(01-10-2020 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic response to the 'droning':

Yes, he was a murderer, and a terrorist, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of US personnel and civilians, and was most likely planning to kill more United States citizens and military....... but.....

That position is not a weird one to have. The possibility of taking out Soleimani has apparently been on the table for multiples presidents, and the action wasn't taken because of the potential consequences. And, from what I've heard, that option was put out there as a way to encourage POTUS' to take a more measured approach.

Maybe that decision was wrong to delay the action, but not being supportive of the decision because of the potential repercussions is well within the bounds of logic and patriotism.

(01-10-2020 12:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Before responding to the particulars, a few extremely quick points. (1) Do either of you think Trump's handling of immigration policy along the southern border has been a foreign policy win? Because that is the only point I made initially. (2) We have discussed border policy on this board before and I'm not sure it is worth rehashing unless someone has changed their position. https://csnbbs.com/thread-881363-post-16...id16274509

I don't consider this a foreign policy issue.

Quote:

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  True, this country had open immigration for a long time. At the same time, they had no income tax. So if we must return to the 1840's, let's do it on both issues.

Who is arguing for open immigration? I'm not. I am fine with caps and quotas.

so what is the problem with returning illegals or stopping illegals? people who come in under caps and quotas are by definition legal.

Quote:

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Emma Lazurus was a poet. should we also take the writings of Whiman, Frost, and Sandburgs as policy guides? There is a great poem about the postal service - neither rain nor snow, etc. Should we codify that as policy?

The New Colossus is an extremely famous poem with perhaps the USA's most recognizable landmark. I consider it to be a story of the USA's history and an ideal to which this country should strive (within reason). Unless you're native american, alaska native, or eskimo, you are the descendant of immigrants or an immigrant. So no, I don't think other random poems should be codified as policy. I don't think this poem should be codified as policy either and never said so. It is an ideal that policymakers should keep in their mind while devising policy. Who we are as a country and where we came from matters.

It might have been a snapshot of the history then, just like slavery and starvation. But that was then, and this is now.

BTW, the Native Americans, alaska natives, and Eskimos you speak of are also the descendants of immigrants, just that their immigrant forebearers were farther back in time. Their ancestor immigrated to the Americas across the Bering Land Bridge.

Quote:

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If this country has a need a for uneducated and unskilled workers, then the ones wading the river will do just fine.

I think certain industries (agriculture, construction, Trump hotels and golf courses) do have such a need. I'd rather have those people here in the system on green cards than here illegally.

Clearly, anyone on a green card is here legally, so that is NOT who we are talking about. They should come in legally on a guest worker program.

Quote:

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think during the latest crises, they have been. I think the media representations - and Democratic representations - of ICE agents as heartless Nazis who love mistreating children are both false and overblown. They are a bunch of people who were caught between competing directives and using overwhelmed facilities. I have broken bread with them - they are people just like you and me. About half are Hispanic themselves.

I have represented ICE twice. I agree with your assessment of most agents that I have worked with. But there are some bad apples, as I have met a couple of them as well. I agree that part of the problem is overwhelmed facilities. I'd also argue part of it is inadequate facilities, and at times the for-profit nature of the facilities. I am concerned that the particular nature of ICE work does draw a disproportionate number of bad apples compared to other law enforcement agencies, but I don't have evidence for that and it is just a concern of mine.

Well, I think the nature of the work by the FBI does draw a disproportionate number of bad apples - Strok, Page, McCabe, et al. But put any Federal agency in a position dealing with 5-10 times the demand and outdated instructions that have the force of law, and inadequate facilities, and **** will happen. I think this could apply to your office as well.

Quote:

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yet any desire to stem illegal immigration is cast by one side as racist, and any action to do so is cast by that same side as nazi-like.

I think your categorization is misleading, most people on the left complaining about the situation at the southern border and immigration are staying away from casting this as racist or nazi-like. Its unfair to group all of us together, just like it would be unfair for me to group people on the right with the proud boys. That said, from Stephen Miller's emails to Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comment, the Trump administration has taken some justified criticism for its handling of race issues and the southern border. Separating kids from parents en masse is a horrible policy, especially when those kids are getting lost in the system, being kept in poor conditions, and sometimes dying from easily preventable problems while in custody. That is a legitimate source of complaint and a stain on the USA.

Concentration camps

She was the one also who said that detainees were being forced to drink from toilets. She is on your team.

I may be wrong, but were not the separations under Obama era guidelines?

In any case, this goes back directly to my statements about dealing with a flood of illegals without the benefit of facilities.

As for "very fine people", I think that judgement depends on more than one factor. You guys tend to base it all on one item, and that on perception, not fact.

Is a person who thinks Confederate statues should be left in place, takes care of his invalid mother, and volunteers at the hospital a horrible person?

How about a person who thinks the statues should be pulled down, cheats on his taxes, and cheats on his wife? Is he a good person?

and while most of the illegal immigrants on the southern border are in fact brown of skin, the actions are not taken on that basis.

(01-10-2020 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic response to the 'droning':

Yes, he was a murderer, and a terrorist, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of US personnel and civilians, and was most likely planning to kill more United States citizens and military....... but.....

Lad's response was as good as anything I was going to write. But to add to it ...

There are a lot of horrible people in the world. Many of those horrible people have been involved in attacking or planning attacks on the USA. The USA has never had the policy of going after every single one of those individuals. This is particularly true when those individuals are government officials as opposed to non-state actors. So the question with the decision to take out Soleimani is "why now?". Secretary of State Pompeo has repeatedly said it was because Soleimani was helping plan an imminent attack against Americans. That is an excellent reason to take out Soleimani if it helped prevent such attacks from happening. Now that Trump has taken the action, he should justify the action to Congress and other international parties in a way that draws support from those other interests.

(01-10-2020 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that democrats view a steady stream of illegal immigrants as a steady supply of future democrat voters. That is all.

You write a lot of smart, well-supported things. Some of them I agree with and some I don't. I think this is not smart or well-supported. I rarely hear democrats talk about increasing immigration (even I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about shifting some of the illegal immigrants to legal so that the government has a better handle on them). I have even more rarely heard democrats discuss immigration as a way to create new voters. To the extent it exists, it is so far down the list of reasons why Democrats disagree with the Trump administration on immigration issues that it is barely a bump.

(01-10-2020 03:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that democrats view a steady stream of illegal immigrants as a steady supply of future democrat voters. That is all.

You write a lot of smart, well-supported things. Some of them I agree with and some I don't. I think this is not smart or well-supported. I rarely hear democrats talk about increasing immigration (even I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about shifting some of the illegal immigrants to legal so that the government has a better handle on them). I have even more rarely heard democrats discuss immigration as a way to create new voters. To the extent it exists, it is so far down the list of reasons why Democrats disagree with the Trump administration on immigration issues that it is barely a bump.

You're a democrat. You wouldn't agree.

But take a look at everything democrats support in this area, and tell me that you don't see a pattern. No wall, so more get through. Catch and release, so we lose control. Sanctuary cities, so they have a place to go. Get rid of ICE, so there is no follow-up enforcement. Make them citizens ASAP. And give the vote too illegals. It's a very clear plan.

(01-10-2020 02:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  BTW, the Native Americans, alaska natives, and Eskimos you speak of are also the descendants of immigrants, just that their immigrant forebearers were farther back in time. Their ancestor immigrated to the Americas across the Bering Land Bridge.

This is obvious and I'm not sure why you are bothering to explain it to a fellow Rice grad. However, the ancestors of Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Eskimos came to this continent before there was a government or country. So they do not technically fit any of the definitions of "immigrant" that I have seen.

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Concentration camps

She was the one also who said that detainees were being forced to drink from toilets. She is on your team.

(01-10-2020 02:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I think the nature of the work by the FBI does draw a disproportionate number of bad apples - Strok, Page, McCabe, et al.

I have no interest in discussing complaints about the typical conservative boogeymen (and boogeywomen). AOC is certainly one of the most liberal people in the Congress and represents a very liberal district. I imagine 99% of Democrats fall somewhere between her and Joe Manchin. So I'm happy to discuss the position of the boogewoman like AOC if you also want to include the positions of conservative Democrats. Otherwise, it isn't worth the time. AOC speaks for the Democratic party just as much or as little as Joe Manchin. The press focuses on her because she is young, attractive, outspoken, won a primary against an insider Democrat, and takes fringe positions. She gets a disproportionate amount of attention relative to her actual power, but that doesn't mean she has done anything to justify getting a disproportionate amount of my attention. I'm honestly a little perplexed that she has been able to draw so much attention from conservatives and Republicans. I basically ignore her as much as I do the vast majority of Democrats in Congress.

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I may be wrong, but were not the separations under Obama era guidelines?

From what I have read, there were a very very few and but those were limited to situations where the parent needed to be in actual jail for a crime other than an illegal border crossing. Also, I haven't read anything about separated kids dying while detained during the Obama administration or getting lost in the system.

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is a person who thinks Confederate statues should be left in place, takes care of his invalid mother, and volunteers at the hospital a horrible person?

How about a person who thinks the statues should be pulled down, cheats on his taxes, and cheats on his wife? Is he a good person?

This is silly. The "very fine people" comment wasn't about people peacefully protesting the removal of confederate statutes. There were plenty of those in New Orleans when some Confederate statues were taken down (something I am personally aware of since I was 2nd chair for the federal government in one of the lawsuits regarding the removal of the statues by the City of New Orleans).

The very fine people included these guys (all BBC cites since everyone seems OK with the BBC as a relatively neutral and reliable source).

A reckoning in Charlottesville - 8/13/17

Quote:In the middle of Emancipation Park in Charlottesville on Saturday, two young women, one white and one black, took each other's hands and held them tightly, and with their other hands they gripped the steel barrier in front of them.

A few feet away, a young white man with a buzzed haircut and sunglasses leaned towards them over a facing barrier. "You'll be on the first f*****g boat home," he screamed at the black woman, before turning to the white woman. "And as for you," he said coolly, "you're going straight to hell." Then he gave a Nazi salute.

Quote:In a column they surged into the park, using sticks and their fists to shove aside anti-fascist counter-protesters. Then they blocked off the entrance with shields. Inside, David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, grinned and waved as the crowd, almost entirely white and male, cheered him on, chanting his name and putting their arms up in Nazi salutes.

They had reason to be pleased. They were in the middle of the largest gathering of white nationalists in America for decades.

Quote:In the park, in a pen ringed by steel barriers, the nationalists shouted anti-immigrant, anti-semitic and racist slogans and targeted white women counter-protesters, calling them "traitors" who "needed to get subjugated".

Quote:They chanted "Blood and soil" - an old Nazi slogan - and "Jews will not replace us".

At the base of the university's statue of Thomas Jefferson, on the Main Street side of the campus, they were met by university students who came to resist them, linking arms and surrounding the statue. The air was hot from the torches and acrid from smoke.

"The heat here is nothing compared to what you're going to get in the ovens," shouted Robert Ray, a writer for the white supremacist website Daily Stormer. "It's coming," he spat.

The Charlottesville rally was organized Richard Spencer.

US white nationalist Richard Spencer's wife says he abused her - 10/24/18

Quote:Richard Spencer first rose to prominence when he led chants of "Hail Trump" to a Nazi-saluting group in Washington after the US president's election victory.

(01-10-2020 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that democrats view a steady stream of illegal immigrants as a steady supply of future democrat voters. That is all.

You write a lot of smart, well-supported things. Some of them I agree with and some I don't. I think this is not smart or well-supported. I rarely hear democrats talk about increasing immigration (even I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about shifting some of the illegal immigrants to legal so that the government has a better handle on them). I have even more rarely heard democrats discuss immigration as a way to create new voters. To the extent it exists, it is so far down the list of reasons why Democrats disagree with the Trump administration on immigration issues that it is barely a bump.

You're a democrat. You wouldn't agree.

But take a look at everything democrats support in this area, and tell me that you don't see a pattern. No wall, so more get through. Catch and release, so we lose control. Sanctuary cities, so they have a place to go. Get rid of ICE, so there is no follow-up enforcement. Make them citizens ASAP. And give the vote too illegals. It's a very clear plan.

Its pretty easy to explain. Most Democrats don't support the things you ascribe to us, or at least in the way you try to ascribe them.

No wall ... because a wall wouldn't be very effective and is much more expensive than other methods that work better.

Catch and release, so we lose control ... can't find a BBC article to make us all happy, but here's a PolitiFact article noting that 23% to 28% skip hearings but the precentage that skip is much lower amongst asylum seekers (and most of the current immigration problem involves non-Mexican asylum seekers). So my point is that this policy, even if it is supported by Democrats (which is hardly an accurate characterization of the whole party) does not lead to a loss of control.

Get rid of ICE ... the Democrats supporting this do not argue that there should not be law enforcement agents at the border, just that ICE shouldn't be that agency and that it needs to be restructured.

Make them citizens ASAP ... who says this? Do you have any citations at all? Sounds like a fever dream brought on by a conservative red herring.

And give the vote too illegals ... who says this? Do you have any citations at all? Sounds like a fever dream brought on by a conservative red herring.

(01-10-2020 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic response to the 'droning':

Yes, he was a murderer, and a terrorist, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of US personnel and civilians, and was most likely planning to kill more United States citizens and military....... but.....

That position is not a weird one to have. The possibility of taking out Soleimani has apparently been on the table for multiples presidents, and the action wasn't taken because of the potential consequences. And, from what I've heard, that option was put out there as a way to encourage POTUS' to take a more measured approach.

Maybe that decision was wrong to delay the action, but not being supportive of the decision because of the potential repercussions is well within the bounds of logic and patriotism.

I mean, what you are saying is that you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same.

And from that, you must see how the position of the opposition to the droning actually seems to be fairly copacetic in allowing a directed murdering of US personnel.

Edited to add: Not a single Democratic member of the Senate has lent their support to a Republican-driven congressional effort to praise the U.S. military and intelligence community members who helped carry out the successful strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani. The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Yay team!

(01-10-2020 04:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  BTW, the Native Americans, alaska natives, and Eskimos you speak of are also the descendants of immigrants, just that their immigrant forebearers were farther back in time. Their ancestor immigrated to the Americas across the Bering Land Bridge.

This is obvious and I'm not sure why you are bothering to explain it to a fellow Rice grad. However, the ancestors of Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Eskimos came to this continent before there was a government or country. So they do not technically fit any of the definitions of "immigrant" that I have seen.

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Concentration camps

She was the one also who said that detainees were being forced to drink from toilets. She is on your team.

(01-10-2020 02:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I think the nature of the work by the FBI does draw a disproportionate number of bad apples - Strok, Page, McCabe, et al.

I have no interest in discussing complaints about the typical conservative boogeymen (and boogeywomen). AOC is certainly one of the most liberal people in the Congress and represents a very liberal district. I imagine 99% of Democrats fall somewhere between her and Joe Manchin. So I'm happy to discuss the position of the boogewoman like AOC if you also want to include the positions of conservative Democrats. Otherwise, it isn't worth the time. AOC speaks for the Democratic party just as much or as little as Joe Manchin. The press focuses on her because she is young, attractive, outspoken, won a primary against an insider Democrat, and takes fringe positions. She gets a disproportionate amount of attention relative to her actual power, but that doesn't mean she has done anything to justify getting a disproportionate amount of my attention. I'm honestly a little perplexed that she has been able to draw so much attention from conservatives and Republicans. I basically ignore her as much as I do the vast majority of Democrats in Congress.

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I may be wrong, but were not the separations under Obama era guidelines?

From what I have read, there were a very very few and but those were limited to situations where the parent needed to be in actual jail for a crime other than an illegal border crossing. Also, I haven't read anything about separated kids dying while detained during the Obama administration or getting lost in the system.

(01-10-2020 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is a person who thinks Confederate statues should be left in place, takes care of his invalid mother, and volunteers at the hospital a horrible person?

How about a person who thinks the statues should be pulled down, cheats on his taxes, and cheats on his wife? Is he a good person?

This is silly. The "very fine people" comment wasn't about people peacefully protesting the removal of confederate statutes. There were plenty of those in New Orleans when some Confederate statues were taken down (something I am personally aware of since I was 2nd chair for the federal government in one of the lawsuits regarding the removal of the statues by the City of New Orleans).

The very fine people included these guys (all BBC cites since everyone seems OK with the BBC as a relatively neutral and reliable source).

A reckoning in Charlottesville - 8/13/17

Quote:In the middle of Emancipation Park in Charlottesville on Saturday, two young women, one white and one black, took each other's hands and held them tightly, and with their other hands they gripped the steel barrier in front of them.

A few feet away, a young white man with a buzzed haircut and sunglasses leaned towards them over a facing barrier. "You'll be on the first f*****g boat home," he screamed at the black woman, before turning to the white woman. "And as for you," he said coolly, "you're going straight to hell." Then he gave a Nazi salute.

Quote:In a column they surged into the park, using sticks and their fists to shove aside anti-fascist counter-protesters. Then they blocked off the entrance with shields. Inside, David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, grinned and waved as the crowd, almost entirely white and male, cheered him on, chanting his name and putting their arms up in Nazi salutes.

They had reason to be pleased. They were in the middle of the largest gathering of white nationalists in America for decades.

Quote:In the park, in a pen ringed by steel barriers, the nationalists shouted anti-immigrant, anti-semitic and racist slogans and targeted white women counter-protesters, calling them "traitors" who "needed to get subjugated".

Quote:They chanted "Blood and soil" - an old Nazi slogan - and "Jews will not replace us".

At the base of the university's statue of Thomas Jefferson, on the Main Street side of the campus, they were met by university students who came to resist them, linking arms and surrounding the statue. The air was hot from the torches and acrid from smoke.

"The heat here is nothing compared to what you're going to get in the ovens," shouted Robert Ray, a writer for the white supremacist website Daily Stormer. "It's coming," he spat.

The Charlottesville rally was organized Richard Spencer.

US white nationalist Richard Spencer's wife says he abused her - 10/24/18

Quote:Richard Spencer first rose to prominence when he led chants of "Hail Trump" to a Nazi-saluting group in Washington after the US president's election victory.

Perhaps you should use all of Trump's comment, in context, next time. Trump very specifically excluded the people you cite in his own statements. But, why let actual context and actual words get in the way.

Quote:“I am not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Good grief.

(01-10-2020 04:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that democrats view a steady stream of illegal immigrants as a steady supply of future democrat voters. That is all.

You write a lot of smart, well-supported things. Some of them I agree with and some I don't. I think this is not smart or well-supported. I rarely hear democrats talk about increasing immigration (even I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about shifting some of the illegal immigrants to legal so that the government has a better handle on them). I have even more rarely heard democrats discuss immigration as a way to create new voters. To the extent it exists, it is so far down the list of reasons why Democrats disagree with the Trump administration on immigration issues that it is barely a bump.

You're a democrat. You wouldn't agree.

But take a look at everything democrats support in this area, and tell me that you don't see a pattern. No wall, so more get through. Catch and release, so we lose control. Sanctuary cities, so they have a place to go. Get rid of ICE, so there is no follow-up enforcement. Make them citizens ASAP. And give the vote too illegals. It's a very clear plan.

Its pretty easy to explain. Most Democrats don't support the things you ascribe to us, or at least in the way you try to ascribe them.

No wall ... because a wall wouldn't be very effective and is much more expensive than other methods that work better.

Catch and release, so we lose control ... can't find a BBC article to make us all happy, but here's a PolitiFact article noting that 23% to 28% skip hearings but the precentage that skip is much lower amongst asylum seekers (and most of the current immigration problem involves non-Mexican asylum seekers). So my point is that this policy, even if it is supported by Democrats (which is hardly an accurate characterization of the whole party) does not lead to a loss of control.

Get rid of ICE ... the Democrats supporting this do not argue that there should not be law enforcement agents at the border, just that ICE shouldn't be that agency and that it needs to be restructured.

Make them citizens ASAP ... who says this? Do you have any citations at all? Sounds like a fever dream brought on by a conservative red herring.

And give the vote too illegals ... who says this? Do you have any citations at all? Sounds like a fever dream brought on by a conservative red herring.

The nirvana for the left has always been a 'pathway to citizenship', or havent you noticed? That lone should be a good indication of that #s states.

(01-10-2020 04:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Make them citizens ASAP ... who says this? Do you have any citations at all? Sounds like a fever dream brought on by a conservative red herring.

And give the vote too illegals ... who says this? Do you have any citations at all? Sounds like a fever dream brought on by a conservative red herring.

So who is supporting and pushing paths to citizenship, and why? Personally, I think most illegals and most conservatives would be satisfied with a green card.


https://www.fwd.us/immigration/pathway/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democra...ant-voting

https://www.silive.com/news/2020/01/dems...ditor.html

. In certain states, it is already legal for illegal immigrants to vote. And every day more laws are being proposed to entitle more illegal immigrants to vote. In some states, illegal immigrants can apply for a driver’s license.

This driver’s license alone gives them the right to vote in that state. By any chance are these laws the underminings of Democrats?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/us/noncit...index.html

(01-10-2020 04:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that democrats view a steady stream of illegal immigrants as a steady supply of future democrat voters. That is all.

You write a lot of smart, well-supported things. Some of them I agree with and some I don't. I think this is not smart or well-supported. I rarely hear democrats talk about increasing immigration (even I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about shifting some of the illegal immigrants to legal so that the government has a better handle on them). I have even more rarely heard democrats discuss immigration as a way to create new voters. To the extent it exists, it is so far down the list of reasons why Democrats disagree with the Trump administration on immigration issues that it is barely a bump.

You're a democrat. You wouldn't agree.
But take a look at everything democrats support in this area, and tell me that you don't see a pattern. No wall, so more get through. Catch and release, so we lose control. Sanctuary cities, so they have a place to go. Get rid of ICE, so there is no follow-up enforcement. Make them citizens ASAP. And give the vote too illegals. It's a very clear plan.

Its pretty easy to explain. Most Democrats don't support the things you ascribe to us, or at least in the way you try to ascribe them.
No wall ... because a wall wouldn't be very effective and is much more expensive than other methods that work better.
Catch and release, so we lose control ... can't find a BBC article to make us all happy, but here's a PolitiFact article noting that 23% to 28% skip hearings but the precentage that skip is much lower amongst asylum seekers (and most of the current immigration problem involves non-Mexican asylum seekers). So my point is that this policy, even if it is supported by Democrats (which is hardly an accurate characterization of the whole party) does not lead to a loss of control.
Get rid of ICE ... the Democrats supporting this do not argue that there should not be law enforcement agents at the border, just that ICE shouldn't be that agency and that it needs to be restructured.
Make them citizens ASAP ... who says this? Do you have any citations at all? Sounds like a fever dream brought on by a conservative red herring.
And give the vote too illegals ... who says this? Do you have any citations at all? Sounds like a fever dream brought on by a conservative red herring.

Wall. I've said there are more effective measures, and I would have traded the wall for other, more effective ways. So I disagree with both Trump and democrats on that issue.

As far as your other comments, what cave have you been hiding in?

Catch and release--23% to 28% is way too high for my taste, and if the rate among asylum seekers is lower, that obviously means the rate among the rest is higher. Math kinda works that way.
Get rid of ICE. You explanation may be what you believe, but that is not how it is being presented on the street.
Make them citizens ASAP. Hey I don't believe in making them citizens at all unless they came legally, or do a hitch in the military. But there are certainly those pushing to make them citizens.
Give vote to illegals. They're not talking about it, they're doing it. I just read an article about some place that was doing it today.

Despite your quibbles, you and I both know that democrats are pushing to get them into the country, get them on welfare, and get them the vote (as citizens or otherwise). That is totally consistent with my comment.

You can say whatever you want, but I'm not buying it.

(01-10-2020 04:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I have no interest in discussing complaints about the typical conservative boogeymen (and boogeywomen). AOC is certainly one of the most liberal people in the Congress and represents a very liberal district. I imagine 99% of Democrats fall somewhere between her and Joe Manchin.

Well, not discussing things is one of the ways we have reached the great divide in this country. What if I said I was not interested in discussing anything about the Democrat's bogeyman - Trump?

I would revise your 99% to about 50%, considering the support Sanders (an AOC endorsement) and Warren get. And she does get a lot of support from Democrats all over the country.

If everything I say is dismissed from consideration by you, then we will not have much of a discussion, will we?

I have heard people saying they want AOC to run for president as soon as she is old enough. She is not in one tail of the bell curve. She is a leader of your party. I think one day you will have to decide if you will follow and support her. I would bet that you will. JMHO

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic response to the 'droning':

Yes, he was a murderer, and a terrorist, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of US personnel and civilians, and was most likely planning to kill more United States citizens and military....... but.....

That position is not a weird one to have. The possibility of taking out Soleimani has apparently been on the table for multiples presidents, and the action wasn't taken because of the potential consequences. And, from what I've heard, that option was put out there as a way to encourage POTUS' to take a more measured approach.

Maybe that decision was wrong to delay the action, but not being supportive of the decision because of the potential repercussions is well within the bounds of logic and patriotism.

I mean, what you are saying is that you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same.

And from that, you must see how the position of the opposition to the droning actually seems to be fairly copacetic in allowing a directed murdering of US personnel.

Edited to add: Not a single Democratic member of the Senate has lent their support to a Republican-driven congressional effort to praise the U.S. military and intelligence community members who helped carry out the successful strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani. The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Yay team!

I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

THE WALL

I have said since 2016 that I do not support a wall. I have said it is stupid.

I have changed a little bit. I think a wall in certain areas combined with patrol enforcement could be of use. just building a wall and walking away is of no use. But having a wall can help0 those charged with protecting our borders.

Think of it this way - just building a wall around a prison will not keep inmates in - unless there are guards patrolling it. Just having guards patrolling a wall-less prison is also not very secure. The combination affords the most security.

(01-10-2020 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic response to the 'droning':
Yes, he was a murderer, and a terrorist, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of US personnel and civilians, and was most likely planning to kill more United States citizens and military....... but.....

That position is not a weird one to have. The possibility of taking out Soleimani has apparently been on the table for multiples presidents, and the action wasn't taken because of the potential consequences. And, from what I've heard, that option was put out there as a way to encourage POTUS' to take a more measured approach.
Maybe that decision was wrong to delay the action, but not being supportive of the decision because of the potential repercussions is well within the bounds of logic and patriotism.

I mean, what you are saying is that you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same.
And from that, you must see how the position of the opposition to the droning actually seems to be fairly copacetic in allowing a directed murdering of US personnel.
Edited to add: Not a single Democratic member of the Senate has lent their support to a Republican-driven congressional effort to praise the U.S. military and intelligence community members who helped carry out the successful strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani. The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Yay team!

I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

I think you are totally misrepresenting what he is saying.

Let me say what I think, and see if you can understand that.

We don't do wanton, indiscriminate killing. We know whom we want to kill and we go after those specific individuals very intently. It's a focused rifle approach, not a shotgun. If we have a legitimate shot at them, we take it, and run the risk of collateral damage. Because getting them is that important. We are not looking to be anywhere for a long time, we are not looking to be an army of occupation. Armies are good at killing people and breaking things, not at winning hearts and minds. We go in, kill everybody who needs killing, break everything that needs breaking, GTFO, and stay TFO, unless the new bunch goes off the rail, in which case we come back and kill them.

That is a very different approach from how we fought Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq (maybe not Iraq 1, but definitely Iraq 2). Those didn't work out well, because that's the wrong way to do it.

(01-10-2020 05:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:“I am not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Good grief.

OK. Let's start with an honest assessment. There are a lot of pictures and videos out there. What percentage of the protesters do you honestly believe were peaceful protesters just there to protest the removal of the statue? I haven't seen any, but I haven't looked at every pictures and video. Your defense only works if there actually was someone there on the right other than the neo-Nazi / white nationalist types.

Vox notes:

Quote:Unite the Right was explicitly organized and branded as a far-right, racist, and white supremacist event by far-right racist white supremacists. This was clear for months before the march actually occurred. So by casting the rally instead as a sort of spontaneous outpouring from Confederate statue enthusiasts, Trump is rewriting history.

Quote:So by August 2017, when the Unite the Right rally was scheduled to take place, it was fairly clear that the organizers behind the rallies on behalf of keeping the Lee statue in place had a very specific ideological bent. That was clear in a police affidavit detailing who was expected at Unite the Right — including roughly 250 to 500 Klansmen and more than 150 “Alt-Knights,” the military division of the Proud Boys.

Quote:The affiliations of the organizers were also clear. Jason Kessler, a “pro-white” activist, filed the permits for the rally.

On a radio show before the event, Kessler said, “the number one thing is I want to destigmatize Pro-White advocacy. … I want a huge, huge crowd, and that’s what we’re going to have, to come out and support not just the Lee monument but also white people in general, because it is our race which is under attack.”

Lovely image promoting the event on Facebook:



From Roanoke Times editorial:

Quote:Here’s where the problem begins. In an academic sense, Trump is right that “not all of those people were neo-Nazis” because there was a bewildering taxonomy of far-right groups present. Some have counted as many as 17 different groups present — some actual Nazis, some Klansmen and some from lots of other groups lesser-known to the general public but well-known to those who monitor fringe groups. The neo-Nazis get the attention because we all recognize a swastika but not the more obscure symbols that were on display. However, it’s possible to lump all these fringe groups together under the heading of “white supremacists” or “white nationalists.” Academics might draw some nuanced ideological difference between the “Stormer Book Club” and the “Loyal White Knights” and “Identity Evropa” but for our purposes, they’re all part of the same foul movement.

Quote:Here’s where Trump is fundamentally wrong. He seems to think that the rally consisted of some neo-Nazis over here and some others over there who were simply there to protest the plans to move the Lee statue. That is simply not true. This was not some protest organized by history buffs who think that the statue should stay because that’s one way for us to understand the past. This was always an event organized by white nationalists. The history-minded people who genuinely believe we shouldn’t take down Confederate statues because their presence can be informative about an uncomfortable past were never part of this event — and had the good sense to stay far, far, far away. Anyone who showed up to march was knowingly joining a white supremacist rally.

So when Trump says of the rally that “there were very fine people on both sides,” he may think there were some fine people on the pro-statue side in Charlottesville that day, but there weren’t. There were only white supremacists.

So the problem with your defense is that there were not very fine people on both sides. One side was all bad people. The other side had a few bad people and a lot of peaceful counter-protesters.


Also, from Trump earlier in the same press conference where he doesn't try to qualify his remarks:

Quote:I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent.

Later:

Quote:Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?"

Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.

"But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"

Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."

(01-10-2020 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Despite your quibbles, you and I both know that democrats are pushing to get them into the country, get them on welfare, and get them the vote (as citizens or otherwise). That is totally consistent with my comment.

You can say whatever you want, but I'm not buying it.

I don't believe Democrats are doing what you say here. I haven't heard any Presidential candidate advocating such a thing. I certainly don't support it. Believe what you want, it is a free country. But unless you present me with actual facts supporting this, then I think this specific concern of yours amounts to a fever dream.

(01-10-2020 06:30 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Despite your quibbles, you and I both know that democrats are pushing to get them into the country, get them on welfare, and get them the vote (as citizens or otherwise). That is totally consistent with my comment.
You can say whatever you want, but I'm not buying it.

I don't believe Democrats are doing what you say here. I haven't heard any Presidential candidate advocating such a thing. I certainly don't support it. Believe what you want, it is a free country. But unless you present me with actual facts supporting this, then I think this specific concern of yours amounts to a fever dream.

I think I--and several others--have given you the facts to support it. Certainly enough to convince me. The only contra point would be that democrat leaders somehow have too much integrity to do such things. Nope, not buying that one for a heartbeat. I don't see the likes of Schumer and Pelosi as having any integrity at all.

Now, you say you don't believe that, and I accept that. What I find really difficult to comprehend is that I know a bunch of well-meaning (or at least I think they are well-meaning) who are falling for what the democrat leadership is putting out, and I just don't understand it.

(01-10-2020 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic response to the 'droning':

Yes, he was a murderer, and a terrorist, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of US personnel and civilians, and was most likely planning to kill more United States citizens and military....... but.....

That position is not a weird one to have. The possibility of taking out Soleimani has apparently been on the table for multiples presidents, and the action wasn't taken because of the potential consequences. And, from what I've heard, that option was put out there as a way to encourage POTUS' to take a more measured approach.

Maybe that decision was wrong to delay the action, but not being supportive of the decision because of the potential repercussions is well within the bounds of logic and patriotism.

I mean, what you are saying is that you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same.

And from that, you must see how the position of the opposition to the droning actually seems to be fairly copacetic in allowing a directed murdering of US personnel.

Edited to add: Not a single Democratic member of the Senate has lent their support to a Republican-driven congressional effort to praise the U.S. military and intelligence community members who helped carry out the successful strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani. The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Yay team!

I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

When the number is hundreds or thousands of Americans, you mean. At least have your argument fit the facts instead of reverting to your 'edge-case' thingy that you default to so often.

Please note where I said *a single* citizen lad.

In the case when the shitbucket has killed hundreds, or thousands -- yeah thats a pretty gd strong case. Apparently the entire Democratic party is willing to bend over and show their behinds in the case of this particular shitbucket.