Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:58 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
What's up with these newcomers?
You're completely useless as a poster except for the comedy. If you want to be otherwise, then maybe considering upping the quality of your posts. It is the only reason I've not put you on ignore. You're hilarious. Not quite Silver Lining levels of funny, but Silver Lining could be funny on multiple topics.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-23-2020 at 01:59 PM.
  #152  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:05 PM
EasyPhil is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
You're completely useless as a poster except for the comedy. If you want to be otherwise, then maybe considering upping the quality of your posts. It is the only reason I've not put you on ignore. You're hilarious. Not quite Silver Lining levels of funny, but Silver Lining could be funny on multiple topics.
Oh BeepKillBeep, you hurt my poor little feelings.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!

Last edited by EasyPhil; 01-23-2020 at 04:05 PM.
  #153  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:23 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Oh BeepKillBeep, you hurt my poor little feelings.
...aaaaand, BANNED.

Fuck your poor little feelings, slEasyPhil.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #154  
Old 01-25-2020, 11:46 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
How is it that an intelligent poster like you can look at the totality of Trump's actions and character flaws, and still consider voting for him based on the single issue of immigration, especially given your history of having voted for politicians who are so diametrically opposed in virtually every way (Obama, HRC)? Would you risk the furtherance of corruption, incompetence, bigotry and risks to America's interests worldwide, including national security, in the hope that Trump's policies on immigration will continue to line up with yours and that they are, in fact, effective, and not draconian and demonstrably cruel? Is there nothing more important to you, as an American, than immigration policy?
Since you put it that way at the end, let me answer your question with a question: why, when I’ve been talking about decriminalization, have folks in this thread been so quick to draw a distinction between it and open borders?

I didn’t bring it up — and I’m not mistaking one for the other — but, for some reason, posters in this thread keep wanting to emphasize that one isn’t the other; that they support the former, but not the latter.

I’m curious: what if this were a debate about open borders?

Again, I realize it isn’t; but, in light of that last sentence of yours in that quote there: what if, when you asked about the importance of immigration policy, the options were Open-Borders-Candidate versus Trump?

If your answer is that open borders wouldn’t be all that bad, and so you’d still vote against Trump, then I fear we’re too far apart for the actual discussion to be useful. But possibly there’s a reason beyond mere accuracy why folks keep stressing that oh, no, no, this isn’t about open borders, this isn’t tantamount to open borders, surely you must be mistaking this for open borders: because it actually would be so awful a prospect, so ruinous to the country, that a candidate who gets something so big so wrong should spark a long talk about the lesser of two evils — because it’d ultimately make their other policy positions pretty much irrelevant, because there pretty much wouldn’t be a country left.

That’s how important immigration policy is to me.

If that is why the distinction keeps getting drawn, then let me now return to the actual point under discussion: I could be convinced to vote against Trump, if he runs against someone who generally agrees about the goal but who disagrees with him about best to accomplish it — and who agrees that illegally crossing the border is serious enough to count as a crime, but who disagrees about how often prosecution is the most sensible way to proceed.

But if one candidate takes it seriously enough to say that criminal prosecution should be on the table, because it matters that much — and the other says, er, no, don’t be silly, it’s not even the least of misdemeanors? Try as I might, I can’t bring myself to give the latter candidate the benefit of the doubt.

I’d have the same concern about various posters in this thread. Take begbert2:

Quote:
you're trying to kick out specifically innocent people who are good for the country and haven't done anything (else) wrong. After all, if they'd done anything else wrong then they'd be on the hook for those crimes and could be dealt with accordingly.

Gee, what could you have against these innocent people?
I can’t give begbert2 the benefit of the doubt on kicking those people out. Were begbert2 a presidential candidate who declared for decriminalization but claimed to be against open borders — who claimed, even, to be on the same page as me when it comes to deporting folks who’ve crossed the border illegally — I’d say to myself, well, possibly that’s true; maybe this is someone I could vote for...

...but framing it in terms of kicking out specifically innocent people who haven’t done anything (else) wrong? No, that’s not someone I trust on this; on a spectrum from ‘Open Borders’ to ‘Trump’, I have reason to believe that begbert2 isn’t really on the same page as me at all. Doesn’t see them as having done anything wrong, except maybe as a parenthetical — and jettisons even the parenthetical, when describing it as kicking out “specifically innocent people”.

That’s what begbert2 is thinking when talking about ‘decriminalization’. I don’t know, can’t know, what other folks are thinking when they say it; maybe they take illegal border crossings seriously enough to deport to my heart’s content, but maybe they’re merely pandering to folks like me while thinking like begbert2.

If candidates give me reason to believe they think the way begbert2 does, then I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt. I can’t ignore my concerns, and cast that vote, and if they go all wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, say, oh, yeah, I’d hoped they were serious about the border; but, y’know, gun to my head, I’d have come down on figuring that they weren’t, that they were way too cavalier about it. When they talked readily about decriminalization, I admitted it was possible they were in favor of deportations; but that wasn’t the way I’d have bet.

Instead, the way I’d bet is the way I’ll vote.

(A side point: GIGObuster said I “never clarified if he still thinks that guys like me should be considered criminals.” Which is true; he said he’d crossed the border illegally, and then he added something about amnesty, and I don’t know enough to weigh in on the specifics. In the same vein, if someone flatly told me they illegally dodged the draft, and added that they later got amnesty under President Carter, I’d likewise be in no hurry to weigh in on criminality; the specifics seem to be doing all the work. Which, in turn, I guess brings me to BigT asking “why you couldn't just vote for a Democrat as president, but vote for a congressional representative who would not pass this change. Illegal immigration is a crime under the law, so only Congress could change that law.” I guess the exact limits of power of the president to hand out amnesty-type stuff is one more item I’d like to err on the side of caution of, instead of shrugging up a benefit of the doubt.)
  #155  
Old 01-25-2020, 12:10 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Thank you for that response, TOWP. On first blush, I think your concerns about "open borders" are unfounded for two reasons:

1) There has been no serious Open Borders policy put forward by any Democratic candidate.
2) I am not aware of a significant voting base that would support that kind of policy even if it was put forward.

So to a large extent, I believe your fears are unfounded, and I would go even so far as to call them irrational.

Nevertheless, you replied honestly so I want to spend some time considering this subject from your point of view to see if it has merit, specifically as it relates to the following key statement you made:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOWP
...because it actually would be so awful a prospect, so ruinous to the country, that a candidate who gets something so big so wrong should spark a long talk about the lesser of two evils — because it’d ultimately make their other policy positions pretty much irrelevant, because there pretty much wouldn’t be a country left.

That’s how important immigration policy is to me.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #156  
Old 01-25-2020, 12:15 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
You're completely useless as a poster except for the comedy. If you want to be otherwise, then maybe considering upping the quality of your posts. It is the only reason I've not put you on ignore. You're hilarious. Not quite Silver Lining levels of funny, but Silver Lining could be funny on multiple topics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Oh BeepKillBeep, you hurt my poor little feelings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
...aaaaand, BANNED.

Fuck your poor little feelings, slEasyPhil.
And good riddance.
  #157  
Old 01-25-2020, 12:22 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Since you put it that way at the end, let me answer your question with a question: why, when I’ve been talking about decriminalization, have folks in this thread been so quick to draw a distinction between it and open borders?

I didn’t bring it up — and I’m not mistaking one for the other — but, for some reason, posters in this thread keep wanting to emphasize that one isn’t the other; that they support the former, but not the latter.
Well thanks again for pointing out that you are thinking about supporting Trump by ignoring what he has accused others day in and day out.

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...n-open-borders
Quote:
President Trump early Tuesday again took aim at Democrats, accusing the party of supporting "open borders" in a pair of tweets.

Trump tweeted that Democratic immigration policy would lead to "violent crime, drugs and human trafficking" as his administration battles public opinion over the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers held in detention facilities across the southern border.

"Democrats want Open Borders, which equals violent crime, drugs and human trafficking. They also want very high taxes, like 90%. Republicans want what’s good for America - the exact opposite!" he tweeted.

"Too bad the Dems in Congress won’t do anything at all about Border Security," the president continued. "They want Open Borders, which means crime. But we are getting it done, including building the Wall! More people than ever before are coming because the USA Economy is so good, the best in history."
BTW I pointed later that usually the ones that point at immigration when supporting Trump do so because of big lie items like that one (and BTW, items like big lies are part of the reason why people like me are against him), because I said before that 'I was covering the bases' and since you clarified that was not it, then going back to it is just useless pap, or as noticed here, just a demonstration that you do not care about big lies will from a candidate when you consider voting for him.
  #158  
Old 01-25-2020, 01:09 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Thank you for that response, TOWP. On first blush, I think your concerns about "open borders" are unfounded for two reasons:

1) There has been no serious Open Borders policy put forward by any Democratic candidate.
2) I am not aware of a significant voting base that would support that kind of policy even if it was put forward.
Fair enough; but:

1) How well do you think it’s currently polling?
2) How well do you think Miss-It-Pretty-Close would poll?

To elaborate on the first: someone who says “hell, yeah, open borders” — roughly how big a percentage of Americans, and how big a percentage of Democrats, do you figure that is?

And on the second: someone who’d say, “oh, no, not open borders; but, of course, decriminalization, plus a path to citizenship for anyone who’s already here and has committed no other crimes. But, hang on; what are we really talking about, here? Deporting someone who’s done nothing (else) wrong, but then got nailed for some petty misdemeanor? Is that justice? And if we’re letting folks who are already here stay, then who are we to kick out significantly similar folks who cross a border next week or next month? Is that fair? But don’t you dare call that Open Borders; no, if I had my way, they’d pay a steep price! A steep price! Make no mistake: I’m talking some nonzero figure! So they can’t cross a border willy-nilly; no, sir, it’s NOT nil! They want to come in, they’ll answer to ME!”
  #159  
Old 01-25-2020, 01:18 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
If candidates give me reason to believe they think the way begbert2 does, then I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt. I can’t ignore my concerns, and cast that vote, and if they go all wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, say, oh, yeah, I’d hoped they were serious about the border; but, y’know, gun to my head, I’d have come down on figuring that they weren’t, that they were way too cavalier about it. When they talked readily about decriminalization, I admitted it was possible they were in favor of deportations; but that wasn’t the way I’d have bet.

Instead, the way I’d bet is the way I’ll vote.
And this is once again insisting that willful ignorance is what will guide you, besides the reality that the context was to stop using the part of the criminal law against refugees or immigrant families there is the reality, willfully ignored, that there is very little chance that a president will change the laws.
  #160  
Old 01-25-2020, 01:26 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Fair enough; but:

1) How well do you think it’s currently polling?
2) How well do you think Miss-It-Pretty-Close would poll?

To elaborate on the first: someone who says “hell, yeah, open borders” — roughly how big a percentage of Americans, and how big a percentage of Democrats, do you figure that is?

And on the second: someone who’d say, “oh, no, not open borders; but, of course, decriminalization, plus a path to citizenship for anyone who’s already here and has committed no other crimes. But, hang on; what are we really talking about, here? Deporting someone who’s done nothing (else) wrong, but then got nailed for some petty misdemeanor? Is that justice? And if we’re letting folks who are already here stay, then who are we to kick out significantly similar folks who cross a border next week or next month? Is that fair? But don’t you dare call that Open Borders; no, if I had my way, they’d pay a steep price! A steep price! Make no mistake: I’m talking some nonzero figure! So they can’t cross a border willy-nilly; no, sir, it’s NOT nil! They want to come in, they’ll answer to ME!”
More ignorance, because even under Reagan and Bush senior, amnesty was granted to the ones that had to pass several checks, like the cutoff date (and pass a few $ checks to the department of state IIRC to pay for the process, it was not free at all)

BTW I do remember that in one speech from Trump he did mention that even after all what he promised to some illegals would still remain, IIRC he did mention items like, well, those who remain already demonstrated that they had the means (for sure the more wealthy) and reasons to remain in the USA. So they would remain in the USA, meaning that Trump does not care much about your hangup.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-25-2020 at 01:31 PM.
  #161  
Old 01-25-2020, 01:55 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
More ignorance, because even under Reagan and Bush senior, amnesty was granted to the ones that had to pass several checks, like the cutoff date (and pass a few $ checks to the department of state IIRC to pay for the process, it was not free at all)
I don’t get why you’re mentioning that; you quoted me as saying it’d be nonzero, and you’re replying that — it was not free?

Yeah, that’s — wasn’t that my point? Like, if you’d brought that up in response to me flatly saying it’d be zero, then, sure, I’d get why you said it; but in response to me saying nonzero? Didn’t I already build that into the hypothetical?

Quote:
BTW I do remember that in one speech from Trump he did mention that even after all what he promised to some illegals would still remain, IIRC he did mention items like, well, those who remain already demonstrated that they had the means (for sure the more wealthy) and reasons to remain in the USA. So they would remain in the USA, meaning that Trump does not care much about your hangup.
Well, look, clearly if you put Trump up against a candidate who aligns even closer to me on caring about this point — and, ideally, about yet others — then, by all means, figure I’d be glad to vote for that other candidate. But if he doesn’t care as much as I’d like, and he’s up against someone who cares less?
  #162  
Old 01-25-2020, 02:01 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I don’t get why you’re mentioning that; you quoted me as saying it’d be nonzero, and you’re replying that — it was not free?

Yeah, that’s — wasn’t that my point? Like, if you’d brought that up in response to me flatly saying it’d be zero, then, sure, I’d get why you said it; but in response to me saying nonzero? Didn’t I already build that into the hypothetical?
Read it again, I did not say that you said that, it was only my comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, look, clearly if you put Trump up against a candidate who aligns even closer to me on caring about this point — and, ideally, about yet others — then, by all means, figure I’d be glad to vote for that other candidate. But if he doesn’t care as much as I’d like, and he’s up against someone who cares less?
Not if he uses big lies and then smaller lies. BTW, concentrating on the wall and not in funding other ways to deal with the issue is a monumental waste tat in the end just give all the opposite of what you want.
  #163  
Old 01-25-2020, 02:02 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Fair enough; but:

1) How well do you think it’s currently polling?
2) How well do you think Miss-It-Pretty-Close would poll?

To elaborate on the first: someone who says “hell, yeah, open borders” — roughly how big a percentage of Americans, and how big a percentage of Democrats, do you figure that is?

And on the second: someone who’d say, “oh, no, not open borders; but, of course, decriminalization, plus a path to citizenship for anyone who’s already here and has committed no other crimes. But, hang on; what are we really talking about, here? Deporting someone who’s done nothing (else) wrong, but then got nailed for some petty misdemeanor? Is that justice? And if we’re letting folks who are already here stay, then who are we to kick out significantly similar folks who cross a border next week or next month? Is that fair? But don’t you dare call that Open Borders; no, if I had my way, they’d pay a steep price! A steep price! Make no mistake: I’m talking some nonzero figure! So they can’t cross a border willy-nilly; no, sir, it’s NOT nil! They want to come in, they’ll answer to ME!”
As to the first, I would have to do some research on polls that speak to numbers I can cite. But my guess based on my observational understanding of the subject, it's not polling well at all because there are no serious policies/platforms being put forward for open borders. Certainly not by any of the leading candidates in the Democratic party who are likely to face off against Trump in the 2020 election. So again, I believe your fears are unfounded and irrational in that respect.

As to the second, would you be opposed to Obama era immigration policies and practices? I assume not since you supported him with your vote. What is your evidence, not fear or conjecture, actual evidence that the leading democrats intend to implement anything significantly different? And even if you have your reasons for doubt given their ill-considered response in a debate, are you willing to vote for someone who has demonstrated such callousness and willingness to continue with more of the same? If you are up for more of the same, because 'that is how important immigration is to you', can you demonstrate how such harsh policies are good for American society?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #164  
Old 01-25-2020, 02:16 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, look, clearly if you put Trump up against a candidate who aligns even closer to me on caring about this point — and, ideally, about yet others — then, by all means, figure I’d be glad to vote for that other candidate. But if he doesn’t care as much as I’d like, and he’s up against someone who cares less?
Another thing:

As many others notice, besides Trump lying about many aspects of the issue, the big picture shows just waste and disregard for the well-being of Americans. Because you will be glad to vote for Trump it also means that you are glad that even less funding will be available for (ironically what he claims to support) military families and other projects sacrificed on an item that Trump had to lie and continue to lie about how effective it is when dealing with the issue.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/defens...or-border-wall
Quote:
During the 2016 election, Donald Trump repeatedly pledged that, as president, he would get Mexico to pay for the construction of his much-promised wall along the U.S. southern border.

On Tuesday, his administration revealed that it would be paying for the wall instead by diverting funds meant for the construction of elementary schools, hazardous waste warehouse facilities, and fire stations, among other Department of Defense initiatives.

The revelation came in the form of a list of projects that DOD sent to Capitol Hill that it says it will now be putting on hold as the president transfers funds from that department to wall construction. All told, DOD pinpointed more than $1 billion in mainland priorities that it was now shelving, in addition to $1.8 billion in foreign-based projects, and nearly $700 million in projects based in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands—all U.S. territories.

Among the notable items now on the backburner include $62 million for a middle school at Ft. Campbell in Kentucky, $13 million for a “child development center” at Joint Base Andrews near Washington, more than $40 million to replace a hazardous materials warehouse in Virginia, nearly $11 million for a fire station replacement in Beaufort, South Carolina; nearly $95 million for an elementary school at Camp Mctureous in Japan; and nearly $80 million for an elementary school replacement project in Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-25-2020 at 02:18 PM.
  #165  
Old 01-25-2020, 03:03 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
As to the first, I would have to do some research on polls that speak to numbers I can cite. But my guess based on my observational understanding of the subject, it's not polling well at all because there are no serious policies/platforms being put forward for open borders. Certainly not by any of the leading candidates in the Democratic party who are likely to face off against Trump in the 2020 election. So again, I believe your fears are unfounded and irrational in that respect.
Well, look, until we’ve got poll numbers to mull, let me start with this: 51% is a pretty big number, but 51% of 51% isn’t; it maybe doesn’t have to be that high a number to get elected, especially if (a) you’re running against a guy with Trump’s negatives and (b) a good-sized chunk of the voters who are against open borders don’t care as much about that issue as they do about other issues.

That said, to the very extent that you’re right about it not polling well, I’d expect candidates who favor it to stay quiet and pitch mere decriminalization. By analogy, any candidate who actually shares Beto O’Rourke’s ideas about guns presumably realized in short order what happens if you actually say hell yes.

Quote:
As to the second, would you be opposed to Obama era immigration policies and practices? I assume not since you supported him with your vote. What is your evidence, not fear or conjecture, actual evidence that the leading democrats intend to implement anything significantly different? And even if you have your reasons for doubt given their ill-considered response in a debate,
As you hint, the debate response is of course what got my attention and gave me cause to think their policies would be different than Obama’s (because, as far as I know, Obama didn’t actually sign on for decriminalization. But, at that, as far as I know it’s not just an “ill-considered response in a debate”: isn’t decriminalization also what various of them have slowly and patiently explained since?

Quote:
are you willing to vote for someone who has demonstrated such callousness and willingness to continue with more of the same? If you are up for more of the same, because 'that is how important immigration is to you', can you demonstrate how such harsh policies are good for American society?
Again, compared to what? If someone wants to run against Trump by proposing less harsh policies — but without preemptively taking the option of prosecution off the table by saying you don’t even see it as being the least of misdemeanors; after all, it’s only someone entering our country without our permission, it’s not as serious as someone entering a guy’s yard without permission — then, yeah, talk about how many millions of illegal aliens we can reasonably expect to be removed from the country, and I’ll maybe nod approvingly like in the Obama days. But the closer you get to ‘compared to open borders’, the more skeptical I get.

(Which, again, is why I figure it makes less sense for us to go into detail now, and more sense to hash this out once there’s an actual candidate.)

Having said that, though: isn’t this, implicitly, the whole point of screening border crossers at all? Isn’t it built on us saying ‘yes’ to some, and ‘no’ to others, and the reason we sometimes say ‘no’ is because, hey, we considered the pros and cons and, well, on reflection, we don’t believe it’d be a good idea for American society to let this person in? And then they decide to come in anyway?
  #166  
Old 01-25-2020, 03:28 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Having said that, though: isn’t this, implicitly, the whole point of screening border crossers at all? Isn’t it built on us saying ‘yes’ to some, and ‘no’ to others, and the reason we sometimes say ‘no’ is because, hey, we considered the pros and cons and, well, on reflection, we don’t believe it’d be a good idea for American society to let this person in? And then they decide to come in anyway?
Again, what the Democrats and I explained many times is that their replies to decriminalization were made under the context of Trump separating families, threatening to deport dreamers and breaking laws about refugees.

You do not like that answer so you go back to illogical binary positions.

A binary position that in this case it is based in a lie also, the criminal law statutes were specifically used then for those that were found out already that should not be here and passed the border still, unless you can point to any candidate that specifically was telling us that all criminal law should be removed, you are still willfully ignoring that Democrats are not in favor of not deporting the ones that were found already to not have any evidence for asking for asylum, not a dreamer or not a person fearing for his/her life that still crosses the border regardless.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/73671...riminal-offens
Quote:
CHEN: That's correct. The 1325 and 1326 prosecutions under illegal entry and reentry had been on the books for years. But the fact is the Trump administration has really used it now to target asylum-seekers. For years, we've seen the criminal justice system add more criminal laws and harsher penalties to the system, and we ended up with massively crowded jails and tax bills and horror stories of people being treated unfairly in the jails. There is no evidence that any democrat will not use the criminal statutes when that was what was done before.

Now that is exactly what's happening with prosecutions for illegal entry, which has criminalized thousands of people simply for not having legal status. And that happened under the Obama administration and prior administrations, and it's just now being applied to extreme levels by the Trump administration.

SHAPIRO: If 1325 were eliminated, what would that mean? Would people crossing the border without papers get the equivalent of a traffic ticket? Like, what would happen if it became a civil penalty rather than a crime?

CHEN: Well, the important thing to recognize is that there do need to be consequences for violating the immigration laws, and it just depends on how it's going to be done. Almost all of the immigration statute is civil by nature, so that if you entered illegally, you could be put into immigration court removal proceedings. And then if those proceedings went through, you could be deported out of the country, and that would be the specific consequence, which is already obviously very severe.
  #167  
Old 01-25-2020, 03:38 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
My read on your thought process is that you feel Democrats can't be trusted not to implement an open border policy because you believe this to be their un-official agenda. This in the face of actual evidence of how they have handled illegal immigration issues to date (i.e. Obama era policies and actions), which are in stark contrast to open borders and decriminalization actions.

Meanwhile, you feel Trump's policies are more in line with your values despite an abundance of evidence that his actions have been demonstrably cruel, arguably unsuccessful/detrimental, and finally, outright lies (i.e. Wall).

But you reject the former and endorse the latter.

I get the emotional visceral response to illegal immigration. I don't understand the illogical decision process of choosing the latter over the former. It's counter-intuitive based on the preponderance of evidence as to which has been more effective in achieving your stated goals.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #168  
Old 01-25-2020, 03:43 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Like many, I lament the lack of Trump defenders on this Board. Perhaps I am to blame, calling Mr. Ditka a "sea lion" (whatever that means) till he went away. We do have octopus and Shodan, but they hardly help: These days the former just posts vapid one-liners, and the latter posts truisms interspersed with nastiness.

[...]

Others can post as they please — this is the Pit — But I personally applaud Jim Peebles for his bravery and cleverness. The above excerpt may not be fully sincere or earnest, but possibly other Peebles' postings were.
I was reading about Tobin Smith (former Fox presenter) and his big reveal that everything on Fox is staged and that they actively choose the dopiest, most twit-like libruls to bring on, to argue their positions. It's good for ratings and plays great into a face/heel dynamic that people naturally eat up.

I feel no need to follow the model.

If there are no good Trump supporters, then let that be that. We don't need mosquitoes to pull the wings off of.
  #169  
Old 01-25-2020, 06:51 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
My read on your thought process is that you feel Democrats can't be trusted not to implement an open border policy because you believe this to be their un-official agenda. This in the face of actual evidence of how they have handled illegal immigration issues to date (i.e. Obama era policies and actions), which are in stark contrast to open borders and decriminalization actions.
But, again, it’s not quite right to say I’m saying Democrats can’t be trusted.

After all, the point is that I gave Obama, who to the best of my knowledge never called for decriminalization, the benefit of the doubt; and then I gave Clinton, who to the best of my knowledge never called for decriminalization, the benefit of the doubt. And if this year’s Democratic candidate takes the same approach, why, I’m open to giving them the benefit of the doubt likewise.

Quote:
I get the emotional visceral response to illegal immigration. I don't understand the illogical decision process of choosing the latter over the former. It's counter-intuitive based on the preponderance of evidence as to which has been more effective in achieving your stated goals.
In what way? Again, if the eventual Dem nominee says “hey, I figure on taking the same approach that Obama did on this issue,” then I’m of course willing to say “oh, well, then, sure, looking at how that went, the evidence seems to be on your side; so, yeah, benefit of the doubt; I’ll trust you; don’t let me down.”
  #170  
Old 01-25-2020, 07:50 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Another thing:

As many others notice, besides Trump lying about many aspects of the issue, the big picture shows just waste and disregard for the well-being of Americans. Because you will be glad to vote for Trump it also means that you are glad that even less funding will be available for (ironically what he claims to support) military families and other projects sacrificed on an item that Trump had to lie and continue to lie about how effective it is when dealing with the issue.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/defens...or-border-wall
That's the thing. They don't give a fuck about the military or military families. They never did. It was all a lie from the very beginning.

As for lying about many issues, he lies about ALL issues, and ALL parts of ALL issues. And then lies about the lies.
  #171  
Old 01-26-2020, 09:32 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But, again, it’s not quite right to say I’m saying Democrats can’t be trusted.

After all, the point is that I gave Obama, who to the best of my knowledge never called for decriminalization, the benefit of the doubt; and then I gave Clinton, who to the best of my knowledge never called for decriminalization, the benefit of the doubt. And if this year’s Democratic candidate takes the same approach, why, I’m open to giving them the benefit of the doubt likewise.



In what way? Again, if the eventual Dem nominee says “hey, I figure on taking the same approach that Obama did on this issue,” then I’m of course willing to say “oh, well, then, sure, looking at how that went, the evidence seems to be on your side; so, yeah, benefit of the doubt; I’ll trust you; don’t let me down.”

Fair enough. I still consider your single issue stance to be very strange. That you would jeopardize so many other key (progressive) issues that you claim to support, just to ensure a very narrow and specific course of action on immigration is puzzling to me. It would be easy to comprehend if it could be fairly said that, all other things being equal, Trump's immigration policy is more in line with your values. But that is not at all the case. None of his policies and actions appear to align with those you claim to support, except those on immigration. And the latter has been shown to be problematic, to say the least. Thus, I remain completely baffled by your world views.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #172  
Old 01-26-2020, 02:44 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Fair enough. I still consider your single issue stance to be very strange. That you would jeopardize so many other key (progressive) issues that you claim to support, just to ensure a very narrow and specific course of action on immigration is puzzling to me.
I'm beginning to not be surprised, just look at his pathetic dodge of my question if he considers guys like me to be criminals. People that were war refugees, who entered illegally, and then Reagan and other Republican presidents were forced to be human and offer amnesty to people like me.

As you mention, other issues should be considered in voting for a cruel ignoramus, and one pertinent issue that will affect immigration: global warming, is being criminally ignored by Trump and his henchman, never mind that the future now looks more likely to get a worse refugee crisis than what we have now, TOWP just concentrates at how funny some democrats reacted to Trump's incompetency and abuses, and yet he still continues to consider voting to let the current (mis) administration to continue to burn the world. And get more likely the opposite of that he thinks he would get.


Nice work breaking it "hero".

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-26-2020 at 02:49 PM.
  #173  
Old 01-26-2020, 03:22 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I'm beginning to not be surprised, just look at his pathetic dodge of my question if he considers guys like me to be criminals. People that were war refugees, who entered illegally, and then Reagan and other Republican presidents were forced to be human and offer amnesty to people like me.
What is your weird obsession with this? I said that I don’t know enough to weigh in about your situation, because, well, I don’t; you call that a “pathetic dodge”, but what the heck is the alternative? Give you a flat “yes” or “no” when I don’t know? Why would you even want a “yes” or a “no” from me in that case?

(It doesn’t strike me as especially reasonable to ask for a yes-or-no answer in such a scenario, but it also doesn’t even strike me as interesting: once you’ve heard me say that I don’t know, why would it even matter whether I then say “no” or “yes”? What would either answer even mean, apart from being a lie?)
  #174  
Old 01-26-2020, 05:01 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What is your weird obsession with this? I said that I don’t know enough to weigh in about your situation, because, well, I don’t; you call that a “pathetic dodge”, but what the heck is the alternative? Give you a flat “yes” or “no” when I don’t know? Why would you even want a “yes” or a “no” from me in that case?

(It doesn’t strike me as especially reasonable to ask for a yes-or-no answer in such a scenario, but it also doesn’t even strike me as interesting: once you’ve heard me say that I don’t know, why would it even matter whether I then say “no” or “yes”? What would either answer even mean, apart from being a lie?)
Well, you have very strong feelings about who should or should not be allowed to stay and what laws should be in place to help guide those decisions. It doesn't seem all that strange for GIGObuster to want to know your thoughts on the criteria you use to draw those conclusions. A few hypothetical scenarios would suffice as an illustration without getting into the specifics of his situation. Or, who knows, perhaps he can persuade you to reconsider based on insight/information you lack.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #175  
Old 01-26-2020, 06:47 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Well, you have very strong feelings about who should or should not be allowed to stay and what laws should be in place to help guide those decisions. It doesn't seem all that strange for GIGObuster to want to know your thoughts on the criteria you use to draw those conclusions. A few hypothetical scenarios would suffice as an illustration without getting into the specifics of his situation. Or, who knows, perhaps he can persuade you to reconsider based on insight/information you lack.
Well, flip that around for a bit: you said, a little while ago, that you are “not aware of a significant voting base that would support that kind of policy even if it was put forward. So to a large extent, I believe your fears are unfounded, and I would go even so far as to call them irrational.”

Since you mentioned that you’re not aware of a significant voting base before you then talked of unfoundedness and irrationality, which seemed pretty “strong”, I of course asked you how well you think it’s polling — thinking that maybe you were saying you were aware of the numbers, but didn’t find them significant.

You replied that you would have to do some research; and so I shrugged, because, hey, I figured that was true as well as satisfactory: if you don’t actually happen to know, then (a) okay; and (b) I wouldn’t characterize your reply as some kind of, uh, “pathetic dodge”: if you do feel like looking into it and then saying more, why, then, fine by me; but until and unless you bother, then I’m genuinely okay with what struck me as an honest answer.

I gave GIGObuster an honest answer: I don’t feel that I happen to know enough to weigh in on that question; and I don’t ask more of you — or him — than I give in return, by which I mean I don’t insist on getting or giving a binary yes-or-no answer whenever “I don’t know” happens to be the truth.
  #176  
Old 01-26-2020, 06:58 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What is your weird obsession with this? I said that I don’t know enough to weigh in about your situation, because, well, I don’t; you call that a “pathetic dodge”, but what the heck is the alternative? Give you a flat “yes” or “no” when I don’t know? Why would you even want a “yes” or a “no” from me in that case?
If Trump had been president then, not only he would have run afoul even more regarding international law, but I could have been then be separated from my family, maybe forever.

It is not an obsession, it is just empathy to other Salvadorans and other groups that are in a very similar situation now. And empathy is indeed a human quality.

Your still pathetic defense for not answering is because you are appealing to your ignorance, just saying here that it is a very underwhelming reason to use as a justification to vote for Trump.

Indeed, you are ignoring a lot to assume your position. That ignorance is crucial because it would indeed undermine your binary position that you think Democrats have; as the evidence already showed, it is only under some exceptions on not using criminal statutes as many past administrations (including Republicans) did before is that the Democrats are basing their protest and demand of specific decriminalizations that the current administration should look at.

Just because of that ignorance that you reported there you should already reconsider your position or study more about the history and how extreme and unnecessarily vindictive the current administration is. (Not to mention racist when considering against who they are concentrating their efforts and how Trump's anti science that he will ramp up if he wins again will make the refugee crisis worse than it is now.)

On Edit:

Well, TOWP, as I noted, yours is not really much of an honest answer, it is really a very ignorant answer.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-26-2020 at 07:03 PM.
  #177  
Old 01-26-2020, 07:26 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Just because of that ignorance that you reported there you should already reconsider your position or study more about the history
...why?

Say I go study more and come back and declare either that (a) okay, having looked into it, I now do happen to consider you to be a criminal; or that (b) having looked into it, I can now say that I don’t happen to consider you to be a criminal. What would either shift from an honest “I don’t know” mean for my position?
  #178  
Old 01-26-2020, 08:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
...why?
Says the whiny kid

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Say I go study more and come back and declare either that (a) okay, having looked into it, I now do happen to consider you to be a criminal; or that (b) having looked into it, I can now say that I don’t happen to consider you to be a criminal. What would either shift from an honest “I don’t know” mean for my position?
This is still whining, and ignoring the point, yes by conceding that you do not know the evidence then it shows that you are honestly going to support your ignorance, that is an acknowledgment that one should withdraw from a discussion, unless the point is to show to others the dismal ignorance that they are attempting to use as justification for adopting a bad position. By educating yourself you may still reach for option (a), but that of course then would lead to point out that not even during Arpaio's rule I was found to be a criminal, so you would be wrong.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-26-2020 at 08:09 PM.
  #179  
Old 01-26-2020, 08:14 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
This is still whining, and ignoring the point, yes by conceding that you do not know the evidence then shows that you are honestly going to support your ignorance, that is an acknowledgment that one should withdraw from a discussion, unless the point is to show to others the dismal ignorance that they are attempting to use as justification for adopting a bad position.
You’re not answering my question.

You asked whether I consider you a criminal; I said I don’t know. I’ve asked you what either shift from an honest “I don’t know” — to a “yes” or a “no” — would mean for my position; you refuse to answer. I’m answering in good faith; are you?
  #180  
Old 01-26-2020, 08:40 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
You’re not answering my question.

You asked whether I consider you a criminal; I said I don’t know. I’ve asked you what either shift from an honest “I don’t know” — to a “yes” or a “no” — would mean for my position; you refuse to answer. I’m answering in good faith; are you?
Me too, you are just relying on ignorance so as to not to confront why is that your position is also wrong.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-26-2020 at 08:41 PM.
  #181  
Old 01-27-2020, 06:12 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Me too, you are just relying on ignorance so as to not to confront why is that your position is also wrong.
I don’t follow; I’m looking to take a position on what policy would be best for the country, and you — seem to be saying I can’t confront whether I’m right or wrong about what’d be in the country’s best interests, unless I can answer a yes-or-no question about whether I happen to consider you a criminal?

I genuinely don’t get it; seems to me that whether the policy would be good or bad for the country is a question that can be answered on its own. Like, if it’d be bad for the country, then it’d be bad for the country regardless of whether I consider you a criminal; and, well, if it’d be good for the country, then it’d be good for the country regardless of whether I consider you a criminal.

So, in the same vein, I figure the question of how good or bad it’d be for the country can be addressed even if an irrelevant “I don’t know” swaps in for an irrelevant “yes” or an irrelevant “no”. As I’m posting in good faith, I’ll of course reply with whichever one is the honest answer — in this case, “I don’t know” — but I don’t see why any of those three answers would be incompatible with me being right or wrong about how good or bad a given policy would be for the country.
  #182  
Old 01-27-2020, 10:29 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, flip that around for a bit: you said, a little while ago, that you are “not aware of a significant voting base that would support that kind of policy even if it was put forward. So to a large extent, I believe your fears are unfounded, and I would go even so far as to call them irrational.”

Since you mentioned that you’re not aware of a significant voting base before you then talked of unfoundedness and irrationality, which seemed pretty “strong”, I of course asked you how well you think it’s polling — thinking that maybe you were saying you were aware of the numbers, but didn’t find them significant.

You replied that you would have to do some research; and so I shrugged, because, hey, I figured that was true as well as satisfactory: if you don’t actually happen to know, then (a) okay; and (b) I wouldn’t characterize your reply as some kind of, uh, “pathetic dodge”: if you do feel like looking into it and then saying more, why, then, fine by me; but until and unless you bother, then I’m genuinely okay with what struck me as an honest answer.

I gave GIGObuster an honest answer: I don’t feel that I happen to know enough to weigh in on that question; and I don’t ask more of you — or him — than I give in return, by which I mean I don’t insist on getting or giving a binary yes-or-no answer whenever “I don’t know” happens to be the truth.
It's not clear to me what this has to do with the proposition I put to you regarding evaluating your own understanding of GIGObuster's situation as an illegal immigrant.

It is, however, clear to me that you want to avoid answering the question with any additional specificity, and I'm happy to accept an 'I don't know', from you. I sense you see it as a risky proposition to reveal anything more than you already have, thus, we're at an impasse.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #183  
Old 01-27-2020, 12:15 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
It's not clear to me what this has to do with the proposition I put to you regarding evaluating your own understanding of GIGObuster's situation as an illegal immigrant.

It is, however, clear to me that you want to avoid answering the question with any additional specificity, and I'm happy to accept an 'I don't know', from you. I sense you see it as a risky proposition to reveal anything more than you already have, thus, we're at an impasse.
Well, “risky” in that I don’t want to give an incorrect answer, I guess.

In another sense, though, I saw the question as irrelevant, but — in hopes that he’s arguing in good faith — I of course answered it instead of saying “that strikes me as irrelevant, and so I won’t say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ or ‘I Don’t Know’.” But since that doesn’t seem to satisfy the guy, put yourself in my shoes once more and see how this would look to me: I give an honest “I Don’t Know” to what looks like an irrelevant question, I get told we can’t move forward with the discussion about policy until I switch that to a “Yes” or a “No”...

...and, okay, let’s say I read up and eventually come back with a “No” or a “Yes”, and then politely ask if we can now proceed to discuss what’s best for the country when it comes to folks who haven’t received amnesty. What happens next? What’s to keep him from saying, oh, no, see, I already insisted you answer one irrelevant question with a “Yes” or a “No” rather than an “I Don’t Know” before moving forward; you now have to answer another irrelevant question before we can move forward, and I won’t accept an honest “I Don’t Know”; this is about waiting until you can give a “Yes” or a “No” a second time, understand?

What’s to stop him from doing that a third time, and then a fourth time, and every time he feels like making me jump through yet another hoop, all while I (a) keep saying it strikes me as irrelevant, and (b) obligingly answer anyway, and (c) note, in passing, that as far as I can tell “I Don’t Know” is an honest answer — but, okay, once again I’ll try and shift it to a “Yes” or a “No” if you insist?

Not sure I’d call that “risky”, but I’d get concerned that it’s going nowhere.
  #184  
Old 01-27-2020, 12:21 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I don’t follow; I’m looking to take a position on what policy would be best for the country, and you — seem to be saying I can’t confront whether I’m right or wrong about what’d be in the country’s best interests, unless I can answer a yes-or-no question about whether I happen to consider you a criminal?
I was not born yesterday, while your justification for thinking about voting for Trump was born a week ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
For one: is the candidate in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings? That strikes me as specific and plausible, and it’d incline me to vote for Trump instead.
Again, the evidence showed that the decriminalization the Democrats were talking about was on point, about how criminal statutes should not be used against refugees, families fleeing violence or dreamers.

We know then what logically follows from that: you already think that I'm a criminal. I was just waiting to see the levels you would reach to ignore and deny what you had said before.

All the going back and forth shows that you are unwilling to consider any exceptions and when confronted with what should be an exception to your early say so, you equivocate now.

The reality is that Trump is removing all humane exceptions that were there in past. Exceptions that Republican and Democratic administrations used before in a bit of restrain about when criminal statutes were used.

Your solution here is to still avoid confronting that real life does include exceptions that do not go away just to fit your hard position, a position that then Trump uses to break other laws. (yet another item that you are willfully ignoring on the way to thinking that it may be a good idea to vote for Trump)

One reason why you continue using ignorance to support the idea of voting for Trump comes up clearly based on your replies, you are ignoring exceptions because it will make your early criminalization point to be as ignorant and reckless as it looks for others in the discussion. So now you fall for fake ignorance about what you told us early.

There is that, and going a bit meta:

You are wrong also about thinking that you are doing ok about falling for a silly "I don't know" position. The trouble is that by now the evidence presented shows that you continue to ignore what the Democrats were specifically complaining about; you are also ignoring examples and history about the exceptions that basic humans think should be there that does not require us to use the criminal statutes. To then still continue to use the no decision position does not show wisdom but reaching for a lousy decision.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/mon...sion/13243769/
Quote:
“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing and the worst thing you can do is nothing.” - Theodore Roosevelt.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-27-2020 at 12:23 PM.
  #185  
Old 01-27-2020, 01:43 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
It's not clear to me what this has to do with the proposition I put to you regarding evaluating your own understanding of GIGObuster's situation as an illegal immigrant.
One thing to clarify though, I was undocumented before in the 80's, but thanks to Republicans with a conscience, I got legal residence and then became an American citizen in the 90's.

And while there is a lot of dislike for immigrants now, as seen coming from some posters here, since I'm not a criminal or ruined the nation I have to report that I have been paying taxes, following the law (and working in education sacrificing a lot), just like the vast majority of immigrants end up doing too. And while I'm not likely to get thanks or understanding from many Trump voters. It will be OK by me to know that my taxes will help in their retirement or with programs that benefit them too.

To them I will continue to say "You are welcome" even if they ignore what we really are and do.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-27-2020 at 01:44 PM.
  #186  
Old 01-27-2020, 04:02 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
What's up with these newcomers?
Russian trollbots????

Just spitballing.
  #187  
Old 01-27-2020, 04:33 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
One thing to clarify though, I was undocumented before in the 80's, but thanks to Republicans with a conscience, I got legal residence and then became an American citizen in the 90's.

And while there is a lot of dislike for immigrants now, as seen coming from some posters here, since I'm not a criminal or ruined the nation I have to report that I have been paying taxes, following the law (and working in education sacrificing a lot), just like the vast majority of immigrants end up doing too. And while I'm not likely to get thanks or understanding from many Trump voters. It will be OK by me to know that my taxes will help in their retirement or with programs that benefit them too.

To them I will continue to say "You are welcome" even if they ignore what we really are and do.
Well, one immigrant to another, I came over to the US from Canada to do IT jobs Americans didn't want to do. "You are welcome, eh!"
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #188  
Old 01-27-2020, 04:48 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, “risky” in that I don’t want to give an incorrect answer, I guess.

In another sense, though, I saw the question as irrelevant, but — in hopes that he’s arguing in good faith — I of course answered it instead of saying “that strikes me as irrelevant, and so I won’t say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ or ‘I Don’t Know’.” But since that doesn’t seem to satisfy the guy, put yourself in my shoes once more and see how this would look to me: I give an honest “I Don’t Know” to what looks like an irrelevant question, I get told we can’t move forward with the discussion about policy until I switch that to a “Yes” or a “No”...

...and, okay, let’s say I read up and eventually come back with a “No” or a “Yes”, and then politely ask if we can now proceed to discuss what’s best for the country when it comes to folks who haven’t received amnesty. What happens next? What’s to keep him from saying, oh, no, see, I already insisted you answer one irrelevant question with a “Yes” or a “No” rather than an “I Don’t Know” before moving forward; you now have to answer another irrelevant question before we can move forward, and I won’t accept an honest “I Don’t Know”; this is about waiting until you can give a “Yes” or a “No” a second time, understand?

What’s to stop him from doing that a third time, and then a fourth time, and every time he feels like making me jump through yet another hoop, all while I (a) keep saying it strikes me as irrelevant, and (b) obligingly answer anyway, and (c) note, in passing, that as far as I can tell “I Don’t Know” is an honest answer — but, okay, once again I’ll try and shift it to a “Yes” or a “No” if you insist?

Not sure I’d call that “risky”, but I’d get concerned that it’s going nowhere.
To anyone of the very liberal crowd here, voting for Trump is anathema, so from their perspective no one could ever vote for Trump for any reason therefore your position (whatever it is) is wrong. That's why Gigo refuses to take "I don't know" as an answer and why he is saying that you are arguing from ignorance. Because clearly ANY position that doesn't align with his is WRONG.

And it isn't just him.
  #189  
Old 01-27-2020, 05:57 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But if one candidate takes it seriously enough to say that criminal prosecution should be on the table, because it matters that much — and the other says, er, no, don’t be silly, it’s not even the least of misdemeanors? Try as I might, I can’t bring myself to give the latter candidate the benefit of the doubt.

I’d have the same concern about various posters in this thread. Take begbert2:

I can’t give begbert2 the benefit of the doubt on kicking those people out. Were begbert2 a presidential candidate who declared for decriminalization but claimed to be against open borders — who claimed, even, to be on the same page as me when it comes to deporting folks who’ve crossed the border illegally — I’d say to myself, well, possibly that’s true; maybe this is someone I could vote for...

...but framing it in terms of kicking out specifically innocent people who haven’t done anything (else) wrong? No, that’s not someone I trust on this; on a spectrum from ‘Open Borders’ to ‘Trump’, I have reason to believe that begbert2 isn’t really on the same page as me at all. Doesn’t see them as having done anything wrong, except maybe as a parenthetical — and jettisons even the parenthetical, when describing it as kicking out “specifically innocent people”.

That’s what begbert2 is thinking when talking about ‘decriminalization’. I don’t know, can’t know, what other folks are thinking when they say it; maybe they take illegal border crossings seriously enough to deport to my heart’s content, but maybe they’re merely pandering to folks like me while thinking like begbert2.

If candidates give me reason to believe they think the way begbert2 does, then I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt. I can’t ignore my concerns, and cast that vote, and if they go all wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, say, oh, yeah, I’d hoped they were serious about the border; but, y’know, gun to my head, I’d have come down on figuring that they weren’t, that they were way too cavalier about it. When they talked readily about decriminalization, I admitted it was possible they were in favor of deportations; but that wasn’t the way I’d have bet.

Instead, the way I’d bet is the way I’ll vote.
Since you're calling me out, I'll just point out that you still have no fucking clue how I think, and are completely wrong about it all, probably due to a level of reading comprehension that has been ravaged by erroneous preconceived notions.

I think that we can (and should) make the legal reaction to unauthorized people who enter this country be to:

1) Assess whether they should be allowed in. This would be an assessment based on their refugee status, their attempted mode of entry, their medical status, their level of acclimatization, and whether the person trying to throw them out is just a fucking racist. In the meantime they should be held at the border (if caught while crossing), or put on a frequently checked monitoring program which attempting to elude it fast-tracks them on the "throw them out" track. If we're holding them we should process them in reasonable time, and not let Republicans run the holding facilities because they're fucking racists.

2) If we decide to deport them, then deport them promptly, while noting who they are and whether we want to let them try again.

That's it. Now I fully expect this to be completely misinterpreted, because of course it will be.

Last edited by begbert2; 01-27-2020 at 05:57 PM. Reason: typo
  #190  
Old 01-27-2020, 06:03 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
All the going back and forth shows that you are unwilling to consider any exceptions and when confronted with what should be an exception to your early say so, you equivocate now.
I think you have my position exactly backwards.

As far as I can tell, there are Democratic candidates who believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime — period, no exceptions. That I disagree doesn’t mean I’m “unwilling to consider any exceptions”.

If someone says a given offense shouldn’t be a crime at all, if they’re already taking criminal punishment off the table one hundred percent of the time, then a guy can disagree by saying “well, no, I think we should have that option, and exercise it at least some of the time; I’m willing to consider exceptions”. A guy can also disagree by saying “oh, no; we should exercise criminal punishment literally every time; no exceptions” — but don’t assume the latter and work backwards; don’t flatly state that I’m an Unwilling-To-Consider-Any-Exceptions guy; just ask.

You ask if I consider you a criminal, and you state that I’m unwilling to consider any exceptions. Why the heck didn’t you just ask whether I’m unwilling to consider any exceptions? That could’ve killed this whole misunderstanding from the start!
  #191  
Old 01-27-2020, 06:10 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
To anyone of the very liberal crowd here, voting for Trump is anathema, so from their perspective no one could ever vote for Trump for any reason therefore your position (whatever it is) is wrong. That's why Gigo refuses to take "I don't know" as an answer and why he is saying that you are arguing from ignorance. Because clearly ANY position that doesn't align with his is WRONG.

And it isn't just him.
You're full of shit. His arguments aren't being called stupid merely because they lead to a terrible outcome. They're stupid period.

If your position is that you're a racist fuck who thinks that Trump is most likely going to be worse for brown people than a liberal option, then there's nothing wrong with that argument.

If your position is that you're insanely, 0.01 percentile rich and you think that Trump is going to spearhead policies that allow you to keep more of your money, and you have legitimate reasons to believe that you'll be protected when the Obama economy finally wears off and everything else crashes, then there's nothing wrong with that argument.

It's entirely possible to have solid arguments for voting for Trump. Admittedly most such arguments can only be hewn to by sociopaths, but they're still solid. This idiocy based on misunderstanding how immigration control works isn't.
  #192  
Old 01-27-2020, 06:34 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
To anyone of the very liberal crowd here, voting for Trump is anathema, so from their perspective no one could ever vote for Trump for any reason therefore your position (whatever it is) is wrong. That's why Gigo refuses to take "I don't know" as an answer and why he is saying that you are arguing from ignorance. Because clearly ANY position that doesn't align with his is WRONG.

And it isn't just him.
You're Welcome, Mr. Kearsen1...
  #193  
Old 01-27-2020, 06:39 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I think you have my position exactly backwards.

As far as I can tell, there are Democratic candidates who believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime — period, no exceptions. That I disagree doesn’t mean I’m “unwilling to consider any exceptions”.

If someone says a given offense shouldn’t be a crime at all, if they’re already taking criminal punishment off the table one hundred percent of the time, then a guy can disagree by saying “well, no, I think we should have that option, and exercise it at least some of the time; I’m willing to consider exceptions”. A guy can also disagree by saying “oh, no; we should exercise criminal punishment literally every time; no exceptions” — but don’t assume the latter and work backwards; don’t flatly state that I’m an Unwilling-To-Consider-Any-Exceptions guy; just ask.

You ask if I consider you a criminal, and you state that I’m unwilling to consider any exceptions. Why the heck didn’t you just ask whether I’m unwilling to consider any exceptions? That could’ve killed this whole misunderstanding from the start!
Funny, that only shows that you did not check the cite you made. The context is still there, it was about the exceptions that Trump was/is rejecting now what the democrats protested there.

I also shows that I was right, after considering the exceptions just like the Democrats did,.. Why should you consider voting for Trump?

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-27-2020 at 06:41 PM.
  #194  
Old 01-27-2020, 07:22 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Funny, that only shows that you did not check the cite you made. The context is still there, it was about the exceptions that Trump was/is rejecting now what the democrats protested there.
I disagree. They were asked: “Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross the border without documentation”. Some of them, who are still in the race, (a) raised their hands when asked that; and, (b) to the best of my knowledge didn’t later say, ‘look, never mind my actual answer to the question that actually got asked; I had a specialized context in mind, see, and so I believe it should still be a crime that, y’know, at least sometimes gets enforced.’

That’s why the link, as far as I can tell, doesn’t limit it to some context. “Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.” Period. “South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, author Marianne Williamson and entrepreneur Andrew Yang raised their hands when asked at the first Democratic debate whether they believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime.” Period. If any of them have walked that back, I’m all ears.
  #195  
Old 01-27-2020, 07:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I disagree. They were asked: “Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross the border without documentation”. Some of them, who are still in the race, (a) raised their hands when asked that; and, (b) to the best of my knowledge didn’t later say, ‘look, never mind my actual answer to the question that actually got asked; I had a specialized context in mind, see, and so I believe it should still be a crime that, y’know, at least sometimes gets enforced.’

That’s why the link, as far as I can tell, doesn’t limit it to some context. “Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.” Period. “South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, author Marianne Williamson and entrepreneur Andrew Yang raised their hands when asked at the first Democratic debate whether they believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime.” Period. If any of them have walked that back, I’m all ears.
You have been repeatedly reminded that something doesn't have to be a crime for deportation to happen as a result of it. How many times more will you have to be told that for it to penetrate your thick skull?
  #196  
Old 01-27-2020, 07:54 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
You have been repeatedly reminded that something doesn't have to be a crime for deportation to happen as a result of it. How many times more will you have to be told that for it to penetrate your thick skull?
But I know that it doesn’t have to be a crime for deportation to happen as a result of it; my point is that I’d like for criminal penalties to be a possibility too. I don’t want to take that option off the table via decriminalization; I want us to have the option of prosecuting them. (Which doesn’t mean I want them to face criminal penalties 100% of the time; it merely means I don’t want that to happen 0% of the time.)
  #197  
Old 01-27-2020, 07:57 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But I know that it doesn’t have to be a crime for deportation to happen as a result of it; my point is that I’d like for criminal penalties to be a possibility too. I don’t want to take that option off the table via decriminalization; I want us to have the option of prosecuting them. (Which doesn’t mean I want them to face criminal penalties 100% of the time; it merely means I don’t want that to happen 0% of the time.)
Why?

Seriously, why?

Because if they do other crimes while illegally entering the country, the noncriminality of the entry won't stop us from prosecuting them for drug smuggling or gunrunning or jaywalking or whatever. Other crimes are still crimes.

Which means your motivation must be to be able to lower a heavy boom on people for things that aren't crimes. And seriously, I can't think of an answer why you might want to do this other than some form or another of bigotry.
  #198  
Old 01-27-2020, 08:04 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Why?

Seriously, why?

Because if they do other crimes while illegally entering the country, the noncriminality of the entry won't stop us from prosecuting them for drug smuggling or gunrunning or jaywalking or whatever. Other crimes are still crimes.

Which means your motivation must be to be able to lower a heavy boom on people for things that aren't crimes. And seriously, I can't think of an answer why you might want to do this other than some form or another of bigotry.
That’s just it: why — right there — do you lump illegally crossing the border in with “things that aren’t crimes” when you could instead lump it in with even the least of misdemeanors? Do you seriously see it as less of a crime than those?
  #199  
Old 01-27-2020, 10:17 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I disagree. They were asked: “Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross the border without documentation”.
That is like your opinion dude. (BTW that does not mean that they omit what it was usually done anyhow: repeated offenders of the civil statute were and will still get the criminal charge.)

I prefer to look at what they clarified before, after and the context, and again: no such context or plausible explanations are coming from Trump when he omits exceptions that you "clearly" agree should be there.

This is because you are willing to vote for him even though he will attempt to circumvent congress and the courts as he showed he did, not as he opinionated on the guidance of a moderator that looked for the weak tea you are still stupidly holding for.

Point being that it is clear why you are thinking into voting for him. Because you really do think those abuses should be done regardless if it is illegal or inhumane.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-27-2020 at 10:19 PM.
  #200  
Old 01-27-2020, 10:30 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But I know that it doesn’t have to be a crime for deportation to happen as a result of it; my point is that I’d like for criminal penalties to be a possibility too.
Cite for when that was not the case? You have claimed that you do understand about the exceptions, here you are ignoring the complete picture about why the Democrats protested the inhumane abuses of Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I don’t want to take that option off the table via decriminalization; I want us to have the option of prosecuting them. (Which doesn’t mean I want them to face criminal penalties 100% of the time; it merely means I don’t want that to happen 0% of the time.)
And as pointed many times before, they wanted no criminalization of refugees, their families or the dreamers or asylum seekers.

A vote for Trump is precisely a vote to continue with inhumanity and illegal acts from Trump.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017