The Make Fun of Elizabeth Warren Thread

[Animavore]

Ran out of things to make fun of Elizabeth Warren about already?

I guess she's just not the bottemless pit of incompetency, stupidity, and hypocrisy Trump is.

[Brian Peacock]

In order forthese folks to be "refugees", they must be "persecuted" under international law, which means, they can no longer live in Honduras due to a reasonable fear or proof they will be persecuted by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion. Refugee status is secured while outside of the US (or any other country for which refugee status is sought). Once a person crosses the border, he can't be a refugee.

Once the border is crossed, they could become "asylum seekers." Asylum seekers are already in country, but have a claim that if they are returned to Honduras (or whatever home country), they will be persecuted for religious, racial, national origin, or social group/political opinion reasons.

So, what should happen here. What should happen is that the US shouldn't let a single Honduran in that mob into the country. And, there is a very good reason for it, and it's a reason adhered to by "every other first world civilized industrialized country" including all the pontificating and bloviating Europeans.

That reason is the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Every country involved here has signed onto that Convention.

That requires the "first safe country" to be the country at which asylum claims are to be resolved in the "first safe country." I.e. a refugee claim would be made from Honduras - they'd go to the US consulate, and claim refugee status there, or they'd be part of a group that is en masse designated "refugee status" under international law. If they actually leave Honduras under a claim of persecution, once they enter Guatemala or Belize, they would be required under international law to have their asylum claim processed in Guatemala or Belize if one of those countries is a "safe country" (meaning the persecution they claim to be suffering for religious, racial, political reasons will not be occurring there). If that's not a safe country, then they can move to Mexico and process their claim there.

Interesting thing, though. Of all the interviews I've seen of members of this mob by CNN and such, not a single one claims they are being persecuted for their political opinions, religion, race, national origin or social group. Not one. They all say they want a better life, jobs, etc.

If that's their claim, then they aren't fucking refugees or asylees, and they need to go the fuck home.

If they ARE claiming such persecution, then they really need to explain why the fuck they wouldn't be safe from this persecution in Guatemala or Mexico. I mean, are Mexicans persecuting these Hondurans for their politics? Social group? Latino status? Catholic religion? They are going to harass and commit violence against Hondurans because they're Honduran? Funny - nobody seems to be persecuting them now, even after they assaulted police and battered down fences to bust their way into the country. They're moving freely and unmolested through the country.

So, no matter how you slice this, either they are not refugee/asylees, in which case, go the fuck home. And if they are refugee/asylees, then there is no reason the shouldn't be processed in Mexico or Guatemala.

Trump is -- once again -- in the right. The Democrats are playing politics with immigration. They are making this out to be some obligation on the part of the US to accept these mobs of economic migrants into the country, and calling the President a racist if he doesn't agree.

Fuck them. Go home. Go back to Honduras. This is a major political grandstanding move.

Bog help us all if the fucking Democrats get control of the House.

The US shouldn't offer asylum to Hondurans or Guatamalabs fleeing a break down of civil order and imploding economies?

[Seabass]

In order forthese folks to be "refugees", they must be "persecuted" under international law, which means, they can no longer live in Honduras due to a reasonable fear or proof they will be persecuted by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion. Refugee status is secured while outside of the US (or any other country for which refugee status is sought). Once a person crosses the border, he can't be a refugee.

Once the border is crossed, they could become "asylum seekers." Asylum seekers are already in country, but have a claim that if they are returned to Honduras (or whatever home country), they will be persecuted for religious, racial, national origin, or social group/political opinion reasons.

So, what should happen here. What should happen is that the US shouldn't let a single Honduran in that mob into the country. And, there is a very good reason for it, and it's a reason adhered to by "every other first world civilized industrialized country" including all the pontificating and bloviating Europeans.

That reason is the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Every country involved here has signed onto that Convention.

That requires the "first safe country" to be the country at which asylum claims are to be resolved in the "first safe country." I.e. a refugee claim would be made from Honduras - they'd go to the US consulate, and claim refugee status there, or they'd be part of a group that is en masse designated "refugee status" under international law. If they actually leave Honduras under a claim of persecution, once they enter Guatemala or Belize, they would be required under international law to have their asylum claim processed in Guatemala or Belize if one of those countries is a "safe country" (meaning the persecution they claim to be suffering for religious, racial, political reasons will not be occurring there). If that's not a safe country, then they can move to Mexico and process their claim there.

Interesting thing, though. Of all the interviews I've seen of members of this mob by CNN and such, not a single one claims they are being persecuted for their political opinions, religion, race, national origin or social group. Not one. They all say they want a better life, jobs, etc.

If that's their claim, then they aren't fucking refugees or asylees, and they need to go the fuck home.

If they ARE claiming such persecution, then they really need to explain why the fuck they wouldn't be safe from this persecution in Guatemala or Mexico. I mean, are Mexicans persecuting these Hondurans for their politics? Social group? Latino status? Catholic religion? They are going to harass and commit violence against Hondurans because they're Honduran? Funny - nobody seems to be persecuting them now, even after they assaulted police and battered down fences to bust their way into the country. They're moving freely and unmolested through the country.

So, no matter how you slice this, either they are not refugee/asylees, in which case, go the fuck home. And if they are refugee/asylees, then there is no reason the shouldn't be processed in Mexico or Guatemala.

Trump is -- once again -- in the right. The Democrats are playing politics with immigration. They are making this out to be some obligation on the part of the US to accept these mobs of economic migrants into the country, and calling the President a racist if he doesn't agree.

Fuck them. Go home. Go back to Honduras. This is a major political grandstanding move.

Bog help us all if the fucking Democrats get control of the House.

The US shouldn't offer asylum to Hondurans or Guatamalabs fleeing a break down of civil order and imploding economies?

I believe he made his position perfectly clear:

Fuck them. Go home. Go back to Honduras.

[Forty Two]

In order forthese folks to be "refugees", they must be "persecuted" under international law, which means, they can no longer live in Honduras due to a reasonable fear or proof they will be persecuted by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion. Refugee status is secured while outside of the US (or any other country for which refugee status is sought). Once a person crosses the border, he can't be a refugee.

Once the border is crossed, they could become "asylum seekers." Asylum seekers are already in country, but have a claim that if they are returned to Honduras (or whatever home country), they will be persecuted for religious, racial, national origin, or social group/political opinion reasons.

So, what should happen here. What should happen is that the US shouldn't let a single Honduran in that mob into the country. And, there is a very good reason for it, and it's a reason adhered to by "every other first world civilized industrialized country" including all the pontificating and bloviating Europeans.

That reason is the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Every country involved here has signed onto that Convention.

That requires the "first safe country" to be the country at which asylum claims are to be resolved in the "first safe country." I.e. a refugee claim would be made from Honduras - they'd go to the US consulate, and claim refugee status there, or they'd be part of a group that is en masse designated "refugee status" under international law. If they actually leave Honduras under a claim of persecution, once they enter Guatemala or Belize, they would be required under international law to have their asylum claim processed in Guatemala or Belize if one of those countries is a "safe country" (meaning the persecution they claim to be suffering for religious, racial, political reasons will not be occurring there). If that's not a safe country, then they can move to Mexico and process their claim there.

Interesting thing, though. Of all the interviews I've seen of members of this mob by CNN and such, not a single one claims they are being persecuted for their political opinions, religion, race, national origin or social group. Not one. They all say they want a better life, jobs, etc.

If that's their claim, then they aren't fucking refugees or asylees, and they need to go the fuck home.

If they ARE claiming such persecution, then they really need to explain why the fuck they wouldn't be safe from this persecution in Guatemala or Mexico. I mean, are Mexicans persecuting these Hondurans for their politics? Social group? Latino status? Catholic religion? They are going to harass and commit violence against Hondurans because they're Honduran? Funny - nobody seems to be persecuting them now, even after they assaulted police and battered down fences to bust their way into the country. They're moving freely and unmolested through the country.

So, no matter how you slice this, either they are not refugee/asylees, in which case, go the fuck home. And if they are refugee/asylees, then there is no reason the shouldn't be processed in Mexico or Guatemala.

Trump is -- once again -- in the right. The Democrats are playing politics with immigration. They are making this out to be some obligation on the part of the US to accept these mobs of economic migrants into the country, and calling the President a racist if he doesn't agree.

Fuck them. Go home. Go back to Honduras. This is a major political grandstanding move.

Bog help us all if the fucking Democrats get control of the House.

The US shouldn't offer asylum to Hondurans or Guatamalabs fleeing a break down of civil order and imploding economies?

I believe he made his position perfectly clear:

If they are refugees/asylees, then Mexico or Guatemala, as the "first safe country" under the UN Convention on Refugees should process the asylum claim - just the same way as Europe does it.

No, the US should not simply be the destination for all refugees/asylees in the western hemisphere. If they flee a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, national origin, or political opinion, then they may well be refugees/asylees. Therefore, the first safe country takes them.

If Mexico doesn't think they're asylees, why should the US? If they're economic migrants, as they appear to be, then they need to go home.

And, the way this is happening is quite concerning. Thousands of people just bust into Mexico? Tearing down fences? Assaulting police? Demanding entry to someone else's country without inspection? Without approval? Without permission? And they are trotting through Mexico, with the support of organizations behind them who are paying for trucks, buses and drivers, food, clothing, shelter, etc. - a supply line that must include toilet facilities, and the like. At the front of the line is the Honduran flag, and cheering and chanting - and protesters in support of the group burn the American flag (one with the Nazi symbol on it) (apparently, some protesters in support of the group think the US is Nazi, but they demand entry to the Nazi state for safety). When interviewed, the people talking to CNN and other reporters claim that they are moving for better jobs and more money. That's exactly the reason they should not be allowed to immigrate to the US. Refugee/asylee status is not for economic migrants. It's for "persecution" and not just any persecution - persecution based on race, national origin, religion or political opinion.

What would be wrong, say, if the US just escorted them to Niagara Falls or the Ambassador Bridge? Would Canada be justified in suggesting they not enter?

[Forty Two]

The US shouldn't offer asylum to Hondurans or Guatamalabs fleeing a break down of civil order and imploding economies?

A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries. The UN hasn't designated them as refugees. Doesn't seem as if they qualify.

Once they left Honduras, they became asylum seekers in the countries they entered. Once again, they would have to meet the definition of "well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group." Do they? Doesn't appear so. When interviewed, the sympathetic CNN reporters haven't gotten an answer that fits that category - they talk about jobs and money.

However, shouldn't Mexico offer asylum? If not, why not?

Think of a bunch of Moroccans. They take a boat to Spain, and march en masse by the 1000s toward France, waiving the Moroccan flag, burning the French flag, and demanding entry to France. Shouldn't Spain process the asylum claims? Why would it be justified for them to force their way into Spain, and then use it as a roadway to France?

[Seabass]

You dumb motherfucker. Your entire goddamn worldview is shaped by disinformation. Everything you believe is bullshit.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/caravan-burning-flag/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/carav ... flag-fire/

[Animavore]

download-1.jpg (64.26 KiB) Viewed 3926 times

[Animavore]

Funny how a thread that was supposed to be mocking the opposition has been turned around due to the enormous stupidity of conservative thinking.

[Jason]

You dumb motherfucker. Your entire goddamn worldview is shaped by disinformation. Everything you believe is bullshit.

[Joe]

Ran out of things to make fun of Elizabeth Warren about already?

I guess she's just not the bottemless pit of incompetency, stupidity, and hypocrisy Trump is.

Nobody does incompetence, stupidity, and hypocrisy like Trump.

Once these "gentlemen" went through their litany of racist, misogynistic, and sexist slurs, they had nothing left to talk about but the latest right wing outrage.

[Forty Two]

You dumb motherfucker. Your entire goddamn worldview is shaped by disinformation. Everything you believe is bullshit.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/caravan-burning-flag/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/carav ... flag-fire/

For the record, I did not claim that the the caravan was burning the flat, or members of the caravan were burning the flag. What I wrote was "and protesters in support of the group burn the American flag" - That is exactly what happened, protesters in support of the caravan burned the American flag at the embassy in Honduras.

Note the Snopes "fact check" says it's "miscaptioned" - and they debunk the assertion that MEMBERS OF THE CARAVAN were burning the flag. However, on October 19, Friday, there was a large protest IN SUPPORT OF the caravan, and they did burn tires, the flag and otherwise rioted. http://www.ny1.com/nyc/manhattan/ap-top ... ith-mexico (10th picture in the series) (AP photo credited to Fernando Antonio) The caption to the photo states "Two people burn a United States flag during a protest in favor of the caravan of migrants that is currently stuck on the Guatemala-Mexico border, in front of the American embassy, in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Friday, Oct. 19, 2018.”

In my post, I repeat, I wrote "protesters in support of the group burn the American flag."

That appears to be accurate.

While other people may be saying that members of the caravan itself burned the flag, I did not say that.

I really think you should do some self-examination, particularly in light of your reading comprehension issue, and your lack of self-control in posting to this forum.

[Forty Two]

Funny how a thread that was supposed to be mocking the opposition has been turned around due to the enormous stupidity of conservative thinking.

LOL, who cares what conservatives think?

It's the radical Leftists that we have to worry about.

[Forty Two]

Ran out of things to make fun of Elizabeth Warren about already?

I guess she's just not the bottemless pit of incompetency, stupidity, and hypocrisy Trump is.

Nobody does incompetence, stupidity, and hypocrisy like Trump.

Once these "gentlemen" went through their litany of racist, misogynistic, and sexist slurs, they had nothing left to talk about but the latest right wing outrage.

Can the moderators move the Caravan Derail into a new thread?

Nobody posted anything racist, misogynistic or sexist here. Warren was the one who acted in a racist fashion by trying to adopt Native American heritage when she has none. It's no different than Rachel Dolezel pretending to be black. And, when a woman does something as ridiculous as this, it's not misogynistic or sexist to laugh at it and her. If this was a man, particularly a Republican man, the reaction would be much harsher, and there would be fewer White Knights riding to the rescue.

[Cunt]

Maybe some of the First Nations groups should be taking this particular group of 'irregular migrants'. As long as it is south of the border...

[Cunt]

For the derail: to those who think the 'irregular migration' should be accepted, can you say why? Where they should be settled? Can you say how the group should be vetted, or if they should?

If some of them are undesireable, what should happen to them? Mexico won't want to take them back southward, I'm fairly sure...