Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
If there were no previous history, I'd be somewhat more inclined to agree with you here, and even as is I'm not myself especially fond of the way the stuff in the OP went down.
But it's definitely relevant that adios has a long history of drive-by trolling, usually in the form of dumping a link to some article and then refusing to actually engage in any substantive discussion of it. It's not really hard to tell that his main intent is to troll. The people responding to him know that, and respond accordingly. I'd guess I've seen at least a half dozen times where people have taken the time to post reasonable counter-arguments to his trollish posts, often rebutting him by quoting from the links he himself has posted but not bothered to read. They were not rewarded for their efforts. Why should they be expected to put 10x as much effort into their response as he put into his post?
I'm on record in the past as thinking there is some validity to complaints about the culture of the politics forum, but (and this has pretty much always been the case) the people complaining tend to be such bad posters that it's hard to feel like it's really worth sticking up for their "right" to post. I mean I'm sure at this point it's also something like a vicious circle too, where the culture of the forum dissuades all but the dumbest or trolliest conservatives from bothering to post, but nevertheless the pattern where it's mostly bad posters complaining about the forum has held for a pretty long time.
Truth == Trolling now? I posted a link to an article that is informative.
Originally Posted by adios View Post
The Truth About Separating Kids
Quote:
1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).
What part of this is untrue? People that come across illegally basically have the option to be returned immediately with their children.
Quote:
2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.
Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.e., Mexico or some other country they are traversing to get here. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.
If a family goes to a legal port of entry and claims asylum the parents and children will not be separated. What part of this is untrue?
Quote:
3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.
So somehow if a person is not ok with granting citizenship immediately to people who enter the country ILLEGALLY they are immoral? The USA has a process for gaining citizenship legally. Not putting people that enter illegally to at the least the back of the line is completely unfair to people who do follow the rules.
Quote:
Children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.
Are we really claiming that crossing the border illegally is actually safe for children? Really?
Quote:
In April, the New York Times reported:
Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
The NYTis quoted that there are people that actually game the system?
Quote:
Then this happens and nobody is even temp banned
I got banned for pointing how ridiculous it was for JayZ, a billionaire, to be complaining about white privilege. That is just silly demogaugery on his part. I was accused of being envious of him. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think he deserves every $1 he's earned. More power to him but claiming you've been held back by white privileged is just insane when you basically built a $billion brand from basically nothing.
As far as drive by trolling, the examples of the posting in this thread pretty much indicate that the politards don't tolerate viewpoints different than their own nor are they interested in discussing points of view that aren't supported by the left. So I ask what is there to really debate then?
Last edited by adios; 06-18-2018 at 05:44 PM.