The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Because of course he did, just like the rest of DC does (and continues to). Every accusation is a confession. (https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1007317351031861248)  I wonder when the press conference about "extreme carelessness" will be?

Here (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336) is a tweet that is trending:
(http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Shade.jpg)

First off ... Hillary was not punished for it so I'm not sure what you are looking for in regards to her situation. Secondly ... it's not appropriate for anyone to be doing it and anyone who puts national security at risk by doing so should be punished.

*** This is where you post conservatives who have done so as if that changes anything. Let me save you some time and say yes ... I mean everyone. It doesn't make it any less a a security risk by having more people doing it. Someone needs to be the scapegoat to get everyone else on board.  Our press aren't the only ones who are getting information they shouldn't have.

It only cost her the election.

That's an excuse. No one has any way of knowing that. The polls by mainstream media had her winning easily right up until election day. What that means is they have no idea what people are really thinking. What I've found since then is that more people supported Trump than admit it publicly. While that still seems the case there are definitely more vocal supporters for him now than ever before. 

Thanks...I was about to post the same thing.


True...it was more like a combination of Comey and Trump's Russian alliance.

Not according to the "unbiased" FBI ... hahaha
It's just that Trump has the support of all of us "poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS".

On the morning of Nov. 9, 2016, Attorney 2 messaged the employee: "I am so stressed about what I could have done differently."

The employee answered: "Don't stress. None of that mattered," an apparent reference to the FBI's investigation of Clinton. When the attorney said: "I don’t know. We broke the momentum," the employee answered: "That is not so."

"All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out," the employee wrote. "Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn't watch the debates, aren't fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm."

^^^ I had no idea it was that easy to dictate your opinion to you.

Please feel free to borrow some of my opinions any time you want to appear to be a more caring human being. ;)

Comey broke longstanding DOJ guidelines, against the advice of his superiors, to hold a press conference in which he announced that no charges would be filed, but that the subject of the investigation - a current candidate for office - was "extremely careless" for using private email to conduct official business. WHICH HE WAS ALSO DOING HIMSELF.

That press conference WAS punishment.  As the OIG report confirmed, Comey had no legal basis to bring actual charges, so instead he smeared her for doing something so commonplace that he was also doing it. This is "Newt Gingrich attacks Bill Clinton for having an affair, while he is having an affair himself" territory.  Again.

I also find your last post interesting.  Are you saying that if law enforcement rank-and-file have a particular personal preference for the outcome of an election, that alone is evidence of corruption.  Because I'm pretty sure we all know which party the law enforcement types tend to lean toward.

A lot more people supported Trump.  They just didn't want to admit it because then they would be labelled as a bigoted racist womanizer who has a foul mouth by the liberal left.

Are you talking about Trump supporters or the people who eat at Chick Fil A? hahaha

I laugh because I have spent several (more than 3) evenings at Pulse (which has gender neutral bathrooms and yes, I used them along with women and gay guys) yet now only because I believe the Bible doesn't condone gay relationships I'm a homophobic racist.  Soon you will have to actually suck d!@k to be accepted by the left. They have become so extreme they are scaring away many of the same people who voted for Hillary.

There are no shortage of people leaving both gay and straight. Just Google ... why I left the Left.
 
 https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8

In point of fact, over 3 million more people voted for Hillary... they just didn't live in the correct states to carry the election.

Unless you were trying to say that more people "supported Trump" but didn't vote, which doesn't seem like something that can be proven.

What does any of this matter now? Trump won the election and is all of our POTUS. He seems to be doing at least as good of a job as the last few we've had in office.

By the liberal left AND the progressive middle. After a while, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Have you lost your mind? He's pissed off and alienated almost all of our allies, sucked up to China to help one of their spy...er...telecom companies (but I'm sure that had nothing to do with Trump's $300 million Chinese debt), cozied up to Putin and pretty much every other scumbag POS dictator...and you think he's doing anything other than awful?

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!  hahaha If by sucking up to China you mean he just approved tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports ... then yes ... he is sucking up.

There are hours of video of Obama, Hillary and all the other digbats saying Trump can 't do this, no one can do that etc. and then showing clips of him achieving it. That 's why he was elected because no one else was doing their job. The left has so little arguments remaining they are just making things up.

I'm guessing that Sunstroke was probably referring to something more like this:

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ZoZzqp7S--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/h61l7gluuwo5mdufj99c.png)
Gotta save those jobs in China!

As long as "it" is "winning the 2016 election" - the same thing Trump still brags about nearly two years later - then sure.  Did you hear about his amazing electoral college victory?  I'm sure he'll bring it up again at his next campaign rally, which is a thing that he never stopped doing even after the election was long over.  But hey, as long as it keeps people distracted from the wall that still isn't being built and the jobs that are still flowing out of the country!  (see: tweet above)

But to get back on topic: the OIG report clearly says that Comey interfered with the election and breached his duty as FBI director with his insubordination to Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama (NOT Trump).  It also clearly says that there was no cause to charge Hillary with any crime, and that there was no political bias in the investigation against Trump.  Yet Trump is still trying to claim that he fired Comey because of how unfairly Comey treated Hillary, and not because of the reason he clearly stated on national television: because Comey refused to end the Russia investigation.

The facts simply don't matter.

So a tweet supporting China outweighs the fact he actually placed high tariffs on them? That's akin to saying the girlfriend who said some dude was hot is worse than the girlfriend who was actually cheating on you. Sorry ... I just can't wrap my head around that. Actions speak much louder than words .... especially when it comes to Trump as half the stuff he says is just to blow liberals minds.

Wouldn't you rather just have a President who told the truth?

Which president would that be? Most Presidents have had serious moral issues. I don't care that Trump talks crap. I wish he'd stop but I'm more interested in the things he actually does and so far he has been doing the things he promised.

At this point ... with the way people of the media and celebrity status bully people I don't think anyone without Trump's abrasive behavior would stand a chance. Being as screwed up as he is actually works in his favor.

There has never been a President who holds the truth in such complete disregard as Trump. If he wasn't President, you would want nothing to do with someone who lies as much as Trump.


Admitting that he's screwed up is a decent start (also: obvious, late), but realizing that the only reason that every media source rips on Trump except his mouthpiece, Fox, is because he's a lying corrupt misogynistic, delusional piece of shit would lead me to believe there's hope for you after all.



(edited for blatant typo)

The last truly moral president was Carter, however there is a huge difference between Trump and all other.  A broken campaign promise that was made in good faith, but was broken because of a compromise, change or mistake is not a lie.  E.g. Bush I "no new taxes" or Obama "you will be able to keep your doctor".  And those are most of what people point to when they say all politicians are dishonest.  Most of them for the most part make factual correct statements. 

Bush did plenty and said plenty of things that annoyed me.  And Obama did things that conservatives didn't like.  But both did so to advance an idea that they viewed as a positive, neither was just trying to annoy or piss off the other side. That is uniquely Trump.

All presidents have had an adversarial relationship with the media, but none has attacked them or blocked them from doing their job.

Trump aspires to be treated as NK treat Kim. 

I disagree. I think he is a narcissist who also knows how to play by street rules. I don't think he even believes half the stuff he says. he is just looking to get a reaction the same way a kid says "my dad can beat up your dad". At the end of the day he has proven he isn't stupid.  Just an arse. 

I don't know... Looking up at an eclipse sounds pretty dumb.

You are defending that? 

He is playing by the rules of a street thug instead of the rules of a leader of a democracy. 

Every day this country moves further and further away from being a democracy.  "The press is the greatest enemy of the country."  Parents told their children are being taken away temporarily to take a shower and then the parents never see their children again. (sound familiar) Scapegoating of minorities.  Crushing of dissents.  Propaganda films.  Legitimatizing of hate groups.  ("There are good people on both sides" when talking about neo-Nazis)  He has floated the idea that we should end term limits for the presidency.  The manifestation of a 10 year old who says "my dad can beat up your dad" as president is tyrant with the nuclear codes.     

You left out "alienated all of our long-standing allies" and "blatantly uses his office to enrich himself financially"...but I'll let ya slide this time. ;)

I defend the fact he can stand up against the bullying Left which has lost it's mind IMO. He says a lot of stupid stuff but overall he is getting things done. 

I saw this today on a post from a guy who voted for Bernie Sanders and I think it really fits the times. "I feel like the left just sits in a room spinning a bingo wheel cage with problems that have been around for decades ... they pull out one once a month, blame it on Trump, offer no solutions, then act like they are saving the world because they are suddenly upset"

I'm also not worried about the freedom of the press. I'm more worried that we do not have an impartial press. I read CNN everyday and it's so blatant. "Trump wrongly blames Democrats for policy that separates families" and it wasn't an opinion piece. In a real newspaper it would have said "Trump blames Democrats for policy that separates families'. They should put put facts ... whatever they are and allow the reader to make up their own mind. BTW ... I don't care that FOX does it too as they are just as guilty. I get most of my news form the Daily Mail and MSN.com.  I long for the day when you can read something and not know the political opinion of the author.

Fact is Trump falsely accused the democrats for his own policies.  That is the unbiased reporting.  The news have an obligation to provide the facts and context.  "Trump blames Democrats for policy that separates families" is incomplete when it is a fact that it was his policy not the democrats.  The press has an obligation to provide facts and context and not just the report what the president said, but also if what the president said has an basis in reality. Reporting that the president lies is not biased reporting it is fact based reporting. 

When you(anyone) break a law and are arrested you are separated from your children if they have no where else to go. Entering the US is illegal and they are supposed to be criminally prosecuted. The laws should be upheld. If you don't want to be separated from your kids don't kill people, don't make meth, don't rob banks, and don't cross the boarder illegally. All criminals are separated from their kids, this is a non issue.

You cited three serious felonies to defend a draconian measure against people who are being charged with committing a misdemeanor. 

Laws, you want to talk about laws.  This policy violates international law. 

But that is not what I was responding to.  This was a policy was of Trump's making.  CNN accurately reporting that this was not a policy of the democrats but of Trump is not biased reporting. 

"Of course you shouldn't believe what Trump says, he's a liar!"

CF, the defense you are mounting for Trump in this thread is embarrassing.  It's clear you know and acknowledge how terrible of a person he is, that he's a complete buffoon... yet because he's Owning The Libs, you remain on board the Trump Train.

Are there any of your conservative principles you are NOT willing to discard in service of Trump?

According to international law - established by treaties that the US is a signatory to - it is explicitly legal to approach the border and formally request asylum.  Under Trump, families that have done so are being split up, with the children being placed in separate detention camps.  According to AG Sessions, this is specifically intended as a deterrent.

Once again, Republicans get into the White House and start violating international law.  First it's torture, now it's imprisoning children seeking asylum.  This is neither an accident nor a coincidence.

No. When taking his comment into context he is telling the truth. They chose not to enforce the law (although there is a ton of tape of them saying they would), and then they started telling illegals to cross with children as it helps their case. The solution is left to him alone as the Democrats refuse to discuss law even though a few years ago they were preaching the same thing.   He said to enforce the law and that is what they are doing. He didn't create a new policy. The truth is is you break a law then you get separated from your children. Trump did not start that.  That's the law for citizens and it certainly should be the same for illegals.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions made this announcement a few months ago and no one listened. "If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law … If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.  We don’t want to separate families, but we don’t want families to enter the border illegally. We urge them not to do so."

Even Hillary agreed just before Trump was elected "“We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” the former secretary of state said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm a Christian and I have my values that I live by. I fail but I do try.  I have friends who have cheated on their wives, use drugs, steal things and would cheat on a business deal to make money. You know ... typical American males.  I try and be there for them but they aren't Christians ... so I can't try and hold them accountable to Christian values. I can only try to set a possible example for them.

In that same regard I do not look to Trump for my values. I look to him to make policy that I agree with.  I know you haven't read the Bible but God uses the worst people to accomplish his purposes without being tainted by it. Trump being an areshole has not made me one ... or at least not any more of one than I already am.

I've said it before and I'll reiterate it again. I'd love for someone like Mike Huckabee to be president but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. As it is ... I'm hoping to see Nikki Haley in the oval office soon. Then I will be both proud and supportive.

Trump said to enforce the law. He didn't make a brand new policy.

So...do you believe that God is using Trump to accomplish God's purposes?

If the answer to that is "Yes," then one more follow up question:

Are you fucking serious?

It is absolutely false news that there is a law requiring families be separated. Common sense alone would raise the question of if it was law rather than policy, why did no administration follow it until April?
Fact Check: Did Democrats Pass a Law Separating Children and Adults at the Southern Border?

http://flip.it/cIOnyV

I guess the problem for me is that I blow off the one comment he said and focus on the whole of what he is saying and doing. If it's only about semantics then you guys win. He was false in that statement.  Here's the message I've been seeing and getting from him and Sessions.
Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account
 
@realDonaldTrumpIt is the Democrats fault for being weak and ineffective with Boarder Security and Crime. Tell them to start thinking about the people devastated by Crime coming from illegal immigration. Change the laws!

6:53 AM - 18 Jun 2018

It's a lose-lose under the current laws unless you just ignore them as Obama did... which is just a big lose.  From your own article points out the problems with what Obama tried to do before he started ignoring the issue. "As noted by a fact-check from the New York Times, the Obama administration, during a sharp increase in family migration from South America, utilized family detention centers, which attracted lawsuits claiming “that doing so had breached the Flores settlement by not releasing children swiftly.”

I see you're making shit up again. What about we go and round up all people in sanctuary cities that are ACTUALLY hear illegally. Lock them up, separate them from their kids, and prosecute them. How's that? That should be OK with you since your whole argument is based on some silly ass "asylum seekers" red herring. What about the millions upon millions that are currently breaking the law?

You people are crazy. We're being invaded from the south and all you can do is push your political agenda against Trump. If someone isn't here legally, they don't belong here. It's that simple...

What do your principles say about "the end justifies the means" morality?

You aren't required to defend Trump; you don't have to be his cheerleader.  You could  denounce him while accepting your policy "wins" (such as they are).  But you CHOOSE to defend him and make excuses for him.  So it's on you.

First, choosing which laws to enforce IS policy.  Just ask Trump's EPA.
Second, there is no law that requires families to be separated at the border.  That is an interpretation, which Sessions said was specifically intended as a deterrent.

In other countries it's not a misdemeanor:


If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy and you fate sealed.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

If you cross the U.S. border illegally you get:


1 - A job,
2 - A drivers license,
3 – Social Security Card,
4 - Welfare,
5 – Food Stamps,
6 – Credit Cards,
7 – Subsidized rent or a loan to by a house,
8 – Free Education,
9 – Free Health Care,
10 – A Lobbyist in Washington
11 – Billions of Dollars worth of public documents printed in your language
12 – And the right to carry your country's flag while you protest that you don't get enough respect.

And the Academy Award for Best Dramatic Performance goes to...pondwater

Get lost clown!!!

Assuming you are correct about the countries (doubtful being you are wrong about US) all but one is a brutal dictatorship.  Trump has made it clear he wants to transform the USA into a country where he is treated like Kim of NK, however, I am not looking to model any aspect of USA's approach to human rights after any of the countries you listed.  Apparently Trump and Sessions feel NK is a model for human rights and immigration policy. 

That's not the point. The point is that there are consequences for doing illegal things. If you don't want the consequences, don't do illegal things. Yeah, blame the people enforcing the rules, not the rule breakers. Just more of that good ole liberal "lack of accountability" for one's own actions.

That is exactly the point.  Everyday Trump (with the help of the republicans in congress) are moving us away from the ideas of democracy and towards a totalitarian society. Disregarding of basic human rights, attacks on the press, scapegoating minorities,  support of neo-nazis and other hate groups, using the presidency for personal finical gain, disregard of separation of church and state, propaganda, blatant lying by the government, demands for ultra-patriotism and the crushing of dissent.       

To recap: as a rebuttal to an accurate summation of current US law, your counterexamples are... North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Those countries should be considered cautionary tales, not a how-to manual.

A victim of one of the worst moments in USA's history explains why this is worse than the Japanese Interment during WWII. 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/19/at-least-during-the-internment-are-words-i-thought-id-never-utter-family-separation-children-border/

Speeding is a crime.
That crime has a defined penalty.
It is absurd to make up new penalties on the fly and say, "Well then, don't commit crimes and you don't have anything to worry about."

However, applying for asylum is NOT a crime, yet the families are STILL being separated.  So let's not pretend that the "crime" is the issue here.  The issue, as Jeff Sessions already clearly stated, is deterring immigration into this country.  Period.

As usual, your deflection is on point today. In that case, let's round up all people in sanctuary cities that are ACTUALLY hear right now illegally. Lock them up, separate them from their kids, and prosecute them. How's that? That should be OK with you since your whole argument is based on some silly ass "asylum seekers" red herring. What about the millions upon millions that are already here currently breaking the law?

I can respect where you're coming from, Buc, but among the group of:

North Korea
Iran
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
China
Venezuela
Cuba

...which of these countries do you think America should aspire to emulate, either ethically, morally or judiciously?

I'd write in Singapore, sometimes people need a good caning.

Your just making things up. I do not defend anything from him that I do not agree with although I do call out the hypocrisy from the left when they complain about Trump being immoral, a liar, and a fornicator! hahahaha

Choosing which laws to enforce is policy? Hypocrite much?  Which is it ... equal rights across the board or selective enforcement? You can't have it both ways.

Yeah, especially those migrant kids who won't stop crying when they get yanked away from their parents. ;)

I don't think anyone likes what is going on. Even Laura Bush is condemning it and her husband is the one who signed the law the causes it (the Homeland Security Act of 2002) and the the Flores Settlement under Clinton. If someone breaks the law they have to be arrested and cannot be with their kids. There kids have to be sent back much faster than the parents can be processed. This is what it is.

I agree with Hillary when she said "We have to send a clear message: just because your child gets across the border, doesn't mean your child gets to stay. We don't want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or that will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey." and Obama when he said "Do not send your children to the border," Obama said. "The problem is that under current law, once those kids come across the border, there is a system in which we're supposed to process them, take care of them until we can send them back."

If you are upset by kids being separated at the border it's been going on since the Bush administration. Please show me where you expressed concern prior to Trump and then I'll act like your concern is valid. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. It's funny when the original pictures surfaced to back up the outrage they were actually from the Obama years.

Outside of all the political propaganda being spoken right now everyone knows it is a broken system. Everyone agrees the system is broken. Clinton and Bush could have fixed this. Obama had 8 years to change it but he didn't. Trump wants people to get together to fix our broken system and yet Democrats refuse. Trump said enforce the law and now Democrats are pretending to be upset by the law. Why weren't they upset when Obama was president? They are playing the political game to me. It sucks but this is what happens when people encourage illegals to come here and do not have a system in place that protects the American people. Heck even when we do ... people can choose not to enforce the law at their own discretion as Spider said.

God yes, especially them.  Have you ever been at an Applebee's and the table next to you has a crying kid that won't shut up?  ;D

Just to remind you guys here are some pics from the Obama years. I'd post them directly but I do not know how to make them smaller.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/photos-obama-immigration-detention-facilities/

I don't want to come across as defending the policy but from what I understand, the detainees are committing a crime because they are not coming to authorized points of entry. It is hard to apply for asylum when you are trying to avoid legal entry to start the process.

CF, you must just peddle what Fox News and others say when it comes to things like this. Obama did it too, where was the outrage! Well, again, facts are kind of important. I know you don't like them, but they're there if you look. Obama rarely separated families, and more often than not, they were reunited. This administration is doing things in an unprecedented scale and NOT returning the kids to their parents. It's a deliberate policy they are enforcing to cause this harm. On top of that, having the Bible guide your policy of separating kids (see Jeff Sessions), then you get into even more trouble (hi separation of church and state). Of course, Jeff Sessions kind of stopped early in quote of the bible verse, because a few sentences letter, he would have gotten the point.

Using reason to try reaching someone on the far right? That's a bold move, mister!

I know, I know. But if we don't do that, we're no better than them.

You guys are too funny!

Peter Fonda has been on a terror lately. More overcoming the supposed hate with ... even more so called hate. Will there be liberal uproar? I won't hold my breath.  Hypocrisy of everyone has to be at an all time high.

Trump has signed an executive order to stop separating families so now you can move on to complaining about

A) how long it took him to do it
B) Why Trump made the sky blue
C) immigrant homelessness in California caused by Trump
D) whatever problem that has been around for decades but now comes up in the MSM so it's Trumps's fault

Nope, I bet it's back to "the evil assault weapons".

Or any of the eleventy billion "real" things that you inexplicably accept, ignore or deflect.


(edited post mortem for heinous typo)

I am not as concerned with what an actor says as I am with the actions of the President of United States.  Peter Fonda concerns me about as much as Rosanna Barr both made equally outrageous comments one had her show canceled the other is being investigated by the secret service. 

Great analogy Hoodie!  MSM and the liberal public crucified Rosanne! I'm sure the rage about Peter Fonda will be coming very soon!

BTW ... I saw a Facebook post calling Trump a dictator for going around Congress. I guess I missed that one.

I am glad he did.  My hope is that this will strengthen the majority of republicans leaders who know that the president is nuts to be more willing to stand up to him on things like getting in a trade war, praise brutal dictators, adding a 6th branch of the military that not even his sec of def wants, his praise of neo-nazi's etc,  Because the reality is what stopped Trump wasn't him coming to his senses or the democrats, but the opposition from his own party.  

He doesn't have a show.  Criticism of Rosanne ceased when the show got canceled. 

hahahaha no it didn't. Her show got cancelled the following day ... less than 24 hours after her tweet.  Must be nice to live in a revisionist world. Makes it convenient to believe what you want.

Good news, everyone!  The Democrat Party finally caved and passed a bill changing the law that was forcing Trump (and the presidents before him) to put immigrant toddlers in child detention camps as a deterrent to their parents.

...oh, wait, Congress didn't actually have to do anything to end this policy of choice and the Trump Administration was lying this whole time?  Unpossible, I say!

Even though the government is no longer snatching toddlers from the arms of their parents, I bet this is STILL not enough to satisfy the libs.  We're probably still going to hear them crying over a couple thousand kids that remain in cages, even though the government agreed not to add any more!  Snowflakes, the lot of them.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgGB7fYUcAElDRl.jpg:small)

False.  There is no part of currently existing law that mandates that immigrant children must be separated from their parents for the prosecution of a misdemeanor crime (which makes sense, since both parent and child would be allegedly committing the same crime); in fact, there is no requirement that even the parents be held in custody for a misdemeanor offense in the first place.  This was a choice by the Trump Administration, and Jeff Sessions said it was specifically to deter immigration.

I wouldn't hold your breath on this actually ending the separation of children from their parents, though.  There is an existing consent decree that says that immigrant children may not be held in detention for longer than 20 days, so after 20 days the government is required to release the children from custody.  Three guesses as to what happens to the families then.

In other words, Trump's "solution" to this problem appears to be cleverly engineered to create an excuse for him to keep the toddler concentration camps detention centers open as the issue winds its way through the courts.

So basically what you're saying is that open borders are OK with you. Just let people come here and stay regardless of anything else, just as long as they say that they want asylum. Please enlighten everyone on what you guys really want. Because to me it seems to change depending on whether a R or D is in the White House.

Provided that their application for asylum is accepted, yes, that is what the law directs.  You are a big fan of following the law elsewhere, so I'd think you should be in favor of this.

I find it bizarre that the "limited government" crowd seems to believe that in the case of illegal immigration - a federal misdemeanor, not unlike depicting Smokey The Bear without official authorization - suspects should be treated like violent felons and treated as harshly as possible.  If you think illegal immigration should be changed to some sort of superfelony, then you should advocate for the law to be changed to reflect that.  But the current law (in a nation of immigrants) treats backdoor immigration from people who just want to live here peacefully and make a life for themselves as a minor offense, not the dire threat to the republic that you consider it.

So you're saying you're OK with open borders? Yes, no, flim flam doublespeak? You call arresting and deporting people being treated as harshly as possible? You're a silly little fella.

What about all the people already here illegally right now that have been living here for a long time in sanctuary cities. It seems in those cases you would be OK with rounding them up and catapulting their asses back over the border. What say you Sargent Spin?

Are you asking me what I would like our immigration laws to be?  I'm happy to explain, but you usually respond with something like, "tough cookies libs, that's not what the law says."

As for what I think should be done about the millions of misdemeanor offenders in this country now: I don't think we should move existing law enforcement off of pursuing felonies to apprehend low-level criminals, nor do I think we should spend huge sums of money hiring an enormous force to break down doors for minor offenses.  So if that means there are undocumented immigrants in this country that remain at large, I guess that's what you get if you don't want to live in a police state where people are being hunted down for misdemeanors.  cost of freedom, etc.

But maybe you disagree.  How should we go about creating an enforcement squad to go door-to-door snatching people put of their homes?  Are there any other misdemeanors that merit such a squad, or is this crime special?

To me laws are laws. You seem to make a distinction between misdemeanors and felonies. Are you suggesting the misdemeanors don't matter? If so, should we just wipe all misdemeanors off the books? I mean if we're not going to enforce them, what's the point of having them?

I assume you feel the same way about someone who does 56 mph in a 55 zone.  Guy deserves a ticket why have a law you don't enforce.

That doesn't answer the question does it? So are you saying that misdemeanors don't matter?



And actually, I do feel the same way, the guy does deserve a ticket.

We have a distinction between different types of crimes for a reason.  If "laws are laws," should every crime have the same penalty?

The lengths you are willing to go to in order to justify this are amazing.  "Laws are laws"... except, apparently, the laws that describe how asylum works.

Are we arguing semantics on misdemeanors? I don't think it's the levity of the crime that's the issue, it's because of the tax  dollars used for government assistance towards people that don't contribute to our society because they are illegally here. Correct me if I'm wrong but illegal aliens don't pay taxes.

We're not talking about asylum right now. You must have a short memory.


Again, stay on point. We're talking about people illegally entering this country and using up our resources. So again I'll ask, do you think misdemeanors don't matter and we shouldn't enforce them? That's a pretty simple yes or no answer.

Then you are corrected. They pay sales tax.

Stickler

I'll add to that and ask if that is really your big issue then why aren't you complaining about born here citizens who live without paying the same taxes? How many laborers are working under the table everyday and using the same resources while giving back just as little?

We are talking about immigration, to which asylum is inseparably relevant.  The people who you are insisting need to be hunted down and thrown out of the country have the legal right to apply for asylum.  So again, "laws are laws" when it's time to kick down doors and snatch people out of their homes, but not when those exact same people want to apply for asylum.  Seems like you believe following the law is optional when convenient.

You seem to love demanding that your questions be answered in exactly the fashion you insist.  I already gave you a paragraph-long answer explaining, in detail, my opinion on what should be done with these undocumented immigrants.  But you want a binary yes/no answer?  Fine.

Do I think misdemeanors don't matter and we shouldn't enforce them?
No.

Of course, your question is formatted in such a clownish fashion that even that simple "no" is incredibly ambiguous.  Do I mean "No, they don't matter," or "No, we shouldn't enforce them,"  or "No, I don't think that"?  Who can tell?  You wanted a "simple yes or no answer," you can't handle detailed responses, so you got your one-word answer and now you can shut up about spin and doublespeak.  Ask a useless question, get a useless answer.

Now that I have answered your question to exactly the parameters you set, my turn:

You said, "To me laws are laws." The process of applying for asylum is codified in law.  Should we follow the law as it pertains to immigrants applying for asylum?

Not only that, but illegal immigrants pay all sorts of other taxes.  Bridge tolls are taxes.  Driver license fees are taxes.  Car registration fees are taxes.  There are taxes on phone lines and electric bills.  If your water, sewer, or garbage are billed to you by your local government, those are all taxes.  If you own property, you pay property taxes.

But most importantly: illegal immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal taxes each year (https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes).  They pay both income taxes and payroll taxes, and the latter is particularly ironic: undocumented immigrants pay billions every year into Social Security and Medicare, even though they are ineligible to withdraw from those programs.  It is literally the opposite of taking government assistance without contributing.

I do have an issue with that too.

I believe something from Vox or HuffPo as much as Fox News from the other side, so bad example.  For arguments sake, let's say illegals do pay 10 billion in taxes annually. How much is spent on them? If you believe Trump, it's $113 billion. Another source says $85 billion and I've seen as low as $45 billion. It depends on what the agenda is from the source (got that straight from politifacts which leans left) , but the lowest of these amounts is still 4.5x the amount they're putting in. This sort of stuff happens all the time, criteria is changed to fit an agenda, so it's not out right lying. 

Yeah, I'm not particularly receptive to "fake news!" as a response to citing data, especially when accompanied with rebuttal "figures" that are best categorized as, "well some people say illegal immigrants are actually using eleventy trillion dollars per year" silliness.

If you want to believe that illegal immigrants are flooding into this country to get free Obamacare abortions (before casting fraudulent votes?), that's on you.  I can't possibly rebut all of the sources that reject official government data because it's incompatible with their worldview.

So lets talk about common sense solutions that will work and are humane..... 

Quick way to reduce undocumented workers from working under the table. 

Issue them a green card on the stipulation that they may remain in the country as long as they remain legally employed and file a tax form annually, if they get caught working under the table or fail to file a 1040 they will be deported.   

Hoodie, that misses the point.  I mean, if the problem is really immigrant budget impact, what does that have to do with legal status?  Legal immigrants can just as easily be a net drain on the system; more easily, in fact, because they qualify for services (e.g. Social Security) that illegal immigrants do not.

It's all a shell game. They start at the goal - get rid of all these people from "shithole countries" - and then work backward to justify it.

That's fine, I'm not receptive at all to anything you put forward.  It's so far left you're coming up behind me, and you choose the most minute details to argue.  You like to put words in people's mouths and attack, that's your debate strategy for everything. You use bias news articles all the time, and your argument is "fake news"?  I can't help your silliness to use only obvious leaning sources as your stance.  I mentioned Fox News as well, but that didn't fit your "fake news" narrative so you completely omit it.  They're bias too and I wouldn't believe much from them either.  You're naive as hell if you think anything coming from Vox, HuffPo, Fox News or CNN is the end all be all for news.

There are stats to back up everything I put forward, and the reason it varies is because of the variety of sources, not just one or two.  Those different sources use different criteria, which was another point I put forward that you conveniently ignored.  

Even though you like to just take your "fake news" ball and go home, I'll play along.  Quote from your Vox article...

The best estimates come from research by the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, a Washington, DC, think tank, which suggests that about half of undocumented workers in the United States file income tax returns. The most recent IRS data, from 2015, shows that the agency received 4.4 million income tax returns from workers who don’t have Social Security numbers, which includes a large number of undocumented immigrants. That year, they paid $23.6 billion in income taxes.

First off, who is Vox to say where the best estimate of anything is?  Secondly, the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy is a non-profit think tank, not official government data like you stated.  If you research them, they have a left-center bias and are high on factual correctness.

Why are you so eager to eat whatever they feed you and not question EVERY source, including the ones you like?  Seems your doing yourself an injustice.

So who, in your opinion, is NOT a "biased news source"?  Saying that Fox News and CNN are two sides of the same coin is just more of the absurd "both sides" false equivalency that has led to where we are today.  CNN hired Trump's former campaign manager!

I'm glad to see that you looked at the Vox article, but you may want to look again more closely:

The most recent IRS data, from 2015, shows that the agency received 4.4 million income tax returns from workers who don’t have Social Security numbers, which includes a large number of undocumented immigrants. That year, they paid $23.6 billion in income taxes.

A portion of the payroll tax withheld from undocumented immigrants — like all workers — goes to the retirement trust fund at the Social Security Administration. In 2013, the agency reviewed how much money undocumented workers contributed the retirement trust fund. The number was astonishing: $13 billion in one year.

But really, does this even matter? Like I already said, whether immigrants are a drain on the deficit really has little to do with their legality.  Furthermore, if we could change the regulations to make illegal immigrants budget positive, would it even change your mind?  I mean, yesterday you thought they didn't pay any taxes at all, today it's clear that they pay several billion in taxes, and your position seems unaffected.

In my opinion, there really isn't a non bias news source.  PBS Newshour is close, but also not the only source.  I look at CNN, FoxNews, HuffPo, Breitbart, Vox, Newsmax, I never get all my news from one place.  I try to find the same thing being reported by other sources and their spin on it.  I'll get CNN's stance vs Fox's stance and come up with my own conclusions. 

As far as the Vox article, I did read it closely.  IRS data being reported by a non government entity.  I can reject government data when it is being reported by a non government entity, as data can be misrepresented, especially by a source with documented bias a certain way.  The term confirmation bias comes to mind.  Having said that, ITEP seems mostly on the up and up.

If we could change the regulations to make illegal immigrants budget positive or even just break even, it would change my mind.  Yesterday I did think they didn't pay any taxes at all, sans sales tax which was thrown in my face.  Figured that one was common knowledge, but whatever.  I learned that they might pay upward to 10 billion a year taxes.  That doesn't mean a hill of beans when on the LOW end, the rest of us are paying 45 billion (It's likely a lot higher than that) for illegal assistance a year.  That's like throwing a match in a bonfire.

Also, less than half of illegal immigrants (40%) pay taxes, where as U.S. citizens are in the 60% range.

Two things to consider when doing both your camparisons:

1 you are camparing the amount of federal income taxes paid to the total expenditures of both federal and state government. Undocumented workers also pay state taxes.

2. It should come as no surprise that a lower percentage of undocumented workers pay taxes than the general population given how many of them live in poverty and make less than the threshold to pay taxes.

I'm not sure how to square this with your immediate dismissal of a link to Vox as fake news.  I never claimed that that was the only valid article on immigrant taxes, but it is a valid one.

This also does not make sense (without even involving ITEP).  If you believe that Vox is falsifying the government-provided statistics they are citing, then you should say so and present your evidence.  But simply saying "that's biased" and summarily dismissing it does not advance the discussion.

And while we're on the subject, saying, "some people say illegal immigrants cost us $113B, while some say it's $85B and others say it's $45B... therefore the low end of what illegal immigrants cost is $45B" is silly.  That IS fake news.  Provide a source for this $45B claim.  Just because it's the lowest of the three unsupported numbers you typed doesn't make it the actual existing floor.

Approximately 100% of adults in the U.S. - citizen or immigrant, legal or illegal - pay taxes.  What you mean to say is "federal income taxes," and repeating that oft-used Republican lie is a bad idea for many reasons... not least of which is that the poor and middle class pay much more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income taxes.  Paying zero federal income tax does not somehow invalidate their payroll taxes, or any of the myriad other taxes they pay.

Fake news was your term, not mine.  I said I research where the source is coming from, and if the source is known for bias I question it further because I'm not a sheep that believes everything I read on the internet.  You presented a liberal column from a liberal website that got data from ITEP which leans left.  The only other article I could find was the same thing by HuffPo, also leans left.

You're not realizing, NOTHING is on the up and up completely.  Nothing is completely factual, everything has a spin on it.  You or me have to decide if the bias is more than the data being presented, if criteria is being added or omitted to fit a narrative.  You seem to accept this sort of stuff from left leaning sites very easily and adamantly deny facts presented from the right.  I've said the same thing to people on the right, because in my opinion, everyone has lost their damn minds in this day and age and believe almost anything as long as it agrees with their political affiliation.

About Vox, it has a history of leaning left, that's where the bias comes from.  When I go on their website today, there is an article titled "Bullshit jobs: why they exist and why you might have one" (unprofessional if you want to be legit news) and "Sarah Sanders is upset because a restaurant wouldn’t serve her. She’s okay with it happening to gays." (bias opinion piece).  Why would I think anything they put out isn't bias?  Where is their credibility?

You want sources for my argument on government spending for illegal immigrants?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+much+does+the+U.S.+spend+on+illegal+immigration%3F (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+much+does+the+U.S.+spend+on+illegal+immigration%3F)

I won't include the stats from FAIR.  Obvious hard right bias, even if it is the number one search result.

I got most of my argument from politifacts, a known LIBERAL leaning website.  Is it still "fake news" (again your words not mine...I try not to use political buzzwords as they make me nauseous)?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/23/donald-trump/does-immigration-policy-impose-300-billion-annuall/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/23/donald-trump/does-immigration-policy-impose-300-billion-annuall/)

The White House claimed that "current immigration policy imposes as much as $300 billion annually in net fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers."

A study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine analyzed the fiscal impact of immigration under different scenarios. Under some assumptions, the fiscal burden was $279 billion, but $43 billion in other scenarios.


Are you really going that route regarding type of taxes?  Yes, I was mainly talking income taxes.  If you buy anything in the U.S., you're going to pay sales tax.  That means tourists also pay sales tax.  Payroll tax?  The illegals that pay their federal income taxes might pay that, but if they aren't on the payroll and are paid under the table, there aren't payroll taxes for them.  Since being an illegal immigrant is ILLEGAL, a ton of them are paid under the table, not in any payroll system.  Misdemeanor or not, it's easier for a business owner to pay under the table than deal with legal ramifications, thus resulting in no payroll taxes for the employee.  Florida is one of the big 3 cities for illegal immigration, no state tax there.

I've spent far too much time on this post.  I don't enjoy arguing politics to this extent, so I'm done after this one.  I've got a job to do and enjoy my free time doing more productive things.  Feel free to keep the discussion going though.

Hahaha, yes there comes a point to stop arguing with these people. It's just one big continuous circle jerk of a black hole that never ends. Round and round they go, LMAO.