Actually, MLK Jr's whole point was to stop making race an issue. So, I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here.
So you, I and PP agree with some of Sanger's ''eugenic'' beliefs. Namely that women should have a right to plan their pregnancies in order to be responsible parents and PP assists low income people to do that. You are the one to bring race into it. Speaking of historical bias, you skipped over the last 60 years of the RNC for some reason.
Indeed he did but... Under Obama, children were separated from parents only when authorities had concerns for their well-being or could not confirm that the adult was in fact their legal guardian, but not as a blanket policy. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/fact-check-trump-claim-obama-separated-families/index.html Trump changed the policy, all children were separated, so it is dishonest to say Obama did it too, without adding context.
During the Obama administration, family separations were rare and predicated upon two conditions: whether border officials felt the parents or guardians posed a threat to the children, or whether the adults, under U.S. immigration law, had to be detained based on prior criminal convictions. That was not what trump,p did....And you might also learned that Obama sent back many more immigrants without the cruelty How you can even compare the actions is why Trump loves people like you
No he didn’t! Please educate yourself for crying out loud .Congress Never said to separate children from their parents. Do you like zero tolerance. Where is your humanity? I hope you don’t consider yourself a Christian
Too bad you can NOT cite any Congressional law requiring the ARBITRARY and MALICIOUS separation of children from the parents of Asylum seekers because that was an ILLEGAL POLICY that was INVENTED by your BLOTUS and Sessions that VIOLATES the RIGHTS of both the parents and children of Asylum seekers.
Haven't you realised laws are for normal people yet? Since when has the law ever applied to Government, Congress and politicians? This is the main problem with secular, democratic parliamentarism - It creates a group of people who make laws and another that has to follow the laws and when the latter does not comply, the previous has the right to punish them.
So your cynical view is all government lawmakers are above the law but particularly those with a secular, democratic parliamentary form of government?
Any form of government puts the people with the legislative power above the law. Democracies are not much different from dictatorships in this regard.
In a democracy no one is above the law; hopefully your cynicism is unique. That is not to say the law can not be subverted by the rich and powerful. They can buy back underage sex tapes, hire a fixer to intimidate witnesses, change campaign finance laws......
I am definitely not "unique in my cynicism" since the ideas I express stretch as far back as the 1800's and are the very foundation of Classical, European Liberalism. Ideals that later served as the pillar for the cornerstones that later formed what is now known as the United States of America. The law permits the lawmaker to engage in activities that if engaged in by the citizen would send him to jail. It is the inherent problem with Statism.
You're being a bit non-specific. Surly you don't mean agreed upon government duties like taxation, eminent domain, deciding who can cross our borders, etc.? Classical liberalism is more akin to libertarianism than to what the US is.
Why not ??? They are equals after all. I just don't think racism should be allowed to carry on. Why do you want to enable it so badly? Seems like some are too attached to the victim identity and unwilling to give up the race card.....hmmmm interesting.
Not really. I simply note that most of PP's clients are brown. De facto if not de jure racism. Apparently, PP does not believe brown people should have children.
Aren't you the person who thought Huey Long was a hero of the people? Rather than a corrupt populist, like, I dunno, Donald Trump? Are you arguing here to prove you're the smartest person in the room or out of personal conviction?
