Jump to content

Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

Member Since 11 Jan 2008
Member ID: 17,470
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:37 PM

#7137380 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 15 May 2019 - 11:16 AM

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?




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."

#7136719 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 18 April 2019 - 12:25 PM

To vla1ne

#7136679 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 17 April 2019 - 10:21 AM

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.
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."

#7136672 Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 17 April 2019 - 08:38 AM

I don't support freedom of the press. I don't pretend I do till it helps me to not do so like you though


Okay, glad you confirmed that you don't support the First Amendment.


I'm pretending nothing. Julian Assange, as an individual, is a criminal, and I would like to see him charged as one. That has nothing to do with my support for the freedom of the press.

#7136294 Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 05 April 2019 - 10:01 AM



"The dossier is irrelevant," vla1ne says.

"You're trying to hang an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit," Winter says.


Yeah, you both can cut the crap already. The GOP is still obsessed with the dossier, and are trying to flip this into an investigation against Obama years after he's already left office. Their motive is just "But what about Obama and Clinton?" Spare me the narrative that Trump is some innocent victim when the GOP's main strategy here has been to deflect so they could score political points against people who don't even matter anymore. The dossier remains relevant because Rand Paul has openly admitted that he will continue to block the report until he gets more information about the dossier.

#7136103 Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 31 March 2019 - 04:54 PM

We do not have the report, so your claim of being correct is not a fact. It is confirmation bias. For example, Barr explicitly declined to exonerate Trump on charges of obstruction, but you still claim that charging him for it would be no different than charging an innocent man. Your readiness to claim that Trump is entirely innocent of obstruction has already been contradicted by the summary. So no, you don't get to claim that you're objectively correct..


Again you make a full-fledged prediction, and anticipate to gloat. So yeah, I don't expect an apology. I fully expect that if Congress were to find sufficient evidence to advocate for further indictments, you will call them petty, claim that the evidence they cite is irrelevant, and insist that you're still entirely right.


If the report showed that there was no collusion, why is it taking so long to reveal the report? If it would exonerate Trump, we should have seen it by now. I understand that there are some legal restrictions, but to have the release blocked by McConnell tells me that he and perhaps others among the GOP are afraid of what the real report contains.

#7136099 Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 31 March 2019 - 02:00 PM

I have faith in my argument, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim "I'm right and you're wrong" as though that were an objective fact.


I have no intention of "having a little fun" when you claim that everything I'm criticizing is irrelevant, but everything you focus on is totally relevant. This is not some game to bet on where you decide which cards can be played and every card I bring in should be thrown out.


What I don't have faith in is whether you would actually apologize. You've openly claimed time and again that you are right. You have turned this from a discussion about whether or not Trump is guilty of collusion into your own personal game where you're the winner and I'm the loser. You're trying to goad me into staking my ego on this, and I'd rather not agree to that.


This should be about what happens next regarding the report. Get over your pride and stop trying to score points.

#7136042 Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 30 March 2019 - 08:03 AM

Comey also said the president has a right to fire the FBI director for any reason
So the question remains, is the golden goose here to nail him on obstructing a crime he didn't do?

It would still be obstruction of justice. Whether you think he didn't commit a crime doesn't change that it's already been established that obstruction of justice is a crime unto itself, regardless of whether there is another underlying crime. Barr's weak summary hinges entirely on the idea that if Trump did not commit collusion, then he could not have committed obstruction of justice. Even putting aside the question of collusion, all that needs to be proven is whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, and Barr couldn't even be bothered to exonerate him on that. Do you honestly believe that firing a man because he was investigating you does not count as obstruction of justice?


In other words, Barr thinks you need to do A to be guilty of B, and that if A does not exist, then neither can B. What he's ignoring is that B is its own separate crime, and can still exist by itself, regardless of A.
Given how several of Trump's associates committed perjury, it's highly likely that Trump suborned that perjury. While BuzzFeed's report about Michael Cohen was disputed by Mueller, it does not rule out that other associates lied because they expected rewards from Trump, or because Trump encouraged them to. Despite vla1ne's claims that the charges against Roger Stone were debunked, "This language doesn’t even bother to exonerate Trump’s associate Roger Stone, who during the campaign was in cahoots with WikiLeaks as it dumped Russian-hacked emails that damaged Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Barr’s statements only pertain to the Russian government, not Russian individuals or WikiLeaks or anyone else. This is a crucial distinction, given that we know the Trump campaign knew of and encouraged Stone’s coordination with WikiLeaks."
Meanwhile, Adam Schiff ripped the GOP to shred after the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee made a weak attempt demanding that he step down. Schiff laid out the evidence, and condemns the GOP's complacency in letting Trump get away with it.



Seems like people already forgot the events from the long lost epoch of last month when Matt Gaetz publicly committed witness intimidation. And that was in direct response to this investigation, when he threatened Michael Cohen.


But no, let's please continue to pretend that the GOP is perfectly innocent and absolutely none of them attempted to obstruct justice, because any and all crimes actually occurred before meeting Trump, and not once happened as a result of this investigation. Just make a shallow argument that the Democrats hate Trump just because he's Trump, refuse to consider any possible explanation such as how what Trump and accomplices have done is wrong, and ignore when Republicans commit crimes to protect Trump in full view of the entire world.

#7135748 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 22 March 2019 - 09:51 AM

I mean that's pretty much the meaning of average.  Would you like to know which states would have flipped in 2016 with 200K new voters?

If CNN is allowed, I don't see why Fox Shouldn't be

It's a pretty convenient way of conveying the information. It's been greenlit in the past


You've attacked users for using "lefty sourcing", and dismissed the ACLU for absolutely no reason in this very same thread. You should be prepared to have your own sources held to the same standard. Though Striker was far more generous, since he's at least asking for additional sources to corroborate your meme, rather than snarking about Fox and dismissing them solely because of who they are.


For what it's worth, I have looked this up and did find other sources about the detainments. But the point is that you need to provide them yourself without relying on memes as a substitute for an argument.

#7134888 Historian Rutger Bregman: "@TuckerCarlson, why didn't you air the int...

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 22 February 2019 - 04:58 PM

Bregman criticized how Carlson profits from billionaires, so Carlson lashed out and cursed at him. To then refuse airing the interview is the sort of censorship that Carlson himself would jump at the chance to condemn if anyone else did it. This was a gross negligence of his responsibilities as a journalist. To answer your question, I don’t think he had much credibility to begin with, and this will do little to help that.

#7134798 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 18 February 2019 - 10:35 AM

The issue is that you have offered absolutely no reason for why the Democrats would hate him, other than just saying that they hate him. And I've seen this type of argument before, that someone just hates an individual, but can't offer a reason for it. Is the issue that you cannot understand why Democrats hate Trump, or do you think they have no reason for it?


Among the 59 national emergencies, how many of them were declared after the President


If oncologists and cancer patients are unhappy with Trump's plans for cancer treatment, then why should I expect Democrats to applaud Trump? He also deserves no credit for peace negotiations when he had threatened to destroy North Korea. He banned Jim Acosta from the White House for asking a question, then used a doctored video from InfoWars to slander him.


Trump has tried to circumvent the separation of powers, and has gone out of his way to try and repeal Obamacare. Mitch McConnell was singled out for his hypocrisy in moaning about the opposition to Kavanaugh's nomination, because McConnell personally opposed Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court for absolutely no other reason than Obama nominated him. Republicans viciously hated Obama, as well as Trump.


Trump has also overseen attempts to ban transgender people from the military, and his Muslim ban was nothing short of discrimination. The hatred towards Trump is based entirely on him ruling more from his own irrational hatred than out of anything purely logical. Democrats detest him because he represents a regression in values. At the Munich Security Conference, Pence made a statement expecting an applause, and none of the world leaders present clapped. The United Nations laughed at Trump when he claimed that his administration has accomplish more than any other in history.


When the world is hating Trump, they're judging him for his reactions. I'm not saying that this isn't about Trump. You seem to believe that Democrats hate Trump as if his only crime was existing. My issue is that Trump has consistently operated in bad faith as president. The Russian probe against him is being led by Republicans because of the specific circumstances surrounding the 2016 election. All the hate against him is a reaction to what he has said and done.


If you truly believe that Trump has done nothing to earn the level of scorn he gets, take a step back and try to assess where he has gone wrong. Thankfully, Trump isn't the only president who's been hated this much. He's hated as much as Nixon was before Nixon resigned. Maybe screaming about a witch hunt in an investigation where several of the suspects have been found guilty could have something to do with that.

#7134768 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 17 February 2019 - 11:04 AM

Democrats don't care about illegal immigration cuz it's more votes for them
Most old fashion republicans don't care cuz it's cheap labor
Yeah man, I'll take the ACLUs word over what any non partisan can see with his own eyes
The GOP folded on every bill cuz 1) they're spineless, and 2) they don't really care about illegal immigration 
The democrats all supported a border wall/fence as recent as this decade, but merely oppose it cuz Trump now. 
You never really argue in good faith roxas, but this should be mental gymnastics even for you. I also noticed how you tried to spin Trump's words, and when confronted with that you just started talking about something else. Cute

You're really going to accuse me of arguing in bad faith immediately after you dismiss ACLU without any reason?
Where did I start talking about something else? I've been consistent in discussing the topic, and provided multiple sources beyond the ACLU to back up my argument.


The idea that Democrats only oppose the wall because Trump is the one behind it is something I already talked with vla1ne about here, and I've already argued against that point, with Democrats offering other reasons, such as Trump either not providing a coherent plan, they're supporting the fence that's already in place, or they believe that the amount of asking for is far too excessive. I brought up the quote because he is openly attempting to violate the Revenue Clause of the Constitution because he failed to get the money that he wanted.


There are plenty of other reasons for both parties to refuse funding the wall, and it's not as simple as "They just don't like Trump." Consider those other possibilities before you continue passing off shallow attacks and deflection as coherent arguments.

#7134749 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 16 February 2019 - 04:59 PM





There is no emergency, certainly not at the border. The Democrats are not at fault here, because Trump has either outright lied about where the most vulnerable parts are (Assuming he even knows what they are; it's entirely possible he's just wrong and doesn't realize that), or has ignored the data that contradicts him. The deals rejecting Trump were bipartisan, then either the Republicans owe just as much blame as the Democrats, or if both parties are rejecting Trump, maybe the issue isn't that both parties are willing to let the country be invaded, but that Trump himself is the problem here. Trump's hands are only tied because the wall was his biggest campaign promise, and he's over halfway through his first (And possibly only) term. This isn't him taking a last resort to prevent an imaginary invasion, this is him panicking to deliver on his campaign promise.


Let me put it this way: When your entire campaign hinged on a wall, and people were eager to believe it, it would be completely humiliating to concede that the general consensus from most sources of data prove that the "causes of invasion" come from areas that would not be targeted by the wall. He made his bed, and now he has to lie in it. He also has a history of largely sticking to the same script. Have you ever had a conversation with someone where it felt like it didn't matter what you would say, because the other person seemed to be prefer responding in only one specific way? That's Trump. It doesn't matter what the facts are, he's going to stick to his script.


Democrats and Republicans do both care about border security, but Trump seems to believe that his wall is the only way to achieve ideal border security. While the wall and border security are not one and the same, Trump is treating them as though they are. Opposing the wall doesn't mean that either party opposes border security, and it doesn't mean that they're willing to let the country be invaded. They just don't think the wall that Trump staked his entire campaign on is the ideal way of maximizing border security.

#7134097 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 17 January 2019 - 06:40 PM

Go.com: Trump postpones Pelosi's overseas trip after she proposed State of the
Union delay.

I am not surprised that Trump did this, though I do see the reasoning for this decision.


He's being petty and vindictive because she suggested delaying the State of the Union address. What's also important is that this trip was supposed to be kept under wraps to preserve national security, so he blew the lid on this out of pure spite.


There is no good reasoning it. It was just a stupid move.

#7133840 We have 2 YCMs and thats a problem

Posted by Phantom Roxas on 13 January 2019 - 05:40 PM

Keep NCM active, and allow the community to choose between which site they would rather go on. Nothing's stopping people from posting on both. Having Discord by no means hurt the site, despite it also being a second place for the community, and while that could be because Discord is a much more different format, compared to NCM and YCM sharing their own format, I don't see the harm in having YCM, NCM, and Discord all together.


People will gravitate wherever they feel like. It may not be beneficial to YCM or NCM, but just as long as the community is together, that's what's most important.