Your question is a "trap". It assumes that I would blindly accept your meaning of "asylum seekers" and "separating children". I already answered it by stating that the parents (some of them) may not be legitimate asylum seekers and that it is the parents who are purposely putting their children into danger. Given that, the parents (if they were subject to US Law) should be put into jail for child abuse.
Hypothetical - A mother leaves a kid in a hot car while doing grocery shopping and the authorities take the kid away. Are you going to complain that this separation is is a vile disgusting action by the authorities since the mother was simply buying food for the kid?
Mexico, also, has a role in this. Why don't the asylum seekers stop in Mexico? Why isn't Mexico protecting the children? Seems to be a lack of finger pointing towards Mexico.
A bogus assertion: "Do you wish to defend separating children from their asylum seeking parents?
1. How many of those claiming asylum are making a valid claim and are not simply gaming the system?
2. The parents of the children should be in jail for child abuse. They are putting the lives of their children at risk before even illegally entering the US. Child protective services typically separate children from abusive parents.
Moreover, it appears that the children may be being used as "pawns" to evoke unjustified moral outrage so that violations to immigration laws will be dismissed based on humanitarianism.
I don't think I can blame this on Google, but I was surprised one day when the same product from the same vendor on the "same" website had two different prices!!!
I had multiple tabs open to follow different leads in searching for the product. Evidently each of the leads I was following must have accessed the products webpage differently.
This of course raises significant public concerns with product pricing and even your personal information. The company knows your zip code and personal wealth and modifies the product price accordingly.
The following is disingenuous -> "Charges of left-leaning bias are not new, of course. They come from a very old playbook conservatives have used against newspapers and broadcasters for decades." The media is biased against conservative thought.
However, I do have a significant problem with the attempts of many conservatives to point the finger of blame at those "nasty" algorithms. I do not believe that they "document" an anti-conservative bias. In response to my post concerning the apparent bias of algorithms against conservative, Ninja wrote: "It seems the apparent bias towards liberal content is actually a result of liberal people being more fluent in tech and being more active on the internet."
From my point of view, conservatives attempting to blame the algorithms for suppressing conservative thought are misplaced. But the media, in many cases, have been active in denigrating conservative thought.
The discussion on social media platforms raises the issue of "content moderation efforts". In turn that has raised a concerns over the algorithms used to identify so-called "hate speech" that needs to be taken down.
The social media industry tends to be very "left" leaning and those on the "right" have claimed that their conservative viewpoints are being repressed, because those "leftists" write the algorithms. Seems to be a reasonable explanation on the surface. But I suspect that the apparent suppression of conservative viewpoints may be more complex than simply pointing a finger of blame at an abstract algorithm. I would like to see more research into how the apparent suppression of conservative comments is occurring.
For an example, the apparent suppression of conservative comments may not be due to a biased algorithm but could, in reality, be a side-effect of how conservatives use social media when compared to liberals.
Obama chose to hide and not act on this piece of information from the public as a means of tilting the election in her favor. So if we apply equal antipathy, Obama was guilty of manipulating the integrity of the election process to favor Hillary.
Funny, Hillary (expecting to win) with great pomposity proclaimed that anyone questioning the results of the election should be considered a "threat to democracy". Well, it seems that the Democrats are the "threat to democracy".
Thanks for the facts. You ignore a critical point, we have a justice system that is an extension of Orwell's "we are all equal, but some are more equal than others". The (fake) news media is foaming at the mouth to report every minuscule piece of hearsay into an anti-Trump expose, but they ignore any legitimate facts that demonstrate that the Democrats also have dirty hands in the political process. Equal justice based on the facts needs to be upheld.
Collusion is NOT a crime, but the (fake) media twists the facts to insinuate that collusion is a crime when it comes to Trump. Furthermore, that collusion can somehow be interpreted as "obstruction of justice", which is a crime.
A few years back, in a moment of weakness, I bought an earlier version of Civilization. I didn't like the terms of service. Surprisingly, NO instructions were provided for how to return the product for a refund. Customer service refused to issue a refund.
The whole purpose of DRM is supposed to encourage one to by legal. Well if you do, and you reject the Terms of Service (TOS), you should be entitled to a refund since you won't be using their product.
When a company refuses to refund your purchase based on rejecting the TOS, then there is no consumer incentive to buy legal. Not to mention customer service simply giving you the finger. The company is acting maliciously towards its customers. When a company acts dishonorably, the customer has no reason to be bound by a company's outrageous policies.
Another opportunity to highlight how the customer has been screwed through this game. Well, at least in the past.
1. Microsoft changed one of their DRM security programs which prevented me from playing Civilization IV. The makers of Civilization refused to issue an update to fix this problem.
2. In a moment of weakness, I bought Civilization V. In reading the Terms of Service (TOS), I decided not to accept. Guess what, they didn't give you any option to return the game for a refund. I also complained to the seller, but they refused to take a return even with the TOS rejected. So if they are NOT willing to issue a refund if you reject their TOS, that would seem to promote piracy - the very things these companies claim to want to prevent. This is very deplorable behavior by the sellers.
All companies selling products with a TOS should be required to issue the customer a refund if they decline to accept the TOS.
Fox News has been speculating that the so-called (fake) Russian dossier was leaked by the Democrats to the Justice Department as a verified document as a means of legitimizing the unmasking of US citizens. This may have lead to the appoint of Mueller to investigate so-called Russian collusion by the Trump administration.
Whether this turns out to be a deplorable political dirty trick by the Democrats is unknown at this time. Nevertheless, it points to the potential that the FISA court may be making (horrendous) decisions based on false data. It is another shortcoming of FISA.
Well, the left-wing publications sat on this story for many many years. One could make the case that they were suppressing the story. I understand, that when the story finally broke, that Weinstein (by way of rumor) complained to the NYT that "we had an arrangement". (quote unverified).
Seems that the left, now that the story has been exposed, has expressed massive faux outrage. They had years to expose and failed to be outraged.
Richard Fowler, a leftist commentator on Fox News, observed that Weinstein's misogynistic actions speak of poor social skills. Mr. Fowler did not directly attribute Weinstein's misogynistic actions to "bad" character. Mr. Fowler, to correct this situation, proposed greater eduction in treating women correctly.
Now had this been a Republican, Mr. Fowler would have been busy lambasting the Republican and denigrating his/her character for these vile misogynistic actions.
So when a Democrat does something "bad" the fault lies with society. But when a Republican does something "bad" it is the result of their evil disgusting character. Relative moralism.