Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lies, Double Standards, and Hypocrisy

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

2. Corruption and quid pro quo
There are very few democrats who will take pains to defend or explain away clinton's ethical iniquities ... she lies sometimes ... I have little doubt that there is something untoward about her charity accepting donations from foreign officials with whom she conducts government business. But how the hell does Trump have the moral authority to prosecute this case, if he too participates in precisely this kind of quid pro quo? He literally BOASTS about getting politicians to do as he pleases. His own charitable foundation donated $25,000 to a group backing the reelection of Pam Bondi, the florida attorney general, in 2013 at the same time that the attorney general was deciding whether or not to investigate fraud in Trump University. Not only did Bondi subsequently decline to pursue the case, she's now vigorously campaigning for Trump.

And YET Trump is considered more honest and trustworthy than hillary clinton by a wide margin according to recent polls. This is just ... pure lunacy.

3. Criticisms of Obama's visit to Asia.
CNN invited general Michael Flynn to opine on the president's visit to Asia. Regarding duterte's insult and the administration's decision to cancel the meeting with the filipino president, flynn says that [paraphrasing here] Obama should get over it, call duterte an SOB in response, and then proceed with the meeting -- he must confront his problems frontally. Then Wolf Blitzer informs him that Trump argued that he, if president, would have canceled his attendance at the economic summit immediately if he received the sort of disrespect the Obama endured on the tarmac in hangzhou. Wolf asks flynn if he agrees with that perspective. Flynn says yes. Wolf asks whether or not flynn is contradicting himself. Flynn says no. [interview concludes shortly after] So basically... don't get your feelings hurt when conducting government business, except if you're Donald Trump... then it's okay.

Dishonesty, hypocrisy, double standards, and outright lies everywhere ... and it appears to be working for the trump campaign, and the media acts like just a passive bystander to all of it! It's incensing.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:53:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Why? You know this already. Accept it for what it is. The integrity in most journalists and all politicians, whether career or novice, at the federal level, long since flew the coop.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:56:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

3. Criticisms of Obama's visit to Asia.

Do you know if this interview is on youtube? I wanna see it
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:59:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:56:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

3. Criticisms of Obama's visit to Asia.

Do you know if this interview is on youtube? I wanna see it

Pay per view. Lol they'll go at it in Krabi kabong (Filipino martial arts). Manny pacqiao is the ref
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:14:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:56:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

3. Criticisms of Obama's visit to Asia.

Do you know if this interview is on youtube? I wanna see it

It was this afternoon at 1 pm ET, so probably not. I think it's likely to be on youtube or archived on CNN.com soon though.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:16:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.

So are you for some process in whatever variant towards amnesty with vigilant enforcement of the law moving forward?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:19:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:16:42 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.

So are you for some process in whatever variant towards amnesty with vigilant enforcement of the law moving forward?

That's been the broken promise for more than 50 years.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:34:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.

I would respect you more if you were just a *little bit* intellectual honest every once in a while. Why you can't you manage that?

First of all, amnesty was never under consideration -- and as recently as last week Trump announced that undocumented immigrants will be granted legal status only if they leave the country and legally apply for entry (leaving unclear whether this departure would come about through self-deportation or a deportation force).

Second, the border is already strongly enforced. Obama has deported a record number of illegal migrants and prioritizes criminals. The net migration across the southern border is also essentially zero. What trump is proposing is not substantively different from what's already happening ... and the scope of the problem has been drastically overblown.

Third, the wall is the literally the only new solution,.... but a border fence already exists, and obviously hasn't been effective. A wall is a facile and manifestly idiotic response to illegal immigration ... its a costly public works program, the wall cannot span the entire southern border because of the natural topography, and the areas in which it is erected could be easily circumvented. I'll note that trump also proposes to end 'catch-and-release' but that policy already ended ten years ago under Bush.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:36:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:53:19 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Why? You know this already. Accept it for what it is. The integrity in most journalists and all politicians, whether career or novice, at the federal level, long since flew the coop.

No it didn't. The sheer volume of lies and distortions emanating from the trump campaign is worse than anything we've seen in modern political history. This is new. This is uniquely disgusting.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:37:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:34:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.

I would respect you more if you were just a *little bit* intellectual honest every once in a while. Why you can't you manage that?

First of all, amnesty was never under consideration -- and as recently as last week Trump announced that undocumented immigrants will be granted legal status only if they leave the country and legally apply for entry (leaving unclear whether this departure would come about through self-deportation or a deportation force).

Second, the border is already strongly enforced. Obama has deported a record number of illegal migrants and prioritizes criminals. The net migration across the southern border is also essentially zero. What trump is proposing is not substantively different from what's already happening ... and the scope of the problem has been drastically overblown.

Third, the wall is the literally the only new solution,.... but a border fence already exists, and obviously hasn't been effective. A wall is a facile and manifestly idiotic response to illegal immigration ... its a costly public works program, the wall cannot span the entire southern border because of the natural topography, and the areas in which it is erected could be easily circumvented. I'll note that trump also proposes to end 'catch-and-release' but that policy already ended ten years ago under Bush.

Honestly, do you think he would continue the status quo of the broken promise of enforcement plus amnesty?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:38:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:19:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:16:42 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.

So are you for some process in whatever variant towards amnesty with vigilant enforcement of the law moving forward?

That's been the broken promise for more than 50 years.

I don't disagree, I was just seeking clarity on your stance.

For me it's completely impractical to talk about deporting all illegals. Logistically and administratively. But enforcement moving forward must begin, starting with sanctuary cities and loopholes.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:39:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:37:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:34:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.

I would respect you more if you were just a *little bit* intellectual honest every once in a while. Why you can't you manage that?

First of all, amnesty was never under consideration -- and as recently as last week Trump announced that undocumented immigrants will be granted legal status only if they leave the country and legally apply for entry (leaving unclear whether this departure would come about through self-deportation or a deportation force).

Second, the border is already strongly enforced. Obama has deported a record number of illegal migrants and prioritizes criminals. The net migration across the southern border is also essentially zero. What trump is proposing is not substantively different from what's already happening ... and the scope of the problem has been drastically overblown.

Third, the wall is the literally the only new solution,.... but a border fence already exists, and obviously hasn't been effective. A wall is a facile and manifestly idiotic response to illegal immigration ... its a costly public works program, the wall cannot span the entire southern border because of the natural topography, and the areas in which it is erected could be easily circumvented. I'll note that trump also proposes to end 'catch-and-release' but that policy already ended ten years ago under Bush.

Honestly, do you think he would continue the status quo of the broken promise of enforcement plus amnesty?

The rebuttal to your question (and its dubious premises) is contained in the forgoing post. Engage with it or concede.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:40:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:39:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:37:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:34:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.

I would respect you more if you were just a *little bit* intellectual honest every once in a while. Why you can't you manage that?

First of all, amnesty was never under consideration -- and as recently as last week Trump announced that undocumented immigrants will be granted legal status only if they leave the country and legally apply for entry (leaving unclear whether this departure would come about through self-deportation or a deportation force).

Second, the border is already strongly enforced. Obama has deported a record number of illegal migrants and prioritizes criminals. The net migration across the southern border is also essentially zero. What trump is proposing is not substantively different from what's already happening ... and the scope of the problem has been drastically overblown.

Third, the wall is the literally the only new solution,.... but a border fence already exists, and obviously hasn't been effective. A wall is a facile and manifestly idiotic response to illegal immigration ... its a costly public works program, the wall cannot span the entire southern border because of the natural topography, and the areas in which it is erected could be easily circumvented. I'll note that trump also proposes to end 'catch-and-release' but that policy already ended ten years ago under Bush.

Honestly, do you think he would continue the status quo of the broken promise of enforcement plus amnesty?

The rebuttal to your question (and its dubious premises) is contained in the forgoing post. Engage with it or concede.

Engage in what? net zero immigration is a broken promise on enforcement. It should be negative 11 million.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:43:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:40:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:39:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:37:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:34:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:12:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Status quo would be not delivering on the wall and not enforcing the law. Amnesty was always going to be on the table, and it always was in the past in congressional negotiations, but the non-enforcement and the non-wall is the status quo. Do you think Trump will ignore enforcement of immigration laws? Most people just want enforcement and amnesty, When Trump is literally the only person willing to do it. A starving man will eat rat_asshole if offered, and the status quo has starved the public long enough.

I would respect you more if you were just a *little bit* intellectual honest every once in a while. Why you can't you manage that?

First of all, amnesty was never under consideration -- and as recently as last week Trump announced that undocumented immigrants will be granted legal status only if they leave the country and legally apply for entry (leaving unclear whether this departure would come about through self-deportation or a deportation force).

Second, the border is already strongly enforced. Obama has deported a record number of illegal migrants and prioritizes criminals. The net migration across the southern border is also essentially zero. What trump is proposing is not substantively different from what's already happening ... and the scope of the problem has been drastically overblown.

Third, the wall is the literally the only new solution,.... but a border fence already exists, and obviously hasn't been effective. A wall is a facile and manifestly idiotic response to illegal immigration ... its a costly public works program, the wall cannot span the entire southern border because of the natural topography, and the areas in which it is erected could be easily circumvented. I'll note that trump also proposes to end 'catch-and-release' but that policy already ended ten years ago under Bush.

Honestly, do you think he would continue the status quo of the broken promise of enforcement plus amnesty?

The rebuttal to your question (and its dubious premises) is contained in the forgoing post. Engage with it or concede.

Engage in what? net zero immigration is a broken promise on enforcement. It should be negative 11 million.

But you just stated (erroneously) that amnesty was always under consideration and that Trump's willingness to permit law-abiding migrants to remain is in keeping with his promises during the primaries .... what's wrong with you?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:47:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:43:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

But you just stated (erroneously) that amnesty was always under consideration and that Trump's willingness to permit law-abiding migrants to remain is in keeping with his promises during the primaries .... what's wrong with you?

Amnesty plus enforcement has always been the deal before the congress for over 50 years. Trump only recently decided to be the champion of that lost cause, and the public wants that. The people trust Trump to make good on enforcement because that's all he ran on to win the primary. I don't care if he is a flip flopper, he is the people's flip flopper, and a voice the people never had.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:50:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:47:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:43:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

But you just stated (erroneously) that amnesty was always under consideration and that Trump's willingness to permit law-abiding migrants to remain is in keeping with his promises during the primaries .... what's wrong with you?

Amnesty plus enforcement has always been the deal before the congress for over 50 years. Trump only recently decided to be the champion of that lost cause, and the public wants that. The people trust Trump to make good on enforcement because that's all he ran on to win the primary. I don't care if he is a flip flopper, he is the people's flip flopper, and a voice the people never had.

But you JUST said that the fact that net migration is not negative 11 million (i.e. that the current administration is not deporting all undocumented migrants) is evidence that the laws are not being enforced....

In the same breath you insist that donald trump will be an effective enforcer while conceding that he is considering amnesty for the majority of them!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:52:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:50:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:47:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:43:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

But you just stated (erroneously) that amnesty was always under consideration and that Trump's willingness to permit law-abiding migrants to remain is in keeping with his promises during the primaries .... what's wrong with you?

Amnesty plus enforcement has always been the deal before the congress for over 50 years. Trump only recently decided to be the champion of that lost cause, and the public wants that. The people trust Trump to make good on enforcement because that's all he ran on to win the primary. I don't care if he is a flip flopper, he is the people's flip flopper, and a voice the people never had.

But you JUST said that the fact that net migration is not negative 11 million (i.e. that the current administration is not deporting all undocumented migrants) is evidence that the laws are not being enforced....

In the same breath you insist that donald trump will be an effective enforcer while conceding that he is considering amnesty for the majority of them!

Ok wiseguy, you tell me when in the last 50 years that Congress made good on the promise of enforcement plus amnesty. Even Reagan's congress failed.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:59:27 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
Here are three things that made me genuinely angry when I turned on the television this afternoon:

1. Trump prevarication on immigration reform.
Trump essentially won the GOP nomination by promising the summary expulsion of the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country. He mocked and chided every other candidate (not to mention the president) as offering weak approaches to the problem. Just last week, in his much anticipated immigration speech he declared that the only route for undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status is to self-deport. Now he says that he will prioritize criminal immigrants and postpone any decisions respecting the law-abiding immigrants to a later date -- when the border 'is secure.' This is LITERALLY the status quo. He's proposed nothing ... and yet these idiots still cheer for him.

Hahahahahah if you think Trump represents the status quo on immigration you're being ridiculous.

Trump proposes ideological tests, a decrease in legal immigration, an end to H1B abuse, a border wall, an end to sanctuary cities, a ban on muslims, and the deportation of all illegal immigrants. If they want to come back, they have to leave and then get in line with everyone else.

In regards to illegal immigrants, Trump supports enforcing the law (the law that Obama ignores). People like to say he'd never get his agenda through congress--it's already *through* congress. Enforce the law and they will leave. Nobody cares how it's done as long as these people get out.

This is not the status quo. This is a radical and long overdue change to immigration policy.


2. Corruption and quid pro quo
There are very few democrats who will take pains to defend or explain away clinton's ethical iniquities ... she lies sometimes ... I have little doubt that there is something untoward about her charity accepting donations from foreign officials with whom she conducts government business. But how the hell does Trump have the moral authority to prosecute this case, if he too participates in precisely this kind of quid pro quo? He literally BOASTS about getting politicians to do as he pleases. His own charitable foundation donated $25,000 to a group backing the reelection of Pam Bondi, the florida attorney general, in 2013 at the same time that the attorney general was deciding whether or not to investigate fraud in Trump University. Not only did Bondi subsequently decline to pursue the case, she's now vigorously campaigning for Trump.

And YET Trump is considered more honest and trustworthy than hillary clinton by a wide margin according to recent polls. This is just ... pure lunacy.

Trump openly brags about buying off politicians. Everyone knows that he's bought them off, and nobody cares. Similarly, everyone knows that Hillary is bought. Can you say the same about Trump?

There's a reason that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of Wall Street and big business. Trump is the one who is going to bring down the system of money in politics.


3. Criticisms of Obama's visit to Asia.
CNN invited general Michael Flynn to opine on the president's visit to Asia. Regarding duterte's insult and the administration's decision to cancel the meeting with the filipino president, flynn says that [paraphrasing here] Obama should get over it, call duterte an SOB in response, and then proceed with the meeting -- he must confront his problems frontally. Then Wolf Blitzer informs him that Trump argued that he, if president, would have canceled his attendance at the economic summit immediately if he received the sort of disrespect the Obama endured on the tarmac in hangzhou. Wolf asks flynn if he agrees with that perspective. Flynn says yes. Wolf asks whether or not flynn is contradicting himself. Flynn says no. [interview concludes shortly after] So basically... don't get your feelings hurt when conducting government business, except if you're Donald Trump... then it's okay.

Wait...you're saying that a surrogate is applying a double standard?

Color me shocked. Surely Clinton surrogates never do the same thing


Dishonesty, hypocrisy, double standards, and outright lies everywhere ... and it appears to be working for the trump campaign, and the media acts like just a passive bystander to all of it! It's incensing.

Oh yeah, the media is totally biased in favor of Trump: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:04:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:52:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:50:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:47:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:43:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

But you just stated (erroneously) that amnesty was always under consideration and that Trump's willingness to permit law-abiding migrants to remain is in keeping with his promises during the primaries .... what's wrong with you?

Amnesty plus enforcement has always been the deal before the congress for over 50 years. Trump only recently decided to be the champion of that lost cause, and the public wants that. The people trust Trump to make good on enforcement because that's all he ran on to win the primary. I don't care if he is a flip flopper, he is the people's flip flopper, and a voice the people never had.

But you JUST said that the fact that net migration is not negative 11 million (i.e. that the current administration is not deporting all undocumented migrants) is evidence that the laws are not being enforced....

In the same breath you insist that donald trump will be an effective enforcer while conceding that he is considering amnesty for the majority of them!

Ok wiseguy, you tell me when in the last 50 years that Congress made good on the promise of enforcement plus amnesty. Even Reagan's congress failed.

You have to be kidding me ... the point at issue is not that prior administrations have enforced the border strictly.... the point at issue is that donald trump has already reneged (or at least prevaricated) on his promise of deporting all undocumented immigrants. The point at issue is that your support is blatantly dogmatic ... you're contradicting yourself left and right and talking in circles to defend the indefensible.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:04:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:52:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:50:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:47:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:43:51 PM, 000ike wrote:

But you just stated (erroneously) that amnesty was always under consideration and that Trump's willingness to permit law-abiding migrants to remain is in keeping with his promises during the primaries .... what's wrong with you?

Amnesty plus enforcement has always been the deal before the congress for over 50 years. Trump only recently decided to be the champion of that lost cause, and the public wants that. The people trust Trump to make good on enforcement because that's all he ran on to win the primary. I don't care if he is a flip flopper, he is the people's flip flopper, and a voice the people never had.

But you JUST said that the fact that net migration is not negative 11 million (i.e. that the current administration is not deporting all undocumented migrants) is evidence that the laws are not being enforced....

In the same breath you insist that donald trump will be an effective enforcer while conceding that he is considering amnesty for the majority of them!

Ok wiseguy, you tell me when in the last 50 years that Congress made good on the promise of enforcement plus amnesty. Even Reagan's congress failed.

You have to be kidding me ... the point at issue is not that prior administrations have enforced the border strictly.... the point at issue is that donald trump has already reneged (or at least prevaricated) on his promise of deporting all undocumented immigrants. The point at issue is that your support is blatantly dogmatic ... you're contradicting yourself left and right and talking in circles to defend the indefensible.

I already admitted he is late to adopt the broken promise, but there is nobody championing for enforcement. Obama likes to think his band-aid approach will appease the mob, but net-zero essentially means status quo. Still 11 million undocumented problems unsolved.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:14:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:13:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I have to chuckle. Did I really read that the border is strongly enforced? Lol

yep, don't that Obama-aid taste good to a parched throat?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:23:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:14:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:13:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I have to chuckle. Did I really read that the border is strongly enforced? Lol

yep, don't that Obama-aid taste good to a parched throat?

That has got to be one of the most asinine comments I've read on this forum. And I thought city data was bad (at least the mods here aren't thin skinned babies)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:35:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:14:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:13:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I have to chuckle. Did I really read that the border is strongly enforced? Lol

yep, don't that Obama-aid taste good to a parched throat?

so basically...you did not respond to the substance of a single one of my posts, your responses consisted of digressions, evasions, and self-contradictions -- frankly it was like you hadn't even thought through the implications of what you were writing. And now you've triumphantly turned to some echo chamber in which to regurgitate the same positions I just showed to be flawed.

lol I don't even know what to call this.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:39:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:35:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:14:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:13:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I have to chuckle. Did I really read that the border is strongly enforced? Lol

yep, don't that Obama-aid taste good to a parched throat?

so basically...you did not respond to the substance of a single one of my posts, your responses consisted of digressions, evasions, and self-contradictions -- frankly it was like you hadn't even thought through the implications of what you were writing. And now you've triumphantly turned to some echo chamber in which to regurgitate the same positions I just showed to be flawed.

lol I don't even know what to call this.

Like I said what substance? You have an easily debunked claim that the government is enforcing immigration laws adequately. What exactly do you want me to expound upon?

I already said Trump RECENTLY took up this lost cause of enforcement and amnesty, so I agree that he is a flip-flopper, but there is nobody more trustworthy to actually follow through on the enforcement part of the deal. Trump wins by default.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:43:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:35:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:14:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:13:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I have to chuckle. Did I really read that the border is strongly enforced? Lol

yep, don't that Obama-aid taste good to a parched throat?

so basically...you did not respond to the substance of a single one of my posts, your responses consisted of digressions, evasions, and self-contradictions -- frankly it was like you hadn't even thought through the implications of what you were writing. And now you've triumphantly turned to some echo chamber in which to regurgitate the same positions I just showed to be flawed.

lol I don't even know what to call this.

Seems you are basing your numbers on apprehensions... Which means there isn't much to respond to as a net zero claim is a contention that can't be positively or negatively proven
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:45:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:43:31 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:35:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:14:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:13:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I have to chuckle. Did I really read that the border is strongly enforced? Lol

yep, don't that Obama-aid taste good to a parched throat?

so basically...you did not respond to the substance of a single one of my posts, your responses consisted of digressions, evasions, and self-contradictions -- frankly it was like you hadn't even thought through the implications of what you were writing. And now you've triumphantly turned to some echo chamber in which to regurgitate the same positions I just showed to be flawed.

lol I don't even know what to call this.

Seems you are basing your numbers on apprehensions... Which means there isn't much to respond to as a net zero claim is a contention that can't be positively or negatively proven

It's not even that. To show that you are enforcing the laws, the figure should be in the negatives, preferably at least a million to make a dent, even if it's only criminals.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 12:20:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:45:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:43:31 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:35:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:14:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/6/2016 11:13:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I have to chuckle. Did I really read that the border is strongly enforced? Lol

yep, don't that Obama-aid taste good to a parched throat?

so basically...you did not respond to the substance of a single one of my posts, your responses consisted of digressions, evasions, and self-contradictions -- frankly it was like you hadn't even thought through the implications of what you were writing. And now you've triumphantly turned to some echo chamber in which to regurgitate the same positions I just showed to be flawed.

lol I don't even know what to call this.

Seems you are basing your numbers on apprehensions... Which means there isn't much to respond to as a net zero claim is a contention that can't be positively or negatively proven

It's not even that. To show that you are enforcing the laws, the figure should be in the negatives, preferably at least a million to make a dent, even if it's only criminals.

I agree, I was just pointing out the methodology is flawed. They are basing it off border apprehensions, which are down almost 50% since a peak in 07 of 809000.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:21:21 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:56:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/6/2016 9:12:34 PM, 000ike wrote:

3. Criticisms of Obama's visit to Asia.

Do you know if this interview is on youtube? I wanna see it

found it -- just watching this again deeply irritates me.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault