• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Trump: Democrats Using Immigrants as ‘Political Pawns’

ThatNewsGuy said:
Since you started the debate, you prove that there were no Illegals voting. That is how debates work. I showed you where your satanic ex-president told them to, you prove that they didn't
Click to expand...

No you did not show that at all.

You showed fox propagandists spinning something be said, but no video of Obama actually saying anything.

And the question mark at the end of the title is there to avoid slander/libel actions.
 
Mr Person said:
When there's nothing left one can say to defend, say both sides.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Holding families hostage for wall funding votes is not the same thing as saying "Look at what these guys are doing to families to extort wall funding votes!"
 
What if...? said:
Yeah. Holding families hostage for wall funding votes is not the same thing as saying "Look at what these guys are doing to families to extort wall funding votes!"
Click to expand...

I actually just responded to someone in another thread who mashed up quotes (unsourced, of course) they attributed to a category of person they called "anti-Trumper", mocked the supposedly contradictory nature of these different things said by different unidentified persons, and THEN used it to claim that actually, this all shows that "anti-Trumper's" have a nefarious intent to use the children to stop Trump's overall immigration policy...

..nevermind that this separation policy never had to be a thing because it is not required by law, an in fact both violates the Flores agreement AND a court order aimed at Obama telling him to release the families he had detained.



So yeah. Either you get the "both sides" swill, or you get someone just trying to blame "anti-Trumper's".
 
Superfly said:
An anti-Obama article from Fox News?

:lol:

Say it isn't so.

Your dumb ass president said that if the Democrats will agree to build the wall, he will stop all this nonsense.

So who is using these kids as political pawns?
Click to expand...

I thought Trump just stopped the "nonsense", and the usual Democrat suspects came pouring out of the woodwork wanting more. I say **** the Democrats at this point, you ARE using the illegals as pawns, and just proved it. Probably why Trump signed that damn EO in the first place, to see how the Democrats would become hypocrites in 5 seconds.
 
American said:
I thought Trump just stopped the "nonsense", and the usual Democrat suspects came pouring out of the woodwork wanting more. I say **** the Democrats at this point, you ARE using the illegals as pawns, and just proved it. Probably why Trump signed that damn EO in the first place, to see how the Democrats would become hypocrites in 5 seconds.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct American! They fell into his trap again.


President Trump put this film montage together showing the extreme hypocrisy on the left. It is actually pretty funny considering.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3210...&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand
 
Mr Person said:
..nevermind that this separation policy never had to be a thing because it is not required by law, an in fact both violates the Flores agreement AND a court order aimed at Obama telling him to release the families he had detained.
Click to expand...

Not families he detained, but minor kids of said families that he detained. Not sure if you knew, but Obama ignored that court order.
 
Mr Person said:
I actually just responded to someone in another thread who mashed up quotes (unsourced, of course) they attributed to a category of person they called "anti-Trumper", mocked the supposedly contradictory nature of these different things said by different unidentified persons, and THEN used it to claim that actually, this all shows that "anti-Trumper's" have a nefarious intent to use the children to stop Trump's overall immigration policy...

..nevermind that this separation policy never had to be a thing because it is not required by law, an in fact both violates the Flores agreement AND a court order aimed at Obama telling him to release the families he had detained.



So yeah. Either you get the "both sides" swill, or you get someone just trying to blame "anti-Trumper's".
Click to expand...

This is what happens when highly motivated and funded people map human stimulous and response patterns and cognitive glitches for a hundred years.

The ability to effectively condition human beings like Pavlov conditioned dogs.

It is ubiquitous in our society. We are constantly bombarded any time we interact with media.

The persuasion industries are directly responsible for the current divide in this country. Full stop.
 
JasperL said:
How else can we explain Hillary getting more votes than her getting more votes? She got more votes. That's an easy question!!

And if you think millions of illegals voted, you should be able to point to the evidence by now. So point. Let's see it.
Click to expand...

There was an effort to find out but the blue states and some others refused to go along. Same-o with the demand that illegal aliens not be counted as illegal aliens in the census.

Why? I can guess they would rather not address the issue. I too, would like to be able to find out once and for all what the percentage of illegal votes are.
 
ThatNewsGuy said:
Since you started the debate, you prove that there were no Illegals voting. That is how debates work. I showed you where your satanic ex-president told them to, you prove that they didn't
Click to expand...

You made the claim, meaning You have to produce the factual evidence, that,Sir, is how debate works. You still waiting for the results of Trump's investigation? ROTFLMAO, ..... Rubes once they believe s Lie they always believe the Lie......
 
chuckiechan said:
There was an effort to find out but the blue states and some others refused to go along. Same-o with the demand that illegal aliens not be counted as illegal aliens in the census.

Why? I can guess they would rather not address the issue. I too, would like to be able to find out once and for all what the percentage of illegal votes are.
Click to expand...

Lie, Red and Blue States told them to take a hike, they wanted more information than was warranted. Had the Donald wanted to persue it he could have, but he did enough to keep his fan base in their normal state if confusion, so mission accomplished.
 
chuckiechan said:
There was an effort to find out but the blue states and some others refused to go along. Same-o with the demand that illegal aliens not be counted as illegal aliens in the census.

Why? I can guess they would rather not address the issue. I too, would like to be able to find out once and for all what the percentage of illegal votes are.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is there is no evidence the percentage of 'illegals' voting rises above the trivial. Zero. None. Nada. Nothing. Voting lists are public - you can find out right now all the voters in CA if you want, and the GOP has those records right now - and yet no one on the right has established any widespread voter fraud by non-citizens. Trump has available to his people records of citizenship and can get voters from every state. Still no evidence of widespread fraud, much less "millions."

The census issue is separate from voting. I have thoughts on that but not on this thread.
 
American said:
I thought Trump just stopped the "nonsense", and the usual Democrat suspects came pouring out of the woodwork wanting more. I say **** the Democrats at this point, you ARE using the illegals as pawns, and just proved it. Probably why Trump signed that damn EO in the first place, to see how the Democrats would become hypocrites in 5 seconds.
Click to expand...

If you thought that, you were wrong. He issued an EO that doesn't really answer anything, much less correct the past wrongs or give anyone any idea how it will be implemented in practice. If he continues with his zero-tolerance policy, we likely don't have the resources to house families together, and building out those facilities will take months or years. Etc.

Democrats to the extent they're not accepting the EO as a 'solution' are merely recognizing the reality of what it did and more importantly DID NOT DO.
 
Casper said:
Lie, Red and Blue States told them to take a hike, they wanted more information than was warranted. Had the Donald wanted to persue it he could have, but he did enough to keep his fan base in their normal state if confusion, so mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness opposition to the fraud of an Election Commission headed by con man and serial liar Kobach was dismissed as a fraud nearly across the board by states. I have to give many red states credit for that. Pleasant surprise.
 
JasperL said:
Right, both sides, because having a genuine position on a topic like this isn't possible. Just politics.
Click to expand...

WTH are you talking about? Are you saying it's only one side that does it?
 
Mr Person said:
When there's nothing left one can say to defend, say both sides.
Click to expand...

Why would I defend it? Show me where I ever defended using immigrants as pawns. You can't, so STFU.
 
holbritter said:
WTH are you talking about? Are you saying it's only one side that does it?
Click to expand...

No, I just don't think "both sides" arguments say anything really. Saying it is a non-point, a comment in lieu of actual argument. Or choosing "both sides" is taking no side at all.

Lots of people, including lots of Republicans, clearly believe it's an immoral policy to deliberately separate infants and toddlers from their parents, lie to the parents they're taking the kids to get cleaned up, then whisk them away, etc. But when you claim "both sides!!" you're trivializing the differences as nothing more than politics. I don't think that's really EVER true, and it's especially weak in a case like this.

Said another way, politicians and their allies take political positions, and try to use their positions to advance their interests, in either that issue or others. Well, that's like saying water is wet. So what's gained by saying "both sides" of a political issue politicize a political issue? It's like noting water is wet. In this case there is also an obvious moral and ethical and human decency issue, and if you're a thinking person, you should have an opinion on it. If you support separating families, including toddlers, it ought to be because doing so will somehow lead to a greater good and ripping families apart is somehow worth that good. Well, if you believe it, say why.
 
holbritter said:
Why would I defend it? Show me where I ever defended using immigrants as pawns. You can't, so STFU.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's concede Democrats and lots of Republicans opposed to a policy of deliberate family separation are using the children as pawns. Why do you (or why should we) care if that policy is also the moral and ethical one, and a policy of stripping toddlers from their mothers is in your view immoral and an affront to human decency?

Point is the two competing positions aren't equivalent, and "both sides" is effectively arguing they are because it's a deliberate taking of no side.
 
JasperL said:
No, I just don't think "both sides" arguments say anything really. Saying it is a non-point, a comment in lieu of actual argument. Or choosing "both sides" is taking no side at all.

Lots of people, including lots of Republicans, clearly believe it's an immoral policy to deliberately separate infants and toddlers from their parents, lie to the parents they're taking the kids to get cleaned up, then whisk them away, etc. But when you claim "both sides!!" you're trivializing the differences as nothing more than politics. I don't think that's really EVER true, and it's especially weak in a case like this.

Said another way, politicians and their allies take political positions, and try to use their positions to advance their interests, in either that issue or others. Well, that's like saying water is wet. So what's gained by saying "both sides" of a political issue politicize a political issue? It's like noting water is wet. In this case there is also an obvious moral and ethical and human decency issue, and if you're a thinking person, you should have an opinion on it. If you support separating families, including toddlers, it ought to be because doing so will somehow lead to a greater good and ripping families apart is somehow worth that good. Well, if you believe it, say why.
Click to expand...

You're reading way more into it than intended.

I replied to another poster who was commenting on someone who posted a photo of immigrant children in cages that was taken under Obama. The poster said: Your dumb ass president said that if the Democrats will agree to build the wall, he will stop all this nonsense.

So who is using these kids as political pawns?




Obviously both sides do, and it's disgusting. That's all it meant. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
holbritter said:
You're reading way more into it than intended.

I replied to another poster who was commenting on someone who posted a photo of immigrant children in cages that was taken under Obama. The poster said: Your dumb ass president said that if the Democrats will agree to build the wall, he will stop all this nonsense.

So who is using these kids as political pawns?

Obviously both sides do, and it's disgusting. That's all it meant. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Using kids as political pawns by deliberately separating from their mothers is not in fact equivalent to using them as political pawns by trying to prevent that from happening, or objecting to that policy. "Both sides" treats those positions as equivalent, and they are not. The latter policy is IMO not in fact "disgusting."
 
Superfly said:
An anti-Obama article from Fox News?

:lol:

Say it isn't so.

Your dumb ass president said that if the Democrats will agree to build the wall, he will stop all this nonsense.

So who is using these kids as political pawns?
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
When there's nothing left one can say to defend, say both sides.
Click to expand...

holbritter said:
Both sides do, and it is disgusting.
Click to expand...

holbritter said:
Why would I defend it? Show me where I ever defended using immigrants as pawns. You can't, so STFU.
Click to expand...

Look at the post I replied to.

A common pattern on this board is that when one cannot defend a policy of an individual or platform they usually defend, they revert to claiming that "both sides do it". When this happens, they also do not bother to make an argument as for what the exact equivalence they are drawing is. They just say "both sides do it". At least that way, they get to say something negative about their perceived "other side".

That is what you did. Does that help?






PS:

No, Democrats did not unnecessarily create a policy of separating and separately incarcerating children and their asylum-seeking parents to create a bargaining chip with Republicans on an issue they weren't making the headway they wanted on. That's what TRUMP did. And contrary to Trump and RW media lies, there is no law requiring him to do it. (In fact, a court of law ordered Obama to release families he had detained together as violating the Flores agreement).

So no, both sides do not do "it".

No doubt you'll spit out something completely different, pretend its the same anyway, and act all aggrieved. Whatever. Not interested. Your post was BS.
 
Mr Person said:
Look at the post I replied to.

A common pattern on this board is that when one cannot defend a policy of an individual or platform they usually defend, they revert to claiming that "both sides do it". When this happens, they also do not bother to make an argument as for what the exact equivalence they are drawing is. They just say "both sides do it". At least that way, they get to say something negative about their perceived "other side".

That is what you did. Does that help?






PS:

No, Democrats did not unnecessarily create a policy of separating and separately incarcerating children and their asylum-seeking parents to create a bargaining chip with Republicans on an issue they weren't making the headway they wanted on. That's what TRUMP did. And contrary to Trump and RW media lies, there is no law requiring him to do it. (In fact, a court of law ordered Obama to release families he had detained together as violating the Flores agreement).

So no, both sides do not do "it".

No doubt you'll spit out something completely different, pretend its the same anyway, and act all aggrieved. Whatever. Not interested. Your post was BS.
Click to expand...

Did you even notice what I was responding to? I don't think so. Your conclusion is incorrect.
 
holbritter said:
Did you even notice what I was responding to? I don't think so. Your conclusion is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Which is why you still haven't even tried to suggest one thing you think is the same as unnecessarily creating a policy of separating and separately incarcerating children and their asylum-seeking parents to create a bargaining chip with Republicans on an issue Trump wasn't making the headway he wanted on?

Uhuh.

We both know what you were up to with the "both sides do it" routine.




The only credit I can give you is that you haven't tried to pretend that a Democrat pointing to the tragedy that happened to a child is "the same" as Trump deliberately traumatizing children to get a political advantage. That would be even worse than the "both sides do it" thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom