Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nathanael D. Striker

U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Recommended Posts

If that's your concern, then how are they actively hindering federal policy, and how is that not covered by their Constitutional rights? If it's just that they aren't helping, that's not going to count. That would just be another example of what I just established they are allowed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's your concern, then how are they actively hindering federal policy, and how is that not covered by their Constitutional rights? If it's just that they aren't helping, that's not going to count. That would just be another example of what I just established they are allowed to do.

Fed want to enforce federal immigration laws. States hide illegals so that the feds cannot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fed want to enforce federal immigration laws. States hide illegals so that the feds cannot?

 

And like I said, that's just refusing to cooperate. That's exactly what Trump lost his case about. In case you missed it before, I hope you will consider reading the second excerpt I quoted in post #275, as it establishes that the states are in fact allowed to do what you're asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And like I said, that's just refusing to cooperate. That's exactly what Trump lost his case about. In case you missed it before, I hope you will consider reading the excerpts I quoted in post #275, as they establish that the states are in fact allowed to do what you're asking.

So could California hide a wanted federal fugitive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump would lose there as well, since the precedent is not in his favor. The law favors sanctuary cities. What difference would taking it to SCOTUS make? They've upheld the anti-commandeering doctrine as recently as last year. Trump's case hinges entirely on asking the courts to let him violate that doctrine. I can assure you that SCOTUS won't grant his wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) no, i do not work at twitter. i do browse it a lot. i will not disclose my handle here. but i don't have a job there if that is what you're asking.

 

but you know what, i've realized something. what does any of this sheet about bias against conservative views on internet platforms have anything to do with the merits (or, some would argue, the lack thereof) of having a wall on the southern border or busing illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities? the thing about your arguments lately, i've noticed, is that you bring up something irrelevant to the topic the thread is roughly about, then demand or otherwise encourage an answer to it. your only point in the quoted section was about the conservatives-kicked-off-platforms thing. we could argue all day about whether that's really happening or not, but if we're going to do that, we should make a separate thread specifically for that kind of thing.

 

now, to give credit where credit is due, i did ask for sources on your claim so i do share some responsibility in this derailing. but let's get back on track now.

 

My apologies, due to joker, stage builder, Easter, and copious amounts of overtime, haven’t been able to respond.

So first, I wasn’t asking if you worked, there. I was just making the point that you don’t work at twitter, so I have no beef with you personally over twitters policies, as you yourself have no say in them. As for how we got on twitter, I used it as an offhand example, you objected to the point, and things continued from there, which is how we went down that road. But yeah, that was a tangent that went on a bit to far. by the way, I respond to every single point in a discussion sent my way, even if i do happen to go off topic for a bit. and even with the twitter thing, i adressed the rest of your points rather fairly alongside the twitter part. twitter was a small tangent that i used to back a point. it only went farther because you requested sources. had it been left then and there, i would not have brought it up again. no matter where the tangent goes, i generally bring it back to the point in question, or keep the point in question alongside any tangents.

 

 

 

 

 

[spoiler=To vla1ne]

 

Then they have done everything to prove that they do want them. It’s entirely fair to call Trump out for being petty here. You have never hesitated to criticize Democrats when you perceive them as acting to score political points, and Trump deserves to be held to the same standard that you’re holding Democrats.

 

Democrats do get to cry foul because Trump thinks this will somehow “prove” that immigrants are indeed a genuine threat. Yes, it’s giving sanctuary cities what they want, but the intention behind it is purely malicious. Democrats have both responded by saying they will accept immigrants, showing that they’re being consistent in their positions, while criticizing Trump for trying to use policy as a political game.

 

Trump thinks he’s going to call Democrats on a bluff and prove himself right. Instead, he’s going to give his opponents what they want, and shoot his own argument in the foot. Democrats are going to win, and Trump is going to look like an idiot. This is not some brilliant reversal like you desperately want to think it will be.

 

 

Oh, now I remember, because I had already addressed the DACA concessions. The GOP lied about what those “concessions” were from, and since the Supreme Court dismissed Trump’s case against DACA, he didn’t have anything to concede.

 

So they already pledged he would give them nothing, and he still demanded 5 billion dollars? Gee, it’s almost like he just repeated a demand that had already been rejected!

 

When Trump was either already rejected or made a dishonest gesture about conceding something that was already going to happen anyway, that means Trump made no sincere effort to do anything different.

 

Trump’s “concessions” were provably worthless, so you can drop your argument here as if it means anything.

 

 

Looking at the full context, there issue was treating the fund like a piggy bank, and taking the money very casually.

 

To answer your question, I’ll let this article speak for itself.

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/LSB10242.pdf

 

“Certain federal statutes potentially provide the DOD with limited authority to construct physical barriers along the border. However, the President may seek to avail himself of broader authorities by declaring a “national emergency” under the National Emergencies Act (NEA). Such a declaration could enable the President to invoke certain emergency military construction authorities established by the Military Construction Codification Act (MCCA). Whether these authorities—individually or in combination—extend to the construction of a border wall would present a reviewing court with several questions of first impression.”

 

***********

 

Again, this is the main issue with the emergency. It is considered a violation of the separation of powers, and while I’ll freely admit that I’m not aware of every federal statute, I think it’s safe to assume that, when you wonder whether one department or another is allowed to participate in the border wall, or why they would be opposed for their actions regarding that wall, there is a possibility it has to do with those separations of power, or limits on authority. Not saying it’s likely, or that it could even be the case at all sometimes, just that it’s a distinct possibility that warrants consideration.

 

 

Sorry, but this isn’t about Abe Fortas. But hey, at least Kavanaugh got his hearing, which is more than McConnell was willing to grant Merrick Garland.

 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/23/14982598/neil-gorsuch-democrats-nuclear-option-strategy

 

Pretty sure his record isn’t that “flawless”, and once again, he was nominated to the specific seat that Merrick Garland was nominated for. It’s only fair that Trump’s nominees get the same treatment that the GOP gave Obama’s nominees.

 

 

Starting to think you’re getting a little off-track in a thread about the government shutdown. We’re supposed to be talking immigration and why Trump shut down the government over it, not every little thing you’re mad at the Democrats for opposing Trump over. If you want to keep crying about Kavanaugh, that’s fine, but take it to another thread so we can get back to the topic at hand, because this is frankly derailing the conversation.

 

To keep this brief, Kavanaugh had 83 ethics complaints against him that were unceremoniously dismissed. There is a worthwhile case to be made for investigating Kavanaugh for potential impeachment, and he is not owed an apology. I’m okay with Democrats objecting to Trump’s policies and nominees when the policies are unconstitutional, or the nominee has potentially committed a fair share of crimes, and nominees would rather have them be vetted rather than blindly allow them a seat on the Supreme Court.

 

Since Kavanaugh is irrelevant to this thread, the only important takeaway is that Democrats have a variety of reasons to oppose Trump. But we already knew that, so you can leave Kavanaugh out of this discussion.

 

 

I went through your statements already and explained my issues with them. Please read them again. I never accused you of saying they broke the law, I’m saying that the GOP’s biggest complaint against the Democrats was that Democrats want to follow due process, as if that were somehow some horrible thing.

 

“Focusing too much on what he says — every absurdity, every misrepresentation of fact, every lie that comes out of his mouth or his tweets — makes no sense to me,” said former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a candidate for California governor. "The best way to fight Trump is to chart what represents the values, the priorities that we’re for. I don’t think it makes sense to spend all of our time responding to every tweet, I think that will just reinforce a notion that many people have in our country that we put party before country."

 

My argument was that “We’re going to resist everything that this person does ever” was dismissed by the Democrats themselves as a terrible strategy. I myself used the exact words and actions of the people in question, and even the GOP site has quotes like "The Reason I'm In The U.S. Senate Is To Work With Republicans And Democrats To Get Things Done", “We Can't Just Say 'No' Because The Idea Comes From The Other Side Of The Aisle." Yes, clearly the GOP has proven that Democrats were unwilling to work with Republicans by… quoting statements where Democrats said that would work with Republicans. They try to frame it as Democrats going back on their word, but again, the absolute “worst” thing the Democrats did was try to hold hearings for people.

 

 

I know.

 

It’s almost as if my complaints about Trump have been that he’s been violating policies that have existed before he was ever President?

 

 

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/No-Oakland-residents-did-not-protest-ICE-busting-13064274.php

 

Your source was specifically debunked, so you have two options here. Yes, I noticed you said it we found out later that it was a sex trafficking ring, but you’re still focusing on how people protesting something wrong, when that was not the case at all. So, you can either apologize for sharing your source without double-checking for how it was corrected, because perhaps that was an error on your part, or you can just admit that you were being dishonest with your example. It’s usually one of the two when it comes to you.

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/stephen-miller-family-separation/563132/

 

Weird, I didn’t know that the policies created specifically by Stephen Miller, who was nominated by Trump as his senior policiy advisor, were somehow in place before the man who created them ever had the authority to do so.

 

Sorry, but I’m getting tired of having to point out when you’ve been proven wrong. You think that people blame Trump because of policies that have nothing to do with him, but you ignore Miller’s role in this. So I decided to look back through this thread, and I noticed something strange. You’ve never actually mentioned Miller. At all. In fact, I noticed that in my thread entirely about Stephen Miller, you also refused to refer to Miller by name. I wonder why.

 

 

Honestly, I just love how you’re baffled that the Democrats have any reason to oppose Trump, and then you list a bunch of reasons why they would oppose him.

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/fact-check-trump-afghanistan/index.html

 

Framing it as Pelosi attempting to leave the country is dishonest, and her visit was perfectly reasonable. I’m not going to object to her going to Afghanistan, and the only resolution to the shutdown that Trump was going to accept was getting money for his wall. From what I understand, the trip was necessary, and was kept secret, and Trump created more of a security risk by cancelling it. As the article points out, Trump went on his own trip during the shutdown, so he did the same damn thing you’re mad at Pelosi for: Leaving the country instead of making an effort to solve the shutdown. So I hope you’re willing to hold Trump to the same standard.

 

 

I expect people to climb the wall regardless. If you’re only going to slow them down, and military personnel already takes way too long to apprehend people, then in the end, people would still cross the border, and the effect on apprehensions would be unknown. The average could either decrease because there might be fewer people to apprehend, it could increase because personnel might be faster at catching them, or it could stay the same because the change in the amount of people crossing would be proportionately negligible to the change in the average of apprehensions made in a month.

 

There are too many variables, so looking at the facts as we have them, the average of apprehensions is frankly too small for me to believe that there’s a “crisis”, and we don’t have enough personnel to accomplish this. If this country had a wall, then it would fail to do what you’re asking for.

 

 

This is not the first time you've put words in my mouth, and I would appreciate if you knocked it off. Do not claim I've agreed to anything, and Trump does more to harm other countries, and once again, it comes down to him advocating for white supremacy. That is something I will never agree to.

 

His "Make America Great Again" hinges on helping white Americans and screwing over minorities. His motto is antithetical to mine. I hope you understand that before the next time you decide to lie… oh, who am I kidding? You're dishonest as you can possibly be, I'm sure you'll lie again anyway.

 

 

Trump claimed he would sue against the women who made the allegations against him, but he has yet to follow through on it. So far, it seems that the women who have made the allegations took far more effort to prove their allegations than Trump has taken to prove his innocence. Even if you don’t want to believe any of them, they’ve certainly shown more credibility than Trump has.

 

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-trump-admins-plan-to-reduce-the-immigration-court-backlog-will-add-to-it

 

Actually, the precedent we have is that his policies would increase the backlog. You can claim that he is trying to make things go smoother, but the end result will be the exact opposite.

 

Making things harder is absolutely a bad thing, and completely goes against what you said just before that. Do you want policies and judges that makes things easier, or do you want to make things harder?

 

 

I already answered that.

 

 

What is true is that there is still room. Trump’s claim that there is no room is false, and was used as a pretense to violate policy. I would agree to accept people who could follow the process, so the Trump administration should be ashamed of denying people the chance to follow the process by criminalizing them as “illegal” by forcing them between ports. The people creating said restrictions would be the problem, and policies should be changed to lift those restrictions.

 

 

Nunes is suing a parody of a cow because it said mean things about him. Nunes is not a legitimate example, and this is more about Nunes filing a frivolous lawsuit (Something that he himself has condemned in the past), and he's all but admitted to abusing the legal system to attack journalists.

 

"Shadowbanning" is also not a real thing, so don't buy into that nonsense. At most, it's that Twitter's search engine is very poorly structured because of their over-reliance on algorithms. The cries of "shadowbans" are just conservatives playing a victim, and acting like there's some agenda out to get them, even though the actual evidence we have shows otherwise.

 

Your argument hinges entirely on whether shadowbanning exists, and since it does not, once again you have made an argument that is irrevocably false. I do not think you are choosing to lie in this case, but I think you need to realize that these conservatives are in fact being dishonest, so I encourage you to not indulge them.

 

[spoiler=’To Roxas’]

I don’t recall saying he wasn’t being petty, If I claimed as much, then I will apologize. There’s some pettiness to it. That being said, there remains a clear basis for him to take said actions, as the cities/states that don’t want them, and have said as much from the beginning, should not be forced to take on said burden.

 

No, the reason they don’t get to cry fouls is because this is the exact thing they have demanded. They themselves have effectively said “illegals are hardworking, peaceful people who are a net positive for the country” and then trump sent those “hardworking, people who are a net positive for the country” straight to their front door. You can say trump is playing dirty, or that the intent is malicious all day, but fact is, nobody else wants said immigrants, and the people crying foul are the very same ones who declared we need to let them in. So why should he send them anywhere else but the places that have demanded them? Malice or no, trumps’ choice remains the most logical conclusion given the scenario.

 

The thing is, iff they bluffed, then they lose outright, if they didn’t bluff, then everything ends well for everybody involved. They get the people they demanded, and trump doesn’t have to release said immigrants into the states/cities that don’t want them. It’s a win/win if they aren’t bluffing, and they did it to themselves if they are.

 

It was a return of 3 years more to the DACA deal for 1/5th what he needed for the wall. That was indeed a proper concession. But the shutdown itself is over now, and the situation has now changed to a national emergency. The current situation is far better for trump than the prior one, as he now has far more ways to work with without having to worry about workers not getting paid.

 

3 more years for DACA would pass outside of trump’s first term, and 5 billion would barely be enough for the remainder of the year at the time said proposal was made. How exactly was that a bad deal again? That would give them more than enough room to work with DACA, and the wall funding would still have bene rather far behind overall for trumps’ schedule. Sounded well enough to me.

 

Trump has authority over military actions up to, but not including declarations of war. National security falls within the boundaries of his abilities, and a border wall, while shared with other departments, is a power that declaring a national emergency would grant him more than enough authority to perform. Much of this can be inferred from the actions of prior presidents in relation to national emergencies. The ability to divert military funding is one that’s granted via executive order. It can be challenged, and it is being challenged, but it is something that he has the authority to perform up until the order itself is struck down, if it is actually struck down.

 

It seems I missed a couple attempts. That’s my bad.

 

The first objection is that bush liked him, a cause for apprehension maybe, but not for absolute obstruction. His stance of abortion/healthcare, ect is a given considering his political leaning, and even VOX admits that he gave both sides a fair shake when speaking about it. In addition, they even admit that while outspoken, he’s not really all that far off from any other traditional conservative candidate. Most republicans are absolutely vehemently against abortion. Religious challenges to the affordable care act actually hold some ground, as they were attempting to make companies that were outspokenly religious, provide funding for what were effectively abortion related medications. It’s one of those areas where you the government shouldn’t have been forcing the companies to actually pay for such things in the first place. His decision is fair enough. Objectable? Yeah, but To the point where it’s filibuster worthy? No. As far as trump being a dick being used as a reason to vote against him, just no.

 

Let’s not get into this here. There is ample ammo for the SCOTUS arguments to be made, but I agree this isn’t the place.

 

The democrats obstructing trump is something that is 100% verified. Whether they do so within the law was not the point. The point was that they are against him in pretty much everything, simply because he’s trump, and are aiming at anything they can to bring him down. Yes, republicans did it to Obama as well, but neither of those wrongs make a right, and I actually speak/spoke out against both, at the times they occurred (I wasn’t active here for when the Obama side of the discussion was a thing, but I’ve said time and again offsite that the republicans were not right for obstructing everything possible.) it was dismissed, yet they’re still doing it. we see time and again, look at the platform that democrats are currently running on, I get ads and see interviews all the time by democratic candidates/congress members all over the country who do nothing but swear to oppose trump. They are on video, swearing to oppose everything he does, to fight him every step of the way, yes, there are a few with common sense, as there were the same during the Obama era for republicans, but the vast majority are not. And there is video after video after article after ad campaign after impeachment ad proving my point.

 

My source was debunked? As in? My guy, you do realize that what I gave you is an actual video of people being told that it is a child trafficking ring, and saying so what? I stated up front that it was not a child trafficking ring, The article you cited simply agreed with me. The point is that the people against ICE, even after being told that it WAS, STILL did not give a single funk. The people protesting were literally so anti-ICE that even when all they had to go on was that it was a child trafficking ring, they still were willing to protest ICE. An Illegal working ring is still not a good thing. It’s nowhere near as bad, but considering the protesters barely flinched at “child trafficking ring” Somehow I don’t think they wouldn’t care no matter the crime.

 

Obama actually did do the same thing to a lesser extent. That was the point. And it is a 100% fact. Obama, Bush, Clinton, and other presidents, separated families if they were suspected of being either traffickers or some other manner of criminal. No article in its right mind is going to attempt to prove that that did not happen, as it has been a thing under all the past few presidents. Thing is, Trump separates them for the same reason. He’s just a hell of a lot more thorough with the net than Obama was. Which is a GOOD thing, considering that the apprehensions at the border are rather high. Record high, even. Miller may have expanded the net, but fact is, it happened well before trump came in, just to a smaller degree, which I’ve already said time and again.

 

Stonewall vs meet in the middle. The current trend is to “stop everything trump as often as possible”, not “Work with trump to get legislation done” I’ve said before that there are people on the democratic side who aren’t suffering TDS, but fact is, a large amount are. A candidate from an opposing party isn’t going to see eye to eye with you, pretty normal, but that is not a reason to stonewall all things they do. (and that goes for both sides.)

 

Oh? Dishonest? So she wasn’t planning to leave the country for 7 days? While the government was shutdown? Effectively delaying any hope of reopening the government for at least 7 more days, as she was one of the essential pieces to getting it reopened? What about her visit to Afghanistan so necessary during the government shutdown that she absolutely had to go? She didn’t go at all in the end, so it couldn’t have been all that vital. As far as trumps visit, yeah, I hold him to the same standards, he should have been at the table talking, but seeing as he is actually the commander in chief, he has an actual effect on the military zones. He did have an actual reason for that brief trip. He went for just under a day as welI believe.  Not for a whole week like Pelosi was planning. I don’t approve of him leaving the country during a shutdown, but said battlefield is directly related to him, the shutdown was not at unprecedented levels of being closed yet, and his trip didn’t last a day, much less a full week.

 

100 people running across an open plain or 100 people climbing a wall? With a border wall, the border is impossible to cross without actual effort. It wouldn’t exactly be hard to figure out who does and doesn’t intend to break the law, as climbing a fence requires far more intent than crossing a field. You tell me which one is going to be the better deterrent/ tool for Border patrol? How many people are capable of climbing said wall? How many are capable of doing so faster than they can run across an open plain? How many will be willing to take that risk over an open area? How many vehicles are capable of traversing a wall faster than an open plain? The list goes on. Yes, the more determined ones will try it regardless, but fact is, a wall is still overall better than an open plain. You will have nowhere near as simple of a time dragging kids across a wall than across an open field, so it encourages any intelligent parent to just try the legal route. Wall/camera systems aid the people on the job day and night more than an open field ever could. How many scenarios there are where a wall would Increase the amount immigrants in comparison to an open field/river?

 

You claimed to be a nationalist, trump claims to be a nationalist. What words did I place in your mouth? You claim to be for helping Americans first; trump is for helping Americans first. Trump wants to defend the borders; you want to defend the borders. You want immigration to be a smoother process; trump wants immigration to be a smoother process. Trump wants America to get better deals, trump wants America to get back on its feet, and the list goes on and on. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you are putting words in trumps mouth and my own mouth. I didn’t say you said anything. I said your views align with trumps. You may see him as a white nationalist, But he’s just a nationalist who happens to be white.

 

So the appeals will be what lengthens the cases? Sounds like a real problem. Personally, I’m for at least granting brief explanations over immediate dismissals, so I agree with you here.  That being said, the increase to the number of judges is still a step in the proper direction. The appeals are likely something that will need to be dealt with, but the new order that makes applicants stay out of the country till approved should at the very least do wonders for the amount of people who finally show up voluntarily for their court dates.

 

 

There’d be an actual wall this time, what exactly would be making them illegal so long as they’re actively heading towards the entry points? If the border’s shut down, nobody should be coming across in any case, if there’s a wall, the entry points will be clear as day, so that wouldn’t fly as a strategy anymore. The attempted evidence makes one claim when pressed that claims the CBP’s guns are what are causing the problem, which is an unreasonable argument, His lynchpin for the argument appears to be that since the CBP have guns, they’re somehow threatening the people who want to enter legally. Even one of the replies remarks that his initial conclusion (that the cbp is forcing people to cross illegally) doesn’t mesh with any of the stats we already have. Your citation is drawing a conclusion without any reasonable evidence. The increase in apprehensions came at the same time as the caravans. Trump had shut he border down because the sheer number of people in the caravans was a problem. That wasn’t demonizing, it was pragmatism, and the increase in apprehensions was a direct result of people being told no, and trying to get in anyways. The CBP didn’t demonize them, they did it to themselves. If a country says they are not accepting applicants en masse at the moment, and people start swarming the border anyways, then that is not on the people who said no, it’s on the people who decided they can’t behave in an orderly fashion long enough to change the mind of the people telling them no. there were migrants who were intelligent enough to wait in Mexico, as Mexico had offered them asylum as well, and they patiently waited, and came to request entry once things settled down.

 

The people who waited patiently, and then followed the process when things at the border cooled down, prove that CBP was not what was criminalizing them. People could have waited it out, and then applied, ut instead we have multiple ideos of the people swarming. Nobody told them to do that, they themselves did that. if I were told I couldn’t go to mexico, and mexico closed it’s border, I would have to wait patiently till they decided businesshours were open again, and some of the people in the caravans realized that. the people who did not, have failed what was essentially the first test America sent their way, aka, could they at the very least, wait for a moment until America was ready to start accepting claims. There is, and there isn’t room. There are places that can hold them, but don’t want them, and places that want them, but can’t hold them. The former should not have to, and the latter has been doing so no heedless to the damage that it causes to their initial residents.

[spoiler=’on the twitter shadowbans. If you wish to drop that topic, you can ignore this bit, if not…’]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfV6ldIbjI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQBUqnqiFb8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klJ0MrzAtRE

The head of twitter himself admitted to having had a search engine program in effect that affected conservatives disproportionally. Nearly 10-1, with near similar results to what a lesser shadowban would have (aka, reducing overall exposure of the accounts in question, slowed alerts, ect). When the CEO himself admits to having a system that effectively causes a form of shadowban. That alone is enough to end the discussion. but there's even more.

 

https://twitter.com/project_veritas/status/1105914718328369154

https://twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1022188906467483648?lang=en

two videos from the time right before the shadowban problem came to congress, with people who work(ed) for twitter admitting that twitter has, or was still doing what amounted to shadowbans. and then htere's the pool iinterviews on joe rogan.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E&t=3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJVes1pYyec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAXsWKxP45o

 

Did they fix it? They claim to have done so, but in the end, they still choose to implement a system that hides one side of the fence far and away, more often than the other side. They make rules that favor liberal bias, yet leaves a large number of things unchecked that are actually negatives on the side of the left. They ban one side of a debate fervently, yet claim fairness in policies. and get called on it hard. call it bias, call it shadowbanning, call it whatever you like, but fact is, twitter, among other sites, has dabbled in all manner of things to try and quiet the more conservative voices on their platform. up to, including, and beyond, forms of shadowbanning.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[spoiler=To vla1ne]

I don’t recall saying he wasn’t being petty, If I claimed as much, then I will apologize. There’s some pettiness to it. That being said, there remains a clear basis for him to take said actions, as the cities/states that don’t want them, and have said as much from the beginning, should not be forced to take on said burden.

No, the reason they don’t get to cry fouls is because this is the exact thing they have demanded. They themselves have effectively said “illegals are hardworking, peaceful people who are a net positive for the country” and then trump sent those “hardworking, people who are a net positive for the country” straight to their front door. You can say trump is playing dirty, or that the intent is malicious all day, but fact is, nobody else wants said immigrants, and the people crying foul are the very same ones who declared we need to let them in. So why should he send them anywhere else but the places that have demanded them? Malice or no, trumps’ choice remains the most logical conclusion given the scenario.

The thing is, iff they bluffed, then they lose outright, if they didn’t bluff, then everything ends well for everybody involved. They get the people they demanded, and trump doesn’t have to release said immigrants into the states/cities that don’t want them. It’s a win/win if they aren’t bluffing, and they did it to themselves if they are.


You did not say he wasn’t being petty. I actually was hoping you would agree he was petty, but this is in fact the first time you’ve ever recognized that. I just wish you had said as much earlier.

Trump has been framing this as a punishment. Yes, they are getting what they want, so they get to criticize Trump for thinking that he’s scoring political points here. The fact is that he is doing this with the specific intent of making states with sanctuary cities regret their choice, because he believes that this will somehow prove his position that illegal immigrants are inherently violent criminals. Welcoming immigrants and condemning Trump’s political stunt is by no means hypocritical. It would hardly be a win/win scenario, at least for Trump, because he will completely fail to prove his argument.

While I am all for bringing immigrants into the sanctuary states, consider your argument. You want to show why illegal immigrants are inherently bad for the country, and you want to call your opponent’s bluff. Instead, this move is guaranteed to prove your opponent’s right, and the political ploy you try to make would fall flat on its face. So yes, the Democrats would win here, but then Trump looks like a complete moron here, because all he would have accomplished was encouraging more illegal immigration, and showing support for sanctuary cities. It is an absolute self-own on Trump’s part.
 

It was a return of 3 years more to the DACA deal for 1/5th what he needed for the wall. That was indeed a proper concession. But the shutdown itself is over now, and the situation has now changed to a national emergency. The current situation is far better for trump than the prior one, as he now has far more ways to work with without having to worry about workers not getting paid.

3 more years for DACA would pass outside of trump’s first term, and 5 billion would barely be enough for the remainder of the year at the time said proposal was made. How exactly was that a bad deal again? That would give them more than enough room to work with DACA, and the wall funding would still have bene rather far behind overall for trumps’ schedule. Sounded well enough to me.


The three years were nebulous at best, blocked behind a process that immigrants would not pass, and, again, he was in no position to offer those “extensions” when his efforts against DACA were already being challenged in court, meaning that Democrats were working to get those extensions regardless.

[spoiler=There’s also this little tidbit]“But the measure also included several changes to asylum law, long advocated by Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s senior adviser and an architect of his immigration agenda, that would make it more difficult for people to seek refuge in the United States from persecution and violence at home. Among them were provisions to bar Central American children from claiming asylum inside the United States, requiring them instead to do so in their own countries, and allow any of them to be quickly sent back to their own countries.

Another revision would create a host of new grounds for deeming an asylum claim “frivolous,” including if the migrant seeking protection was also trying to obtain work authorization, had used a fraudulent document — knowingly or unknowingly — or did not file in a timely way.

Mr. Schumer rejected the plan as meant not to forge a compromise but to shift blame away from the president for the shutdown stalemate, calling the asylum changes a “poison pill.””


In other words, Trump’s “compromise” was going to harm immigrants in the long-term. He offered something he couldn’t give anyway, he failed to offer any path for legal status, he demanded the money a year after he was already told he would get no more than $2 billion. Pelosi’s assessment that Trump was just compiling previously rejected offers is perfectly accurate, so Trump offered nothing new, and still wanted money. Not even DACA recipients wanted the deal, and I swear it’s absurd that I can find multiple sources calling out why his so-called “extension” was anything but that.

When you demand money and offer nothing in return, because your case was already declined by the Supreme Court, so you’re trying to exclude more people from DACA, don’t complain when you don’t get the money. He made absolutely no compromise whatsoever.
 

Trump has authority over military actions up to, but not including declarations of war. National security falls within the boundaries of his abilities, and a border wall, while shared with other departments, is a power that declaring a national emergency would grant him more than enough authority to perform. Much of this can be inferred from the actions of prior presidents in relation to national emergencies. The ability to divert military funding is one that’s granted via executive order. It can be challenged, and it is being challenged, but it is something that he has the authority to perform up until the order itself is struck down, if it is actually struck down.


I am aware of Trump’s authority, which is why I provided that excerpt to answer your earlier questions.
 

The first objection is that bush liked him, a cause for apprehension maybe, but not for absolute obstruction. His stance of abortion/healthcare, ect is a given considering his political leaning, and even VOX admits that he gave both sides a fair shake when speaking about it. In addition, they even admit that while outspoken, he’s not really all that far off from any other traditional conservative candidate. Most republicans are absolutely vehemently against abortion. Religious challenges to the affordable care act actually hold some ground, as they were attempting to make companies that were outspokenly religious, provide funding for what were effectively abortion related medications. It’s one of those areas where you the government shouldn’t have been forcing the companies to actually pay for such things in the first place. His decision is fair enough. Objectable? Yeah, but To the point where it’s filibuster worthy? No. As far as trump being a dick being used as a reason to vote against him, just no.

Let’s not get into this here. There is ample ammo for the SCOTUS arguments to be made, but I agree this isn’t the place.


I would prefer if we dropped the discussion on Neil Gorsuch. You’re already focusing on several other examples, and it’s getting too far off-topic. I appreciate that you agreed that this is not the place to discuss Kavanaugh, and I believe that the same applies to Gorsuch. Is that acceptable?
 

The democrats obstructing trump is something that is 100% verified. Whether they do so within the law was not the point. The point was that they are against him in pretty much everything, simply because he’s trump, and are aiming at anything they can to bring him down. Yes, republicans did it to Obama as well, but neither of those wrongs make a right, and I actually speak/spoke out against both, at the times they occurred (I wasn’t active here for when the Obama side of the discussion was a thing, but I’ve said time and again offsite that the republicans were not right for obstructing everything possible.) it was dismissed, yet they’re still doing it. we see time and again, look at the platform that democrats are currently running on, I get ads and see interviews all the time by democratic candidates/congress members all over the country who do nothing but swear to oppose trump. They are on video, swearing to oppose everything he does, to fight him every step of the way, yes, there are a few with common sense, as there were the same during the Obama era for republicans, but the vast majority are not. And there is video after video after article after ad campaign after impeachment ad proving my point.

Stonewall vs meet in the middle. The current trend is to “stop everything trump as often as possible”, not “Work with trump to get legislation done” I’ve said before that there are people on the democratic side who aren’t suffering TDS, but fact is, a large amount are. A candidate from an opposing party isn’t going to see eye to eye with you, pretty normal, but that is not a reason to stonewall all things they do. (and that goes for both sides.)


You said “I never said they broke the law”, which seemed like a strange response, so I clarified that I never thought you said that. If you respond to an argument that I never made, then I would like to clarify any misunderstanding. My larger point was that the GOP website was complaining about Democrats doing things that honestly aren’t that objectionable at all.

As I’ve explained to you countless times already they are opposing him for reasons that are more complex than “simply because he’s Trump.” Once again you’re trying to dismiss an argument, because whether they do so within the laws is the point. As you have stated so often, with little to no consideration for any alternatives whatsoever, you believe that the Democrats are challenging Trump “simply because he’s Trump.” Would you agree that, if one wanted to challenge that argument, then it would be appropriate to discuss other reasons to oppose Trump? If so, then whether they do so within the laws is perfectly relevant, and that is what I am doing.

I am discussing how Trump is violating the law, and you seem to be unwilling to consider that Trump’s actions have warranted opposition. I have tried to explain to you why Democrats stand against him, and what he has done that they wish to hold him accountable for, but at every turn, you keep repeating “They oppose Trump simply because he’s Trump” ad infinitum, and I think you may have noticed by now that it has failed to convince me.

You are claiming that Trump being Trump is the only reason that they have. However, this shows the downside of how you often dismiss evidence I provide to you, or you deem it “irrelevant” to the conversation. You are making an absolute statement, and when presented with other reasons, you throw them out. It is the same as when you falsely claimed that America does not have to accept anyone, and I pointed out at least two caveats to that claim. There are caveats to your claim that they oppose him simply because he’s Trump, but attaching those caveats would undermine your argument the same way that you agreed the caveats were too much for your claim against whether America has to accept anyone. I do not think you are aware that you are doing this, but I want you to understand that whenever you repeat your claim, even though I’ve laid out legitimate reasons to oppose Trump because of his (And Miller’s) actions, claiming that the evidence is either irrelevant or simply not the point of the argument at least gives the appearance that you are ignoring examples which disprove your absolute statement.

I could understand if you believe that they only have one reason to oppose him. I’ve brought up how Republicans opposed Obama solely because he was black, so certainly I am guilty of using the same sort of accusation that you levy against the Democrats. However, I am willing to consider that if someone were to point out what Obama did wrong, and that Republicans had legitimate reasons to oppose Obama, then I would at least consider what that person has to say. I could perhaps still argue with them on that, depending on whether I agreed with the Republicans’ reasoning, but I think that my argument of “Republicans are opposing Obama simply because he’s black” would now have been disproven, because the other person has now showed me that the Republicans now have another reason. The conversation would shift, and both myself and the other person would now discuss the merits of each side, moving the conversation forward.

You have thus far failed to do so. No matter how many exchanges we go through, you snap back to “They are against Trump simply because he’s Trump” like elastic. You cannot expect this conversation to truly move forward is that is the sole reason you keep relying on. You can disagree with the reasons Democrats have to oppose Trump. You can challenge the arguments they make, and explain why you believe Trump is within reason. But if you all you have is “because he’s Trump”, then your argument is frankly quite shallow. Rather than offering any stinging critique of the Democratic party, it highlights a recurring weakness in your argument. You had an acceptable position to begin your argument from, but refusing to budge from that position, and instead constantly reiterating the same absolute statement despite any evidence to the contrary is, to put it generously, bad form.
 

My source was debunked? As in? My guy, you do realize that what I gave you is an actual video of people being told that it is a child trafficking ring, and saying so what? I stated up front that it was not a child trafficking ring, The article you cited simply agreed with me. The point is that the people against ICE, even after being told that it WAS, STILL did not give a single funk. The people protesting were literally so anti-ICE that even when all they had to go on was that it was a child trafficking ring, they still were willing to protest ICE. An Illegal working ring is still not a good thing. It’s nowhere near as bad, but considering the protesters barely flinched at “child trafficking ring” Somehow I don’t think they wouldn’t care no matter the crime.


None of the protesters in that video were told that it was a child trafficking ring. Also, here’s an actual quote from the article that I cited.

“It wasn’t clear whether the several dozen neighbors and immigrants-rights activists who demonstrated outside the home during the operation had seen the first press release. At the time, the protesters said they were there to support an immigrant family known in the community — not oppose the takedown of child sex trafficking.”

It’s baffling that when the article outright claims that they were not doing what you claim they were doing, you state that the article somehow agreed with you. In case you missed it, please allow me to juxtapose the following quotes:

Vla1ne: “We found out later that it was not a sex trafficking ring, but was still a illegal labor exploitation ring, which still effectively means the people protesting, were still protesting even after finding out that they were protesting the removal of the worst possible kind of ring.”

SF Gate:
“President Trump shared a story Tuesday on Twitter that erroneously claims Oakland residents last August protested federal agents as they broke up a child sex trafficking ring.

The inaccurate assertions have been making the rounds in conservative media for the past week, getting prominent coverage in the National Review, the Federalist and the Daily Wire.”


And in case you missed it before, I’m providing the quote again:
“At the time, the protesters said they were there to support an immigrant family known in the community — not oppose the takedown of child sex trafficking.

“Laura Barrios, who lived at the searched residence, said the federal officers apparently got a tip about her family’s cleaning business and “wanted to verify that it was actually a good business.” She said the agents treated the family respectfully.

Barrios said the allegations of trafficking were not true and that some of the company’s profits were sent home to relatives in Guatemala. Members of her family came to the United States seeking political asylum and escape from violence in their home village. Barrios said her sister was stabbed 13 times in one attack before she sought asylum at the border.”



Key word here: “allegations”. Allow me to correct your statement for you: We found out that they were accused of running an illegal labor ring, and that is why people were protesting ICE. They were supporting a member of their community who only had allegations against them. Unless you actually can prove that members of the family were indeed found guilty of running an illegal ring, then that does in fact mean that your source was debunked.

 

Obama actually did do the same thing to a lesser extent. That was the point. And it is a 100% fact. Obama, Bush, Clinton, and other presidents, separated families if they were suspected of being either traffickers or some other manner of criminal. No article in its right mind is going to attempt to prove that that did not happen, as it has been a thing under all the past few presidents. Thing is, Trump separates them for the same reason. He’s just a hell of a lot more thorough with the net than Obama was. Which is a GOOD thing, considering that the apprehensions at the border are rather high. Record high, even. Miller may have expanded the net, but fact is, it happened well before trump came in, just to a smaller degree, which I’ve already said time and again.


No, it was not the point. You claimed that the people were protesting policies that existed well before Trump, so I was pointing out how the specific policies that the people were protesting only came into play because of Miller and Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/fact-check-trump-claim-obama-separated-families/index.html
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

Once again, just like the previous section, you are parroting a talking point that had already been debunked. The policies that existed under those past administrations were drastically different, and while you claim that “No article in its right mind is going to attempt to prove that that did not happen”, what these articles (among others) attempt to prove is that Trump trying to compare himself to those past administrations is misleading at best, if not outright false.
 

Oh? Dishonest? So she wasn’t planning to leave the country for 7 days? While the government was shutdown? Effectively delaying any hope of reopening the government for at least 7 more days, as she was one of the essential pieces to getting it reopened? What about her visit to Afghanistan so necessary during the government shutdown that she absolutely had to go? She didn’t go at all in the end, so it couldn’t have been all that vital. As far as trumps visit, yeah, I hold him to the same standards, he should have been at the table talking, but seeing as he is actually the commander in chief, he has an actual effect on the military zones. He did have an actual reason for that brief trip. He went for just under a day as welI believe. Not for a whole week like Pelosi was planning. I don’t approve of him leaving the country during a shutdown, but said battlefield is directly related to him, the shutdown was not at unprecedented levels of being closed yet, and his trip didn’t last a day, much less a full week.


https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-pelosi-afghanistan-trump-20190118-story.html

“Hammill said the speaker planned to travel to Afghanistan and Brussels to thank service members and obtain briefings on national security and intelligence "from those on the front lines." He noted Trump had traveled to Iraq during the shutdown, which began Dec. 22, and said a Republican-led congressional trip also had taken place.”

You asked what was so necessary to visit during the shutdown, and there you go. As she is second in line for succession, Trump being the commander in chief makes comparatively little difference, and actually caused damage during his Iraq trip. He failed to meet with any proper officials, and then the dumbass exposed a Navy SEAL operation.

Trump also walked out of a meeting with Pelosi and Schumer, so he had already refused to meet with her for negotiations. His tantrum was before her trip was scheduled to happen, so Trump had already shown that he was refusing to negotiate. You’re basically asking Pelosi to stay for negotiations that Trump himself had already refused. With Trump already refusing, there would have been no negotiations anyway, even with Pelosi staying. And then Trump caved a week later anyway, reopening the government, and preparing for his national emergency.

Considering all of Trump’s actions, letting Pelosi go to Afghanistan for a week would have been perfectly acceptable. Trump was refusing to negotiate, so I would rather have Pelosi focus on other goals in the meantime. At least then she would have accomplished more rather than sitting in the White House while Trump runs off in a useless tantrum.
 

100 people running across an open plain or 100 people climbing a wall? With a border wall, the border is impossible to cross without actual effort. It wouldn’t exactly be hard to figure out who does and doesn’t intend to break the law, as climbing a fence requires far more intent than crossing a field. You tell me which one is going to be the better deterrent/ tool for Border patrol? How many people are capable of climbing said wall? How many are capable of doing so faster than they can run across an open plain? How many will be willing to take that risk over an open area? How many vehicles are capable of traversing a wall faster than an open plain? The list goes on. Yes, the more determined ones will try it regardless, but fact is, a wall is still overall better than an open plain. You will have nowhere near as simple of a time dragging kids across a wall than across an open field, so it encourages any intelligent parent to just try the legal route. Wall/camera systems aid the people on the job day and night more than an open field ever could. How many scenarios there are where a wall would Increase the amount immigrants in comparison to an open field/river?


100 people across an open plain or climbing a wall makes no difference. With each border patrol agent taking a whole month to catch an average of six people, I fully expect people to cross. I’m sure I’ve shared this before, but the wall would actually do more to boost business for smugglers.

The wall will not actually reduce the amount of illegal immigrants. It will simply benefit those who aid illegal immigrants, because you’ve just given them a new choice of how to immigrate.

I’ve also previously established that even when immigrants do go through the proper channels, border patrol will try to demonize them as “illegal” anyway.

If the average of apprehensions would not change - and frankly, with border patrol artificially making immigrants “illegal”, I wonder how accurate that average even is - then why I would to put my faith in a wall that would fail to make a difference?
 

You claimed to be a nationalist, trump claims to be a nationalist. What words did I place in your mouth? You claim to be for helping Americans first; trump is for helping Americans first. Trump wants to defend the borders; you want to defend the borders. You want immigration to be a smoother process; trump wants immigration to be a smoother process. Trump wants America to get better deals, trump wants America to get back on its feet, and the list goes on and on. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that you are putting words in trumps mouth and my own mouth. I didn’t say you said anything. I said your views align with trumps. You may see him as a white nationalist, But he’s just a nationalist who happens to be white.


You know as well as I do that I never claimed that. I took special care to avoid calling myself that, so unless you can quote, verbatim, where I made the claim that you’re saying I did, then you are referring to me in a way that I refused to do for myself.

At ever turn, I distinguished where my views disagree with Trump’s. You can try your Darth Vader gaslighting, but that’s openly ignoring the differences. You claimed “It’s good that you agree on that” in response to a post where I was discussing why I disagree with Trump. To claim that my my views somehow agree with Trump’s, even though I said the opposite of that, is exactly what it means to put words in my mouth.

I also did not any words in Trump’s mouth. I linked to an article that quotes what Trump himself actually said, makes judgments about them. For example, “Many of Trump’s confidants and associates have reported him making racist comments, many of them about communities and countries of color and their supposed incapacity to solve their own problems. That correlates with Trump’s insistent references to the superiority of his own genetics.”
 

There’d be an actual wall this time, what exactly would be making them illegal so long as they’re actively heading towards the entry points? If the border’s shut down, nobody should be coming across in any case, if there’s a wall, the entry points will be clear as day, so that wouldn’t fly as a strategy anymore. The attempted evidence makes one claim when pressed that claims the CBP’s guns are what are causing the problem, which is an unreasonable argument, His lynchpin for the argument appears to be that since the CBP have guns, they’re somehow threatening the people who want to enter legally. Even one of the replies remarks that his initial conclusion (that the cbp is forcing people to cross illegally) doesn’t mesh with any of the stats we already have. Your citation is drawing a conclusion without any reasonable evidence. The increase in apprehensions came at the same time as the caravans. Trump had shut he border down because the sheer number of people in the caravans was a problem. That wasn’t demonizing, it was pragmatism, and the increase in apprehensions was a direct result of people being told no, and trying to get in anyways. The CBP didn’t demonize them, they did it to themselves. If a country says they are not accepting applicants en masse at the moment, and people start swarming the border anyways, then that is not on the people who said no, it’s on the people who decided they can’t behave in an orderly fashion long enough to change the mind of the people telling them no. there were migrants who were intelligent enough to wait in Mexico, as Mexico had offered them asylum as well, and they patiently waited, and came to request entry once things settled down.

The people who waited patiently, and then followed the process when things at the border cooled down, prove that CBP was not what was criminalizing them. People could have waited it out, and then applied, ut instead we have multiple ideos of the people swarming. Nobody told them to do that, they themselves did that. if I were told I couldn’t go to mexico, and mexico closed it’s border, I would have to wait patiently till they decided businesshours were open again, and some of the people in the caravans realized that. the people who did not, have failed what was essentially the first test America sent their way, aka, could they at the very least, wait for a moment until America was ready to start accepting claims. There is, and there isn’t room. There are places that can hold them, but don’t want them, and places that want them, but can’t hold them. The former should not have to, and the latter has been doing so no heedless to the damage that it causes to their initial residents.


Trump would face legal hassles if he attempted to close the border, and since it’s already been established that there are people that America does have to accept, so people can still come over, and that would be fine. Nothing about that means “nobody should be coming across.”

I had followed it up with an Amnesty article that mentions the following:
“By turning away asylum-seekers at US ports-of-entry, the United States has grossly violated their right to seek asylum from persecution, and manufactured an emergency along the US–Mexico border. US authorities have forced thousands of asylum-seekers to queue on the Mexican side of the border – exposing them to risks of detention and deportation by Mexican immigration officials, and exploitation by criminal gangs. CBP personnel have also regularly turned away Mexican nationals seeking asylum in the United States, including unaccompanied minors.”

That seems to correspond roughly with David Bier’s argument, which is that border patrol forces immigrants into situations where they can be criminalized. The United States had no right to reject those people, so people pushing through regardless are simply asserting their rights, while the Trump administration is violating them. That was not the immigrants failing any “test”; that was simply Trump trying to block people when he couldn’t.

To claim that there both is and isn’t room is simply nonsense. There either is, or there isn’t. Pick one.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfV6ldIbjI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQBUqnqiFb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klJ0MrzAtRE
The head of twitter himself admitted to having had a search engine program in effect that affected conservatives disproportionally. Nearly 10-1, with near similar results to what a lesser shadowban would have (aka, reducing overall exposure of the accounts in question, slowed alerts, ect). When the CEO himself admits to having a system that effectively causes a form of shadowban. That alone is enough to end the discussion. but there's even more.
 
https://twitter.com/project_veritas/status/1105914718328369154
https://twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1022188906467483648?lang=en
two videos from the time right before the shadowban problem came to congress, with people who work(ed) for twitter admitting that twitter has, or was still doing what amounted to shadowbans. and then htere's the pool iinterviews on joe rogan.
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E&t=3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJVes1pYyec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAXsWKxP45o
 
Did they fix it? They claim to have done so, but in the end, they still choose to implement a system that hides one side of the fence far and away, more often than the other side. They make rules that favor liberal bias, yet leaves a large number of things unchecked that are actually negatives on the side of the left. They ban one side of a debate fervently, yet claim fairness in policies. and get called on it hard. call it bias, call it shadowbanning, call it whatever you like, but fact is, twitter, among other sites, has dabbled in all manner of things to try and quiet the more conservative voices on their platform. up to, including, and beyond, forms of shadowbanning.

 
Neither Project Veritas or Tim Pool are credible sources. James O'Keefe is known to digitally alter his "evidence" to mislead people, and one of the videos is talking more about how Twitter punishes bots. Veritas is one of the more infamous examples of fake news, while Tim Pool builds his entire body of work on just complaining about liberals under every possible circumstance. If you're trying to accuse anyone of bias, maybe it's not a good idea to rely largely on a source that is biased to a borderline obsessive degree, and operates largely in far-right circles. So, you know, the kind of people who would completely buy into this victim narrative anyway.
 
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too?fbclid=IwAR0LEWzIDhtxCY8GJzss-L880wsgf-gRuraqID71V_ej4ioiWtq33OYrbIo
 
Here's a more accurate description of what is happening. Twitter claims that they would like to curb white supremacy. Before I get to the main point of the article, it's fair for Twitter to decide that objectionable content is inappropriate for their platform.
 
However, they are hesitant to do so because targeting white supremacists would disproportionately target conservatives. Let me offer an example that is more relevant to this thread: “Cracking down on white nationalists will therefore involve removing a lot of people who identify to a greater or lesser extent as Trump supporters, and some people in Trump circles and pro-Trump media will certainly seize on this to complain they are being persecuted.”
 
So no, they are not "favoring" liberal bias. Twitter is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If conservatives are butthurt that white supremacists are held accountable for spewing hateful rhetoric, then maybe you could consider that white supremacists are the problem?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[spoiler=Roxas]

 

Generally sloppy, but i'm short on time. 

 

The thing is, those sanctuary states are the ones who helped create this situation by making it that much easier for illegal immigrants to come and stay here. An actual judge recently going so far as to literally let an illegal out the backdoor when ICE came to arrest them. Trump giving them what they want, as punishment, is the perfect way to deal with it. yeah, he gets political points, but he didn’t set the stage for it, they did.

 

If they win here, and the illegals turn out to be wonderful, then that’s fine by me. I actually hope they are peaceful hardworking people. The end result will show who was right, and the collateral damage should things go wrong, will be contained to the people who wanted it in the first place. Win/Win.

 

 

He added more than just DACA though. He was willing to grant compromises on other areas of illegal immigration, such as giving ground in his fights against sanctuary cities and dropping the fight over DACA for what would effectively have been the rest of his presidency assuming no second term. That’s not too bad of a deal considering they wanted DACA and permissions for illegals so badly in the first place. As far as the asylum changes, thanks to them continuing to fight him on it, he currently has the authority to send them back till the paperwork is complete for now, as the courts haven’t struck it down yet, so they kinda got nothing for it at all in this case.

 

Fair enough, we’ve went a ways off topic there.

 

MY bad then. Didn’t read that properly. The GoP website was listing out the amount of things they did within the first few weeks to obstruct. I don’t give them a pass on what they did to Obama, but this isn’t appropriate for democrats to do either.

There are reasons not to agree with some of his policies, but to fight him on every single front, to such an extent that they basically try to demolish immigration control, is a terrible plan of action.

 

I am explaining that trumps actions are not violating the law, and that they are simply pressing against the sensitivities of many on the left. There are some that I agree go against the law, but the majorit of them, such as the wall, the restrictions on sanctuary cities that ignore federal law, and his sending of immigrants only to states/cities that want them, are not against the law, they’re simply pressing back against the things the left has been doing. I come back to because he’s trump, because looking at te candidate arguments, that is all they can seem to muster as their campaign slogans. There are valid reasons to oppose trump,, I wouldn’t argue thet, but there are no valid reasons to stonewall him, there are few valid reasons to literally base a campaign solely against him, and there are no valid reasons for nearly the entirety of the democratic party to go so hard against him other than they simply don’t like who he is. There are actually folks who come up with reasonable arguments against some of his policies, but those people still agree that the opposition he faces is far beyond what is reasonable.

 

Just putting this out there: “Even after neighbors were informed that the raid was about sex-trafficking and not immigration, the ICE-bashing continued, notes The Federalist. "ICE is not welcome in this country. H.S. is not welcome," said one neighbor. "I don’t support what they do. I think it is a blasphemy."” In addition, we have the “no person is illegal” comment, cleanrly outlining their sentiments on the matter, or the early declaration that they Don’t even have any idea whay they’re protesting. And expanding this outwards for a bit, we have cases where known criminals are given tips and slipped out the back door to escape ICE. This here is just one drop in the bucket. They started the protest knowing nothing, and even with the information coming out, they continued to protest.  Even if just one of them was doing it, the whole family may as well go back, because as we’ve heard time and again, they don’t want families separated.

 

I already said that the report made a mistake, still was an illegal ring, less negative, but still illegal, and people remained protesting.

 

Separation of kids for a short period (yes, a few weeks to a month is )to further prevent child trafficking is something to protest? These “parents” effectively dragged their kids across a barren landscape to another country knowing that those kids may possibly be killed, raped, abducted, die of malnutrition, ect. And a temporary separation is the problem? No. that’s the cost of coming over to a country where none of that will be even close to happening, and insurance to make sure that it is not happening to the children being brought across by the adults with them.

 

Trump wnt for a day and did the same thing, why does she need 7 days? And why does brussels matter during the shutdown? What authority does she have in brussels? Trumps trip was during the very beginning, when people thought it was just going to be a short thing, and didn’t last long enough for workers to miss yet another check at the time. Her case is far different. She was planning to take 7 whole days at a point where even one day out of the country would be further delaying the pay of countless workers, she If she wanted documents, then there are ample alternate ways to get them.

 

He walked in, asked are you going to negotiate me to get this wall done? They said no. He walked out. Better than wasting time on what would have been a futile argument. I agree it was petty, but it was not so bad as to leave the table for a whole week.

 

 The article makes very little sense with its’ argument. Explained in short; a border wall will allow guards to be more focused with their resources, and allow them to act in places that need them much sooner with surveillance. The argument against the wall is not that it won’t decrease the numbers, but that it will increase the smugglers, what number of people will actually be willing to use smugglers knowing how that tends to end for those who either don’t pay, or are simply unlucky? The number of on foot fols will not only decrease, but be far easier to apprehend since there is a barrier, and those numbers will not all convert to the smugglers, whom need I remind you, we are respectably effective at catching when at points of entry, if we go by the numbers. Professional smugglers will still have the problem of the wall to face, so unless they’re rocking some serious tech, they aren’t going to have much luck either, even if “business” is booming.

 

What new choice? It takes away a choice, not grants them one. A barrier is not a new pathway, or a pathway at all. An entry point is, and you don’t need smugglers to go to an entry point.

 

No, border patrol does not demonize them as illegals, it (assuming they come to the entry point) hears their claims, looks into their claims, and acts accordingly. That was not established, it was only asserted.

If a wall does not change apprehensions, why do most facilities have them? Why do countries have them? Why does the military have them? Why does border patrol want one? It’s because a barrier is an effective means of making the situation easier to handle. What exactly about an open space is harder to cross than a barricaded space? Be it cartels, smugglers, or illegal immigrants, who among them would have an easier time crossing a walled off space than crossing an open space?

 

 

"America first, and our allies second"” is effectively trumps motto. He calls himself a nationalist, because America is his nation. You may not like the word, but fact is, if your belief is “"America first, and our allies second"” then you are, for all relevant intents and purposes, a nationalist. It is not something to be ashamed of, nor is it something worth shunning.

 

You can disagree with another person and still hold the same overall belief. Your ideas on how to enact said belief ma be different, but the belief itself is not. Two people can consider steak to be the greatest food ever, and have different opinions on how to prepare it. does that mean they aren’t united by their love of steak? Same thing. You both love America, and consider it to come first, but have different opinions about how to enact it.

What quotes of his? Not what others say, what were these quotes, I make racist jokes all the time, so what’s the context of these quotes? Not what somebody else thinks about them, but the quotes themselves, because two people can hear the exact same thing and come to completely different conclusions. And considering the people who hate him seem to only draw racist inferences from anything he says, I’m inclined to not believe them when I can hear the same quotes and consider them perfectly valid statements.

 

Yes he would, but he does have the authority to. And he has semi-closed it before during the caravan incident. He has not turned away those granted asylum, he has declared that until the claims are verified, they will not be entering. Which makes sense as a large number of asylum claimers never actually come to their court dates https://cis.org/Arthur/Trump-Baits-Press-Asylum-NoShows. Saying that they don’t get in till they are vetted is a very rational position.

There is room in the place that don’t want them. There isn’t room in the places that do.

You can look up both people in the veritas video, they actually were named, and while the first has jump cuts, the second goes thorugh cleanly, and is clearly in full context. I actually went to college for video editing, (yes I have an actual degree in it) and I can say for certain that while the first veritas video has flaws, the second is clean. Unless you have evidence or credentials otherwise? As for tim pool, he cited only the facts in his discussion with the twitter executive. You may not like him, but his credentials are solid as a rock. if you want to discount him, you may want to remove places like politifact, CNN, MSNBC, and buzzfeed from your arguments, as he's got a record that's far cleaner than any of those sources.

 

Also, considering twitter just banned UKIP party member carl benjamin’s political twitter for what amounts to no reason at all, I’m inclined to believe pool over twitter. They have quite the proven bias against conservatives. There are left wingers who get hit by the backspray, but the main focus is pretty much proven to be the more conservative members of the channel. Sargon, for all his liberal views, remains one of the most conservative voices in Europe.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[spoiler=Roxas]

 

Generally sloppy, but i'm short on time. 

 

The thing is, those sanctuary states are the ones who helped create this situation by making it that much easier for illegal immigrants to come and stay here. An actual judge recently going so far as to literally let an illegal out the backdoor when ICE came to arrest them. Trump giving them what they want, as punishment, is the perfect way to deal with it. yeah, he gets political points, but he didn’t set the stage for it, they did.

 

If they win here, and the illegals turn out to be wonderful, then that’s fine by me. I actually hope they are peaceful hardworking people. The end result will show who was right, and the collateral damage should things go wrong, will be contained to the people who wanted it in the first place. Win/Win.

 

 

He added more than just DACA though. He was willing to grant compromises on other areas of illegal immigration, such as giving ground in his fights against sanctuary cities and dropping the fight over DACA for what would effectively have been the rest of his presidency assuming no second term. That’s not too bad of a deal considering they wanted DACA and permissions for illegals so badly in the first place. As far as the asylum changes, thanks to them continuing to fight him on it, he currently has the authority to send them back till the paperwork is complete for now, as the courts haven’t struck it down yet, so they kinda got nothing for it at all in this case.

 

Fair enough, we’ve went a ways off topic there.

 

MY bad then. Didn’t read that properly. The GoP website was listing out the amount of things they did within the first few weeks to obstruct. I don’t give them a pass on what they did to Obama, but this isn’t appropriate for democrats to do either.

There are reasons not to agree with some of his policies, but to fight him on every single front, to such an extent that they basically try to demolish immigration control, is a terrible plan of action.

 

I am explaining that trumps actions are not violating the law, and that they are simply pressing against the sensitivities of many on the left. There are some that I agree go against the law, but the majorit of them, such as the wall, the restrictions on sanctuary cities that ignore federal law, and his sending of immigrants only to states/cities that want them, are not against the law, they’re simply pressing back against the things the left has been doing. I come back to because he’s trump, because looking at te candidate arguments, that is all they can seem to muster as their campaign slogans. There are valid reasons to oppose trump,, I wouldn’t argue thet, but there are no valid reasons to stonewall him, there are few valid reasons to literally base a campaign solely against him, and there are no valid reasons for nearly the entirety of the democratic party to go so hard against him other than they simply don’t like who he is. There are actually folks who come up with reasonable arguments against some of his policies, but those people still agree that the opposition he faces is far beyond what is reasonable.

 

Just putting this out there: “Even after neighbors were informed that the raid was about sex-trafficking and not immigration, the ICE-bashing continued, notes The Federalist. "ICE is not welcome in this country. H.S. is not welcome," said one neighbor. "I don’t support what they do. I think it is a blasphemy."” In addition, we have the “no person is illegal” comment, cleanrly outlining their sentiments on the matter, or the early declaration that they Don’t even have any idea whay they’re protesting. And expanding this outwards for a bit, we have cases where known criminals are given tips and slipped out the back door to escape ICE. This here is just one drop in the bucket. They started the protest knowing nothing, and even with the information coming out, they continued to protest.  Even if just one of them was doing it, the whole family may as well go back, because as we’ve heard time and again, they don’t want families separated.

 

I already said that the report made a mistake, still was an illegal ring, less negative, but still illegal, and people remained protesting.

 

Separation of kids for a short period (yes, a few weeks to a month is )to further prevent child trafficking is something to protest? These “parents” effectively dragged their kids across a barren landscape to another country knowing that those kids may possibly be killed, raped, abducted, die of malnutrition, ect. And a temporary separation is the problem? No. that’s the cost of coming over to a country where none of that will be even close to happening, and insurance to make sure that it is not happening to the children being brought across by the adults with them.

 

Trump wnt for a day and did the same thing, why does she need 7 days? And why does brussels matter during the shutdown? What authority does she have in brussels? Trumps trip was during the very beginning, when people thought it was just going to be a short thing, and didn’t last long enough for workers to miss yet another check at the time. Her case is far different. She was planning to take 7 whole days at a point where even one day out of the country would be further delaying the pay of countless workers, she If she wanted documents, then there are ample alternate ways to get them.

 

He walked in, asked are you going to negotiate me to get this wall done? They said no. He walked out. Better than wasting time on what would have been a futile argument. I agree it was petty, but it was not so bad as to leave the table for a whole week.

 

 The article makes very little sense with its’ argument. Explained in short; a border wall will allow guards to be more focused with their resources, and allow them to act in places that need them much sooner with surveillance. The argument against the wall is not that it won’t decrease the numbers, but that it will increase the smugglers, what number of people will actually be willing to use smugglers knowing how that tends to end for those who either don’t pay, or are simply unlucky? The number of on foot fols will not only decrease, but be far easier to apprehend since there is a barrier, and those numbers will not all convert to the smugglers, whom need I remind you, we are respectably effective at catching when at points of entry, if we go by the numbers. Professional smugglers will still have the problem of the wall to face, so unless they’re rocking some serious tech, they aren’t going to have much luck either, even if “business” is booming.

 

What new choice? It takes away a choice, not grants them one. A barrier is not a new pathway, or a pathway at all. An entry point is, and you don’t need smugglers to go to an entry point.

 

No, border patrol does not demonize them as illegals, it (assuming they come to the entry point) hears their claims, looks into their claims, and acts accordingly. That was not established, it was only asserted.

If a wall does not change apprehensions, why do most facilities have them? Why do countries have them? Why does the military have them? Why does border patrol want one? It’s because a barrier is an effective means of making the situation easier to handle. What exactly about an open space is harder to cross than a barricaded space? Be it cartels, smugglers, or illegal immigrants, who among them would have an easier time crossing a walled off space than crossing an open space?

 

 

"America first, and our allies second"” is effectively trumps motto. He calls himself a nationalist, because America is his nation. You may not like the word, but fact is, if your belief is “"America first, and our allies second"” then you are, for all relevant intents and purposes, a nationalist. It is not something to be ashamed of, nor is it something worth shunning.

 

You can disagree with another person and still hold the same overall belief. Your ideas on how to enact said belief ma be different, but the belief itself is not. Two people can consider steak to be the greatest food ever, and have different opinions on how to prepare it. does that mean they aren’t united by their love of steak? Same thing. You both love America, and consider it to come first, but have different opinions about how to enact it.

What quotes of his? Not what others say, what were these quotes, I make racist jokes all the time, so what’s the context of these quotes? Not what somebody else thinks about them, but the quotes themselves, because two people can hear the exact same thing and come to completely different conclusions. And considering the people who hate him seem to only draw racist inferences from anything he says, I’m inclined to not believe them when I can hear the same quotes and consider them perfectly valid statements.

 

Yes he would, but he does have the authority to. And he has semi-closed it before during the caravan incident. He has not turned away those granted asylum, he has declared that until the claims are verified, they will not be entering. Which makes sense as a large number of asylum claimers never actually come to their court dates https://cis.org/Arthur/Trump-Baits-Press-Asylum-NoShows. Saying that they don’t get in till they are vetted is a very rational position.

There is room in the place that don’t want them. There isn’t room in the places that do.

You can look up both people in the veritas video, they actually were named, and while the first has jump cuts, the second goes thorugh cleanly, and is clearly in full context. I actually went to college for video editing, (yes I have an actual degree in it) and I can say for certain that while the first veritas video has flaws, the second is clean. Unless you have evidence or credentials otherwise? As for tim pool, he cited only the facts in his discussion with the twitter executive. You may not like him, but his credentials are solid as a rock. if you want to discount him, you may want to remove places like politifact, CNN, MSNBC, and buzzfeed from your arguments, as he's got a record that's far cleaner than any of those sources.

 

Also, considering twitter just banned UKIP party member carl benjamin’s political twitter for what amounts to no reason at all, I’m inclined to believe pool over twitter. They have quite the proven bias against conservatives. There are left wingers who get hit by the backspray, but the main focus is pretty much proven to be the more conservative members of the channel. Sargon, for all his liberal views, remains one of the most conservative voices in Europe.

 

 

[spoiler=I'm keeping track of the different threads in this debate, but still going to stick with the spoilers for now.]Let me ask you something. Put aside whether or not sanctuary supporters did this to themselves. No matter which side you're on, Trump is using people as pawns to score political points. You had admitted that it was petty. You had admitted that he gets political points. I'm not asking for "Yeah, it's petty, but they deserve it!" Even when you recognize that he's being petty, you seem willing to accept that just to spite Democrats. Don't shrug off using immigrants as pawns for the sake of a grudge. The fact that you even expect "collateral damage" shows exactly what this is about. It's just petty. That's it. No conditions. Not something that Democrats "did to themselves." It is Trump who is operating entirely in bad faith.

 

When he's lost the fight against sanctuary cities, it's not like he was in any position to give ground. If someone has kicked your ass in court, telling you that you cannot do something, then saying "Okay, I won't do this", then that means nothing in a compromise, because it didn't come from a place of any concessions on your part. You were outright forbidden from doing it anyway, so like with DACA, it was a case where Trump wasn't conceding anything that he had already lost in court. He also didn't "drop" the fight against DACA, the Supreme Court just refused to hear him on it. So, again, what did he actually give up? Having your chips taken from you is not the same thing as giving them up. It just means you gambled and lost everything, and now the casino won't even let you in, but you're still trying to claim that you have your tokens to bet with even though the casino already took them back. We'll see how Trump's request for sending asylum seekers back pans out, but given how he's faced more losses than wins in this fight, I expect another loss.

 

I've already provided numerous examples of how Trump violates the law. Typically, what happens is that you state that Trump is doing is illegal, and I explain how it is. For example, you repeatedly claim that states would go defy federal law with sanctuary states, but then I pointed out the anti-commandeering doctrine, which showed that the states were completely allowed to make their own decisions on whether or not to comply, and that it would actually be Trump who would be violating the Constitution if he tried to force them. Hell, you're still drumming on about them "ignoring" federal law and that Trump is not against the law.

 

Trump lost a case because his statute against sanctuary cities was deemed unconstitutional. No, that is not "simply pressing back against the things the left has been doing." Here we have an actual case showing that sanctuary cities are legal and Trump's actions against the law. So more and more, as you try to defend Trump's actions, we already established that your arguments to support her were unequivocally proven wrong. You brought up how policies were in place before Trump, so how about this? Sanctuary cities existed before Trump. While some have only recently become sanctuary cities, the concept predates him. What Trump is doing is ignoring the Constitution, and taking actions against sanctuary cities. That is not "they simply don't like who he is", because listen, if I can cite this many examples of Trump losing cases, there's probably a good chance that he's doing something wrong. The sanctuary cities are pushing back against Trump's actions.

 

You keep saying that they oppose him "simply because he's Trump", so let me ask you, who is Trump, as they are defining him? I have given you valid reasons for why they oppose him so strongly, but again, you are unwilling to consider them. Even when you say "They are simply pressing against the sensitivities of the left", does that not mean he has given them something to react to? Even if it's a proposed action, and not a fully realized action, then that alone is given them something to react you. You seem to think is that Trump, just by being Trump, is the only reason they have to oppose him. Again, you try to frame this as though the Democrats have shallow reasons, but instead it looks like a weakness in your own argument, and a refusal to consider other alternatives. What is it about Trump being Trump that you believe makes the Democrats oppose him so readily?

 

ICE's crackdowns have treaded into illegal territory, so for the protesters to claim that ICE is not welcome seems like a reasonable reaction, considering the circumstances. When an agency that is known to break the law when they target undocumented immigrants raids your neighbor's house, and you know that neighbor well enough to believe they're good people, then I support them protesting. And, again, when they knew what was going on, it was allegations.

 

I specifically asked you to prove if any member of the family was actually found guilty. I'm aware that you acknowledged the mistake in the article, and that it was a less illegal ring. However, you've refused to offer proof if anyone was guilty of the allegations. I would think that "innocent until proven guilty" would have extended into that circumstance. If ICE could not prove anyone's guilt, then it means that the community was protesting a raid against a neighbor was, to their knowledge - before and after they had the information - innocent.

 

Did you miss the line about how "immigration authorities have sometimes held migrant children in these processing facilities for much longer than they should be"? That is not a "short period of time." The child trafficking was already covered by Obama's immigration policies, whereas the Trump administration formally called it a "zero tolerance" policy, and was designed "both to discourage illegal migration into the United States and to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims that Administration officials contend are often fraudulent." Note that the last part is that "Administration officials contend are often fraudulent", rather than whether or not they are actually fraudulent. When immigrants die in ICE custody, yes, it is this administration's policies that are to blame, and not the immigrants for crossing the border.

 

vla1ne, are you grasping at straws to find reasons to be mad at Pelosi here? I would have thought that her being the Speaker of the House would have helped you understand that she does have a certain level of authority, and it's good to reaffirm our alliances with foreign countries. Earlier you had claimed that you would be holding Trump to the same standard as Pelosi, but you seem to be more concerned with giving excuse after excuse for why Trump was right, and why Pelosi was wrong, to the point of downplaying her authority. The trip was also likely scheduled before the shutdown, so it's not like she was suddenly deciding to bail, and Trump only did it in retaliation when she asked him to postpone his State of the Union address.

 

Pelosi was following her Congressional responsibilities. Like it or not, it was perfectly reasonable for her to do so. And look, it wasn't about the paychecks. It never really was. It was about Trump getting money for his wall. That was his top priority, and Pelosi had already indicated that she wasn't going to give it to him. Trump held the paychecks hostage by shutting down the government, and forcing an ultimatum to get his wall. Pelosi refusing to capitulate to his ultimatum is by no means irresponsible on her part, especially if she's working on cooperating with allies in the meantime. Trump was too focused on getting his wall that he could barely care about anything else.

 

Ammar Campa-Najarr, who is running against Duncan D. Hunter (The indicted Congressman who falsely claimed that he was crossing the border, which would have violated his parole if it were true), made a decent argument. I realize I'm mostly parroting other people, but I feel that the argument he's making does closely align with what I've been saying.

 

https://twitter.com/ACampaNajjar/status/1122118747022479360

 

The wall would effectively make no difference. If you want to support personnel, then that's fine. However, the wall, again, could either increase smugglers, or could simply be circumvented. Campa-Najarr also brings up how 215k drugs were seized at ports of entry, which follows in line with what I've discussed before. You even mentioned that we are respectably effective at catching them, so I'm glad you finally agree with what I've been saying this whole time. If more personnel and stronger technology help our chances of catching drug smugglers, and a wall makes little to no difference, then why do we need the wall? You asked me if a combination between a wall, security, and technology would be ideal, but the wall would be completely superfluous, so the security and technology is all we need. And if that's all we need, then there would be no point in investing so much money in the wall.

 

With a barrier in place, smugglers would then become their new choice.

 

Trump's idea of "America first" motto has been rightfully compared to a KKK dog whistle, and that is the absolute last thing I'd want to agree with. You mentioned that we should not be giving so much money to other countries that we hurt ourselves, and I agreed only with that. However, I maintain that we have a responsibility to our allies, and that is where I disagree with Trump, because he was taking foreign aid away from other countries, and that's to say nothing of his despicable negligence towards Puerto Rico. Considering how he withdrew from the Paris Agreement, and how he's discussed withdrawing from NATO, it is fair to call him an isolationist. I also understand that nationalism is specifically defined as "promoting the country at the expense of others." That latter half is key, and it's why I disagree with Trump, and abhor the idea of nationalism. I'd hardly call it the same overall belief when our loyalties to America are contingent on completely opposing views towards foreign countries.

 

I am a patriot, and that is distinct from a nationalist. They may share the same origin, but I don't attach the "at the expense of others" condition that Trump follows.

 

So you want me to provide examples of Trump being racist, but since you know I hate him, you're not inclined to believe them? Well then, I fully expect to dismiss the evidence regardless, mostly because you've already jumped through enough hoops to defend Trump's prejudice, but here are some articles that you might want to read.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/president-donald-trump-racist-examples_n_584f2ccae4b0bd9c3dfe5566

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/republican-denial-trumps-racism-absurd.html

 

I don't think that repeating "He has authority to do so" will help you as often as you'd like it to. "The places that want them" and "the places that don't" is an irrelevant distinction when they are both part of the same country, which has a legal obligation to take them.

 

https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/16/employees-reading-twitter-direct-messages/

Twitter refuted O'Keefe's videos. Your degree also really doesn't mean anything. It's just an appeal to authority as if I'm supposed to take your word for it. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you can actually report DM's on Twitter, and people who work at Twitter then get to see DM's, which they can judge accordingly. So I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to explain this to you, but if a group of people is committing actions that warrant getting banned, then it is not some "bias" against the group. If a group commits a crime, then that group is punished for the crime they commit. If you break the rules of a website, then crying about getting punished for it doesn't make you a victim. It just means that you broke the rules of the site, and you're unhappy because you couldn't get away with it. That's not enforcing a bias onto anyone. If your account is suspended, then you deserved it. Suck it up, and own your terrible behavior, instead of blaming the people that punish you as you have been.

 

No, I'm okay with just discounting Tim Pool. Cross-complaining about my own sources accomplishes nothing, and I have no reason to believe that Pool's credentials are somehow cleaner. He spreads propaganda and conspiracy theories, such as helping to spread a false story by Jacob Wohl about Mueller supposedly committing sexual misconduct, and Pool was enraged that Twitter dared to have a rule against harassing transgender people. How could you possibly think that Tim Pool, or James O'Keefe for that matter, were somehow going to appear as credible sources for your victim narratives?

 

You're actually citing Sargon of Akkad for the victim narrative? Congratulations, you just proved my point, because Carl Benjamin is known to parrot white supremacist rhetoric. And no, you can claim that it's "what amounts to no reason at all", but that's yet another example where we have actual evidence of wrongdoing, and you dismiss the evidence entirely because it's inconvenient for your narrative. By his own admission, he welcomed being quoted as saying that "you can funk young boys." He is known to commit targeted harassment, having served as one of the foremost figures in GamerGate. But I'm not surprised that this is the kind of man who you want to frame as some innocent victim.

 

My argument was that Twitter only catches conservatives in the crossfire when their primary concern is to punish white supremacists and people who actively harass other users, and your counterexample is… a white supremacist and pedophilia apologist with a known history of violating Twitter's Terms of Service. Maybe the next time you want to cite someone with a victim complex, use someone who doesn't have a history of abusing people that I can immediately point to. You consistently take the alt-right's words as gospel, typically downplaying as much wrongdoing on their part as possible, and instead condemn those who punish them for their hateful rhetoric and actions. I'm not sure what your hang-up is, but you seem to have an issue with platforms actually holding people accountable. That's not a "bias against conservatives". These are appropriate punishments that the people who brought this on themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a strawman striker. Am I thirsting to gun down women and children. God no.

 

This aged poorly.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/watch-trump-rally-shoot-migrants-panhandle-militia-detained.html

 

Trump laughed at a suggestion to shoot immigrants, and "declined to explicitly condemn the idea that somebody should shoot them." There's also a video of an armed "militia" rounding up women and children, with one member of the militia allegedly saying "Why are we just apprehending them and not lining them up and shooting them? We have to go back to Hitler days and put them all in a gas chamber."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This aged poorly.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/watch-trump-rally-shoot-migrants-panhandle-militia-detained.html

 

Trump laughed at a suggestion to shoot immigrants, and "declined to explicitly condemn the idea that somebody should shoot them." There's also a video of an armed "militia" rounding up women and children, with one member of the militia allegedly saying "Why are we just apprehending them and not lining them up and shooting them? We have to go back to Hitler days and put them all in a gas chamber."

Why is it Trump's job to condemn anything. If you think you have a case you can prosecute the militia members. 

 

Also lol Allegedly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the suggestion is made at his rally, and he is the one participating in these interviews when he directly addresses the possibility of a policy that could be enacted within his administration, and he laughs with the suggestion, then it is appropriate to demand that he display better behavior than he has so far.

 

I used "allegedly" because that was in the article, and did not want to leave that out, but they cite the police report for the quote, so it is a credible source. The leader of the group was also arrested, so action against the militia has already been taken. Trump has been enabling this behavior, and needs to be held accountable for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the suggestion is made at his rally, and he is the one participating in these interviews when he directly addresses the possibility of a policy that could be enacted within his administration, and he laughs with the suggestion, then it is appropriate to demand that he display better behavior than he has so far.

 

I used "allegedly" because that was in the article, and did not want to leave that out, but they cite the police report for the quote, so it is a credible source. The leader of the group was also arrested, so action against the militia has already been taken. Trump has been enabling this behavior, and needs to be held accountable for doing so.

*shrugs*

 

I've already established my view on the policy in question

If you have the audacity to invade this country, you're going to be treated like an invader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a horrendous position, because nothing about them constitutes "invasion". The policy around revolves looking for excuses to murder people over the smallest imagined slight. This isn't about treating them like invaders because they're supposedly "invading this country." It's just preemptively targeting the people that Trump built his entire campaign vilifying with his racist rhetoric. I would prefer a policy that isn't grounded in Trump's scared little feelings about these so-called "invaders" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They come here, have kids, and then vote democrat

 

Again, how does any of that constitute "invasion"? All this means is killing people because you don't like the way they vote in school board elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, how does any of that constitute "invasion"? All this means is killing people because you don't like the way they vote in school board elections.

No? They deliver their kid here mate.

 

Its social engineering to change a country's political system

 

Democrats don't like the results, so they're willing to import voters to get to their goals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, they import kids who have to wait eighteen years before they would be eligible to vote, after which time we would have gone through four or five presidential terms - divided between however many presidents you like - and those electoral results would have long been changed several times over. Brilliant!
 
Make up your mind, are they "invading" a country that doesn't want them, or is it people within the country "importing" them? Because the latter means that these immigrants are in fact wanted, and again, your logic still hinges on "People are going to vote Democrat" as if that somehow warrants the death penalty.
 
I'd hardly call it social engineering when all you have is "Their kids are delivered here." That neglects any and all potential influences that determine why those immigrants would come to vote Democrat eighteen years down the line.
 
https://ricochet.com/307935/archives/is-immigration-truly-importing-new-democrat-voters/
 
Here's a good article written from the perspective of a Republican, that asks an important question: "What intrinsic characteristics do Hispanics have (or immigrants from the other regions of the world prioritized by our post-’65 immigration policy) that makes them hardwired to vote Democrat? I understand that we don’t get their votes, but is that because they can’t be convinced? Or is it because we’re not being convincing?"
 

This conspiracy theory you're parroting hinges on a future where immigrants voting for Democrats is automatically a predetermined outcome. So your argument can best be summarized as "Future kids might vote for Democrats in the future, so we should kill the immigrants trying to deliver those babies." Getting angry about Democrats is no reason to kill people.

 

EDIT:

https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-dont-make-california-blue

 

This makes a good case for debunking the insane "Democrats are importing immigrants to vote blue" conspiracy theory. Even if you discounted the children of immigrants, Democrats would still win against Republicans in certain states, because the GOP has done more to alienate existing voters, so it's their own damn fault if they lose, not Democrats "importing" new voters. It seems more like Republicans need a scapegoat so they can play the victim of some imaginary "invasion", rather than recognize that they simply failed to appeal to voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Separation of kids for a short period (yes, a few weeks to a month is )to further prevent child trafficking is something to protest?

 

You know what else is something to protest?

 

https://shareblue.com/lindsey-graham-jail-kids-border-100-days/

 

Advocating to hold children for a hundred days, five times as long as we currently have. And the article notes that it mirrors a desire from Trump, so before you once again peddle the "They hate Trump just because he's Trump" nonsense for the umpteenth time, this is specifically about Graham and Trump wanting to change current policy; changes that they are trying to create. We can argue against what they are proposing precisely because they are the ones making these ideas. The article also calls out your previous attempts to claim that asylum seekers don't show up to court by providing data that shows how Graham was lying.

 

So we have a Republican (Who has just committed witness tampering, by the way) lying through his teeth to attempt justifying holding children in captivity for 100 days, and is specifically singling out Central America to do so. The article mentions that Trump ended a program designed to help people immigrate, so it's safe to say that these actions are explicitly designed to harm immigrants as much as possible. Graham uses Winter's "invasion" rhetoric, which, if Winter's conspiracy theory is anything to go by, just means "We're scared of people who might vote Democrat within a couple decades."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/

 

The Trump administration is using a former Japanese concentration camp as a new concentration camp for immigrants. I don't see how "They hate Trump just because he's Trump" is somehow a bad thing when this is who Trump is. The article does address that some of these institutions stretch back to Clinton and Obama, and it also makes careful distinctions about policies that Trump specifically implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...