Jump to content

Photo

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


271 replies to this topic

#261
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts
    Last Visit Today, 08:58 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

And since I haven't answered vla1ne's question from a while back yet, seems reasonable to me. Simply hiring more people to deal with 50 doesn't do much when more can come. My issue is if it is worth the upfront cost and future investment, both political and monetary, especially since the latter has been a moving target iirc.

As far as political goes, i have to admit, if democrats caved on it, many of their constituents would probably eat them alive. but that said, democrats themselves created the political corner they're currently in as far as that goes. as far as monetary, the cost of each illegal immigrant over a lifetime has been estimated to be on the rise, as has illegal immigration:

 

https://www.foxnews....ink-tank-claims

 

https://www.washingt...portation-price

 

The estimated amount that the wall would have to increase apprehensions to pay for itself is around 5-10%. That's not including any drug cartels and human traffickers that may also be prevented, if the wall can do that much, then it would be able to pay for the current projected costs, and if the costs were spread out over 3-4 years, the wall would effectively be the equivalent of a savings account that accrues interest for moderate attention. then, you could consider repairs that hire all american citizens as decent a job creator (with taxes that go back into the system) that also doubles as an additional border patrol lite, so long as the crews hired are moderately drilled on proper the procedures should they encounter illegals, cartels, caravans, or traffickers. Money is a question that's raised a lot, but the benefits and costs can be balanced out with relative ease. Whether the people in charge decide to actually try balancing the costs is one thing, but it can be done.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#262
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,819 posts
    Last Visit Today, 12:24 PM
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

Answer the question, Winter. You tend to sidestep questions, and it annoys me.

 

And since I haven't answered vla1ne's question from a while back yet, seems reasonable to me. Simply hiring more people to deal with 50 doesn't do much when more can come. My issue is if it is worth the upfront cost and future investment, both political and monetary, especially since the latter has been a moving target iirc.

Why would I be against it. The left loves the illegals. They can have them so the rest of us don't have to deal with them


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#263
cr47t

cr47t

    heyyy

  • Elite Members
  • 1,597 posts
    Last Visit

Why would I be against it. The left loves the illegals. They can have them so the rest of us don't have to deal with them

Ayfkm

 

enough with "the left love this the left is that" bullshit. i called you out on it in the russia/WH thread and i'll do it here. you'd be hollering at the top of you're lungs if roxas said such a thing about the right and you know it and if roxas has done it you probably have so spare me this skullduggery.

 

as for the "they can have them" part - i'm assuming you're referring to the proposal to bus illegals to sanctuary cities? that whole policy is "i'm going to punish my political enemies by sending people i think are dangerous to their constitiuent's hometowns". when you break it down that's the logic behind it - or at least what stephen miller thought when he proposed it since he's the one credited for introducing it to the administration. it's meant to punish the many for the actions of the few. think about it, even trump supporters would be unhappy by this if they happen to live in a sanctuary city. there's so many angles of wrong to this policy but i dont have the time or patience to dive into them now, and most of them are obvious enough to be observed on their own.


V6D7tFL.png

sig

Quotes

Memories from DN

ahhh the good old days

Old roblox forever <3


#264
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts
    Last Visit Today, 08:58 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

 

As for the "they can have them" part - i'm assuming you're referring to the proposal to bus illegals to sanctuary cities? that whole policy is "i'm going to punish my political enemies by sending people i think are dangerous to their constituent's hometowns". when you break it down that's the logic behind it - or at least what stephen miller thought when he proposed it since he's the one credited for introducing it to the administration. it's meant to punish the many for the actions of the few. think about it, even trump supporters would be unhappy by this if they happen to live in a sanctuary city. there's so many angles of wrong to this policy but i don't have the time or patience to dive into them now, and most of them are obvious enough to be observed on their own.

While I agree with the statement that the notion will harm the regular citizens in sanctuary cities, I have to say that trumps actions could easily be pointed to the policies of sanctuary cities. The people who run sanctuary citizens have created the ideal situation for illegal immigrants, and those same people have helped reduce the days that illegals can be contained. The argument that the leaders are the only people responsible, ignores the people who voted for, and continued to vote for, those in power.  Trump sending illegals to the states that claimed to want them, and flaunted federal law to keep them, is far better than sending them into the places that don't. Sanctuary states are called that for a reason. They literally implement programs, in direct defiance of federal law, in order to maintain the conditions that they use to shelter illegals. What state are you going to place the illegals that you have to keep in the country? The state that goes to those extents to keep them? Or the states that blatantly say "We don't want them"?

 

There are a lot of ways to attack trump's claim, But there are plenty of arguments in favor as well.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#265
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,819 posts
    Last Visit Today, 12:24 PM
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

Ayfkm

 

enough with "the left love this the left is that" bullshit. i called you out on it in the russia/WH thread and i'll do it here. you'd be hollering at the top of you're lungs if roxas said such a thing about the right and you know it and if roxas has done it you probably have so spare me this skullduggery.

 

as for the "they can have them" part - i'm assuming you're referring to the proposal to bus illegals to sanctuary cities? that whole policy is "i'm going to punish my political enemies by sending people i think are dangerous to their constitiuent's hometowns". when you break it down that's the logic behind it - or at least what stephen miller thought when he proposed it since he's the one credited for introducing it to the administration. it's meant to punish the many for the actions of the few. think about it, even trump supporters would be unhappy by this if they happen to live in a sanctuary city. there's so many angles of wrong to this policy but i dont have the time or patience to dive into them now, and most of them are obvious enough to be observed on their own.

I'll decide what is enough and isn't actually. Thank you for your help. You calling me out, doesn't make me wrong craft. And no, Roxas regularly makes over generalizations. Two of his mainstays is calling the Persian and the Black guy white supremacists. I don't report him. 

 

When all the 2020 candidates support some variation of amnesty and all but 1 democrat filibuster bills that would secure the border, its a matter of calling a spade a spade. 

 

Trump supporters who live in Sanct Cities have their stupid local govs to blame. 


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#266
cr47t

cr47t

    heyyy

  • Elite Members
  • 1,597 posts
    Last Visit

While I agree with the statement that the notion will harm the regular citizens in sanctuary cities, I have to say that trumps actions could easily be pointed to the policies of sanctuary cities. The people who run sanctuary citizens have created the ideal situation for illegal immigrants, and those same people have helped reduce the days that illegals can be contained. The argument that the leaders are the only people responsible, ignores the people who voted for, and continued to vote for, those in power.  Trump sending illegals to the states that claimed to want them, and flaunted federal law to keep them, is far better than sending them into the places that don't. Sanctuary states are called that for a reason. They literally implement programs, in direct defiance of federal law, in order to maintain the conditions that they use to shelter illegals. What state are you going to place the illegals that you have to keep in the country? The state that goes to those extents to keep them? Or the states that blatantly say "We don't want them"?

 

There are a lot of ways to attack trump's claim, But there are plenty of arguments in favor as well.

I'm not sure about all the arguments in favor since I don't know all of them nor do I have the time or the patience to duscuss them all so I'll focus on the one(s) you put out.

 

you can point to the actions of sanctuary cities and say "this is bad for the states that are doing this and the people living in it" or "this is bad for the country as a whole" but is this really the best way possible to go about it? i'm sure if we got the best minds in the country together we could come up with a more practical and less divisive solution. 

 

and when you reduce it to "these states/cities want the illegals and those states dont" you ignore the fact that states and even cities are made up with people of differing opinions. some vote in favor of the people who implement sanctuary laws, some vote against those people, some have an opinion but dont vote at all, and some dont have an opinion at all. simplistic reductions like this don't help the situation nor solve the problem. in many ways they are part of the problem.


V6D7tFL.png

sig

Quotes

Memories from DN

ahhh the good old days

Old roblox forever <3


#267
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts
    Last Visit Today, 08:58 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

you can point to the actions of sanctuary cities and say "this is bad for the states that are doing this and the people living in it" or "this is bad for the country as a whole" but is this really the best way possible to go about it? i'm sure if we got the best minds in the country together we could come up with a more practical and less divisive solution. 

 

and when you reduce it to "these states/cities want the illegals and those states dont" you ignore the fact that states and even cities are made up with people of differing opinions. some vote in favor of the people who implement sanctuary laws, some vote against those people, some have an opinion but dont vote at all, and some dont have an opinion at all. simplistic reductions like this don't help the situation nor solve the problem. in many ways they are part of the problem.

The thing is, there has been ample protesting in favor of illegal immigrants in (particularly californias) sanctuary cities. People have been saying "This is bad for the country" for years. We often just get called racists who hate immigration, and kicked off whatever platforms said discussion has been held on. Seriously, twitter bans people for stating that sanctuary cities are a net negative on the country and the people that live in them. the argument gets attacked. The very state representatives who support sanctuary cities, also have been fighting turmp on his limitations to immigration. it's one of the reasons that trump stated what he did. He is effectively calling their bluff. sanctuary city supporters are much of the time, the same people who try to prevent trumps policies on illegal immigration, or attempted to reduce the holding capacity/time that border patrol is allotted.

 

The people in favor won, that means their voice is more populous in those states, in the states that don't. the people who don't want said laws won. If he is going to be forced to release them into the country anyways, then the states who have the loudes advocates are going to be the clear choice for where to send them. if the people who don't want them are in the states that have leaders who do, then they had best campaign for somebody willing to object the next time, as the rest of the states managed to do. It has to be reduced to such, because when he is forced to release them, those are the two choices present: A) release them into states where the majority has voted in favor of people who want to support illegals (aka sanctuary cities/states) B) Release them into states where the majority has voted against people who want to support illegals. given the choice, it's more often than not going to be the former, because the latter has demonstrated zero desire to take in illegals, and generally isn't the one advocating that we need to, or implementing programs to support them.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#268
cr47t

cr47t

    heyyy

  • Elite Members
  • 1,597 posts
    Last Visit

The thing is, there has been ample protesting in favor of illegal immigrants in (particularly californias) sanctuary cities. People have been saying "This is bad for the country" for years. We often just get called racists who hate immigration, and kicked off whatever platforms said discussion has been held on. Seriously, twitter bans people for stating that sanctuary cities are a net negative on the country and the people that live in them. the argument gets attacked. The very state representatives who support sanctuary cities, also have been fighting turmp on his limitations to immigration. it's one of the reasons that trump stated what he did. He is effectively calling their bluff. sanctuary city supporters are much of the time, the same people who try to prevent trumps policies on illegal immigration, or attempted to reduce the holding capacity/time that border patrol is allotted.

 

The people in favor won, that means their voice is more populous in those states, in the states that don't. the people who don't want said laws won. If he is going to be forced to release them into the country anyways, then the states who have the loudes advocates are going to be the clear choice for where to send them. if the people who don't want them are in the states that have leaders who do, then they had best campaign for somebody willing to object the next time, as the rest of the states managed to do. It has to be reduced to such, because when he is forced to release them, those are the two choices present: A) release them into states where the majority has voted in favor of people who want to support illegals (aka sanctuary cities/states) B) Release them into states where the majority has voted against people who want to support illegals. given the choice, it's more often than not going to be the former, because the latter has demonstrated zero desire to take in illegals, and generally isn't the one advocating that we need to, or implementing programs to support them.

now that I have time to respond, let's get back into this.

 

personally, i have no problem with people speaking out against sanctuary policy, so if you're using the "the platforms have an agenda against us" line as an attack on me personally, i would like you to stop. furthermore i have seen no evidence of twitter discriminating against consevrative viewpoints, if you have an argument proporting evidence of this, please provide it instead of the standalone claim so we can debate it. as it is, we can't, because an un falsifiable argument cannot sustain itself in a field of political debate.

 

you say the state reps who support sanctuary policies have been fighting trump on immigration. but in your post thats all you wrote. have you considered why they have been fighting him? it's completely possible it's not just a push for open borders. maybe they disagree with the methods that are being used? or the ideological approach behind it? (not in terms of open borders vs border security but in terms of "identity of the contry at risk vs human dignity of the immigrants at risk" or something along those lines?)

 

your second-paragraph argument, which says "The states who majority support them can take them if they want them" is not the argument that the trump administration is using, which is "the left loves the illegals they can take them if they want them". yours is more nuanced, and theirs is a pigeonhole, and i don't understand what you're trying to do here. if you're trying to rationalize without siding with their explanation, that's understandable. if you're trying to speak for the WH, you're not doing a very good job at it.


V6D7tFL.png

sig

Quotes

Memories from DN

ahhh the good old days

Old roblox forever <3


#269
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Warrior's Strike R when?

  • The Chariot
  • 26,725 posts
    Last Visit Today, 08:46 PM

I sometimes hate my computer

 
"As far as acting on it, I’m against it in general, but as far as being used to show how his opponents who claimed to love illegals and asylum seekers don’t even want them, I’m all for using it." That is a terrible exception. There is no point in doing this other than to be overly spiteful. You claim that this will somehow "prove" that they don't even want them, but you undermined your own argument. You think it makes no sense for them to resist Trump's anti-immigration actions if they don't truly want these immigrants, but that does more to show why your idea that he's calling their bluff makes absolutely no sense. You're making an exception for something you'd normally oppose because you want Trump to call a bluff when everything the people you want Trump to spite have done in the examples you gave suggests that they are indeed sincere in wanting these immigrants. You're not going to "show" how little they want it. All that Trump would be accomplishing is giving his opponents what they want. That's it. No conditions attached to it. So even if this is supposed to "own the libs" here, Trump cannot even fail to do that.
 
Can you explain how he gave her what she wanted verbatim? I do think that we're talking about something without a mutual understanding of what exactly she demanded, and what exactly he granted her. I'm making no statements either way on that part (Since I feel the next point is about something else), so could you provide exactly what she said, and how precisely Trump agreed to it?
 
Congress did approve $25 billion for Trump's wall in the past. Democrats rejected ending the visa lottery and restricting family immigration, so when they wanted to give their own version of the bill, they agreed to the $25 billion. The only disagreement would be that they would have allocated the money over ten years rather than all at once. You can disagree with the conditions, but I would say that agreeing to give him that much money at all fulfills the burden of what you were asking them to do. What it means is that Democrats did show a willingness to put the money down, and Trump still rejected it anyway. It would be splitting hairs if we tried to make it about how Democrats are bad because of their conditions, so can we please leave this point at saying that Democrats did want to give Trump their money, and we've seen Trump reject them? I imagine you would rather start to write shorter responses, and honestly I'd be content if you just recognized that there are points where Trump is guilty of being the one who rejects Democrats even when they do try to give him what he wants in some way. "Both sides have rejected each other's efforts" is a pretty easy concession to make.
 
And you're right, the gentleman's agreement is not a law, but you're missing the point. They were only the authority to pull the money in the first place if they upheld that agreement. Because of their actions, they risked losing that authority. That isn't the Pentagon "helping out" in it's own way, it's trying to take money under the table. If I tell that you can have money if you respect a certain condition, and you openly disrespect that condition, I no longer have any obligation to let you use that money. The Pentagon had every right to redirect the money in a respectful manner. While I'm sure that people would have disagreed with the choice, they would have been within their rights to do so. What the Pentagon did was undermine their own authority when they didn't even have to. If they make such a recklessly stupid decision like that, then they deserve to have that authority taken from them.
 
After the treatment Merrick Garland got thanks to McConnell simply because Obama nominated him, Trump's nominees deserved the same treatment. According your source, Democrats opposed Kavanaugh's confirmation because they were concerned that he would enforce Evangelical beliefs, restrict abortion rights (Especially be overturning Roe v. Wade), and undermine the Affordable Care Act. In his case, there were legitimate concerns about how he would conduct himself as a Supreme Court Justice, so I appreciate that Democrats had a stronger argument than McConnell blocking Garland out of pure spite.
 
As I explained to you already, Democrats were willing to give Trump his money. Also, holy shit, you're seriously trying to use the GOP's own website as a "source" in this case? I realize that most sources we give each other should be held to scrutiny, but if you honestly expected the GOP's propaganda piece to be a worthwhile source, I'm not taking it. I'm not going to break down each individual one, and just state that most of those articles are about the GOP complaining that Democrats (gasp) want to follow due process. The sheer horror of it all! Again, it also does not scrutinize that a lot of Trump's cabinets frankly were terrible, or have long since left their positions. This once again seems to be entirely concerned with the act of Democrats objecting to Trump at all, and spares absolutely no regard for why they would reject his nominations or choices. This is a recurring problem with your posts, and I would encourage you to amend that. Do more than just complain about Democrats rejecting Trump. Focus on why they reject him.
 
The California voters and legislators were protesting Trump's policies that he was hoping to enact. Once again, you seem entirely obsessed with the act of protesting in and of itself, and you fail to consider what it is that they are opposing, or why they would do so.
 
Your Politico article is explicitly about how Trump had a grace period - i.e., a period when your claims about Democrats obstructing him before he could get the ball rolling might actually have held water - and he already blew it. Even the Democrats in the article acknowledge that they don't want to be overly obstructionist, and once again, the explain why they would want to reject him, while recognizing that Chuck Schumer wants to find ways to agree with the President. You wanted to me to guess what the article was before I clicked it, but the actual content of the article is about why what you claimed the article is about is an absolutely stupid idea. In other words, you completely misrepresented the purpose of the article.
 
So yeah, every single article you cited completely failed to back up your claims. Moving on. But I do notice that Trump vetoed a bipartisan resolution to end America's role in the Saudi war in Yemen. Strange how we have another provable case of bipartisanship, and it was Trump who rejected it. Now, if you would like to discuss Trump's motives for vetoing the resolution, I would be up for that. It would not be fair for me to criticize how you've consistently neglected to seriously consider the motives for Democrats rejecting Trump, only for me to not consider his motives for allowing U.S. troops to remain in Yemen.
 
One of the vacations that Trump cancelled was Pelosi trying to speak with troops, which was supposed to be private. She was trying to do her job, so Trump "staying at work" should be treated as though Trump should be praised for supposedly "solving" a problem that he created.
 
The wall would only slow people down, but as Trump himself once said, it should not completely deter people. Again, if the average is that it takes a patrol officer about five days to catch someone crossing the border illegally, I do not think that it will slow illegal immigrants down for that long, and honestly, you can keep saying it would allow more people to do the work they're meant to, it seems that you're just saying the wall would produce better results, without specifically stating what those results would be.
 
All those solutions that you're asking Mexico could do, such as improving quality of life? Yeah, I don't see any reason why we can't help Mexico do that. No, I don't think we should toss out billions every time we ask, because we know need to think for ourselves. But my belief is "America first, and our allies second", whereas Trump's administration amounts to "America first, everybody else never."
 
Yes, I'm serious with commenting on a spiteful relationship. You're personal anecdote sounds cute, but like I just said, we can help America when we can. I am not proposing a situation that would end with us getting broke.
 
Well, you said it's not worth trying to debate the caveats about immigrants and asylum seekers, so I'm going to leave that point be. Feels just one more thing that are bloating our responses.
 
Sure, I certainly understand where you're coming from about penalizing people who employ illegal immigrant labor. Devin Nunes is the one I'm focusing on at the moment, thought I'd be willing to concede that it's more of an individual problem of Nunes being a hypocrite.
 
http://nymag.com/int...t-accusers.html
 
There are multiple examples of rape allegations of Trump. Some were withdrawn or settled, though you might appreciate that Stormy Daniels never comes up at all in the article. Trump claiming "They let you do it" does not imply consent, since he preceded it by saying he doesn't wait. He forces himself onto women, and he thinks he has consent, which is not the same as actually having consent. I'm pretty sure we've covered that distinction before.
 
Trump claims that he believes Mexico has wonderful moment and advocates for allowing them to come through the natural process, and then the next he's enforcing policies that either make it harder on them, or outright discriminate even when they do follow the natural process. However, I will grant that it can be difficult at times to distinguish whether it's Trump himself, or Stephen Miller Grima Wormtongue-ing Trump's ear.
 
No, the wall itself is not a violation of the law, but it would be used to violate the law, as both Amnesty and Cato have highlighted. It would cause a bottleneck where even people who do follow the legal process would be demonized as "illegal" immigrants. I do not care about how other countries have their walls. I understand that you're using them as examples of how walls work, and I am rejecting them because I believe that this specific wall would not work. In other words, Trump's wall would not live up to the example that you say those walls have set.
 
Acknowledging your claim does not somehow "destroy" my argument. My point is that when Trump has claimed we have only so much room, it has been proven to be dishonest, and was used to violate the law. So I'm saying that when you've repeated your argument, it is wrong for the same reasons that Trump is wrong.

now that I have time to respond, let's get back into this.
 
personally, i have no problem with people speaking out against sanctuary policy, so if you're using the "the platforms have an agenda against us" line as an attack on me personally, i would like you to stop. furthermore i have seen no evidence of twitter discriminating against consevrative viewpoints, if you have an argument proporting evidence of this, please provide it instead of the standalone claim so we can debate it. as it is, we can't, because an un falsifiable argument cannot sustain itself in a field of political debate.
 
you say the state reps who support sanctuary policies have been fighting trump on immigration. but in your post thats all you wrote. have you considered why they have been fighting him? it's completely possible it's not just a push for open borders. maybe they disagree with the methods that are being used? or the ideological approach behind it? (not in terms of open borders vs border security but in terms of "identity of the contry at risk vs human dignity of the immigrants at risk" or something along those lines?)
 
your second-paragraph argument, which says "The states who majority support them can take them if they want them" is not the argument that the trump administration is using, which is "the left loves the illegals they can take them if they want them". yours is more nuanced, and theirs is a pigeonhole, and i don't understand what you're trying to do here. if you're trying to rationalize without siding with their explanation, that's understandable. if you're trying to speak for the WH, you're not doing a very good job at it.

 
I've often seen more criticism against Twitter for favoring conservative viewpoints. Twitter's policies are about punishing discrimination and various forms of harassment, so I find it weird that when those are the actions and rhetoric that is punished, conservatives claim that it's an "agenda" against conservative views.
 
I've tried to ask vla1ne that Democrats could be against Trump because of his methods or ideological approaches, but he genuinely seems unwilling to consider that. I wouldn't expect a different answer this time.
 
vla1ne is in fact rationalizing and siding with their explanation. Trump's intent here seems to be "Let's bring in more illegal immigrants to own the libs."

#270
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts
    Last Visit Today, 08:58 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien
To roxas:

 

 

to cr4ft:

"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#271
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Warrior's Strike R when?

  • The Chariot
  • 26,725 posts
    Last Visit Today, 08:46 PM
To vla1ne



#272
cr47t

cr47t

    heyyy

  • Elite Members
  • 1,597 posts
    Last Visit

 

I'm not using that to attack you, i'm pointing something out, it was more a side note reinforcing the point than an attack on you, a) unless you happen to work at twitter, in which case yes it was targeting you. you haven't seen evidence? There's quite a few interviews between twitter execs and popular fiigures that have pointed this out multiple times. tim pool on rogan would be one of the more prominent ones/ but really, channel after channel has reports on multiple people who get banned or shadowbanned for posting right wing views.

I can make a comprehensive list for you if you don't believe as much.

The list really could go on for days. case by case, i could have list one after another story of people who got banned for the most mundane right wing statements.

 

 

It's perfectly find to disagree with his methods, but many opponents ignore the already present federal laws, the ones that were there well before trump, in order to do so. Those are mainly the ones that we call sanctuary cities. disagreeing with him and flaunting the existing federal laws are two completely different things. many of his opponents call walls immoral, but ive in gated or walled off communities. that is what i mean. these opponents fight to reduce the amount of people that border patrol can contain at any given time, and how long they can contain them, yet expect to no be made to directly deal with the overflow from that decision. they create incentive programs for illegal immigrants (there are literally healthcare and social security programs *just* for illegal immigrants) yet continue attempting to reduce the capabilities of border patrol to do their jobs. Trump telling them to take in the people they fought so hard to protect is something that makes perfect sense when looking at the actions of the people fighting immigration enforcement. what reason was there to fight him all the way to the supreme court over whether or not ICE could deport illegal immigrants who are getting out of jail/prison? what reason do they have to warn known/suspected criminals of ICE raids? what reason is there to create further incentives for illegal immigrants such as healthcare packages, when they are simultaneously forcing ICE to release illegals into the country in even larger numbers? what reason is there to fight trump to the 9th circuit courts on making asylum applicants stay out of the country, if they, the very people fighting to keep them, are not willing to take them into their own countries? I could fire off these types of questions all day. sending illegals to the places that fought for them the hardest is the only rational option.Nowhere else in the country is creating laws that benefit them. nowhere else in the country has people who fight in congress for them as hard, nowhere else in the country is calling them "hardworking peaceful people" the list goes on there too. They spent two years fighting for this. at this point, it really is put up or shut up for them. They are the ones who demanded they be allowed to come here. they are the ones who have fought to reduce the restraints on illegal immigration. ect. again, the list goes on. 

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 shit 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.


V6D7tFL.png

sig

Quotes

Memories from DN

ahhh the good old days

Old roblox forever <3




Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users