The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

I would also ask, whitey, do YOU "love" what's been happening at the border?

You're a self-proclaimed "never- Trumper", continually, by your own words on this site, appalled at his personal conduct and rhetoric.

I don't need another "cudgel" to bash Trump. I absolutely do not need him to sink (as a stated matter of policy to present some kind of "deterrent") to the unprecedented and deliberately callous, dehumanizing cruelty of ripping wailing toddlers out of their screaming mothers' arms, to become separated from them for undetermined lengths of time, often thousands of miles away. Do you?

Trump, whether it is on the policy front or by his personal behaviour and conduct as a human being, departed the realm of normal, objectionable due to his policies, politician or president long ago. The baby separation was merely another illustration that the normal limits do not apply.

[whitey]

You're wasting your breath

Democrats love what's happening at the border because it gives them a cudgel to bash Trump

Obama tear gassed people at the border.....not a peep

Obama put kids in cages.....not a peep

Obama separates "families"......not a peep


See, illegals are counted in the census, and if you paid the numbers with illegals you get more seats in Congress and by default more Electoral College votes. (Not to mention Federal Funding)

Whitey once again posting bullshit that's been repeatedly addressed, debated and refuted in this very thread.

Wasting breath indeed.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/several-administrations-used-tear-gas-at-the-border/


Believe whatever you want

[J70]

You're wasting your breath

Democrats love what's happening at the border because it gives them a cudgel to bash Trump

Obama tear gassed people at the border.....not a peep

Obama put kids in cages.....not a peep

Obama separates "families"......not a peep


See, illegals are counted in the census, and if you paid the numbers with illegals you get more seats in Congress and by default more Electoral College votes. (Not to mention Federal Funding)

Whitey once again posting bullshit that's been repeatedly addressed, debated and refuted in this very thread.

Wasting breath indeed.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/several-administrations-used-tear-gas-at-the-border/


Believe whatever you want

I may have missed it, but who on this thread was losing the head over the recent tear gas incident at Tijuana?

[Dolph1]

There isn't much point in debating with the CNN brainwashed.

If you read back through this thread you'll find so much nonsense from democrat supporters who think the world is about to end because Hillary Clinton didn't win an election.

Donald Trump won. Grow up and move on. But you can't....

Hey Dolph- welcome to the board, there's a lot of reason not to debate things entirely your call.

Is your argument that Donald Trump was elected by the electoral college system- don't think anyone is disagreeing.

Is there more you'd like to add? or just going straight to the baseless slagging?

Hegan - Baseless slagging? you just proved my point. You bring up the electoral college angle because you can't let it go.  It comes across as very immature.

I see a lot of outrage from the democrat supporters regarding the wall. It might be more sobering to look at the US situation and apply it to Ireland. Would you then be as favourable? Just say that after Brexit the whole of the UK decided to move to Ireland.

Would you want Ireland to allow unlimited immigration?
Would you want the immigrants to be allowed in unvetted? (border security just let them through or catch and release)
Would you want to pay more tax to fund the above and their immediate/long term needs and all the facilities required.
Would you want to run the risk of losing your job or having to lower your wages to compete with this new labour force?
Would you want your communities to be safe?

Try answering that honestly. If you can say none of the above concern you I'd find it very strange.

How about setting up the questions honestly?

I don't know any Democratic politician, or indeed liberal-leaning person, who is in favour of just allowing people to flow into the country, unvetted or unlimited.

Yes, Individual 1 wants to grandstand about the "open borders" Democrats, but just because he continuously peddles lies and bullshit for political reasons doesn't mean that everyone else should engage in a straw man debate.

If you agree with Trump about effectively stopping unvetted and unlimited immigration then you need a wall along with an effective vetting rocedure. Obama, Clinton, Schumer and the rest all were in favour of a wall in years gone by but have switched their attitude for self-preservation. Tell me that isn't true.

1. What is an "effective vetting procedure" and how does it differ from what's been in place?
2. Go ahead and post where the Dems (or indeed any Republican in a position of power) has called for a physical wall along all, or indeed, a substantial length, of the US southern border?

Hillary Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlFi0QUboxs

Clinton, Schumer and Obama have in the past been against open border policy. Now they don't care.

[heganboy]

 It comes across as very immature.

I see a lot of outrage from the democrat supporters regarding the wall. It might be more sobering to look at the US situation and apply it to Ireland. Would you then be as favourable? Just say that after Brexit the whole of the UK decided to move to Ireland.

Would you want Ireland to allow unlimited immigration?
Would you want the immigrants to be allowed in unvetted? (border security just let them through or catch and release)
Would you want to pay more tax to fund the above and their immediate/long term needs and all the facilities required.
Would you want to run the risk of losing your job or having to lower your wages to compete with this new labour force?
Would you want your communities to be safe?

Try answering that honestly. If you can say none of the above concern you I'd find it very strange.
†*************†***************"†
Listen kid,
The system of presidential election in the  US is the electoral college, if the majority had voted for something it is democracy or will of the people, when majority rule is not accepted, similar to gerrymandering, it is not quite a democracy. Not that majority rule is necessarily a good thing. A greater percentage vated Remain in the UK referendum than voted for Trump in the US.

Your points in order you put them.

What is the point of the wall? Optics for under educated voters in rural states and for bigots in the rest.
All of the UK move to Ireland? Your analogy to the US would be all of the people on the planet move to the US. The science has already been done for them all moving to Rhode island maybe you should read that.

To give you some context, I'm an Irishman living in the US because I have a skill that there is a shortage of and hence my visas and green card.
The US does not have unlimited immigration.
the US does not let immigrants in unvetted.
No border security has a wholesale policy of catch and release.
In the US illegal immigrants are a net contributor to the economy and tax revenue.
As before my job has a significant shortage of skilled workers in the IS so it would be great to see more qualified people coming in wanting to do it.  Also the whole immigrant wage pressure on a work force doesn't exactly stand up to much (any) scutiny from an economic standpoint does it. You are aware of course that there is a significant shortfall in the US labor force. The lack of qualified people in the US and the current administration policies are forcing American companies to open in Canada near the border to grow.

I think every sane person in the world wants their community to be safe, but as you seem incapable of grasping that has zero correlation with immigration policy.

Look, good to have a counter opinion here. A few conservatives short is where we are, a skills shortage as it were, and we'd like to fill the role with qualified people. Whitey and I disagree on a regular basis, i respect the hell out of his right to opinions that I disagree with.

I pontifiacte a lot, I'm aware of my shortcomings but try to make a decent argument, a strawman with some logic goes a long way. Stats are massive, very helpful and sometimes even true.

On a closing note, the United States is a constitutional republic and was built on and by immigrants, trampling over the natives.it is a young country with crumbling infrastructure, a labor shortfall, stagnating industry, and an electoral system that allows great wealth and power to unduly influence not only the voting process, but also the legislative process and therefore the laws. 

The country desperately needs the status quo challenged. The young and the former minorities need to vote in their interest and the gerrymandering of voting needs to change.

And it needs immigration quickly to control the current economic deterioration, more to stall it, and significantly more to provide for prosperity and growth. And a new immigration that supports that would be in the interest of every resident of the US, legal or otherwise.

That might be immature, but it's factually correct.

(Excuse the typos, sent from a phone on a train)

[Dolph1]

I don't need another "cudgel" to bash Trump. I absolutely do not need him to sink (as a stated matter of policy to present some kind of "deterrent") to the unprecedented and deliberately callous, dehumanizing cruelty of ripping wailing toddlers out of their screaming mothers' arms, to become separated from them for undetermined lengths of time, often thousands of miles away. Do you?

Enough with the sob stories. They knew they travelled with the intention of breaking the law to enter the US.
What's worse is the NGO's facilitating the transfer of these people who clearly knew what situation these families would find themselves in but used them as cannon fodder anyway. That's deliberately callous and cruel.

[heganboy]

That's deliberately callous and cruel.

yeah, you nailed it, the NGOs are deliberately cruel, that's the problem right there.

Daft brush

[whitey]

The problem is that we share a direct/indirect land border with close to 750,000,000 people

Many of these people live in third world conditions

I don't blame them for one moment for trying to move here, but we already have large swaths of our own population living in close to Third World conditions. They should be our first priority

On top of that we have close to 12,000,000 people already living in the country illegaly.  Let's get these people legalized, contributing and integrated before we let more people in

The problem is that any efforts to control the border is met by faux outrage from the left as is evidenced by the "kids in cages" nonsense.  Building a wall is probably the most fvckin stupid idea, I have ever heard, but Democratic demonizing of ICE and Border Patrol for enforcing the law is beyond the pale

[Dolph1]

It comes across as very immature.

I see a lot of outrage from the democrat supporters regarding the wall. It might be more sobering to look at the US situation and apply it to Ireland. Would you then be as favourable? Just say that after Brexit the whole of the UK decided to move to Ireland.

Would you want Ireland to allow unlimited immigration?
Would you want the immigrants to be allowed in unvetted? (border security just let them through or catch and release)
Would you want to pay more tax to fund the above and their immediate/long term needs and all the facilities required.
Would you want to run the risk of losing your job or having to lower your wages to compete with this new labour force?
Would you want your communities to be safe?

Try answering that honestly. If you can say none of the above concern you I'd find it very strange.
†*************†***************"†
Listen kid,
The system of presidential election in the  US is the electoral college, if the majority had voted for something it is democracy or will of the people, when majority rule is not accepted, similar to gerrymandering, it is not quite a democracy. Not that majority rule is necessarily a good thing. A greater percentage vated Remain in the UK referendum than voted for Trump in the US.

Your points in order you put them.

What is the point of the wall? Optics for under educated voters in rural states and for bigots in the rest.
All of the UK move to Ireland? Your analogy to the US would be all of the people on the planet move to the US. The science has already been done for them all moving to Rhode island maybe you should read that.

To give you some context, I'm an Irishman living in the US because I have a skill that there is a shortage of and hence my visas and green card.
The US does not have unlimited immigration.
the US does not let immigrants in unvetted.
No border security has a wholesale policy of catch and release.
In the US illegal immigrants are a net contributor to the economy and tax revenue.
As before my job has a significant shortage of skilled workers in the IS so it would be great to see more qualified people coming in wanting to do it.  Also the whole immigrant wage pressure on a work force doesn't exactly stand up to much (any) scutiny from an economic standpoint does it. You are aware of course that there is a significant shortfall in the US labor force. The lack of qualified people in the US and the current administration policies are forcing American companies to open in Canada near the border to grow.

I think every sane person in the world wants their community to be safe, but as you seem incapable of grasping that has zero correlation with immigration policy.

Look, good to have a counter opinion here. A few conservatives short is where we are, a skills shortage as it were, and we'd like to fill the role with qualified people. Whitey and I disagree on a regular basis, i respect the hell out of his right to opinions that I disagree with.

I pontifiacte a lot, I'm aware of my shortcomings but try to make a decent argument, a strawman with some logic goes a long way. Stats are massive, very helpful and sometimes even true.

On a closing note, the United States is a constitutional republic and was built on and by immigrants, trampling over the natives.it is a young country with crumbling infrastructure, a labor shortfall, stagnating industry, and an electoral system that allows great wealth and power to unduly influence not only the voting process, but also the legislative process and therefore the laws. 

The country desperately needs the status quo challenged. The young and the former minorities need to vote in their interest and the gerrymandering of voting needs to change.

And it needs immigration quickly to control the current economic deterioration, more to stall it, and significantly more to provide for prosperity and growth. And a new immigration that supports that would be in the interest of every resident of the US, legal or otherwise.

That might be immature, but it's factually correct.

(Excuse the typos, sent from a phone on a train)

You started with yet another rant about how the election was stolen and it just goes downhill from there. C'mon, get over it. It's 2 years now and possibly another 6 to go. Your mental health is at stake.
Immigration brings prosperity and growth. LOL. You have swallowed the democrat playbook for sure. You surely mean crime and poverty.
You are factually correct in your own mind

[J70]

I don't need another "cudgel" to bash Trump. I absolutely do not need him to sink (as a stated matter of policy to present some kind of "deterrent") to the unprecedented and deliberately callous, dehumanizing cruelty of ripping wailing toddlers out of their screaming mothers' arms, to become separated from them for undetermined lengths of time, often thousands of miles away. Do you?

Enough with the sob stories. They knew they travelled with the intention of breaking the law to enter the US.
What's worse is the NGO's facilitating the transfer of these people who clearly knew what situation these families would find themselves in but used them as cannon fodder anyway. That's deliberately callous and cruel.

Clearly you either have no children or you don't see these people as human beings if you are so cavalier about what was taking place. And it's wasn't just those illegally crossing either. If whatever NGO you are on about has fault in this, fine, but that does not in any shape or form justify what Trump and Sessions did in targeting mothers and children, which is backed up by the fact that the ultimately had to back down.

[J70]

There isn't much point in debating with the CNN brainwashed.

If you read back through this thread you'll find so much nonsense from democrat supporters who think the world is about to end because Hillary Clinton didn't win an election.

Donald Trump won. Grow up and move on. But you can't....

Hey Dolph- welcome to the board, there's a lot of reason not to debate things entirely your call.

Is your argument that Donald Trump was elected by the electoral college system- don't think anyone is disagreeing.

Is there more you'd like to add? or just going straight to the baseless slagging?

Hegan - Baseless slagging? you just proved my point. You bring up the electoral college angle because you can't let it go.  It comes across as very immature.

I see a lot of outrage from the democrat supporters regarding the wall. It might be more sobering to look at the US situation and apply it to Ireland. Would you then be as favourable? Just say that after Brexit the whole of the UK decided to move to Ireland.

Would you want Ireland to allow unlimited immigration?
Would you want the immigrants to be allowed in unvetted? (border security just let them through or catch and release)
Would you want to pay more tax to fund the above and their immediate/long term needs and all the facilities required.
Would you want to run the risk of losing your job or having to lower your wages to compete with this new labour force?
Would you want your communities to be safe?

Try answering that honestly. If you can say none of the above concern you I'd find it very strange.

How about setting up the questions honestly?

I don't know any Democratic politician, or indeed liberal-leaning person, who is in favour of just allowing people to flow into the country, unvetted or unlimited.

Yes, Individual 1 wants to grandstand about the "open borders" Democrats, but just because he continuously peddles lies and bullshit for political reasons doesn't mean that everyone else should engage in a straw man debate.

If you agree with Trump about effectively stopping unvetted and unlimited immigration then you need a wall along with an effective vetting rocedure. Obama, Clinton, Schumer and the rest all were in favour of a wall in years gone by but have switched their attitude for self-preservation. Tell me that isn't true.

1. What is an "effective vetting procedure" and how does it differ from what's been in place?
2. Go ahead and post where the Dems (or indeed any Republican in a position of power) has called for a physical wall along all, or indeed, a substantial length, of the US southern border?

Hillary Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlFi0QUboxs

Clinton, Schumer and Obama have in the past been against open border policy. Now they don't care.

Are you the resurrection of foxcommander?

Your straw man arguments are at about the same level.

Schumer at al have agreed to 1.5 billion for border funding. Clinton (going by the title of your video) agreed with a fence (not a huge concrete wall).

Yet you're crying on the other hand about the non-existent open border policy of the Dems.

[johnnycool]

Wha.........

Are the Mexicans not paying for this wall?

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Are you the resurrection of foxcommander?

Good shout



Cohen gets 36 months in jail

[Dolph1]

There isn't much point in debating with the CNN brainwashed.

If you read back through this thread you'll find so much nonsense from democrat supporters who think the world is about to end because Hillary Clinton didn't win an election.

Donald Trump won. Grow up and move on. But you can't....

Hey Dolph- welcome to the board, there's a lot of reason not to debate things entirely your call.

Is your argument that Donald Trump was elected by the electoral college system- don't think anyone is disagreeing.

Is there more you'd like to add? or just going straight to the baseless slagging?

Hegan - Baseless slagging? you just proved my point. You bring up the electoral college angle because you can't let it go.  It comes across as very immature.

I see a lot of outrage from the democrat supporters regarding the wall. It might be more sobering to look at the US situation and apply it to Ireland. Would you then be as favourable? Just say that after Brexit the whole of the UK decided to move to Ireland.

Would you want Ireland to allow unlimited immigration?
Would you want the immigrants to be allowed in unvetted? (border security just let them through or catch and release)
Would you want to pay more tax to fund the above and their immediate/long term needs and all the facilities required.
Would you want to run the risk of losing your job or having to lower your wages to compete with this new labour force?
Would you want your communities to be safe?

Try answering that honestly. If you can say none of the above concern you I'd find it very strange.

How about setting up the questions honestly?

I don't know any Democratic politician, or indeed liberal-leaning person, who is in favour of just allowing people to flow into the country, unvetted or unlimited.

Yes, Individual 1 wants to grandstand about the "open borders" Democrats, but just because he continuously peddles lies and bullshit for political reasons doesn't mean that everyone else should engage in a straw man debate.

If you agree with Trump about effectively stopping unvetted and unlimited immigration then you need a wall along with an effective vetting rocedure. Obama, Clinton, Schumer and the rest all were in favour of a wall in years gone by but have switched their attitude for self-preservation. Tell me that isn't true.

1. What is an "effective vetting procedure" and how does it differ from what's been in place?
2. Go ahead and post where the Dems (or indeed any Republican in a position of power) has called for a physical wall along all, or indeed, a substantial length, of the US southern border?

Hillary Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlFi0QUboxs

Clinton, Schumer and Obama have in the past been against open border policy. Now they don't care.

Are you the resurrection of foxcommander?

Your straw man arguments are at about the same level.

Schumer at al have agreed to 1.5 billion for border funding. Clinton (going by the title of your video) agreed with a fence (not a huge concrete wall).

Yet you're crying on the other hand about the non-existent open border policy of the Dems.

No but that's one way to signal to your pals to attack someone with an opposing view. So much for welcoming debate.

[Eamonnca1]

There isn't much point in debating with the CNN brainwashed.

If you read back through this thread you'll find so much nonsense from democrat supporters who think the world is about to end because Hillary Clinton didn't win an election.

Donald Trump won. Grow up and move on. But you can't....

Hey Dolph- welcome to the board, there's a lot of reason not to debate things entirely your call.

Is your argument that Donald Trump was elected by the electoral college system- don't think anyone is disagreeing.

Is there more you'd like to add? or just going straight to the baseless slagging?

Hegan - Baseless slagging? you just proved my point. You bring up the electoral college angle because you can't let it go.  It comes across as very immature.

I see a lot of outrage from the democrat supporters regarding the wall. It might be more sobering to look at the US situation and apply it to Ireland. Would you then be as favourable? Just say that after Brexit the whole of the UK decided to move to Ireland.

Would you want Ireland to allow unlimited immigration?
Would you want the immigrants to be allowed in unvetted? (border security just let them through or catch and release)
Would you want to pay more tax to fund the above and their immediate/long term needs and all the facilities required.
Would you want to run the risk of losing your job or having to lower your wages to compete with this new labour force?
Would you want your communities to be safe?

Try answering that honestly. If you can say none of the above concern you I'd find it very strange.

How about setting up the questions honestly?

I don't know any Democratic politician, or indeed liberal-leaning person, who is in favour of just allowing people to flow into the country, unvetted or unlimited.

Yes, Individual 1 wants to grandstand about the "open borders" Democrats, but just because he continuously peddles lies and bullshit for political reasons doesn't mean that everyone else should engage in a straw man debate.

If you agree with Trump about effectively stopping unvetted and unlimited immigration then you need a wall along with an effective vetting rocedure. Obama, Clinton, Schumer and the rest all were in favour of a wall in years gone by but have switched their attitude for self-preservation. Tell me that isn't true.

1. What is an "effective vetting procedure" and how does it differ from what's been in place?
2. Go ahead and post where the Dems (or indeed any Republican in a position of power) has called for a physical wall along all, or indeed, a substantial length, of the US southern border?

Hillary Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlFi0QUboxs

Clinton, Schumer and Obama have in the past been against open border policy. Now they don't care.

Are you the resurrection of foxcommander?

Your straw man arguments are at about the same level.

Schumer at al have agreed to 1.5 billion for border funding. Clinton (going by the title of your video) agreed with a fence (not a huge concrete wall).

Yet you're crying on the other hand about the non-existent open border policy of the Dems.

No but that's one way to signal to your pals to attack someone with an opposing view. So much for welcoming debate.

Ah, the old "anyone who disagrees with you" straw man. It's Foxcommander all right. Time for a quick sockpuppet investigation and summary dismissal. We don't need trolls like that around here.