President Donald Trump

[nots]

Doesn't that sound like they're referencing the conflicting statements put out by Mexico's incoming interior minister?

Update us if you find a reliable link. I'm not dismissing the possibility. It's what you do when diplomacy and negotiation fails that's important.

Confirmed by CBS News.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-caravan-members-reject-offer-to-stay-in-mexico-no-were-heading-north-2018-10-27/

[Bernie Brewer]

So... I guess you thinkthe Israelis should have used teargas instead of mass murder? I'm not accusing you of anything, settle down.

"Greased pig of online message boards"... wow, I'm sure glad folks like Gregg are around to police the scummy verbiage around here these days.

Anybody that buys the constant bullshit in every bloody skirmish that throwing rocks is used as justification for the bloodshed... I think you're incredibly naive. But only slightly more so than a complicit media that continues to print it.

But you’re not accusing me of anything! I understand. You know what a greased pig is right. You can’t catch a greased pig. No matter how hard you try, it slips away.

[Teenwolf]

Confirmed by CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant...th-2018-10-27/

What's your takeaway from their insistence to continue north?

Maybe if they knew asylum seekers were being teargassed on sight, then they would have accepted the offer? Therefore, tear gas is an effective deterrent to thwart future caravans?

Finally, no clue why you think discussing various global atrocities committed by the Trump admin are out of bounds. He prompted the protests in Gaza and didn't say a word about the massacre, only taking endless victory laps... same with the Saudis killing a school bus full of kids in Yemen. The US is a global terrorist. The Mexican border is only politically sensitive because you see it up close. If it was a border being protected on the other side of the world, the US would support mass murder, as they've done consistently under Trump.

[nots]

What's your takeaway from their insistence to continue north?

Maybe if they knew asylum seekers were being teargassed on sight, then they would have accepted the offer? Therefore, tear gas is an effective deterrent to thwart future caravans?

Finally, no clue why you think discussing various global atrocities committed by the Trump admin are out of bounds. He prompted the protests in Gaza and didn't say a word about the massacre, only taking endless victory laps... same with the Saudis killing a school bus full of kids in Yemen. The US is a global terrorist. The Mexican border is only politically sensitive because you see it up close. If it was a border being protected on the other side of the world, the US would support mass murder, as they've done consistently under Trump.

I believe they continue north because they have been encouraged to do so by pro-immigration folks. If they arrive at the border and there are enough distressing photos and sympathetic articles, I think their mentors envision public sentiment will be in their favor.
As for your last paragraph—wow. The problems between the folks in that part of the world have gone on for centuries before the Trumo Administration and will continue for centuries after his kids are dead. To blame him for that is lunacy, unless you are also blaming the Obama Administration for the deaths in Syria and Libya (remember we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital then). If you do blame Obama, I think you are wrong, but admire the consistency of your opinion.
Finally, we share a border with Mexico. That’s why it concerns me more than events between 2 countries several thousand miles away from here.

[Teenwolf]

But you’re not accusing me! I understand. You know what a greased pig is right. You can’t catch a greased pig. No matter how hard you try, it slips away.

Not trying to "slip away", and any distraction is unintentional.

I'm just asking what you think, take no offense. I know you have morals. The question I asked is one I agree with, yes, the Israelis should use teargas instead of mass murder, but only in the case of non-peaceful protest.

So then it becomes a question, if the US supports killing protestors around the world... supports the dismemberment of journalists around the world, murder of children in Yemen... assassination of protestors miles from any skirmish... supports the killing of terrorists families... supports a war machine that's increased drone killings over 500% above Obama levels... then what does that make the US?

I'll just say this. If the caravan was crossing in any other place in the world, and was opposed by the US, I believe many would have been killed. Maybe I'm alone on that, but I think the evidence makes it clear.

[Teenwolf]

I believe they continue north because they have been encouraged to do so by pro-immigration folks. If they arrive at the border and there are enough distressing photos and sympathetic articles, I think their mentors envision public sentiment will be in their favor.
As for your last paragraph—wow. The problems between the folks in that part of the world have gone on for centuries before the Trumo Administration and will continue for centuries after his kids are dead. To blame him for that is lunacy, unless you are also blaming the Obama Administration for the deaths in Syria and Libya (remember we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital then). If you do blame Obama, I think you are wrong, but admire the consistency of your opinion.
Finally, we share a border with Mexico. That’s why it concerns me more than events between 2 countries several thousand miles away from here.

Trump has amplified the level of global warfare and terror spread by the military industrial complex, absolutely. It was one of Obama's biggest weaknesses. For Trump, I blame him slightly less because of the magnitude of his stupidity and ignorance to governmental processes. But he enables it with his idiotic bluster, so the blame ultimately falls to him.

If you believe Trump is the anti-interventionist that he claimed to be on the campaign, you're simply wrong. If you want to say Obama was just as bad, you're also wrong.

If you want to claim both Obama and Trump were puppets to the military industrial puppetmasters, well, that's where I'm at.

[Bernie Brewer]

Not trying to "slip away", and any distraction is unintentional.

I'm just asking what you think, take no offense. I know you have morals. The question I asked is one I agree with, yes, the Israelis should use teargas instead of mass murder, but only in the case of non-peaceful protest.

So then it becomes a question, if the US supports killing protestors around the world... supports the dismemberment of journalists around the world, murder of children in Yemen... assassination of protestors miles from any skirmish... supports the killing of terrorists families... supports a war machine that's increased drone killings over 500% above Obama levels... then what does that make the US?

I'll just say this. If the caravan was crossing in any other place in the world, and was opposed by the US, I believe many would have been killed. Maybe I'm alone on that, but I think the evidence makes it clear.

You began by making the following, what I believe to have been an incorrect, statement and ended by calling out 1J as a troll. I'll admit that 1J can get a bit out there on occasion, but who can't, but he is no more a troll than you are. Maybe even less of one. As for the LEGALLY Part, my response was to point out the trying to crash the border is not a form of LEGAL entry. I pointed out that even CNN isn't conflating this to legal entry. Mexico isn't considering this as legal entry and is now going to deport those who were arrested back to their countries of origin. The city of Tijuana isn't considering this legal and isn't happy to have the migrants waiting there.

Teargassing desperate families who are LEGALLY seeking asylum...

You think this looks good on you? Defend it then! No more distractions with your trolling.

To your most recent better phrased question, no, I do not support any country using excessive force or ordering assassinations for political reasons. I'm not a fan of drone wars, but none of this has anything to do with immigration laws, policies and responses that are in serious need of review and repair in the US. And I haven't seen a single poster here who is supporting of these things. You're howling at the moon in this message board.

[baldgriff]

To your most recent better phrased question, no, I do not support any country using excessive force or ordering assassinations for political reasons. I'm not a fan of drone wars, but none of this has anything to do with immigration laws, policies and responses that are in serious need of review and repair in the US. And I haven't seen a single poster here who is supporting of these things. You're howling at the moon in this message board.

I believe the word is conflation:

con·fla·tion
/kənˈflāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

[Bernie Brewer]

I believe the word is conflation:

con·fla·tion
/kənˈflāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

I was, until now, completely unfamiliar with this word.

[Teenwolf]

I know it's the Trump thread, but I wanted to take a minute to point out that Hillary Clinton is in agreement with Trump on the treatment of asylum seekers. I doubt she'd be as bad in terms of policy, but she matches Trump's idiocy on rhetoric.

Migration “is what lit the flame” of such nationalist movements, the former U.S. secretary of state told The Guardian for an upcoming series examining the rise of the populist right in the U.S. and Europe.

Conservatism and nationalist ideology have gotten a boost since Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency in 2016 and the U.K. voted earlier that year to exit the European Union. Although Clinton ran on a progressive immigration platform as Trump’s challenger, she essentially called for a retrenchment of those policies in The Guardian interview.

“I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel,” she said, praising the German chancellor for her open-door immigration policy. But Clinton added, “I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message ― ‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’ ― because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic."

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/hi...w_entry_recirc

[baldgriff]

I was, until now, completely unfamiliar with this word.

sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/Submit
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

[Teenwolf]

You began by making the following, what I believe to have been an incorrect, statement and ended by calling out 1J as a troll. I'll admit that 1J can get a bit out there on occasion, but who can't, but he is no more a troll than you are. Maybe even less of one. As for the LEGALLY Part, my response was to point out the trying to crash the border is not a form of LEGAL entry. I pointed out that even CNN isn't conflating this to legal entry. Mexico isn't considering this as legal entry and is now going to deport those who were arrested back to their countries of origin. The city of Tijuana isn't considering this legal and isn't happy to have the migrants waiting there.



To your most recent better phrased question, no, I do not support any country using excessive force or ordering assassinations for political reasons. I'm not a fan of drone wars, but none of this has anything to do with immigration laws, policies and responses that are in serious need of review and repair in the US. And I haven't seen a single poster here who is supporting of these things. You're howling at the moon in this message board.

Thanks for all the clarification. As I suspected, we aren't far apart. I dont have a bulletproof immigration solution, but I know that the current insanity is not a long term answer.

My opinion of 1J is my own. I called him a troll because his only response about the migrant teargassing was some shit about Obama, plus a personal dig. His content is often based on poor sourcing, which is why he prefers personal crap and distraction over actual debate. But I always welcome him to prove me wrong. Just my personal opinion.

[Bernie Brewer]

Thanks for all the clarification. As I suspected, we aren't far apart. I dont have a bulletproof immigration solution, but I know that the current insanity is not a long term answer.

My opinion of 1J is my own. I called him a troll because his only response about the migrant teargassing was some shit about Obama, plus a personal dig. His content is often based on poor sourcing, which is why he prefers personal crap and distraction over actual debate. But I always welcome him to prove me wrong. Just my personal opinion.

Honestly, I am not protecting 1J as he hasn't asked me to stand up for him. But, I can't think of a time when I recall 1J ever being disrespectful. Absurd, far fetched, frustrating, all of those maybe. But, disrespectful or attacking of anyone personally, I can't recall it.

[Teenwolf]

Honestly, I am not protecting 1J as he hasn't asked me to stand up for him. But, I can't think of a time when I recall 1J ever being disrespectful. Absurd, far fetched, frustrating, all of those maybe. But, disrespectful or attacking of anyone personally, I can't recall it.

I lament the amount of time we spend debating my own personal conduct here, so I regret to do the same with 1J (apology in advance)... he's generally not venomous, but he certainly likes to play king of the hill with moral high ground by distraction. Like Trump, he will never admit to being wrong about anything, he will simply move the goal posts and change the debate. I find this lack of accountability annoying, but I only call it as I see it. I prefer to debate the issues.

[B-Fly]

This is exactly the reason the DNC didn't, and doesn't, want Bernie Sanders! He wants to end the corporate financing of elections, he doesn't want the DNC money, and that's exactly what they're afraid of.

So how do you win the nomination for a party you want to fundamentally change so that they're no longer driven by lobbyists? Tough question. But someone needs to remove the mechanisms for corruption, and I dont see any other volunteers.

You run as a Democrat. Nothing would or should preclude Sanders from declaring himself a Democrat and running on a message that includes reforming the party he's a candidate to lead. He already succeeded in getting the DNC to change many aspects of the primary/nomination process, and he already succeeded in influencing the platform.