Tolerant liberals say you can't compliment a conservative friend

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Despite any differences we may have, I am grateful to be a member here and associate with you all as Brothers & Sisters.

Amen to that bud. 

[unixknight]

On 8/2/2018 at 10:20 AM, Backroads said:

I think there are your friendly neighborhood liberals and then there is your SJW Tumblerinas or whatever the internet calls them these days. Two different classes.

That's how I see it too.  There's Liberals and there's Leftists.  I have friends in both camps, and there's a vast difference.  They all have the same basic perspective on the issues, but Liberals still believe in personal freedom.  Leftists do not.

[NeuroTypical]

Well, depends on the leftist.  My anarchist buddy thinks he is a leftist.  He despises liberals.  When he looks at all the power and business ties and influence and money flowing around Hilary Clinton, he can't for the life of him tell the difference between her and any random powerful member of the Republican establishment.  If you asked him about personal freedom, he'd say he was a big fan, and then lecture you on fascism, and how it's the polar opposite of leftism.  And he'd also start giving long lists of restrictions to personal freedom conservatives stand behind.  (Like drug laws and the traditional definition of marriage and age of consent laws and taxes.)

The fringe is an interesting place.  They say stuff that sounds kooky, but if you try to see the world through their eyes, you can see how it makes sense to them.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, Scott said:

I agree (unless a woman was raped, then she didn't have a choice).   I was strongly pro-life before the last year and the reason my mind was changed had nothing to do with me thinking that people shouldn't be responsible when it comes to sex and pregnancy.

I agree and you're preaching to the choir.   People should be responsible and pregnancies should not happen unless both parents are ready to raise a child.   This is how things should be; we agree.  If you can convince me that this can and will happen, I will change my position.  

Okay, let's see if I understand this.  You are pro-choice because there are irresponsible people who get pregnant and are not ready for it.  Did I get that right?

Do you believe a fetus is human life?  If so, at what point do you believe that the value of that human life is greater than the promiscuity/tragedy of her parents?  12 weeks?  20 weeks?  30 weeks? 1 second before she is born?  Why is it valuable 1 second after birth but not 1 second before birth, or 1 week before birth, or 21 weeks before birth?  What gives it value?  Can it be that what you're saying is - The mother had irresponsible sex, kill the child.

If you don't believe a fetus is human life (just a bunch of tissues), then how does it become human life?

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, depends on the leftist.  My anarchist buddy thinks he is a leftist.  He despises liberals.  When he looks at all the power and business ties and influence and money flowing around Hilary Clinton, he can't for the life of him tell the difference between her and any random powerful member of the Republican establishment.  If you asked him about personal freedom, he'd say he was a big fan, and then lecture you on fascism, and how it's the polar opposite of leftism.  And he'd also start giving long lists of restrictions to personal freedom conservatives stand behind.  (Like drug laws and the traditional definition of marriage and age of consent laws and taxes.)

The fringe is an interesting place.  They say stuff that sounds kooky, but if you try to see the world through their eyes, you can see how it makes sense to them.

 

Yeah true.  A Lefist friend of mine will tell you he's all about free speech, except for "Nazis".  Of course, defining a Nazi gets tricky since he's one of those who slaps that label onto anybody to the right of Chairman Mao...

[Guest Scott]

Quote

If you had problems with those you should have said so when those laws were made decades ago.

The Church has been making such statements about immigration for decades.  

August 1987 (notice that this one came from the First Presidency):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/news-of-the-church/church-to-assist-with-u-s-alien-amnesty-program?lang=eng

 

Church to Assist with U.S. Alien Amnesty Program

 

The Church has organized a program to train its local congregations in the United States to assist members who may benefit from the U. S. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Under provisions of the act, which was signed into law last November by President Ronald Reagan, Congress specified that “undocumented aliens” who qualify may apply for lawful temporary residency in the United States during a one-year amnesty period beginning 5 May 1987.

Successful applicants will be given temporary resident status for eighteen months, after which they will have one year to apply for permanent residence. The Church has developed training materials to help those seeking amnesty to gather documents and fill out forms and applications required by the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

In a letter to local units, the First Presidency explained the program:

“The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 creates a one-time opportunity to establish lawful immigration status for some aliens who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and who have remained illegally since that date. Some Church members may qualify under this act. We urge Church leaders to give support to those affected.

“Stake presidents who identify a need for the Church to provide technical help should contact their Area Presidency. Area Presidencies may authorize stake presidents and bishops to use stake and ward welfare services committees in providing help to members who may be affected by the act. Upon approval, training materials may be obtained from Welfare Services regional agents.

“Members may choose to seek help from the community or from the Church. They should be counseled to be honest in their dealings with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. If legal help is required, members should seek such help from qualified resources in the community.”

 

March 2011:

As a worldwide church dealing with many complex issues across the globe, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promotes broad, foundational principles that have worldwide application. The Church regards the declaration of the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform. It is consistent with important principles for which we stand:

• We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times.
• We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

 

Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society. Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws

 

The church also gives out free legal aid to illegals who want to stay in the country:

https://providentliving.lds.org/immigrant-services/locations?lang=eng

 

Also, keep in mind that the Mormon Pioneers illegally immigrated to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847.   That seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. 

Quote

And that's why the "so called liberals" are the bad guys today.

At least they don't advocate for the killing of millions of men, women, and children. 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Yeah true.  A Lefist friend of mine will tell you he's all about free speech, except for "Nazis".  Of course, defining a Nazi gets tricky since he's one of those who slaps that label onto anybody to the right of Chairman Mao...

The thing here is... these are examples of individuals.  Individuals are unique within the subset of any group.  But, looking at the individual, it is very rare to find someone who comes up with their ideas completely on their own.  Those ideas were influenced by something/someone/some group/etc.

So, in topics such as these, we usually do not address each individual within the group or even paint the entire group to apply to each individual.  Rather, we talk about the influencing group/ideology.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

The Church has been making such statements about immigration for decades.  

August 1987 (notice that this one came from the First Presidency):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/news-of-the-church/church-to-assist-with-u-s-alien-amnesty-program?lang=eng

 

Church to Assist with U.S. Alien Amnesty Program

 

The Church has organized a program to train its local congregations in the United States to assist members who may benefit from the U. S. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Under provisions of the act, which was signed into law last November by President Ronald Reagan, Congress specified that “undocumented aliens” who qualify may apply for lawful temporary residency in the United States during a one-year amnesty period beginning 5 May 1987.

Successful applicants will be given temporary resident status for eighteen months, after which they will have one year to apply for permanent residence. The Church has developed training materials to help those seeking amnesty to gather documents and fill out forms and applications required by the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

In a letter to local units, the First Presidency explained the program:

“The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 creates a one-time opportunity to establish lawful immigration status for some aliens who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and who have remained illegally since that date. Some Church members may qualify under this act. We urge Church leaders to give support to those affected.

“Stake presidents who identify a need for the Church to provide technical help should contact their Area Presidency. Area Presidencies may authorize stake presidents and bishops to use stake and ward welfare services committees in providing help to members who may be affected by the act. Upon approval, training materials may be obtained from Welfare Services regional agents.

“Members may choose to seek help from the community or from the Church. They should be counseled to be honest in their dealings with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. If legal help is required, members should seek such help from qualified resources in the community.”

 

March 2011:

As a worldwide church dealing with many complex issues across the globe, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promotes broad, foundational principles that have worldwide application. The Church regards the declaration of the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform. It is consistent with important principles for which we stand:

• We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times.
• We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

 

Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society. Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws

 

The church also gives out free legal aid to illegals who want to stay in the country:

https://providentliving.lds.org/immigrant-services/locations?lang=eng

 

Also, keep in mind that the Mormon Pioneers illegally immigrated to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847.   That seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. 

 

 

You're not following the point of the conversation.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

At least they don't advocate for the killing of millions of men, women, and children. 

 

If you think liberals - mostly represented by the Democratic Party - have not advocated war, you are delusional.  Obama - the liberal star - presided over 8 years of war.  Clinton, the other liberal star, made Libya a hellhole.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[unixknight]

Just now, anatess2 said:

The thing here is... these are examples of individuals.  Individuals are unique within the subset of any group.  But, looking at the individual, it is very rare to find someone who comes up with their ideas completely on their own.  Those ideas were influenced by something/someone/some group/etc.

So, in topics such as these, we usually do not address each individual within the group or even paint the entire group to apply to each individual.  Rather, we talk about the influencing group/ideology.

Right, and that's one of the big differences, in terms of trends, I've noticed between the notions of rights between the Left and the Right.  

Folks on the Left tend to express ideas of rights in terms of groups.  "Gay rights," " trans rights," "women's right to choose," BLM, etc.

Folks on the right more often talk in terms of individual rights, as expressed in the Bill of Rights.

That shift in perspective leads to a LOT of difficulty finding common ground.

[LePeel]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Whether or not it is the law is not the point here.

The law is preeminent above all things. Here and in eternity. You can't simply ignore the law because you find it immoral. If you don't like it, you can change it. But ignoring laws you don't like renders the whole law null and void.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

If you think liberals - mostly represented by the Democratic Party - have not advocated war, you are delusional. 

They have, but generally are less prone to get into foreign wars. 

That's not what I was preferring to though.  I was referring to pollution laws since pollution kills far more people than things like terrorism.   For the last several decades, conservatives have been against the environmental regulations that would save millions of men, women, and children.   In fact, they are in favor of repealing existing laws. 

The most extreme way you can take away people's freedom is to take away or allow other to take away their lives and health.  Yet, that's exactly what conservatives are doing and advocating.

To them trillions can be spent on fighting terrorism (and fighting terrorism is a worthy cost) and laws can be made to prevent terrorism (which is also praiseworthy), but somehow to do anything about pollution (other than enabling more of it), something that kills far more people than terrorism is somehow overreach.   

Edited August 3, 2018 by Scott

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

They have, but generally are less prone to get into foreign wars. 

That's not what I was preferring to though.  I was referring to pollution laws since pollution kills far more people than things like terrorism.   For the last several decades, conservatives have been against the environmental regulations that would save millions of men, women, and children.   In fact, they are in favor of repealing existing laws. 

The most extreme way you can take away people's freedom is to take away or allow other to take away their lives and health.  Yet, that's exactly what conservatives are doing and advocating.

Except they're not.  You express these notions that environmental regulations and laws are going to save millions without offering a shred of evidence to support the claim, then accuse Conservatives of opposing it as if they just do it to watch the world burn.

I don't want to get into an environmentalism debate in this thread, but I say this too illustrate another argument tactic.  Emotional appeal followed by vilification.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Right, and that's one of the big differences, in terms of trends, I've noticed between the notions of rights between the Left and the Right.  

Folks on the Left tend to express ideas of rights in terms of groups.  "Gay rights," " trans rights," "women's right to choose," BLM, etc.

Folks on the right more often talk in terms of individual rights, as expressed in the Bill of Rights.

That shift in perspective leads to a LOT of difficulty finding common ground.

This is a natural thing in politics.  And this is why American politics is funny - in the same way that it's funny that football in the USA is... uhm, not football.  LIBERAL is the political ideology where the rights of the individual are promoted over the societal norms and tradition.  CONSERVATIVE is the political ideology where the societal norm and tradition is weighted more than the right of each individual.  So, in British history, those who support the authority of the King (The Man) were Conservatives, those who rebelled against the King and created America were Liberals.

But, those liberals made the US Constitution such that Individual Rights became the codified law of the land.  So US politics got flipped.  If you're for individual rights you become a conservative, supporting the US Constitution and State Laws - The Man.  Whereas being liberal in the USA means... well, it used to be liberation from State Laws through constitutional Federal Laws but it's starting to morph now to changing the US Constitution altogether.

[estradling75]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let's see if I understand this.  You are pro-choice because there are irresponsible people who get pregnant and are not ready for it.  Did I get that right?

Do you believe a fetus is human life?  If so, at what point do you believe that the value of that human life is greater than the promiscuity/tragedy of her parents?  12 weeks?  20 weeks?  30 weeks? 1 second before she is born?  Why is it valuable 1 second after birth but not 1 second before birth, or 1 week before birth, or 21 weeks before birth?  What gives it value?  Can it be that what you're saying is - The mother had irresponsible sex, kill the child.

If you don't believe a fetus is human life (just a bunch of tissues), then how does it become human life?

 

@anatess2 you should know by now that Abortion supporters will not address this fundamental question.  They will monster paint, they will evade, they will counter accuse... But they will not discuss the fundamental question that will resolve the issue.

For example they will say they "Woman's right to Choose and it Her body"  And in doing so the monster painting of Conservatives as wanting to control another persons body.  We simply recognize  a fundamental truth.  Your right to bodily expression ends when it harms or hurt another.  Or as the saying goes... "Your right to swing your fist end where my nose begins"

It is none of my business if you want to get a tattoo, or plastic surgery, or gender re-assignment, or any other bodily modification,  (which is not saying I do not have an opinion on those topics, just that its none of my business).  However it is everyone's business if your actions harm, or murder someone else.  This is precisely were the Conservative objection to abortion comes from but they will not touch it at all.  They would rather call is hateful, power grabbing, right denying tyrants...

 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

They have, but generally are less prone to get into foreign wars. 

Since I've been alive, there's Carter.  And that's about it.  The conservatives now have Trump.  So they're even - okay, so we wait 2 more years for Trump to count the same to Carter.

In any case, that's one of the main reasons the conservatives split from the neo-cons.  They're getting sick of these foreign interventions.  They tried to promote Ron and Rand Paul but did not quite beat the Bush political machine.

 

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's not what I was preferring to though.  I was referring to pollution laws since pollution kills far more people than things like terrorism.   For the last several decades, conservatives have been against the environmental regulations that would save millions of men, women, and children.   In fact, they are in favor of repealing existing laws. 

The most extreme way you can take away people's freedom is to take away or allow other to take away their lives and health.  Yet, that's exactly what conservatives are doing and advocating.

Yep, that's what the leftist would say.  That is, of course, incorrect.

First, just because it's billed as an "anti-pollution law" doesn't mean that it is actually effectively reducing/preventing pollution or that it is backed by science.  That's the difference between Conservatives and Liberals.  Conservatives are for small government.  Conservatives do not believe the government should solve all problems.  Rather they believe that private individuals can solve problems more efficiently and effectively than government, so burdening society with laws that are ineffective towards its stated goals need to be fought.

So, I'm going to give you a perfect example of this.  California banned plastic straws.  Why?  Because a 9-year-old came up with some scientific study that states plastic straws are hurting the ocean.  Liberals passed the law.  Conservatives opposed it because, first, there is no proof that banning straws will solve the problem and second, straws are essential to the lives of some people with disability, and 3rd, the societal cost of banning straws is not commensurate to its purported benefits.  The conservative meme going around is that Starbucks (of course they use Starbucks) bans plastic straws in paper wrapper and exchanged it with paper straws in plastic wrapper.

So, what does the liberals say?  "Conservatives are against environmental regulations that would save millions of men, women, and children...."

 

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

To them trillions can be spent on fighting terrorism (and fighting terrorism is a worthy cost) and laws can be made to prevent terrorism (which is also praiseworthy), but somehow to do anything about pollution (other than enabling more of it), something that kills far more people than terrorism is somehow overreach.   

Okay, here's the Conservative argument.  The Federal Government's main responsibility (basically the ONLY reason they exist in the first place) is to provide for common defense.  They are not Constitutionally tasked with eradicating pollution.  Basically, unless it's from non-Americans trying to kill you, the Federal Government doesn't care if you die.  All that is the responsibility of State Law.

So, let's go to State Law - which is not where terrorism is handled, so that's apples to oranges - If you go list the most polluted city in the Union you will find that cities that have been Blue for decades and cities that have been Red for decades are on the top list of Ozone Pollution.  So, just to give you a thought exercise... What City/State comes to your mind when you think of most polluted?  In my mind, LA is #1.  Houston is #2.  LA has been Blue for decades, Houston has been Red for decades.  What about water?  Flint, Michigan.  Blue through and through.

So, as you can see, just making laws against pollution doesn't actually mean you are solving pollution.

 

 

[Vort]

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

some of us only seem liberal because many people here are skewed to the far right

I have noticed only a handful here that skew "far right", perhaps two or maybe three. I don't consider that "many people".

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I have noticed only a handful here that skew "far right", perhaps two or maybe three. I don't consider that "many people".

So, what exactly does it mean to be far right anyway?  Because, Kennedy today would be considered right.  Heck, Bill Clinton would probably have a hard time calling himself left.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Okay, here's the Conservative argument.  The Federal Government's main responsibility (basically the ONLY reason they exist in the first place) is to provide for common defense.  Basically, unless it's from non-Americans trying to kill you, the Federal Government doesn't care if you die.  All that is the responsibility of State Law.

So what you are saying above is that only states should be in charge of abortion laws and not the Federal Government?  Because that's exactly what the above indicates. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

So what you are saying above is that only states should be in charge of abortion laws and not the Federal Government?  Because that's exactly what the above indicates. 

EXACTLY.
There is no Federal Abortion Law.  There is only Roe Vs Wade, which is not abortion law (as one doesn't exist in Fed Law) but a SCOTUS interpretation of medical privacy law.  Conservatives call this a Judicial Overreach and that's why the appointment of a SCOTUS judge is like a war-zone between conservatives and liberals.  Before Roe vs Wade, abortion was illegal in the majority of the 50 States.  Interestingly, Ronald Reagan, a poster child of today's conservatives,  enacted legalization of abortion in California way before Roe vs. Wade.

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Scott said:

• 
  I still think that abortion is evil, but if it saves an unwanted child from awful torture at the hands of his or her parents, that is better to me. If you can't handle having a baby, and don't want a child, and that child is going to suffer because of it, then have an abortion rather than bring a child into this world only to have he or she suffer.
  
  Also, if you want to be pro-life, be pro-life and not just pro-birth.   Make sure that children, who have no choice in the matter, have access to health care.  If you say that this isn't the responsibility of the government, fine; find a way to give children healthcare.   Children have no choice in the matter.   It isn't their fault if they are born into a family that can't afford healthcare.  

Hmm... now this gets interesting.

A 1-second-old child is born.  His mother doesn't want him, that child is going to suffer because of it.  Kill the child?  If not, then what's the difference between a 1-second-old child and a 1-second-before-birth child or a 21-weeks-before-birth child?

Children who do not have parents that can afford health care already have access to health care.  It's called Medicaid.

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

Quote

EXACTLY.

Ok then. I know relatively few conservatives who support this, but perhaps you can enlighten me.  I know  of several libertarians who support this, but not that many conservatives. 

Can you tell which which conservatives or conservative groups that say that there should be no federal laws against abortion? I will listen.

Quote

Rather they believe that private individuals can solve problems more efficiently and effectively than government, so burdening society with laws that are ineffective towards its stated goals need to be fought.

Have you ever been to a country that has lax environmental laws?  Just breathing the air is the equivalent of smoking several packs of cigarettes a day. 

I can promise you that if there are no laws against pollution that the vast majority of corporations aren't going to spend money to clean up pollution just out of the goodness of their hearts. 

Quote

You express these notions that environmental regulations and laws are going to save millions without offering a shred of evidence to support the claim

There is plenty of evidence.   You sound like the executives of the cigarette companies when they used to claim that there was no evidence that cigarettes caused lung cancer. 

Quote

Conservatives are for small government

Until they are invading countries all over the world in wars that have nothing to do with the freedom of Americans or our allies.

Quote

In any case, that's one of the main reasons the conservatives split from the neo-cons.  They're getting sick of these foreign interventions.  They tried to promote Ron and Rand Paul but did not quite beat the Bush political machine.

That's good.   As mentioned, I'm an Independent.  For the record, I'd be thrilled if Rand Paul were in charge of national defense.  When it comes to National Defense I agree with Rand Paul more than any other politician.  

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Children who do not have parents that can afford health care already have access to health care.  It's called Medicaid.

I agree, but is Medicaid a conservative or liberal concept?

Edited August 3, 2018 by Scott

[Guest Scott]

Also, even though medicaid exist, there are a lot of children who don't have access to the medical care they need.

My jaw is seriously infected and rotting away from being being broken when I was somewhere between 6-8 years old.   Now that I am 44 years old, the bone is rotting away.  If I got medical care when I was a child, it would have been a quick procedure to reset the jaw with a relatively  short period of pain.    Now, since I had little access to medical care as a child,  my jaw is literally rotting away when I am and adult and costing tens of thousands of dollars.  I'll pay for it anyway without complaining too much, though it is painful and I go through a lot of pillow cases since my mouth leaks blood and pus through the night.

(For the record, I have never been on any type of public assistance and make a good wage and pay a lot of taxes).

Also, mental health care is very hard to obtain for children, even under Medicaid.   

I don't think children should be punished for being born.   

It sucks to have to pay for someone else's child if their parents were irresponsible; I get that.   Still it isn't the fault of the child.

For the record, I don't think that people who are on public assistance should even be having children.   Liberals would call me cold heart-ed and perhaps even a bigot for saying that.   I only think that people who can emotionally and financially support a family should be having children.   That should be the case in my opinion, but I don't see a reasonable way to accomplish it since we can't force people to be responsible. 

I think that children should get a fair change and have access to education and medical care, regardless of the circumstances of their parents.  

Edited August 3, 2018 by Scott

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

Can you tell which which conservatives or conservative groups that say that there should be no federal laws against abortion? I will listen.

 

I am one...  We do not need federal law against abortion... Because abortion is a distraction from the issue you are evading..

We already have laws about one person harming another... and even harming each other...  Tons and tons of laws...  And we have very few laws about what a person can do to themselves...

All we need to do is define what it means to be Human, a person.   With that definition we will know if a fetus is a human being entitled to all human rights and protections... or if it is a clump of cells that the mother can dispose of at will.  With this definition the abortion issue needs no other laws... the existing ones can handle it.

So @Scott are you willing to discuss what it takes for someone to be considered human?  Are you ready to put out a definition?

 

 

[Vort]

12 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Conservative claim to be the pro-family party, but the situation at the border (separating families who are seeking assylum) shows their hypocrisy.

This was done by the Obama administration. Where was the outcry?

Republicans do not have anti-family planks on their platform. Democrats do have anti-life planks on theirs. To equate Republican hypocrisy with Democrat perversion is absurd. The Republican Party is scummy, but the Democratic Party is completely beyond any bounds of decency. Crying "A pox on both their houses!" is willful ignorance. None are so blind as they who will not see.