Political Roundtable Part XX

[Zonkerbl]

First, it isn't just nut jobs. They are chasing off folks like the attorney general of Illinois and the like. But you are right, Kaepernick has no more right to use the NFL as a stage than the attorney general of Illinois. But that says something.

Second, the point that he made (and rightly) was that the player was chased out of the NFL as are conservatives in higher ed. So, respectfully, I see them as more similar than not.

The problem with Kaepernick is Trump needs to shut his goddamn racist mouth. Trump is working for the government now and when he advocates for Kaepernick to be fired he is violating the Constitution.

Disinviting speakers you're not interested in has nothing to do with Kaepernick. At all.

Well, that is a very salient point - using the bully pulpit to attack individuals is way over the like.

Disinviting speakers vs. shutting down their ability to speak though... not sure I am with you on that one. And prejudicial hiring practices - that is most definitely a problem.

So consider this hypothetical. The local conservative troll group at your school invites a hate speaker to spread hate at your school. Your school has a policy against hate speech and a number of targets of that hate speech protest against giving the speaker of hate an official platform at your school to spread that hate. It is entirely legitimate for the school to consider whether allowing the speaker would be an egregious violation of their policy against broadcasting hate speech. In some cases they may conclude in favor of the speaker, in other cases they will choose to disinvite the speaker. If you never disinvite any speakers what is the point of having the policy in the first place? Similarly I imagine if a liberal student group at University of Dayton, my Jesuit alma mater, invited a speaker to advocate for Planned Parenthood, there would be an outcry from the student population and the University would have to think seriously about whether to allow this person to speak. To disallow Universities from enforcing their mission, pro-Christianity or pro-tolerance, whatever it is, would be a violation of the University's "first amendment rights," so to speak.

No, I don't think a school that advertises itself as a safe space for students who belong to a persecuted minority should be forced to allow Milo Imadouchepolous to spread his message of self-hatred there. That's a violation of the student's trust and the university's right to choose its curriculum consistently with its founder's wishes.

[closg00]

The problem with Kaepernick is Trump needs to shut his goddamn racist mouth. Trump is working for the government now and when he advocates for Kaepernick to be fired he is violating the Constitution.

Disinviting speakers you're not interested in has nothing to do with Kaepernick. At all.

Well, that is a very salient point - using the bully pulpit to attack individuals is way over the like.

Disinviting speakers vs. shutting down their ability to speak though... not sure I am with you on that one. And prejudicial hiring practices - that is most definitely a problem.

So consider this hypothetical. The local conservative troll group at your school invites a hate speaker to spread hate at your school. Your school has a policy against hate speech and a number of targets of that hate speech protest against giving the speaker of hate an official platform at your school to spread that hate. It is entirely legitimate for the school to consider whether allowing the speaker would be an egregious violation of their policy against broadcasting hate speech. In some cases they may conclude in favor of the speaker, in other cases they will choose to disinvite the speaker. If you never disinvite any speakers what is the point of having the policy in the first place? Similarly I imagine if a liberal student group at University of Dayton, my Jesuit alma mater, invited a speaker to advocate for Planned Parenthood, there would be an outcry from the student population and the University would have to think seriously about whether to allow this person to speak. To disallow Universities from enforcing their mission, pro-Christianity or pro-tolerance, whatever it is, would be a violation of the University's "first amendment rights," so to speak.

No, I don't think a school that advertises itself as a safe space for students who belong to a persecuted minority should be forced to allow Milo Imadouchepolous to spread his message of self-hatred there. That's a violation of the student's trust and the university's right to choose its curriculum consistently with its founder's wishes.

I am 100% opposed to schools preventing (by disruption) speakers like Anne Coulter from speaking on college campuses, I am alarmed by this trend. OTOH, Colleges have the right to boot speakers like Richard Spencer for safety reasons.

[dckingsfan]

The problem with Kaepernick is Trump needs to shut his goddamn racist mouth. Trump is working for the government now and when he advocates for Kaepernick to be fired he is violating the Constitution.

Disinviting speakers you're not interested in has nothing to do with Kaepernick. At all.

Well, that is a very salient point - using the bully pulpit to attack individuals is way over the like.

Disinviting speakers vs. shutting down their ability to speak though... not sure I am with you on that one. And prejudicial hiring practices - that is most definitely a problem.

So consider this hypothetical. The local conservative troll group at your school invites a hate speaker to spread hate at your school. Your school has a policy against hate speech and a number of targets of that hate speech protest against giving the speaker of hate an official platform at your school to spread that hate. It is entirely legitimate for the school to consider whether allowing the speaker would be an egregious violation of their policy against broadcasting hate speech. In some cases they may conclude in favor of the speaker, in other cases they will choose to disinvite the speaker. If you never disinvite any speakers what is the point of having the policy in the first place? Similarly I imagine if a liberal student group at University of Dayton, my Jesuit alma mater, invited a speaker to advocate for Planned Parenthood, there would be an outcry from the student population and the University would have to think seriously about whether to allow this person to speak. To disallow Universities from enforcing their mission, pro-Christianity or pro-tolerance, whatever it is, would be a violation of the University's "first amendment rights," so to speak.

No, I don't think a school that advertises itself as a safe space for students who belong to a persecuted minority should be forced to allow Milo Imadouchepolous to spread his message of self-hatred there. That's a violation of the student's trust and the university's right to choose its curriculum consistently with its founder's wishes.

Your points are salient - and I don't disagree with them (not withstanding the argument against allowing the attorney general of Illinois to speak - they use that same "safe space" argument to block anyone that they have any disagreement with).

However - there has been a systematic campaign (not organized as the word would suggest but I don't have a better phrase at the moment) against employing those that aren't "liberal" at higher educational institutions. This is much more in line with the Kaepernick issue where he is essentially been denied employment.

Either way, there has been a pattern on both sides to block reasonable dialog - which is my point - through whatever various means are available to those groups.

[stilldropin20]

remember when obama lost the 2016 olympics??? Anyone remember that?? what a great president!

Read on Twitter

you know CNN and rino's are losing when lindsey graham goes on CNN and says this:

Read on Twitter

anyone remember that clown Obama telling us that 3% GDP was no longer attainable!!?? Anyone??? so right now, our unemployment rate 3.8% is lower than our GDP% (4.8 % )increases. Donald trump cant govern!! he doesn't know what he is doing!!

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

One of the very, very clear lessons from WWII is Hitler became such an existential threat to the Western world only after the cowardly liberals tried to "appease" him and let him take over Austria and Czechoslovakia and Poland unopposed. By the time the brits realized Winston Churchill had been right the entire time it was almost too late and it took extraordinary courage and stamina and some stupidity on Hitler's part for the UK to survive and eventually just wait things out long enough for Russia to turn things around.

Fascism does not deserve "fair treatment" from us peaceful people. Fascism needs to be smacked down the moment it shows its disgraceful orange face.

The Democrats are closer to fascist than the Republicans. Who is policing speech at every opportunity, denying anyone a platform because they disagree with you? Who is advocating taking guns?

I reject completely the notion that you must have open borders or else you are fascist. It's ridiculous. Every nation on the planet has stronger border security than us. Are they all fascist too?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

You advocate kidnapping children from their parents. And using those children as bargaining chips to extract concessions from the Democrats. You are a terrorist.

That is happening because the crazy laws that are in place that make it impossible to simply turn away someone who sneaks across our border with a kid. It's crazy. Every other nation has a mechanism for turning away people apprehended at the border. We HAVE to take them if they have kids and then release inside our border and just hope that they show up for a hearing.

[nate33]

Comey in an email to Clapper and Brennan (from the IG report):



And people like Nate seriously claim the FBI was trying to stop Trump.

You aren't paying attention.

The reason Comey had to re-open the investigation 9 days before the election was because the NY FBI office, which had the Weiner emails, threatened that they would go public. Comey had no choice.

Yes, I'm aware. Do you have an actual point?

Comey didn't want to go public with the email investigation and ALSO not only did he not want to go public with the Russia stuff - he didn't.

This completely obliterates your absurd narrative that the FBI was out to get Trump. The only public actions they took regarding the 2016 election helped Trump.

What "Russia stuff"? That Carter page was approached by a Maltese operative? Why on earth should that have been made public. No crime had been committed.

[nate33]

Who is policing speech at every opportunity, denying anyone a platform because they disagree with you?

LOL

Colin Kaepernick

LOL. Apples and oranges. Kaepernick is an employee whose actions could potentially cause the loss of millions of dollars for the employer. Any employer should be able to prevent their employees from protesting on company time in company uniform in a manner that harms the company.

[Zonkerbl]

The Democrats are closer to fascist than the Republicans. Who is policing speech at every opportunity, denying anyone a platform because they disagree with you? Who is advocating taking guns?

I reject completely the notion that you must have open borders or else you are fascist. It's ridiculous. Every nation on the planet has stronger border security than us. Are they all fascist too?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

You advocate kidnapping children from their parents. And using those children as bargaining chips to extract concessions from the Democrats. You are a terrorist.

That is happening because the crazy laws that are in place that make it impossible to simply turn away someone who sneaks across our border with a kid. It's crazy. Every other nation has a mechanism for turning away people apprehended at the border. We HAVE to take them if they have kids and then release inside our border and just hope that they show up for a hearing.

Republicans tearing kids away from their parents as a terrorizing tactic is exclusively a Republican choice. Only a fascist would say "well what we've chosen to do is horrible and inhuman but they're taking our jobs so we have no choice." YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE AND THE CHOICE YOU'RE MAKING IS HORRIFYING

[Zonkerbl]

Love this "Comey threw the election to Trump because we successfully pressured him into it! That biased pro-Clinton Democrat!!!!! Thank god we fired him!" line of "reasoning." It's like living through Orwell's 1984 except without the light humor.

[Zonkerbl]

You aren't paying attention.

The reason Comey had to re-open the investigation 9 days before the election was because the NY FBI office, which had the Weiner emails, threatened that they would go public. Comey had no choice.

Yes, I'm aware. Do you have an actual point?

Comey didn't want to go public with the email investigation and ALSO not only did he not want to go public with the Russia stuff - he didn't.

This completely obliterates your absurd narrative that the FBI was out to get Trump. The only public actions they took regarding the 2016 election helped Trump.

What "Russia stuff"? That Carter page was approached by a Maltese operative? Why on earth should that have been made public. No crime had been committed.

Wow Nate. How dumb do you think we are? You still pushing that BS "the FBI investigation started with Carter Page" BS? Want to win arguments? Tell the truth.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, that is a very salient point - using the bully pulpit to attack individuals is way over the like.

Disinviting speakers vs. shutting down their ability to speak though... not sure I am with you on that one. And prejudicial hiring practices - that is most definitely a problem.

So consider this hypothetical. The local conservative troll group at your school invites a hate speaker to spread hate at your school. Your school has a policy against hate speech and a number of targets of that hate speech protest against giving the speaker of hate an official platform at your school to spread that hate. It is entirely legitimate for the school to consider whether allowing the speaker would be an egregious violation of their policy against broadcasting hate speech. In some cases they may conclude in favor of the speaker, in other cases they will choose to disinvite the speaker. If you never disinvite any speakers what is the point of having the policy in the first place? Similarly I imagine if a liberal student group at University of Dayton, my Jesuit alma mater, invited a speaker to advocate for Planned Parenthood, there would be an outcry from the student population and the University would have to think seriously about whether to allow this person to speak. To disallow Universities from enforcing their mission, pro-Christianity or pro-tolerance, whatever it is, would be a violation of the University's "first amendment rights," so to speak.

No, I don't think a school that advertises itself as a safe space for students who belong to a persecuted minority should be forced to allow Milo Imadouchepolous to spread his message of self-hatred there. That's a violation of the student's trust and the university's right to choose its curriculum consistently with its founder's wishes.

Your points are salient - and I don't disagree with them (not withstanding the argument against allowing the attorney general of Illinois to speak - they use that same "safe space" argument to block anyone that they have any disagreement with).

However - there has been a systematic campaign (not organized as the word would suggest but I don't have a better phrase at the moment) against employing those that aren't "liberal" at higher educational institutions. This is much more in line with the Kaepernick issue where he is essentially been denied employment.

Either way, there has been a pattern on both sides to block reasonable dialog - which is my point - through whatever various means are available to those groups.

Ok, I'm calling bullshyte on the whole "conservative people can't get hired" schtick. Universities are liberal because talented people who choose to devote their life to pursuing knowledge rather than wealth are by definition less interested in the accumulation of wealth than the population at large. There's no conspiracy here - by the "Conservatives are people who are pro Capitalism" definition of conservative anyway.

There's also the ahole Conservatism being practiced nowadays where you mock minorities and whine about political correctness all the time, that is basically all about tearing down the rules of civilized behavior so we can be free to act like monkeys all the time. I think all those people should be shot. They certainly have no right to a platform for spreading their message of hate and ignorance. It's no surprise these idiots are poorly represented, statistically speaking, on college campuses because on average they're flaming idiots.

[stilldropin20]

The Democrats are closer to fascist than the Republicans. Who is policing speech at every opportunity, denying anyone a platform because they disagree with you? Who is advocating taking guns?

I reject completely the notion that you must have open borders or else you are fascist. It's ridiculous. Every nation on the planet has stronger border security than us. Are they all fascist too?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

You advocate kidnapping children from their parents. And using those children as bargaining chips to extract concessions from the Democrats. You are a terrorist.

That is happening because the crazy laws that are in place that make it impossible to simply turn away someone who sneaks across our border with a kid. It's crazy. Every other nation has a mechanism for turning away people apprehended at the border. We HAVE to take them if they have kids and then release inside our border and just hope that they show up for a hearing.

democrats and globalist rino's made these laws long before Trump ever announced he would run for office. Obama admin put kids in dog cages. Trump admin as built and is strictly using humane holding centers.

but the answer is real simple. STOP crossing our border illegally. especially with children.

since this wont occur, the solution is better but more expensive than the answer. Solution is build the wall. Enact and enforce better border security. political asylum is not refuge for someone who has an abusive husband or lives in a bad neighborhood.

Allowing people to cross our border illegally and reap entitlement or take up jobs that americans could be doing is why our unemployment rates have been historically high during the obama years.

Instead we can simply employ our existing black and brown folks already here. Put young american men and women to work! Raise wages and let them realize their version of the american dream. This will go a long way to heal our poor neighborhoods. This will help keep black and brown families together. Employment and livable wages is the key!!! Unemployment and low wages are the enemy. Close the borders once and for all and all of this bull crap goes away.

So the real devil, is liberal policy that allows people to poor into our borders. In addition to giving our jobs away these liberal policies are also allowing criminals, rapists, drug dealers, gang members, etc. into our souther border with Drugs that are killing our people.

this is just another issue the Trump admin if fixing. and unfortunately, we need some tough love first. We need to love our own people. We need to love existing black and brown people in our own poor neighborhood. Poor Black kids are growing up fatherless. Poor Brown kids are growing up fatherless. Poor White kids are growing up fatherless. All because the fathers are broke!! they cant get and keep jobs with livable wages. So unfortunately Parents(foreigners) who illegally cross our borders need to know they will be separated from their children if they cross the border. This is a time for self love. This is a time to love our own black and brown people. We need to love our own poor black children. Our own poor brown children. Our own poor white children. this is LONG over due.

The united states of america needs to fix itself right now. heal itself right now. We need to increase our poor and working poor wages.That will greatly help families stay together. We can do that with a strong economy. We must raise wages. We must lower the burden of entitlements. All of which will increase our tax receivables. All of which will allow all of our citizen to earn more and therefore spend more into their own economy<--which helps everyone!!!!

trump is on the right path. the economy is on the right path. border control is a part of the economy!!!

a few children detached from their parents after breaking our laws in NOT an issue. It's just more noise from the left<--who wrote the laws creating this situation to being with.

[stilldropin20]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

You advocate kidnapping children from their parents. And using those children as bargaining chips to extract concessions from the Democrats. You are a terrorist.

That is happening because the crazy laws that are in place that make it impossible to simply turn away someone who sneaks across our border with a kid. It's crazy. Every other nation has a mechanism for turning away people apprehended at the border. We HAVE to take them if they have kids and then release inside our border and just hope that they show up for a hearing.

Republicans tearing kids away from their parents as a terrorizing tactic is exclusively a Republican choice. Only a fascist would say "well what we've chosen to do is horrible and inhuman but they're taking our jobs so we have no choice." YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE AND THE CHOICE YOU'RE MAKING IS HORRIFYING

oh STFU with your noisy lies!!!! Dems wrote these laws!!!!! Obama locked up more children than trump!!! and in dog cages!!!!!!!!

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

You advocate kidnapping children from their parents. And using those children as bargaining chips to extract concessions from the Democrats. You are a terrorist.

That is happening because the crazy laws that are in place that make it impossible to simply turn away someone who sneaks across our border with a kid. It's crazy. Every other nation has a mechanism for turning away people apprehended at the border. We HAVE to take them if they have kids and then release inside our border and just hope that they show up for a hearing.

Republicans tearing kids away from their parents as a terrorizing tactic is exclusively a Republican choice. Only a fascist would say "well what we've chosen to do is horrible and inhuman but they're taking our jobs so we have no choice." YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE AND THE CHOICE YOU'RE MAKING IS HORRIFYING

Nope. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

You can fabricate a law out of an executive order that makes it impossible to turn away children, and then simply expect us to let in anybody who comes across the border with a child. That's de facto open borders. The only way to stop it legally is to send the parents home immediately and process the children on a slower track. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ILLEGALLY CROSS THE BORDER!

[Zonkerbl]

Well, that is a very salient point - using the bully pulpit to attack individuals is way over the like.

Disinviting speakers vs. shutting down their ability to speak though... not sure I am with you on that one. And prejudicial hiring practices - that is most definitely a problem.

So consider this hypothetical. The local conservative troll group at your school invites a hate speaker to spread hate at your school. Your school has a policy against hate speech and a number of targets of that hate speech protest against giving the speaker of hate an official platform at your school to spread that hate. It is entirely legitimate for the school to consider whether allowing the speaker would be an egregious violation of their policy against broadcasting hate speech. In some cases they may conclude in favor of the speaker, in other cases they will choose to disinvite the speaker. If you never disinvite any speakers what is the point of having the policy in the first place? Similarly I imagine if a liberal student group at University of Dayton, my Jesuit alma mater, invited a speaker to advocate for Planned Parenthood, there would be an outcry from the student population and the University would have to think seriously about whether to allow this person to speak. To disallow Universities from enforcing their mission, pro-Christianity or pro-tolerance, whatever it is, would be a violation of the University's "first amendment rights," so to speak.

No, I don't think a school that advertises itself as a safe space for students who belong to a persecuted minority should be forced to allow Milo Imadouchepolous to spread his message of self-hatred there. That's a violation of the student's trust and the university's right to choose its curriculum consistently with its founder's wishes.

I am 100% opposed to schools preventing (by disruption) speakers like Anne Coulter from speaking on college campuses, I am alarmed by this trend. OTOH, Colleges have the right to boot speakers like Richard Spencer for safety reasons.

Ok, so that's a different issue entirely. What if you get invited to speak at a college and what you say (ok, or what you've said in the past) is so vile and hateful that a large contingent of students shows up to boo you out of the auditorium?

This is standard operating procedure for conservatives. Look at what happened when David Hogg tried to have a die-in at Publix and read off the names of the 17 kids who were killed at Parkland - a bunch of gun nut protestors showed up and shouted them down and then gleefully patted themselves on the back for doing it. Good job guys! Thumbs up! But angry mobs showing up and shouting people down is not new. There's not more of it going on now than in, say, 1968.

So one - it's BS to clutch your pearls and say "omg what is going on on college campuses these days." There are consequences to showing up in front of a crowd of people and spitting hate at them. Similar consequences to showing up in front of a crowd of hateful people and singing protest songs to them.

The whole point of non-violent protest is to show up and be peaceful and get the crap kicked out of you by hateful people so you can capture on camera and show the world how inhuman the policies that support that hatred are. Anne Coulter and her ilk are doing the emotionally abusive version of this - do the verbal equivalent of throwing a dead baby into the middle of a crowd and then get all weak and queasy when people are horrified by your words and actions and shout you out of the room. "Oh the libs got so triggered!"

If you show up at a college holding hands and singing protest songs and a crowd of white people surrounds you and beats the crap out of you, that's the white people's fault. If you throw a dead baby into the middle of a crowd and the crowd beats the snot out of you, that's your fault. You can use a message of peace and love to expose hatred, or you can use a message of hatred to deliberately provoke a violent reaction in the hopes of getting beat up on camera like Spencer did.

People *should* be horrified by Anne Coulter's words. She's a horrible person who says horrible things. We're allowed to be horrified, and sad, and angry, and have feelings in response to people verbally attacking us or saying things that deliberately poke at our emotionally painful areas. It's what makes us human. Sometimes provoking violent responses exposes people for how hateful they are, sometimes the provocation itself is an act of evil. The world is a complicated place. We have to use our inborn sense of right and wrong to judge each individual case. You can't just paint a broad brush and say "shouting public speakers down is bad." A lot of the instances of shouting people down is because purveyors of hate have been emboldened by Trump to go out and aggressively spread hate. I would be more worried if those people weren't getting shouted down.

[nate33]

Yes, I'm aware. Do you have an actual point?

Comey didn't want to go public with the email investigation and ALSO not only did he not want to go public with the Russia stuff - he didn't.

This completely obliterates your absurd narrative that the FBI was out to get Trump. The only public actions they took regarding the 2016 election helped Trump.

What "Russia stuff"? That Carter page was approached by a Maltese operative? Why on earth should that have been made public. No crime had been committed.

Wow Nate. How dumb do you think we are? You still pushing that BS "the FBI investigation started with Carter Page" BS? Want to win arguments? Tell the truth.

This is in the context of gtn130's argument that there is an equivalency in Comey making public the Clinton email investigation and the FBI leaking that there was a Trump investigation back in October 2016. Explain to me what actual crime was understood to have been committed by Trump as of October 2016.

[Zonkerbl]

That is happening because the crazy laws that are in place that make it impossible to simply turn away someone who sneaks across our border with a kid. It's crazy. Every other nation has a mechanism for turning away people apprehended at the border. We HAVE to take them if they have kids and then release inside our border and just hope that they show up for a hearing.

Republicans tearing kids away from their parents as a terrorizing tactic is exclusively a Republican choice. Only a fascist would say "well what we've chosen to do is horrible and inhuman but they're taking our jobs so we have no choice." YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE AND THE CHOICE YOU'RE MAKING IS HORRIFYING

Nope. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

You can fabricate a law out of an executive order that makes it impossible to turn away children, and then simply expect us to let in anybody who comes across the border with a child. That's de facto open borders. The only way to stop it legally is to send the parents home immediately and process the children on a slower track. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ILLEGALLY CROSS THE BORDER!

That's 100% bs and you know it. What law are you talking about anyway? There's no law forcing Republicans to be evil child torturers.

[nate33]

Republicans tearing kids away from their parents as a terrorizing tactic is exclusively a Republican choice. Only a fascist would say "well what we've chosen to do is horrible and inhuman but they're taking our jobs so we have no choice." YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE AND THE CHOICE YOU'RE MAKING IS HORRIFYING

Nope. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

You can fabricate a law out of an executive order that makes it impossible to turn away children, and then simply expect us to let in anybody who comes across the border with a child. That's de facto open borders. The only way to stop it legally is to send the parents home immediately and process the children on a slower track. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ILLEGALLY CROSS THE BORDER!

That's 100% bs and you know it. What law are you talking about anyway? There's no law forcing Republicans to be evil child torturers.

Pictures from 2014:

Read on Twitter

Refresh my memory. Who was President in 2014?

[Zonkerbl]

What "Russia stuff"? That Carter page was approached by a Maltese operative? Why on earth should that have been made public. No crime had been committed.

Wow Nate. How dumb do you think we are? You still pushing that BS "the FBI investigation started with Carter Page" BS? Want to win arguments? Tell the truth.

This is in the context of gtn130's argument that there is an equivalency in Comey making public the Clinton email investigation and the FBI leaking that there was a Trump investigation back in October 2016. Explain to me what actual crime was understood to have been committed by Trump as of October 2016.

What crime was committed by Clinton? You're assuming leaking Clinton is totally fine because you assume she's guilty, regardless of the actual real world evidence. You're wrong. Neither of the two investigations should have been revealed, and it was dishonest and evil for the Republicans to pressure Comey into leaking the Hillary investigation. Western civilization is worse off today because of it. By the way, Trump operatives were drunkenly bragging about how foreign spies were helping them win the election. If true, that would be *actually* illegal. At *no point* in the Clinton investigation was there any hint that what she did was actually illegal (which is why they had to keep digging and digging and digging), except imaginary BS dreamed up by professional Republican liars.

[Zonkerbl]

Nope. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

You can fabricate a law out of an executive order that makes it impossible to turn away children, and then simply expect us to let in anybody who comes across the border with a child. That's de facto open borders. The only way to stop it legally is to send the parents home immediately and process the children on a slower track. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ILLEGALLY CROSS THE BORDER!

That's 100% bs and you know it. What law are you talking about anyway? There's no law forcing Republicans to be evil child torturers.

Pictures from 2014:

Read on Twitter

Refresh my memory. Who was President in 2014?

Why are you insulting my intelligence? Do you really think I'm that dumb? Are these children who were deliberately ripped away from their parents? Or were they part of the flood of unaccompanied minors that was happening in 2014? Seriously sometimes I wonder about you Nate. Do you assume I'm that dumb because that's how gullible *you* are and you're projecting?

Oh, I see. Because some random idiot on the internet said something wrong, that somehow invalidates my argument.

Wow.

I don't even know how to respond to an argument like that that's so obviously invalid. It's like you just yelled out "mushrooms!" and sank back in your chair with your arms folded, smugly smiling.