"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
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."