Everything you didn't want to know about Trump and were not afraid to ask

[Brian Peacock]

We're all anti-crime - particularly when we're the victims of it.

Are you in support of allowing illegal immigration to specific areas of the US? Say, for farm labour, or other purposes?

Or are you a 'law and order' sort about immigration?

I reckon I'm a pretty 'law and order' sort about society in general. I don't think immigrants are more likely to be criminals - in fact evidence seems to suggest they're more likely to be the victims of crime than the general population and more likely not to report it as well. I'm not in support of illegal immigration, but neither am I in support of criminalising people just because they don't have the right paperwork if they're fleeing war, abuse or destitution, nor of separating them from their families or putting their kids in cages, or parading the corpses of murder victims against their family's wishes to justify doing so. There's no nation on Earth for which immigration isn't a profoundly serious and difficult issue, but I don't think that that issue has to be addressed heartlessly or with callous mendacity in order to be effective. Stuffing toddlers in veal crates isn't being cruel to be kind - it's just being cruel. The reason people try to enter other countries is not because life is so cushy or easy where they're going but because life it's so shitty and difficult where they're coming from. Any serious approach to addressing immigration has to acknowledge and deal with that fact first imo.

[Cunt]

By 'mentally infirm', maybe you could clarify.

He thinks they're laughing with him.

OK...but it doesn't matter that much. At least, not as much as the money saved by making other countries pay their part.

How much do you think is saved by not blowing a lot of expensive shit up in the Korean exercises? Is it as significant as the possibility that someone laughed at him? It seems to have hurt your feelings, but not his.

That's kind of funny, but don't worry...no-one will laugh at you over it.

[Cunt]

We're all anti-crime - particularly when we're the victims of it.

Are you in support of allowing illegal immigration to specific areas of the US? Say, for farm labour, or other purposes?

Or are you a 'law and order' sort about immigration?

I reckon I'm a pretty 'law and order' sort about society in general.

So lets divide the groups you have been told were really the same...
1. Immigrants
2. Criminals who aren't US citizens.

Careful not to conflate the two. I think the media works hard to do just that.

I don't think immigrants are more likely to be criminals - in fact evidence seems to suggest they're more likely to be the victims of crime that the general population and more likely not to report it as well.

I know a good reason why. When someone is a criminal (such as is the case with those in a country illegally) they are vulnerable to a unique group of threats which the lawful don't understand easily.

The crude example is this - 'do what I want or I'll call ICE on you and you nana'.

But the crude example isn't really the horrible one. It's actually kind of honest. The horrible ones are more subtle versions.

But if they weren't criminals in the first place, they wouldn't be as easy to exploit/threaten.

I'm not in support of illegal immigration,

Great! I am with you so far...

but neither am I in support of criminalising people

Criminalising? What does that mean? Arresting those who are breaking the law?

Or are you suffering a conflating of the groups 'refugees entering the country legally and openly' with 'criminals who aren't US citizens'?

I wouldn't be surprised, as I said, the media works hard to paint the two groups as one.

They are not.

There's no nation on Earth for which immigration isn't a profoundly serious and difficult issue, but I don't think that that issue has to be addressed heartlessly or with callous mendacity in order to be effective.

This sounds terribly naive, Brian Peacock.

It does have to be addressed heartlessly. Some people have to be told they aren't welcome in the country. No matter how you choose, when you choose people are going to get hurt.

Add to that, the fact that desperate people will use children (or anything else that might work) to enter a country, and you have a real good recipe for hiring law enforcement to do a dirty job, then vilifying them for doing it.

Stuffing toddlers in veal crates isn't being cruel to be kind - it's just being cruel. The reason people try to enter other countries is not because life is so cushy or easy where they're going but because life it's so shitty and difficult where they're coming from. Any serious approach to addressing immigration has to acknowledge and deal with that fact first imo.

What about the fact that people cross those borders with criminal intent? Does that get priority over sad stories?

Or does the possibility that one crying, honest victim might be hurt suggest that it isn't kind enough to EVER say no?

People are DESPERATE to get in, both for the honest and virtuous reasons you give, or dark, evil reasons. Most are a mix of both, if you are honest with yourself you will have to see that.

So as to stuffing toddlers into veal crates, that sounds like someone trying to paint a picture of victimhood. Lots of dramatic language to describe a plain, everyday horror.

Some kids are not allowed in. Some of those kids are being used by people trying to do harm. My guess is that there is not an easy, good way to address it, short of creating sanctuary cities, which it would seem isn't appreciated by the population who voted Trump in on his promise to be tough on immigration.

Those kids in the veal crates - not Trumps fault. At least not any more than any other US citizen who enjoys the rule of law and their citizenship.

[Brian Peacock]

Hmmm, I think you're working too hard to avoid my point in order to make your own. I'm not going to conflate immigrants with criminals, that's not what I said - nor am I going to confuse transgressing statues with moral turpitude. 'Criminality' as you imply it is more than merely breaking the law, as I see it. That's because I don't see the law as defining the absolute bounds and limits of moral action. Sure, I said that children were being callously treated like livestock, but that's not 'painting a picture of victimhood' - it's drawing a comparison to make a point; a simile. And besides, are those children not victims of a situation they have absolutely no control over? I'll accept, for the sake of argument, that 'some of those kids are being used by people trying to do harm', but doing harm to those kids is not, imo, justified or justifiable in those terms. To me, that is to operate on a level of callous mendacity, and who actually benefits from the state acting that way? I don't think we can ignore how immigrants are being made the scapegoats for serious problems in society, such that curtailing immigration is going to act as a magical salve to all ills. I think the fact that this is routinely suggested raises some serious concerns, but still, isn't that the basic message - "Get rid of them and we'll be OK"? The reason people experience job insecurity, are up to their ears in debt, can't pay their medical bills, are subject to shoddy treatment by the state, and feel that someone is constantly putting one over on them, is not down to immigration policy - its the cumulative effect of an incalculable number of political choices made over a great many years. And it's the people who have made and are still making those decisions who are telling us it's all the immigrants fault. What happens when the wall goes up, the borders are closed, the dragnet is tightened, the undesirables are finally ejected and/or excluded, and the un-addressed social, economic, environmental, and political issues remain, well, un-addressed? Who's next on the list of blameworthy deplorables - Jews, spics, wops, chinks, niggers or rednecks, professors, teachers, charity workers, or political opponents, telephone handset sanitisers, hairdressers, gingers, or Canadians? If people want to live in a racially pure, economically balanced, well regulated and ordered society that conforms to the rule of law as an absolute and unquestionable moral code then I'd suggest they go join the Amsih.

[Svartalf]

This man is mentally infirm.

tell me something I don't know yet?

[Hermit]

How much is being saved by not doing military 'exercises' in S. Korea?

Trump, the great money saver?

From the Wall Street Journal:

Why America Is Going Broke
Entitlements are driving deficits and debt. Absent reform, the problem will soon become a crisis.
By John F. Cogan
Feb. 21, 2018 6:14 p.m. ET

The federal deficit is big and getting bigger. President Trump’s budget estimates a deficit of nearly $900 billion for 2018 and nearly $1 trillion (with total spending of $4.4 trillion) for 2019.

Just as well Trump introduced the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that implementing the Act will add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years, or about $1.891 trillion after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt. Brilliant!

Of course some of this deficit will be reduced by cutting education and health budgets. Even more brilliant. With these policies Trump is assured of being re-elected in 2020.

[Forty Two]

Education!!!! Education!!??!
You don’t need education to work Wal Mart while your boy friend fixes American cheap roofs (Contractor! Busineesman with truck and cell phone!) and on weekends you watch sports, barbecue and take selfies!
Trump is made for them.

Nobody insults the common man and woman quite like a Democrat. Trump is made for the hard working Wal-Mart worker and roofing contractor.

A soft pudgy billionaire who paints himself orange is "made for the hard working Wal-Mart worker and roofing contractor"??

You need to read that sentence in light of Tero's comment to which it responds. Tero described the Wal-Mart worker as uneducated and dating a boyfriend who who repairs "cheap" American roofs (insulting him as a "contractor with a truck and a cell phone"), and saying they spend their weekends watching sports and barbecuing.

Tero said - repeat - Tero said - Trump was made for them. You know, the scumbag, uneducated, sports focused, barbecuing uneducated dumbasses.

I agreed with him that Trump was made for them, but unlike Tero, I respect people who work at Wal-mart and who are businesspeople with "a truck and a cell phone" because they do honest work, and generally speaking they are honest, hardworking folks. The fact that they may have bluer-collar interests than Tero, to me, doesn't matter - I don't look down on "a little bit o' chicken-fry - a cold beer on a friday night - a pair o' jeans that fit just right - and th'e radio on..." I'm not going to make sarcastic comments about the guy whose "ass is in the lawn chair, feet in the clay, not a worry in the world, PBR on the way" when they get up and go to work at Wal-mart, or rise and shine at 5am to go help someone fix their roof.

That person deserves respect. And, Tero's post was an elitist insult meant to convey that Trump supporters are not only stupid but uncouth, uncultured, etc. That's who Trump was made for, Tero says.

That's one of the reasons why Trump was elected. Folks can keep talking that way if they want him reelected. That's what people who work every day hear, and if you look closely at comments on social media, you'll see that they hear it.

[Cunt]

Hmmm, I think you're working too hard to avoid my point in order to make your own. I'm not going to conflate immigrants with criminals, that's not what I said

Immigrants are not necessarily criminals.

Those who enter the country illegally ARE criminals.

- nor am I going to confuse transgressing statues with moral turpitude. 'Criminality' as you imply it is more than merely breaking the law, as I see it.

If you are an illegal immigrant, it doesn't matter how 'moral' you may be, you will still be very vulnerable to threats based on your being a genuine criminal.

That's because I don't see the law as defining the absolute bounds and limits of moral action. Sure, I said that children were being callously treated like livestock, but that's not 'painting a picture of victimhood' - it's drawing a comparison to make a point; a simile. And besides, are those children not victims of a situation they have absolutely no control over? I'll accept, for the sake of argument, that 'some of those kids are being used by people trying to do harm', but doing harm to those kids is not, imo, justified or justifiable in those terms.

So if those kids are citizens of the USA, should they be treated differently than if they are not?

Some kids need to be kept out, if the borders are to be protected. I can't think of a way to do so which isn't horrible, but I understand it needs to be done.

Some terrible decisions MUST be made.

To me, that is to operate on a level of callous mendacity, and who actually benefits from the state acting that way? I don't think we can ignore how immigrants are being made the scapegoats for serious problems in society,

I have heard such done with criminals who enter the country illegally, but not 'immigrants'.

such that curtailing immigration is going to act as a magical salve to all ills.

I haven't made that claim, nor have I heard it made.

I think the fact that this is routinely suggested raises some serious concerns, but still, isn't that the basic message - "Get rid of them and we'll be OK"?

I haven't heard this said about 'immigrants'. I have heard it said about 'illegal immigrants'.

The distinction is continually blurred. Can you please use distinct terms for the two groups?

I suggest immigrants and criminals (for clarity) but will accept other useful terms if you have ones you prefer.

The reason people experience job insecurity, are up to their ears in debt, can't pay their medical bills, are subject to shoddy treatment by the state, and feel that someone is constantly putting one over on them, is not down to immigration policy - its the cumulative effect of an incalculable number of political choices made over a great many years.

If an employer can hire criminals, and pay them a lot less, even exploiting them beyond what labour law allows, do you think that could affect employment prospects for non-criminals?

This happens with normal criminals, too. Anyone avoiding a warrant is in the same boat as a criminal of any other kind (including immigration crimes)

And it's the people who have made and are still making those decisions who are telling us it's all the immigrants fault.

Who? Are they talking about criminals? Or lawful immigrants?

What happens when the wall goes up, the borders are closed, the dragnet is tightened, the undesirables are finally ejected and/or excluded, and the un-addressed social, economic, environmental, and political issues remain, well, un-addressed? Who's next on the list of blameworthy deplorables - Jews, spics, wops, chinks, niggers or rednecks, professors, teachers, charity workers, or political opponents, telephone handset sanitisers, hairdressers, gingers, or Canadians?

Criminals as a class are not the same as Jews, spics etc. Good try conflating criminals with lawful immigrants though.

If people want to live in a racially pure, economically balanced, well regulated and ordered society that conforms to the rule of law as an absolute and unquestionable moral code then I'd suggest they go join the Amsih.

I think it's ok for people to want their borders respected, and their laws enforced.

Do you leave your front door open all night? Or do you close it to keep others out of your space?

[Cunt]

I don't look down on "a little bit o' chicken-fry - a cold beer on a friday night - a pair o' jeans that fit just right - and th'e radio on..." I'm not going to make sarcastic comments about the guy whose "ass is in the lawn chair, feet in the clay, not a worry in the world, PBR on the way" when they get up and go to work at Wal-mart, or rise and shine at 5am to go help someone fix their roof.

Country music is farm emo.

[Tero]

Mark Judge needs to be interrogated says Senate. FBI? He is holed up in a known hideaway.

[Forty Two]

It takes 15 minutes to type up a subpoena. Send it to a process server and get him hauled in. Since he was part of the rape gangs alleged by Swetnick, one way to get him hauled in is to get a police investigation going. No statute of limitations. Won't matter if Kavanaugh is confirmed. If implicated, he could be arrested even if sitting on SCOTUS.

[Brian Peacock]

Some terrible decisions MUST be made.

Difficult decisions have to be made, but terrible decisions seem a speciality of this administration.

[Hermit]

Those who enter the country illegally ARE criminals.

In the case of the USA since 1929 anyway. Prior to that, both Mexican and US citizens crossed the border at will. The criminalisation of informal border crossings was basically the judicial arm of US racism. By 1924, Congress had largely adopted a “whites only” immigration system, banning all Asian immigration and cutting the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States from anywhere other than Northern and Western Europe. More info here.

None of this is a patch on the White Australia Policy of the past (1901-1973), let alone our current treatment of asylum seekers (1992 - present). Worse, our policies have always been bi (or tri) - partisan. The only parliamentary opposition to them has come from the Greens who currently have one seat in the House of Representatives and nine in the Senate.

[Cunt]

So because you think someone in the 20's was wrong, you blame the current administration for securing the borders?

Idiocy!

This administration PROMISED to make more enforcement of border security, and got elected based on that promise. You seem to want to ignore the will of the voters.

Having come to that, how many unwanted guests would you think is ok to allow into your house?

[Cunt]

Some terrible decisions MUST be made.

Difficult decisions have to be made, but terrible decisions seem a speciality of this administration.

Is it terrible to enforce immigration law?

Or is the 'terrible' attributed to those who wrote the law?

I doubt you could say anything good about this administration, regardless of facts, so I'm not surprised that you claim it is a 'specialty' of this administration.