Did he? Oh ok then. He was only racist on TV not on twitter (that time).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Printable View
Did he? Oh ok then. He was only racist on TV not on twitter (that time).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I trust Fox, and almost any other news source, to accurately quote the Seal's lawyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If all you got is "nyahhh Fox News!" go eat a pine cone.
Get AIDSQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Should I do that before or after falling down the stairs? Just want to be clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
So, in your mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Fox says it and somebody on the left corroborates it = TRUE
Fox says it and nobody on the left corroborates it = TRUE
CNN says it and somebody on the right corroborates it = TRUE
CNN says it and nobody on the right corroborates it = FALSE
To sum up then, you believe everything Fox says, and only believe what CNN says if Fox also says it.
Yeah, that seems reasonable lol.
Do you believe Fox misquoted the lawyers? Do you think they read a legal pleading, and then completely misrepresented it in print? Is that what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Seriously just fuck off. We were having a conversation about an interesting topic, and as usual you de-rail it when you run out of logic. Instead of continuing the conversation you just say "Nyah your sources suck, so everything you say is probably wrong"
Honestly dude, it's pathetic. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose (lame) or not (hopelessly dumb)
Just state your position Poop. Quit being a cunt and just spell out what you think??
Do you think Trump's policy position is a tough-call that he's made to counteract terrorists propensity to use their families as shields? Or do you think he's a racist killer who just wants to see some arab babies bleed?
Pick a side, show some spine, and have a position. Otherwise, shut the wood chopping accident you call a mouth.
And do the same thing with regard to the Seal. Does the guy deserve a fair trial or not? And what "intervention" do you think Trump made improperly??
Assuming Fox's quote of the lawyer is accurate, and not embellished in any way (a big assumption given who we're talking about here), would not 'fair and balanced' reporting require them to listen to and report the warden's side of the story? What if he denies what the lawyer claimed? Does that change your perceptions? What if he says 'yes he got some rough treatment, but that's because he kept yelling 'witch hunt!' and trying to fight the guards.' Does that change anything?
Also, it's not clear how much information Trump had on this case when he tweeted about it. Knowing him, it's reasonable to assume he, like you, read the Fox report and took it as face value. But yet, if that's true, it's odd his tweet didn't give his rationale as being in the interests of justice and a fair trial. You can interpret that in multiple ways: 1) He's an idiot who can't properly explain his reasoning; 2) He doesn't care about a fair trial but cares about protecting kid-killers; or 3) He cares about a fair trial but for some reason didn't bother to find out the full details of the story before acting.
That Oskar is interpreting this ambiguity in a way that is bad for Trump is perhaps unfair, but you certainly haven't provided any proof that his intentions were purely in the interest of justice (and not its obstruction as seems to be his wont).
If your assumptions are based on uncorrobated facts, then yes the rest of your argument is weakened. There's nothing illogical about pointing that out, whether you like it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
It's in there. they actually quoted the warden's argument first. Does this mean that you now think Fox is "fair and balanced"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's a fucking TWEET. Sorry if it doesn't contain deep legal reasoning.Quote:
Also, it's not clear how much information Trump had on this case when he tweeted about it....You can interpret that in multiple ways: 1) He's an idiot who can't properly explain his reasoning;
How is that a viable interpretation? Please explain how you're getting this.Quote:
2) He doesn't care about a fair trial but cares about protecting kid-killers;
What details would he need? Since you seem to have the full details....what should Trump have done instead?Quote:
3) He cares about a fair trial but for some reason didn't bother to find out the full details of the story before acting.
It's HARDLY ambiguous. He said he's moving the guy to less restrictive confinement. His lawyers have spelled out why they want that. The military has spelled out why they don't. Both sides of this argument are abundantly clear and nowhere on either side has anyone said "There's no problem here because the people that died were brown"Quote:
That Oskar is interpreting this ambiguity in a way that is bad for Trump is perhaps unfair
Why does that need to be proven? 30% of the guy's billl of rights is being violated. And I have to prove that someone stopping that from happening has to have pure motives??? You and Oskar are the only ones who seem to think that this is just a show of solidarity with kid-killers. Shouldn't YOU have to provide proof??Quote:
, but you certainly haven't provided any proof that his intentions were purely in the interest of justice
Quotes directly from legal pleadings that are publicly available and can be fact-checked in five seconds are now "uncorroborated"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Seriously....just fuck off.
Talk about a poorly framed question lol. Are those the only two options?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I think Trump is racist, yes. I think he doesn't value the lives of POC as much as he values white lives, yes. That is wholly consistent with the idea that it's ok to kill the family of terrorists.
Sure he deserves a fair trial. Where did you get the idea I thought he should be lynched?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
As outlined above, I suspect Trump tweeted after seeing the report on FN and taking it at face value. I doubt very much he fully informed himself on the details of the treatment Gallagher was receiving before he expressed his opinion. I doubt he asked the obvious questions such as 'what does the warden say?', which interestingly, doesn't seem to have been thought of by you or Fox either.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
The fact that a tweet is not the same as 'intervening' is a fair point. I don't know what he's done since then, if he's followed up his words with action. But his tweet is interesting inasmuch as it's wholly consistent with the idea that he considers the lives of POC less important than those of white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Then find the legal proceedings and show them to us. Do you seriously expect us to believe Fox is incapable of 'accidentally' inserting a 'fact' or two there?
Take the five seconds to corroborate your source.
The FN report that I linked came out AFTER Trump tweeted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Is screaming your racism on national TV consistent with the conclusion that he's a closet racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You really should be embarassed to be commenting this strongly on something you clearly know nothing about.
Finally some sense. But I already know this. Go tell Oskar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Are you paying attention?? He hasn't done anything since then. He just tweeted about what he had already done, which is order the guy to be moved to less restrictive confinement.Quote:
I don't know what he's done since then,
He acted first.Quote:
if he's followed up his words with action.
This is the most intellectually vapid thing you've said in a very long time. And that's saying something.Quote:
But his tweet is interesting inasmuch as it's wholly consistent with the idea that he considers the lives of POC less important than those of white.
Can you name me a living white person who you would consider a racist?
Well, last actually. And they gave it much less space than the big list of grievances from G's lawyer that they listed. The implication to a simple person might be that the warden's reasoning is less well -founded because it's shorter.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Quote:
“In line with determinations previously made by both the Internal Reviewing Officer and the Military Judge, I find the stipulations of restriction are required to prevent attempts by SOC Gallagher to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice,”
Who said it should? But it stated his motivations one way, and you are interpreting them another way.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
See above. Trump has a history of racist views, and now is jumping in to defend an alleged POC child-killer.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Made it clear he was interested in a fair trial, rather than defending the alleged child killer's because of his 'past service'.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
lol, as if they're going to say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Wait, aren't you the one always speaking up for due process? We don't know the facts of his treatment whether it was abusing his rights or not until it goes to court. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
So why are you leaping to the conclusion that Gallagher's lawyers are right and the warden is wrong?
More importantly, why is Trump leaping to that same conclusion?
So what information do you believe Trump had? He's not exactly known for fully informing himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Actually, saying ^^ is intellectually vapid.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Ironic isn't it?
We know from recent history that his orders aren't always followed. I'm interested in whether he followed up on his orders to ensure they were followed, or if he 'changed his mind' again.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You're proving Gavin McInniss' point.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The supply of white supremacists doesn't even come close to meeting the demand.
Can you name one?
If you think there are none, you can just say that too. That's fine.
I thought you didn't like loaded questions. How are you defining "racist"?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Do I count simply because I believe Charles' Murray's data? Or because I simply believe that Islam is wholly incompatible with the West? Or because I want to build a wall?
I know there are a lot of people who are accused of being racists, that aren't. I know those people vastly outnumber the people that actually are racists.
If you want actual names....I really don't have one for you. I'm inclined to say Richard Spencer, but the truth is I don't know that much about him. I know the media says he's racist. And I know he's got enough charisma to fill a thimble. And I know that the sum total of his supporters couldn't fill a Best Western function room. And as far as I know, he's the most prominent white supremacist in America right now. So forgive me if I'm just not shitting my pants about racism. It's obviously not that big a problem.
More names? Is David Duke alive? I mean, the KKK is still a thing right? There's what...nine or so people left? So I guess they still count. I'm sure there are some biker gangs in Alabama flying confederate flags (which actually stands for several different non-racist things).
Dylan Roof is a living racist. Is he a threat though? I think we've heard the last of him. It's not like he was able to find anyone to help him commit those murders. It's not like there were throngs of protesters outside Police HQ chanting "Free Dylan!!"
I really don't know what you're getting at Oskar. We obviously have much different definitions of the word "racist". So I don't see what this discussion accomplishes.
Now I've humored you, and I would like the same in return. Can you answer my questions now?
Like, do you admit now that Trump's statements about killing terrorists families was in regards to his policy position on changing military rules of engagement and not some pornographic desire to murder brown babies?
Does Eddie Gallagher deserve a fair trial? What "intervention" has Trump made that you object to? How exactly are you concluding that A) Eddie Gallagher is guilty and B) Trump condones and excuses what he did.
You're right, I had the order backwards. They mention the warden first in another article I was looking at. But nevertheless, the other side of the argument is clearly and thoroughly stated. Immediately following the passage that I quoted with the bulleted list of grievances, there are THREE FULL PARAGRAPHS dedicated to the opposing argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can even get a ruler, and measure it on the screen. Both sides got nearly an equal number of inches (those are like better versions of centimeters)Quote:
In a letter sent to another one of Gallagher’s attorneys last week regarding the dispute over the pre-trial conditions, Rosenbloom stated he “issued those orders under the authority provided in me.”
“I have a reasonable belief: offenses triable by court-martial have been committed; SOC Gallagher committed the offenses; and the restraint ordered is required by the circumstances.
“In line with determinations previously made by both the Internal Reviewing Officer and the Military Judge, I find the stipulations of restriction are required to prevent attempts by SOC Gallagher to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice,” Rosenbloom added in the letter, also obtained by Fox News.
I really don't care what you think the "implication to a simple person" would be. I'm sorry you're a simple person. That must be shitty.
Intellectually vapidQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Navy captains don't ignore orders from the CIC
Intellectually vapidQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Are you really asking me how the commander in chief stays informed of military affairs? Really?
I ask you to name one so I can understand your definition of racism and how it doesn't apply to Trump.
In the same post you say it's not a big problem, but you do count Dylan Roof. I assume you'd probably say the California synagogue shooter and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter were racists as well. White supremacists were responsible for every single domestic terror attack in the US in 2018 and 2019 so far. How can you say it's not a threat? You do consider islam a threat right? Why is islam a threat when they have killed zero while white supremacists are at over 50 - only counting terror attacks.
Absolutely not. He was initially came out with that statement when asked about torture in interrogation, and he said there should be more torture and you should kill their families because "they don't care about their own lives." He has defended this statement many times, but initially it was about killing their families for interrogation, which of course is retarded, but I think president Trump is a mentally retarded person, so no surprises there for me. The Fox news clip was the 2nd or 3rd time he publicly defended this. Also notice how Fox moves on immediately with the next question instead of asking even a single follow-up to the guy who just said "kill their families" 3 times in one sentence.Quote:
Like, do you admit now that Trump's statements about killing terrorists families was in regards to his policy position on changing military rules of engagement and not some pornographic desire to murder brown babies?
Is your "evidence" that Trump is a racist any stronger than FTR's evidence that you're a racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
'Cause it really sounds like you just said terrorist means non-white.
Did you actually say that?
IDK... maybe... prob not... it's certainly a viable interpretation of that quote.
Maybe you just assume Trump is a racist who thinks that.
If he doesn't assume "terrorist" meant "non-white," then the racism is gone.
If you assume racism, you see it. If not, you don't.
4200 upvotes on a conspiracy theory that requires you to have no reading comprehension to believe:
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...biased_agenda/
Good. Do you understand now?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
DR was one guy with zero support. Forgive me if I'm not freaking out about a crime wave.Quote:
In the same post you say it's not a big problem, but you do count Dylan Roof.
Sure, I guess so, for convenience I guess it's alright. If you want to be precise, I have a bit of a hard time classifying "jewish" as a race. But I guess the sentiment is close enough.Quote:
I assume you'd probably say the California synagogue shooter and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter were racists as well.
For a country that's 250 years old, why is a sample size of 14 months significant? Will you drop this argument if some muslims bomb cinco de mayo next weekend? You know if you add up the body count of all of those domestic terror attacks in the US in 2018 and 2019 it's still only a fraction of the number of dead "easter worshipers" who were not killed by white supremacists. It's pretty easy to make an argument when you presume to arbitrarily confine stats to certain regions or time periods.Quote:
White supremacists were responsible for every single domestic terror attack in the US in 2018 and 2019 so far.
Did you know that NOAA has data from ship hulls that tells them ocean temperatures over time, and that it shows 15 full years with no change at all? You still believe in climate change right?
See how that works, lol
What? When did I use the word "threat"? I used the word "incompatible"Quote:
How can you say it's not a threat? You do consider islam a threat right?
Zero??? Did you really just type that? Do me a favor and google the phrase "easter worshipers"Quote:
Why is islam a threat when they have killed zero
And?Quote:
while white supremacists are at over 50 - only counting terror attacks.
citation neededQuote:
He was initially came out with that statement when asked about torture in interrogation, and he said there should be more torture and you should kill their families because "they don't care about their own lives."
https://youtu.be/HoVNLcXSQLwQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...386539008?s=20
If that's your evidence that Trump is racist, you're deranged.
You know, ten years ago, that could have been a DNC ad. But then in 2015 they changed their mind because ORANGE MAN BAD
You seem to know know the meaning of the word domestic. Make domestic your word of the day. It's a good word to know.
It could not have been a DNC ad, because no network would air it. Fox News refused to air it because it was too racist for Fox News.
I fully understand what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
No, it was too "racist" (your word not mine) for FN's advertisers. Not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
FN had plenty of outrage to display for Mr. Bracamontes.
Do you remember when the Dems were all about building a wall? Or did you just erase that from memory because ORANGE MAN BAD
A wall isn't racist. Saying you need a wall because immigrants murder is. Illegal immigrants murder at a much lower rate than citizens. So making an ad that makes it look like you need to stop immigrants because of murder is racist. In fact if you'd let more illegal immigrants in you'd have less murder statistically.
A wall or barrier in the right places makes sense. A wall in the middle of the desert is retarded.
Meanwhile in this Saturday's NYT........Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://media.breitbart.com/media/20...DL-640x480.jpg
I don't arbitrarily restrict the stats. We're talking about the US. I didn't include the christchurch shooter either. I'm being consistent.
Mocking the authoritarian leader of a colonial apartheid state is not necessarily anti-semitic unless he's being attacked for being jewish. Since I don't get the cartoon at all, I can't make a judgement.
This is wrong. Again, you're conflating two talking points. Stop watching CNN. It's true there is less crime per capita among immigrant populations compared to native born US populations. That's it. You don't get to insert any additional words into that sentence. End of talking point.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Do you have any data that shows the frequency of criminal activity among illegal immigrant populations compared to native born populations? Do you have that data? Because it kinda pads your crime stats if you include a few million people who waited in line at the border, and went through the immigration process legally. We already know those are law abiding people. The wall isn't meant for them.
Before you go on a goose chase, you should know that the data you would actually need is difficult to come by. Many states dont' ask the immigration status of criminals. In many states, it's illegal to do so. However, the federal government does keep stats.
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...16/Table09.pdf
US Citizens are responsible for only 58% of crime. Does that sound proportional to their population??????
Uh, no it isn't.Quote:
So making an ad that makes it look like you need to stop immigrants because of murder is racist.
Provably falseQuote:
In fact if you'd let more illegal immigrants in you'd have less murder statistically.
Quote:
The Justice Department keeps data on federal crimes committed by immigrants in the country illegally — and an analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that undocumented immigrants made up a disproportionate share of federal inmates sentenced for nonimmigration crimes in 2016.
That thing he's holding is a selfie-stick. I'm not sure I get the joke either. I also don't think the cartoon is racist. But I didn't think the Serena Williams cartoon was racist either. So at least I can claim consistency.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This one though is definitely racist
https://twitter.com/kishkushkay/stat...90507714113538
Are you absolutely sure that no human trafficking or drug smuggling occurs there? You are positive that open desert is not a vulnerability at all, and has no potential to be a vulnerability in the future. You're sure of that?Quote:
A wall or barrier in the right places makes sense. A wall in the middle of the desert is retarded.
You sure? Everyone else seems to when the CIC in question is Captain Retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
That seems like a really low bar to set for the cost involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?
Is a wall our best option?
This is something you'd have to ask the DEA, and they'll tell you that most drugs come through ports of entry. So you'd stop some drugs, but spending the money on better checks at ports of entry would be vastly superior solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
What do you think is wrong?Quote:
This is wrong. Again, you're conflating two talking points. Stop watching CNN. It's true there is less crime per capita among immigrant populations compared to native born US populations. That's it. You don't get to insert any additional words into that sentence. End of talking point.
Do you have any data that shows the frequency of criminal activity among illegal immigrant populations compared to native born populations? Do you have that data? Because it kinda pads your crime stats if you include a few million people who waited in line at the border, and went through the immigration process legally. We already know those are law abiding people. The wall isn't meant for them.
You're shifting goal posts. Trumps ad clearly implies that illegal immigrants murder americans and that is why you need a wall. No word about crime or economy.
You've missed the subtlely of my statement there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I said in effect 'it's not disproving the notion that he's a racist'. Not the same as saying 'it proves he's a racist'.
And when he was talking about killing the families of 'terrorists' the conversation was about ISIS, who are undoubtedly almost exclusively POC. He has not suggested a similar treatment for the families of, say, right-wing terrorists in America. You can contest whether that's because they're American or whether it's because they're white I guess, as opposed to ISIS which are neither.
Projection.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
No I'm asking you what I asked you. What information do you believe Trump had when he came to his decision to intervene? Do you think the guy who doesn't like to read and prefers briefings with lots of pictures had a firm grasp on the complexities of the situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Honestly, I just have to roll my eyes whenever someone brings up the cost. The Government Accountability Office publishes an annual report showing that fraud, waste, and abuse in the government is enough to pay for many many many walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The Green New Deal costs enough to pay for 1000 walls.
It doesn't matter how else the money might be spent. Even if you could make an argument that there are more effective measures of border control....none of them are permanent. That's a unique feature of a wall, and it's kind of a dealbreaker. Voters have been misled on immigration too many times, going back to Reagan. If you pass a bill that puts sensors, patrols, and drones on the border....how am I to know that the next president won't just cut the funding for those things and leave the border unsecure again?
You can't un-build a wall.
And frankly, effectiveness and cost SHOULD NOT MATTER AT ALL. These are bogus, feckless, diversionary arguments. The election of 2016 was largely a referendum on Immigration. The winning candidate had a wall as the top plank in his platform. America voted for a wall. All the counter arguments about costs, necessity, effectiveness, and other measures were aired. The debate already happened. All opinions were heard, and a vote was taken. America voted for a wall. Democracy has spoken. The POTUS has a mandate to build the fucking thing.
Anyone who thinks that they have an argument stronger than that is just a desperate narcissist.
You're blatantly just making shit up here lol. They not only gave Gallagher's side first,they gave it at least 2x as much space as the warden's.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
It's important if you're really concerned with how media is being used to influence people. Since you seemed so concerned with imagined ways in which Twitter is warping people's minds, I thought you'd want to address factual evidence of how your favourite news channel does the very same thing you find so outrageous.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I'm sorry you can't provide a better argument, and have to resort to projection. That must be shitty.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
That's a big yikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
idk what your point is. You seem to be under the impression that I am supposed to defend everything "THE LEFT" writes says or does. CNN is different but no better than Fox. Fox is an extension of the republican party and for the most part state-tv, while CNN is corporate-donor TV. Both are shit.
I do have a NYT subscription. I don't read it for the cartoons and idk what they were thinking printing that one.
Sorry but I missed your answer to this, bananold. Can you provide it again please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Holy shit, your'e doing it again!! And we've talked about this one before!! You're conflating talking points again.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Most drug confiscations happen at places where the cops are. That is not indicative of anything.
This statement right here:
Is absolutely FALSE. Stop fucking saying it. It's not true, and you're just making yourself sound dumb.Quote:
most drugs come through ports of entry.
You claimed that illegal immigrants commit less murders than native born americans. You can't prove that. There is no data whatsoever to support that conclusion. You're simply taking the original talking point that says ALL immigrants commit less crime than ALL natives, and then you're adding the word "illegal" and "murder" to make an entirely new talking point that doesn't' comport with any facts whatsoever.Quote:
What do you think is wrong?
And any evidence that does exist on this subject suggests the opposite conclusion.
My point is that it's deranged how you read lines between lines between lines in Trump's tweets just to find evidence of racism when there is plenty to be found right out in the open.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Honestly, if racism is your target, then Trump is not your enemy.
Where are you getting your numbers from? What proof do you have that most drugs are coming over the border at places other than the ports of entry?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Can we finally and once and for all agree that a claim by someone on Fox News != 'evidence.'Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/fi...resolution.pdf
You can't be bothered to type 3 words into google but you decide it's a good idea to call me dumb because your feelings tell you that I'm wrong?
Life expectancy in the United States dropped last year as a result of opioid overdoses. I'm not sure of the exact stat but something like 85%+ of the heroin in the US comes from Mexico.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
For me to believe that "most drugs come through ports of entry", it would mean that the gov't knows the sources of ALL drugs, and the routes they take to get to America. And if they knew that....they would intercept the drugs. But they don't intercept the drugs. How do I know? Dead bodies.
So don't tell me that you KNOW that most of the drugs go right under cop's noses. Just fuck off with that.
Honestly....just fuck off.Quote:
Can we finally and once and for all agree that a claim by someone on Fox News != 'evidence.
Just tell me where it says "most drugs come through ports of entry" without specifying confiscations.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Again, you can just google that. You'll have a really rough time finding data that supports your narrative on that one. Texas department of public safety numbers disagree with you. There are many studies on this, they're all pretty much in line.Quote:
You claimed that illegal immigrants commit less murders than native born americans. You can't prove that. There is no data whatsoever to support that conclusion. You're simply taking the original talking point that says ALL immigrants commit less crime than ALL natives, and then you're adding the word "illegal" and "murder" to make an entirely new talking point that doesn't' comport with any facts whatsoever.
And any evidence that does exist on this subject suggests the opposite conclusion.
https://www.cato.org/publications/im...nt#endnote-003
ctrl-fQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
According to this,there were only 84 murder convictions in the US in all of 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Something tells me they don't have anything approaching a complete data set here.
It's kinda entertaining, but I don't understand how you can base all your believes purely on what feels correct to you - never bother to look up anything, but go around calling people idiots for citing department of public safety statistics.
Just out of curiosity, how much of the drug trade do you think comes over an unprotected land border (I mean by land, not by air)?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Damn, I don't know what's wrong with my internet today. I thought you'd be all over these questions, what with your deep concern for due process and the constitution and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hey Oskar....did you know that most drowning rescues occur in places where lifeguards are on duty? Does that mean it's completely safe to swim everywhere else?
It's federal stats. And the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted at the state level. If you had any shred of reading comprehension you'll see where I clearly stated that available data on this is thin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you had read the corresponding section, which is only a couple sentences long, you'd see that the DEA accounts for that. They're not fucking retarded.
How did you find the link you gave on crime statistics? Like what did you google for?
Uh, you didn't cite public safety statistics, you cited the Cato Institute. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Your questions are absurd. eat shitQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Fuck you. That's how much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you have a point to make, make it.
If you were trying to argue in good faith you wouldn't have even put this up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You may as well look at one courthouse and try to draw conclusions about what is happening everywhere in the country.
The point is obvious - if you think a Wall is going to put a serious dent in the drug trade you must think most drugs come in over the land border, and by land.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
And to think that, presumably you must have a reason to think that. That's the next question: If that's what you think, what are you basing that belief on?
So you're all for upholding the constitution unless someone's lawyer says it is't being upheld, in which case we should believe him and act accordingly. No need for due process there. Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Frankly, bananold, I'm impressed it's taken you this long to start being abusive as a regular form of argument. Well done I'd say. You held it together there for quite a while really.
430 posts and 7 days
If you have more complete stats, please post them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And if I don't should I just post some incomplete and misleading figures instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Make up your mind man. A minute ago you told me that most drugs come through ports of entry. Are ports of entry in the sky??? Are they underwater???Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Should we get Aquaman to guard the border??
If you cite them properly as incomplete stats, as I did, then feel free to do so. Just be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I didn't say that, don't conflate my argument with Oskar's.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
IIRC one of your arguments for having the Wall is to deter drug smuggling. I'm asking you what makes you think that will happen. See the link there between cause and effect? That's what you're not making a good case for.
What are you talking about?? What due process would there be? The defense filed a motion....a judge could have ruled on it. Instead, Trump pulled rank and said "just fix it".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's due process. The constitution says that military people take orders from the POTUS.
If he's obstructing justice, impeach him. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Better is not to present misleading information at all, than to present it and say 'oh btw this is misleading'. Not a difficult guideline even for a non-scientist to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Exactly. Trump judged the case before it went to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
The constitution also says POTUS shouldn't interfere with the normal course of justice. Did you hear about that whole Mueller Report thing? That's kinda what a big chunk of it was about.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
This is also why I was curious about whether the order Trump gave had been followed or not - because he has the habit of giving illegal orders and getting involved where it's not his place to get involved. That's why a lot of people choose not to follow his orders.
It's not like it's a subjective judgement. either the guy has a right to attorney-client privilege or he doesn't. Kinda hard to have due-process when your due-process is being violated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This is such a petty complaint with regards to Trump. Truly. The guy is still in prison you know.
Just fuck offQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But we don't know whether his due process was being violated or not. We only know his lawyer claimed it was. It was Trump who chose to take his lawyer's side over the warden's.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
The original nature of the complaint was that Trump acted out of line to stick up for someone who allegedly killed kids who were POC.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
This is a problem because he's not supposed to get personally involved with the justice system. The fact he keeps doing it doesn't mean that eventually it becomes an okay thing to do.
So, you don't like where this is heading eh? I can see why.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
It's really hard when you're both so fantastically dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yeah, "one of".Quote:
IIRC one of your arguments for having the Wall is to deter drug smuggling.
And I really don't care what you think the gov't says about "most drugs at ports of entry" or whatever bullshit line the mainstream media put through the spin cycle before beaming it straight to you brain.
Drugs are killing people. If you're 40 years old in America there is almost ZERO chance that you don't know someone who has died of a drug overdose. Life expectancy actually dropped for the first time in virtually forever.
Now if you're going to tell me that you KNOW where all those drugs are coming from, and how they are getting in here.....then the question is "why aren't they being stopped"?
Now your argument completely fucking fails. Because if you KNOW where the drugs are.....go get them!!! If drugs are getting in undetected, then by definition, you have no fucking idea how they get in here.
Where do you get that from. It seems like absolutely everything you say is pure fantasy. Do you bother looking anything up or do you have cosmic inspirations?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Do you, a scholar of the constitution, really not see what the problem is with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Trump's rank does not put him above a judge. He's in a different branch of the government. Or do you think Trump can overrule judges on cases involving the military now?
SO FUCKING WHAT???? That is Trump's job!!!!! He's allowed to do that. That's completely within his constitutional powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And why does any of that mean you're not allowed privileged conversations with your defense attorney?Quote:
The original nature of the complaint was that Trump acted out of line to stick up for someone who allegedly killed kids who were POC
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTT?????!!!!!!Quote:
This is a problem because he's not supposed to get personally involved with the justice system.
You and Oskar suffer from teh same disease. You both hallucinate new branches of government being sprouted whenever you decide ORANGE MAN BAD
Just so you are clear....TRUMP RUNS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. The DOJ is part of the executive branch, and Trump is Chief Executive.
You've got it backwards. Just because you and Oskar keep pissing your thongs about it doesn't mean it's wrongQuote:
The fact he keeps doing it doesn't mean that eventually it becomes an okay thing to do.
FactsQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Quote:
Chief Gallagher is now in a barracks environment, similar to a hotel room. In accordance with the Rules for Court Martial
Coming from the guy who thought Trump would never build a wall that could be climbed with a ladder. Meanwhile Trump built this pile of shit that you wouldn't even bother to bring a ladder for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz-9UOpnkHkQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
So you don't know where they're coming in, but you think building a Wall on one possible entry point is worthwhile. Ok, that's not so ridiculous I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I just don't want you to expect the drug epidemic to stop the day after they finish the Wall. Just trying to manage your expectations there bud.
But he's not in prison. So why do you think he's in prison?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
How's the MAGA going?Quote:
Drugs are killing people. If you're 40 years old in America there is almost ZERO chance that you don't know someone who has died of a drug overdose. Life expectancy actually dropped for the first time in virtually forever.