Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Trump surrenders to Democrats

343 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dredimus
On 2/1/2019 at 3:46 PM, Captain Risky said:

compromise? well the republicans had the house for 2 years and they said no to Trump for his wall. honestly, Trump's own party were not wiling to fund his wall then the democrats should have for the sake of a healthy democracy? 

If this is your response, you are completely missing the point. Its part of the problem... not the solution. "Well, this group did this, so why should we do this..." how about setting down facts, an exorcise in reality. Remove emotion from the equation and give a complete, unbiased opinion on why it should or should not be done instead of an iron front of "because its Trump" or "Its republican". My post wasn't about party lines, which have been blurred when it fits one agenda or another. The post is about compromise from all sides. Not once did I call for the wall to be completely funded, not once did I advocate for the wall actually. What I am advocating is compromise... you cant have your house speaker step out and denounce a plan BEFORE the plan is ever actually brought about... This has been done... the compromise he offered is something that most democrats have asked for in the years past... but because its Trump, there will be no compromise... and of course, it should work both ways. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella
On 1/25/2019 at 4:03 PM, Captain Risky said:

Trump surrenders to Democrats, ends government shutdown

New York: US President Donald Trump has capitulated to his Democratic opponents by agreeing to re-open the US government without securing any money for a wall on the border with Mexico.

Just a day after vowing he would not cave in to demands that he end the government shutdown, Trump announced he would re-open the government for three weeks of negotiations on border security.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-surrenders-to-democrats-ends-government-shutdown-20190126-p50ts2.html

Why do you suppose this is not talked about ? is something going on besides what media spoon feeds the public?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
6 hours ago, Dredimus said:

If this is your response, you are completely missing the point. Its part of the problem... not the solution. "Well, this group did this, so why should we do this..." how about setting down facts, an exorcise in reality. Remove emotion from the equation and give a complete, unbiased opinion on why it should or should not be done instead of an iron front of "because its Trump" or "Its republican". My post wasn't about party lines, which have been blurred when it fits one agenda or another. The post is about compromise from all sides. Not once did I call for the wall to be completely funded, not once did I advocate for the wall actually. What I am advocating is compromise... you cant have your house speaker step out and denounce a plan BEFORE the plan is ever actually brought about... This has been done... the compromise he offered is something that most democrats have asked for in the years past... but because its Trump, there will be no compromise... and of course, it should work both ways. 

I’m a big fan of compromising. In fact I find merit in Trump’s desire to limit and possibly stop illegals and drugs entering the U.S. most democrats, including Pelosi, also finds Trump’s desire to secure the border a worthy endeavour. The democrats have no problem with that since they’ve offered a large sum towards that purpose. Thing is that is the wall the best option? You can’t talk of compromise when all Trump advocates is a wall. How is Trump compromising? Problem here isn’t compromising but rather Trump picking a fight to look strong on border security. He made bombastic election promises that he can’t deliver. The wall that his own party wouldn’t support... funded by the Mexicans. Trump miscalculated. Now why do the democrats need to help him out when there are better options than building a wall?

Edited by Captain Risky
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
5 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Why do you suppose this is not talked about ? is something going on besides what media spoon feeds the public?

 

More power to Trump if he can find a loophole for his wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
7 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Why do you suppose this is not talked about ? is something going on besides what media spoon feeds the public?

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/next-news-network/

Try Fox. They're a little less bias. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dredimus
18 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I’m a big fan of compromising. In fact I find merit in Trump’s desire to limit and possibly stop illegals and drugs entering the U.S. most democrats, including Pelosi, also finds Trump’s desire to secure the border a worthy endeavour. The democrats have no problem with that since they’ve offered a large sum towards that purpose. Thing is that is the wall the best option? You can’t talk of compromise when all Trump advocates is a wall. How is Trump compromising? Problem here isn’t compromising but rather Trump picking a fight to look strong on border security. He made bombastic election promises that he can’t deliver. The wall that his own party wouldn’t support... funded by the Mexicans. Trump miscalculated. Now why do the democrats need to help him out when there are better options than building a wall?

You do understand that he doesn't need democrats to do what he needs to do, right? He does have the power to just declare an emergency and push forward... its the fact that he DOESN'T want to do that that people should be looking at. He wants compromise, he wants the governing body of the US to do what it is supposed to do. He does not want to throw the same tactics at the border that have been used for the last 40 years. DHS Supports the building of a wall... The benefits of it are proven out in places like El Paso and Yuma... Not to mention Israel.

 

  At this point, this entire argument is not about whether or not it works... its about TRUMP being the one pushing for it now.  The support has been there from democrats in years past. The "bombastic" promises weren't at all out of line, it is a need. That argument is settled...

The problem we have now is that there is so much unwillingness to compromise at this point that it is hindering the progress of this country. So much bias on every issue that it is starting to affect every citizen. The day to day security of our country is at risk... it may sound like a fearmongering claim, but its not. Its the truth. Incarceration of illegals is costing us millions per day... in FY 2018 there were over 13,000 felony arrest on illegals. Not to mention the drug issues at the border.

Like I said, its not about the issue itself, its about the administration and the lack of compromise. Its sickening.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
On 2/5/2019 at 11:23 AM, Dredimus said:

You do understand that he doesn't need democrats to do what he needs to do, right? He does have the power to just declare an emergency and push forward.

Well maybe. He has the power to go ahead and declare the emergency, the question is whether the courts will agree that it is constitutional for him to do so over a budget issue.

On 2/5/2019 at 11:23 AM, Dredimus said:

The benefits of it are proven out in places like El Paso and Yuma... Not to mention Israel.

Trump was lying about El Paso. El Paso sheriff slams Trump’s ‘false narrative’ and distortions on crime in his city

Quote

In January, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, made the same argument that Trump made last night: that enhanced fencing lowered El Paso’s crime rate. But Paxton’s claim was debunked by an El Paso Times article published on January 10. Using FBI and El Paso Police Department statistics for the 1990s and beyond, the Times’ Madlin Mekelburg reported that “between 1993 and 2006, the number of violent crimes fell by more than 34%”—and construction for the El Paso-area border fencing that was authorized under the George W. Bush Administration in 2006 didn’t begin until 2008.

 

In other words, FBI and El Paso Police Department statistics show no correlation whatsoever between El Paso’s decrease in crime and additional border fencing in that area.

 

On 2/5/2019 at 11:23 AM, Dredimus said:

Like I said, its not about the issue itself, its about the administration and the lack of compromise. Its sickening.

Are you aware the democrats offered 25 billion for the wall and Trump refused it? The immigration deal Trump should’ve taken, but didn’t

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dredimus
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

1 - Well maybe. He has the power to go ahead and declare the emergency, the question is whether the courts will agree that it is constitutional for him to do so over a budget issue.

 

2 - Trump was lying about El Paso. El Paso sheriff slams Trump’s ‘false narrative’ and distortions on crime in his city

 

3 - Are you aware the democrats offered 25 billion for the wall and Trump refused it? The immigration deal Trump should’ve taken, but didn’t

1- Considering that there is already precedent for this action being taken, I doubt he would have issue doing so... Also, this would be taken from the defense budget, so there wouldn't be extra budget concerns.

2- So, This comes from Sheriff Richard Wiles... a known anti-trump person... lets take a look at the numbers from the agents on the ground... Sheriff Wiles is known for not enforcing immigration laws in his own city....

"In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data I reviewed. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.

They hit a low of 9,678 in 2012, before slowly ticking back up to a total of 25,193 last year. But they’re still well below pre-fence levels, and the Border Patrol credits the fortified barrier dividing El Paso from Mexico for the reduction in illegal flows."

Link to NY Post Column and Interview with Border Patrol.

3- Are you aware that the measure/deal in which you speak of was killed before it ever got off the ground because it didn't reach enough votes on the floor? A bit misleading don't you think? Also, courts have already ruled that the deal could not have gone through due to the standing DACA policy.

 

See, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about... and exactly why I stopped posting here. There is no discussion, everyone wants to argue instead of laying out ways to settle the issues. I'll lay out my idea...

Build the wall... every 50 miles or so put in an advocacy center... these centers would be Hubs for Border Patrol agents and immigration specialist who can help to fast track the LEGAL entry into the Sovereign Country of the United States of America. This provides large contracts in the construction industry for a few years to come... it also provides stable jobs within the immigration arena... helps those who wish to do it right come here as best as possible... win/win on both sides of the fence, literally.

 

Edited by Dredimus
Word Error
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
3 hours ago, Dredimus said:

1- Considering that there is already precedent for this action being taken, I doubt he would have issue doing so... Also, this would be taken from the defense budget, so there wouldn't be extra budget concerns.

2- So, This comes from Sheriff Richard Wiles... a known anti-trump person... lets take a look at the numbers from the agents on the ground... Sheriff Wiles is known for not enforcing immigration laws in his own city....

"In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data I reviewed. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.

They hit a low of 9,678 in 2012, before slowly ticking back up to a total of 25,193 last year. But they’re still well below pre-fence levels, and the Border Patrol credits the fortified barrier dividing El Paso from Mexico for the reduction in illegal flows."

Link to NY Post Column and Interview with Border Patrol.

3- Are you aware that the measure/deal in which you speak of was killed before it ever got off the ground because it didn't reach enough votes on the floor? A bit misleading don't you think? Also, courts have already ruled that the deal could not have gone through due to the standing DACA policy.

 

See, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about... and exactly why I stopped posting here. There is no discussion, everyone wants to argue instead of laying out ways to settle the issues. I'll lay out my idea...

Build the wall... every 50 miles or so put in an advocacy center... these centers would be Hubs for Border Patrol agents and immigration specialist who can help to fast track the LEGAL entry into the Sovereign Country of the United States of America. This provides large contracts in the construction industry for a few years to come... it also provides stable jobs within the immigration arena... helps those who wish to do it right come here as best as possible... win/win on both sides of the fence, literally.

 

If you had the advocacy centers, you wouldnt need a wall. After all, most of the drugs come from ports of call. Immigrants would head to the centers to present themselves. Drones with IFR and night vision would be better suited to patrolling the borders in conjunction with Mobile border agents to investigate anything the drones spot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter

Dredimus, 

               For the record, I like your advocacy centers idea. It makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
13 hours ago, Dredimus said:

1- Considering that there is already precedent for this action being taken, I doubt he would have issue doing so... Also, this would be taken from the defense budget, so there wouldn't be extra budget concerns.

The problem is the POTUS doesnt get to bypass congress when it comes to financial matters. Thats not the way the constitution was designed. The legal battle will be about whether any of the more recent policies giving POTUS more powers can supersede the constitution.

Its somewhat ironic that this is the position the right is in at the moment. Basically being left hoping a judge will legislate from the bench.

13 hours ago, Dredimus said:

So, This comes from Sheriff Richard Wiles... a known anti-trump person... lets take a look at the numbers from the agents on the ground... Sheriff Wiles is known for not enforcing immigration laws in his own city....

No. The rebuttal to the SOTU is coming from Wiles, the facts however are the facts. Trump lied to you when he told you the wall brought down crime rates. Period end of discussion

 

13 hours ago, Dredimus said:

3- Are you aware that the measure/deal in which you speak of was killed before it ever got off the ground because it didn't reach enough votes on the floor? A bit misleading don't you think? Also, courts have already ruled that the deal could not have gone through due to the standing DACA policy.

There is some misleading going on here but its not what you think. It didnt get the votes because Trump had already told McConnel to not vote for it because he wouldnt sign it.

13 hours ago, Dredimus said:

Build the wall... every 50 miles or so put in an advocacy center... these centers would be Hubs for Border Patrol agents and immigration specialist who can help to fast track the LEGAL entry into the Sovereign Country of the United States of America. This provides large contracts in the construction industry for a few years to come... it also provides stable jobs within the immigration arena... helps those who wish to do it right come here as best as possible... win/win on both sides of the fence, literally.

If the regime hadnt already gotten all environmental regulations waived and given fat tax cuts to the rich I would be somewhat less opposed, a 2k mile wall would still be a stupid idea, but it would at least feel like grown ups were involved in the project.  As is this regime has lied about the configuration and justifications for the wall so much they have designed their own demise.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

The problem is the POTUS doesnt get to bypass congress when it comes to financial matters. Thats not the way the constitution was designed. The legal battle will be about whether any of the more recent policies giving POTUS more powers can supersede the constitution.

Wait. I thought that was the whole point of Executive Orders?? Didn't Obama CREATE DACA without a way to pay for it... with a stroke of a pen? And against what the Congress at the time wanted?

Quote

Its somewhat ironic that this is the position the right is in at the moment. Basically being left hoping a judge will legislate from the bench.

Like has been happening with DACA. 

Quote

No. The rebuttal to the SOTU is coming from Wiles, the facts however are the facts. Trump lied to you when he told you the wall brought down crime rates. Period end of discussion

Uh... Didn't Dredimus just refute the Sheriff's facts with Federal data? Are you ending discussion because you want your "facts" to be true, and the Federal facts to not be true?

Quote

There is some misleading going on here but its not what you think. It didnt get the votes because Trump had already told McConnel to not vote for it because he wouldnt sign it.

If the regime hadnt already gotten all environmental regulations waived and given fat tax cuts to the rich I would be somewhat less opposed, a 2k mile wall would still be a stupid idea, but it would at least feel like grown ups were involved in the project.  As is this regime has lied about the configuration and justifications for the wall so much they have designed their own demise.

So... You're going to support sinking a "good idea" because you hate the man?

Regarding the 25 Billion...

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Are you aware the democrats offered 25 billion for the wall and Trump refused it? The immigration deal Trump should’ve taken, but didn’t

So that then brings up the point of Why didn't the Democrats continue to offer that same thing? Why keep degrading the offer, if not mostly out of spite? Is "spite" a genuine way to run the government? I guess now it is.... On both sides apparently. Except the President will still get his agenda done, and Madam Pelosi will have zero chance of getting anything she wants through the Senate or President. 

People are applauding Pelosi, yet they don't realize that she's effectively RUINED any chance she had of any bipartisan efforts in the next two years.

Sometimes a stupid cow needs to know when she has to offer up some milk. Or the farmer might just starve her to death.

Quote

Well maybe. He has the power to go ahead and declare the emergency, the question is whether the courts will agree that it is constitutional for him to do so over a budget issue.

I'm not sure that such a reason is something the courts even have to consider. I think all they have to consider is if it is legal, not if it is quasi-moral, or quasi-ethical. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
12 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

If you had the advocacy centers, you wouldnt need a wall. After all, most of the drugs come from ports of call. Immigrants would head to the centers to present themselves. Drones with IFR and night vision would be better suited to patrolling the borders in conjunction with Mobile border agents to investigate anything the drones spot.

Sure, everyone except.... the criminals.

What would stop the criminals from just driving right across in the 40 miles between advocacy centers? And, if it becomes easy to just drive across.... Then perhaps the drugs would move from high cost, convoluted ways of sneaking across, to just bales of pot, and blocks of coke, coming straight across on trucks. It would be a lot cheaper.

I do agree on the drones, but... There is what, 3000 miles plus of border? How many drones would that be...? Maybe one every five miles? Maybe with two others in reserve at a base. With, what, a couple miles range? So, looking at at least 5 to 6 hundred drone bases, and well over a thousand drones. And then what.... Maybe ten thousand support personnel, at least. Probably cost nearly as much as the Wall, if you included the Advocacy Centers...

And 75% of those coming to the US already are doing so Legally, so these centers would help people who already are going to ports of entry.

I do like the idea of increasing the resources at the points of entry. Create large campuses where those coming here legally, and seeing asylum, can get help coming in faster then they do now. And with good accommodations while they do so. That I would support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Wait. I thought that was the whole point of Executive Orders?? Didn't Obama CREATE DACA without a way to pay for it... with a stroke of a pen? And against what the Congress at the time wanted?

The battle over DACA wasnt a budget battle though. The constitution specifically gives congress control of the budget.

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Uh... Didn't Dredimus just refute the Sheriff's facts with Federal data? Are you ending discussion because you want your "facts" to be true, and the Federal facts to not be true?

No he posted immigration data, not violent crime data, which is what Trump was lying about. Trump said the wall made violent crime go down.

8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So... You're going to support sinking a "good idea" because you hate the man?

No I think its a marginal idea at best being pushed by untrustworthy people who have already decided that environmental concerns arent important

9 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

People are applauding Pelosi, yet they don't realize that she's effectively RUINED any chance she had of any bipartisan efforts in the next two years.

  You cant act like an animal while lying and insulting your way through two years in the job and then all of a sudden call for bipartisanship. What Trump is asking for is subservience not bipartisanship

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
23 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The battle over DACA wasnt a budget battle though. The constitution specifically gives congress control of the budget.

But, my understanding is that if he does call it an Emergency, then the money he will use is already accounted for under DOD. Thus, not Congresses issue. The money he asked for under the Budget... that is Congresses issue. And, so, like President Obama, Trump could do an end run around Congress. And it has been done before and will be done again....

Quote

No he posted immigration data, not violent crime data, which is what Trump was lying about. Trump said the wall made violent crime go down.

Ah... That's what I get for assuming that the Federal data was to refute the link. I went back and read the link, and see what you mean. The city isn't any more dangerous then anywhere else. While Dredimus is correct in that the numbers of illegals has been decreased by the fence/wall that is there. Different issues.

Quote

No I think its a marginal idea at best being pushed by untrustworthy people who have already decided that environmental concerns arent important

I'd admit there are environmental concerns, but really... is the environmental concern that much more then building a road? I do understand that some species will be limited in terms of genetic diversity (like jaguars) due to a complete wall, but when we're talking hundreds of thousands of illegals trying to cross every year, a static defense is a good start. So, I favor doing environmental studies, but I'd strongly consider the socio-economic interests over the potential long term harm caused for a few larger species.

Quote

  You cant act like an animal while lying and insulting your way through two years in the job and then all of a sudden call for bipartisanship. What Trump is asking for is subservience not bipartisanship

So.... No redemption possible? :o

Still.... Pelosi isn't doing herself any favors. Unless she is playing the "Long Game" and is looking to gain more power in 2020, and doing nothing till then but stalling. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dredimus
3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

No. The rebuttal to the SOTU is coming from Wiles, the facts however are the facts. Trump lied to you when he told you the wall brought down crime rates. Period end of discussion

The rest has been responded to, and you refuse to accept hard numbers, per usual... you also overlooked the link I posted in order to claim your own information as true...

"Federal data illustrates just how remarkable the turnaround in crime has been since the fence was built. According to FBI tables, property crimes in El Paso have plunged more than 37 percent to 12,357 from their pre-fence peak of 19,702 a year, while violent crimes have dropped more than 6 percent to 2,682 from a peak of 2,861 a year.

The overall crime rate in El Paso continued to fall last year, prompting city leaders to trumpet the good news in a press release that noted, “Because El Paso is a border town, its low crime rate may surprise you.” . "

Keep in mind that these stats start with the construction of the border fencing. But, again, you want to argue for the sake of arguing because you don't like POTUS... and again, you offer no true ideas or plans to curb the issues we have on the border..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
49 minutes ago, Dredimus said:

"Federal data illustrates just how remarkable the turnaround in crime has been since the fence was built. According to FBI tables, property crimes in El Paso have plunged more than 37 percent to 12,357 from their pre-fence peak of 19,702 a year, while violent crimes have dropped more than 6 percent to 2,682 from a peak of 2,861 a year.

LOL I started to type an apology then I went and actually looked at your link. 

Youre talking property crime i and Trump are talking violent crime.

 

Quote

Crime in El Paso reached its peak in 1993, with more than 6,500 violent crimes recorded, according to the data. In the next 13 years, the crime rate decreased by 34%. From 2006 to 2014, the crime rate rose 17%.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dredimus
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL I started to type an apology then I went and actually looked at your link. 

Youre talking property crime i and Trump are talking violent crime.

 

 

In other words, you are trying to invalidate an argument over a word... Here... let me help you. 

Property crime  - a category of crime that includes, among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism. Property crime is a crime to obtain money, property, or some other benefit. This may involve force, or the threat of force, in cases like robbery or extortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Dredimus said:

In other words, you are trying to invalidate an argument over a word... Here... let me help you. 

Property crime  - a category of crime that includes, among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism. Property crime is a crime to obtain money, property, or some other benefit. This may involve force, or the threat of force, in cases like robbery or extortion.

Comeon. With the emotion that the word violent evokes you have to admit its pretty disingenuous to include shoplifting vandalism etc in there.

Thats almost the kind of thing a person with a less than above board agenda would do........kinda like making up stories about duct taped women and then asking agents to find a real case to back it up or lying about where the majority of drugs enter our nation......hmmmm where have we seen that before?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dredimus
5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Comeon. With the emotion that the word violent evokes you have to admit its pretty disingenuous to include shoplifting vandalism etc in there.

Thats almost the kind of thing a person with a less than above board agenda would do........kinda like making up stories about duct taped women and then asking agents to find a real case to back it up or lying about where the majority of drugs enter our nation......hmmmm where have we seen that before?

Again, part of the problem... you are willing to completely dismiss what you don't want to talk about because it supposedly helps your talking points and then you try to misdirect with something else off topic so as to look like you might know what you are talking about. You just left off things like Arson and Burglary and supplemented your rebuttal with shoplifting and vandalism. Ridiculous. And of course, even your misdirection has nothing to back it... no supporting evidence, no link... only over the top claims. Just, sit back for a minute, use a bit of logic... you can hate the man all you want, but at least try to look at things with an open mind instead of starting your day off so blinded by bias.

 

There is a problem at the southern border, major problems. Problems that are costing this country millions per day. We don't even have to talk about the crime rates or drugs. There are a host of other issues at the border besides those. So whether or not you like him as POTUS, realize that there are issues there that need to be stemmed and he is trying to get a start on that... something the last several administrations haven't done.... what they have done is kick the can down the road and expected things to get better while making promises they had no intention of keeping.

So, take a deep breath, stop focusing on the argument and present some ideas... bring forth solution instead of ingraining yourself in the issues. Remember, this is supposed to be a conversation, not a battle royale...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 hours ago, Dredimus said:

Again, part of the problem... you are willing to completely dismiss what you don't want to talk about because it supposedly helps your talking points and then you try to misdirect with something else off topic so as to look like you might know what you are talking about. You just left off things like Arson and Burglary and supplemented your rebuttal with shoplifting and vandalism. Ridiculous. And of course, even your misdirection has nothing to back it... no supporting evidence, no link... only over the top claims. Just, sit back for a minute, use a bit of logic... you can hate the man all you want, but at least try to look at things with an open mind instead of starting your day off so blinded by bias.

Words matter, definitions matter, facts matter. Using the word violent to describe statistics that include non violent crime is dishonest and is rather par for the fact free course at this point.

3 hours ago, Dredimus said:

something the last several administrations haven't done.

Man i do hate that dictatorial (and obviously false) mantra  .....again facts matter......

3 hours ago, Dredimus said:

So, take a deep breath, stop focusing on the argument and present some ideas... bring forth solution instead of ingraining yourself in the issues. Remember, this is supposed to be a conversation, not a battle royale...

Yeah you dont really get to do that. You cant support a man who is a "fighter" and who "punches back 1000 times harder" and who "doesnt believe in turning the other cheek" and an ideology that rides to power on the backs of repeated insults and lies and "owning libs" and then try and claim its not a battle royale.....well you can just dont expect to be taken seriously.

Dont get me wrong id rather it wasnt. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dredimus
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Words matter, definitions matter, facts matter. Using the word violent to describe statistics that include non violent crime is dishonest and is rather par for the fact free course at this point.

Man i do hate that dictatorial (and obviously false) mantra  .....again facts matter......

Yeah you dont really get to do that. You cant support a man who is a "fighter" and who "punches back 1000 times harder" and who "doesnt believe in turning the other cheek" and an ideology that rides to power on the backs of repeated insults and lies and "owning libs" and then try and claim its not a battle royale.....well you can just dont expect to be taken seriously.

Dont get me wrong id rather it wasnt. 

And yet again, you miss the entire point... zero discussion, zero anything really. You've provided nothing to the conversation, only an argumentative tone time and time again. This is exactly what I have been pointing out since the first post. You keep saying "Facts Matter" but you decide to completely ignore the facts that don't support your ideology. See, you keep going back to your attacks on Trump.. I'm not Trump. OUR conversation isn't supposed to be a battle... its supposed to be a conversation... are you capable of that? Can you present ideas on how to fix the issues at hand?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, Dredimus said:

And yet again, you miss the entire point... zero discussion, zero anything really. You've provided nothing to the conversation, only an argumentative tone time and time again. This is exactly what I have been pointing out since the first post. You keep saying "Facts Matter" but you decide to completely ignore the facts that don't support your ideology.

I'm not ignoring facts im ignoring your distortion  of them. Making a blanket statement that violent crime went down as a result of the wall is simply misleading at best, lying at worst. Im sorry me calling that out bothers you.

10 minutes ago, Dredimus said:

See, you keep going back to your attacks on Trump.. I'm not Trump. OUR conversation isn't supposed to be a battle... its supposed to be a conversation... are you capable of that? Can you present ideas on how to fix the issues at hand?

 Truthfully thats tough as we have two wholly different perceptions of the issue at hand. Hence the reason that facts are so important. This regime has worked overtime at destroying anything that could even kinda be referred to as a commonly agreed upon fact. That started on literally day 1 with the inauguration fiasco and "alternative facts" .

Where I see the largest obstacle to conversat...........damnit ok gotta run for work

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
27 minutes ago, Dredimus said:

And yet again, you miss the entire point... zero discussion, zero anything really. You've provided nothing to the conversation, only an argumentative tone time and time again. This is exactly what I have been pointing out since the first post. You keep saying "Facts Matter" but you decide to completely ignore the facts that don't support your ideology. See, you keep going back to your attacks on Trump.. I'm not Trump. OUR conversation isn't supposed to be a battle... its supposed to be a conversation... are you capable of that? Can you present ideas on how to fix the issues at hand?

Sorry man,"conversation" is dead around these parts anymore!

Again...no middle ground,no agreeing to disagree...

You are either far left or "one of them! :o"

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I'm not ignoring facts im ignoring your distortion  of them. Making a blanket statement that violent crime went down as a result of the wall is simply misleading at best, lying at worst. Im sorry me calling that out bothers you.

It worked in Israel. :) 

And France. And Morocco, and Spain. And Jordan. And Saudi. And Northern Ireland. And Hungary. (actually, quite a few places in Europe). And Turkey. 

It also worked in Finland, if you take into account violent crime committed by Reindeer !! 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.