(07-28-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 12:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://heavy.com/news/2019/07/francisco-erwin-galicia/


https://www.texastribune.org/2019/07/23/...-detained/

Bluntly, if I am pulled over and there are multiple indications of different identities --- I am spending some time as guest somewhere.

But leave it to the anti-borders people to throw a fit.

At the time he was pulled over was this information known? Or did it come out after he was already in custody?

I’ve seen no indication that there was any credible reason to believe the documents he had on his person were fake - so does this mean that a Border Patrol officer is allowed to start detaining citizens because they have a hunch their valid IDs are fake?

God god dude. When someone --- anyone ---- comes across a border and there is *any* question that there is a 'second identity', wtf do you think they should do? Let them go with a pinkie promise?

I seem to read about actual fing terrorists whose MO has a valid ID, and false cover.

Jeezus Krist dude. I dont give a **** what your rush to judgement is here (that is your rush to indict Orange policy in particular) but the actual fing mission of the Border Patrol is to be on the lookout for *just that situation*.

At a checkpoint within the prescribed distance from the border, the Border Patrol has pretty much carte blanche to ask anything, or look for anything.

These kids came through, they were asked questions, then they were asked for ID. The kid who was detained ID, when run popped up with something very out of the ordinary.

Seems pretty simple to me. Or keep your SJW jousting suit on. No skin off my back.

Quote:What about if you have a weapon and a conceal-carry license on you, but an officer thinks the license is forged?

Depends on why he thinks the license is forged. If he accesses a history at the stop that shows you are a felon, probably a good reason. That is more apropos to the situation described.

Not only that, but you utterly ignore the fact this was a stop and search incident to a border crossing. At an immigration checkpoint within the prescribed distance from the border that the Supreme Court has given a green light to. Criminy, in that situation they can put on the gd rubber gloves and make you sign alto with almost zero justification at that type of stop.

Again, put your thinking cap on first, before getting hot and bothered about the stop. Good god, they even ask *me* for ID from time to time at the immigration stops coming out of El Paso.

Two things - I don’t believe this was a stop at a border crossing, but I could be wrong. I believe this was an immigration station within the US, so they weren’t coming across a border and you suggest.

There is no fundamental difference legally. *If* the immigration checkpoint is within X (iirc 100) miles of a border, the stop is as essentially though they were crossing a border for most intents and purposes.

(Actually I will disagree with myself, because that is the practice that is employed, but I do think there is a difference within the Supreme Court case on this point and actual practice. I've never had it tested because my new found (2 years or so) refusals to answer questions typically end after 20 min. The bar card that is right next to my drivers license in the wallet probably helps with that when I am asked for ID, though...)

But, in defense of the opposite sense, while I have very serious doubts about your issue on the properness of the actual search issue (i.e. how far the agents at a checkpoint can search), I would like to know what led to the 23 days. That seems excessive to me. But, we do not know *any* of the facts regarding that length.

Not sure why you doubt my issue of the properness of the search - I find these interior border points to be a complete invasion of privacy when they cast such a wide net that they capture US citizens who haven’t even crossed the border. The fact that I never went into Mexico during each Spring Break, but was required to stop, answer questions, show identification, and open my trunk for inspection, seems to be an abuse of power. Seems like an unreasonable search, but they are legal (or at least I assume they are, as I have to imagine there have been lawsuits trying to stop them already).

I agree about the 23 days. My guess is it was due to the issue of the travel visa, which definitely brought in a serious suspicion of citizenship. I just want to know when that was found, because it is the only evidence that really justifies any detainment by CBP.

It sounds like you’re also generally wary of this government organization having the ability to ask for one’s papers wherever and whenever, and detain them without question. And this sounds like this may be a case similar to that.

(07-28-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 12:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  At the time he was pulled over was this information known? Or did it come out after he was already in custody?

I’ve seen no indication that there was any credible reason to believe the documents he had on his person were fake - so does this mean that a Border Patrol officer is allowed to start detaining citizens because they have a hunch their valid IDs are fake?

God god dude. When someone --- anyone ---- comes across a border and there is *any* question that there is a 'second identity', wtf do you think they should do? Let them go with a pinkie promise?

I seem to read about actual fing terrorists whose MO has a valid ID, and false cover.

Jeezus Krist dude. I dont give a **** what your rush to judgement is here (that is your rush to indict Orange policy in particular) but the actual fing mission of the Border Patrol is to be on the lookout for *just that situation*.

At a checkpoint within the prescribed distance from the border, the Border Patrol has pretty much carte blanche to ask anything, or look for anything.

These kids came through, they were asked questions, then they were asked for ID. The kid who was detained ID, when run popped up with something very out of the ordinary.

Seems pretty simple to me. Or keep your SJW jousting suit on. No skin off my back.

Quote:What about if you have a weapon and a conceal-carry license on you, but an officer thinks the license is forged?

Depends on why he thinks the license is forged. If he accesses a history at the stop that shows you are a felon, probably a good reason. That is more apropos to the situation described.

Not only that, but you utterly ignore the fact this was a stop and search incident to a border crossing. At an immigration checkpoint within the prescribed distance from the border that the Supreme Court has given a green light to. Criminy, in that situation they can put on the gd rubber gloves and make you sign alto with almost zero justification at that type of stop.

Again, put your thinking cap on first, before getting hot and bothered about the stop. Good god, they even ask *me* for ID from time to time at the immigration stops coming out of El Paso.

Two things - I don’t believe this was a stop at a border crossing, but I could be wrong. I believe this was an immigration station within the US, so they weren’t coming across a border and you suggest.

There is no fundamental difference legally. *If* the immigration checkpoint is within X (iirc 100) miles of a border, the stop is as essentially though they were crossing a border for most intents and purposes.

(Actually I will disagree with myself, because that is the practice that is employed, but I do think there is a difference within the Supreme Court case on this point and actual practice. I've never had it tested because my new found (2 years or so) refusals to answer questions typically end after 20 min. The bar card that is right next to my drivers license in the wallet probably helps with that when I am asked for ID, though...)

But, in defense of the opposite sense, while I have very serious doubts about your issue on the properness of the actual search issue (i.e. how far the agents at a checkpoint can search), I would like to know what led to the 23 days. That seems excessive to me. But, we do not know *any* of the facts regarding that length.

Not sure why you doubt my issue of the properness of the search - I find these interior border points to be a complete invasion of privacy when they cast such a wide net that they capture US citizens who haven’t even crossed the border. The fact that I never went into Mexico during each Spring Break, but was required to stop, answer questions, show identification, and open my trunk for inspection, seems to be an abuse of power. Seems like an unreasonable search, but they are legal (or at least I assume they are, as I have to imagine there have been lawsuits trying to stop them already).

I agree about the 23 days. My guess is it was due to the issue of the travel visa, which definitely brought in a serious suspicion of citizenship. I just want to know when that was found, because it is the only evidence that really justifies any detainment by CBP.

It sounds like you’re also generally wary of this government organization having the ability to ask for one’s papers wherever and whenever, and detain them without question. And this sounds like this may be a case similar to that.

You’ve told us what you think of immigration checkpoints. What do you think of driver license checkpoints and sobriety checkpoints?

(07-28-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 12:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  God god dude. When someone --- anyone ---- comes across a border and there is *any* question that there is a 'second identity', wtf do you think they should do? Let them go with a pinkie promise?

I seem to read about actual fing terrorists whose MO has a valid ID, and false cover.

Jeezus Krist dude. I dont give a **** what your rush to judgement is here (that is your rush to indict Orange policy in particular) but the actual fing mission of the Border Patrol is to be on the lookout for *just that situation*.

At a checkpoint within the prescribed distance from the border, the Border Patrol has pretty much carte blanche to ask anything, or look for anything.

These kids came through, they were asked questions, then they were asked for ID. The kid who was detained ID, when run popped up with something very out of the ordinary.

Seems pretty simple to me. Or keep your SJW jousting suit on. No skin off my back.


Depends on why he thinks the license is forged. If he accesses a history at the stop that shows you are a felon, probably a good reason. That is more apropos to the situation described.

Not only that, but you utterly ignore the fact this was a stop and search incident to a border crossing. At an immigration checkpoint within the prescribed distance from the border that the Supreme Court has given a green light to. Criminy, in that situation they can put on the gd rubber gloves and make you sign alto with almost zero justification at that type of stop.

Again, put your thinking cap on first, before getting hot and bothered about the stop. Good god, they even ask *me* for ID from time to time at the immigration stops coming out of El Paso.

Two things - I don’t believe this was a stop at a border crossing, but I could be wrong. I believe this was an immigration station within the US, so they weren’t coming across a border and you suggest.

There is no fundamental difference legally. *If* the immigration checkpoint is within X (iirc 100) miles of a border, the stop is as essentially though they were crossing a border for most intents and purposes.

(Actually I will disagree with myself, because that is the practice that is employed, but I do think there is a difference within the Supreme Court case on this point and actual practice. I've never had it tested because my new found (2 years or so) refusals to answer questions typically end after 20 min. The bar card that is right next to my drivers license in the wallet probably helps with that when I am asked for ID, though...)

But, in defense of the opposite sense, while I have very serious doubts about your issue on the properness of the actual search issue (i.e. how far the agents at a checkpoint can search), I would like to know what led to the 23 days. That seems excessive to me. But, we do not know *any* of the facts regarding that length.

Not sure why you doubt my issue of the properness of the search - I find these interior border points to be a complete invasion of privacy when they cast such a wide net that they capture US citizens who haven’t even crossed the border. The fact that I never went into Mexico during each Spring Break, but was required to stop, answer questions, show identification, and open my trunk for inspection, seems to be an abuse of power. Seems like an unreasonable search, but they are legal (or at least I assume they are, as I have to imagine there have been lawsuits trying to stop them already).

I agree about the 23 days. My guess is it was due to the issue of the travel visa, which definitely brought in a serious suspicion of citizenship. I just want to know when that was found, because it is the only evidence that really justifies any detainment by CBP.

It sounds like you’re also generally wary of this government organization having the ability to ask for one’s papers wherever and whenever, and detain them without question. And this sounds like this may be a case similar to that.

You’ve told us what you think of immigration checkpoints. What do you think of driver license checkpoints and sobriety checkpoints?

Not sure what driver license checkpoints are - haven’t ever heard of those or encountered them.

I feel similarly about sobriety checkpoints if they require you to be questioned. If they’re set up so that you’re required to just drive through an area and be visually observed for signs of intoxication, I see less problems with them.

What are your thoughts on all three? Do you like the inland border patrol checkpoints and how CBP can question each individual that drives through, regardless?

(07-28-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 12:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Two things - I don’t believe this was a stop at a border crossing, but I could be wrong. I believe this was an immigration station within the US, so they weren’t coming across a border and you suggest.

There is no fundamental difference legally. *If* the immigration checkpoint is within X (iirc 100) miles of a border, the stop is as essentially though they were crossing a border for most intents and purposes.

(Actually I will disagree with myself, because that is the practice that is employed, but I do think there is a difference within the Supreme Court case on this point and actual practice. I've never had it tested because my new found (2 years or so) refusals to answer questions typically end after 20 min. The bar card that is right next to my drivers license in the wallet probably helps with that when I am asked for ID, though...)

But, in defense of the opposite sense, while I have very serious doubts about your issue on the properness of the actual search issue (i.e. how far the agents at a checkpoint can search), I would like to know what led to the 23 days. That seems excessive to me. But, we do not know *any* of the facts regarding that length.

Not sure why you doubt my issue of the properness of the search - I find these interior border points to be a complete invasion of privacy when they cast such a wide net that they capture US citizens who haven’t even crossed the border. The fact that I never went into Mexico during each Spring Break, but was required to stop, answer questions, show identification, and open my trunk for inspection, seems to be an abuse of power. Seems like an unreasonable search, but they are legal (or at least I assume they are, as I have to imagine there have been lawsuits trying to stop them already).

I agree about the 23 days. My guess is it was due to the issue of the travel visa, which definitely brought in a serious suspicion of citizenship. I just want to know when that was found, because it is the only evidence that really justifies any detainment by CBP.

It sounds like you’re also generally wary of this government organization having the ability to ask for one’s papers wherever and whenever, and detain them without question. And this sounds like this may be a case similar to that.

You’ve told us what you think of immigration checkpoints. What do you think of driver license checkpoints and sobriety checkpoints?

Not sure what driver license checkpoints are - haven’t ever heard of those or encountered them.

I feel similarly about sobriety checkpoints if they require you to be questioned. If they’re set up so that you’re required to just drive through an area and be visually observed for signs of intoxication, I see less problems with them.

What are your thoughts on all three? Do you like the inland border patrol checkpoints and how CBP can question each individual that drives through, regardless?

DL checkpoints require each driver to produce his valid DL. They also check for warrants. Often, the sobriety checkpoints double as DL checkpoints.

I think if one is legal, all are legal. The US government does/has done a lot of,things I think should not be done. They usually ask the SCOTUS, not me.

Without the inland checkpoints, crossing the border would be so much more onerous, for,citizens of both countries. It is a reasonable and practical solution. Take away the inland checkpoints, we need a way to track Mexicans from the first step into he US, and 99.99% of them just want to work or shop in the sister city.

(07-28-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 12:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='16213394' dateline='1564275488']

God god dude. When someone --- anyone ---- comes across a border and there is *any* question that there is a 'second identity', wtf do you think they should do? Let them go with a pinkie promise?

I seem to read about actual fing terrorists whose MO has a valid ID, and false cover.

Jeezus Krist dude. I dont give a **** what your rush to judgement is here (that is your rush to indict Orange policy in particular) but the actual fing mission of the Border Patrol is to be on the lookout for *just that situation*.

At a checkpoint within the prescribed distance from the border, the Border Patrol has pretty much carte blanche to ask anything, or look for anything.

These kids came through, they were asked questions, then they were asked for ID. The kid who was detained ID, when run popped up with something very out of the ordinary.

Seems pretty simple to me. Or keep your SJW jousting suit on. No skin off my back.


Depends on why he thinks the license is forged. If he accesses a history at the stop that shows you are a felon, probably a good reason. That is more apropos to the situation described.

Not only that, but you utterly ignore the fact this was a stop and search incident to a border crossing. At an immigration checkpoint within the prescribed distance from the border that the Supreme Court has given a green light to. Criminy, in that situation they can put on the gd rubber gloves and make you sign alto with almost zero justification at that type of stop.

Again, put your thinking cap on first, before getting hot and bothered about the stop. Good god, they even ask *me* for ID from time to time at the immigration stops coming out of El Paso.

Two things - I don’t believe this was a stop at a border crossing, but I could be wrong. I believe this was an immigration station within the US, so they weren’t coming across a border and you suggest.

There is no fundamental difference legally. *If* the immigration checkpoint is within X (iirc 100) miles of a border, the stop is as essentially though they were crossing a border for most intents and purposes.

(Actually I will disagree with myself, because that is the practice that is employed, but I do think there is a difference within the Supreme Court case on this point and actual practice. I've never had it tested because my new found (2 years or so) refusals to answer questions typically end after 20 min. The bar card that is right next to my drivers license in the wallet probably helps with that when I am asked for ID, though...)

But, in defense of the opposite sense, while I have very serious doubts about your issue on the properness of the actual search issue (i.e. how far the agents at a checkpoint can search), I would like to know what led to the 23 days. That seems excessive to me. But, we do not know *any* of the facts regarding that length.

Not sure why you doubt my issue of the properness of the search - I find these interior border points to be a complete invasion of privacy when they cast such a wide net that they capture US citizens who haven’t even crossed the border. The fact that I never went into Mexico during each Spring Break, but was required to stop, answer questions, show identification, and open my trunk for inspection, seems to be an abuse of power. Seems like an unreasonable search, but they are legal (or at least I assume they are, as I have to imagine there have been lawsuits trying to stop them already).

Because the scope is allowed, perhaps. For pretty good reasons. Allows the immigration authorities at least some leeway to do a 'chokepoint' strategy. I dont mind the minimalist strategy that it allows.

They are free to stop and ask questions.
Next time dont open your trunk. Hilarity ensues.
Next time dont answer their questions. Hilarity ensues.

But if you do answer their questions, and sound evasive, they just might reasonable probable cause for more.

The funny thing is that for the trunk open, *you* consented, didnt you? So, since you consented, if I were you I wouldnt ***** about it too much.

But they do have the right to stop and ask questions at checkpoints. *You* have the right not to answer. The brothers had the right *not* to.

They do have the right to ask for ID in that situation. One brother had zero corroborating ID as to his identity. Insto presto probable cause for the entire gang. End of story.

Turns out the brother was illegally in the United States, and self-deported. Sounds to me that at that checkpoint, the officers were doing their job.

Ask a legal question, get zero tangible response, and that discrepancy at that minute gives them sufficient probable cause to run the car and occupants. Subsequent physical and electronic search yields even more questions on the guy in question.

Quote:I agree about the 23 days. My guess is it was due to the issue of the travel visa, which definitely brought in a serious suspicion of citizenship. I just want to know when that was found, because it is the only evidence that really justifies any detainment by CBP.

Easy to answer.


As a child, he moved to Mexico with his family and later returned to the US as a teenager. He says he was carrying his state ID, a Social Security card and a wallet-sized birth certificate.

The facts
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/us/us-cit...index.html

Quote:He also had a Mexican tourist visa with him that inaccurately listed his country of birth as Mexico, setting up a conflicting nationality claim, his attorney, Claudia Galan, said.

Both brothers were detained, and Marlon Galicia, who does not have legal status in the US, was retuned to Mexico.

Car checkpoint. Legal and proper.
Questions asked. Legal and proper.

Questions answered in a dodgey manner? Probably given the older brother was illegal.

Ask for ID. Legal and proper.

Older brother has garbage ID for purposes since he is illegal.

Authorities ask to search. Consent granted, most likely.

Search of wallet yields conflicting nationality information.

Brother ID'd as illegal.

All are detained.

I dont see anything at issue with that progression.

Quote:It sounds like you’re also generally wary of this government organization having the ability to ask for one’s papers wherever and whenever, and detain them without question. And this sounds like this may be a case similar to that.

I can see a case where reasonable probable cause got hit in a heartbeat here.

(07-27-2019 09:53 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  First off, I'm in the majority of Americans who disapprove of President Trump. You can call it what you want, but 421 pages of Trump love in this thread obviously isn't anywhere close to what the rest of the country thinks. You guys continue to support him and I'll continue to call you crazy and misguided. No tag teaming is going to change my mind there. Let the chips fall where they will in November, 2020.

Examine your own statement here. There is very little Trump love here, and none from me. You say you don't have TDS (whatever that is), but you say Trump is insane and you're just doing what he's doing... so you're admitting you're behaving as if you are insane. I can't speak to Donald Trump. If I could, I'd say to him what I'm saying to you. And if he said 'I'm just doing what FBO is doing that all these people disagree with' I'd ask you why you're intentionally lowering yourself? And more important to me, why you feel it necessary to lower 'me' to a 'Trump Lover' in order to own what you've already admitted to doing?

Quote:In terms of his latest insanity, I'll let the Baltimore Sun editorial board sum it up.

Nobody not already on your side gives a damn. This is just more people doing what you're doing.

Here is what I love, and it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME you guys do this.

Quote: It is a “rat and rodent infested mess.” He wasn’t really speaking of the 7th as a whole. He failed to mention Ellicott City, for example, or Baldwin or Monkton or Prettyboy, all of which are contained in the sprawling yet oddly-shaped district that runs from western Howard County to southern Harford County. No, Donald Trump’s wrath was directed at Baltimore and specifically at Rep. Elijah Cummings, the 68-year-old son of a former South Carolina sharecropper who has represented the district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1996.

So he said the 7th, but he didn't really mean the 7th. 95% of the population doesn't recognize any of those other areas. We all recognize Baltimore. It's like saying someone talking about Houston who doesn't mention Bellaire, West University, Memorial and Tanglewood is REALLY talking about the area east of Downtown because that's SJL's district and she's black. This person has decided that despite the fact that this guy has zero filter, he somehow filtered out these specific areas in a very targeted attack, based on nothing other than a repetition of the same half-truths. Baltimore has some very serious issues. Elijah Cummings father being a sharecropper in SOuth Carolina has nothing to do with the political/legal success or not of Baltimore... It is brought up here merely to support other similarly poorly supported arguments that have gone on since day one.

My issue isn't that Trump isn't a racist... I honestly have no idea anymore. My issue is that we're going on three years of me being told "HERE IS PROOF OF HIS RACISM", and then it is followed by 'he SAID this, but THIS is what he really meant'. YOu guys are all mind readers.

I've never known a true racist... someone who believes in the inferiority of another race... who has as long AND PUBLIC a history of speaking without a handler or filter who hadn't made some extremely obvious comments, and not where we have to accept that he meant something other than what he said. Those may well have happened, but I can't remember them for all of these mind readings.

Quote: President Trump bad-mouthed Baltimore in order to make a point that the border camps are “clean, efficient & well run," which, of course, they are not —

Again, this is someone's opinion.... but the idea that someone who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones, or a politician deflecting from their own failures by focusing on someone elses (which could fairly be speculated about both Cummings AND Trump) isn't new or unique to Trump.

Quote:Finally, while we would not sink to name-calling in the Trumpian manner — or ruefully point out that he failed to spell the congressman’s name correctly (it’s Cummings, not Cumming) — we would tell the most dishonest man to ever occupy the Oval Office....

I'm literally laughing out loud at the sophomoric attempt to claim high ground only to immediately pee on it.

The idea is that unless you start from where you are... and I'd note that many of those in your majority who dislike Trump do so because he isn't racist (or conservative or religious) ENOUGH... then I'm not going to ever get to where you are.... and you (the left) alienate me with literally every article.

If the truth is so bad, then let's just focus on the truth... and the biggest, factual evidence you've mentioned is a very offensive comment that Trump made to a Hollywood reporter in 2005... and we all know how Hollywood has treated women.

That's literally the biggest evidence you have. I'm fairly sure that Hillary was still saying marriage is between a man and woman back then, though I could be wrong.

He's gone. Too much risk of having to explain/defend his statements.

Baltimore

Seems a low opinion of Baltimore is bipartisan.

“Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Sanders said during a visit to the city’s West Baltimore section in December 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported. “You would think that you were in a Third World country.”

The independent U.S. senator from Vermont also referred to Baltimore as “a community in which half of the people don’t have jobs.”

“Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea,” Sanders wrote. “That is a disgrace.”

Clearly, if Trump is a racist, then so must Sanders be one.

inconvenient truths

By Buttigieg's standard, the Democratic Party has also lost its claim to invoke religion — because the "cages" were built and used by the Obama administration. Harris, a California senator, calls them a human rights abuse, but, like other Democrats, solely blames Trump

A year ago, Associated Press photographs showing young people in such enclosures were misrepresented online as depicting child detentions by Trump and denounced by some Democrats and activists as illustrating Trump's cruelty. In fact, the photos were taken in 2014 during the Obama administration.

(07-27-2019 09:53 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  No tag teaming is going to change my mind there.

Evidence of an open mind.

(07-28-2019 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Baltimore

Seems a low opinion of Baltimore is bipartisan.

“Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Sanders said during a visit to the city’s West Baltimore section in December 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported. “You would think that you were in a Third World country.”

The independent U.S. senator from Vermont also referred to Baltimore as “a community in which half of the people don’t have jobs.”

“Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea,” Sanders wrote. “That is a disgrace.”

Clearly, if Trump is a racist, then so must Sanders be one.

I hope this is disingenuous.

(07-29-2019 10:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Baltimore

Seems a low opinion of Baltimore is bipartisan.

“Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Sanders said during a visit to the city’s West Baltimore section in December 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported. “You would think that you were in a Third World country.”

The independent U.S. senator from Vermont also referred to Baltimore as “a community in which half of the people don’t have jobs.”

“Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea,” Sanders wrote. “That is a disgrace.”

Clearly, if Trump is a racist, then so must Sanders be one.

I hope this is disingenuous.

You haven't been around here long, have you?

(07-29-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Baltimore

Seems a low opinion of Baltimore is bipartisan.

“Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Sanders said during a visit to the city’s West Baltimore section in December 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported. “You would think that you were in a Third World country.”

The independent U.S. senator from Vermont also referred to Baltimore as “a community in which half of the people don’t have jobs.”

“Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea,” Sanders wrote. “That is a disgrace.”

Clearly, if Trump is a racist, then so must Sanders be one.

I hope this is disingenuous.

You haven't been around here long, have you?

School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.

(07-29-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Baltimore

Seems a low opinion of Baltimore is bipartisan.

“Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Sanders said during a visit to the city’s West Baltimore section in December 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported. “You would think that you were in a Third World country.”

The independent U.S. senator from Vermont also referred to Baltimore as “a community in which half of the people don’t have jobs.”

“Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea,” Sanders wrote. “That is a disgrace.”

Clearly, if Trump is a racist, then so must Sanders be one.

I hope this is disingenuous.

You haven't been around here long, have you?

School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.

It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.

I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"

Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."

Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.

(07-29-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 04:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Baltimore

Seems a low opinion of Baltimore is bipartisan.

“Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Sanders said during a visit to the city’s West Baltimore section in December 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported. “You would think that you were in a Third World country.”

The independent U.S. senator from Vermont also referred to Baltimore as “a community in which half of the people don’t have jobs.”

“Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea,” Sanders wrote. “That is a disgrace.”

Clearly, if Trump is a racist, then so must Sanders be one.

I hope this is disingenuous.

You haven't been around here long, have you?

School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.

It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.

I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"

Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."

Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.

Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.

Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.

(07-29-2019 10:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:01 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  I hope this is disingenuous.

You haven't been around here long, have you?

School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.

It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.

I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"

Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."

Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.

Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.

Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.

I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?

The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.

It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.

(07-29-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You haven't been around here long, have you?

School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.

It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.

I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"

Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."

Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.

Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.

Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.

I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?

The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.

It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.

Wow... just wow.

Orwell was a prophet.

(07-29-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You haven't been around here long, have you?

School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.

It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.

I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"

Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."

Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.

Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.

Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.

I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?

The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.

It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.

So an accurate statement is now grounds for racism. Got it.

Good lord we are seeing max-'wigout' now.

Please note where Trump has used "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," elsewhere. I am curious.

If he says that about downtown LA, or Detroit, or Flint, (or anywhere else there is ostensibly a Democratic-controlled shithole urban city that seems so prevalent, for that matter), he might be making a non-racial based point. Or are you blind about that?

In short lad's argument boils down to 'Orange man bad, orange man used rough, uncensored description; therefore Orange man racist as well'

Seems this chapter and verse would be a source of the solution to the world's clean energy issue of someone could extract physical work from it.

Personally I view Trump's assessment of West Baltimore as probably generous.

And I would view Trump's comments about West Baltimore about not going as far as they should. He has a way of suddenly bringing an issue to the surface that people have long known about, but never wanted to confront.

I would look at Orkin's ten most rat infested cities, and the statistics on the 10 worst crime ridden cities in America. They share something very much in common.

(07-29-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You haven't been around here long, have you?

School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.

It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.

I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"

Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."

Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.

Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.

Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.

I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?

The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.

It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.

Can you provide any evidence that Sanders attacked the domains of white politicians by comparing their fiefs to "Third World Countries"?

I bet that if you went to the parts of Baltimore that are in Cummings' Seventh District, you would have no trouble finding a "disgusting, rat infested mess". I don't know which politicians represent Houston's "disgusting, rat infested mess". But I am sure there is one, somewhere. And I would bet that you would avoid those ares, in Baltimore or in Houston. You would lock your car doors if you had to travel through them at night.

The brouhaha started because Trump told Cummings to take care of business in his own district. Not exactly a racist chant.

But my point is that Trump and Sanders used similar wording to describe Baltimore, and you guys are bending yourselves into pretzels to excuse one and cry "racist" at the other. Isn't there a word for that?

(07-29-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:33 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  School him, Lad. Explain why Trump dissing Baltimore is racist, and Sanders dissing Baltimore is not.

It's all in the words that both used. It should be pretty clear that the issue people took wasn't that Trump dissed Baltimore, but how he did it.

I'll explain how this matters. Let's say Person A says, "Man, I really hate workin with John, he's such a short-tempered :insert racial epithet:"

Then, let's say Person B says, "Man, I really hate working with John, he's so short-tempered."

Is Person A racist because they criticized John? No. Person A is racist because of the language they used to criticize John. And that doesn't mean that Person B, who also criticized John, is racist by common action.

Trump used racial epithets in his criticism of Baltimore? Link, please.

Actually, link me to any language he used that's actually racist, and not just labeled as such by people playing the race card to silence criticism.

I was explaining clearly how two people could criticize the same thing, but one criticism is racist and the other isn't. Do you disagree with how that works?

The comparison of Trump and Sanders is disingenuous because it wasn't the criticism of Baltimore that started the brouhaha. The brouhaha was started because Trump used the phrase "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," which he has used on a regular basis to describe things connected to POC - therefore, some people have felt the need to call his language racist.

It's not disingenuous to argue that what he said isn't racist; but that isn't what OO did. If you can provide some evidence that Trump uses similar language to attack white Reps and the areas they come from, then you've got a good piece of evidence that this language isn't something Trump only reserves for POC.

So an accurate statement is now grounds for racism. Got it.

Good lord we are seeing max-'wigout' now.

Please note where Trump has used "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," elsewhere. I am curious.

If he says that about downtown LA, or Detroit, or Flint, (or anywhere else there is ostensibly a Democratic-controlled shithole urban city that seems so prevalent, for that matter), he might be making a non-racial based point. Or are you blind about that?

In short lad's argument boils down to 'Orange man bad, orange man used rough, uncensored description; therefore Orange man racist as well'

Seems this chapter and verse would be a source of the solution to the world's clean energy issue of someone could extract physical work from it.

Personally I view Trump's assessment of West Baltimore as probably generous.

And I would view Trump's comments about West Baltimore about not going as far as they should. He has a way of suddenly bringing an issue to the surface that people have long known about, but never wanted to confront.

I would look at Orkin's ten most rat infested cities, and the statistics on the 10 worst crime ridden cities in America. They share something very much in common.

As I clearly said, it is not disingenuous to argue what Trump said wasn’t racist...