Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nah

U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

By your own quote, he didn't do that. He said it "contains some...". Which is correct.

Again, we await any evidence to back this up.

If you watched that video and came away with the idea that it in any way justified Trump's tweet, your judgement has been completely mugged by your prejudice.

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I beg to differ, I think a group of thousands of people coming with the intent to illegally enter your country is a pretty good reason to send out the troops. Your borders are worthless if anyone can just walk in. Let's be honest, if the army wasn't there, every member of that caravan would march into the US.

Most countries, and indeed the US up to now, have managed without sending in thousands of armed troops.

And the US can handle this situation without them, too. You know this. You know that this is a pathetic publicity stunt, using poor brown people as a bogeyman to prey on poor white people's fears for the benefit of rich white people, and one rich white man in particular.

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Because your descriptions is far more questionable.

Again, this speaks volumes about you. It says nothing about the people we're discussing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I agree, and that's probably what is going to happen, so the fearmongering about Trump sending the army is baseless, and really nothing more than propaganda for the midterms.

I agree that it's entirely being used as political propaganda. That's not a good thing.

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I agree that it's entirely being used as political propaganda. That's not a good thing.

It's a military deployment for fake fear-mongering. While the motivation is fraudulent, the expense and time away from home for troops is quite real. Fuck all the "support the troops" chickenhawks who support this racist sham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump writes this no birthright for children of undocumented people memo and the Supreme Court in a brazen display of partisanship untethered to precedence finds that undocumented people “are not subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States could that create millions of people with diplomatic immunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

 

I beg to differ, I think a group of thousands of people coming with the intent to illegally enter your country

Citation needed. There is zero account of them stating anywhere they wish to illegally enter the US. 

25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Let's be honest, if the army wasn't there, every member of that caravan would march into the US.

Which, per international law, is completely legal at any port of entry. 

25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

We've seen that they don't take no for an answer in Mexico. And what are you expecting anyway, that the army will wait for the caracan to arrive and open fire? Most likely they'll be there to keep the peace and help with logistics. 

Just so you know, it is a violation of the US constitution for them to anything other than aid in logistics. They cannot keep the peace. 

25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Because your descriptions is far more questionable. They're no longer refugees after they've turned down the offer of Mexico.

They are asylum seekers. They are not required to seek asylum in the first country they cross. 

25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

They're economic migrants. They're trying to get into the US because the US is more wealthy. This is obvious. It's the same situation as the "refugees" who marched half across Europe to get into Germany. 

And yet we are a nation of laws, and the law states that asylum seekers are allowed to seek asylum. 

25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

It's not mostly women and children, although I'm sure it will made to look like that in CNN's reporting.

Citation needed.

25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

That's not a good argument and you know it.

It's a very good argument. The notion that 3000 people are a danger to the US because they are coming to seek asylum is on its face obviously flawed. It's on you and others to show the eminent danger they provide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mormont said:

Again, we await any evidence to back this up.

If you watched that video and came away with the idea that it in any way justified Trump's tweet, your judgement has been completely mugged by your prejudice.

Here you go.  Watch that video and tell me why it's incorrect to say the caravan contains some tough fighters who clashed with police and broke through the border?

It's ridiculous to say they're refugees though, they've refused the offered refugee status in Mexico, they're economic migrants.

Quote

Again, this speaks volumes about you. It says nothing about the people we're discussing.

So the fact that I'm not calling people who've attacked Mexican policemen and broke through their border and refused their refugee status 'refugees', says nothing about them but speaks volumes about me. Alright then. Please tell me. What does it speak of me? That I'm racist, probably. 

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed. There is zero account of them stating anywhere they wish to illegally enter the US. 

Lol. I think they've demonstrated their intentions pretty clearly in Mexico.

Quote

Just so you know, it is a violation of the US constitution for them to anything other than aid in logistics. They cannot keep the peace. 

Alright, they're going to aid in logistics then. I've seen an army leader (no idea who it was) mention this and say they won't do anything they're not allowed to. They're aware of the limitations.

Quote

They are asylum seekers. They are not required to seek asylum in the first country they cross. 

Semantics. What matters is they're certainly not poor people in danger, otherwise they'd accept the help of Mexico. Many of them did, actually. About 1500 if I remember correctly. But those who go on to the US aren't refugees.

Quote

It's a very good argument. The notion that 3000 people are a danger to the US because they are coming to seek asylum is on its face obviously flawed. It's on you and others to show the eminent danger they provide.

Useless strawman, I didn't say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Something else to consider on the birthright thing:

Let's say that the EO isn't narrow, and is done effective immediately. You know, kind of exactly like what Trump did with the travel ban. While it would probably be granted a stay fairly quickly - within a week or so - during that week, a whole lot of people could be forcibly removed, their rights rescinded, their citizenship thrown away. Just like that. 

And there's very little recourse for those people, assuming they get recourse. Remember, there was a judicial stay and a specific statement for the thousands of children illegally detained and separated from their families - and over 200 kids are STILL separated, months after the judge's decision. You can't unfire a bullet. 

So yeah, all you folks who say that there's no good legal ground, I agree with you. SO THE FUCK WHAT. 

This is true of any action undertaken in contrivention of existing law or Constitutional precept.  It always takes time to rein it back and people are hurt in the process while it is reined back.  

What do you propose be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

But nothing will equal the ease with which those 7,000 people (mostly women and children according to people who have actually been there among them) conquers the nation of 320,000,000, at least according to reality challenged right wingers.

Wrong. It's not really a nation of 320,000,000 people. You have to divide it by half with a 51/49 split. The 51% are The Patriots. God fearing, country loving people who care for their own. The 49% are The Evil Others. They want to destroy the country's traditions and values. The Patriots know this, and fear the day The Evil Others gain power. The Patriots also know that once the caravan gets here, they'll join The Evil Others. That's why they must be stopped, at any cost. If they get here they'll join The Evil Others, and then it will be 50.9% versus 49.1%. And finally The Patriots know that once The Evil Others represent 50.1%, they'll destroy The Patriot's God, their way of life and harm their families, specifically their pretty white daughters. So the caravan cannot come. And in the mean time, all efforts must be exhausted to prevent The Evil Others from participating in the governing body. Suppress their votes. Rig the system of representation. Play by different rules. It's all justified in the pursuit of stopping The Evil Others. 

 

While this is obviously satirical, it is an exact representation of modern conservative thought. All previously purported values and beliefs are secondary and fall to the wayside if the possibility of losing the majority is at stake.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

That's not a good argument and you know it.

Why isn't a good argument. The fact of the matter is there are good arguments to increase the amount of legal immigration into this country.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for your explanation of how the left in the US is worse than the right. Though, I won't be holding my breath. At least I won't hold my breath for an explanation that isn't a bunch of confused drivel that relies on Brietbart articles and really noxious sorts of people from Twitter.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

Here you go.  Watch that video and tell me why it's incorrect to say the caravan contains some tough fighters who clashed with police and broke through the border?

A substantial part of that video is the same footage you already linked. The rest shows nothing substantially different. A few dozen kids and young men armed with stones and makeshift clubs trying to break through a gate.

You're trying to slip and slide here, but 'clashed with police and broke through the border' is not what Trump said and you know it. Again, the footage (which has clearly been heavily edited and again, is not sourced) does not show 'vicious' fighting by 'tough fighters, nor 'Mexican soldiers being hurt'.

What it does show isn't pretty, but it doesn't remotely qualify as justifying a military deployment of 5000 troops. And you know it. You've allowed your prejudices to overwhelm your judgement. Which is exactly what this has all been about from the start. Triggering those prejudices.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is also now saying that he 'wouldn't be surprised' if George Soros was funding the caravan, and that he may double or even triple the number of troops he's sending to the border.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/414171-trump-i-wouldnt-be-surprised-if-soros-were-paying-for-migrant-caravan

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-says-he-could-send-many-15-000-troops-border-n929446
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mormont said:

A substantial part of that video is the same footage you already linked. The rest shows nothing substantially different. A few dozen kids and young men armed with stones and makeshift clubs trying to break through a gate.

You're trying to slip and slide here, but 'clashed with police and broke through the border' is not what Trump said and you know it. Again, the footage (which has clearly been heavily edited and again, is not sourced) does not show 'vicious' fighting by 'tough fighters, nor 'Mexican soldiers being hurt'.

That's all you got? That Trump's tweet wasn't 100% correct? Well, I never said it was. I said he is closer to the truth than you are.

And that's not even the main question here. Look at the damn video. Do you really consider them refugees? You've already admitted they were armed with rocks and makeshift weapons and broke through the gates. Is that how a peaceful asylum seeking refugee should act? Blatantly break the laws of the country that is about to help you and take you in? Oh wait, they don't want to be taken in because they're not refugees, they just want to march on towards the richer country.  (#NotAll) 

Quote

What it does show isn't pretty, but it doesn't remotely qualify as justifying a military deployment of 5000 troops. And you know it. 

I like when you just assert things like this, as if your opinion was fact. 

Quote

You've allowed your prejudices to overwhelm your judgement.

What a projection. I see the situation as it is. A bunch of people hopping on the chance to leave their country and live in a much wealthier one.  And some actual refugees, who have accepted the gracious offer of Mexico. Where's prejudice in that?

You on the other hand, can't bring yourself to admit that maybe some of these people aren't poor little things in need of help, even though you have video evidence of them attacking police and breaking through the gates, and also refusing help.

In your mind refugee = always good, Trump = always bad. You hate Trump so much you will criticize anything he does, so naturally you see him sending the troops to help as some kind of evil thing.

1 hour ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

While this is obviously satirical, it is an exact representation of modern conservative thought.

I see the exact opposite, with people in here calling me evil just a few posts back, and others generally thinking of Trump as a one dimensional cartoon villain, and of his party as evil nazis who are going to genocide all the minorities. Unironically. Funny how all that slipped your notice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

And by the way, I'm still waiting for your explanation of how the left in the US is worse than the right. Though, I won't be holding my breath. At least I won't hold my breath for an explanation that isn't a bunch of confused drivel that relies on Brietbart articles and really noxious sorts of people from Twitter.

Their embracing of censorship and anti free speech stance for startes. Not sure if you've seen what has happened to the owner of Gab.com (Twitter alternative) in the last few days, but I find it pretty scary, and such things happen fairly regularly nowadays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I see the exact opposite, with people in here calling me evil just a few posts back, and others generally thinking of Trump as a one dimensional cartoon villain, and of his party as evil nazis who are going to genocide all the minorities. Unironically. Funny how all that slipped your notice. 

You may not be evil, but I think your delusional with your assertion that the Republican Party and Trump is the less of two evils. 

Trump may not be quite a Shicklgruber, but one need not be that bad in order to be a racists knucklehead who will end up a disaster. He is an ignorant moron. There is really not one substantive policy topic he understands.

The Republican Party may not be exactly Nazis, but again, they don't need to be, in order to be quite awful. I know people on this board have cited the Norm Ornstein study that came out few years back, but you would seem to prefer to rely on terrible sorts of people from Twitter, evidently. They back a guy that was largely able to get the white resentment vote. And all their policy ideas are basically out in left field. And they are responsible for bungling some pretty major shit cough cough Iraq and the GFC. How you conclude they are the less of two evils just boggles the mind.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

Their embracing of censorship and anti free speech stance for startes. Not sure if you've seen what has happened to the owner of Gab.com (Twitter alternative) in the last few days, but I find it pretty scary, and such things happen fairly regularly nowadays. 

Private companies are deciding to stop dealing with a toxic business that plays host to right wing terrorist plots? Terrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Their embracing of censorship and anti free speech stance for startes. Not sure if you've seen what has happened to the owner of Gab.com (Twitter alternative) in the last few days, but I find it pretty scary, and such things happen fairly regularly nowadays. 

Oh, and conservatives don't? How about the whole conservative thing about outlawing flag burning. Or conservatives backing Trump shutting down the press.

The idea that only the left and not conservatives are a threat to free speech is absurd.

And then if we get into other civil rights, it would appear with conservatives, it highly depends on whose civil rights are being violated. Latinos, Arpaio, cough, cough.

And if authoritarianism generally is your worry, then Trump should be quite frightening. Here is a guy that threatened to toss an innocent women in prison, to the mad howls of his base.  And a guy that believes that he can just order torture as he pleases. And don't even get me fuckin' started on some the scary shit that went on during Dubya.

Seems like the case of the conservative that thought he had a point, but didn't.

I noticed you didn't get very detailed about this. Most likely because really you don't have many details to write that hold an ounce of fuckin' water.

I don't think you understand US politics or US political history all that well.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×