What, like the cite below that directs to articles in the NY Times that contain the word “caravan”? Where’s the smoking gun? Why didn’t you cite a specific article that offers proof the caravaners are criminals bent on destroying America? Are we supposed to do your work for you? The burden of proof is upon you. You made the claim and have failed to back it up.
How do you know what their true motivations are? Can you read their minds? Do you have cites to things they wrote, said, did in the past to indicate their intentions? You are automatically assuming they’re up to no good with no supporting evidence. You fail again.
Your typing skills don’t seem up to par, but it’s really you who doesn’t seem to grasp the difference. Words like “perhaps” (in red above, in case you missed it) do not mean definite proof. It’s just speculation. You somehow think that just because there’s a small chance it could be that way, that it’s definitely that way. Your logic fails. You fail again.
See above. While you’re looking, show me where I said I don’t believe the caravan exists. You have failed to convince me your reasons are valid. Remember, the burden of proof is upon YOU.
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. For someone who operates on the scale that Soros can, I’d say that is the case. Especially since he believes in open borders around the world. I do think that a person can want to help SOME of the caravan members and not be working to subvert the sovereignty of the U.S. I highlight “some” because if one just wants to help those seeking asylum, I don’t think that action in and of itself qualifies. But if one is advocating helping the caravan—asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers alike—then I think they are advocating for subverting the sovereignty of the U.S.
Question for you: do you think that someone working to help illegals—who are NOT seeking asylum—is working to subvert the sovereignty of the U.S.?
That just sounds absolutely nuts to me. Feeding and providing necessities to people (even people not seeking asylum) isn’t “working to subvert the sovereignty” of anyone or anything.
I didn’t cite a specific article because the sole point I was trying to provide evidence for was the existence of the caravan.
This is not true. I’m willing to assume the best motivations for the vast majority of those in the caravan. Soros believes in open borders, and not only in the U.S., so at least part of his motivation is clear. I’m perfectly willing to accept that he ALSO would like to simple help asylum seekers.
No. You need to reread the exchange. You claimed there was “no evidence”. Also, you’re ignoring the “as well” at the end of that sentence.
Maybe I’m confusing you with another poster. If so, my apologies and you can just ignore the point. As far as the rest, I really do not care if you are convinced or if you think my reasons are valid. I don’t expect to convince anyone on the se boards of anything that is not part of liberal doctrine. But if you don’t think the NYT link (which I intentionally chose) that has four headlines talking about the caravan is not proof, or at least VERY strong evidence, that the caravan exists, I’m not sure anything would convince you. Shrug.
If it’s just feeding and providing necessities, I’d agree with you. If it’s that and helping them enter the U.S. illegally, then I stand by it. But to be clear, I’m referring to helping those NOT seeking asylum.
Of course not. If I buy a meal for a hungry person who is here illegally, in no way does that act try to subvert the sovereignty of the U.S.
So if I send a donation to the group that’s feeding the people in the caravan, I should stipulate that it can only be used to help asylum seekers? If I don’t, and some of my money is used to feed non-asylum seekers, then I’m advocating to subvert the sovereignty of the U.S.? Right.
I guess if you want to think that Soros money is funding undesirable aspects of the caravan, and he has some ulterior motive for doing so, have at it. I’m sure there are others that agree with you. I’m not one of those.
Do US citizens of nationals have to provide some sort of ID which is only provided to US citizens or nationals, such as a passport?
I can think of several ways the policies involved would be punted moon-high in Spain, but you guys have different notions about both ID and discrimination.
Article I (5) of the convention: “Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.” Article II (9) (d) of the convention: “Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes …[is]… not prohibited under this convention.”
I don’t believe the use of tear gas is necessarily a war crime, but Trump is definitely trying to manufacture a crisis out of this, and he will almost surely escalate the situation. What an escalation looks like is anyone’s guess, but we’ll know soon enough.
Let me explain something about the scientific method. You must not consider bias as fact. You only record the characteristics you observe. You make no definite assumptions about the characteristics. You theorize the most likely reasons and support with the facts you’ve compiled. You develop your case through more years of study, conduct experiments, send reports to peers to review for inaccuracies, and gather more evidence to support your theory.
The only thing you’ve done is show evidence that there is a caravan. You think it’s an established fact that Soros is funding the caravan, based on his preference to open borders. Have you ever once considered the reason Soros likes open borders is because he makes money dealing with foreign clients? How do you go from “prefers open borders” to “wants to bring down the US”? You’re absolutely sure that’s a fact but you’ve done nothing to support it. It’s not a liberal vs conservative pissing contest. It’s reasoning vs emotion, and you’re purely on the side of emotion.
You’ve not said as much before. We had no reason to believe you’re supportive of anything Soros does, and still can’t understand why you think he funds the goddamned caravan. WHERE DOES THE FUCKING MONEY GO? They’re so desperate to leave the hellish nightmare of their own countries they’ll risk getting gassed, shot and maimed by jumping the border. Do you think criminals who want to being down the US are going to risk that much bodily harm to themselves to enter? The 9/11 terrorists sure as hell didn’t go through that.
“As well”??? You seriously think “as well” settles the score? “As well” means “there’s other stuff I think is out there that might be true and support my argument. I can’t find it, but it’s out there somewhere.” Sorry, the atom bomb didn’t get built out of “as well”. Diseases don’t get cured by “as well”. Your computer doesn’t operate on “as well”.
This has absolutely fuck-all to do with liberal doctrine. I’m speaking as a former Republican who’s extremely disappointed with the simpering, fact-averse, finger-pointing conspiracy fantasists who don’t have the backbone to stand up to this ignorant man baby of a president because they’re afraid to lose power in Washington. You think the way to prove you’re right is not to listen to anybody more educated on the subject than you. That’s willful ignorance that will do you no good, limits your knowledge, prevents you from reaching your potential, and thanks to a leader of the same mindset, will ultimately destroy this country.