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: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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.


Except your 'clear message' relies on inference, whereas my interpretation takes what he says at face value.




posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DoubleDNH

He tried to work with the opposition to address the issue. Doing it this way creates problems he didn't want. The dems gave him little other choice.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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.


Except your 'clear message' relies on inference, whereas my interpretation takes what he says at face value.


And there is the monkey in the wrench of your position. If he is communicating his intent in an unclear fashion, as you posit, then inference is necessary to discern the true meaning.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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.


Except your 'clear message' relies on inference, whereas my interpretation takes what he says at face value.


And there is the monkey in the wrench of your position. If he is communicating his intent in an unclear fashion, as you posit, then inference is necessary to discern the true meaning.


I think you've jumped the shark with that argument. You are the one claiming his intent is unclear. I am saying that no inference is needed, that his statement is clear and easy to understand (at face value), and that you are inferring an alternative assessment of it (for whatever reason).



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

To say that most of the drugs come through the ports of entry is simply NOT TRUE. Most of the INTERDICTED drugs come through the ports of entry. That's because we have literally no idea how much drugs are brought through the open borders. That's the whole point. We don't know how many people and how much contraband is brought across the open border. The main reason that they would come across the ports of entry is logistics, it's more difficult to haul large quantities of drugs across open land than across roads; however, it's easier to get away with bringing it across open land than ports of entry.

The only way we will know how and where drugs and people are coming across is to take control of the border and the only way to do that is with a wall.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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.


Except your 'clear message' relies on inference, whereas my interpretation takes what he says at face value.


And there is the monkey in the wrench of your position. If he is communicating his intent in an unclear fashion, as you posit, then inference is necessary to discern the true meaning.


I think you've jumped the shark with that argument. You are the one claiming his intent is unclear. I am saying that no inference is needed, that his statement is clear and easy to understand (at face value), and that you are inferring an alternative assessment of it (for whatever reason).


Except for the fact that his ultimate goal, to build the wall, is clear. He tried to get funding from congress and they refused. He was left with three options. Forget it and drop the subject, which he won't do. Nickel and dime it over several years until it is done - effectively solving nothing until the wall is complete. Or declare an emergency, get the funding, and build it now.

I concede that with no prior knowledge of his intent his message was not as clear as I would like. However, with full knowledge and understanding of his intent, to build the wall as soon as possible, the message is quite clear.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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.


Except your 'clear message' relies on inference, whereas my interpretation takes what he says at face value.


And there is the monkey in the wrench of your position. If he is communicating his intent in an unclear fashion, as you posit, then inference is necessary to discern the true meaning.


I think you've jumped the shark with that argument. You are the one claiming his intent is unclear. I am saying that no inference is needed, that his statement is clear and easy to understand (at face value), and that you are inferring an alternative assessment of it (for whatever reason).


Except for the fact that his ultimate goal, to build the wall, is clear. He tried to get funding from congress and they refused. He was left with three options. Forget it and drop the subject, which he won't do. Nickel and dime it over several years until it is done - effectively solving nothing until the wall is complete. Or declare an emergency, get the funding, and build it now.

I concede that with no prior knowledge of his intent his message was not as clear as I would like. However, with full knowledge and understanding of his intent, to build the wall as soon as possible, the message is quite clear.



Well I appreciate your concession above, and regardless of the outcome I hope you can at least see the risk of using unclear language as was demonstrated in the meme when he's likely looking at legal challenges to his emergency declaration. It could be argued that it would have been wiser to have avoided unclear or confusing language that could be used against him in the aforementioned legal challenge.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

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
__________________


Why has it taken 2 years for him to declare a national emergency? Has it not been an emergency since he took office?


And this is the million dollar question that everyone decides not to see. To see this question and give it some thought would expose their cognitive dissonance.

BECAUSE:

Trump might have started out with good ole punk rock disrupter intentions - however - he was compromised at an early stage. He is a PUPPET. Just like all the presidents before him except for JFK. JFK said no thanks so they "fired him".

Anyways, the reason for the two year delay on doing anything about the wall is simple: Theater. As in WWF style theater.
Trump could have easily gotten the funds to build a wall around the entire country over the last two years - no obstructing. BUT that is not the "real goal". This is all a show. The only reason Trump is firing up "The Wall" now is because he knows it will be almost impossible. BUT IT LOOKS GREAT TO HIS BASE!

And the Opera continues...




If only more people realized this. Great message.

I like this interpretation:



The citizens giving these politician their full and undivided attention, buying into what they are selling/saying and never questioning if there is any real difference between any of the make believe divisions in politics. Just the Q cult, living on MSMs every word. 2+ years now and nothing. But I guess people have to pass the time somehow.

It would be nice if we started working together like our wonderful politicians do when killing our constitution and liberties.

Maybe if we joined together like they do, we could accomplish something to regain our freedoms.




posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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...


I am not saying it is irrelevant at all. But I am saying that in light of this information perhaps the older information should be looked at more carefully. Do we assert the three months in question are an aberration or do we allow ourselves to ponder the accuracy of previous data? In absolute truth, no one can say exactly how many illegal border crossings there are at any given time. This 50,000 per month is only the arrests that were made. It is possible this is only a small fraction of the true number of illegals whom entered during those three months. And it is also possible that those 50,000 per month represent the majority of the attempts to enter the country illegally. I admit it is possible, but I find it very hard to say with any confidence at all that we catch the majority of anything entering this country illegally. I believe the percentage we actually catch is relatively small.

So, if democrats are correct, and the numbers from 2018 are a marked decrease from previous years then it is safe to say there are far more illegals here than estimated. And it is noteworthy that the numbers stated in that news story are only representative of one border crossing sector, not the entire border.

Look at it this way. If the number of illegal border crossings averaged roughly 60,000 per month for 15 years - that is the estimated 11 million illegals in the US. No chain migration, no visa overstays, just persons crossing the border illegally. This problem has existed a lot longer than 15 years, and, there is no way in hell we caught 50,000 out of 60,000 illegals trying to enter the country. In other words, this is a serious problem that needs addressed now.


edit on 15-2-2019 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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.


Except your 'clear message' relies on inference, whereas my interpretation takes what he says at face value.


And there is the monkey in the wrench of your position. If he is communicating his intent in an unclear fashion, as you posit, then inference is necessary to discern the true meaning.


I think you've jumped the shark with that argument. You are the one claiming his intent is unclear. I am saying that no inference is needed, that his statement is clear and easy to understand (at face value), and that you are inferring an alternative assessment of it (for whatever reason).


Except for the fact that his ultimate goal, to build the wall, is clear. He tried to get funding from congress and they refused. He was left with three options. Forget it and drop the subject, which he won't do. Nickel and dime it over several years until it is done - effectively solving nothing until the wall is complete. Or declare an emergency, get the funding, and build it now.

I concede that with no prior knowledge of his intent his message was not as clear as I would like. However, with full knowledge and understanding of his intent, to build the wall as soon as possible, the message is quite clear.



Well I appreciate your concession above, and regardless of the outcome I hope you can at least see the risk of using unclear language as was demonstrated in the meme when he's likely looking at legal challenges to his emergency declaration. It could be argued that it would have been wiser to have avoided unclear or confusing language that could be used against him in the aforementioned legal challenge.


I can agree to that. But I believe the challenges were a matter of course regardless of his clarity.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:09 PM
link   

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
__________________


Well they do argue that if we just save one life by banning all automatic weapons, it will be worth it. Not that we have automatic weapons but facts dont get in their way..



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:15 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.


exactly how many illegally cross and get away where there are no barriers?



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

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.


exactly how many illegally cross and get away where there are no barriers?


None. Exactly ZERO people cross where there are no barriers. They cross at points of entry.

Well, so I’m told by moronic libs
edit on 15 2 2019 by Breakthestreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

i think you just like stirring the pot



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

i think you just like stirring the pot



Yes i like pot.



posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

so I just need to ask..how accurate is the data you request, when illegal, "undocumented" individuals are at the root of our present debate?

the data is skewed, inaccurate. entirely based on the lack of legal, documented entry.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Muninn



Like turning off the water to fix a sink.

Can't do snip without the water turned off.


Turn of the water?
You mean by killing off all the people in all the other countries in the world? Cause that would be turning off the water.

Oh you mean "build the wall"? Ohhhhh. Yeah, that's not turning off the water in the slightest.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

It’s just more Liberal denial. The Democrats themselves put up the first parts of the wall and there’s video on YouTube of them saying the EXACT same things as Trump. Only when Trump made President, did they do a 180. Nancy Pelosi and her constituents would rather America suffer, and people die before Trump beating them and embarrassing them any further. All she has to do is deny and the Liberals do what they always do.....just follow her idiot lead like stupid sheep. It’s really that simple.

The claim that the wall won’t work because Mexicans know how to tunnel?

First off, your typical Mexican can’t afford the equipment needed to tunnel, only drug dealers like El Chapo....and they just caught his ass, so dig, climb or fly...your ass will ‘get got’ one day regardless. A wall is a deterrent, not a guarantee. But it’s certainly more effective with a wall, than without one, that’s just common sense. As for funding....Liberals give more to worthless countries who hate our guts on a monthly basis, than the wall costs. Our country spends Trillions on bulls#it every few years, we all know it, and most of the expenditure’s end up in the polit8cians pockets....cut that funding and we have Wall money.

Pelosi wanted to make a deal with Trump, that if he allowed the importation of undocumented children to continue, then they would let him have the State of the Union Address speech. I wonder why Pelosi was so specific? It’s because she, Hillary, Obama, Chuck Schumer and the rest are getting paid for the Child Trafficking and they want to continue getting paid. Even El Chapo himself started calling them out by name to save his ass when he got busted. El Chapo claimed that Pelosi and the others were paying him for the importation of his drugs. He may have been trying to save his ass, but why didn’t he choose the obvious fall guy....Trump? Because, he doesn’t give a s#it about that, he simply wants to name names to save his ass, and when caught....allegiance means nothing. You have to have a Wall as a deterrent, because they don’t bring the children and drugs through the ports of entry....that’s just common sense again.

This is why they’re in such denial and why Pelosi is making these idiotic statements that make no sense.
edit on 16-2-2019 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

What is a crisis is the Chinese pegging the Yuan 6 to 1 against the dollar. This way, a CEO gets 6 Chinese workers for every 1 American or Mexican worker. All the factories in Mexico have closed because of illegal Chinese currency manipulation. This is why so many displaced Mexican workers are pouring into this country looking for hope. Good luck with that.

Every time a bill is put forth addressing the Chinese currency manipulation problem it gets shot down, by you guessed it, Republicans.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Your post is valid and accurate. However...make no mistake. Their idiotic words are lies meant for their LIVESTOCK. They assume the American public are ignorant and can be manipulated by their false words. Granted...the left among us apparently are that dumb. But the rest of us aren't.

Forget what they say...just remember that nothing a leftist says hold truth. They are talking points, lies, untruths, smears, etc.

They are an interesting creature without value nor morals. They spit in the face of those they represent, they are the worst of the racists, the most horrid of the gay community, the potential destruction of the human race and the destroyer of the world. Given the chance. Look at what they wish to impose upon you...how they drool over ruling you...demand you obey or be destroyed by them and their minions.

The left is an evil religion making ISIS look like choir boys. One day, their religion will be outlawed.




top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join