I second your skepticism that a substantial percentage of the accounts are from former officials; these “agents” seemed committed to their cause of actively policing the border knowing that, whether intentionally or not, their custody is inflicting physical and psychological trauma.
I don’t think the top of the agency lying actually says much about its membership. The permanent employees are civil servants who do this job whether Trump or Obama or etc are President. The top guys are all political appointees, and Trump only appoints loyalists and has only been appointing extreme hardliners to any of the immigration related posts.
A “paragon of virtue” is not required. Simple decency is all that is needed.
Congrats on another step on your journey toward posting your 60,000th irrelevant non-sequitur.
Different wording. You could say i was inferring that the Times supported that positions, however in this case i simply mentioned that they “said” or printed that. which they did.
Don’t read them. I’ll get over it.
The last time you did this and were corrected your response was better:
It’s the Union - note my correction.
In other words, these are the employees.
So from what I can tell the Border Patrol Union made an expected, and this case honest/factual defense of their members? They also denounced the individuals making inappropriate comments.
It looks like you’re concerned they claim AOC called Border Patrol agents Nazis…which despite the “authoritativeness” of that Twitterati person you were quoting, is 100% what she has said. She has said their facilities are concentration camps. Who manned and ran concentration camps? She has called them Nazis. Arguing otherwise is like saying if I called someone an “SS Member” I hadn’t called them Nazis, that is counterfactual, every member of the SS was a Nazi.
I’m also not sure the media department of the national border patrol union is mapped that closely to the entirety of their civil service employees. Not all CBP employees are in the union, and while the union’s elected leadership are all “current or former” CBP employees, their support staff and executive administration are hired employees.
She didn’t use the word, so it’s not exactly as “100%” as you claim.
In addition, note that the union knew enough about this group to classify its participants into:
- Current Employees
- Past Employees
- Retired Employees
- Others
Seriously, Martin, your argument is pretty weak sauce.
ETA: The union represents 90 % of all agents, not just some, according to their website: https://bpunion.org/about-npbc/
Thank you, Herr Goebbels…
So, was it or was it not published by the Examiner?
This is a warning for personal insults. Calling someone a Nazi is a personal insult.
[/moderating]
I thought you had gotten it the last time you made this mistake-apparently not.
I called him a propagandist. Would “Thank you, Baghdad Bob” be more acceptable?
End of discussion on the Nazi claims–she 100% did call them Nazis.
“Knew” enough, as in they were coordinating with this group as part of some thinly veiled conspiracy, or “knew” as in “our PR people investigated this before drafting a PR statement.” It’s reprehensible and dishonest that you’re making the claim that a PR statement made by a professional staffer of a union, somehow means many of its members have some sort of moral rot that needs addressed.
Yes, let’s debate what the word “some” means.
Unless you intended to post some other quote where she used the term “Nazis”, then she 100% did NOT call them Nazis. End of attempt to end discussion.
Like I said that discussion is over. I don’t argue with people that deny things like the sky is blue or etc. It’s like arguing with an anti-vaxxer or climate change denialist when you have unequivocal proof, there is no further need of discussion.
I guess we’ll continue on without you, then.
Where?