Did you miss my big, big disclaimer? “excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent”.

Only in a perfect scenario would there be no abuse, so it's nonsensical to ignore it. The reality is how bad will the abuse have to be before this program is deemed a failure.

Given that the parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence?

There was no due process to kidnap the kids. Part of the parents sentence was not loss of custody. If you look at history the state has been a much more terrible guardian.

The mafia have been managing it for generations, so that option obviously doesn’t work.

Italy needs to get serious on imprisonment for career criminals, they don't.

We’ve had this discussion many times, though from the opposite side. School and education is for teaching kids facts and about the world, but they do not (nor should they) have the capacity to be substitute parents. And that’s for neglectful parents, much less parents who are actively teaching the kids negative values.

It's not morality to teach kids about all the options they can choose to earn a living.

All in all, excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent, I’m not sure why this is such a bad thing.

It astounding that you can't think of why government kidnapping is a bad thing. They have no right to take kids from homes because they want to "tame the savages".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schools

There's a wealth of options inbetween nothing and kidnapping children. Education is probably the best, showing kids they have better options will do wonders. Another option is to imprison mafia members, it's much more difficult to influence children from prison.

2021 set that precedent, that was Max's signature move. Brake late to get ahead on the inside, go wide, and push your opponent off the track.

We are not talking about association, we are talking about participation. There is a big difference.

The majority of protesters on both sides remained peaceful, the presence of white supremists in a protest doesn't change the act of a peaceful protests.

Anyway go ahead and explain to me how there were some perfectly normal non-racist people there protesting the removal of a pro-slavery war monument

It wasn't a pro slavery monument. Lee's reunification efforts after the war were his major contribution. He convinced other generals and colonels to put down their arms and not engage in guerrilla warfare, Grant agreed not to imprison confederate soldiers based on Lee efforts. I can list more of Lee's reunification efforts if you'd like.

that’s who Donald “immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country” Trump was talking about.

I have no idea what you are talking about, I doubt you do either.

Guilty by association is a common logical fallacy, it doesn't matter how you try to narrow down.

I though the only distinction was for medical vehicles and military vehicles. There is a whole class of vehicles called Technical which is pretty much a pickup with a heavy machine gun mounted to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

That's only true if you believe it's the government's duty to take care people.

Is your argument that having any view similar to a white supremists or Nazi that makes you a white supremists or Nazi?

Could easily make it 20 1st and 2nd are in with bye all 3rd and top 2 4th play each other. The down side group play will be meaningless.

The verse is not about using your neighbors wealth to help someone, it's about using your own wealth to do so. The verse did not go.

I was a stranger and you did not invite me in to your neighbors house, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me with your neighbors clothing, I was sick and in prison and you did not have your neighbor look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not have your neighbor do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

I'm not debating whether taking down the statue was right or not. My point of contention is that when Trump said very fine people there is no indication he was calling nazis and white supremists very fine people.

It looks like your little example blew up in your face.

I don't consider everyone that attended BLM protests rioters, do you?

So some of the people there protesting the teardown were fine people?

I'm glad to see you're afraid to debate me.

They were there, he referred to people there as very fine people

Were there other people there besides white supremists and meo-nazis opposing the tear down of the statue?

No one is disputing Trump said "very fine people on both sides", which is what your link confirms. The false narrative was that he was talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists which he doesn't mention at all. Your clip doesn't prove Trump was talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists, unless you can show that everyone who was there protesting the removal was a neo-Nazis or white supremacists.

Mexican Agriculture Minister Victor Villalobos also participated in the meeting. He suggested that in future Mexican inspectors could take the place of the U.S. personnel who currently handle the checks.

I wonder how much of a kickback Victor gets for looking the other way.

Attract more skilled workers by making the conditions worse. This has to make the top 10 worse economic government decisions list.