ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

deathflower wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

I was expecting something better than this. If someone commit a crime, is it the crime of the group? If a Trumpster shoot someone on 5th avenue, should we throw Trump in jail? It is association fallacy.

What association fallacy? I just said you weren't the only one losing your mind over the Schumer cuckdown. Are you saying the article doesn't describe craziness?

Nope. Perfectly reasonable response of angry people. Schumer is still alive, right?

First off, they're talking about increasing their demand in terms of both result and immediacy when they're the minority party in both houses and the Presidency, immediately after suffering a humiliating defeat.

Second, we're talking about people who are not citizens of this country advancing into government offices and the home of the Senate minority leader, staging protests within them, and making demands of the US government.

I mean, if all of that isn't crazy, I think I'm going to pay President Nieto of Mexico a visit at his crib and demand that he do the right thing for poor Ms. Steinle (queue crybully tears) and have the Mexican government fully fund an extra-deluxe version of Trump's wall... not in three weeks, but now. I don't think I'll be shot or anything — Pieto would still be alive, right?

"

deathflower wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Social justice is a rebranding of the communist’s class struggle. Rather than the working man fighting the capitalist, its the victim fighting the privileged. Same pig, new lip stick.

People like to lumping things together and overgeneralise. Social movements existed long before marxism. In fact certain social movement is about Social injustice, and placing special privileges and rights into their own groups. Good and evil can be subjective. What is good for me, might be bad for you or vice versa. Rather a "me" group vs "you" group problem.

Has nothing to do with the precipitating argument.

We’re talking about identity politics (and how best to define the proponents thereof, i.e., progressives), not about social activism. Progressivism is the dictate of the modern left establishment. It prescribes outcomes based upon arbitrary membership to a group, not individual merit. You know who else did that?

Same pig.

To bring it back around, since you’ve established a tendency to talk around a topic rather than about it, my original statement was that we should not call these people liberal, because the things they advocate are antithetical to the concept.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

I was expecting something better than this. If someone commit a crime, is it the crime of the group? If a Trumpster shoot someone on 5th avenue, should we throw Trump in jail? It is association fallacy.

What association fallacy? I just said you weren't the only one losing your mind over the Schumer cuckdown. Are you saying the article doesn't describe craziness?

Craziness? I think those people are very sane for NOT wanting to return to hellhole countries.
We are constantly told by liberals that ALL countries south of our border are crime-ridden, gang-controlled hellholes. If that is true, you would have to be insane to want to go back!
Storming a gov't building makes perfect sense if you think the threat of being returned to a hellhole is imminent.

Hell, if there was some statistical proof that 80% of the illegals would vote pro-life, I'd support amnesty.

I mean besides the fact that 80% of illegals will vote democrat if given citizenship, there is no good reason to oppose amnesty.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

I mean besides the fact that 80% of illegals will vote democrat if given citizenship, there is no good reason to oppose amnesty.

So you're saying there is no reason to oppose amnesty.

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

I mean besides the fact that 80% of illegals will vote democrat if given citizenship, there is no good reason to oppose amnesty.

So you're saying there is no reason to oppose amnesty.

There is a fantastic reason to oppose amnesty: 80% of illegals are expected to vote Democrat if given citizenship.

Let's be honest, if that statistic was flipped, democrats would oppose amnesty and republicans would support amnesty.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

I mean besides the fact that 80% of illegals will vote democrat if given citizenship, there is no good reason to oppose amnesty.

So you're saying there is no reason to oppose amnesty.

There is a fantastic reason to oppose amnesty: 80% of illegals are expected to vote Democrat if given citizenship.

Let's be honest, if that statistic was flipped, democrats would oppose amnesty and republicans would support amnesty.

This.

It sets a bad precedence to toy with human lives and establish a sub-citizen class for political gain. Or, rather, that precedence has already been set; it’s been going on for a while. It’s legalized human trafficking, something actual decent people should be opposed to.

Yeah, obviously the democrats are currently doing this unethical practice, but I'm not going to pretend republicans wouldn't, if it was an option.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

you're saying there is no reason to oppose amnesty.

There is a fantastic reason to oppose amnesty: 80% of illegals are expected to vote Democrat if given citizenship.

Let's be honest, if that statistic was flipped, democrats would oppose amnesty and republicans would support amnesty.

This. It sets a bad precedence to toy with human lives and establish a sub-citizen class for political gain. Or, rather, that precedence has already been set; it’s been going on for a while. It’s legalized human trafficking, something actual decent people should be opposed to.

Promoting open-borders immigration is indeed worth at least a raise of the eyebrow due to the clear partisan incentive to promote such a policy. However, I think resisting immigration, particularly of the legal variety, deserves equal scrutiny for potential partisanship in the other direction.

Let's say we picked a different partisan issue... how about abortion? In a way you might argue that abortion is a self-defeating issue for Democrats — legalized abortion prevents/ends the lives of hundreds of thousands of likely Democrat voters yearly, with black women demographically the most likely to get abortions. Would you be okay then with Republicans dropping the issue simply because it improves their future electoral outlook?

It's a terrible way to look at issues. I'm not in favor of closed borders at all, even though that would arguably be the most partisan Republican position. I'm actually for amnesty, but as a matter of partisan reality I understand that the GOP can't afford to just give it away without getting a similar demographic concession (ex: repealing "anchor baby" birthright citizenship (which, yes, I'm against)).

Well if other issues are significantly more important to a person than immigration & amnesty, then support for amnesty depends on who they will vote for; seems like an obvious conclusion.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

Well if other issues are significantly more important to a person than immigration & amnesty, then support for amnesty depends on who they will vote for; seems like an obvious conclusion.

By the same logic, if other issues are significantly more important to you than abortion, you should decide the abortion issue based on how black Americans tend to vote?