in Germany, who were compared to rats,” writer Rob Sheridan posted. “Here’s the President of the United States saying illegal immigrants ‘infest’ our country. Keep telling me those Nazi comparisons are unfair.”

I'm not an expert on immigration policy, or an immigration lawyer, nor am I in any type of position to activate new immigration policies, so it's rather pointless. But I will say that we should provide immigrants who cross our borders, with good food, safe and comfortable shelter, therapists for those seeking asylum because I can't begin to imagine the horrors they faced in the Northern Triangle, while they undergo the process of being admitted into this country as all the evidence shows that immigrants are good for the country, rather than splitting their families apart and locking them in cages, and this administration is currently doing. Ultimately they should be treated with respect and dignity. — Maw

I don't disagree Maw but that doesn't provide a solution to the illegal immigration hurdles for us to clear.

how about this. Until 60 years ago, borders were not patrolled and there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. The problem is the idea of national borders in the first place. I mean, nowadays it's easier to move a company from one country to the next than move as a person. Interesting priorities no?

The problem is your dehumanization of immigrants not the fact that some get into your country, the fact of which you have been taking advantage of for years to get jobs done that American's don't want to do and to spur on your economy in the process. The problem is also the level of ingratitude of some of you now in considering them no more worthy of empathy than animals or vermin as your "president" describes them. The point being that we don't agree on the problem, so we are naturally going to define the solution is different ways. So, why keep asking the pointless question?

Or put it this way @ArguingWAristotleTiff, how do you solve the problem of a president who uses the rhetoric of Nazism to demonize illegal immigrants? Because that's a much more pressing problem I would think than a few extra illegals sneaking past your border guards.

Donald Trump announced that he intends to end family separation with an executive order, by allowing entire families to be held in the same ICE detention centers. Now at the start of the thread you made a big deal about not housing the families together, so how do you now reconcile your views, with what appears at the moment to be a change in Trump's position? Also given that now Trump believes he can end this with his pen alone, something many of us said he could do, how do you reconcile that with the notion his hands were tied by existing laws?