A tad hypocritical

Here is Bill Clinton commenting on Donald Trump’s DACA decision:

DACA has brought hundreds of thousands of young people out of the shadows — allowing them to live without fear, go to school, work, and contribute to America in countless other ways. These young people’s dreams are part of the American Dream. And they make it more real for all of us. Today’s decision by the White House to terminate DACA — and that is effectively what it attempts to do — will crush their dreams and weaken the American Dream for the rest of us.

Here is Bill Clinton’s administration dealing with a young person wanting to “live without fear, go to school, work, and contribute to America in countless other ways.”

Image result for Elián González

(HT: Saw the comparison somewhere on social media – can’t recall where. Sorry).

This entry was posted in American politics, History, Hypocrisy of progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to A tad hypocritical

  1. Helen

    You should know better to pull a photo off the internet to make a point when you don’t remember the social media (!) source you got it from, and even if you did, you wouldn’t know it’s real origin or context.
    Is this ‘Clinton’s administration’? Or someone elses? Which agency? Where and when? What is actually happening here? Is the soldier attacking the young person or rescuing them? Is it even in America? Is it real or staged?
    The internet and the media is full of examples of misuse of images, either through sloppy journalism or malicious intent. Don’t add to the problem.

  2. IDefender of the faith

    Sinc: this is childish.

  3. Sinclair Davidson

    Helen – that is a very famous photo. If you don’t know it then you shouldn’t be commenting on social media.

  4. Leo G

    “… will crush their dreams and weaken the American Dream for the rest of us.”

    The DREAM in question is the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. The illegal immigrant’s dream is legal permanent residency status, which the Act may provide for about 40% of beneficiaries.
    The DREAM has been estimated to improve federal government revenues by $230 million/year but increase direct and indirect deficits by $500 million/year.

  5. Snoopy

    Surely DACA wasn’t intended to apply to fucking Cuban Balts?

  6. RobK

    It’s good to have dreams but they need to fit within the parameters of the law. Trump is tackling a difficult problem exacerbated by his predecessors cumulative inaction.

  7. Kneel

    They got a chance to come into the light – most did.
    Then they did NOTHING. They could have gone through a citizenship process, but they didn’t bother, despite the fact that obummer made it quite clear these were “temporary” and “not an amnesty”.
    Besides which, Trump only wants to stop MORE of these happening, not immediately deport people already on this scheme. Then MAKE THEM go through the process they had every right and reason to follow but simply ignored.
    Go DJT!

  8. Helen

    What I was commenting on was the use of a photo when the only source provided is ‘social media I can’t recall’. If the wikipedia article had been cited (is that social media?) then OK, we can follow up the references in it and decide whether the use of the photo is reasonable or not. I wasn’t judging the post, just the sloppiness of the way the photo was used.
    It is however interesting to read the context, which seems to have been a custody battle as much as an immigration issue. The apprehension of the child by authorities was subsequently overturned by the attorney general, presumably also a part of the Clinton administration.
    So what do we pick on the Clinton administration for in this case: the initial heavy-handed behaviour, or the subsequent reversal?

  9. OneWorldGovernment

    Sinclair Davidson
    #2491934, posted on September 8, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Helen – that is a very famous photo. If you don’t know it then you shouldn’t be commenting on social media.

    Hear, hear!

    Well said Sinclair.

  10. Helen

    Just to add: believing that a photo is ‘very famous’ does not remove the need to give proper citations. What is ‘very famous’ to one person may be unknown to another. I didn’t know about it, though I keep up with current affairs, politics, science, history etc broadly, through a wide range of sites. (And I’m a historian).
    However I will take this as a cautionary tale for myself, that I can’t assume that things I think are ‘very famous’ because of their coverage in social (or other) media are known at all by others.

  11. Tim Neilson

    The apprehension of the child by authorities was subsequently overturned by the attorney general, presumably also a part of the Clinton administration.
    So what do we pick on the Clinton administration for in this case: the initial heavy-handed behaviour, or the subsequent reversal?

    What “reversal” are you talking about? The kid was deported to Cuba under Clinton’s administration and has never been back to the USA.
    (And I’m a historian).
    So you’re a different “Helen” to the one who claimed to have science qualifications relevant to “climate change” questions? It gets a bit confusing.

  12. Senile Old Guy

    Just to add: believing that a photo is ‘very famous’ does not remove the need to give proper citations. What is ‘very famous’ to one person may be unknown to another.

    Here, “very famous” means widely known: i.e. a lot of people know about it. And “a lot of people” does not have to include you.

    I had not seen it before but I can accept it as “very famous” because there are, doubtless, many photos which are widely known but which I have never seen.

  13. Helen

    No, same person. I have degrees in both science and history, and have worked in both fields. I’m also into engineering, especially the history of.

  14. Sinclair Davidson

    Helen – The HT refers to the Clinton’s hypocrisy, not the photo. I take very dim view of people who pretend to be stupid in order to take cheap shots.

    “Historian” whahahahahahahaha.

  15. Helen

    To SOG. I agree. All the more reason to cite sources, and not assume ‘very famous’ or widely known, includes everyone.

  16. Senile Old Guy

    To SOG. I agree. All the more reason to cite sources, and not assume ‘very famous’ or widely known, includes everyone.

    To be clear: I do not agree that all sources need to be cited. It is a good idea to put a link to main sources, such as reports or documents, but it is trivially easy to find things on the internet now. I can search for an image or piece of text and the source is usually in the top few results returned.

  17. feelthebern

    Helen, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

    Seriously, if you can’t remember the Reno & Clinton DoJ circus, what are you doing at the Cat?
    Shouldn’t you be doing something on snapchat/twitter with Taylor Swift?

  18. Helen

    Sinclair, now you are taking a cheap shot.
    Even if the note referred to the comparison not the actual photo, ‘from a site I can’t recall’ doesn’t do it for me.
    Reminds me of a response I once got from a colleague when I pointed out some errors in the draft of a brochure he was writing: ‘it doesn’t matter if it’s accurate on not, it’s just for the public.’
    Pretty well sums up social media today.

  19. It’s neither the famous nature of the image nor the context that worry me, but the fact that its appearance in this instance as just another political meme further undermines rational, meaningful discussion.

  20. Zatara

    The apprehension of the child by authorities was subsequently overturned by the attorney general, presumably also a part of the Clinton administration.

    No, Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno is the one who ordered Elian Gonzalez be seized and returned to his father in Cuba.

    “After González was returned to his father’s custody, he remained in the U.S. while the Miami relatives exhausted their legal options. A three-judge federal panel had ruled that he could not go back to Cuba until he was granted an asylum hearing, but the case turned on the right of the relatives to request that hearing on behalf of the boy. On June 1, 2000, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Elián was too young to file for asylum; only his father could speak for him, and the relatives lacked legal standing. On June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision. Later the same day, Elián González and his family returned home to Cuba”

    …. where he remains to this day.

  21. Irreversible

    Sinc: this is rather silly. Aside from the obvious reality that US law enforcement has a bizarre attachment to excessive security/armory/weapons in general, the fact is that the recent decision to withdraw potection for minors in this context is bad policy and bad politics. There is no need to argue a Clinton hypocrisy: they are a dime a dozen .

  22. notaluvvie

    I don’t know but looks suspiciously like Mark Steyn to me.

  23. DM of WA

    Irreversible
    #2492202, posted on September 8, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    … Aside from the obvious reality that US law enforcement has a bizarre attachment to excessive security/armory/weapons in general …

    Have you seen how British, French and indeed some of our own law enforcement people are kitted out lately? Very disturbing. But I guess that is one of the “benefits” of progress in our rapidly growing and diverse multicultural society.

  24. Sinclair Davidson

    Even if the note referred to the comparison not the actual photo, ‘from a site I can’t recall’ doesn’t do it for me.

    Like I’m too stupid to know where I found a picture on google? Really???? I don’t care what does it for you, but try harder to be intelligent. It’s not hard.

  25. feelthebern

    The apprehension of the child by authorities was subsequently overturned by the attorney general, presumably also a part of the Clinton administration.

    Helen wins the wrongologist of the day award.
    Or she was deliberately trying on a falsehood to de-rail the thread.
    Sad.

  26. alexnoaholdmate

    (And I’m a historian).

    A history teacher who doesn’t know the context of that photo and of the Elian Gonzalez debacle?

    Yeah, right.

    Why the lies?

  27. Fisky

    It is however interesting to read the context, which seems to have been a custody battle as much as an immigration issue. The apprehension of the child by authorities was subsequently overturned by the attorney general, presumably also a part of the Clinton administration.

    Helen, this is actually a lie. You shouldn’t lie in public Helen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *