Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Eric Cartman · 26-11-2018 11:15PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Children were tear-gassed but the people doing the tear-gassing are blameless. Okay.

when you have a hoard of people of whom the majority are able bodied adults trying to get over an illegal border crossing and you need to disperse them, what product or weapon is more accurate and as harmful at doing that to the adults but avoids the kids ?

I think the problem is that you think they should be over the border and as a result ashore the use of force.
I don't think they should be allowed over the border and as such teargas is the best of a bad lot of options.

TomOnBoard · 26-11-2018 11:17PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They were allowed in, which is one of the problems Donny T was elected to stop.

I can find no evidence that 'caravans' of any size (in the sense of comprising hundreds or thousands of people) pre-existed Trump's presidency. The 1st one I can find is one from Holy Week in 2017, labelled "The Way of the Migrants", presumably a reference to the Holy Week "Way of the Cross".

Either previous ones were ignored by the media, or migrants didn't clump together into such large groups previously.

I would welcome any correction.

everlast75 · 26-11-2018 11:19PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They were allowed in, which is one of the problems Donny T was elected to stop.

Show me proof that their entry into the US has had a negative effect.

I mean - that's what you're claiming right?

You're not claiming they should be stopped because they are benefiting the U.S. surely?

So - show me the proof. Show me where they are ripping off the US system.

Tell me what happens to them.

Tell me why Donny's system is better.

Give me facts.

Because if you quote me the stats he has spouted, I will show you each and every one of them is bullsh1t.

Professor Moriarty · 26-11-2018 11:22PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

when you have a hoard of people of whom the majority are able bodied adults trying to get over an illegal border crossing and you need to disperse them, what product or weapon is more accurate and as harmful at doing that to the adults but avoids the kids ?

I'm not a security expert. I know that tear-gassing children is wrong though.

Maybe you're right. Perhaps they could try something new? Maybe separate the adults from their children and put them in different cages. Oh wait...

Eric Cartman · 26-11-2018 11:26PM

everlast75 wrote: »

Show me proof that their entry into the US has had a negative effect.

I mean - that's what you're claiming right?

You're not claiming they should be stopped because they are benefiting the U.S. surely?

So - show me the proof. Show me where they are ripping off the US system.

Tell me what happens to them.

Tell me why Donny's system is better.

Give me facts.

Because if you quote me the stats he has spouted, I will show you each and every one of them is bullsh1t.

Show me proof that they have a positive effect ?

South and Central American countries are some of the most dangerous places on the planet, home to numerous large violent gangs and drug cartels. Hispanic crime rates in the US are massive, lack of education and welfare receipt rate among the legal ones are higher than native population and that isn't even counting the illegal immigrants. Like it or not, anyone crossing an illegal border crossing is a criminal, and this is a country that wants to curtail the amount of people coming from central and South America.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/latin-america-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-region-but-there-are-signs-its-turning-a-corner/

"ohh they're teargassing a child" is awful, but not a justification to open a border to a caravan of migrants the US doesn't want and is entitled to deny entry to.

everlast75 · 26-11-2018 11:29PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Show me proof that they have a positive effect ?

South and Central American countries are some of the most dangerous places on the planet, home to numerous large violent gangs and drug cartels. Hispanic crime rates in the US are massive, lack of education and welfare receipt rate among the legal ones are higher than native population and that isn't even counting the illegal immigrants. Like it or not, anyone crossing an illegal border crossing is a criminal, and this is a country that wants to curtail the amount of people coming from central and South America.

"ohh they're teargassing a child" is awful, but not a justification to open a border to a caravan of migrants the US doesn't want and is entitled to deny entry to.

God Eric, you're making it sound like people who want a better life would have an extremely valid reason for leaving there.

Thanks for making my argument for me.

dr.fuzzenstein · 26-11-2018 11:30PM

Don't know why Cartman ist upset, illegals are not only good for the US economy, they're vital.
I'm sure as a good conservative he should approve of the exploitation of poor people for the enrichment of the top 1%, that is basically the republican party's manifesto.
The R's pay lipservice to cracking down on immigration, but only a complete fool would cut off a source of poor, exploitable migrants.

http://theconversation.com/why-care-about-undocumented-immigrants-for-one-thing-theyve-become-vital-to-key-sectors-of-the-us-economy-98790

Eric Cartman · 26-11-2018 11:31PM

everlast75 wrote: »

God Eric, you're making it sound like people who want a better life would have an extremely valid reason for leaving there.

Thanks for making my argument for me.

and I want a Rolls Royce , doesn't mean I'm going to get one. They might want a better life, but that doesn't mean they get free passage into the USA to get one. It certainly doesn't mean they can illegally gain entrance to the US.

Funnily enough, if 'the wall' was built, no kids would have been tear gassed.

Eric Cartman · 26-11-2018 11:32PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Don't know why Cartman ist upset, illegals are not only good for the US economy, they're vital.
I'm sure as a good conservative he should approve of the exploitation of poor people for the enrichment of the top 1%, that is basically the republican party's manifesto.
The R's pay lipservice to cracking down on immigration, but only a complete fool would cut off a source of poor, exploitable migrants.

http://theconversation.com/why-care-about-undocumented-immigrants-for-one-thing-theyve-become-vital-to-key-sectors-of-the-us-economy-98790

theres a difference between turning off a tap when a glass is full of water and having no water in the glass at all.

everlast75 · 26-11-2018 11:36PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and I want a Rolls Royce , doesn't mean I'm going to get one. They might want a better life, but that doesn't mean they get free passage into the USA to get one. It certainly doesn't mean they can illegally gain entrance to the US.

Funnily enough, if 'the wall' was built, no kids would have been tear gassed.

1) they were looking for legal entry. Can you stop repeating that lie, and also can you stop with the assertion that the US can refuse asylum without acknowledging that it is in breach of historical agreements there for decades.

2) the wall would not have been built at a port of entry so that's bs too.

Eric Cartman · 26-11-2018 11:39PM

everlast75 wrote: »

1) they were looking for legal entry. Can you stop repeating that lie, and also can you stop with the assertion that the US can refuse asylum without acknowledging that it is in breach of historical agreements there for decades.

2) the wall would not have been built at a port of entry so that's bs too.

what way would you conclude this scenario that doesn't involve them entering the USA legally or not ? how would you get them to turn around and pick somewhere else ?

dr.fuzzenstein · 26-11-2018 11:44PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

theres a difference between turning off a tap when a glass is full of water and having no water in the glass at all.

Right now the economy is booming and workers are in demand, seems like as good a time as any.
But of course these migrants are also useful as political pawns to be vilified for votes, even though the usual Trump voter wouldn't be found working the fields or in the meat factories.
There have always been migrants, legal and illegal and there has always been talk of "getting tough" by successive governments throughout the years, but that is nothing but lipservice.
With Trump it certainly is just more of the same, he just makes some extra political gains by fear and hatemongering.

relax carry on · 26-11-2018 11:45PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

what way would you conclude this scenario that doesn't involve them entering the USA legally or not ? how would you get them to turn around and pick somewhere else ?

So are you saying you want no legal migration into the US?

Eric Cartman · 26-11-2018 11:49PM

relax carry on wrote: »

So are you saying you want no legal migration into the US?

for skilled employees on work sponsored visas or people who meet other legal straightforward visa requirements and don't claim welfare - yes. For a migrant caravan carrying little to no documentation who probably do not meet visa requirements - no.

batgoat · 26-11-2018 11:56PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and I want a Rolls Royce , doesn't mean I'm going to get one. They might want a better life, but that doesn't mean they get free passage into the USA to get one. It certainly doesn't mean they can illegally gain entrance to the US.

Funnily enough, if 'the wall' was built, no kids would have been tear gassed.

No children needed to be tear gassed, it was a warped display of authoritarianism to do so tbh.

Eric Cartman · 26-11-2018 11:58PM

batgoat wrote: »

No children needed to be tear gassed, it was a warped display of authoritarianism to do so tbh.

how would you stop them all entering as explained so ?

Harry Palmr · 27-11-2018 12:14AM

GM cutting their workforce by 14,000 which is unexpected in a boom presumably they make cars not enough want or is it something else that's laying off so many blue collar voters. The share price has jumped. Time to dust off Roger and Me.

spacecoyote · 27-11-2018 12:21AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

how would you stop them all entering as explained so ?

I genuinely hope that Eric is just a troll who likes to wind up average Joe boards poster as it's infinitely more palatable to think that you just enjoy annoying people who are in a safe economic environment who have readily available access to work, resources, etc... than the idea that you actually believe some of the vile opinions that you post in relation to the most needy elements of society.

Everyone knows that there is some measure of welfare fraud, which of course authorities should try to stamp out & they should punish those guilty of it, but your attitude is screw the 99% who actually need help, it's their own fault they're in that situation & they're all just scroungers who aren't trying hard enough.

Pelvis · 27-11-2018 12:21AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

how would you stop them all entering as explained so ?

You open the gates, give them food and water, and ask them to be please patient while you process their application for asylum.

Nice to know that you're in favour of gassing toddlers though.

Eric Cartman · 27-11-2018 12:26AM

Pelvis wrote: »

You open the gates, give them food and water, and ask them to be please patient while you process their application for asylum.

Nice to know that you're in favour of gassing toddlers though.

yet again this theme of 'misrepresent what I said' , I never said I was in favour of gassing toddlers, what I said was that I didn't see a better and more 'adult only' targeted solution to dispersing the migrants.

"you open the gates and give...." that wasn't on the table, its not there now, find a solution that doesn't involve that and get back to me.

batgoat · 27-11-2018 12:33AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yet again this theme of 'misrepresent what I said' , I never said I was in favour of gassing toddlers, what I said was that I didn't see a better and more 'adult only' targeted solution to dispersing the migrants.

"you open the gates and give...." that wasn't on the table, its not there now, find a solution that doesn't involve that and get back to me.

The US have signed up to numerous conventions on refugees, they are violating them at this point in time. So nope, violent reprimands is not the best solution. It sounds like an Erdoğan style of handling a situation by trying to rally his base. Tear gassing refugees. That's a new low for the US although the new low seems to be reached once a week at this stage.

oscarBravo · 27-11-2018 12:34AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

"you open the gates and give...." that wasn't on the table, its not there now, find a solution that doesn't involve that and get back to me.

"If it's a choice between honouring our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, or teargassing children... sorry kids."

It's one thing that that's official US policy now - after all, the commander in chief is a narcissistic sociopath, so sociopathic policy is about what you'd expect. What's truly appalling is that people will cheerlead his sociopathy, and wonder why that bothers normal people.

TomOnBoard · 27-11-2018 01:15AM

Another twist in the Mueller saga... Manafort agreement allegedly broken down due to his alleged repeated lying to Muellers team, AFTER agreeing to cooperate...Manafort denies lying.. Both sides to ask Court for immediate sentencing..

Now that the mid-terms are out of the way, might a pardon be back on the table?

Christy42 · 27-11-2018 01:50AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

1) they were looking for legal entry. Can you stop repeating that lie, and also can you stop with the assertion that the US can refuse asylum without acknowledging that it is in breach of historical agreements there for decades.

2) the wall would not have been built at a port of entry so that's bs too.

what way would you conclude this scenario that doesn't involve them entering the USA legally or not ? how would you get them to turn around and pick somewhere else ?

Generally by allowing them apply for asylum like the US has agreed to do under human rights conventions. It isn't hard. Some will be told they won't be let in and some will be let in. It will lose momentum and no kids need be tear gassed.

Do you feel the US should pull back from previous human rights agreements because they are breaching them if they don't allow people to at least apply for asylum.

mcmoustache · 27-11-2018 02:53AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They were allowed in, which is one of the problems Donny T was elected to stop.

This is a fair point. Even if I think it's inhumane.

Outlaw Pete · 27-11-2018 03:04AM

Ah you gotta love the liberal media. Sanctimonious hypocrisy abound.

Tear gas and pepper spray has been used many times before in response to rock throwing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW7N7Yh3B7c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rSSGyap-GQ

San Ysidro Border Rush Had Been Planned For A Week

Deported migrants attempted a once-common tactic of rushing the border en masse on Sunday. But Border Patrol agents met them with tear gas and rubber bullets and forced them to turn back.

Indeed, many over the years (even during Obama's administration) only wish tear gas was all that had been used on them. In the following case a Mexican teenager was shot and killed for doing so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Jos%C3%A9_Rodr%C3%ADguez

Deadly border agent incidents cloaked in silence

In the last four years, rock-throwing incidents accounted for eight of the 24 instances in which agents killed people. The Border Patrol considers rocks deadly weapons that justify lethal force, even though it is rare for agents to be injured in "rockings," as they call them, and even though, as agents' reports showed, several less-lethal long-distance weapons are highly effective against rock-throwers, The Republic found.

Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher insisted agents will continue to use deadly force against rock throwers, because rocks are potentially deadly weapons.

Eight times since 2010, Border Patrol agents killed people whom they said were throwing rocks at them, including six across the border. But in at least 160 other reported cases, agents resolved cross-border rock-throwing with less-lethal weapons that can fire, for example, balls filled with pepper spray. In those cases, no one died and almost no one was seriously hurt — including the agents.

But sure never mind all that, Donald Trump's gassing kids apparently. Or at least that's the latest stick the left are beating him with.

HDMI · 27-11-2018 03:25AM

Charging the border is no way to apply for asylum. You are supposed to claim asylum in the first country you enter, these people have passed through many countries, Mexico has even offered them asylum but they refuse to accept it.

One thing I have noticed depending on where you get your news the video footage is aired differently. I watched ABC news and they barely gave a few minutes to the story and continually showed the same footage in a loop, mostly of a woman and a couple of kids. After browsing Youtube I found footage from many other news sources which show the majority of those rushing the border were males and were hurling stones. Unfortunatly they had to use gas to control the situation, is it ideal? no but the border must be protected.

There are many Americans who are seperated from their foreign spouses and children while they go through an expensive and very long immigration process. Some of those family members live in very poor and very dangerous countries and they get no special treatment, for some the process takes nearly 2 years.

Allowing this caravan to pass into the US would be a huge mistake, there are many poor countries to the south and Mexico doesn't seem to have the will to stop them coming through. If this is not stopped now the US may as well have open borders because the caravans will become more frequent and larger.

Christy42 · 27-11-2018 08:05AM

HDMI wrote: »

Charging the border is no way to apply for asylum. You are supposed to claim asylum in the first country you enter, these people have passed through many countries, Mexico has even offered them asylum but they refuse to accept it.

One thing I have noticed depending on where you get your news the video footage is aired differently. I watched ABC news and they barely gave a few minutes to the story and continually showed the same footage in a loop, mostly of a woman and a couple of kids. After browsing Youtube I found footage from many other news sources which show the majority of those rushing the border were males and were hurling stones. Unfortunatly they had to use gas to control the situation, is it ideal? no but the border must be protected.

There are many Americans who are seperated from their foreign spouses and children while they go through an expensive and very long immigration process. Some of those family members live in very poor and very dangerous countries and they get no special treatment, for some the process takes nearly 2 years.

Allowing this caravan to pass into the US would be a huge mistake, there are many poor countries to the south and Mexico doesn't seem to have the will to stop them coming through. If this is not stopped now the US may as well have open borders because the caravans will become more frequent and larger.

You are meant to claim asylum in the first country you enter in Europe. That is a very different deal and amounts to claiming asylum in the first 1st world country you get to in Europe. And then you have EU movement regulations allowing easier movement than Mexico to USA.

You mention many suffer under this immigration process to do it right. I am not really sure that is an argument in its favour really. Leaving people's spouses in dangerous countries for up to 2 years is not a glowing review of the American system really. That is not helping your case.

No one here has suggested simply letting the entire caravan in that I have seen. There are much more frequent calls to let them apply for asylum like they should be able to.

Again people ignore the point that the US is obligated to offer these people a legal route to asylum. Until that is addressed, other arguments are largely pointless.

Rhineshark · 27-11-2018 08:38AM

It all distracts very well from America's conspicuous silence on Ukraine too.

seamus · 27-11-2018 10:18AM

I see Donnie throwing his oar into the EU/UK withdrawal agreement too.

So we know a few things;

1. He hasn't and won't read the WA
2. He hasn't and won't listen to someone else summarise the WA
3. Any "trade deal" between the UK and US is hot air, it doesn't exist.

So the only rational conclusion here is that someone else has told him to speak negatively about the WA. Probably because no WA means less stability in Europe.

I wonder who could want a less stable Europe....? Perhaps someone who is trying to annex some European countries...

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Comments