America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,881 comments
- 1,801,104 views
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Yeah, I didn't want to butcher her name trying to spell it.Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg I assume. That's rough at her age. My Dad fractured a couple of ribs around that age.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
RBG messed up. She should have retired under Obama to ensure another liberal leaning SCOTUS pick but held on because I think she assumed that Hillary was a shoe in for the next go around. There were quite a number of women under consideration last time. I have a feeling they'll go with a woman this time, on the younger side, and the points of contention will likely be surrounding religion and/or abortion. Now that they have a larger buffer of votes in the Senate it'll be a lot easier to push them through. In other words yeah, it'll still be a circus
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
So the elections are over and the rhetoric around the "caravan" has subdued. I hope you, @Johnnypenso and @ryzno remember I already said that Trump is lying about the severity of the Caravan. Remember that Trump alleged it was young, strong men with criminals and middle eastern people.
You are right in the phrasing I used. I should have posted "Trump and his following". I do genuinly think there are moderate republicans that dont believe Trump's lies, but are happy with the economic growth and have a lack in other choices at the moment. Essentially putting up with him to get the policies and legislation done that aren possible with a democrat in office. But you do have to admit that Trump with 2 years in office essentially made the republican party the "Trump party".
I am as critical on democrats as republicans. My problem isnt even with republicans, but Trump specifically. I am just so disappointed that so many republicans are falling in line with Trump. The only republicans that did oppose him in the senate are McCain (dead) and Flake (retiring). Trump already made clear that the republicans that didnt want his support lost his seat.
Out of curiosity, did you experience the problems othe Georgians had with voting? Or was you district without problem?
edit: cleaned up post
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
"all young, strong men with criminals and middle eastern people" Link?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I already cleaned up my post with the error of "all". I figured you follow Trump on twitter.
In an interview:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/us/politics/trump-immigration.html
Last edited:
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Our district had problems, at one polling station they forgot the power cords so everyone had to do paper ballots till they arrived.
My polling station was lack of polls. We had 10, 9 were electric the other one was paper for provisional ballots. Took me 50 minutes. When I voted for Trump it took 15 minutes.
Edit: I added a selfie Tuesday from my FB page here(Mid term thread). Feel free to give it a click if you want to see the real me. Also anyone feel free to send a friend request, just add your user name from here so I know who you are.
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
No, just a poor job. They kept some stations open till 10pm and midnight so everyone could vote. They normally close at 7pm.
Added an edit to my other post.
- 30,019
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Changing it to "Remember that Trump alleged it was young, strong men with criminals and middle eastern people.", doesn't materially change the meaning of the statement. Without a qualifier of some kind it still means "all". Trump specifically qualifies it as "some" or "mixed in". Why are you leaving his qualifying statements out of your wording? You're obviously aware of them because you put up twitter links. Is it a deliberate attempt to mislead because it sure sounds like it. ?
Nope.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I thought I remembered hearing something about this a couple of years ago:RBG messed up. She should have retired under Obama to ensure another liberal leaning SCOTUS pick but held on because I think she assumed that Hillary was a shoe in for the next go around. There were quite a number of women under consideration last time. I have a feeling they'll go with a woman this time, on the younger side, and the points of contention will likely be surrounding religion and/or abortion. Now that they have a larger buffer of votes in the Senate it'll be a lot easier to push them through. In other words yeah, it'll still be a circus
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/obama-ruth-bader-ginsburg_n_6014042
President Barack Obama, in aninterview with The New Yorker published on Monday, said he disagrees with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's conclusion about why she needs to stay on the high court.
Ginsburg, 81, told Elle last month, "If I resign any time this year, [Obama] could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-who-want-her-to-retire-idUSKBN0G12V020140801
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a message for liberals who have been saying the 81-year-old should step down while Democratic President Barack Obama is in office so he can appoint her successor: Who are you going to get who will be better than me?
Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”
Looks like Obama could see the writing on the wall. Ginsburg's ego might end up tying the court to a conservative bent for 2 or 3 decades and perhaps much, much longer, depending on the timing of future SCOTUS appointments.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
You mean "many". He states "many" in most of his tweets and rallies. I can post more tweets and videos of rallies where he states "many". Even then "mixed in" does not change the the meaning of that sentence. He still claimed many are criminals and even unknown middle eastern were in the caravan. How many does not change the inaccuracy of his statement.
But it is unlikely I will convince you of otherwise. I feel the need to stop answering your posts, because you always seem to focus on my spelling, grammar and specific words, while sometimes ignoring the exact point. I am not an english native speaker and consider English my 3/4th language. I do appreciate your point of view and opinion, but dislike the many, many posts of me needing to correct a word, while ignoring the point or topic of the post. Just ask me what I meant directly and not only focus on the error in choice of words or grammar.
And no it isnt a deliberate attempt to mislead, your are confusing me with Trump. What I was stating was already public news.
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
In the tweets you posts he uses the words many, some and in the last one offers up no quantity. There's no need to convince me that none of those words mean "all" which is what you said. It's either "all" or it's not "all". There's also no need to convince me that taking the word "all" out of your statement materially changes it in any way, that's not how the language works. If he used the word many or some why not just use the same word in your own remarks since you seem to be aware of what he said?
Don't use the "I'm not a native English speaker" as an excuse. I'm sure in your native language there's a clear distinction between "Many" and "some" vs. "all". You don't choose your words carefully.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Exactly my reasoning. You totally missed the point and ignoring the fact I corrected my post soon after posting it. And not being used to another language does make you prone to certain mistakes like mine. As a Canadian you should be able to know that switching from french and english can invite mistakes. And even then it should not matter , because I told you personally what I meant, yet you keep focusing it.
But back to waht I orginally meant: is your opinion that the caravan is still relevant and do you believe Trump, that many in the caravan are criminals and some from the middle east?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
You didn't correct it. You took out the word "all" which, in English, doesn't materially change the meaning of the sentence. Since you continuously point out that you're not a native English speaker, why are you combative with me when I point out these errors that make huge differences in the meaning of your posts? If you truly believe they are mistakes then just make the corrections and move on.
The caravan is relevant if you don't want another caravan, and another caravan and another caravan and so on. When Trump talks about nefarious elements in the Caravan he's right if you go by the averages:
Source
That means if there are 7500 caravaners, on average there will be 330 criminals, 23 gang members and 60 special interest aliens.
When you consider that Honduras has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world it adds another element. At 88 murders/100k in 2012 that means, again going by averages, there could be 6 or 7 people in the caravan that murdered someone in 2012 alone. Taken over a few years there could potentially be several dozen murderers in the caravan just going by the averages. If the numbers of caravaners are lower or higher you can adjust the numbers accordingly.
Of course you can't make any specific claims as to how many fall into the criminal category but it's a large enough sample size that the comparison to the averages is relevant. Given the way the system works after what happens if they make it across the border, it's a large risk for any sovereign nation to take, especially when you consider they were all offered asylum ,shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs and housing in Mexico and many refused.
Trump's inclusion of "middle easterners" is likely a reference from a speech given by President Jimmy Morales Cabrera of Guatemala referenced in the USA Today article linked above. Or he just made it up. Anything is possible.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I asked your opinion. You are only backing his rethoric with "proof". Do you believe everything or the majority Trump said in his tweets about the caravan? And do you think it is an invasion?
So 96% are not criminals. Isnt that a large safe margin to assume the caravan is not a threat? Trump stated many are criminals, which is misleading. And isnt it safe to say these people are refugees because they are fleeing from the high crime and murder rate? Or do you assume these are people fleeing because they are criminals or murderers?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Source for "majority"? Your answer is in the quotes I provided. I don't pay attention to the rhetoric. I can't trust your take on it because it's usually filled with significant errors and I can't be bothered to research it myself. I ask for sources, you provide them and I look at them. "Many" might be misleading because some people might think it means a significant minority or even a majority but most of us would consider potentially hundreds of criminals and dozens of murderers "many". Trump's job is to keep Americans safe first and foremost. With potentially dozens of murderers and hundreds of criminals in the caravan it's not beyond the bounds of reason and logic to think it's probably not a good idea to let them into your country.
If they are true refugees, wouldn't they accept refuge in a large country that has offered them food, clothing, shelther, education and jobs? If you have the ability to reject that gift from Mexico to hold out for a better offer, are you really a refugee at that point? That's a legitimate question not rhetorical.
Refugee: "We're fleeing poverty, crime, persecution, starvation and no future, please help us!"
Mexico: "Here is food, clothing, housing, jobs and education, you're welcome".
Refugee: "Nah, it's better in the States. Buh bye".
Yes I'm well aware they aren't obligated under U.N. convention to accept their first offer or refuge
- 5,051
- Netherlands
The majority of trumps claims are false.
Source (and please read them this time):
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
That is where we are miscommunicating. Rhetoric is extremely important. Rhetoric is Trumps claim to fame. You claim to use logic and stats, but completely ignore the facts often show the opposite of what trump claims. This rhetoric is what imbolds people who have extreme thoughts.
Many can easily be interpreted to majority. I do agree it depends on the person who reads are hears this, but no one will consider 4.4% as “many”.
Please provide a source that the caravan are refusing Mexican asylum. There is probably a big percentage that prefer the USA. But seeing that Americans always claim “America is the greatest country on earth” I do understand why they prefer the US. The economy is better and above all more opportunities for jobs.
Potentially dozens of criminals? Have you followed the news? Then try your best to keep those dozens out. Don’t break federal law and refuse asylum to all of them. There are processes in place. But to debunk your assumption of potential crime risks. Statistically illegal immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/is-illegal-immigration-linked-to-more-or-less-crime/
https://www.cato.org/blog/murder-mollie-tibbetts-illegal-immigrant-crime-facts
I’d like your opinion on this data.
In the mean time there are domestic terrorists killing many more people then any illegal immigrant probably ever will. Yet the current government are not listening that Trumps rhetoric is “inspiring” certain individuals to act out. Aren’t these a greater threat the USA should focus on? The bomb attempt, the synagogue killing and now this:
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.cbs...usand-oaks-bar-today-2018-11-08-live-updates/
Focus of the country should be higher on gun regulation and mental healthcare. The caravan is hardly an invasion. And I am sure that invasion narrative will disappeare soon. Leaving the percentage of people who voted republican, out of fear for the caravan, scammed by the chief scammer himself.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I treat the rhetoric as noise. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. Blaming it on the tweets of someone else that isn't directly calling for violence is misplaced.
Which is why I gave a figure and said that many people would consider hundreds of criminals and potentially dozens of murderers as "many". Isn't one murderer "too many"?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-thin-out-as-3-230-apply-for-asylum-in-mexico
If they cross the border U.S. law provides arriving asylum seekers the right to be in the United States while their claim for protection is pending. Once they are here do you think criminals and murderers are going to show up for hearings years down the road? The data you provided draws no definitive conclusions because the data sources are incomplete. I already provided you with data that is accurate as to the rates of criminalization among those actually captured at the border which would seem to be more relevant in this case.
Given that citizens outnumber illegal aliens by perhaps 17:1 I would expect this to be the case. Given that illegal aliens are illegal and not necessarily easy to find and can slip back across the border fairly easily I'd expect they'd be much harder to find and prosecute as well.
Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill I have no problem with. Crazy people shouldn't have firearms. Guns in general aren't going anywhere. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. The rights enshrined in the Constitution can't be legislated away. Calling the caravan an invasion is just political rhetoric. The reason it disappears from the radar is controlled by the MSM and the 24 hours cycle. The public isn't titillated long enough to hold their attention for more than a couple of days. The rhetoric surrounding it is nothing more than background noise. It gets the weak minded all worked up and I think that's the entire purpose of it. The U.S. has a sovereign right to protect it's borders and control who enters. As i said earlier, if you can say no to asylum in Mexico when you are offered jobs, housing, education, medical care and schooling, how much of a refugee are you? Again, serious question, one you didn't answer earlier.
- 30,019
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Although a great number are still moving towards the USA a great part of the caravan are applying in mexico for Asylum. You were suggesting however that the caravan were refusing to apply in Mexico. The caravan has thinned out a lot and it isnt clear what the motivations are for refusing to apply in mexico.
Dont you think it was misleading of Trump to call the threat an "invasion". For the sole purpose to scare voters to vote republican? Even accusing the democrats for inviting them in the already infamous campaign ad.
I appreciate answering my post with your personal opinion and not comparisons.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,636
- Texas
I believe Amy Barrett is the next one folks think Trump will nominate.RBG messed up. She should have retired under Obama to ensure another liberal leaning SCOTUS pick but held on because I think she assumed that Hillary was a shoe in for the next go around. There were quite a number of women under consideration last time. I have a feeling they'll go with a woman this time, on the younger side, and the points of contention will likely be surrounding religion and/or abortion. Now that they have a larger buffer of votes in the Senate it'll be a lot easier to push them through. In other words yeah, it'll still be a circus
I don’t know how much of a circus can be made for her. She’s very much for family values; 2 of her 5 kids are Haitian adoptees and her youngest is a special needs. She is a devout Catholic however, so I guess people may question her religious views. Would feel a bit petty after Brett’s serious accusations.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 11,916
- Marin County
Meanwhile, in California...
Worst smoke I've seen yet in San Francisco. This one is really, really bad. People killed in their cars while trying to evacuate. The entire town of Paradise (30,000 people) is likely destroyed.
Been burning about a day and it's already the 4th most destructive fire in state history. More than 2,000 buildings destroyed.
Worst smoke I've seen yet in San Francisco. This one is really, really bad. People killed in their cars while trying to evacuate. The entire town of Paradise (30,000 people) is likely destroyed.
Been burning about a day and it's already the 4th most destructive fire in state history. More than 2,000 buildings destroyed.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
In the link I provided that you asked for the title is:
Caravan migrants thin out as 3,230 apply for asylum in Mexico
You really need to stop making assumptions about things, it's very hard to debate anything when I know you are just making assumptions about my positions. If you actually opened that link I'm not sure why you'd assume I also didn't look at it and read the same headline. People interviewed in the caravan have said, "I don't want to live in Mexico, I want to live in the U.S.A." Their reasons are irrelevant and it doesn't answer the question I posed. If you can walk right on through a country that is offering you shelter, medical care, education and a job, how much of a refugee are you? You cease to be a refugee at that point.
The invasion thing I've already addressed. It's political rhetoric. I wish he didn't say it, I wish he'd choose better words but it's done. I don't expect any different from Trump he shoots from the hip. I stopped being taken aback by it a long time ago. The Democrats do bear a lot of responsibility. Before and during prior campaigns Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Shumer and many others have made identical statements to those made about Republicans in the recent past, statements about protecting the borders, how much they despise illegal immigration etc. and when it's not their turn in power they pretend they've never said these things and say the opposite to pander to their base. There have been opportunities to pass bi-partisan legislation to help stem the flow of illegals across the southern border but when push comes to shove nothing gets done. Obama was the deporter in chief which he deserves due credit for but more needs to be done.
Not sure if it was her but I remember one of the candidates had some, what appeared to me anyway, cult like involvement in their church. If it was her I'd expect that to be a tough nomination and doubt she'd get a single Democrat vote. Not that it matters in the Senate.
