(07-17-2019, 07:47 AM)jj82284 Wrote:

(07-16-2019, 10:03 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Their status as freshmen members of Congress or their place on the political spectrum does not, in any way, mitigate their rights to voice dissent. 

No one suggested they don't have a right to say what they want.  We're just pointing out they also have a right to pursue other options of residency that better fit their values and lifestyle.  

So don't voice dissent or leave?  Got it.


There have been others with whom the President has disagreed, but his most persistent targets have been persons of color. 

The man called the white female Dem Nominee for the presidency a "Nasty" woman on national television.  He told the white female captain of the U.S. Soccer team to shut her mouth.  He just went off on a tirade on the White male Ambassador to the US from the U.K. addressing him by name and calling him an ignorant fool.  He's ripped Paul Ryan a new [BLEEP].  He insulted John McCain.  He belittled Jeb Bush to the point that an entire wing of the party still hates him.  Are we still really going to seriously sit here and keep up with this "it's only black people stuff?"

I bring your attention to the emphasized portion above, because either you didn't read it or didn't comprehend what you were reading.  In sum "most persistent" does not equal "exclusive" or "sole."  I do not demand lockstep agreement with my views.  But I don't think it unreasonable to as you address the points I raised, not the points you wish were raised.

It is noteworthy nobody else (read: white) has been urged to leave the country by this president. 

That's because they are the ones spewing the "Toilet" "Concentration Camp" Garbage.  In light of the attacks over the weekend against detention facilities, they are the ones that should have been censured by congress.  

So when Nancy Pelosi said Trump wants to "Make America White Again," what point do you think she was making about Trump's policies?

The whole "come back" argument is quite silly.  Three of the four congresswomen were born in this country. The fourth (Omar) is a U.S. citizen, and has been since she was a teenager. 

True, and if any of them need a visa sponsor to go bother the countries they feel more confidently in then I am happy to volunteer.  


I'm sure you are, given your obvious and spectacular double standard on the issue of dissent.

Why should she be urged to go back to Somalia because she disagrees with this president's policies? 

You're absolutely right bullseye.  It's nothing to do with Anti-American Sentiment or trashing entire departments of the government, or anti-semetic comments.  It's because they think that his tariff policy has inflationary risk.  Way to read the stitches on the fastball.  

No it doesn't.  There was open talk of secession by the right during the Obama administration.  None of you "More patriotic than thou" sorts had jack [BLEEP] to say about right wingers being unpatriotic or inviting them to leave.  Rick Perry also trashed entire departments of the government, openly advocating the abolishment of three agencies (one of which he famously could not remember during a debate).  Care to post admonitions from you offering to sponsor his exit visa?  I didn't think so.

Why should she have to split her time between the country to which she has pledged allegiance when she became a citizen and a country she no longer calls home?  Why does she have the burden of fixing all of Somalia's ills before uttering policy disagreements with Trump?  Not one white male congressmen was ever required to fix all of the problems in their state before voicing disagreements. 

Actually that's not true.  Any politician aspiring higher office is usually examined on their record.  So if the governor of California wants to become president one of the first things people look at is if California is still a mess.  And if their state is a mess, that has a bearing on their credibility to run the country as a whole.  Same for house members that are supposed to be Senators or anyone aspiring to leadership in just about, well, anything.  In this instance you have four congresswomen who are fundamentally hostile to the concept of limited government and the founding of the country, that's a lot bigger than any one policy disagreement.  IF you want to proceed with fundamentally terraforming a country doesn't it make sense that a.) you show us a success story (in the case of socialism there are none.) and b.) if you don't have a success story then you should go run your social experiments in a country other than the worlds last super power?  

Again, address the points I made not the point you wish was made.  I didn't say candidates never had their records evaluated or scrutinized.  I said they did not have the mandate to fix all of the problems in their states as a prerequisite to holding office.

For that matter, Trump didn't fix ANY problems in New York as a private citizen, yet that didn't preclude him from attempting to impugn and delegitimize former President Obama with the birther thing and the query into his college qualifications. 

I know you're not that ignorant, so I take it you are lying for affect.  Creating Jobs, growing a business, and even taking over failed public works.  IF you want to B.S. me please, try harder next time.  

You can take it as lying all you want, but in reality, it's a matter of you, once again, not understanding what is presented before you in plain English.  Creating jobs to meet his own business needs is, under NO REASONABLE OR SANE INTERPRETATION, the equivalent of solving an ENTIRE STATE's unemployment problem.  In fact, given the controversy about illegal aliens working at Mar a Lago, you can argue he exacerbated the very problem he is complaining about now.  Republicans are always yammering about high taxes.  Nothing Trump did as a private citizen had the direct effect of lowering taxes over the entire state of New York.  Nothing you imagine Trump did as a private citizen to improve public works in New York were able to prevent the blackout that occurred just last week.

On the issue of how the freshmen congresswomen conducted themselves, Trump is the very last person to lecture anyone on how to conduct themselves.  If Trump truly had no racial animus driving his comments, tweets on this matter, had any leadership traits and instincts, and had a legitimate interest in having a unified country, he would make it a point to clarify his comments and urge unity.  Conservative whites threw a hissy fit when Obama said the cop acted stupidly for arresting professor Henry Louis Gates for breaking into his own home.  Obama brought professor gates and the cop for the beer summit and spoke repeatedly on the need for unity.  Trump has never come close to doing that.

Spoke repeatedly for the need for unity before inviting Black Lives Matter to the White house, "If I had a son...  He would look like Treyvon," and letting cities burn while his Justice Department had concurrent evidence to support the fact that HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT didn't happen.  I'll send someone over for the rest of your credibility later.  

What?!?  A president actually RELATING to and seeing the humanity in a black youth shot by a man who didn't have the authority to do so?!?  Gasp!  The horror!   Insert eye roll here.  While I am not interested in personal invective, I will hasten to add you are ill equipped to discuss any matters of my credibility.

[font=tahoma,helvetica,arial,sans-serif][b]Is this really what you are arguing?  First off, it doesn't answer the question of where Trump gets off telling legal US citizens to leave the country. 

First amendment applies to him too.  He didn't order them, he didn't send the marshalls out.  He made a suggestion.  

A suggestion that is simultaneously more befitting a drunken bigot at a Wal Mart than the leader of the country, while having a chilling effect on free speech.  Had the intellectual acumen and command of fact and policy to do so, he would offer to engage in debate or discussion for better alternatives.  When it came to the debate on the Affordable Care Act, that's precisely what former President Obama did.  He addressed every Republican in Congress in a forum debating this issue, and invited them all to produce a better alternative.  He didn't encourage them to leave the country despite their incessant complaining.

Secondly your argument about the immigrants in cages absolutely boggles the mind to a ton of different levels.  They are not being held against their will?!?  You mean to suggest they traveled thousands of miles-some by foot for the "privilege" of being locked in overcrowded cages with no cots or access to showers, changes of clothing, etc?  THAT was their plan?!?  They can return to their country of origin at any time?  Really?  How are the children, ranging in age from toddler to teenager, separated from their parents, supposed to accomplish this?  Keep in mind, this completely IGNORES the very reasons many of them left their countries of origin in the first place.  How desperate do you have to be to leave the only place you've known, uproot your family, walk throughout Central America and up the length of Mexico to reach this country?!?  Their journeys here was every bit as courageous as those of the Pilgrims who fled England.If life for them were tenable in their countries of origin, they wouldn't have come here.  Also consider many of those detained-toddlers or otherwise-have been moved to facilities around the country away from the border.  How are they supposed to return to their country of origin?  Even if you opened the door to the facilities and told them see ya later, they'd still have to walk back to the borders, potentially extending their stays here for months.  I am straining to avoid personal invective here, I really am.  But this argument on this topic epitomizes the "distasteful, misguided, myopic and bigoted" views I referenced.  What of the people who emigrate from ostensibly "non [BLEEP] countries"

1.) Immigration policy isn't about virtue signaling, it's about economics.  We can't assimilate the other 7 billion people on the planet.  So that means that by simple logic we have to have an immigration policy.  It's true, there is a human cost to the mass incarceration of a million plus people illegally crossing the border per year, but the alternative you seem to espouse (just releasing them into the country) is the abolition of American sovereignty and something completely unpalatable to the American people.  In reality, the only thing we can do is call on our allies at the southern border to increase enforcement and erect a physical barrier to make sure there are far less people to detain in the first place.  

First off, nobody asserts the country should assimilate the other 7 billion or so people on the planet into our country.  The overwhelming majority of people-for various reasons-make no effort to come here.  Nobody suggests we should have no immigration policy.  It is spectacularly disingenuous to suggest otherwise.  There was a bi-partisan proposal made by four democrats and four republicans (known as the gang of eight) that was designed to overhaul immigration policy.  Republicans killed the bill.  https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/i...ght-225028




[/b][/font]

Pathologically anti minority?  This is the biggest lie in the modern political ethos.  The parting gift of the eugenicists and the segregationists was to imbrue the modern political system with Sangerism.  At current in some Dem run cities like New York the abortion rate for black pregnancies is above 50%.  Think about that for a second.  That's Josh Brolin Territory.  But there isn't any Tony Stark to come in and undo the carnage that has lead to the deaths of approaching 20 million minorities which is about 40 times the amount of slaves brought to the country and 3 ties the holocaust.  Moreover, the structure of the welfare programs lauded by the left as the turning point away from racism actually did what 400 years of slavery couldn't do, destroy the black family.   I

I do not care to investigate your abortion figures, because it is irrelevant.  Even though there was at least one documented instance of forced sterilization, the fact is abortion is a legal, elective procedure women choose for any number of reasons, including rape, incest, health of the baby and or mother.  To compare that to the Thanos snap (or blip as it later came to be known in the MCU) is patently ludicrous and not worthy of additional discussion.

---