*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If he had just admitted to getting a bijowski...he probably would have skated.

---

I think you'll find that it was a bijinski, you tool.
:p

(FWIW, if you've not seen Lewinski's TED talk or her recent interview on John Oliver, I recommend. The world put her through a decade long shit fest, and she made it out the other side, and damn. That kind of shit builds character, and she took a PhD course in it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Dude.....pay attention

---

I try, but this shit is exhausting. You're the smartest person to comment against the echo chamber in here for ages, and for all your intelligence, you also reflect the vitriol.
At least you don't disregard other people's positions. I mean.. you shred your opposition's points, but at least you address them and don't post a meme of argharghargh and mock them.
You shred them while mocking them... which is a definitely step up, just a long way still to the apex, IMO. (Though I'm almost certainly setting the bar too high for human political discourse.)


It really is SSDD. The birther movement was going well into Obama's 2nd term. Maybe I misunderstood and you were only specifically addressing Trump asking for the birth certificate for 6 months.
This division and passion and vitriol goes back to the Founders. There were duels.. with guns and murder and stuff... back then. There was an American Civil War back then...

On the whole, we're really not doing that bad for ourselves, historically speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

So a woman says "i was raped" and that's "hearsay" to you?

Ok buddy.

---

:lol:

Since when do you ignore a man's right to a fair trial?


lololol

Imagine if I had posted that same quote in response to you!
lolol


C'mon, man. You can troll better than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

On the whole, we're really not doing that bad for ourselves, historically speaking.

---

Too bad climate change is gonna end it all in less than 12 years now. Fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Since when do you ignore a man's right to a fair trial?

---

When did I do that? I'm just saying that a credible allegation of rape is not "hearsay"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The birther movement was going well into Obama's 2nd term.

---

So....by whom? Mainstream voices, or fringe?

If it was fringe...who cares? Why do those people matter? Their votes are cast long before candidates are even nominated. If a handful of loons harbors a conspiracy theory about the other side and fake birth certificates.....who cares??? Did that really do a damn thing to slow Obama's agenda....really??

The russia shit was mainstream. And it definitely did undermine Trump's agenda. WAY DIFFERENT

And now that it's over, my only point is that the fringe still crying "OBSTRUCTION" (present company included) are just as clueless and pathetic as the fringe that carried on the birther movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

At least you don't disregard other people's positions. I mean.. you shred your opposition's points, but at least you address them and don't post a meme of argharghargh and mock them.

---

Writing a lot of words != addressing people's positions and/or winning the argument. Especially if you just bring things up the original argument had nothing to do with..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

but at least you address them and don't post a meme of argharghargh and mock them.

---

I find this a big time saver for replying to someone who is more interested in losing their shit on anyone who disagrees with them than in trying to have an adult discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

but at least you address them and don't

---

As opposed to just jumping into the middle of someone else's discussion with a non-sequitur?

This is what intelligent discourse looks like, btw. No name-calling, changing the topic, or talking garbage out of your ass. If anyone is interested in that here, I'm all for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdMEw-ttCoY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

Bush had to contend with being accused of war crimes throughout most of his term.

---

Contend with? You make it sound like he was picked on. They were entirely justified accusations. The war on Iraq was based on lies, and then we have Extraordinary Rendition and torture. Guantanamo Bay got the headlines but there's Diego Garcia, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

This is what intelligent discourse looks like, btw.

---

I'm four minutes in and no it's not intelligent discourse. It's three people getting about 4 minutes a piece to be dumb. they're paid to be there and shut up while the other one is talking. It's not a debate. It's a show.

And that bearded guy is a retard. He starts off by talking about how Don Jr was welcoming Russian delegates offering dirt on Hillary. Basically the same whine-storm that poop has been making for likely over a year now. It's a completely disingenuous and fraudulent argument

If it's not a crime for Hillary to hire someone with Russian contacts, and buy dirt on Trump from the Russians....then it's CERTAINLY not a crime for Don Jr to accept similar dirt for free.

If it's improper or suspicious for Don Jr to even entertain that solicitation, then it is also improper or suspicious to lend any credibility to anything in Steele's dossier.

So the selective outrage is just grotesque in this case.

Dems: We know Trump colluded with the Russians

Sane people: How do you know?

Dems: The russians offered opposition research

Sane people: How do you know?

Dems: The russians told us in this opposition research we just bought.

Sane people: [heads explode]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

shut up while the other one is talking.

---

Lol I know it's outrageous how respectful they are of each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

And that bearded guy is a retard. He starts off by talking about how Don Jr was welcoming Russian delegates offering dirt on Hillary.

---

The other guy responds that Hillary did the same thing with the Steele dossier. But I guess because he didn't call the other guy a douchebag it's not a fair argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The other guy responds that Hillary did the same thing with the Steele dossier.

---

That should be the end of the show then. Either they are both colluding with Russians, or neither of them are. Make up your mind.

There's actually no room for honest disagreement on this subject.

Accepting oppo research from a foreign government is a bad idea because it could be bad information, it could have unintended consequences, and you can't be sure of the foreign government's true motives. Fine. I agree with that.

Hillary accepted oppo reasearch from a foreign government, and all of the worst fears were realized. The Russians were successful in undermining our government's effectiveness for two years simply by making up stories to give to Steele.

And Trump is the bad guy here....why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

That should be the end of the show then. Either they are both colluding with Russians, or neither of them are. Make up your mind.

There's actually no room for honest disagreement on this subject.

Accepting oppo research from a foreign government is a bad idea because it could be bad information, it could have unintended consequences, and you can't be sure of the foreign government's true motives. Fine. I agree with that.

Hillary accepted oppo reasearch from a foreign government, and all of the worst fears were realized. The Russians were successful in undermining our government's effectiveness for two years simply by making up stories to give to Steele.

And Trump is the bad guy here....why?

---

Ted Bundy killed a bunch of people. Why is anyone upset that Charles Manson killed people? Why is he a bad guy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ted Bundy killed a bunch of people. Why is anyone upset that Charles Manson killed people? Why is he a bad guy?

---

Was one victimized by an illegal witch hunt that undermined the policy agenda for the entire country while the other was allowed to skate???

That's a shit analogy.

Also there's the question of obstruction of justice. Hillary hasn't been caught trying to fire people to keep them from investigating her wrondoings, Trump has been blatant about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Also there's the question of obstruction of justice. Hillary hasn't been caught trying to fire people to keep them from investigating her wrondoings, Trump has been blatant about it.

---

No, she just threatened rape victims into silence.

And Trump never fired anybody in order to prevent or encumber any investigation. That's an imagined talking point. We know this because no firing ever resulted in any diminished effectiveness or any investigation. We also know that Trump could have fired people to stop the investigation (namely Mueller), and did not do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Was one victimized by an illegal witch hunt that undermined the policy agenda for the entire country while the other was allowed to skate???

That's a shit analogy.

---

You can't have it both ways. Either they're both guilty or they're both not. One doesn't get a 'witch hunt' while the other 'skates'. At most, one gets investigated because he won and is now POTUS and the other doesn't get investigated because she lost and is now living in the woods keeping her mouth shut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

No, she just threatened rape victims into silence.

---

Has this been proven? 'Cause it sounds like a crime to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

And Trump never fired anybody in order to prevent or encumber any investigation. That's an imagined talking point.

---

He fired Comey, tried to fire Mueller, tried to order Sessions to make a statement and change the nature of the investigation. That's all real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

He fired Comey, tried to fire Mueller, tried to order Sessions to make a statement and change the nature of the investigation. That's all real.

---

Is any of that illegal?

PS-I believe I've already explained the fallacy inherent in saying "tried to fire Mueller". He didn't need to "try". He could have, and didn't.

yeah, this might be slimy, but it isn't going to stand up in court as a 'threat'.

Quote:

---

Broaddrick first spoke out about Hillary Clinton's attempts to silence her in 1999, when she told the Drudge Report that Hillary Clinton approached her at a political rally to thank her for keeping quiet about the alleged assault.

"She caught me and took my hand and said, 'I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill,'" Broaddrick recalled. "I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase—looking less friendly and repeated her statement—'everything you do for Bill.'"

Broaddrick said Hillary Clinton wouldn't let her "get away until she made her point."

"She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you," Broaddrick continued. "I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

yeah, this might be slimy, but it isn't going to stand up in court as a 'threat'.

---

Thank you for making my case that Trump isn't any slimier than anyone else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Is any of that illegal?

PS-I believe I've already explained the fallacy inherent in saying "tried to fire Mueller". He didn't need to "try". He could have, and didn't.

---

Obstruction of justice is illegal yes.

No, actually he couldn't have fired Mueller. He didn't have the authority. At best he could fire people until he found someone who was willing to fire Mueller, ala Saturday Night Massacre. That he didn't shows that he wasn't as desperate as Nixon, not that he didn't try to obstruct justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Thank you for making my case that Trump isn't any slimier than anyone else

---

I didn't and he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Obstruction of justice is illegal yes.

---

There's no evidence of this. Just suggestion, innuendo, and partisan wishful thinking.

Quote:

---

No, actually he couldn't have fired Mueller.

---

Uh, yeah, he could. Remember how you've been yelling for two days about how he told McGahn to do it? That's Trump doing it. McGahn doesn't actually hold any office in the DOJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

There's no evidence of this. Just suggestion, innuendo, and partisan wishful thinking.

---

The Mueller report says otherwise. you should check it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Uh, yeah, he could. Remember how you've been yelling for two days about how he told McGahn to do it? That's Trump doing it. McGahn doesn't actually hold any office in the DOJ.

---

That makes no sense at all.

McGahn couldn't do it, so Trump telling him to do it is him both being stupid and not knowing who has the authority there, and trying to obstruct justice by trying to fire Mueller.

What is your argument? Because he ordered the wrong guy to do the firing it wasn't his intent to fire someone? Like by ordering Lewandowski to fire Sessions if he didn't follow his orders, his intent wasn't to fire Sessions?

you don't get a pass 'cause you're too ignorant to know who to give your illegal orders to.

Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute

Are you telling me that McGahn was willing to quit his job rather than do something he couldn't do anyway?

You CNN'd yourself there bud.

This is boring now. Let's change the subject.

Who can beat Trump in 2020? And how?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.7838fdf34cac

Professional dumb person Max Boot thinks it's worth impeaching Trump just to leave a stain on his presidency.

Tell me Professor Boot, how will that help the middle class?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Explain to me Oskar, why you think it's ok to disregard the constitution, re-arrange the separation of powers, give congress ultimate authority to do everything....all because orange man bad!!!

---

I didn't say orange man bad, I said I find it worrying that the presidents personal lawyers can direct the IRS to not comply with congress. Congress has the power to ask the IRS for tax returns, they just never had to ask for a presidents tax returns because every president so far has released their tax returns. So this is an open question that I assume will end up in the supreme court.

Quote:

---

Without any doubt, Trump executed the greatest troll of all time. Epic in scope, brilliantly presented, and so thoroughly effective I can only stand in awe at this truly fantastic work of art.

This beats "because you'd be in jail" as Trump's greatest smackdown ever.

---

I genuinely don't understand what that means. How do you determine what is a "troll" and what isn't? What if they start shipping immigrants straight to sanctuary cities with no hearing? Is that still a troll then? What about saying he'd build a wall? Was that a troll? How do I know what's a troll and what isn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I didn't say orange man bad, I said I find it worrying that the presidents personal lawyers can direct the IRS to not comply with congress

---

Why the word salad? This sounds like your beef is with Trump's lawyers. If not, then cut out the extra syllables and just say that Trump is keeping his tax returns private. It is his right to do so. Congress doesn't get to violate due process and the 4th amendment just because orange man bad.

Quote:

---

Congress has the power to ask the IRS for tax returns

---

Uhhhhh, nope.

Quote:

---

So this is an open question that I assume will end up in the supreme court

---

I'm bored by this typical leftist response. "I don't like the law, so I'm hoping some other government body can get around it"

Quote:

---

I genuinely don't understand what that means. How do you determine what is a "troll" and what isn't?

---

If it makes democrats angry, it's a troll. If it makes democrats whine about their moral superiority, it's policy.

Quote:

---

What if they start shipping immigrants straight to sanctuary cities with no hearing?

---

Well, first of all, if you want to know the answer to that, just ask the residents of Lewiston Maine. Obama sent them a shitload of Somali refugees without even asking.

Hint: The somalis fucking love it. Mainers, not so much.

Second, who would object to that? The sanctuary cities have been telling us that immigrants are good, immigrants bring economic growth, they're better people than Americans are. Why wouldn't they want more immigrants? And the immigrants themselves should be thrilled to be going to a place where they are so valued and welcomed.

Explain to me how Trump doing this would be at all bad for anyone. It couldn't possibly be, unless immigrants are undesirable in some way. Are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Are you telling me that McGahn was willing to quit his job rather than do something he couldn't do anyway?

---

Reductio ad bananum. I never said anything like that.

I said Trump told McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn said no.

Doesn't it ever get boring attributing things to people they never said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Congress has the power to ask the IRS for tax returns,

---

They can ask, but it's a bit unclear whether or not the IRS has to give them to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I genuinely don't understand what that means. How do you determine what is a "troll" and what isn't? What if they start shipping immigrants straight to sanctuary cities with no hearing? Is that still a troll then? What about saying he'd build a wall? Was that a troll? How do I know what's a troll and what isn't?

---

The job of POTUS in banana's mind is to piss off liberals. So obviously Trump is the GOAT because of all the stupid shit he says and does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Reductio ad bananum. I never said anything like that.

I said Trump told McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn said no.

Doesn't it ever get boring attributing things to people they never said?

---

Actually McGahn said "no, and I'm going to quit if you try and make me"

How exactly that stopped Trump from firing Mueller is what I don't understand. McGahn has no power. He was just trying to keep himself out of the shitstorm that would inevitably follow such a move. That's just him making a smart career move. Let someone else sink in that swamp.

All Trump had to do was say "ok, then quit, or you're fired, or whatever, just get the fuck out so I can get someone else to do it"

Where are you getting that McGahn couldn't fire Mueller? More importantly, how does that show that Trump "tried to fire Mueller". That's what I'm not getting....if he tried....why did he fail? What stopped him? What thwarted him?

What you're really saying is that Trump came close to firing Mueller, and didn't. And I can't figure out why that make Trump a worse retard/criminal than anyone else in politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The job of POTUS reason trump got elected in banana's Spoonald's mind is to piss off liberals the ruling class. So obviously Trump is the GOAT because of all the stupid shit he says and doeshe is a patriot giving the ruling class the kick in the balls that it deserves.

---

You almost get me man.

So basically all you want from the president to make democrats angry. You don't care about having open borders as long as it makes democrats angry?
And why would it make democrats angry? I know few democrats actually advocate for open borders, but I was under the impression that open borders make conservatives more angry than democrats. Do you actually want open borders now because you think that it would make democrats angry? And would it actually make them angry? More angry than conservatives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

just ask the residents of Lewiston Maine. Obama sent them a shitload of Somali refugees without even asking.

---

Is this something that was actually documented? I can't find it. There's apparently a lot of Somalis in Lewiston, but nothing that says Obama just tossed them in there for whatever reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Is this something that was actually documented? I can't find it. There's apparently a lot of Somalis in Lewiston, but nothing that says Obama just tossed them in there for whatever reason.

---

Minnesota doesn't seem too unhappy. They put one in congress. BECAUSE THEY FORGOT ABOUT 9/11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Actually McGahn said "no, and I'm going to quit if you try and make me".

---

So, Trump didn't know McGahn didn't have the power to fire Mueller. So he tried to get Mueller fired, he just didn't insist on it to the point of firing anyone who refused to do it for him. So, his intention was to fire Mueller and he only backed off that intention when he dozily realised it would just make things worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

why that make Trump a worse retard/criminal than anyone else in politics.

---

Because even I knew only Rosenstein could fire Mueller. And I'm not POTUS. What isn't retarded about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You almost get me man.

---

Oh yeah the ruling class is feeling the pain man. Those tax cuts for the rich really hit them where it hurts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

So basically all you want from the president to make democrats angry.

---

That's a hugely glib interpretation of my position.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never once advocated for open borders, and it's certainly not something I support.

I think he's saying Trump said, in effect, 'ok you libruls, you all wanted to ruin the country with open borders so I'm going to threaten to open them now like I reductio ad bananummed you saying, and when you protest the obviously stupid idea, you're going to look like hypocrites'.

Is that about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

No, he's not. Not by any literal interpretation of the word. He just has very different priorities, knowledge, and responsibilities than you do, so he acts differently.

---

Quote:

---

retarded (/rɪˈtɑːdɪd)
less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.
"the child is badly retarded"

---

literally retarded by the literal definition of the word. You just got used to it. If you heard Trump speak for the first time today, you'd think: My god! This child is badly retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So, Trump didn't know McGahn didn't have the power to fire Mueller.

---

McGahn did. either directly, or indirectly through rosenstein. Have fun splitting that hair. If McGahn didn't have the power to do that....then he wouldn't threaten to resign rather than get involved. He could have just said "hey not my bag man, try someone else".

Quote:

---

So he tried to get Mueller fired, he just didn't insist on it to the point of firing anyone who refused to do it for him.

---

So what you're saying is that he *could have* fired Mueller and didn't. Do you see how that's different than trying and failing?

Quote:

---

So, his intention was to fire Mueller and he only backed off that intention when he dozily realised it would just make things worse.

---

So a President, under unfair attack, while sitting in the most stressful job in the universe decided had an unwise impulse but deferred to his counsel. And that's it. How many times did you have to put that through the spin cycle for it to sound like ORANGE MAN BAD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

That's a hugely glib interpretation of my position.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never once advocated for open borders, and it's certainly not something I support.

---

What is taking immigrants into the country with no legal process to you? How is it different from open borders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I think he's saying Trump said, in effect, 'ok you libruls, you all wanted to ruin the country with open borders so I'm going to threaten to open them now like I reductio ad bananummed you saying, and when you protest the obviously stupid idea, you're going to look like hypocrites'.

Is that about it?

---

No. I'm not sure where this "threatening to open the border" idea came from. As far as I know Trumps policy consideration relates to immigrants currently being held in over-burdened border detention facilities, and any other immigrants that might be detained between now and whenever the wall gets built.

I don't think he's talking about opening up the floodgates and just directing traffic towards San Francisco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

McGahn did. either directly, or indirectly through rosenstein. Have fun splitting that hair. If McGahn had not power to do that....then he wouldn't resign rather than get involved. He could have just said "hey not my bag man, try someone else".

---

But he did resign. So ya, basically Trump tried to use McGahn to fire Mueller and instead he resigned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

So what you're saying is that he *could have* fired Mueller and didn't. Do you see how that's different than trying and failing?

---

You're defense is that he didn't try as hard as he could?

I'd love to see you as a defense attorney - "Sure your honor, my client shot at the victim in an attempted murder. But when he ran out of bullets, at least he didn't go out and buy some more."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

So a President, under unfair attack, while sitting in the most stressful job in the universe decided to listen to his counsel. And that's it. How many times did you have to put that through the spin cycle for it to sound like ORANGE MAN BAD

---

That poor man, so pure and innocent and people keep finding things he did wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

What is taking immigrants into the country with no legal process to you? How is it different from open borders?

---

I'm honestly not sure where the bolded part is coming from

An immigrant detained at teh border has to be held somewhere. We are currently running out of space. Current immigration policy has them identified, given a hearing date (that they skip), and allowed to roam free in America until they are apprehended again. That's the current legal process.

Instead of letting them go, or keeping them in a detention facility, Trump is proposing to offer them a bus ride to Oakland. What's your beef with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

No. I'm not sure where this "threatening to open the border" idea came from. As far as I know Trumps policy consideration relates to immigrants currently being held in over-burdened border detention facilities, and any other immigrants that might be detained between now and whenever the wall gets built.

I don't think he's talking about opening up the floodgates and just directing traffic towards San Francisco.

---

Right, so still don't get what the troll is then. Is it the D's fault they're detaining more people at the border than they have the capacity to house?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Is it the D's fault they're detaining more people at the border than they have the capacity to house?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Instead of letting them go, or keeping them in a detention facility, Trump is proposing to offer them a bus ride to Oakland. What's your beef with that?

---

I guess one objection might be that it's a childish and irresponsible way of dealing with his the shortcomings of his own immigration policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Yes

---

Care to elaborate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I guess one objection might be that it's a childish and irresponsible way of dealing with his the shortcomings of his own immigration policy.

---

So? What else ya got?

Pelosi called the policy "cruel". Who is the victim in that story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Care to elaborate?

---

Sure. Before ORANGE MAN BAD, both of these people said the exact opposite of everything that they say on this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEjRkGVyNsY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

So? What else ya got?

Pelosi called the policy "cruel". Who is the victim in that story?

---

I think it's irrelevant what Pelosi says, especially if you condense it into one word. We're talking about why it's a victory troll for Trump or why a victory troll ranks up there with the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act as a presidential achievement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Sure. Before ORANGE MAN BAD, both of these people said the exact opposite of everything that they say on this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEjRkGVyNsY

---

You'll forgive me for not wanting to watch the Munsters again.

What did they say 'immigration is bad' or 'close the borders?'

Sorry, really don't see where you're going with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I think it's irrelevant what Pelosi says

---

"Shut up!" he explained

Quote:

---

We're talking about why it's a victory troll for Trump

---

Did you watch the Tucker Carlson video I posted earlier? If not, do so, and you'll have an answer to this question.

Quote:

---

a victory troll ranks up there with the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act as a presidential achievement

---

Your words, not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

"Shut up!" he explained


Did you watch the Tucker Carlson video I posted earlier? If not, do so, and you'll have an answer to this question.


Your words, not mine.

---

I know what Tucker said 'these people love immigrants - why are they complaining when we offer them all they want?'

What I don't know is why this is a win for Trump. How does solve the immigration problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What did they say 'immigration is bad' or 'close the borders?'

---

I think you meant to ask "when". And I already told you. It was before ORANGE MAN BAD

You can find PLENTY of video of Schumer and Pelosi advocating for the construction of a border wall on the floors of congress. It happened. Google it.

Then one day ORANGE MAN BAD and now these exact same two people are telling us that a wall is immoral

But yeah, Trump is just SOOOO much more dishonest and retarded than they are. Riiiiiiiigggght

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What I don't know is why this is a win for Trump. How does solve the immigration problem?

---

Democrats have been advocating against the wall on moral grounds. This proves how full of shit they are. Any court can see that. Now that they're platform has been exposed as a swamp of bullshit, they really can't stop Trump from implementing stricter immigration policy, including a wall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I'm honestly not sure where the bolded part is coming from

An immigrant detained at teh border has to be held somewhere. We are currently running out of space. Current immigration policy has them identified, given a hearing date (that they skip), and allowed to roam free in America until they are apprehended again. That's the current legal process.

Instead of letting them go, or keeping them in a detention facility, Trump is proposing to offer them a bus ride to Oakland. What's your beef with that?

---

I don't really have a beef with that. That's the thing. I feel utterly non-triggered by that suggestion, but it seems like a far left-ish proposal. How that would trigger dems is what I don't get. Trump has said on many occasions he wants to get rid of immigration judges. The proposal we're talking about would skip immigration court and put them straight on american mainland... just not in border cities. It's open borders a bus ride removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I think you meant to ask "when". And I already told you. It was before ORANGE MAN BAD

You can find PLENTY of video of Schumer and Pelosi advocating for the construction of a border wall on the floors of congress. It happened. Google it.

Then one day ORANGE MAN BAD and now these exact same two people are telling us that a wall is immoral

---

yeah, so they oppose the POTUS of the other party regardless of what they said or did before.

Still don't see how he is getting some victory troll major presidential achievement out of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Democrats have been advocating against the wall on moral grounds. This proves how full of shit they are. Any court can see that. Now that they're platform has been exposed as a swamp of bullshit, they really can't stop Trump from implementing stricter immigration policy, including a wall

---

nononono. Most have said they oppose it because it's a waste of money and because it wouldn't work. Most illegal immigrants overstay their visa, most drugs come through points of entry. To put most of the funds you have in a wall is... you might say... retarded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Democrats have been advocating against the wall on moral grounds. This proves how full of shit they are. Any court can see that. Now that they're platform has been exposed as a swamp of bullshit, they really can't stop Trump from implementing stricter immigration policy, including a wall

---

Eh, think you're reaching there. It's not simply a choice between open borders bus them all to Beverly Hills and build the Wall.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure he's not getting his wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

nononono. Most have said they oppose it because it's a waste of money and because it wouldn't work. Most illegal immigrants overstay their visa, most drugs come through points of entry. To put most of the funds you have in a wall is... you might say... retarded?

---

But...but... "BUILD THE WALL" is such a great chant! What difference does it make if it's a retarded idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I don't really have a beef with that. That's the thing. I feel utterly non-triggered by that suggestion

---

That makes you unusual among lefties.

Quote:

---

but it seems like a far left-ish proposal.

---

You're adding elements to it that aren't there. It's just our current immigration policy, as-is, plus a bus ride. Nothing is being "proposed" except the bus ride. That's why it's such a great troll....there's NOTHING to object to, unless immigrants are undesirable.

Quote:

---

How that would trigger dems is what I don't get. Trump has said on many occasions he wants to get rid of immigration judges.

---

That doesn't sound right. I'd ask for a citation, but I don't care that much. It's not relevant to this anyway. No one is trying to change the number of judges right now.

Quote:

---

The proposal we're talking about would skip immigration court

---

No. The proposal that you imagined would skip immigration court. Again...follow me now....everything stays the same, except we add the bus ride. Got that? The bus ride is new, everything else stays the same for now.

Ok lol. But why give them the free bus ride? Doesn't that cost money? Why not give them a free house with a chicken in the pot and car in the garage too?

It sounds kinda 'differently abled' if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

nononono. Most have said they oppose it because it's a waste of money

---

No they haven't. It's a moral issue and has been ever since ORANGE MAN BAD. Even the leftiest lefty wouldn't believe the "too expensive" argument. Illegal immigrants cost our economy $116B a year. $20B for a wall is a no-brainer.

Quote:

---

and because it wouldn't work.

---

Walls work. Don't even try to argue that they don't. They do.

Quote:

---

Most illegal immigrants overstay their visa

---

Diversion. 60+ thousand people a month are showing up at the border with no visa. That's a humongous problem by itself. If more immigrants are getting in other ways...that's a separate problem.

Quote:

---

most drugs come through points of entry.

---

You took a misleading talking point and then warped it into a complete falsehood. For the record, the correct talking point that you were trying to cite was that "most drugs are confiscated at points of entry". But that's misleading. Who knows what percentage of total drugs that represents. And who knows how much drugs go between ports of entry.

Suppose you had termites in your house. And when you sought a solution you were told "don't worry about it, most termites are in the forest anyway"

What we do know is that fentnyl deaths have caused life expectancy in the US to decline for the first time in almost a century. So the drugs are getting in. Period.

Not 'getting rid of' in sense of 'ordering someone to fire them all', just not replacing ones who quit/retire. So far.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...s-hiring-pause

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ok lol. But why give them the free bus ride?

---

Why not? Isn't it moral to welcome immigrants warmly? Why not send them to the most open-minded and generous cities that we have? Wouldn't that be the humanitarian thing to do?

Again...who is the victim in that scenario? Why are Pelosi, and Schumer, and every sanctuary city mayor calling this policy "cruel"? What do they have against immigrants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Even the leftiest lefty wouldn't believe the "too expensive" argument.

---

I've heard them say the same thing. There's better and more effective ways to police the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Illegal immigrants cost our economy $116B a year. $20B for a wall is a no-brainer.

---

Seems impossible to quantify this precisely, and in any case having a wall isn't going to stop illegal immigration dead in its tracks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Walls work. Don't even try to argue that they don't. They do.

---

Sure they work better than an empty space. Doesn't mean they're the best/only solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Diversion. 60+ thousand people a month are showing up at the border with no visa. That's a humongous problem by itself. If more immigrants are getting in other ways...that's a separate problem.

---

Are they showing up in the desert or at a point of entry? 'Cause I don't think a wall in the desert is going to change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What we do know is that fentnyl deaths have caused life expectancy in the US to decline for the first time in almost a century. So the drugs are getting in. Period.

---

That's terrible. But, do you imagine people are carrying bags of drugs across the desert border by mule? Or, are they using boats and planes and things that actually make sense if you're trying to traffic large quantities of drugs? How tall is that wall going to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Why not? Isn't it moral to welcome immigrants warmly? Why not send them to the most open-minded and generous cities that we have? Wouldn't that be the humanitarian thing to do?

Again...who is the victim in that scenario? Why are Pelosi, and Schumer, and every sanctuary city mayor calling this policy "cruel"? What do they have against immigrants?

---

I don't know why they'd call it 'cruel' - that doesn't make sense to me. It sounds stupid, but not cruel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I've heard them say the same thing. There's better and more effective ways to police the border.

---

Maybe that's true. In fact, it probably is true. It's also not relevant. Because none of those methods are permanent solutions like a wall. That's the one advantage a wall has over all other solutions.

The next liberal president can't come in and un-build a wall. He CAN come in and slash funding for sensors, border agents, detention facilities, and all that stuff that is supposedly "more effective".

That's why the wall is the superior solution. The american public won't accept the other measures. We were sold that shit in the 80's, and 30 years later we have over 20 million people here that shouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I don't know why they'd call it 'cruel'

---

Because they got trolled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Are they showing up in the desert or at a point of entry?

---

Both

Quote:

---

But, do you imagine people are carrying bags of drugs across the desert border by mule?

---

Something like that.

Quote:

---

Or, are they using boats and planes and things that actually make sense if you're trying to traffic large quantities of drugs?

---

I'm not sure how much you know about fentanyl, but a thermos of the stuff could wipe out a city. "Large quantities" is a fungible term.

I could give you sources but I'd just google "trump immigration judges" and give you the top results.
Currently they're detaining everyone who's waiting for an asylum hearing. What Trump is saying is going a step further than catch and release, but even if he walks it back to catch and release, then you're back to Obama policy. In what way is walking immigration laws back to how they were under Obama trolling the libs? What am I missing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Because they got trolled.

---

So because you made something up that you think they'd say, they got trolled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

So because you made something up that you think they'd say, they got trolled?

---

It's not made up

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3443705002/

"cruelty"
"cynicism"
"inhumanity"
"disgusting policy"

Why would they say that? Are immigrants "disgusting"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Currently they're detaining everyone who's waiting for an asylum hearing.

---

Until there is nowhere left to detain them. Which is the point we are at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

What am I missing?

---

You seem to be missing how the left collectively lost it's friggen shit over this. Cher had the best response of all, but she's an irrelevant hag so it's not that big of a deal. But Pelosi, and every democrat mayor from coast to coast all simultaneously had a stroke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Because they got trolled.

---

yeah, something isn't adding up here...

Pelosi referred to Trump's child separation policy as cruel. Did she say the same thing about bussing people to Oakland? What are you talking about here?

You'd have to ask them to clarify, but I'm reading this as: the notion that you can send human beings as punishment to "send a message to democrats" is cruel and inhumane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I'm not sure how much you know about fentanyl, but a thermos of the stuff could wipe out a city. "Large quantities" is a fungible term.

---

Better close the airports and post offices too.

Quote:

---

And where is this illicit fentanyl originating? About 80 percent of the pure fentanyl seized by U.S. authorities last fiscal year arrived from China, often through the mail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

You'd have to ask them to clarify, but I'm reading this as: the notion that you can send human beings as punishment to "send a message to democrats" is cruel and inhumane.

---

Or maybe that he's using this threat as leverage to get money for his Wall.

I say: most illegal immigrants overstay their visa.

You say:

Quote:

---

Walls work. Don't even try to argue that they don't. They do.

---

JackieChanwutface.jpg

Are there are lot of pure fentanyl overdoses? Or is heroin usually involved? Where does the heroin come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Did she say the same thing about bussing people to Oakland? What are you talking about here?

---

Her response, through a spokeswoman, to this exact policy is quoted below

Quote:

---

The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated

---

Oh yeah well here's a clue:

Quote:

---

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district was specifically targeted, according to the Post, noting that the White House wanted to transport migrants into her congressional district in San Francisco.

Ashley Etienne, a spokeswoman for Pelosi, called the proposal "despicable."

"The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated," Etienne said in a statement. "Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal."

Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., agreed.

"Immigrants are people. Not pawns to deploy in the President's petty political fights," Quigley said on Twitter. "@realDonaldTrump’s cruelty knows no limits."

---

Ok I mean their response is out of proportion as usual, but still it's a greasy move. And its a stupid idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Are there are lot of pure fentanyl overdoses? Or is heroin usually involved? Where does the heroin come from?

---

Mostly through ports of entry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I say/You say

---

Whoa!! you tried to CNN me there for a minute. Not falling for it!!

Here's what really happened.

You/Poop said: Walls are ineffective
I said: Walls work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Are there are lot of pure fentanyl overdoses? Or is heroin usually involved? Where does the heroin come from?

---

Where do the needles come from they use to inject themselves? Try stopping immigration from those countries too.

Remember the war on drugs and how they were going to get Colombia to stop trafficking cocaine to the US? How did that plan work out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Whoa!! you tried to CNN me there for a minute. Not falling for it!!

Here's what really happened.

You/Poop said: Walls are ineffective
I said: Walls work.

---

Alright. I guess they work in some sense. They just won't stop the flow of illegal immigration, and won't stop the flow of drugs, so they don't work in the context we're discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Mostly through ports of entry.

---

How do you know that? who is measuring how much doesn't come through ports of entry?

You need to fix your facts. What you're trying to quote here, is the shallow and pedantic talking point that most drugs are "confiscated" at ports of entry. That's WAY different than saying "most drugs come through ports of entry".

That's like saying most drowning rescues occur where there are lifeguards. You can still drown in every other body of water!!

In other words...we seem to find drugs only in the places that we look, and we don't find drugs in the places we don't look.

And any quantification that seeks to use the word "MOST" is a propagandist fucking lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Her response, through a spokeswoman, to this exact policy is quoted below

---

Not quite the same as saying bussing people to a city is cruel, as if that's somehow punishing them. That's where context matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

How do you know that? who is measuring how much doesn't come through ports of entry? .

---

The same person who is measuring how much comes from which country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Where do the needles come from they use to inject themselves?

---

Outreach volunteers in sanctuary cities. Isn't that fucking something??? They even have lounges where you can go and hang out while you wait for the heroin to wear off. All legal.

Quote:

---

Remember the war on drugs and how they were going to get Colombia to stop trafficking cocaine to the US? How did that plan work out?

---

I don't know. I can get weed. I can get pills. I can get heroin. I have no idea where to get coke. So there's some anecdotal evidence of success. But I'm not sure I see your point. It sounds like you're saying that protecting your own country from an inflow of drugs is more effective than trying to prevent outflows of drugs from another country. So we agree.

Talking about the wall feels like talking about 9/11 truthers. I think everything has been said. Here's my final point... Would you take the following bet: You get to spend an arbitrary amount to build a wall. If I can scale the wall, you have to pay me the amount of money you spent on the wall. If I can't, I have to pay. Is that something you're comfortable with? Even if you trust your gut feeling more than data you get from the DEA... even in your fantasy scenario, a wall is horrendously cost ineffective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Outreach volunteers in sanctuary cities. Isn't that fucking something??? They even have lounges where you can go and hang out while you wait for the heroin to wear off. All legal.

---

Stopping the aids epidemic is bad cause muh feelings!