It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Idiotic Democrat argument

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I keep hearing this argument from leftists and it is one of the most asinine arguments I've ever heard.

It goes something like this. There is no crisis at the border, crime and illegal immigration is down from a few years ago.

How stupid do you have to be to make this argument? This argument is akin to saying "My house is flooded 4 feet deep, but it's not an emergency because six years ago it flooded 6 feet deep".

How can someone be so idiotic as to make that argument.

Just because everyone has been willing to wade through the 6 feet of water in the past and ignore that it is a crisis does NOT mean that the 4 feet of flooding now is NOT STILL a CRISIS....

Jaden
__________________








American's dumbest meme.




posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

I didn't say it negates it.
I said a wall wouldn't so much to stop the majority of the issue.

So what should be done about the majority of the problem?

Everyone just glosses over that


"Everyone" I know has been pretty clear on what the problems are, and what the proposed solutions are. I have yet to see one person make the claim that the border barriers would do anything about overstayed VISAs, or drugs coming through legal ports of entry. If you can find those posts, link them, but to use that as your talking point, well, I believe it's called a strawman.

What the Border barrier was meant to do is curtail some of the crossings that take place where no barriers currently exist. And , again, correct me if I am wrong here, but I have yet to see anyone make the claim that a barrier would be 100% to stop the crossings, but it would put a damper on some of the crossings. Toting a 30' ladder miles through the desert along with the kids and drugs you plan to sell just seems like a lot of work.

So please, in the future, when you want to argue, please do so using real talking points, so you don't look like "that guy".



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

That's my issue
None of you seem to care much about the visa overstays and drugs at the ports.

You're all focused on the drugs and disease at the border cause daddy trump told you to.

It's all good man.
I don't agree with most of you and likely will not change my mind.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

I am telling you that welfare is a failure of government. It would not matter how many people want to come here if the feds were not handing out money to them.

The way to control and fix government failure is not through the demonization of people or by building walls.

Fix the welfare fix the schools fix the healthcare.

If someone wants to come here and they know they will not get a handout then no one will really care and the desire for so many will cease.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If the border cities don't think it's a crisis, why should I?

Hell, those cities rely on illegal immigrants on an economic level. Those cities have already spoken out against the current actions of adding more razor wire.

The city of Laredo Texas has successfully forced the removal of razor wire that was just installed. The city of El Paso, Texas has done the same and railed against trump's proposed wall expansion.

Ranchers on the border rely on illegal immigrants, so even own ranches large enough that their property is on both sides of the border. They don't want a wall cutting them off from their land.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

That's my issue
None of you seem to care much about the visa overstays and drugs at the ports.

You're all focused on the drugs and disease at the border cause daddy trump told you to.

It's all good man.
I don't agree with most of you and likely will not change my mind.


I know, I rarely agree with you either. I just understand that there are different issues, and the wall deals with one of them. Cracking down on visas and increasing the protection at the border crossings would help, but then more funding would be needed, and as long as it's Trump who is asking, I think we all know the answer to that.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
If the border cities don't think it's a crisis, why should I?

Hell, those cities rely on illegal immigrants on an economic level. Those cities have already spoken out against the current actions of adding more razor wire.

The city of Laredo Texas has successfully forced the removal of razor wire that was just installed. The city of El Paso, Texas has done the same and railed against trump's proposed wall expansion.

Ranchers on the border rely on illegal immigrants, so even own ranches large enough that their property is on both sides of the border. They don't want a wall cutting them off from their land.


Perhaps criminalizing those who would profit from the illegals is the way to go. Cheap labor was nice for the south back in slave days too, but if it was wrong then, why is it cool now? Different shade of brown?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
This stuff is not hard to figure out. Their tactics are right out of a book called Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.

All one has to do is read that book and they can understand exactly what their tactics are. They can also see that that book has incredible lots justica holes in it that make it actually impossible to com0letely pull off. However, the kind of people that sort of thinking attracts aren't capable of seeing logic, so there's the paradox.

And for those who really want to get deep into this, there's even a book now called Rules for Radicals defeated that you can get on Amazon or whatever, that explains exactly how to counter rhetoric like this.

Trump so far has proven to be a master of defeating Alinsky tactics. One can say he's a horrible president all they like but even still, there's no denying that he #ISyourPresident 🏁
edit on 15-2-2019 by gernblan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

And since both apparently can't be funded why not put the money into where the majority of the problem is?

Cause it's not what trump says



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

And since both apparently can't be funded why not put the money into where the majority of the problem is?

Cause it's not what trump says


You keep seeing things one way, by securing our border it would then make it easier to clean up the problems in the states.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Muninn



Like turning off the water to fix a sink.

Can't do snip without the water turned off.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

An intelligent person would read that and think, "He could take his time and build the wall slowly without declaring an emergency, but since this is an emergency he will get it done as soon as possible."

A democrat would read that and think.... never mind. That won't happen.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Sookiechacha

An intelligent person would read that and think, "He could take his time and build the wall slowly without declaring an emergency, but since this is an emergency he will get it done as soon as possible."

A democrat would read that and think.... never mind. That won't happen.


On the contrary, it takes a critical lack to parse his message that way.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

That's my issue
None of you seem to care much about the visa overstays and drugs at the ports.

You're all focused on the drugs and disease at the border cause daddy trump told you to.

It's all good man.
I don't agree with most of you and likely will not change my mind.


I won't speak for anyone else, but I do care about visa overstays and drugs at the ports. But an unsecured border is of much greater concern to me than legal POE's. Visa overstays are slightly less of an issue since there was some vetting done just to acquire the visa in the first place. That alone does not guarantee that the person isn't a criminal or terrorist or the like, but at least its a level of vetting better than the guy who just jumped the border and disappeared in Anytown, USA.

You start with the biggest problem and work your way down. You direct your resources where they will do the most good. That is just common sense. The biggest problem is an unsecured border.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

That's my issue
None of you seem to care much about the visa overstays and drugs at the ports.

You're all focused on the drugs and disease at the border cause daddy trump told you to.

It's all good man.
I don't agree with most of you and likely will not change my mind.


The biggest problem is an unsecured border.


Except the data doesn't support that, merely the President's ramblings.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Sookiechacha

An intelligent person would read that and think, "He could take his time and build the wall slowly without declaring an emergency, but since this is an emergency he will get it done as soon as possible."

A democrat would read that and think.... never mind. That won't happen.


On the contrary, it takes a critical lack to parse his message that way.


Only if you have an agenda to maintain. What he is saying is perfectly clear. "I could do it the slow way and not declare an emergency. But we need to get it done now, so, emergency it is."



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

That's my issue
None of you seem to care much about the visa overstays and drugs at the ports.

You're all focused on the drugs and disease at the border cause daddy trump told you to.

It's all good man.
I don't agree with most of you and likely will not change my mind.


The biggest problem is an unsecured border.


Except the data doesn't support that, merely the President's ramblings.


I guess that depends on what you call data and what you consider important.

I consider more than 50,000 illegals caught per month for three months in a row pretty important. That kind of shoots that bs 11 million total illegals number out of the water. IF you are willing to admit it. Honestly, over 150,000 in just three months yet the so-called studies say there are only 11 million illegals total in this country after decades of open borders. And lets not forget about chain migration. These numbers are just the initial arrests. They do not count the ones that slipped through or the chain migration afterward. And these three months in question are in the middle of 2018, years after the democrats insisted the rate of illegal immigration dropped off significantly.

50,000 per month



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Sookiechacha

An intelligent person would read that and think, "He could take his time and build the wall slowly without declaring an emergency, but since this is an emergency he will get it done as soon as possible."

A democrat would read that and think.... never mind. That won't happen.


On the contrary, it takes a critical lack to parse his message that way.


Only if you have an agenda to maintain. What he is saying is perfectly clear. "I could do it the slow way and not declare an emergency. But we need to get it done now, so, emergency it is."


It has nothing to do with agenda's. There is a clear way to get your message across, and a very unclear way. To argue that the unclear way is the one we should really be focusing on as his actual message belies the point that he can't communicate clearly and efficiently to begin with.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

That's my issue
None of you seem to care much about the visa overstays and drugs at the ports.

You're all focused on the drugs and disease at the border cause daddy trump told you to.

It's all good man.
I don't agree with most of you and likely will not change my mind.


The biggest problem is an unsecured border.


Except the data doesn't support that, merely the President's ramblings.


I guess that depends on what you call data and what you consider important.

I consider more than 50,000 illegals caught per month for three months in a row pretty important. That kind of shoots that bs 11 million total illegals number out of the water. IF you are willing to admit it. Honestly, over 150,000 in just three months yet the so-called studies say there are only 11 million illegals total in this country after decades of open borders. And lets not forget about chain migration. These numbers are just the initial arrests. They do not count the ones that slipped through or the chain migration afterward. And these three months in question are in the middle of 2018, years after the democrats insisted the rate of illegal immigration dropped off significantly.

50,000 per month


And now we get to the crux of the argument. If one can say that all previous data is irrelevant and only the data that has come out recently to support one's argument is valid, then it becomes easy to justify whatever you want...



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Sookiechacha

An intelligent person would read that and think, "He could take his time and build the wall slowly without declaring an emergency, but since this is an emergency he will get it done as soon as possible."

A democrat would read that and think.... never mind. That won't happen.


On the contrary, it takes a critical lack to parse his message that way.


Only if you have an agenda to maintain. What he is saying is perfectly clear. "I could do it the slow way and not declare an emergency. But we need to get it done now, so, emergency it is."


It has nothing to do with agenda's. There is a clear way to get your message across, and a very unclear way. To argue that the unclear way is the one we should really be focusing on as his actual message belies the point that he can't communicate clearly and efficiently to begin with.


And I maintain that, personal charm notwithstanding, his message is clear. You choose to interpret the message in a way that is unflattering and contradictory. Whether that is because you believe he could have been more eloquent is irrelevant.




top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join