By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - The US Politics |OT|

sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

I feel that if there's a standard set of questions and answers are documented I feel that border patrol could handle the first interview but it'd would have to be doen correctly. 

Eh 15 days sounds like a reasonable amount of time but on a case by case basis some extra time would make sense but they should make sure that there isn't a loophole that allows for an absurd amount of extensions.

The asylum policy makes sense for the time being. When the border patrol spending increase goes into effect and the overcrowding issue gets better I think the asylum police should then be dropped.

I disagree with your first two points, but there isn't really much there to argue. As for the third point, which asylum policy are you talking about? The current one of this proposal? Further, what do you mean when you say "the asylum police should then be dropped". I assume that was supposed to say "policy" but it still needs to be explained further.

I was referring to the policy that was put in place earlier this week about having to seek asylum in another country before you can do so in the United States.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

I disagree with your first two points, but there isn't really much there to argue. As for the third point, which asylum policy are you talking about? The current one of this proposal? Further, what do you mean when you say "the asylum police should then be dropped". I assume that was supposed to say "policy" but it still needs to be explained further.

I was referring to the policy that was put in place earlier this week about having to seek asylum in another country before you can do so in the United States.

Ah, okay.

I vehemently disagree with you on that one. Approval of asylum claims should be determined based upon their merit. Turning individuals away for reasons such as this abandons our responsibility as a country and likely violates both international and domestic law. At the end of the day, if an individual has a valid asylum claim and we reject them, we are putting these individuals in danger and preventing that should be priority number one with this subject.



Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:

What four congresswomen is Trump referring to? Still not seeing names.

Names! I need names!

Even on the off chance that you couldn't figure out who he was obviously referring to, someone who genuinely needed the names, repeating it multiple times across several posts as you did, would have googled "the squad" + "congress".
And evidently you didn't need the names for any reason other than ceasing to ask about them.

You think it's "cool" to send four congresswomen of color, three of whom were born in the US, to some countries where they have no authority, to fix some unspecified problems?

Wasting people's time like this isn't cool. If that's how you're going to be in here then "it would be cool" if you would go to some other forum and fix that problem first, and then come back and show us how it's done.

⚠️

Until then, move on from this subject. 

"would have googled "the squad" + "congress" "

>There are zero references to any squad in Trump's original three tweets. There isn't even a count:

"You think it's "cool" to send four congresswomen of color, three of whom were born in the US, to some countries where they have no authority, to fix some unspecified problems?"

>If the fixing is feasible, why not?

"if you would go to some other forum and fix that problem first, and then come back and show us how it's done."

>This forum seems as good as any other.

"move on from this subject."

>You gonna stir the pot and then ask people to move on?



Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:

"would have googled "the squad" + "congress" "

>There are zero references to any squad in Trump's original three tweets. There isn't even a count:

"You think it's "cool" to send four congresswomen of color, three of whom were born in the US, to some countries where they have no authority, to fix some unspecified problems?"

>If the fixing is feasible, why not?

"if you would go to some other forum and fix that problem first, and then come back and show us how it's done."

>This forum seems as good as any other.

"move on from this subject."

>You gonna stir the pot and then ask people to move on?

Trump mentioned the "squad" in this tweet that was linked to you, and you claimed to have read through, and yet continued asking for names.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1151451067437191168?s=19

And my post was not an invitation for you to continue with the same mental gymnastics.

Nothing gymnastic about simply asking for a Trump tweet that actually contains names.



CaptainExplosion said:
Trump supporters claim their fuhrer isn't racist, yet they're silent as Trump again retweets Katie Hopkins, that fanatical bitch who calls migrants roaches and demands a final solution for Muslims.

So you and her both speak/type in extremes? :p

But yeah if she said that(what i kinda doubt since its in a comment of yours) then it is stupid to reference to it like you claim Trump did.



Around the Network
Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:

Nothing gymnastic about simply asking for a Trump tweet that actually contains names.

It was in the tweet you claimed to have read.
You either didn't look through it for clarification of who he was referring to as you claimed, or you didn't actually care enough to do a 5 second google search of who the squad is, in spite of constantly asking for the names.

Either way, the mental gymnastics goes for a lot of your replies to people in here. Some of whom got the impression you are just wasting their time by twisting the meaning of anything that isn't spelled out for you, or making unbelievable statements.

You've given the mods no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. Especially when you reply just to ignore what I said.

Continue this discussion again only if you want to be moderated.

"It was in the tweet you claimed to have read."

>Actually, looking at it further, I don't think these were Trump's words:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1151451067437191168?s=19

Seems more Trump quoting someone else: Louisiana Senator John Kennedy.

"you didn't actually care enough to do a 5 second google search of who the squad is"

>There's the problem: I need to hear it from Trump who he would mean by 'the squad', not from Google. The reason I ask this is because I don't want to misrepresent Trump. Google is not Trump.

That said, I'm curious to know what you made of Trump's original three tweets:

⚠️ WARNED: (Other — ignored Mod Warning) ~ CGI

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 21 July 2019

EricHiggin said:

You gotta be a Scorpio with this much all or nothing right?

If you can't acknowledge and take into account that the operation of a vehicle is at the very least, just as important as the departure and arrival it provides, then you're doomed to walking because eventually that vehicle is going to break down.

YEAHHHHHH, whatever.  I guess this is one of those analogies that totally misses the mark.  Oh well since we are done here let's go to the next subject.



KLAMarine said:
Hiku said:

It was in the tweet you claimed to have read.
You either didn't look through it for clarification of who he was referring to as you claimed, or you didn't actually care enough to do a 5 second google search of who the squad is, in spite of constantly asking for the names.

Either way, the mental gymnastics goes for a lot of your replies to people in here. Some of whom got the impression you are just wasting their time by twisting the meaning of anything that isn't spelled out for you, or making unbelievable statements.

You've given the mods no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. Especially when you reply just to ignore what I said.

Continue this discussion again only if you want to be moderated.

"It was in the tweet you claimed to have read."

>Actually, looking at it further, I don't think these were Trump's words:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1151451067437191168?s=19

Seems more Trump quoting someone else: Louisiana Senator John Kennedy.

"you didn't actually care enough to do a 5 second google search of who the squad is"

>There's the problem: I need to hear it from Trump who he would mean by 'the squad', not from Google. The reason I ask this is because I don't want to misrepresent Trump. Google is not Trump.

That said, I'm curious to know what you made of Trump's original three tweets:

Wow, you don't want to "misrepresent" Trump? Are you okay with Trump misrepresenting the four congressmen, especially Ilhan Omar, in this whole exchange and in this recent tweet?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1152912995938443269?s=20

Trump quoted the Senator because he agrees with him, the tweet was to illustrate that he knows who "the squad" are and has referenced them on numerous occasions.

Also the other tweet I linked, which was left out for some reason, would show you who the "four Democratic congresswomen" are and who Trump was talking about throughout this entire exchange.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1151327083110510594?s=09

The only vote they held that day "concerning the statements (he) made about the four Democratic congresswomen" was to formally condemn his tweets as racist towards AOC, Talib, Omar, and Pressley specifically, as well as in general. From that fact and from how Trump himself doesn't correct anybody or yell "fake news!" when they assume he's talking about "the squad", named earlier, you would logically and correctly assume that those "four Democratic congresswomen" are in fact the four named earlier.

EDIT: This is such a ridiculous and petty argument you tried to make about who he's referencing but I'm more interested in why you don't apply that same blind, ignorant skepticism towards Trump in favor of "the squad" as you're doing right now?

Last edited by tsogud - on 21 July 2019

 

tsogud said:
KLAMarine said:

"It was in the tweet you claimed to have read."

>Actually, looking at it further, I don't think these were Trump's words:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1151451067437191168?s=19

Seems more Trump quoting someone else: Louisiana Senator John Kennedy.

"you didn't actually care enough to do a 5 second google search of who the squad is"

>There's the problem: I need to hear it from Trump who he would mean by 'the squad', not from Google. The reason I ask this is because I don't want to misrepresent Trump. Google is not Trump.

That said, I'm curious to know what you made of Trump's original three tweets:

Wow, you don't want to "misrepresent" Trump? Are you okay with Trump misrepresenting the four congressmen, especially Ilhan Omar, in this whole exchange and in this recent tweet?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1152912995938443269?s=20

Trump quoted the Senator because he agrees with him, the tweet was to illustrate that he knows who "the squad" are and has referenced them on numerous occasions.

Also the other tweet I linked, which was left out for some reason, would show you who the "four Democratic congresswomen" are and who Trump was talking about throughout this entire exchange.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1151327083110510594?s=09

The only vote they held that day "concerning the statements (he) made about the four Democratic congresswomen" was to formally condemn his tweets as racist towards AOC, Talib, Omar, and Pressley specifically, as well as in general. From that fact and from how Trump himself doesn't correct anybody or yell "fake news!" when they assume he's talking about "the squad", named earlier, you would logically and correctly assume that those "four Democratic congresswomen" are in fact the four named earlier.

EDIT: This is such a ridiculous and petty argument you tried to make about who he's referencing but I'm more interested in why you don't apply that same blind, ignorant skepticism towards Trump in favor of "the squad" as you're doing right now?

"Are you okay with Trump misrepresenting the four congressmen, especially Ilhan Omar, in this whole exchange and in this recent tweet?"

>Not if there was in fact a misrepresentation.

"you would logically and correctly assume that those "four Democratic congresswomen" are in fact the four named earlier."

>I like to avoid working off of assumptions as much as possible.

"I'm more interested in why you don't apply that same blind, ignorant skepticism towards Trump in favor of "the squad" as you're doing right now?"

>What blind, ignorant skepticism? Not sure what you're getting at.



KLAMarine said:

Biggerboat1 said:

What's 'on you'? Can you be more specific, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about...? Clothes on your body, egg on your face, wasting everyone's time?

I refuse to acknowledge the context in which you made that comment and lack the ability to apply basic deductive reasoning so could you please treat me like a particularly slow 5 year old and include the specifics please?

Ooft, my neck is getting sore from the weight of all these super-high standards crammed into my huge skeptic brain...!

"What's 'on you'? Can you be more specific, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about...?"

>Refer to sundin's post.

Refer to the context within which Trump is making his tweets.

Dude, no news outlets, left or right are questioning who these tweets are about - you're acting like the villiage idiot.

I kinda hope you're trolling for your own sake...