I’ve notice that this tends to conveniently happen at the stage of a discussion when you realize that maybe you’re wrong. I’m happy to have a discussion with you, but I think this time it’s your turn reread what I wrote earlier to see if you get my point, rather than putting the burden on me to spell it out. You may disagree, but I think my point was pretty clear.
If I understand your point, this seems like an off-topic hijack. Does Trump claiming credit for things that happened for or more years ago have something to do with Molly Tibbetts?
I just thought, hearing the news yesterday, that this was about the worst possible outcome to have happen in the case and for those arguing against Trump and his views on immigration. Hearing this I thought ‘Oh no, this isn’t going to be good for the debate’. In fact talking to a few people yesterday who hand’t heard the update, it was bad enough that she was found dead, but the consensus reaction to who might be responsible for it was similar to mine - ‘Really? Uh oh’. And I didn’t really know and it really didn’t seem to matter which ideology people held when hearing it. As if everyone immediately thought this was going to get messy. And thus my starting this thread.
If this can be contained and blown off, as the start of this threads replies suggest, I’ll be impressed. I just don’t believe it’s going to go that way. Fwiw.
Again, totally agree. And agree with the rest of what you said. You put it much better and succinctly than I have, and did.
Nice post. I’ll be busy reading your link right after this.
No, I really don’t understand what you are asking me in that question. Sorry if it’s clear to you, but it isn’t to me. That’s why I said I didn’t understand. See, in my life, if someone asks me something, and I don’t understand the question, I tell them I don’t understand the question, instead of trying to give an answer that may or may not answer the question. I’m not sure how you do it in your life.
Debatable, to me at least, as I’ve never seen much of a consensus among those on the left on where the line should be drawn. If there was one, I missed it.
I’d love to read a thread on just that issue alone. I think it’d be revealing in the sense that most want unfettered, open, immigration. IMO.
I can’t point to one well known Republican who agrees with what you suggest and among those of my right leaning friends, not one them has ever argued for allowing hiring an illegal. Quite the contrary, most believe hiring an illegal should be pursued and prosecuted as hard as those who come here illegally - ie, harshly, and to the full extend of the law.
In other words, where this hypocrisy you’re seeing? Who on the right is arguing hiring illegals should be ignored?
“So why were you challenging my point that it’s a poor idea to engage in unfounded speculation that this particular case might be frame-up, when such speculation can easily be interpreted to be granting an assumption that something broader about illegal immigrants does depend on whether that’s true or false?”
Because something broader about illegal immigrants **does **depend on whether that’s true or false.
Unless you think no illegal immigrants commit any serious crimes, it is indeed stupid to argue whether this particular case is true as if that makes some difference.
You’re accusing me of being unclear, yet when I’m trying in good faith to explain what I mean you choose to respond in this obtuse way. Why not explain what you think depends on the facts of this specific case? And, more important, why that prompted you to disagree with my point that it may be strategically harmful to the broader national debate on immigration to speculate that this particular case may be a frame-up, when there’s no evidence that it’s a frame-up?
Well, if by “in good faith” you mean reposting things I already read, then we will have to disagree what “in good faith” means.
And to pointedly answer one of your questions, I do not think one poster maybe speculating on one message board that this particular case may be a frame-up will be strategically harmful to the broader national debate on immigration.
I DO, however, think the facts of this one case WILL affect the national debate on illegal immigration.
Oh c’mon, why do you think “something that happens ten thousand times a year” is front page news on Fox on the same day that two major Trump aides are convicted of high crimes? Why should this one event drastically shift the immigration debate, as the OP implies?
So you have now backed off to a position that unsupported speculation that this case is a Trumpist frame-up is fine but only if it’s done in a forum that nobody actually pays any attention to.
It seems to me that this is tantamount to agreeing with me such speculation is a bad idea.
I don’t know about “should”, but it probably will. If you don’t already understand, at least vaguely, why that is, then I doubt I could explain it to you. I guess you’ll just have to watch and see.
It won’t shift the immigration discussion at all. It just adds another example to the list for how one side is framing the debate already. It’s not like this is an"OMG, some of those illegal immigrants are criminals! This changes everything!" moment.
No, I don’t. I don’t think such speculation is a bad idea at all. I haven’t backed off of anything.
My position is this case, this ONE case, will affect the national discourse on illegal immigration, regardless of whether or not the evidence is great, thin, or non-existent.
Ok, then would you care to actually respond to what I said in post #54 about why such speculation may be strategically harmful?
This isn’t something I dispute, and it’s not responsive to the argument I laid out in post #54. You frame it as though it’s disputing a claim I made, when it’s essentially a non sequitur that comes closer to agreeing with me.
Knowing that others did notice how outfits like FOX news used this bit of news to avoid talking about the problems the “gift-getter” Trump has, I do think that that this will be part of the debate alright, not just the one many on the right wanted.