DACA, immigration reform whatever

[hayden_horn 11362]

oh well. back to ignoring your bothsiderism. i gave it a go.

[Brisketexan 105154]

 

So...he really said that. For fuck’s sake, the AG of the United States just said that. Jesus fucknuggets.

If it would be proven to you that getting rid of legalized guns would cut down on 98% of violence against children, would you support a Constitutional repeal to hand in your weapons? Not just autos or the issue du jour on the table. Guns would now be illegal to own, or, alternatively, ammunition prices would skyrocket as a deterrent. I don’t think it’s up for debate on whether or not reducing the amount of guns in circulation would reduce, but not eliminate, gun violence. We haven’t even touched on the run of the mill drive-by shootings or anything of that ilk. Is it worth trading your Right for another life?
Second Part: Would you classify current gun restrictions as tactics as well?
These people are ignoring the law. Where do we bend but don’t break? The fact that life goes on while more school shooting happen is pretty repugnant to me too. I don’t think banning guns outright is a viable solution. But it doesn’t mean that we sit around and wait until a solution that please everyone presents itself either.

Don’t understand your second part.

But as for your first...no, I would not support a repeal of the second amendment. I think absolutes in matters of policy are rarely wise.

I also don’t see how that’s remotely analogous to the subject being discussed here. I’m not taking the position that children should be made safe at all costs. I’m saying don’t purposefully inflict harm on them for political gain.

To be honest...I really don’t follow much of your post at all.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Interesting. I think someone should look into how much money Johnny Trustfund is making off illegals. Not saying I'm going to do it, but someone should and maybe report it to someone who might be interested.

Twice now, hes also admitted to racial preference in tenants. This time, he at least kept it implied. Last time, he broke it down, race by race. 

[safe sex 11735]

Never mind, off topic

[Guest]

Anastasis is 100% correct on his criticism of the hysterics.  As far as I can tell, very few people on this forum are actually promoting the separation of children at the border.  I'm confident that if the posters on this thread had to come together to negotiate a new immigration & border policy that an agreeable resolution would be arrived it.  But conceptual agreement and acknowledgment of the problem is not enough for many; one has to react with the appropriate level of outrage and give others the emotional validation the group seeks or they are part of the problem and suspected of being a closet Trumpkin.  

It is never justified or the proper course of action to be hysterical & shrill.  If some extreme case were to occur and we actually need to take up arms against our fellow man over the massive danger or injustice, then even this can be discussed rationally.  In fact, these are especially the types of things that need to be discussed rationally.  I'm not going to take any extreme measures based on mobs of people who are being ruled by emotion and caught into a feedback loop of emotional validation (which is almost every thread on the politics forum).   Argue the points from a reasonable position and reasonable people will listen.  

[Anastasis 23475]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

oh well. back to ignoring your bothsiderism. i gave it a go.

Oh come on man.  You cite upvotes to your post in response to the text I quote to support your posture, and then pivot to framing your disagreement on a different  post. I like you hayden, but come one man.  You are trying to paint me into a corner that I don't occupy. But I am disingenuous. 

[Fozzz 152]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Twice now, hes also admitted to racial preference in tenants. This time, he at least kept it implied. Last time, he broke it down, race by race. 

Taking a page from Fred and Donald. 

[hayden_horn 11362]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Oh come on man.  You cite upvotes to your post in response to the text I quote to support your posture, and then pivot to framing your disagreement on a different  post. I like you hayden, but come one man.  You are trying to paint me into a corner that I don't occupy. But I am disingenuous. 

i'm doing a poor job explaining myself to you. i don't disagree with the things in that first post i quoted. you spent the first sentence or two in that post saying that you agree this policy is bullshit. then you spend the next 60-70% of your words lecturing about the ills of news overload. yes, people reacting to the fish food thing were shrill. okay. that adds nothing to this discussion. whatever. either i'm failing to make it clear that i think your criticism of the shrillness is ill-timed and misplaced in this thread, or you are too ensconced and excited about being in a catbird's seat to lecture others. i don't know which. either way, i failed, and i'll let it go.

[simplicity 9]

21 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

Bullshit.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

[Anastasis 23475]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

i'm doing a poor job explaining myself to you. i don't disagree with the things in that first post i quoted. you spent the first sentence or two in that post saying that you agree this policy is bullshit. then you spend the next 60-70% of your words lecturing about the ills of news overload. yes, people reacting to the fish food thing were shrill. okay. that adds nothing to this discussion. whatever. either i'm failing to make it clear that i think your criticism of the shrillness is ill-timed and misplaced in this thread, or you are too ensconced and excited about being in a catbird's seat to lecture others. i don't know which. either way, i failed, and i'll let it go.

Meh, I think that the criticism is perfectly timed, since the hysterical information overload benefits Trump at precisely the times like these.  I am not sure where the catbird seat is in this case exactly, but I don't think I am anywhere near it. 

 

[Anastasis 23475]

7 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I'm confident that if the posters on this thread had to come together to negotiate a new immigration & border policy that an agreeable resolution would be arrived it.

The posters of this board, bunch of random mostly college educated assholes they are, are far more capable of negotiating common sense public policy than those that our political system has foisted upon us.  But what we need is more status quo from a political system that has proven to be dysfunctional. 

[simplicity 9]

11 hours ago, kevwun said:

It's a slippery slope.  You stop putting kids in cages and the next thing you know, all of of China is trying to illegally immigrate here.

And India, and all the Muslims in the world, and all the Catholics in the world. Dangerous shit man.

[hayden_horn 11362]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Meh, I think that the criticism is perfectly timed, since the hysterical information overload benefits Trump at precisely the times like these.  I am not sure where the catbird seat is in this case exactly, but I don't think I am anywhere near it. 

 

and the timing of it was all i disagreed with. 

i think a secondary problem is that this president does things that would seem outrageous in previous administrations with such appalling frequency that it can become difficult not to get caught up. i certainly feel a kind of overload. it's every fucking day, man. you know it. 

but i heard the kids crying and i saw red. we haven't even verified the recording is real, but we do know that shit is happening. this is the time for the outrage. that's why i singled out your post. anyways. i think we mostly understand each other here. 

[Fozzz 152]

The recording came from reporter at ProPublica, not some rando on twitter.  That group does excellent investigative reporting. 

[Spankytoes 1742]

58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So...he really said that. For fuck’s sake, the AG of the United States just said that. Jesus fucknuggets.

Don’t understand your second part.

But as for your first...no, I would not support a repeal of the second amendment. I think absolutes in matters of policy are rarely wise.

I also don’t see how that’s remotely analogous to the subject being discussed here. I’m not taking the position that children should be made safe at all costs. I’m saying don’t purposefully inflict harm on them for political gain.

To be honest...I really don’t follow much of your post at all.

Fair enough. The main question is whether or not you have a price for your freedom. As you stated, you would not repeal the 2nd even if doing so would make this country safer for children. (Correct me if I am misinterpreting your stance) That’s the heart of the matter. The emotional response is “You hate children you monster!”. That’s not the correct response though. Getting shot at school is way far down in the list of dangers our children face. (Though much more of a fear than when we were in school, interestingly enough) That’s why laws are debated and voted on and Parkland kids going on TV will ultimately lead to nothing changing.

I think you’re taking the emotional stance for this particular policy though. I think we can both agree that there is an illegal immigration problem. We have tried several different solutions, none of which worked because the deterrents aren’t strong enough to weigh as a risk. We’re not going to kill anyone as a solution, we can also agree with that. These tactics are being put in place as a much stronger deterrent for breaking our immigration laws. This isn’t a “sorry officer, I didn’t know that I couldn’t do that” scenario nor is it black guys being arrested at Starbucks for loitering. If you want to immigrate to America, follow the law or make other plans. If you do not try to circumvent this, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. We are going to be 100% crystal clear on the consequences, which will be fully enforced now. No more winks and a nudge with the enactment of policies. I’m not sure how this is an unreasonable stance to take to uphold the law. We aren’t snatching kids from foreign countries or calling them collateral damage because they are bombed in some village in the ME. The children are just as innocent in all this as the ones that died so that you could keep your Right to own guns, except, their parents had a choice. That’s why I accept the decision, as deplorable as it is as a parent. The revolving door has got to stop. We can’t use children as human shields to ignore the problem and the offenders have got to start listening to us.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Spankytoes

[Fozzz 152]

Going to need a pretty strong to deterrent to prevent someone from fleeing a situation that may entail the rape and murder of their children, spanky. If only you were able to get a taste of that kind of desperation. 

[Spankytoes 1742]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Going to need a pretty strong to deterrent to prevent someone from fleeing a situation that may entail the rape and murder of their children, spanky. If only you were able to get a taste of that kind of desperation. 

Make no mistake, I 100% understand the why and if I were in that situation, I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the exact same thing. But, as I’ve stated, a father’s justice against the person suspected of raping and murdering their child isn’t a plausible defense in the court of law. Even if it’s certainly understandable. There is a legal process, even if it’s not the popular one.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Spankytoes

[EMAWesome 101]

[FondrenRoad 4378]

20 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Fair enough. The main question is whether or not you have a price for your freedom. As you stated, you would not repeal the 2nd even if doing so would make this country safer for children. (Correct me if I am misinterpreting your stance) That’s the heart of the matter. The emotional response is “You hate children you monster!”. That’s not the correct response though. Getting shot at school is way far down in the list of dangers our children face. That’s why laws are debated and voted on and Parkland kids going on TV will ultimately lead to nothing changing.

I think you’re taking the emotional stance for this particular policy though. I think we can both agree that there is an illegal immigration problem. We have tried several different solutions, none of which worked because the deterrents aren’t strong enough to weigh as a risk. We’re not going to kill anyone as a solution, we can also agree with that. These tactics are being put in place as a much stronger deterrent for breaking our immigration laws. This isn’t a “sorry officer, I didn’t know that I couldn’t do that” scenario nor is it black guys being arrested at Starbucks for loitering. If you want to immigrate to America, follow the law or make other plans. If you do not try to circumvent this, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. We are going to be 100% crystal clear on the consequences, which will be fully enforced now. I’m not sure how this is an unreasonable stance to take to uphold the law. We aren’t snatching kids from foreign countries or calling them collateral damage because they are bombed in some village in the ME. The children are just as innocent in all this as the ones that died so that you could keep your Right to own guns, except, their parents had a choice. That’s why I accept the decision, as deplorable as it is as a parent. The revolving door has got to stop.

So if you were a parent living in an actual warzone, youd just chill out there until your kid is killed or forced into a gang? Or do you fight the gang and leave your kid an orphan in said warzone? You know cuz laws said you couldn't come? 

What you dont understand is that taking their children at the border isnt a detterent.  It just makes you inhumane. They're still going to come because having a long temporary separation from their child is better than having a dead child. 

It's almost as if none of you have truly ever faced any adversity or actual threat to your family. And this from people who say shit like "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." People are going to do what's best for their kids just like you do.  If that means they have to deal with you being a dick and taking a crying baby off their tit for 6 months then they'll deal with that. And theyll still be making a better choice for their child than staying in their home country. You'll just be a bigger asshole than you needed to be. 

What about this then? Let's say you're backpacking in an arid place in the US West with your kids. One of them is showing signs of heat exhaustion. You come across a nearby cabin. Nobody is there and the door is locked.  Do you break in, look for, and steal water?  Or let your kid die instead of breaking the law? 

Edited June 19, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Spankytoes 1742]

39 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The posters of this board, bunch of random mostly college educated assholes they are, are far more capable of negotiating common sense public policy than those that our political system has foisted upon us.  But what we need is more status quo from a political system that has proven to be dysfunctional. 

But if Surly came up with it, the posters at Texas would reject it out of principle. We as citizens aren’t any better than those that govern. 

[Spankytoes 1742]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

So if you were a parent living in an actual warzone, youd just chill out there until your kid is killed or forced into a gang? Or do you fight the gang and leave your kid an orphan in said warzone? You know cuz laws said you couldn't come? 

What you dont understand is that taking their children at the border isnt a detterent.  It just makes you inhumane. They're still going to come because having a long temporary separation from their child is better than having a dead child. 

It's almost as if none of you have truly ever faced any adversity or actual threat to your family. And this from people who say shit like "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." People are going to do what's best for their kids just like you do.  If that means they have to deal with you being a dick and taking a crying baby off their tit for 6 months then they'll deal with that. And theyll still be making a better choice for their child than staying in their home country. You'll just be a bigger asshole than you needed to be. 

What about this then? Let's say you're backpacking in an arid place in the US West with your kids. One of them is showing signs of heat exhaustion. You come across a nearby cabin. Nobody is there and the door is locked.  Do you break in, look for, and steal water?  Or let your kid die instead of breaking the law? 

Look 4 posts up.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Spankytoes

[bad_teammate 13215]

6 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

1) Hillary is terrible.

2) She isn't advocating taking kids away from their parents.

So... congrats? Trump, yet again, is a lot worse than the god-awful Hillary Clinton.

[Fozzz 152]

7 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

 

Don't know if this has been discussed here, but Hillary is pretty shitty.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Spankytoes said:

Look 2 posts up.

I see that now. It doesnt answer the question though. This is about avoiding that rape and murder and not seeking justice for a rape or murder after the fact. Everybody thinks they'd be Man on Fire even though they probably wouldn't. 

What youd do is try to get your child a chance at life, so of course youd do the same as immigrants are doing. And maybe the place you try to escape to kicks you out, maybe they dont. Either way, they dont have to take your infant from your wife's tit for 6 months.  They can be humane and keep you together whatever they decide to do. 

There is no shortage of people who aren't suffering, come over from Europe as a visa waiver tourist, and wait tables, or nanny, or do gig work. They actually could be kicked out and go back to a similar lifestyle in their country. You could get them to voluntarily leave by causing them even minor inconveniences. We dont target them though. We only target the suffering, intentionally and openly even, as a "deterrent."

[EMAWesome 101]

I just don't remember any political blowback over her remarks.  CNN would have a cow if Trump made these remarks.

[bad_teammate 13215]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The hysterical reaction to everything Trump does (OMG he dumped out the fish food! da tweets!) washes out the real deplorable shit that needs to be confronted head on.

Anastasis, you are the worst fucking pundit going. The most anodyne, smooth-brained CNN Twitter hot-take-maker given breath.

You have no god damned idea what washes anything else out in anyone else's mind.

[bad_teammate 13215]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I just don't remember any political blowback over her remarks.  CNN would have a cow if Trump made these remarks.

So she should've been equally criticized as Trump for saying way less offensive and stupid things? Sensitive white boys always so sad.

[Pancho 44856]

 

[Spankytoes 1742]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1) Hillary is terrible.

2) She isn't advocating taking kids away from their parents.

So... congrats? Trump, yet again, is a lot worse than the god-awful Hillary Clinton.

She didn’t win the election, and she’s has no influence in law making, so why does her opinion matter? She did, however, take kids away from their parents in Benghazi and then try to cover it up for political gain. Not to mention a slush fund alleging to help children worldwide.

You’re right, she is terrible. She lost to Donald Fucking Trump.

[bad_teammate 13215]

1 minute ago, Spankytoes said:

She didn’t win the election, and she’s has no influence in law making, so why does her opinion matter? She did, however, take kids away from their parents in Benghazi and then try to cover it up for political gain. Not to mention a slush fund alleging to help children worldwide.

You’re right, she is terrible. She lost to Donald Fucking Trump.

Oh OK cool you're a crazy person. Nice.

[hobbes2702 13045]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Oh OK cool you're a crazy person. Nice.

Yep

[atomheartbevo 89727]

34 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

Suck it libcucks?

Stunning that the Republicans are willing to give it all away for Donald’s ego. 

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

Hillary is Abe Fucking Lincoln compared to Trump.

[bad_teammate 13215]

The man responsible for "Godwin's Law"...

 

[zork 629]

Hillary fundraising, for another run ?!?, off the DACA deal:

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-fundraises-off-border-humanitarian-crisis/

Edited June 19, 2018 by zork

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

Godwin's Law doesn't apply when you're talking about far right politicians with authoritarian proclivities. 

[JukeJointJunkie 43]

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hillary is Abe Fucking Lincoln 

After Ford's Theater?

[Chuckie Finster 22700]

Hillary fundraising, for another run ?!?, off the DACA deal:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-fundraises-off-border-humanitarian-crisis/

It says what the money is for in the article, you lunatic.

[achooloco 1072]

6 hours ago, Aphelion said:

 As far as I can tell, very few people on this forum are actually promoting the separation of children at the border.  ..:  But conceptual agreement and acknowledgment of the problem is not enough for many; one has to react with the appropriate level of outrage and give others the emotional validation the group seeks or they are part of the problem and suspected of being a closet Trumpkin.  ... If some extreme case were to occur and we actually need to take up arms against our fellow man over the massive danger or injustice, then even this can be discussed rationally.  In fact, these are especially the types of things that need to be discussed rationally.  I'm not going to take any extreme measures based on mobs of people who are being ruled by emotion and caught into a feedback loop of emotional validation (which is almost every thread on the politics forum).   Argue the points from a reasonable position and reasonable people will listen.  

Deleted in part but I don’t think unfairly, or with any intent to misinterpret, I’m just on my phone.  

Htown, equinox, random idiot, indredulity maybe? and bayafuga fugabaya or whatever dumbfuck name that poster has. They’ve taken turns mass posting for over a day now.  It is a very vocal group on par in number with those who can’t stomach child abuse so your observation of “a few” rings hollow and untrue.

Honest question, how much more extreme can you stomach?! Where is your line? It’s fucking kids yo, kids. One parent already committed suicide. But you’re ok with that I see. But hey, i also see you’re cool with government sanctioned child abuse? And that isn’t hyperbole, that is from the  president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. You’re mr. thumbs up guy when nursing babies are kidnapped from their mothers? If they take away your kid, you haven’t seen them in weeks, and the government has NO PLAN to reunite you, that’s fucking kidnapping. You can call it whatever the hell whitewashed sterilized government Fox News propaganda term you want but it is a distinction without a difference for anyone with an ounce of morality, ethics, or intelligence. You’re fuck yeah Amerikkka when little kids are scolded for playing and kept in cages and a guard chooses to quit instead of separating siblings who are hugging? At what point does it get so bad that you are willing to discuss child abuse since it is then normalized? 

At what point do you think the government has gone too far if the above just makes you go “meh”?

[HenryJames 66120]

 

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

I like how Trump is supposedly just enforcing Obama's policy but Obama was weak on immigration.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Obama was nicknamed “deporter in chief” but Trump will never call him that...you know why.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Dbeasy 15068]

I’m still a little confused. Is the only reason they are separating the kids is to serve as a deterrent? Is there no other reason?

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m still a little confused. Is the only reason they are separating the kids is to serve as a deterrent? Is there no other reason?

The reason they are separating kids is to whip up their xenophobic, racist base.

The reasons they are giving for separating kids are:

1. to serve as a deterrent

2. because of an imaginary law requiring them to separate kids

3. lie that they aren't separating kids

4. but Obama

[Captainant 27680]

5 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m still a little confused. Is the only reason they are separating the kids is to serve as a deterrent? Is there no other reason?

And SHS said they won't accept any bill to end separations that doesn't include funding for the wall. So they're also using these abused children as leverage. 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

And SHS said they won't accept any bill to end separations that doesn't include funding for the wall. So they're also using these abused children as leverage. 

They don't actually want a wall.  Hell, Schumer offered wall funding in return for DACA passage, and Trump turned it down.  They want to continue to use MS-13 and racism in their 2018 and 2020 ads and at Trump rallies.  They don't want a solution to any of this.

It's all about libtard tears and whipping up the GOP base.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

9 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m still a little confused. Is the only reason they are separating the kids is to serve as a deterrent? Is there no other reason?

Yeah, it's a manufactured problem that they are trying to unload on the democrats so that democrats will approve funding for the wall that Mexico will pay for. 

[Js1 85402]

 

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

They don't actually want a wall.  Hell, Schumer offered wall funding in return for DACA passage, and Trump turned it down.  They want to continue to use MS-13 and racism in their 2018 and 2020 ads and at Trump rallies.  They don't want a solution to any of this.

It's all about libtard tears and whipping up the GOP base.

The House GOP bill had DACA, wall funding and separations. Trump shot it down on his impromptu Pravda interview on the WH grounds with Fox and Friends 

[retread 2951]

5 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

They don't actually want a wall.  Hell, Schumer offered wall funding in return for DACA passage, and Trump turned it down.  They want to continue to use MS-13 and racism in their 2018 and 2020 ads and at Trump rallies.  They don't want a solution to any of this.

It's all about libtard tears and whipping up the GOP base.

The Wall is just a buzz word for the true believers in Cheeto. Just like MS-13, flooding across the border, witch hunt, etc. They lap it up and think that he really cares about them.

You're right. I don't think DOTUS cares about much of anything besides playing president.

[Anastasis 23475]

6 minutes ago, retread said:

The Wall is just a buzz word for the true believers in Cheeto. Just like MS-13, flooding across the border, witch hunt, etc. They lap it up and think that he really cares about them.

You're right. I don't think DOTUS cares about much of anything besides playing president.

Ratings.