Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Now you're shifting goal posts. You said it was fine that Pie's parents and other people came because they did it legally. Yet rather than legalize (expedite) all immigration for safe people, suddenly legalization is no longer a good enough standard. Funny how that works.
If you don't want to accept immigrants than stop lying to yourself and everyone else about how it must be done "legally" when really you just don't want immigrants to come at all. Looks like I won that bet against Greyparrot. Nobody on this site ever honors their bets though.
And lol I don't feel bad for you and other white people that are too intimidated to go into stores where people don't speak English. Grow a pair. Nothing's going to happen to you by engaging except for maybe getting to experience something new or different. I'm glad you enjoy their food. Spread the word and help them grow their business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Obviously not at a 100% rate, and I know pie's parents immigrated legally.
The vast majority of immigrants assimilate and 99% of their kids do. But again if immigration is fine so long as it's legal, then just legalize all immigration for everyone that passes a security and disease check as fast as we can process it. Problem solved.
Most immigrants I know who did so legally, frown upon illegal immigration.
Of course. Because some of them had to wait a LONG ASS TIME. It's like the people who pay off all their student loans being presented with a policy to forgive all student loans. Someone's resentment or jealousy doesn't determine the morality or utility of a policy though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes they believe immigrants should just have to wait decades to immigrate legally. I get it. Good one. Very clever.
I've also made clear that with easier paths to citizenship I support harsher penalties for illegal immigration.
I'm willing to bet you do know some people who oppose legal immigration though. Some are on this site. For instance nothing thett said suggested he was open to more immigration. He might be open to some refugees (unsure), but he's made pretty clear over the years that he values stability and homogeneity. Wylted has also expressed a preference of "helping people improve their own countries" rather than welcome them here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Pie's parents are immigrants and he has Trump as his profile picture. My father is an immigrant and I was a hardcore libertarian for more than a decade. Anecdotes aside, it's untrue that immigrants come and vote for socialism. The ones that do vote (most don't) often vote conservative. In fact that was a huge talking point of the Right after the election: the Cuban immigrants in Florida and other Hispanics voting for Trump. They tend to reject socialism specifically because they had to escape it. They also tend to be more culturally conservative (religious) than Americans.
I do not support open borders, just expedited immigration. You shouldn't have to wait 20 years or more to immigrate legally. One could make the argument that libertarians must support open borders for consistency, but that's debatable and I'm not a libertarian anymore (though I do value individual rights and property rights).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Because you're assuming that these entities are separate. They are ALL answerable to their sponsors. As for the reason the medical/science community would go along with it, well let me just point this out: physicians sport on their lab coats the caduceus, or the winged staff of mercury (a.k.a. Hermes) which is associated with the Baphomet. [I know this for a fact because there are many physicians in my own family.] Why would they do that? And who would want them to do that, especially in an allegedly JUDEO-CHRISTIAN nation?
Lol 💀 You can't learn everything on Wikipedia but you can learn this.
But even if we were to forget the "conspiracy theories," one needs only apply critical thinking, right? Why were they pushing the vaccine just after a few months of trials despite the fact that vaccines typically undergo years of trials?
They were afraid more people could die than were actually at risk; the data was incomplete. Vaccines for similar viruses have been in development for 20 years. However I am more than happy to blame Trump and his administration's role in Operation Warp Speed if you prefer that answer. I guess he is p̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ the leader of the global conspiracy then, right?
Why were lockdowns being implemented despite the enormous benefits of Vitamin D intake from sunlight and the ventilation from being out in the open especially as it concerns a respiratory infection?
Because the less people you're around, the less opportunity for an airborne virus to transmit. What exactly are the "enormous benefits" of vitamin D and sunlight as it pertains to Covid? How early on were they proven? Determining the utility would require a randomized control trial where people are allocated a treatment or a placebo so that scientists can be clear an outcome is caused by the treatment. Link me to the research that shows the enormous benefits of vitamin D on Covid that accounts for additional variables. If you don't know offhand I'm sure you can go ask someone on Reddit.
Governments have taken up other cheap, effective treatments btw like dexamethasone once proven. And as I said in another post, vitamins themselves are a multi billion dollar industry. Is the supplement industry somehow immune from manipulation and lies? The globalists don't care about making money from them I guess.
Why did they exaggerate the mortality rates?
Most likely the result of incomplete data and faulty models. How did you learn the real number of deaths?
Or failed to specify the susceptibility of those with compromised immune systems, the elderly, and the obese?
On the contrary they have been talking about the immuno compromised, elderly and obese being the most at risk groups non-stop since the start of the pandemic which is why so many people were never worried about it.
Why have there been patents--and this is a verifiable fact--for this virus spanning back to 1984? Or that current strains can be modified? Why is it that after two years of exposure, despite the overwhelming majority of the unnvaccinated having not succumbed to the virus, the media is still being pushing for vaccination?
I don't know anything about that fact and I have no interest in looking it up, to be honest. If you want to link me info I'll read about it at some point.
"The media" is pushing the vaccine because the world's top medical professionals are pushing the vaccines and it's the media's job to report that. I put media in quotes because I assume you're going to pretend that conservative media doesn't exist for the sake of your talking point.
I'm currently unvaccinated, and outside of my seasonal allergies, I haven't had so much as a sniffle.
I know unvaccinated people that died from Covid. What's your point?
As a child, I used to read my mother's books on pathology and the number one countermeasure to the contraction of infection is GOOD HYGIENE. Even the CDC will admit as much.
Yes it is - and yes they do - but unfortunately if you breathe something in, you can't wash it off with soap and water.
It's interesting that you read pathology books as a child though. That checks out lol.
I've known people who've been vaccinated--both shots and the booster--and they still caught the virus, so what does vaccination actually accomplish (with quantifiable measure) other than a placebo to this media-induced paranoia?
That's like someone saying "I have eyes - why do I need glasses?" I acknowledge the efficacy of the vaccine is waning which was the prediction all along, thus the early push for quick vaccination and booster shots. I won't sit here and justify every government, media or pharmaceutical action. I don't agree with all of them. What I will do is challenge the prolifically stupid conspiracy theories (when I'm in the mood to do so). As I said to YYW, you can resist the policies without giving credence to the people who think this entire thing is a hoax or elaborate lie. It's one thing to be resistant to mandates or challenge limited research; it's another to believe that hospitals were really empty and the whole world is conspiring to make up fake deaths to "control the population." It still hasn't been explained how that was achieved since the majority of the country went back to life as normal a long time ago.
I asked why every single country, including our enemies, would espouse the same lies and how they could convince the overwhelming majority of the science community across the globe to go along with it. You said that I assume the entities are separate. That is true. I assume that countries are separate. I don't see how your observation about what US doctors wear on their lab coats (lol, I can't) remotely even attempts to answer that question. If you think it's connected then please explain it in plain terms if you feel so inclined. I do see countries and scientists as separate from one another often with separate, competing goals. But maybe I'm wrong.
Some other unanswered questions: Does Dr. Fauci control Kim Jung Un? Did our Deep State force Russia to develop their own vaccine? How did China benefit from locking down their population at the expense of a trillion+ dollars? How did this achieve any type of mass population control when the most significant effect was a vaccine mandate in 3 cities that is barely enforced? Once you start asking specific questions, it becomes obvious how ridiculous these positions are. Admittedly this Scamdemic one is more believable than the prolifically stupid idea that Jan 6 was a false flag not carried out by Trumpkins but I digress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'm disappointed that you didn't expand on how those who "hate people like you have been openly enthusiastic about using immigration as a bludgeon against you for your entire life." Understanding the visceral pushback would help to elucidate your values.
This isn't actually the case. There was almost zero immigration to the US between the revolution and the civil war,
It wasn't that long. There were about ~40 years with little immigration during the infancy of our country between 1790-1830; the immigrant population actually exploded decades before the Civil War largely in part to the Irish potato famine. However even though the influx of immigration changed over time, my point is that this country has seen a significant amount of immigration since its inception. Yes there was a temporary lull between the 1920s and 1960s, but that was 60 years ago. What are you - like 30 years old? There have been 30+ million immigrants that came here since you were born with the last two decades bringing more immigrants than ever before. So for you to say you "like the way things are" just seems weird since the number of immigrants doubled over the span of your life. The way things are = diversity. And going back to a previous topic, a lot of immigrants tend to be (at least socially) conservative which would seem to increase the chances of preserving the cultural elements you value. You probably have more values and political views in common with a Mexican immigrant than a native Californian.
We all have the right to vote after all and should have a say in our local communities.
But we all agree there are limitations. What about the people who want to ban guns? Should we get to vote on slavery? What if we can prove it's in the economic interest of the country ? As I said elsewhere, we can't divorce individual rights from the immigration debate. Even if you don't think immigrants qualify for rights per se, what about the Americans who want to hire a foreign worker or sell their house to someone born in another country? Conservatives claim to be the ones who prioritize individual rights whereas leftists tend to be skeptical of private property. I am not. The rejection of immigration rights and the shrugging off of institutionalized bigotry and free trade is far more dismissive of private property rights than anything I believe.
Ultimately I agree with the premise of democracy so I don't want to argue it too strongly for no good reason. I do think people tend to agree more than they disagree overall, and that's why I was curious about your personal experience which is clearly impacting your perspective. That isn't to say that I think your personal experience is any more valid or valuable than mine or someone else's, but it would help me get a better idea of what you're afraid of.
As an aside, despite understanding why they did it, I think allowing totally unrestricted travel between the states was a huge mistake from the founding fathers. If states could control their own border policies immigration policy wouldn't be a problem at all because people would be able to choose.
Yeah, the US was founded with open borders. It has an open borders Constitution. The first major immigration restrictions were not implemented until after the founding fathers were long dead. But it's funny you bring this up since I know a lot of open-border libertarians that use this as a satirical counterpoint. "Do we want more immigrants or more jobs for our kids? Why should job stealing politicians like Bernie Sanders be allowed to move from New York to Vermont and run for Senate? Shouldn’t that job go to some kid from Vermont? Look at all these people exploiting the system to make more money, moving from one state to another for work. These are economic migrants, not refugees. What did Florida ever do to New York to obligate it to take in all these people?"
But that happened because they felt that if they could just make it here they would be allowed to stay and become citizens. Migrants make the dangerous journey BECAUSE of the perception of open borders, not because of a strong border policy.
No that happened because we empower border agents to treat people that way, and because people are forced to choose between a rock and a hard place. Note that more immigrants came after the creation of ICE (2003) than before. They make the journey because they live dangerous, depressing, dead-end lives and want the opportunity for a better one. That's why all immigrants that aren't slaves come here. That's why your ancestors came here. It's interesting how you've chosen to frame and justify the policies that exclude some. I suspect it comes from your intuitive understanding that what they endure is tragic and unjust which brings up some cognitive dissonance. As I was saying to Pie, this is why it's so hard for me to take the anti-choice position seriously as a moral argument from the same group re: abortion. It is inconceivable that conservatives are "horrified" by the death of a human being that isn't conscious, while accepting the death of actual children essentially as collateral damage for unnecessary policies.
If an immigrant would work a job for a wage a native born citizen wouldn't doesn't that proof that immigration negatively impacts wages?
It depends. Historically it's been avoided by immigrants not going for the same jobs and/or natives shifting to other (often higher paying) jobs. This was the same argument that was used to keep women out of the workforce by the way, but wages of both men and women increased as more women entered the workforce. There are several reasons for that we can discuss if you would like to and I'll admit there are plenty of variables. The main thing to consider with immigration or working women is that it boosts labor demand, not just labor supply. When women went to work, they made money to spend. It increased demand for childcare, domestic services, dining outside the home, etc. Immigrants don't just come here to work. They consume.
If they won't ameliorate the labor shortage by working for the low wages being offered, what's the point?
They can ameliorate the labor shortage by simply taking the jobs.
I always hear about "who will pick the crops??" if we don't have illegal immigration...machines will!
That is what happened in the late 1960s after the end of the bracero guest worker visa program. In other words, restricting immigration did not raise the wages of low-skilled native workers; the work was automated instead. Another thing that happened was that low-skilled workers shifted industries which arguably grew the economy in other areas.
To be honest I skimmed your Population thread and just had to go back to it to remind myself what it was about. One thing I find amusing though was noticing YYW mention his Chinese friend. We know Pie's parents are immigrants. My dad is an immigrant. I assume most of us have immigrant friends or friends with immigrant parents. It's disheartening that I'm the only person here to outright refute the idiotic idea that "immigrants don't assimilate." They do and their children definitely do.
Anyway the majority of people on this site are really dim but I appreciate your posts. I do hope you expand on your experience with immigration "being used as a bludgeon against you" but if not the Inheritance thread was more interesting to me anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
We should help Mexicans and those from south America to form better national policies, so they don't feel the need to flee their homelands to start with.
Nobody wants to spend the money or resources on that. We could help people fleeing poverty by improving the economic conditions in their countries through freer trade, but nobody wants to outsource either.
Anybody with empathy for these people should be discouraging illegal immigration.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm saying it should be legal for them to immigrate.
Fantasies about how we could somehow improve the conditions of countries all around the world when we can't agree on metrics and spending to improve our own country might make you feel good - it might make you feel like you've come up with a "solution" to the immigrant problem, but it's not realistic and it ignores the facts.
The facts are that despite the risks - despite the potential rape, pedophilia, human slavery, sex trafficking and threat of being rounded up or imprisoned by enforcement agencies , millions of people decided that the risks were better option for them then staying put. Even the ones that didn't take huge risks to come here chose to stay, live as noncitizens and accept the subsequent risks while leaving all they knew behind. Because it is very hard to deter these folks, the question is how we should treat them. If we make them citizens they will be eligible for the rights and benefits that we share and will not be treated poorly (as you claim is your concern). We could also consider options like the ones I mentioned in my response to Greyparrot, e.g. letting people come to live + work here and qualify for full citizenship after a certain amount of time, say 10 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Mostly vascular issues (especially with young men) and some menstrual issues with women.
It adds ~1 day to your period when you get the shot and has no impact on child bearing. I think these "concerns" are just dramatizations to promote the false narrative that vaccines spread infertility and were designed to depopulate the earth. There was skepticism and accusations long before the vaccine ever came out or any data was collected. Call me crazy but I don't think the government is trying to sterilize the population, especially upper class white people who are most likely to get vaxxed. Statistically even young and healthy people are more likely to develop health problems from Covid than from the vaccines.
When the same class of people are invested heavily in media, educational institutions, and pharmaceutical companies it introduces a lot of perverse incentives.
Agree, but I'm talking about the universal consensus among doctors, scientists and epidemiologists all over the world. Every doctor I know personally is not empowered or enriched by lying. All the nurses who worked overcrowded hospitals at one point did not become empowered or enriched by lying.
Does Dr. Fauci control Putin? Who in North Korea is becoming more empowered through these economic disruptions and deaths? Kim Jung Un doesn't need to fabricate a fake virus to control his people. It's silly to think he and other despots care what the WHO says (I'm not going to hold you to the conspiracies that Wylted and Parrot believe, but that is what the majority of the "concerns" are about).
I think that it's scientifically incoherent to treat a person who's getting boosted with a vaccine designed for alpha (with diminishing returns) as having better immunity that someone who just recovered from omicron. The only reason I could see for this policy is to financially aid vaccine manufacturers and expand government power.
I agree, but the obvious or more logical theory is it's too difficult to keep track of who really had the virus. What are we supposed to do - go by the honor system? It wouldn't be possible to use this metric of infection; most people don't even get tested. It took me 7 days to get my PCR test results back. By the time they were returned, I wasn't contagious anymore if I was infected, and it only shows up on the test if you take it at the right time. It wouldn't be feasible to go by this standard of immunity as a metric for vaccine compliance even though it's true that people who had the virus shouldn't need to be vaxxed. Most people just do not have reliable proof. The lines on at-home Covid tests disappear in like 2 hours and there's no way to prove which person took the test. Plus antibody levels are higher after the shot than in people who recovered from Covid naturally. Glenn Beck has Covid for the second time. Last I heard it was "getting into his lungs." Sending thoughts and prayers.
It's also a pet theory of mine that the conservative Supreme Court majority is going to support mandates if they are challenged on medical privacy grounds, in order to undermine the legal arguments that support Roe v. Wade before repealing it.
It would also follow precedent to uphold mandates. Biden's never had any chance and was a ludicrous overreach by the administration.
Personally I'm skeptical and think [China has] just decided to live with it and keep up appearances.
China could easily go on living with the pandemic because the majority of people there are vaccinated, wear masks and socially distance on their own without force. They are a collectivist country who are far more willing to go along with the precautions (which they are more used to than us) not only because of government mandates but social shaming. Their culture is just different. The question is why China would go along with a global conspiracy that cost their country a trillion dollars during the first few months of the pandemic.
It was sold as a silver bullet, and governments embraced it under that premise, sometimes to the exclusion of all other approaches (early treatment, vitamins, weight loss, etc).
Most of the vaccines were between 80% and 96% effective before Delta iirc. They were the best approach for a country and economy that could not sustain lockdowns and refused to social distance or mask up without force and pushback. The government can't mandate weight loss lol. There was no research on the link between vitamins and other treatments until 2021. Why would skeptics trust that research anyway? It was always funny to me they would trust the science if it said Ivermectin was okay but not vaccines - proof of bias. Why should anyone believe Bill Gates doesn't have his paws in the supplement industry? It's worth a few hundred billion dollars but I guess we can trust them and just not Big Pharma (weird).
Now we're on multiple boosters with diminishing returns, with the WHO warning that the entire model is unviable.
Oh so you trust the WHO. They're the ones behind the whole scamdemic... (kidding).
Vaccine passports are now a thing in NYC, Philly, and Chicago. That's an absolutely huge intrusion - you have to show people your papers to get a hamburger.
These are terrible policies, but what kind of power are politicians getting from having three cities in the U.S. with robust vaccine mandates which may or may not be heavily enforced? The mandates are unpopular. The only place I've ever had to show my vaccine proof was a Broadway show and comedy show, so basically venues with a lot of people sitting right on top of each other. They were much stricter about masks and whatnot in Chicago when I went recently. It comes down to whether or not an employee making minimum wage feels like getting into a useless argument and the odds of that are low. The new mayor is also way more lenient than DeBlasio.
Why does Biden who is half-dead give a shit about making sure everyone is vaccinated as an element of control? I'm not denying these policies are intrusions; I just don't think politicians are trying to microchip us and make us sterile. Skeptics believe this was all a giant lie to see if people would really stay home without significant pushback (they didn't). Even if the argument is that politicians were personally enriched by the vaccine, it still doesn't explain the other elements to the conspiracy about why every science and medical professional agrees. You can resist the policies without giving credence to the people who think this entire thing is a hoax or elaborate lie. It's one thing to be resistant to mandates or question limited research; it's another to believe that hospitals were really empty and the whole entire staff and media was conspiring to make up fake deaths to inflate the numbers. These conspiracy theorists are on a whole other level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I see. Do you believe all the researchers at the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins are lying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That copy pasta didn't answer my questions about a global conspiracy; it just states why lockdowns were a bad idea. The NY Times link you sent describes a study which says the vaccines aren't effective at preventing Omicron in vaccinated individuals like it was effective against the other strains. If you plan on using this study as a resource (implying it's valid) then it means you accept the points it makes about the efficacy of vaccines overall. The study also says a third booster shot is a lot more effective against Omicron. But let me guess, you don't believe that.
Created:
Posted in:
"Pruitt was on probation and wearing an ankle monitor when he stormed the Capitol." Smooth.
Created:
Posted in:
I'ma go watch TV but I'll respond to the ones I missed later if warranted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
If I’m being perfectly honest most of my intense opposition to immigration has always come from the viewpoint that people who I know for a fact have an intense hatred of people like me have been openly enthusiastic about using immigration as a bludgeon against us for my entire life.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
“I like things the way they are” is a perfectly valid reason to oppose the mass movements of peoples and it’s essentially my reasoning.
But immigration IS the way things are - there has been non-stop immigration in perpetuity to the U.S. for the last 500+ years. I do appreciate the honesty of this position though I disagree that it's valid. It's the appeal to tradition fallacy.
I also don’t think it’s as simple as saying immigration is good and or bad for the economy because there are different kinds of immigrants.
That's true, but there is a significant body of research that shows almost all immigration is a net positive for the economy.
I can accept the other relevant factors people mention (like culture); however, people never seem to want to address the immorality of what happens when people are NOT allowed to immigrate legally in tandem with the other factors that they do want to discuss. I'm not only talking about the poverty or danger people are relegated to just by the very nature of where they're born, but also the fact that enforcing immigration laws is often brutal and inhumane. We all saw the pictures of Haitians being rounded up by agents on horseback like cattle. Yesterday a 7 year old Venezuelan girl drowned in the Rio Grande as she was attempting to cross into Del Rio with her mother. The mother lost her grip and the child was swept away. These are things to consider in the complexity of the discussion as a whole.
I’ve always been skeptical of the narrative that Americans can’t do the job, though.
The current "labor shortage" is more about not having enough people willing to work certain jobs for certain wages because they have more options and opportunity (but notice how nobody's talking about low unemployment and rising wages under Biden like they were for Trump). Your local Taco Bell might be staffed by white teens, and that's great, but there are plenty of memes, angry Facebook posts and data from the Dept of Labor showing a lot of jobs simply aren't being filled. I've had bad experiences from staff shortages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Why are you using an alias?
I think it's split on how immigrants feel about U.S. culture assuming we even have a unified American culture. People coming from the Middle East and Asia don't seem to adapt quickly whereas Latin Americans and Europeans are obviously more westernized. The children of all immigrants are very likely to assimilate. It's always been the case. The whole plot and punchline for almost all movies, television and comedy about immigrants is the kids becoming more Americanized against the parent's wishes. So I definitely see the utility in assimilation, but I don't think it's a problem that should impact immigration laws.
You bring up a good point that we have a lot of arable land even though a lot of it is regulated out of utility. It's worth noting in the immigration discussion that we have a lot more land than we need to sustain the population. We could certainly afford to expand, but bringing up fossil fuels and any other impact on the environment is a great argument against that. It's a shame conservatives won't use it because then they'd have to acknowledge that fossil fuels are really a problem. Womp womp. But I do think that is one of the best arguments against more immigration I've come across; it's directly related to my concerns about infrastructure. Thank you for bringing it up.
I also think your point about immigration hurting the rest of the world and its resources is a good one. That can seemingly be addressed by more acceptance of outsourcing though which I would be fine with and maybe even prefer. Perhaps that's a compromise for nativists to consider: less immigration in exchange for less protectionism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
This is actually what Trump stated many times he wanted to do. He may have clothed it in tough rhetoric, but his plan was to make legal immigration a lot easier, while simultaneously preventing illegal immigration.
He didn't make immigration easier and I don't think he ever wanted to. He genuinely believes along with Bernie Sanders that immigrants take work away from low-skilled Americans and drive their wages down. It's not true though (or rather not the whole picture).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I thank you for being the only person to address my specific questions about lockdowns vs. immigration restrictions.
You said that paying someone $2 an hour is exploiting them. How is it exploiting them if they literally risked their lives for the opportunity to make $2 an hour in this country? How is it exploiting them if they are desperate to work for those wages -- are you saying they have a better opportunity in their home country? Apparently not.
It's pretty telling that you equate Americans with white people, Wylted. You should really explore that a bit further on your own time. However my question is why an employer is required to pay "white people '' anything above what the market says they are worth. Explain why it is "unethical" to pay a low skilled worker low wages. Is the government controlling the market (labor supply) what you consider to be liberty and freedom? Sounds like some "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Karl Marx stuff to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m not going to debate abortion.
I wasn't expecting you to. I'm just pointing out that we make up who is eligible for rights based on arbitrary things all the time. If someone has to "wait in line" as a requirement for U.S. citizenship, then surely it is reasonable to make waiting for consciousness or waiting until they can actually LIVE on their own outside the womb a logical prerequisite to citizenship as well.
What’s the moral of the story? Everyone wants to be nice but we don’t have the resources to accept everybody and it’s immoral per your own argument to discriminate against people living in India vs Latin America.
That's a good point if you can expand on it. I'm concerned about infrastructure. Which resources do you think would take the hardest hit?
If my parents can do it, so can everyone else. They don’t deserve to cut the line because my parents did everything legally.
It is objectively untrue that just because your parents did it, that it's a realistic option for everyone else. There is no "line" for the vast majority of immigrants. Most do not have the necessary family or employment relationships to get in line, and even those that do finally get in line often have to wait years given the backlog of applicants, lottery policy and other laws - especially immigrants from Mexico. They often wait between 19 and 24 years for visas to become available.
Data shows that in 2018, more than 100,000 legal immigrants (which is 28% of the family‐sponsored and employment‐based lines with quotas) waited a decade or more to apply for a green card. Wait times have doubled since 1991. In fact some green card categories have wait times of 100 years. There are currently more than 5 million people waiting in the backlog including 1 million skilled migrants. Comparing your parent's experience to theirs is not analogous. It all varies and the "lines" look different for all. For example, because Indians have reached the country limits in the categories for employees with bachelor’s and master’s degrees, the law requires them to wait about a decade to immigrate, while applicants from all other countries except China may apply for their green cards almost immediately, cutting ahead of Indians in the line.
I could go on and on about further disparities, but the point is that "waiting in line" is not a realistic or great option. I might take my chances immigrating illegally, especially if my kids became naturalized citizens. We can change the rules to be more equitable and just without advocating that anyone "cut" the line.
But let’s not forget the national security reasons of having a pourous border too. Just recently CBP caught terrorists at the border. Eliminate borders and the drug trade skyrockets with cartel violence seeping across the border.
I'm not for open borders - immigrants should be subjected to rigorous security checks. Plus they'll be spied on like everyone else in the U.S.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is a great point. What would legislation look like if you were to propose something workable people could agree on?
You know that point about accepting economic migrants was actually a Republican position not too long ago. “Our immigration system should be open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here" - Ronald Reagan. The Bush's shared similar sentiments, although some populists might argue that was just to keep capitalists rich.
I have some ideas for things we could do although I certainly don't have all the answers. Essentially I would call for much easier immigration policy: just security and disease checks for the most part, and then significantly increase the penalties for illegal immigration or hiring illegal immigrants to ensure documentation of everyone within the States. That would be imperative for security and other things.
One idea is to allow people to come and live + work here, but not make them eligible for the privileges of citizenship for a certain amount of time - say 10 years. So they can work but employers do not have to pay them minimum wage, and they would pay taxes but not be eligible for things like Social Security or Unemployment until they become citizens. Essentially that's what's happening now except they never become citizens, and often do not report a lot of crimes that happen to them (rape, theft, kidnapping, violence) out of fear of deportation. I'd also make them wait ten years to vote. Do you see any issues with these suggestions?
Side note: my brother-in-law was almost turned away from working a temp job in South Korea for health reasons. They took his blood pressure when he arrived at the airport, and it was a little high so they almost made him go home and not obtain a work visa so as to discourage any burdens on their healthcare system. Fortunately he convinced them to take it again and after he calmed down a bit it went back to normal levels so he could stay. I have mixed feelings on this and feel like as a policy it could be abused and/or become a significant rights issue, even for native Americans, so I'd pass on that policy for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The rumor is that Ray Epps is working for the FBI and the Director was explicitly asked about him. If she confirms someone is not an agent or that an agent is not involved in one instance, then the next time there is an accusation against an individual and she does not answer, it puts that person at risk. Therefore the FBI policy has always been to answer that way and not give any information about the involvement of agents or informants. Ted Cruz knows that so all of that was just political theater. He asked the same question three times in a row for dramatic emphasis knowing she wouldn't answer any differently. In fact she answered improperly when she said she knew of Ray Epps but wasn't aware of his background. She never should have mentioned the word background; she should have just said she knew he existed and that's it. Every lawyer on the planet would tell you the best way to answer a question is with as little information as possible. It's not incriminatory - it's common sense. And especially in the case of FBI, it's just good policy.
Think about this. Even before January 6, the FBI was clear that the groups most likely to commit acts of terrorism were domestic extremist groups. It would be bizarre if they weren't engaged in all kinds of infiltration efforts of these groups given they proclaim them to be the biggest threats to national security.
We know the FBI uses informants to provoke people into plots (see examples in the War on Terror). The three main groups instigating the January 6 attacks were the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters - all groups the FBI is likely infiltrating. But the glaring fact of the matter is that even if some Feds were involved, it doesn't prove it was a plot by the Feds. All over social media there were Trumpkins talking about going to Washington DC on January 6 and bragging about what would take place. You can see far-right activists all over social media urging them to attend the rally with videos and hashtags calling for civil war and violence. There is evidence that specific instructions for taking the Capitol appeared on sites like Parler, 4chan and Gab, not to mention the encrypted messages they have as well. There is evidence that when the mob was storming the Capitol, people were commenting all over their Live videos to say things like "hang the traitors!" and the mob was encouraged to get violent by fellow Trump supporters. It makes positively no sense to blame the FBI for all of that just like it was equally laughable to blame ANTIFA.
Did you ever respond to the fact that the Oath Keepers had weapons and boats set up to ferry weapons to the Capitol? And was Ashlii Bobbitt a Fed? Remember TRUMP was the one who directed people to go to the Capitol weeks beforehand. At the Stop the Steal rally (lol) Giuliani called for "trial by combat" and the narrative was that Pence was a huge pussy and traitor to the republic, hence Trumpkins chanting "Hang Mike Pence" while they walked over and started to scale the walls. It's pretty ridiculous to blame the FBI for that and for people going to the Capitol generally considering Trumpkins were planning it and bragging about it before, during and after the fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I wanted to say that I noticed Big Tech is censoring some left wing falsehoods now. On Instagram I saw a meme about the Finnish PM implementing a 4 day work week, and below it there was a fact checking banner like the Covid ones where it said "this is a half truth" or something. Apparently the PM mentioned it in a Tweet several years ago but it hasn't been introduced in legislation. There was another example I came across but I can't remember what it is now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think 20-30 years from now countries will be competing for productive immigrants, and they increasingly just won't be there. If that actually happens it's going to be very interesting because I don't think we've seen an environment like that ever
That is an interesting thought. I can't even imagine how dramatically different the world is going to be in general in like 5 decades.
Do you happen to have any idea how they manage to have so many kids in such a high cost of living area? Do they pool a lot of resources, or stack bunk beds in their apartments?
They are very insular and help each other to a degree, but a lot of them are actually on welfare. It's unclear how much of the welfare is really needed. A lot of people suspect they are just exploiting government services which could be antisemitism... ya know, the whole "Jews are super cheap" trope... but there is also evidence of it. They have been caught in a lot of scams. My guess is a good deal that live in Brooklyn are actually pretty wealthy. Those with less money move to upstate New York, or somewhere like Lakewood, NJ which now has a pretty big orthodox Jewish population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
China and Russia whipped up some shitty inactivated virus vaccine that wasn't very effective at all but doesn't seem to have the safety concerns attached to them that a lot of the western ones do.
What kind of safety concerns are attached to the U.S. vaccines?
I think that pharmaceutical companies hate FDA testing regimens and found a way to both skip them and be completely freed from liability.
So you're suggesting they just sort of got tired of waiting for approval, and were okay with killing millions of people around the world to get some ROI. That wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen, but I don't get why governments and corporations all over the world would be in lockstep with this scam. China's economy suffered tremendously -- I think they might still be locked down.
I don't know if I agree the shots didn't do what they promised to do considering we kind of knew all along how viruses mutate and how the efficacy of vaccines wanes with subsequent mutations. That's why there was a push for quick vaccination. I also don't know if I agree that the government cares about accumulating more emergency powers here since, as I said, the vast majority of life has gone back to normal and in some places hardly changed at all. Why are all the big liberal city mayors fighting lockdowns and unions mandating restrictions if their goal is more control? What kind of control, specifically are they after here? I'm not saying it's not true - I'm saying I need an explanation of what specific power they're looking for so it doesn't just sound like a Fox News sound bite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
vaccines don't slow the spread.
Show me the research that says this.
Long story short. people have good reason not to trust what the government says about danger and risks.
I get that you don't trust government. I asked why politicians and scientists in every single country all over the world are lying to citizens across the globe, and why every single country (including all of our enemies) would be on the same side. I asked if Dr. Fauci controls Russia and Kim Jung Un. I asked how or why it would be in China's best interest to go along with the scandemic and subsequent lockdowns, which enriched our biggest corporations which threatens their economic dominance.
I think the second you try to answer any of these questions, you'll realize the "scamdemic" theory doesn't make sense. It's far more likely the government just overreacted in the face of bad data - data that was incomplete and that presumed the worst. They they have subsequently backed down with the majority of the country having already returned to normal (again, challenging the idea that this was a grand plan to unleash some type of draconian new world order). But hey maybe it is true that every single politician, doctor and scientist around the world including all of our enemies were all pushing the same lies to their people. If that's the case, I hope someone tries answering my questions to explain the point of that to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bmdrocks asked you why it matters if Section 230 gets repealed if it serves no purpose. He didn't say that you wanted it repealed - he's essentially asking why Facebook is spending so much money trying to make changes to it if it has no function. Why Is Mark Zuckerberg asking Congress to amend the law to prevent competition that could threaten Facebook’s market dominance? Zuck's already admitted that Facebook benefitted from Section 230 which disproves your position that it's an inconsequential piece of legislation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because actual political asylum seekers (not economic refugees) are required by international law to register in the 1st country they enter.I think it's part of the reason the SCOTUS told Biden to fuck off.
True but that's just saying what the law is, not justifying it. I suspect the people fleeing really are in some kind of serious hardship. Whether its dire poverty or domestic violence, people don't just get in teeny tiny rafts or cross the hot desert knowing how many people die trying to get here just for funsies. They literally risk their lives and/or pay tens of thousands of dollars to coyotes, sometimes sending just their children and risking their children's lives. It's fucked up of the people who shame those who are that desperate. I mean unless you think immigrants are barbarians who don't care about their kids, obviously they're in some kind of dire need to go along with some of the decisions they make.
It's fine to reserve asylum for people fleeing violence and persecution. I think you should be able to immigrate for economic reasons without having to claim asylum.
Re: Canada, are you asking if I want to debate the merit of mandating health checks for immigration purposes? I've always said health and security checks are imperative to immigration. I'd be a lot harsher on illegal immigration if legal immigration were easier. I'm not for open borders although I do admittedly find the libertarian arguments for it to be pretty interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I'd have to think more about it other than the obvious moral reasons and fact that the U.S. is supposed to be a beacon of hope and opportunity for immigrants. But to me the question is also about what right someone / government has to prevent individuals from trading property or labor with whomever they damn well please. If I own a house and feel like renting it out to a Guatemelan, it's none of anyone else's business and they shouldn't be able to stop me. The same thing goes if I open a restaurant and feel like hiring a Mexican bus boy.
This brings me to the other question in the OP which it seems like nobody feels like answering. Why is it wrong to force a business to close for 2 months thereby affecting their profitability, but okay to prevent a business from hiring cheap labor which impacts their profitability? If the answer is "because we have to do what's best for Americans as a whole" then why not create laws for mandatory exercise and regimented diets? The question I asked in the OP is why is authoritarianism "for the good of the country" okay when it comes to restricting immigration, but not other kinds of restrictions? Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I don't see why they should have to wait in Mexico. Many of them are vulnerable and forced to wait in unsafe circumstances there with limited access to humanitarian aid. But I'm glad we can discuss this example of where some humans have very limited rights in this country based solely on what latitude and longitude they exited their mother's vagina and nothing more. Just more proof that we as a nation make shit up about which humans are eligible for certain rights per arbitrary standards that we can and do change on a whim.
(Also, just think about it for a second. How does it make sense to find abortion immoral regarding a clump of cells with zero understanding of what is happening at all whatsoever, but think sure, send the people and children who trekked 1,000 miles on foot with nothing but the clothes on their backs back to Mexico so we can make sure they are really in danger and not just desperately poor. You're saying that people who literally risk their lives, implying at the very least a life of severe hardship, do not deserve to seek a better life for themselves no matter how desperate they are just because too bad, tough shit? The morality of ya'll is truly baffling to me but I digress).
I'll just repeat that any immigration restrictionist who doesn't understand or account for this doesn't know enough about our system to have a credible opinion. And if they're not willing to significantly change these barriers and make it a lot easier to immigrate, then the platitudes about "just following the law" are a crock of shit. Some people are more honest about hating/fearing foreigners or wanting the U.S. to become some sort of white ethnostate like the people in Trump's administration, and thett3 who admits he does not like diversity and prefers homogeny. I was asking if there were actually any good reasons to oppose immigration as opposed to the bad reasons I don't care about in the OP. I'm sure there are some. The only ones coming to mind now have to do with infrastructure and welfare. Illegal immigrants shouldn't qualify for social services but legal ones would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How is Canada's immigration policy supposed to be relevant? Are you suggesting we should model our government to be like Canada's, or that because Canada is more egalitarian we're supposed to assume they're right on immigration... but wrong on everything else?
A better argument would probably consist of looking at countries with more immigration and see what negative impacts it has had if any. Of course that still doesn't answer why it's outrageous to force a business to close for 2 months but not force them to spend more on labor which could equally hurt their profitability or opportunity to succeed, but I digress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You can’t seek asylum for economic reasons
Sure, but asylum seekers should not be met with threats, punishment, detention or immediate expulsion rather than a fair chance to make their case.
Created:
-->
@sui_generis
Admittedly I don't understand the context of your question. Are you asking about sex, gender identification or both?
I'd say the best argument for defending it is procreation, and the best argument against it is we simply know it doesn't exist lol or rather it is not the default orientation for all. Not only has gay sex been observed in the animal kingdom, but all the research out there indicates most people's sexuality is fluid, especially in the absence of social judgment.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't get the 3 years old thing?
Created:
Posted in:
Oh Trump also picked Pence for the Evangelical vote, but mostly the presumed loyalty and docile personality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I will read that and respond tomorrow. Just kinda fucking around tonight but I'll get back to ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
She actually prefaced her question to him in the debate by saying “I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground... but something something about him opposing bussing... and that little girl was me." She definitely challenged him on his past record without explicitly insulting him. I think you would admit that Trump played a whole different ball game. He made fun out of all his opponents whereas the Dems were forced to play nice and not say too many harsh things knowing it would be used against the nominee.
Also Harris was chosen as VP because the Dems essentially demanded a black VP, and they didn't really have other options aside from Stacy Abrams who just lost the race for Governor. Trump picked his VP based on who would be loyal to him and nothing more. He singlehandedly dominates the GOP with all potential candidates even today needing to go through him and get his blessing or else their career is essentially nonexistent. I really hope he faces off against DeSantis but I know he doesn't have the balls.
Anyway, that is a fair point you made about politics but Cruz has no stones. It wouldn't make sense to think he'd go rogue and somehow stand up against the Establishment. He is the Establishment.
Created:
Posted in:
Nativist: It's fine for people to immigrate, but it must be done legally!
Me: It is legal to seek asylum.
--5 seconds of awkward silence--
Nativist: Well they're not really in danger; they just want a better life. We need to change the asylum law.
It's important to note that people making these "just do it legally" arguments are not doing so in good faith. If you insist immigrants come here legally, but also endorse a system that makes legal immigration impossible for the vast majority of would-be migrants, then it's obviously not the law they're concerned about.
For the vast majority of humans on earth, there is no viable pathway to immigrate to the U.S. There is no "process," there is no "line," there is no "legal way." They are simply excluded by the very nature of their birth. Any immigration restrictionist who doesn't understand or account for this doesn't know enough about our system to have a credible opinion.
That said, I would be interested in exploring the arguments against increased immigration a bit more. I already know the basics: that diversity is bad (disagree); that immigration drives down wages (disagree, and if there is an impact on wages, it's negligible); increased crime (wrong); immigrants send money home (don't care - they still pay taxes here and participate in our economy - plus a lot of rich people keep their money overseas and nobody says boo); terrorism concerns (which are mitigated through background checks, and I don't see why immigrants would be immune to the surveillance state). Etc. Are there any other major points you can think of for restricting immigration? I might not necessarily argue them here but just want to look into them and research them out of personal curiosity.
--
Consider the current unemployment rate is at 3.9%, just .3% shy of record lows from 2019. We currently have rising wages and a ton of job openings, especially in low-wage jobs. Some have even called it a "labor shortage" though it's unclear if that's accurate or not because I haven't looked into the numbers myself, and I never accept those kinds of reports at face value. If unemployment is not an issue and people are pissed that many places are understaffed, do you think there will be more acceptance of low-skill immigration? (Many high-skill immigrants are often designated to low-skill jobs here to boot.)
Another question: if lockdowns and mask mandates = tyranny, why aren't laws that prevent the free movement of people or trade considered tyrannical? It seems weird to me that the idea of harming small businesses is unforgivable when it comes to something like social distance policies or capacity restrictions, but forcing a small business owner to hire more expensive workers is somehow okay even if that hurts their business.
How does it make sense to say we don't have an obligation to do things in consideration of others (i.e. vaccinations or lockdowns to protect the elderly or immunocompromised) but we somehow have an obligation to prioritize Americans over foreign workers? Why is authoritarianism "for the good of the country" okay when it comes to restricting immigration, but not other kinds of restrictions? I can think of like one or two reasonable arguments at best and they're not very strong. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Created:
Posted in:
We could always make immigration easier if we're concerned with not having enough people to live or work here. The irony (against the Republican argument that Dems want more immigration for votes) is that most immigrants are socially conservative and hostile to socialism.
Hasidic Jews are going to be around 35-40% of children in Brooklyn in the next decade, and will reach majority status very quickly if trends don't change.
I could see that. There are more Jews here than in Tel Aviv. More than one in four Brooklyn residents is Jewish. Most are Orthodox which tend to vote Republican. An interesting trend indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
I agree that some people are making too big a deal about Covid, though I'm happy to see city leadership pushing back. For instance Lori Lightfoot in Chicago and Eric Adams in NYC have been fighting teacher's unions (fuck them) trying to make schools go remote again, and we haven't had lockdowns of any kind even in Los Angeles despite Covid cases and hospitalizations increasing. The second you leave city limits there are no mask mandates, social distance requirements, etc. and life has largely gone back to normal for almost everyone. So it seems like governments have been continuously loosening the reigns - the exact opposite of what was supposed to be the end result of this Bill Gates induced scamdemic.
Now what I don't get about the vaccine skeptics is why they think politicians and doctors all over the world are conspiring to poison or needlessly jab their citizens just for the hell of it. There are other ways to keep Big Pharma profitable. Why would every single country, including our enemies, be espousing the same lies -- and how did they convince the overwhelming majority of the science community across the globe to go along with it? (I get that Sweden was one very unique country, as in small and homogenous, that avoided lockdowns; however, they are nearly 90% vaccinated against Covid now.)
North Korea and Eritrea are the only two countries without Covid vaccine campaigns. Instead North Korea has dealt with the pandemic through years of lockdowns that are still ongoing. So to be clear, what is the alleged logic behind all of the countries around the globe including North Korea taking strong action against Covid? Are we all on the same side now? I assume the theory is that it's some sort of GLOBAL conspiracy to take over the world. Can someone explain to me how it works? Does Dr. Fauci control Kim Jung Un? Did our Deep State force Russia to develop their own vaccine? Did China really want to help the richest U.S. companies grow even richer which threatens their economic prowess... is that the argument? I don't get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are being really nasty about him and his wife for no real reason, there's much worse than Cruz out there and their attractiveness is irrelevant.
No reason? Ted Cruz is a piece of shit.
I was being facetious in reference to when Donald Trump called Ted Cruz's wife ugly (among other insults) and Cruz kissed his ass anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Imagine asking the top law enforcement agency in the country if they participated in what they are calling an attempt to overthrow the government, and they don't reply with a stern, immediate NO.
Imagine asking the top law enforcement agency to reveal their methods of operations and breach confidentiality just because some dipshit like Ted Cruz asked them to when they have no legal obligation or logical reason to answer.
I already explained to you why answering "I can't answer that" proves nothing and you didn't respond. I can only assume you don't have a response and you realize that's true, which I'm sure stirs up some doubt or cognitive dissonance within you. That's a good start.
Please note that repeating what you said in the OP doesn't negate a thing I said - it's just you doubling down which proves my theory that you have no interest in the truth; it appears you want the conspiracy to be real. The fact that you haven't answered how I can disprove your theory when I asked you 2x also seems to validate that point.
Ask yourself why you keep dodging my questions. For instance, was Ashlii Bobbitt a Fed? What was the purpose of this "false flag?"
It is straight up gross that Ted Cruz, looking to regain credibility among Trumpkins after calling the January 6 a terrorist attack last week (which you also ignored) is now trying to convince people that he is on their side. It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain that one random person yelling "fed!" at another random person in a crowd proves positively nothing at all about the accused individual yet alone a Deep State conspiracy. That's not evidence. That's literally just an accusation without evidence.
You're better than this.
Created:
Posted in:
Also the best is that people think TED CRUZ who has been groomed to be a politician since childhood and who has worked for the Bush's, federal government, etc. for years (in fact he still works for the federal government) is going to be the "freedom fighter" who tells the truth about the Deep State. He called January 6 a "violent terrorist attack" on Tucker Carlson last week but... clearly he didn't mean it! 😆
Of course now this fucking pansy ass went back on Fox News with his tail tucked between his legs and actually apologized for calling it that like the little bitch he is, and now he's gonna run with this to try and salvage any popularity he can muster before the next election. He can't even be counted on to defend his ugly wife let alone be counted on to defend the country from any kind of Deep State government attack. If that's your guy, good luck.
Created:
Posted in:
Wow, this changes everything. That is REALLY powerful evidence. Just really compelling stuff. I have a lot to think about now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The cops who helped the Jan 6 protesters were charged with crimes, Wylted. And it's really not hard to understand why one or two cops would side with Trumpkins considering Trumpkins walk around worshipping cops, and a good portion of law enforcement are Trump supporters (the irony of anti government conspiracy theorists worshiping cops should not be lost on anyone).
What about all the protesters yelling at cops who were trying to stop them, the cops who were sprayed with irritants or hit in the head and died? Which ones were the Feds in that scenario? Were they working at the Capitol for 15 years in preparation for this false flag because they knew Trump would lose an election almost two decades later? (Let me guess, Bill Gates had this in the works all along! Or maybe it was George Soros. Unclear.) Was Ashli Bobbitt a Fed?
Ya know it's really scary that people think one random person in a crowd yelling "fed!" is evidence of anything. God only knows what other "evidence" you think is credible. Someone who believes in god should pray you simpletons are never selected for jury duty. No offense.
Notice you didn't answer my question of what it would take to convince you that this theory is horse shit because deep down you want to believe it's true. The same way some people on the left are just itching for Covid to be so much worse than it is, other people are just dying for the FBI to be part of a massive conspiracy to try and threaten to kill Congress for... some... reason? I guess the Deep State just loves Trump so much they couldn't have a peaceful transfer of power over to Biden. Wow it really makes sense now that I think about it 🥴
Created:
Posted in:
"I'm pretty sure the FBI wouldn't be dumb enough to put their own agent on a Wanted list. Ray Epps has cooperated with the January 6 committee and we thank him. On the broader issue, let's say Ray was an agent (HE IS NOT), the premise is that one agent can gin up a crowd to insurrection. That isn't saying much about the intelligence of your supporters, is it Ted?
The narrative on Jan 6 has first been that it's ANTIFA, or patriots who love their country, maybe crisis actors, definitely false flag operatives, or now the FBI. Take your pick. Truth is they were rioters incited by lies." - Rep. Kinzinger
Just about sums it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My pleasure! But what you should really be thanking me for is explaining why Wylted's argument (by Ted Cruz) in the OP is laughably stupid since you apparently could not figure that out on your own. You are now a bit more informed thanks to me, and again you are very welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And again, if he is cooperating with the FBI, that would not prove a false flag. All it proves is that he is an informant.
Normally I'd say you don't have to thank me for explaining things but this time I'll accept. You're welcome!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol why would she answer whether he worked for the Feds in any capacity? That wouldn't be a huge red flag to his batshit crazy friends who all hate the government and want to overthrow it? I mean where do you come up with these horse shit takes lol dear lord.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It shows that the crowd was aware there was fed involvement
One person in the crowd guessed that Epps was a fed with no proof (saying "we should storm the capitol" is not proof). And even if he is a fed -- which he very well might be -- it would not prove in any way whatsoever that the Capitol Riots and plan for a subsequent civil war was not something being planned by far-right wack jobs all along. Epps could have been saying that to rile people up and see how they would respond.
The Oath Keepers stockpiled arms expecting to go to war for Trump. There are encrypted messages of them saying things like "Pence betrayed us!" and other incriminatory things. They were straight up ready to enact a coup and had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of guns and ammo along with a ferry set up from Virginia to send ammunition to people at the Capitol. Would the FBI need to do that? No. Just like they had no reason to stage a false flag dumb ass riot considering Trump was about to be removed from office and this coup did not change the American way of life at all. At best it increased security at the Capitol which they could have done with the flick of a pen and without having to kill innocent people.
🙄
I get that you're a mastubatory contrarian and get off on believing you "think differently" and "see the whole picture." But all you're doing is regurgitating far-right horse shit conspiracy theories with no proof. The same way the mainstream media sensationalizes things for clicks, views, likes and profit - that's exactly what these YouTubers are doing or wherever you get these "hot takes" from. You're just repeating what they are saying and it's nonsense and easy to rip apart, but I probably won't spend much more time doing so. It's very hard to change the mind of people who believe in conspiracies and you can read about why that is in many articles online. Is there anything that would prove to you Trump supporters were legitimately behind the Jan 6 riot? I mean aside from the fact that it's glaringly obvious. What evidence would convince you this whole shpiel by Ted Cruz is prolifically stupid? Clearly my ripping that "evidence" to shreds didn't cut it, so what would convince you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How many of my colleagues were in the office today? I can't answer that. OH WOW I MUST BE LYING OR AN IDIOT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER 🙄🙄🙄🙄 Lol such fucking dipshit logic. Whether or not she knows if Epps is an informant (she does) is irrelevant. It is wholly inappropriate to answer questions about operations targeting far right militias that are still ongoing. Anyone who thinks it's a giant conspiracy to keep confidential informants confidential is a fucking moron.
Created: