>

Monday, June 18, 2018

Trump Defends Separating Families But At the Same Time Falsely Blames Democrats



  -RW  

14 comments:

  1. I am far less concerned about the urban primitivism of America's losers than I am am about the sophisticated barbarism of America's winners.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hell, let 'em all in and we'll pay to support them too. And don't forget, after we take in all the "families" from the south there are also tens (hundreds?) of millions of people from Africa waiting to come in. Don't we owe it to their children too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Robert What?
      ── Hell, let 'em all in and we'll pay to support them too. ──

      You're not paying anything. Stop lying.

      ── there are also tens (hundreds?) of millions of people from Africa waiting to come in. ──

      Yeah, they're just one swim away from reaching the shore!

      Trumpistas are delusional. Completely delusional.

      Delete
  3. RW: "So if the United States government set up a policy of allowing people in who were invited in advance to work would you be in favor of it?"
    A: Absolutely. (By implication each person coming is coming to do a job, and their visa is contingent on working that job; they would have no voting rights and no access to welfare, as they are fully-employed.)

    RW: "'Insured and bonded,' isn't this pre-crime thinking?"
    A: Are you joking? (If not, let me know and I'll explain what this means; "pre-crime thinking" is a ridiculous propaganda term.)

    RW: "I have never advocated that anyone entering the country be allowed to vote and have never advocated putting anyone entering the country be put on the dole. I have consistently called for a Welfare Wall."
    A: Well, that is what is happening. I never advocated that blank and yet blank is the case in the real world given current conditions. So your position is: "Until I get the full PPS I won't advocate for any rational policy that takes other irrational (but extant) policies as given." I might give you credit for being consistent, but you are not. You take positions.

    RW: "The argument that because there is no current law against handouts and that therefore we must limit the liberties of border crosses is the ass-backward-libertarian reflected in the thinking that the way to advance liberty is to limit it even more. Is that what you want?"
    A: This is ass-backward logic. The reason we must limit the liberties to cross the border is BECAUSE there IS current law that takes from the current residents and gives it to the people who cross the border illegally, on purpose, even sometimes endangering children in the process.

    RW: "I do not believe in rights and have never advocated the trespassing of even one person on private property much less 7 billion."
    A: But this is the actual question to you that you avoid (and will again, here): What if your rule was announced: "No one will stop you at the border of the US," and on that day began the travel of the world's poorest, least educated 3.5 billion people. When they began arriving at the border, is it your (RW) position that they current residents/citizens of the country should just watch the all march in--given all of the other laws and institutions all currently in place--? If not all, then when do you stop them, and why? And if all, do you think that works out well for the current citizens, OR the newcomers?

    RW: "Do you not understand that private property solves the problem[?]"
    A: Ok, now you're definitely just trolling. But I'll bite. Yes, private property. Duh. The only "private property" being taken are the benefits extorted from the current populace. So we agree: end that. Until you do, though, you must have a coherent immigration policy.

    I feel like you are suffering so much from TDS that you can't think straight. Or you're virtue signaling on an "easy" issue. You keep describing people as "invited for jobs" and credulously implying that soldiers are stealing babies (and you never follow up when the stories are proven false or proven to be the same policy under Obama--yet you never mentioned it before and use it as a cudgel against Trump instead of "the presidency"...); yet it is obvious that we are talking about people knowingly breaking the law as their first act on US soil. At least make that distinction and argue it.

    So I ask again:

    Differentiate in your analysis between illegals and immigrants.

    Tell us how many people you believe should be allowed to just cross the border uninvited? (at present your logic is that ALL 7 billion people on earth should be allowed)

    Tell us why you think illegals should have more rights than citizens when apprehended for a crime? (US citizen parents are separated from their children every day)

    Tell us why you think Trump is worse on this issue than Obama and Bush, and why you didn't ever protest before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      ─ Well, that [immigrants voting and being on the dole] is what is happening. ─

      Isn't that a failure of the State and not of immigration per se? Most immigrants know they shouldn't vote because that makes them subject to deportation the moment they attempt to obtain citizenship. And being "on the dole" is YOUR guess, not reality. Welfare benefits are off limits to immigrants who are not greencard holders. You can speculate all you want about people stealing identity to get EBT cards but if that were the case, then the most spectacular apprehensions made by ICE would be at the welfare line and not in people's place of work.

      ── Differentiate in your analysis between illegals and immigrants. ──

      There's no difference, just like there's no difference between legal and illegal marijuana, except the States where it is legal or illegal, or legal and illegal gambling, or legal and illegal prostitution. All are called "illegal" by the State, but reality is NOT defined by the State. The State is NOT God, last time I checked.

      ── Tell us how many people you believe should be allowed to just cross the border uninvited? ──

      You keep equivocating to the point where your sanity is in question. Immigrants are NOT coming in uninvited. They're ALL invited ─ by The Market, whether you like it or not. People in the US are MORE than willing to employ immigrants, rent to them, sell to them, buy from them and even marry them, whether you like it or not.

      ── Tell us why you think illegals should have more rights than citizens when apprehended for a crime? ──

      They don't. Crossing the border is still a misdemeanor, which does not ipso facto mean your children have to be taken away. You're purposefully conflating actual crimes ─acts of aggression against persons or property─ with administrative misdemeanors.

      ── US citizen parents are separated from their children every day ──

      Only in cases of aggravated assault against their own children, or when parents commit a felony. But NOT when they commit a misdemeanor and especially if they can make bail.

      Delete
    2. @Francisco
      lol, I'm done reading your nonsense. Spout away, moronic windbag.

      Delete
    3. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      ── lol, I'm done reading your nonsense. Spout away, moronic windbag. ──

      I'm still fascinated by yours. Keep the BS coming.

      Delete
    4. “moronic windbag”

      Haha. Pot meet kettle.

      :wall of text about MUH BORDERS incoming:

      Delete
    5. @Evan
      Any amount of text, wall or not, from you would be nice. Are you a child?
      At least when I say someone is wrong (or a moron) I point out why. In all of your posts you just jump in and say "MUH BORDERS" or "I know you are but what am I?"

      Do you honestly know anything?

      Delete
    6. I know that you’re a statist, and that it’s pretty sad that you can’t figure out why a libertarian blogger would take the side of peaceful individuals over state thugs.

      Delete
  4. Isn't it funny how the president keeps saying that his government is merely enforcing the same policies approved by the Democrats as if that made everything all right? Wasn't he supposed to be the anti-Democrat, the anti-Obama?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Francisco
      You are retarded. Do you not remember when Republicans were saying he wasn't a Republican? Do you remember when he was was a Democrat, and said he considered running as one?

      Is there any topic on which you're not an ignorant moron?

      Delete
    2. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      ── Do you not remember when Republicans were saying he wasn't a Republican? ──

      Why would that matter? Trump sold his policies as DIFFERENT from Democrats: on the ACA, taxes, regulation, the TPP, the Iran Deal, etc. He berated the previous administration for their ineffective foreign policy. But all of a sudden, when it comes to separating children from their parents: ah, that's a Democrat policy we can't change. We're powerless.

      A lie, of course.

      Delete
    3. @Francisco
      Dude, you say some incorrect, idiotic, and asinine thing, you're called out on it, and your reply is "Why would that matter?"
      Again, didn't read whatever other tripe you vomited onto your keyboard. lol

      Delete