Sign In

Jay

User Group
Administrators
Join date
22-Feb-2003
Last activity
22-Jun-2018
Posts
3876

Post History

Post
#1218714
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

I don’t take you seriously because I don’t believe you really want to die. People who think life isn’t worth living don’t spend their time debating topics that are largely about quality of life.

I find this post terribly irresponsible. What if you’re wrong?

That would be unfortunate. mfm should seek help, but he’s said repeatedly he won’t seek any form of treatment.

I’d like him to stop referencing the meaninglessness of life as if it’s a supporting argument. I’d also like him to stop mapping his feelings about life and death onto everyone else (“Why would anyone want to live longer?”). Whether he really wants to die or not, almost everyone else doesn’t. I won’t indulge that. Suicide has affected me personally several times. I can assure you I take it seriously.

I don’t like being referred to as though I’m not present. If you find me so objectionable then tell me, don’t talk to other people about me like I’m an animal or child.

I was responding to Frink’s post, hence the third person reference. It wasn’t meant as an insult, but problems with perception vs. reality seems to be a recurring theme here.

I’m extending my previous decision not to respond to you regarding that single issue to all your posts from now on. I don’t believe you’re capable of rational discussion and won’t be drawn in further.

Post
#1218706
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

I don’t take you seriously because I don’t believe you really want to die. People who think life isn’t worth living don’t spend their time debating topics that are largely about quality of life.

I find this post terribly irresponsible. What if you’re wrong?

That would be unfortunate. mfm should seek help, but he’s said repeatedly he won’t seek any form of treatment.

I’d like him to stop referencing the meaninglessness of life as if it’s a supporting argument. I’d also like him to stop mapping his feelings about life and death onto everyone else (“Why would anyone want to live longer?”). Whether he really wants to die or not, almost everyone else doesn’t. I won’t indulge that. Suicide has affected me personally several times. I can assure you I take it seriously.

Post
#1218690
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

dahmage said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

I lean right on some issues and left on others. Your inability to weigh nuance is unfortunate, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from modern liberals.

And yet you use “liberal” as akin to an epithet. Not hard to see why people call bullshit, since the only people who do that are on the right (ie. also not the center).

JEDIT: For the record, I am not a liberal. But I really hate it that Rush, Hannity, Fox and whoever the hell else on the right does that.

Any inference on your part regarding “liberal” being an epithet is just that: an inference.

When I criticize liberals, I call them liberals. When I criticize conservatives, I call them conservatives. What would you have me call them? Progressives? Pick whatever term makes you happy.

The fact that the term “liberal” is sensitive goes to show how ridiculous speech policing has gotten.

Maybe you should take our feedback? I agree with chyron’s post

moviefreakedmind said:

Pointing out that someone is using a word incorrectly is not speech policing.

Again I ask: what word would you like me to use?

Post
#1218688
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Laugh more, you’ll live longer.

Why would anyone want to live longer?

This is why I don’t take you or your posts seriously.

I’m sure I’ll lose plenty of sleep over that. For what it’s worth, the reason no one here takes your posts seriously is because you’re unwilling to admit what you actually believe.

Ask me any question about any issue you’d like and I’ll tell you what I believe. Go ahead. List 10 issues — healthcare, abortion, guns, immigration, net neutrality, whatever — and you’ll find I do indeed lean left on some and right on others.

EDIT: Also, it’s kind of interesting that you shrug off people that want to die as not being worthy of getting taken seriously. What does that have to do with my statements on other things?

I don’t take you seriously because I don’t believe you really want to die. People who think life isn’t worth living don’t spend their time debating topics that are largely about quality of life.

Post
#1218674
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

I lean right on some issues and left on others. Your inability to weigh nuance is unfortunate, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from modern liberals.

And yet you use “liberal” as akin to an epithet. Not hard to see why people call bullshit, since the only people who do that are on the right (ie. also not the center).

JEDIT: For the record, I am not a liberal. But I really hate it that Rush, Hannity, Fox and whoever the hell else on the right does that.

Any inference on your part regarding “liberal” being an epithet is just that: an inference.

When I criticize liberals, I call them liberals. When I criticize conservatives, I call them conservatives. What would you have me call them? Progressives? Pick whatever term makes you happy.

The fact that the term “liberal” is sensitive goes to show how ridiculous speech policing has gotten.

Post
#1218671
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Here we go again.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622174783/why-are-they-shooting-anger-grows-in-pittsburgh-over-police-killing-of-black-tee

JEDIT: Apologies if already posted.

Police murder people on a daily basis. Most Americans don’t care.

“People?”

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/no-racial-bias-police-shootings-study-harvard-prof/

Post
#1218664
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

dahmage said:

Jay said:

Jordan Peterson admits he’s wrong (shocker!) and a protester gets a taste of her own debate tactics:

https://twitter.com/concretemilk/status/1009888618951925764

dahmage said:

dahmage said:

9 myths about Trumps zero tolerance policy - Michelle Martin Blog https://www.michellemartinauthor.com/1/post/2018/06/9-myths-about-trumps-zero-tolerance-policy.html

for Jay and Mrebo

A random blog post by a social worker? The first point she makes is already factually incorrect (the policy is not new, the “zero tolerance” enforcement is). I scanned the rest and can’t be bothered to refute each point. Find better sources.

like twitter?

Did you watch the video? It’s by a comedian. It was a joke. Both Jordan Peterson and the protester come off looking rash and foolish.

Laugh more, you’ll live longer.

moviefreakedmind said:

Acting as though the left is some crazy extreme side of the spectrum because of a select few extremists is a very common trend among people that are sympathetic to the right but can’t bring themselves to admit that they lean right.

What do you think is accomplished by labeling all conservative views as “alt-right”? It’s the same approach.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

people that are sympathetic to the right but can’t bring themselves to admit that they lean right.

This reminds me of someone for some reason.

I lean right on some issues and left on others. Your inability to weigh nuance is unfortunate, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from modern liberals.

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

It seems shortsighted to dwell so much on whether families are kept together

Tell that to the toddler crying for its mommy.

My Spanish probably isn’t up to the job but it’s no easier to explain to a toddler why she was carried through the desert or why she can’t stay.

um… when did you last explain anything to a toddler?

nothing, nothing compares to the anguish a toddler feels when their mom is not with them. and i am just talking about a 1 hour trip to the grocery store. if a toddler had to leave home, sure that is sad, but if they are with their mom/dad? not anguish.

Whenever a person commits an offense resulting in separation from children that is very hard for the children. Typically the parents should have to answer for that.

did you know that the majority of these separations being complained about, are from those attempting to seek asylum? yeah, lets punish them for fleeing a shitty situation. get educated. to say what jay says, do some research it isn’t my job to do it for you.

Asylum isn’t a magic word that let’s people stay. Generally the people are coming here because their own countries are lousy. Doesn’t mean they have a right to enter.

Jay Harold Christ mrebo… of course it isn’t magic.

but locking up parents, and shipping off toddlers, when the parents came to SEEK ASSYLUM is fucking nuts, and this is why people are making noise about this (Not because they hate Trump, Jay). this is why people are starting to say that the USA might be committing human rights violations.

I’ve yet to hear what the solution is.

You won’t.

Post
#1218614
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jordan Peterson admits he’s wrong (shocker!) and a protester gets a taste of her own debate tactics:

https://twitter.com/concretemilk/status/1009888618951925764

dahmage said:

dahmage said:

9 myths about Trumps zero tolerance policy - Michelle Martin Blog https://www.michellemartinauthor.com/1/post/2018/06/9-myths-about-trumps-zero-tolerance-policy.html

for Jay and Mrebo

A random blog post by a social worker? The first point she makes is already factually incorrect (the policy is not new, the “zero tolerance” enforcement is). I scanned the rest and can’t be bothered to refute each point. Find better sources.

Post
#1218594
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

dahmage said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

Jay, i can see some differences:

  1. as you like to remind us (and pretend you are the only one who realizes), Governing involves hard choices. Presidents can’t make everything ‘good’.
  2. It sure seems like Obama wasn’t in love with what he was doing. Trump on the other hand is.

do you see the difference?

The difference I see is that you view Obama as having made a difficult choice, and Trump as doing something he loves. This is absurd.

You realize you can’t attack policy differences because there are none, so instead you attack the man based on your perceptions of him. Just call Trump “Hitler” already and spare us any illusion of there being a policy debate here.

Post
#1218398
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months… nobody cared when it was Obama, and now suddenly it’s a national crisis. I guess hypocrisy has a short shelf life.

Agreed on the first part but the reason for it being highlighted now is not a double-standard, it is because Obama didn’t say Mexicans were all rapists and claim that Mexico was going to build the US a wall to keep themselves out. If Trump didn’t want the media to examine his border policy more closely than they did Obama’s policies, then he shouldn’t have had so many tantrums about it while screaming “Please pay attention to me!” all the time.

I’m not seeing how it’s not a double standard just because the rhetoric changed, while the policy itself remained the same.

I take your point, though. Trump called attention to the issue as part of his campaign, so he needs to deal with the fallout. Obama was smart enough to promote policies that played well to his supporters and quietly implement those that could be problematic.

Edit: Fucking hell, Mrebo just scooping me left and right today.

Post
#1218368
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

Obama isn’t the president anymore and Obama wasn’t as bad on the whole as Trump is on immigration.

But nobody cared when it was Obama, and now suddenly it’s a national crisis. I guess hypocrisy has a short shelf life.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

Jay, do you think Trump and Obama are equally terrible?

No. I voted for Obama (twice) and Hillary. Had I thought Obama were terrible, I had the opportunity to vote against him for his second term. And I certainly wouldn’t have voted for Hillary after that, given that I believed she’d continue with Obama’s policies for the most part.

Our immigration policy is shit, it’s been shit for a long time, and anyone blaming it on Trump is doing so out of political expediency. Everyone should stop defending their team, acknowledge we all dropped the ball, and work on legislation to fix it.

Anyone screeching about a “Trump policy” that elicited no meaningful reaction from them when Obama was doing it is a hypocrite.

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

And yet if he had allowed asylum seekers to be put on ‘supervised release’, would Republicans have ever stopped attacking him for it? I can imagine the attack-ads now.

Of course, Obama genuinely believed in compromise, even though the opposition would attack him regardless.

Of course they would’ve attacked him for it, because they oppose catch and release. They know chances are high that illegal immigrants won’t show up for court if they think they’ll be deported. Since we have laws limiting the amount of time children can be detained, they can’t stay with their parents, who end up being detained for much longer (I think it’s 20 days max for kids). The options under current law are to separate them or let them all out. Edit: I was writing this when Mrebo responded, see his post above.

The compromise is allowing kids to be detained along with their parents past the current limit. Kids stay with their guardians, and the guardians aren’t released in the U.S. Democrats don’t like this idea because it’s cruel in their opinion, but if we provided better facilities to accommodate families while they await their court date, I think it would be fine. Republicans probably wouldn’t like that because we’d be spending taxpayer dollars on those facilities, but if the tradeoff is curbing illegal immigration, they should take the hit.

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

That guy’s whole tirade takes two responses from Obama: “Are you an immigration lawyer?” and “I’ll tell you what we can’t have. It’s these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk.” and wraps it in a big ball of subtext that Obama didn’t actually use. Like he says Obama asks if he’s an attorney because Obama was told they’re the only ones who’d care. How does he know this? That’s certainly a leap of logic.

Ridiculous. I would actually be interested in what Obama really would have to say, not this guy’s blathering on about what he wanted Obama to say but didn’t.

This is why I don’t go out of my way to “cite my sources” as you requested earlier. You like the source and their argument, great. You don’t like the source, it’s bullshit.

Post
#1218153
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.

But you said you’re not going to post articles to back up your claims.

So not only do I have to find sources to inform myself, but also to prove you’re not blowing smoke when responding to the conversation.

If you want to give credibility to things you say in a debate, you need to cite where you get your information from.

 
You acted like citing sources in this thread to substantiate an argument is an infantile activity. As though such a practice is beneath you.

Frink did your reading for you, see above. It editorializes in parts, but it’s not grossly unfair.

Not the point. Cite your own sources. The fact that this is an informal, non-scientific, non-academic setting is irrelevant to the importance of proving you’re not making things up in a persuasive argument.

I have nothing to prove. If you smell bullshit, do your own research.

Usually, When someone makes a claim, I see nothing wrong with someone else asking for evidence that the claim is true(unless we are talking about claiming something extremely obvious like 1 + 1 equaling 2). If you don’t wish to provide it, okay, but be surprised if people don’t accept your claim as the gospel truth. Just saying.

I don’t expect anyone to take my posts as gospel. I express my opinions on political matters like anyone else, and people are free to accept or ignore as they see fit.

Mrebo said:

Schumer opposes changing the law so as to keep families together because he says Trump could just choose to keep families together. I have no idea how Cruz’s bill would work but that’s a bad argument.

Congress should exert its power as a check on the executive. Complaining about the law instead of changing it is an example of their cowardice and willingness to use these kids as political pawns.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:
I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.

I’ve yet to see this happen.

Must never have happened then.

I know it didn’t happen. You refused to call out the intellectual dishonesty of Jordan Peterson, for example. When he says that lack of religion causes immorality, he’s factually incorrect to the point of potentially being an outright liar because it’s documented that the less religious a society, the lower its crime rate. That’s just one example of right wing dishonesty that’s come up in this thread that you’ve been silent on. I wouldn’t mind if you didn’t act as though you’re a neutral voice on this. You obviously, at the very least, lean right. Every person reading this thread can tell. That’s fine, I just don’t get why you want there to be a pretense of you being a centrist.

Most of the bullshit I see in this thread is left-leaning bullshit because most of the posters are left-leaning. Naturally, I sound right-leaning compared to most of you. To the far left, anything not bleeding-heart liberalism is “to the right”.

Not true. Rightwing bullshit is brought up all the time in this thread. Granted, mostly by left-leaning people that are complaining about it, but it’s still being brought up. The “far left” by the way is barely even represented in our government. To the right, everything even just in the center is socialism. The biggest lie that the right in this country has perpetuated is that Obama and the Democratic Party, which is corporate to the bone and totally bought and paid for, is leftist and socialist. It isn’t.

If you’d like to hear about my left-leaning tendencies, we can discuss healthcare and other social programs, for example.

I don’t really think those tendencies mean much, honestly, because you constantly defend an administration and the side that is diametrically opposed to those things. Saying that you are in favor of left-leaning programs while actively conflating the most embarrassing elements of the left with the left as a whole and ignoring the dangerous elements of the mainstream right doesn’t make you left-leaning. It’s like what that interviewer Dave Rubin does (or did? He may just admit to being on the right by now). He’ll claim to be liberal, then dedicate all of his commentary to condemning the left as a whole over the actions of a select few, and then defend the most egregiously extreme elements of the right in order to make them seem more legitimate and sympathetic than they are. He’ll then ask with incredulity why everyone thinks he’s on the right when he repeatedly says that he’s on the left.

I’m agnostic, so of course I don’t agree with Peterson on religion being the foundation for morality. I don’t see that as a reason to ignore his arguments that are based on social science and his experience as a clinician. However, you seem to conflate theocracy with religious society. Western society is very religious and yet has relatively low crime. It’s theocracies that tend toward violent oppression.

It has nothing to do with disagreement. Peterson is wrong and his statements are contradicted by reality. And no, I don’t conflate theocracy with religious society. Evangelical Republicans by and large want the government to teach creationism in schools, teacher-led prayer, the ten commandments in courthouses, bans on gay marriage (which is purely based on religious thinking), and many other things. Western society, with the exception of East Asia and formerly communist states (I’m not sure if Eastern Europe counts as Western society), is the most secular society in the world. Even the United States is incredibly secular in certain areas, and, the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is. That may not on its own discount his other commentary, but his dishonesty on this subject makes me doubt him on others. As for him as a social scientist, I’ve never heard anything impressive from him. Enforced monogamy and his “sort yourself out” nonsense is just that, nonsense. The idea that marriage and culturally enforced monogamy would stop insane murderous virgins is ridiculous and some of the most simple-minded “analysis” of the issue I’ve ever heard that honestly is even dumber than “toxic masculinity,” which I previously thought was the dumbest assessment of mass killings I’d ever encountered. As for him being a clinician, I’d say his association with Stefan Molyneux who is a cult-leader that encourages people to abandon their families if they disagree with them politically, and whose wife was reprimanded for clinical malpractice for doing the same thing, makes Peterson very questionable in regards to being a good clinician. I certainly wouldn’t trust him with any patients. But anyway, Peterson’s religious commentary is an example of right-wing dishonesty that is clear-cut.

I don’t defend the administration. I defend facts — as best as I can, anyway.

I still maintain you’re conflating religious beliefs with government-mandated religion. “Secular” society doesn’t mean “not religious”. Despite climbing numbers of atheists in the overall population, western society is still overwhelmingly religious.

And good job trying to smear Peterson because of his “association[s]”. You should write for Vox or Vice. People’s views, and the world in general, aren’t as black and white and you’d like to believe; I can have a civil relationship with someone I don’t agree with and not believe or support the same things they do. Besides, claiming that everything sucks and anyone who disagrees with you can go fuck themselves (paraphrasing here) makes it difficult to take your arguments seriously.

Writing off huge swaths of people because they don’t hold the same values and don’t pass the purity test is why Democrats lost and are likely heading for more losses in November.

Post
#1218125
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.

But you said you’re not going to post articles to back up your claims.

So not only do I have to find sources to inform myself, but also to prove you’re not blowing smoke when responding to the conversation.

If you want to give credibility to things you say in a debate, you need to cite where you get your information from.

 
You acted like citing sources in this thread to substantiate an argument is an infantile activity. As though such a practice is beneath you.

Frink did your reading for you, see above. It editorializes in parts, but it’s not grossly unfair.

Not the point. Cite your own sources. The fact that this is an informal, non-scientific, non-academic setting is irrelevant to the importance of proving you’re not making things up in a persuasive argument.

I have nothing to prove. If you smell bullshit, do your own research.

Post
#1218122
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:
I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.

I’ve yet to see this happen.

Must never have happened then.

I know it didn’t happen. You refused to call out the intellectual dishonesty of Jordan Peterson, for example. When he says that lack of religion causes immorality, he’s factually incorrect to the point of potentially being an outright liar because it’s documented that the less religious a society, the lower its crime rate. That’s just one example of right wing dishonesty that’s come up in this thread that you’ve been silent on. I wouldn’t mind if you didn’t act as though you’re a neutral voice on this. You obviously, at the very least, lean right. Every person reading this thread can tell. That’s fine, I just don’t get why you want there to be a pretense of you being a centrist.

Most of the bullshit I see in this thread is left-leaning bullshit because most of the posters are left-leaning. Naturally, I sound right-leaning compared to most of you. To the far left, anything not bleeding-heart liberalism is “to the right”.

If you’d like to hear about my left-leaning tendencies, we can discuss healthcare and other social programs, for example.

I’m agnostic, so of course I don’t agree with Peterson on religion being the foundation for morality. I don’t see that as a reason to ignore his arguments that are based on social science and his experience as a clinician. However, you seem to conflate theocracy with religious society. Western society is very religious and yet has relatively low crime. It’s theocracies that tend toward violent oppression.

Post
#1218117
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.

But you said you’re not going to post articles to back up your claims.

So not only do I have to find sources to inform myself, but also to prove you’re not blowing smoke when responding to the conversation.

If you want to give credibility to things you say in a debate, you need to cite where you get your information from.

 
You acted like citing sources in this thread to substantiate an argument is an infantile activity. As though such a practice is beneath you.

Frink did your reading for you, see above. It editorializes in parts, but it’s not grossly unfair.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:
I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.

I’ve yet to see this happen.

Must never have happened then.

Post
#1218110
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

Maybe you should take a break from typing/squawking and improve your reading comprehension.

Comments like this hardly raise the level of discourse, like you claim to want.

Care to comment on the article now?

From the article:

Immigration experts we spoke to said Obama-era policies did lead to some family separations, but only relatively rarely, and nowhere near the rate of the Trump administration. (A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said the Obama administration did not count the number of families separated at the border.)

“Obama generally refrained from prosecution in cases involving adults who crossed the border with their kids,” said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. “In contrast, the current administration has chosen to prosecute adult border-crossers, even when they have kids. That’s a choice — one fundamentally different from the choice made by both Obama and previous presidents of both parties.”

The first paragraph is basically what I said: family separation happened less often under Obama, but the numbers will likely never be accurately reported. Strikes me as convenient that there aren’t records to back up the claims, but whatever.

The second paragraph clarifies that the policy isn’t one of family separation, but one of zero tolerance in terms of federal prosecution. Obama’s admin often let adults go if they had kids with them (catch and release). Trump’s admin is prosecuting all adults, regardless of family situation. As I said, the policy needs review regardless of administration, even though there are issues of child trafficking that make it unwise to allow adults with children a free pass. What happens to these kids once they’re in the country and who’s responsible for their welfare? That’s where the “1500 lost kids” story came from.

TV’s Frink said:

I miss non-angry Jay. He used to make a lot of cool posts.

I suspect what you miss is having your world view and accompanying arguments go unchallenged.

Post
#1218097
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

he’s applying the same rules as previous administrations is disingenuous.

I’m going to have to say “citation needed” on this.

I’m not getting into the back-and-forth article posting that often passes for debate in this thread. You can read up on it if you care to.

So what you’re saying is you prefer to make uncited claims and have the people in the conversation go research your possible sources themselves before they validate what you said.

…How is that better than citing your source when making your argument?
Not sure I could have gotten away with that in school, with a Works Cited page that says “Go look it up yourself.”

Are we in school? Is this a research paper? If you have a problem with what I posted, do some research and refute it.

dahmage said:

Jay said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Seperations are new.

This is incorrect. They’ve increased, but if you look at pics from prior administrations, there are kids being held without their parents present. It’s unlikely we’ll ever have accurate numbers for how many.

It’s bad policy all around regardless.

Dahmaged angry this post

And here we are again with the ‘Trump is just like everybody else’

Not what I said at all. The point of my post was to shine a light on the hypocrisy of the left on this issue. I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

he’s applying the same rules as previous administrations is disingenuous.

I’m going to have to say “citation needed” on this.

I’m not getting into the back-and-forth article posting that often passes for debate in this thread. You can read up on it if you care to.

Hahaha whoops never mind. I missed your “don’t bother to correct me because I’m right” statement.

I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.

Maybe you should take a break from typing/squawking and improve your reading comprehension.

Post
#1218049
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

he’s applying the same rules as previous administrations is disingenuous.

I’m going to have to say “citation needed” on this.

I’m not getting into the back-and-forth article posting that often passes for debate in this thread. You can read up on it if you care to.

The debate is whether Trump’s so-called “zero tolerance” policy is resulting in significantly more detentions/separations than previous administrations. Regardless of whether that’s true or not, kids in cages are nothing new and shouldn’t simply be laid at the feet of the current administration.

Post
#1218045
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

These policies were in effect under Obama’s administration when Clinton was SOS. The first picture of kids in cages shared on social media that got Democrats all fired up was from an article written in 2014, but it was implied by those passing it around that it was taken recently. In fact, many of them were taken back then. There was also a picture of a kid crying in a cage that turned out to be part of a recent protest.

Funny how these things don’t seem to matter until the other side is in charge and they can be used as political fuel. Regardless of how you feel about our immigration laws and their application by the current administration, the intellectual dishonesty of the left is rampant. Both parties have passed the hot potato on this issue for decades and acting like Sessions is a monster because he’s applying the same rules as previous administrations is disingenuous.

My guess is there will be some civilian deaths due to a drone strike at some point and we’ll be debating the morality of “Trump’s drone program”.