Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-18-2020, 11:12 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,470

@Mods -- PLEASE do not BAN Jim Peebles.


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.

The anti-right, anti-Trump atmosphere here is stifling and I think Republican Dopers should be applauded for posting here at all. Given that the Congressional party is almost unanimous in endorsing all Trump's malfeasance, I'm applying the pejorative ("Republican") to all who identify themselves with the term as well as those who voted Trump or Johnson in 2016 or who might consider voting Trump in 2020.

Bricker is gone, the Board's smartest right-winger. I'll guess he became aware of how utterly indefensible the Republicans have become, and thus could no longer post.

So let's keep somebody around! In a closed thread we find:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles
Well my psychic told me that back in January 2019, Biden was thinking "Trump might investigate me, I better start talking about running for President". So now Trump is exonerated again.
Others can post as they please ó this is the Pit ó 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.
  #2  
Old 01-18-2020, 11:19 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,970
Your pathetic wannabe Stephen Colbert schtick is getting boring. Unlike Colbert, you’re really bad at it.

Last edited by Atamasama; 01-18-2020 at 11:21 AM.
  #3  
Old 01-18-2020, 11:30 AM
atimnie's Avatar
atimnie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 4,357
Every hero needs a villain, and I think he thinks of himself as a hero who needs these villains to fight. There are plenty of places to do that if gets bored here.
__________________
Wait, you can do signatures?
  #4  
Old 01-18-2020, 12:36 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Others can post as they please ó this is the Pit ó 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.
Thing is, TPTB on the SDMB make no distinction between sincerity and trolling. One who is sincere while intentionally being a shit-stirrer is still a troll.
  #5  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:09 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,363
I consider you the SDMB fringe... but I can't figure out which fringe.
  #6  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:20 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,231
Since you posted this here, I assume you are not serious. I have to concur, you are really bad at this.
  #7  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:47 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The above excerpt may not be fully sincere or earnest, but possibly other Peebles' postings were.
Sincerity and credulity are not mutually exclusive properties. So, if I'm forced to estimate, Jim Peebles' motives mix is: 20/30/50% proportion. The last being gas-lighting. Fucker lies and trolls through his teeth as often as he is sincerely fucking stupid.

@septimus, not sure what you're playing at with this devil's advocacy bit. If this is even half serious, there are better, smarter, more sincere and deserving conservatives on this board on whom your pro bono time is far better spent.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #8  
Old 01-18-2020, 03:58 PM
digs's Avatar
digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 10,349
My Og, septimus, did you (or anyone sincerely defending Mr. Peebles) actually read that thread? It was unbelievable that multiple posters had to keep pointing out he had the dates wrong. He'd hung a complete argument on one date, all in service of the illogical leap of 'This one thing is wrong, so Trump is totally exonerated!'

And no matter how many times it was calmly pointed out (I lost count at 8 or 9), he kept repeating his discredited premise and yelling "Exonerated!"

I agree that we need smart Conservatives here. And right here we see the reason; because in their absence, we have shameless partisans who will say anything, clutch at any straw, and make, well, ignorant arguments.

I often wonder why they keep trying to pull that on a site with our tagline...

Last edited by digs; 01-18-2020 at 04:01 PM.
  #9  
Old 01-18-2020, 04:00 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,970
I can assure you septimus is not sincere. See here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=888062
That was the previous attempt. The following thread is a sincere one from septimus:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=876443
  #10  
Old 01-18-2020, 05:02 PM
Deltree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
I consider you the SDMB fringe... but I can't figure out which fringe.
Septimus is definitely the idiot fringe.
  #11  
Old 01-18-2020, 06:02 PM
digs's Avatar
digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 10,349
Once again, have you noticed what doesn't work, during these times? Writing the opposite of what you think because... satire!
"We need Putin [wink, wink], because Hillary [nudge, nudge]..."

Look, YOU know you're the next Li'l Stevie Colber', but we can't see your winks or feel your nudges (if we could, that'd be a Class Action Restraining Order).

There've been a lot of misunderstandings and even animosity during these Trumpy Times, because posters are taking what other posters say at face value. The problem with "I'll say something so over the top, they'll know I can't be serious!" is that our President and his followers have been saying stuff like that with no sense of humor or shame.

Last edited by digs; 01-18-2020 at 06:05 PM.
  #12  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:54 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltree View Post
Septimus is definitely the idiot fringe.
or is that his audience?
  #13  
Old 01-18-2020, 11:10 PM
Deltree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
or is that his audience?
Does he have one? I mean 'a group of people who look for his posts because they enjoy them' type of audience.
  #14  
Old 01-19-2020, 01:36 AM
atimnie's Avatar
atimnie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 4,357
You think people would actually search this troll out? Nobody's that desperate for entertainment.
__________________
Wait, you can do signatures?
  #15  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:32 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltree View Post
Does he have one? I mean 'a group of people who look for his posts because they enjoy them' type of audience.
Probably not, but that's my best explanation for his motives.
  #16  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:55 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 366
I would take up the mantle of SDMB's official Trump defender but I'm too busy having consensual sex with your women. I guess the soy smile and virtue signaling is a bit of a turn off.

Help, I Can't Stop Hooking Up With Trump Supporters

https://www.glamour.com/story/hookin...p-voters-essay
  #17  
Old 01-19-2020, 01:29 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,489
Glamour, eh? I had you figured as a Redbook guy. Maybe Cosmo.
  #18  
Old Yesterday, 02:25 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,013
This doesn't read like your satire, which was always obvious if you read the entire post. The only sign this could be satire is that you've been satirical lately, and you posted in the Pit rather than ATMB where you're supposed to post actual requests to mods.

I thought your satirical character was a fellow Republican, but this character is clearly just a liberal poster who is finding (misguided, IMHO) reasons to sympathize with bad-acting conservatives. Your satirical character would be praising Shodan and such. It would accuse the libs of forcing Bricker out, rather than saying he got tired of defending the Republicans when they're shit.

I actually kinda like your satirical conservative character--as long as you don't overuse him. But this guy seems sincere.

I hope he's not the real you, as the argument, to put it nicely, leaves a lot to be desired.
  #19  
Old Yesterday, 09:20 AM
Personal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 2,697
I made the mistake of thinking this was posted on ATMB and not the pit.
  #20  
Old Yesterday, 09:29 AM
kitap is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
Every hero needs a villain, and I think he thinks of himself as a hero who needs these villains to fight. There are plenty of places to do that if gets bored here.
No, every hero needs a theme song.
  #21  
Old Yesterday, 10:21 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,470


Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I can assure you septimus is not sincere. See here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=888062
That was the previous attempt. The following thread is a sincere one from septimus:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=876443
Yes, your 2nd example is Sincere Septimus (Dr. Septimus Jekyll if you will), while the first one comes from the caricature Mr._Septimus_Hyde, who will be posting very seldom in future, I hope.

HOWEVER, the OP of this thread was entirely sincere (the final sentence was a bit tongue-in-cheek) and I'm confused that anyone can read it and think otherwise. Certainly OP isn't supportive of Republicanism or Trumpism.

(Often at SDMB I feel that Dopers react to a thread title without reading OP. Is that what happened here?)

I DO think the Board needs a Trump defender to improve debate. Yes, Jim Peebles is an imbecile or a lying hypocrite or (most likely) both. But maybe that's all that's available in the way of Trump defenders.
  #22  
Old Yesterday, 10:46 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I DO think the Board needs a Trump defender to improve debate. Yes, Jim Peebles is an imbecile or a lying hypocrite or (most likely) both. But maybe that's all that's available in the way of Trump defenders.
::shrugs::

Iíll probably wind up voting for Trump; I didnít see much point in going in for debate until the Democrats actually settle on a candidate to run against him, but, hey, (a) feel free to kick off a debate in Elections this early, if youíre so inclined; and, what the heck, (b) feel free, hereabouts, to hang an insulting label or two on me.
  #23  
Old Yesterday, 10:53 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I would take up the mantle of SDMB's official Trump defender but I'm too busy having consensual sex with your women.
They're not my women. My women have better taste in men.


Actually, I don't have any women. They have themselves.
  #24  
Old Yesterday, 12:07 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
[...] I'm too busy having consensual sex with your women.
On the one hand, it's good that a Trump supporter has managed to grasp that sex is supposed to be consensual. On the other hand, it's kind of worrisome that the concept is so novel to him that he thinks it needs to be explicitly stated, like a habitual shoplifter announcing that he's got a bag of "legally purchased potato chips".

Of course, it would be more worrisome if we had any reason to think that LAZombie's claim was anything but entirely fictional.
  #25  
Old Yesterday, 12:15 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
::shrugs::

Iíll probably wind up voting for Trump; I didnít see much point in going in for debate until the Democrats actually settle on a candidate to run against him, but, hey, (a) feel free to kick off a debate in Elections this early, if youíre so inclined; and, what the heck, (b) feel free, hereabouts, to hang an insulting label or two on me.
A vote for Trump and the Republicans is now a vote for corruption, less freedom and less action on health care, climate change and many other items.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2824578001/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2824578001/

IMHO any insults coming to Trump supporters and current Republican leadership are now self-inflicted because a lot of issues now are being looked at by the right with willful ignorance so as to allow them to continue to support ignorant and reckless people in power.

Last edited by GIGObuster; Yesterday at 12:19 PM.
  #26  
Old Yesterday, 12:37 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Of course, it would be more worrisome if we had any reason to think that LAZombie's claim was anything but entirely fictional.
Oh, leave him his fantasies. It must be a struggle to crawl from under that rock most days.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #27  
Old Yesterday, 12:50 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
A vote for Trump and the Republicans is now a vote for corruption, less freedom and less action on health care, climate change and many other items.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2824578001/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2824578001/

IMHO any insults coming to Trump supporters and current Republican leadership are now self-inflicted because a lot of issues now are being looked at by the right with willful ignorance so as to allow them to continue to support ignorant and reckless people in power.
Well, The Other Waldo Pepper thinks it's a debate worth having. But not until the Democratic Party has picked it's candidate. Surely the contrast will be made more clear on that day when all or Trump's history will be wiped clean from collective memory and consideration. Until such time, it's impossible to know which trivial flaw of the Democratic Party candidate must be sharply drawn into focus and blown completely out of proportion.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #28  
Old Yesterday, 01:06 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Well, The Other Waldo Pepper thinks it's a debate worth having. But not until the Democratic Party has picked it's candidate. Surely the contrast will be made more clear on that day when all or Trump's history will be wiped clean from collective memory and consideration. Until such time, it's impossible to know which trivial flaw of the Democratic Party candidate must be sharply drawn into focus and blown completely out of proportion.
Youíre giving up the argument before it even starts: leading off with a flat claim that Trumpís history will be wiped clean from consideration, and then announcing that the other candidateís flaw will be trivial. Why frame it that way? Iíd sure like to think I will take the guyís history into consideration, and compare it to a flaw that wonít be at all trivial; if youíre already declaring the situation to be the other way around, then Iíll be arguing in good faith while you and yours, uh, arenít?

Youíre right that I think itís a debate worth having. Do you?
  #29  
Old Yesterday, 01:17 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Iíd sure like to think I will take the guyís history into consideration, and compare it to a flaw that wonít be at all trivial
Are you arguing that a candidate who manages to make it through the Democratic nomination process is reasonably likely have a flaw "that won't be at all trivial" in comparison to Trump's established record of incompetence, venality and malevolence?

Such as what, for example? What are some specific plausible instances of characteristics that you'd consider flaws in a Democratic candidate that would incline you to vote for Trump instead?

I mean, at some point this sort of "bothsidesist" determination to reserve judgement as long as possible starts coming across as less judicious than flat-out delusional.
  #30  
Old Yesterday, 01:25 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Are you arguing that a candidate who manages to make it through the Democratic nomination process is reasonably likely have a flaw "that won't be at all trivial" in comparison to Trump's established record of incompetence, venality and malevolence?

Such as what, for example? What are some specific plausible instances of characteristics that you'd consider flaws in a Democratic candidate that would incline you to vote for Trump instead?
For one: is the candidate in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings? That strikes me as specific and plausible, and itíd incline me to vote for Trump instead.
  #31  
Old Yesterday, 01:35 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
You’re giving up the argument before it even starts: leading off with a flat claim that Trump’s history will be wiped clean from consideration, and then announcing that the other candidate’s flaw will be trivial. Why frame it that way? I’d sure like to think I will take the guy’s history into consideration, and compare it to a flaw that won’t be at all trivial; if you’re already declaring the situation to be the other way around, then I’ll be arguing in good faith while you and yours, uh, aren’t?

You’re right that I think it’s a debate worth having. Do you?
You don't need a Democratic candidate to defend Trump's virtues. You could simply come out and tell everyone what you think they are. But you didn't. You chose to punt so you could pick nits about whomever the Dems choose. Not only that, you specifically said you'd "probably vote for Trump", without even knowing who that candidate would be. Which tells me, you aren't really serious about the debate you propose. You just want to postpone until you know which potential weakness to focus on to distract from your actual intent - which is to vote for Trump, regardless. So no, despite your protest, I see no 'good faith argument' coming from you.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; Yesterday at 01:36 PM.
  #32  
Old Yesterday, 01:42 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,947
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 itíd incline me to vote for Trump instead.
All this beating around the bush. Let's cut to the chase. Which Democratic candidate in the current field, with a realistic chance of winning, would you vote for instead of Trump? Note, realistic. Not somebody you can later claim you'd have voted for had not the Dems forced you to vote for Trump. Also, keep in mind, Joe Walsh (R) or a write-in is an option you can exercise, but notably have not considered or offered.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #33  
Old Yesterday, 01:53 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
You don't need a Democratic candidate to defend Trump's virtues. You could simply come out and tell everyone what you think they are. But you didn't. You chose to punt so you could pick nits about whomever the Dems choose. Not only that, you specifically said you'd "probably vote for Trump", without even knowing who that candidate would be. Which tells me, you aren't really serious about the debate you propose. You just want to postpone until you know which potential weakness to focus on to distract from your actual intent - which is to vote for Trump, regardless. So no, despite your protest, I see no 'good faith argument' coming from you.
Iím not out to ďdefend Trumpís virtuesĒ. Iím guessing Iíll be comparing him to the other candidate in, to coin a phrase, a lesser-of-two-evils contest; and, while Iím not yet sure which candidate itíll be, based on what Iíve seen I can already play the odds to figure ó in all seriousness ó that itíll probably wind up being one that I already think falls short in that comparison.

But that lesser-of-two-evils comparison ó to be mulled in good faith ó is, as it happens, my ďactual intentĒ; if the other candidate does wind up being someone who comes out ahead, then Iíll gladly vote against Trump instead of voting against the Dem. Thatís why I think the debate will be more interesting when it gets more specific; but if anyone wants to open a thread in Elections now, then, again, Iím amenable.
  #34  
Old Yesterday, 01:57 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,446
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 itíd incline me to vote for Trump instead.
Well this is a nice test of your critical thinking and to check if you are capable of figuring out that many of your sources of information are misleading you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/
Quote:
Despite President Donald Trumpís repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The small minority of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE have all said they would like to have many of ICEís functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies. None has called for abandoning border enforcement.
Context shows also that even the non candidates that would go for decriminalization are not even saying that, only that people fleeing violence, dreamers and others should not be declared to be criminals when they deserve better treatment than the one coming from racist Trump staff members that still remain in his administration.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...enophobic-base

Last edited by GIGObuster; Yesterday at 02:00 PM.
  #35  
Old Yesterday, 02:00 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,193
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 itíd incline me to vote for Trump instead.
Wait, you think that merely supporting a policy where illegal entry into the US ceases to be a criminal offense makes a candidate worse than Trump?

You do realize that even with decriminalization illegal border crossing would still be a civil infraction and the crosser would still be liable to deportation, right? And that in fact, most illegal entrants are deported via civil proceedings without ever being charged with the border-crossing crime?

What is it about the criminalization---not just illegality, which AFAICT no Democratic candidate is opposed to, but actual criminalization---of unauthorized border crossing that you think is so important?


It's alarming to think how many actual or potential Trump supporters probably imagine that decriminalization of illegal border crossings is the same thing as a full-scale open-border policy with no controls on border crossings whatsoever. Absent that misunderstanding, I really don't see why anybody would consider a policy of allowing criminal prosecution for illegal border crossing---a policy that is ineffectual, inconvenient, expensive and infrequently implemented---to be a non-negotiable election issue.

Quote:
Even under the Trump administrationís ďzero toleranceĒ policy, under which prosecutions shot up by about 40 percent, only a fraction of those who crossed the border illegally were prosecuted for doing so. The cases place a heavy administrative burden on federal judges, prosecutors and public defenders.
In other words, criminalization of illegal border crossing is arguably a fundamentally stupid policy that inarguably isn't even implemented in most cases of illegal entry, and would massively overburden our court system if applied consistently to all cases. And yet, The Other Waldo Pepper, the continuation of this policy is so important to you that you would be inclined to vote for Trump over any Democratic candidate proposing to discontinue it.

I have just one question for you, TOWP: Why??
  #36  
Old Yesterday, 02:02 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I’m not out to “defend Trump’s virtues”. I’m guessing I’ll be comparing him to the other candidate in, to coin a phrase, a lesser-of-two-evils contest; and, while I’m not yet sure which candidate it’ll be, based on what I’ve seen I can already play the odds to figure — in all seriousness — that it’ll probably wind up being one that I already think falls short in that comparison.

But that lesser-of-two-evils comparison — to be mulled in good faith — is, as it happens, my “actual intent”; if the other candidate does wind up being someone who comes out ahead, then I’ll gladly vote against Trump instead of voting against the Dem. That’s why I think the debate will be more interesting when it gets more specific; but if anyone wants to open a thread in Elections now, then, again, I’m amenable.
Is it possible that you are one of those storied but heretofore unknown to me, "Voted for Obama before I voted for Trump", unicorns? Pardon me if you've already said you are and I didn't happen to remember or notice from your previous posts.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; Yesterday at 02:03 PM.
  #37  
Old Yesterday, 02:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,446
Oh as I would say: it is now just plain ignorance and even Trump's misinformation why he would vote that way, we'll see if the evidence shows if he is willing to remain ignorant going forward.
  #38  
Old Yesterday, 02:10 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Is it possible that you are one of those storied but never actually named, "Voted for Obama before I voted for Trump", unicorns? Pardon me if you've already said you are and I didn't happen to remember or notice from your previous posts.
Not yet, Iím not; I voted for Obama, but I havenít yet voted for Trump. If the Dems put up a candidate who declares for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, then Iíll presumably wind up being a Voted For Obama Before I Voted For Trump guy.

In light of your previous question: are there any Dem candidates who have a realistic chance of winning the nomination but havenít so declared? Klobuchar, maybe? How about Bloomberg? Politico apparently has them down as not having declared for that, so I could be convinced to vote for them if thatís so.
  #39  
Old Yesterday, 02:16 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
If the Dems put up a candidate who declares for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, then Iíll presumably wind up being a Voted For Obama Before I Voted For Trump guy.
See post #35, especially the ending question.

I'm still wondering whether you're aware that decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing is not the same thing as making unauthorized border crossing legal.
  #40  
Old Yesterday, 02:17 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well this is a nice test of your critical thinking and to check if you are capable of figuring out that many of your sources of information are misleading you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/

Quote:
Despite President Donald Trumpís repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The small minority of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE have all said they would like to have many of ICEís functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies. None has called for abandoning border enforcement.
...I didnít say anything about ďopen bordersĒ; I donít know why youíre mentioning that in reply to my post. It strikes me as genuinely weird that youíd mention that in reply to my post. That bit about ďabandoning border enforcementĒ ó yeah, again, not really getting why thatís a go-to response either.

I mentioned decriminalizing illegal border crossings; why the heck are you bringing up this other stuff, instead of discussing, yíknow, that?
  #41  
Old Yesterday, 02:19 PM
Squink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,476
I've long since grown tired of jerks.
Dump em.
  #42  
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I mentioned decriminalizing illegal border crossings; why the heck are you bringing up this other stuff, instead of discussing, yíknow, that?
If you don't think that decriminalizing illegal border crossings is tantamount to effectively having an open border, then why are you so strongly against it? What is it about the mere legal option of being able to slap unauthorized entrants with a criminal charge---an option, I repeat, that is not even exercised in the majority of illegal-entry cases and would wastefully overwhelm the court system if it were to be exercised consistently---that is so important to you?
  #43  
Old Yesterday, 02:22 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
See post #35, especially the ending question.

I'm still wondering whether you're aware that decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing is not the same thing as making unauthorized border crossing legal.
Uh, yes; I am.

That said, Iím of course typing up a longer reply to your other question; there are a whole lot of folks tossing questions my way here, and Iím addressing Ďem as best I can; and you should get a big fine good-faith answer from me in short order.
  #44  
Old Yesterday, 02:38 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
If you don't think that decriminalizing illegal border crossings is tantamount to effectively having an open border, then why are you so strongly against it? What is it about the mere legal option of being able to slap unauthorized entrants with a criminal charge---an option, I repeat, that is not even exercised in the majority of illegal-entry cases and would wastefully overwhelm the court system if it were to be exercised consistently---that is so important to you?
What is it about removing that option thatís so important to you? Why the heck shouldnít we have that option? You want to emphasize how often the option doesnít get exercised; I merely want us to keep on having that option, and marvel at the fact that ostensibly serious candidates for office want to take that option off the table. Why get rid of it? Why not reserve the right to bring criminal charges against those who cross the border illegally? I donít want them crossing the border illegally; if thereís ever a time when bringing criminal charges, or threatening to bring criminal charges, would be useful in stopping them from doing so ó well, then, Iíd (a) of course want that option to be available, and Iíd (b) have considerable doubts about any presidential candidate who doesnít see it that way.
  #45  
Old Yesterday, 02:43 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I would take up the mantle of SDMB's official Trump defender but I'm too busy having consensual sex with your women. I guess the soy smile and virtue signaling is a bit of a turn off.

Help, I Can't Stop Hooking Up With Trump Supporters

https://www.glamour.com/story/hookin...p-voters-essay
4Chan's over there, dude.
  #46  
Old Yesterday, 02:45 PM
John DiFool's Avatar
John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 18,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Personal View Post
I made the mistake of thinking this was posted on ATMB and not the pit.
You get an Anti-Warning. Do do this again.
  #47  
Old Yesterday, 03:05 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What is it about removing that option that’s so important to you? Why the heck shouldn’t we have that option?
In fact, it's not that important to me, as I think having the option and not exercising it is not effectively that different from not having it (except in that it's more vulnerable to abuses; see below). I certainly wouldn't consider refusing to support a Democratic candidate just for having a different opinion from me about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper
You want to emphasize how often the option doesn’t get exercised; I merely want us to keep on having that option, and marvel at the fact that ostensibly serious candidates for office want to take that option off the table. Why get rid of it? Why not reserve the right to bring criminal charges against those who cross the border illegally?
A) Because it would be logistically impossible to exercise the option consistently. Even trying to bring criminal charges against a small fraction of illegal border crossers is seriously overloading our courts. And I don't approve of having laws that are only workable if most of the time we refrain from enforcing them.

B) There's no evidence that criminal prosecutions actually have a deterrent effect on illegal border crossings. Why waste large sums of money ritually prosecuting and imprisoning illegal entrants, when we could use that money far more effectively in border control measures and civil deportation proceedings?

C) Criminal proceedings against illegal entrants have resulted in human rights abuses, such as separating minor children from their parents when the parents are charged with the crime of illegal entry.

In short, the law criminalizing illegal border crossing is unfairly harsh on families, serves no effective end as a deterrent to illegal behavior, cannot be implemented systematically and consistently without overwhelming our court system, and places significant additional burdens and expense on our courts and prisons, to no useful purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper
[...] if there’s ever a time when bringing criminal charges, or threatening to bring criminal charges, would be useful in stopping them from doing so — well, then, I’d (a) of course want that option to be available
Well, if there's ever a time when a law that permits bringing criminal charges against illegal border crossers actually would be useful in stopping them, to the extent that its usefulness would outweigh its inconveniences, then we could choose to reinstate such a law.

In the meantime, I don't believe in keeping stupid, ineffectual, impracticable, abuse-prone laws on the books just because there might come a time when they would somehow become useful.

But you, on the other hand, believe that any Democratic candidate who adopts that eminently common-sense attitude thereby becomes a worse choice for President than Trump. Ooooookaaaay.

Last edited by Kimstu; Yesterday at 03:07 PM.
  #48  
Old Yesterday, 03:23 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
In the meantime, I don't believe in keeping stupid, ineffectual, impracticable, abuse-prone laws on the books just because there might come a time when they would somehow become useful.
Clearly you have forgotten the proven effectiveness of the Unicorn Control Act of 1911 in reducing the incidence of random stabbings by their horns.
  #49  
Old Yesterday, 03:38 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,471
There's also the selective enforcement issue.

But I'm sure everybody here would be shocked - shocked - to discover there's any evidence of racial or ethnic bias in how border crossing violations are enforced.

Just like I'm sure everybody here would be shocked - shocked - to discover there was evidence of racial bias in selective enforcement of literacy requirements to vote in Jim Crow America.
  #50  
Old Yesterday, 03:40 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
...I didn’t say anything about “open borders”; I don’t know why you’re mentioning that in reply to my post. It strikes me as genuinely weird that you’d mention that in reply to my post. That bit about “abandoning border enforcement” — yeah, again, not really getting why that’s a go-to response either.
Yeah, so it is important for you to ignore that I also did cover what you claim I missed here in the next part of my reply that you omitted here, not helpful, here is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by By me
Context shows also that even the non candidates that would go for decriminalization are not even saying that, only that people fleeing violence, dreamers and others should not be declared to be criminals when they deserve better treatment than the one coming from racist Trump staff members that still remain in his administration.
Of course everyone can see how omitting that was crucial in an attempt to mislead others:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I mentioned decriminalizing illegal border crossings; why the heck are you bringing up this other stuff, instead of discussing, y’know, that?
Well, you know I did too, the other stuff was covering the possible ways you are being misled, and the last article does talk about how Ocasio Cortez (Not one of the candidates BTW you will still have to point out what candidate is doing that or your reason for voting how you think you will is indeed still for a very ignorant reason one) is one that has been talking about the overreach and expansion on the efforts to inhumanely criminalize what others have pointed already in this thread as very unethical or inhumane things. IOW just about what was going on before: that being arrested at the border will be still bad under a Democratic president, not just at the criminality levels that Trump and his henchmen wants it to be.

The question remains, why support those efforts that are based mostly on bigotry?

Last edited by GIGObuster; Yesterday at 03:44 PM.
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 02:10 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