The Biden administration prevented a record number of immigrants from entering the US and has record numbers of kids in cages.
I’m guessing this isn’t what his supporters thought they were voting for.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/us/biden-refugees-cap.html
Apparently Biden is going to keep the Trump refugee cap numbers in place as well.
I'm guessing this wasn't what his supporters thought they were voting for?
" It's not like staying on Trump's path was a viable option for those of us concerned about immigrants."
Apparently, it is a viable path for Biden.
" "The Biden administration is acting on a number of fronts to reverse
Trump-era restrictions on immigration to the United States. The steps
include
* plans to boost refugee admissions,"
Apparently it's not doing this.
" The Biden administration has said it will increase the number of refugees admitted to the country. The new proposed admission caps would be 62,500 refugees for the current 2021 fiscal year and 125,000 for the 2022 fiscal year, which starts in October."
I guess they were mistaken, or lying.
How many of these hundreds of thousands of folks flocking across our southern border have heir vaccine passports?
76 comments:
You can be sure that if Biden doesn't get things together better than he has so far, when it comes to immigration, we will be pretty outraged.
Of course, we know for a fact that Trump treated immigrants like dirt and just having the much more rational adult rhetoric coming from Biden is a vast improvement. It's not like staying on Trump's path was a viable option for those of us concerned about immigrants.
The pressure is on Biden and his administration to perform, as well as on Congress to deal with something that should have been dealt with long ago.
The facts are, however, that Biden has already begun opening up OTHER non-caged options for immigrant children, so that's a step in the right direction.
As to what Biden is doing and plans to do...
"The Biden administration is acting on a number of fronts to reverse Trump-era restrictions on immigration to the United States. The steps include
* plans to boost refugee admissions,
* preserving deportation relief for unauthorized immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and
* not enforcing the “public charge” rule that denies green cards to immigrants who might use public benefits like Medicaid.
...Biden’s biggest immigration proposal to date would allow more new immigrants into the U.S. while giving millions of unauthorized immigrants who are already in the country a pathway to legal status.
...The Biden administration has said it will increase the number of refugees admitted to the country. The new proposed admission caps would be 62,500 refugees for the current 2021 fiscal year and 125,000 for the 2022 fiscal year, which starts in October.
The U.S. admitted only about 12,000 refugees in fiscal 2020"
More...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/22/key-facts-about-u-s-immigration-policies-and-bidens-proposed-changes/
These are all plans that are at least STEPS in the right direction. AND a much better option than under Trump.
Do you disagree?
Of course, support for liberty and a basic level of human decency would demand that people not be criminalized for wanting to move from here to there... ESPECIALLY when threats to life and liberty are present "There."
Also, if our foreign aid and relations work would help other nations to be less dangerous and healthier options for their people, that would also help deal with immigration issues.
Unfortunately, too often, the GOP has wanted to see the US be LESS helpful to these other nations, rather than more helpful.
What you could do as a Republican is to make calls and push agendas that both promise to HELP immigrants more, and especially help refugees fleeing violence and starvation. You could push your GOP representatives to do more to help nations to our south and other struggling nations in a non-colonial manner.
Is this something reasonable Democrats and Republicans could join behind?
"You can be sure that if Biden doesn't get things together better than he has so far, when it comes to immigration, we will be pretty outraged."
Clearly we can't be sure about anything. Y'all didn't say a word when P-BO kept kids in cages, and you're willing to give Biden all sorts of grace when he's allowed the situation to get worse that it ever was under Trump.
"...rhetoric coming from Biden is a vast improvement..."
As long as the rhetoric is better, that's all that really matters.
" The pressure is on Biden and his administration to perform, as well as on Congress to deal with something that should have been dealt with long ago."
Since I've heard absolutely nothing but excuses from AOC and the rest of the folks who spent 4 years bashing Trump, I'm not seeing any sort of "pressure" at all. If only Biden had been in a position to influence policy at the highest level of government in the past, maybe he could have used some of that influence to have done anything to deal with this problem.
If only P-BO would have had an extended period where his party controlled the legislative and the executive branch...
"As to what Biden is doing and plans to do..."
Lots of if's in there. I guess we'll see if anything actually gets done, and if y'all are as rabid about this as you were with Trump.
I'm curious how to square the CDC telling me that I shouldn't travel (fully vaccinated) and all this talk of a "vaccine passport" to travel withing the US, with this fling wide the gates approach at the borders.
I suspect that if there's a COVID spike in TX due to the hundreds of thousands of untested, unecreened folks who've entered illegally, y'all will try to blame it on the relaxation of the mask mandate.
The very fact that it took my pointing out the fact that the situation has deteriorated under Biden to get any sort of mention of this from you, seems to make my point. You were perfectly content with hopes and rhetoric, while thousands suffer.
Re: "You didn't say a word when P-BO..."
Bullshit. Just because you are UNAWARE of progressive concern about topics doesn't mean it didn't happen.
As always, part of the problem is, What's our alternative? If Obama and his congress didn't do what we want about immigration, we sure as hell couldn't advocate for Trump as an alternative?
Picking a racist, xenophobic, silver-spoon-in-his-ass rich white oppressor's policies over a closer to what we want candidate is not an option.
Of course.
Craig... "You were perfectly content with hopes and rhetoric, while thousands suffer."
And again, bullshit. Stop with stupidly false claims about oppressed and struggling people and those of us who are fighting for them. Even better, JOIN WITH US and get on the right side of the struggle.
"Bullshit. Just because you are UNAWARE of progressive concern about topics doesn't mean it didn't happen."
Then by all means, let's see the evidence that you bashed P-BO at your blogs or social media. I'll patiently wait for you to provide this evidence.
"As always, part of the problem is, What's our alternative?"
Excellent question. I guess that you never thought much about protesting or verbally attacking P-BO for the vile way he treated immigrants. Remember, al lot of the things you lambasted Trump for were continuing P-BO policies. Maybe an alternative was to elect someone who isn't complicit in the P-BO administration's handling of immigrants.
"If Obama and his congress didn't do what we want about immigration, we sure as hell couldn't advocate for Trump as an alternative?"
You could have advocated for someone who wasn't an even shittier candidate than Trump. But, bitching about Trump isn't the same as not complaining about P-BO/Biden's 8 years of absolutely nothing.
I know this is lost on you, but I'm pointing out your inconsistency and hypocrisy here. You gave P-BO a pass for the things you ripped Trump for. Now that it's worse, you're simply accepting Biden's rhetoric as if it's substantial. It's about you criticizing bad policy no matter who's in office, not by only trashing one side.
"Stop with stupidly false claims about oppressed and struggling people and those of us who are fighting for them."
By all means, show me where you've been openly critical of Biden's treatment of immigrants since he's been elected at you blog or in your social media. If you've been consistent on criticizing policy (not personality) it should be readily available and proving me wrong should be easy.
Maybe they should have focused on this disaster instead of wasting time on impeachment.
Remember that 2 comment string where Dan got all sanctimonious about Cuimo and how the DFL was going to get tough on him? Likely the same thing here, he’ll say some things about Biden, then go back to silence when nothing changes.
Re: Cuomo and others not getting removed like they should...
what would you have me do? Start calling for an insurrection? That's more of a Trump GOP thing.
I will call for him to step down or be removed on my blog about just as much as I would Republican governor. Which is not at all. I just don't cover state politics like that.
So you can see, on being consistent. And if Biden has a 3rd or a 4th woman accusing him, you can bet I will be talking about it on my blog and calling for him to be removed. Because I'm consistent.
Because I care about decency and corruption and honesty. Unlike the modern gop which has sold its soul collectively to the devil. Either in their active support for deviants like Trump and Gaetz, or in their malignant silence.
We see what you choose to complain about. Immigrants. Black people. Black Justice organisations. We see. History sees.
Maybe stay as consistently, aggressive, publicly, loudly committed to getting rid of Cuomo as you were with Trump. Maybe ratchet up the expletive laden vitriol to the sane level. Maybe acting like sending people to their premature deaths and profiting from a book about how awesome he handled things is bad.
Anything but sit in silence. Just be consistent in being against actions, not against individuals or parties.
But, a lowly governor just isn’t worth your time, especially when he’s governor of a reliably DFL voting state.
This notion that you’ll go after Biden IF he molests more women and girls, is simply an excuse to not go after him now. I get some level of partisanship is natural, but this silence when it’s your guys is spectacular.
"You can be sure that if Biden doesn't get things together better than he has so far, when it comes to immigration, we will be pretty outraged."
Considering how incredibly out of control things have gotten since he invited everyone to come regardless of who or how many, regardless of who or how many are harmed, I have to wonder just how bad does it have to get for a Democrat to be criticized by a partisan hack as hateful as Dan? The funny part (in a very sick sense) is the suggestion that Biden has gotten "things together better" at all, when clearly, it's demonstrably far worse, as even Democrat politicians from the area have insisted, as people who live in the area have insisted, and has our foreign neighbors have insisted.
"Of course, we know for a fact that Trump treated immigrants like dirt..."
We know for a fact that you're a liar who will regard any Trump action in the most negative terms possible out of your unChristian hatefulness. Trump's policies improved the situation for all involved, including those trying to enter the country. Now, Biden has been a boon to the cartels, as they make money hand over fist smuggling people in. You're a freakin' pip, Dan.
"It's not like staying on Trump's path was a viable option for those of us concerned about immigrants."
Anyone truly concerned would be fully aware of the truth regarding the consequences of Trump's policies, which by comparison to both Obama and Biden were markedly superior for all concerned, including the immigrants. Dan couldn't successfully argue against this with anything resembling facts if I helped him do it.
"The facts are, however, that Biden has already begun opening up OTHER non-caged options for immigrant children..."
Says the guy who demands evidence to prove claims but doesn't here. With that evidence Dan won't provide must be an argument, hopefully with attendant evidence, that these "OTHER non-caged options" are not just shifting the burden to other non-Dan victims.
""The Biden administration is acting on a number of fronts to reverse Trump-era restrictions on immigration to the United States. The steps include
* plans to boost refugee admissions,
* preserving deportation relief for unauthorized immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and
* not enforcing the “public charge” rule that denies green cards to immigrants who might use public benefits like Medicaid."
And where in any of this do we see benefits for our nation in any way? Reversing Trump-era restrictions also reverses the benefits those restrictions provided, both to our nation, the nations of origin and the immigrants themselves.
"These are all plans that are at least STEPS in the right direction. AND a much better option than under Trump."
Certainly your uneducated, pseudo-sanctimonious position. When are we going to see an argument that backs it up?
"Of course, support for liberty and a basic level of human decency would demand that people not be criminalized for wanting to move from here to there..."
Of course they're not criminalized for wanting to move anywhere. They're criminalized for breaking the laws regulating the crossing of our borders. Stop lying. It doesn't matter if Dan's holier-than-thou concern for foreigners over his fellow citizens runs contrary to our established laws. No criticism of a law based on personal preference stands justifies the unChristian rejection of those laws in favor of those who intend to break them.
Worse, is how Dan is content to demand that others bear the burden of the consequences of those breaking the law. What skin comes off Dan's back? None. But damn, doesn't he seem holy!!!
"ESPECIALLY when threats to life and liberty are present "There.""
While threats to life and liberty are increased "HERE". With fellow citizens like Dan, who needs foreign enemies?
"Also, if our foreign aid and relations work would help other nations to be less dangerous and healthier options for their people, that would also help deal with immigration issues."
You'll need to do a post on just what you think you know about the impact of our foreign aid and relations work that suits you to a tee. Aside from sending them other people's money, you balk at any other form of interference that addresses the real problems, just as you do with regards to the poorer minority communities in this country. Lots of whining...no real, legitimate, actually workable solutions. Just send other people's money and flap your gums.
"Unfortunately, too often, the GOP has wanted to see the US be LESS helpful to these other nations, rather than more helpful."
Wow. Talk about stupidly false and unsupportable claims!! But hey, Dan's all about spending other people's money on things that don't help anyone. Dan's perfectly fine with being the world's welfare system while our own people suffer.
"What you could do as a Republican is to make calls and push agendas that both promise to HELP immigrants more, and especially help refugees fleeing violence and starvation."
What you could do is move your sorry ass to any of the nations you reference and help directly to change their cultures, policies and laws so that the people there have no reason to flee. I want my political representatives to put my people first over the people of other countries like they're supposed to. Spend your own money. Get your like-minded, mindless lefty rich people to pony up and stop draining our limited resources just so you all can pretend you're doing something.
"You could push your GOP representatives to do more to help nations to our south and other struggling nations in a non-colonial manner."
What stupid and meaningless thing to say!!
"As always, part of the problem is, What's our alternative? If Obama and his congress didn't do what we want about immigration, we sure as hell couldn't advocate for Trump as an alternative?"
Oh no. We couldn't possibly advocate for the guy whose policies did more good for all parties concerned, including the immigrants themselves. Let's double-down on the stupid crap that made this issue the debacle it is. That's way better! Just the fact that Trump's policies dissuaded people from making the dangerous trek saved lives, prevented criminal behaviors by having fewer people to exploit and led to fewer thugs and other bad actors from entering our country under the guise of being "oppressed".
"Picking a racist, xenophobic, silver-spoon-in-his-ass rich white oppressor's policies over a closer to what we want candidate is not an option."
Dan the liar. Putting his own people first does not make Trump either racist or xenophobic. He never came out against legal immigration and he never made any racist remarks about anyone.
And gee, which would I prefer? I guess Dan prefers a thumb-up-his-ass Democrat over the far more effective president he opposed out of rank hatred. Anyone closer to what fools like Dan want is bad for the nation. Dan hasn't the intelligence to know what's best for anyone. He's too busy trying to posture as noble and Christian while advancing non-Christian policies and beliefs.
"Stop with stupidly false claims about oppressed and struggling people and those of us who are fighting for them. Even better, JOIN WITH US and get on the right side of the struggle."
What Dan promotes puts more people at risk, but citizen and immigrant, and he thinks intelligent people should join with him to inflict that suffering. No thanks. I'll stick with those who actually think.
"what would you have me do? Start calling for an insurrection? That's more of a Trump GOP thing."
No. It's far more a BLM thing, and antifa thing, an invasion of immigrants aided by criminal cartels thing. And Dan supports every one of them.
"And if Biden has a 3rd or a 4th woman accusing him, you can bet I will be talking about it on my blog and calling for him to be removed. Because I'm consistent."
Yeah, Craig!!! He's consistent!!! One woman suffering from sexual assault means nothing. To hell with her. There needs to be at least three before Dan will give a flying rat's ass. He's consistent!!
"Because I care about decency and corruption and honesty."
Says the guy who voted for Biden. That's hilarious!
"We see what you choose to complain about. Immigrants. Black people. Black Justice organisations. We see."
Oh my gosh! How boldly Dan lies!! Intelligent people complain about illegal immigration because it harms the nation and puts the illegals at risk. Intelligent people speak of the true and factual causes for poverty and crime in minority communities, and the race of such people is not a factor. Intelligent people know the "Black Justice organizations" of which white-guilt lefties like Dan speak are not about justice at all and are a further detriment to those they pretend to champion.
Intelligent, honest people see what liars and buffoons like Dan do and say, and it is shameful and contemptible in its dishonesty and harm to so many.
Craig... "Maybe stay as consistently, aggressive, publicly, loudly committed to getting rid of Cuomo as you were with Trump. "
Cuomo is a governor. Trump was president.
I have never (very rarely) delved in state politics on my blog. I HAVE regularly talked about federal politics, primarily as it relates to presidents.
In this case, we have a state politician (reminder: I never have delved in state politics on my blog). I'm not commenting NOT because he's a Democrat and NOT because I don't oppose his behavior. I'm not commenting because I never comment on state politics.
THAT IS CONSISTENT.
Understand now?
Now, the REAL question is why you worry about Cuomo when you had a leader of the free world from YOUR party that you barely criticized, even though he was clearly amongst the most corrupt, dishonest, deviant and over-all worst presidents in our history.
Your relative silence is damning and your worries about Cuomo when you didn't condemn Trump harshly exposes your hypocrisy.
Craig... "This notion that you’ll go after Biden IF he molests more women and girls"
And yet, I am the one with the history of going after a Democrat president for much less perversion than your president. I called for Clinton to step down, for Democrats to remove him from office. I didn't vote for him. I spoke out against him when he had MUCH less condemning him than Trump.
So, we can see from actual history that I WOULD go after any president who behaved even a tenth as badly as Trump.
And we can see from your actual history that you remained mostly silent.
And that silence shames you. Your children and grandchildren will say, "Why were so many Republicans and conservatives silent and let this monster try to destroy our nation with his perversion and corruption?" and you won't have a good answer.
Unfortunately you’ve got no proof of your alleged Clinton stance, and since I don’t trust you, I guess you’ll have to provide some proof.
As long as you’re happy with your excuses to stay silent, I’m fine. Just stop demanding that others live up to standards that you won’t.
On his best day...which is like most people coughing up blood...Dan couldn't support the "stupidly false claim" that Trump tried "to destroy our nation with his perversion and corruption". He can't even describe what that looks like or how it manifested. Our children and grandchildren aren't likely to be as dishonest and stupid as Dan and would ask intelligent questions, such as, "What's up with those who voted for Democrats despite their continued proliferation of policies that always fail?" Then they'd laugh and mock them for their insanity.
In the meantime, I've read more comments from Craig expressing his displeasure with Trump that more than make clear his opinions of the man. But unlike Dan, he's honest and reasonable enough to acknowledge at least some of the good he's done.
"And yet, I am the one with the history of going after a Democrat president for much less perversion than your president."
And here again we see what passes for moral judgement in the twisted, immorality enabling Dan Trabue. "Much less perversion"? Almost all of the Clinton tales involve actual sexual predation. Not so with Trump, even if we could get a decent report on what the worst case might have been. So far, it was his ex-wife, who recanted. With Dan, it's a mater of how many. Biden gets a pass because only one woman (that we know of) accused him of violating her. Clinton is "much less perverse" because he didn't assault as many women compared to how many off of whom Trump may merely have gotten cheap feels. With the exception of Gennifer Flowers, Clinton's accusers insist he forced himself upon them, or tried to pressure them because he had the power and protection. But it's that "D" behind their names that most mitigates their crimes, and it's Trump's common-man demeanor which someone irks the sensitive feelings of the fraudulent Dan Trabue. See Dan. Point, mock and laugh. He's a joke.
Marshal stupidly claimed... "Dan couldn't support the "stupidly false claim" that Trump tried "to destroy our nation with his perversion and corruption". He can't even describe what that looks like or how it manifested. "
Trump spent years attacking the press as an enemy of the people. It will always remain a stupidly false and unsupported claim and only Trump's useful idiots will believe it. And it remains a dangerously false claim.
Trump spent years attacking our voting systems and any results that would say he wasn't the God-ordained winner in a landslide. He spent the last six+ months claiming he won in a landslide and that there was (would be) widespread voter fraud as the only explanation he would "lose." It has always remained a stupidly false claim that he couldn't support and that only his useful idiots would believe. And it remains a dangerous claim for a free nation.
And the reality is that I opposed Clinton, I wrote letters to the editor calling for Democrats to oppose him and calling for him to step down or be removed. I spoke with my friends and family about it and I never voted for him.
Now, you can choose to IGNORE or NOT BELIEVE reality, Craig, but that's on you, not me. It would be stupidly false of you to suggest that never happened.
But that appears to be what modern "conservatism" has devolved into... a group of people willing to believe and pass on and state stupidly false claims.
History sits in judgment of you all.
And this, THIS evil, from Marshal... "how many off of whom Trump may merely have gotten cheap feels. "
This evil speaks for itself. Marshal may call it "cheap feels." Women and decent people recognize it for what it is: Sexual assault. Shame on you both.
"And yet, I am the one with the history of going after a Democrat president for much less perversion than your president. I called for Clinton to step down, for Democrats to remove him from office. I didn't vote for him. I spoke out against him when he had MUCH less condemning him than Trump."
By all means, let's see some proof of this. It's strange that the only times you're this against a Dem is when there's no way to verify your alleged actions.
"And we can see from your actual history that you remained mostly silent."
I guess this is better than remaining completely silent.
"And that silence shames you. Your children and grandchildren will say, "Why were so many Republicans and conservatives silent and let this monster try to destroy our nation with his perversion and corruption?" and you won't have a good answer."
1. If this bizarre prediction comes to pass, then I guess we'll have the context of history to better evaluate the positives and negatives of Trump.
2. I'll simply say that I opposed him, which seems like a good answer.
3. I bear no responsibility for, and therefore no reason to answer for, he actions of others.
"Cuomo is a governor. Trump was president."
So. Cuomo turned his actions that resulted in people dying unnecessarily, his lies about it, and his other actions into personal profit. But since he's a DFL governor, you don't feel like that's worthy of too much fuss. It's convenient that you choose silence on so much corruption and vile behavior because it's not the president.
I guess that the fact that a state elected official was involved in a national crisis and that his actions had national consequences didn't cross your closed little mind at all. I'd be shocked if you have remained silent on De Santis, Abbott, Noem, etc and how they;ve handled COVID. Yet you somehow manage to work up to screeds about state voting laws (also a state issue).
The problem is that I have absolutely zero reason to trust what you say, and that you won't spin things in your favor.
I guess staying on Trump's path (controlling and regulating immigration) is more of an option than you thought. I'm hearing reports that Biden's going to build some walls as well.
It's also interesting hoe Trump "putting kids in cages" was cast as a moral issue. That Trump was evil and diabolical to do so, yet with Biden and P-BO it's miraculously not a moral issue. It's simply a pragmatic step that must be taken and accepted as morally neutral.
"And the reality is that I opposed Clinton, I wrote letters to the editor calling for Democrats to oppose him and calling for him to step down or be removed. I spoke with my friends and family about it and I never voted for him. Now, you can choose to IGNORE or NOT BELIEVE reality, Craig, but that's on you, not me."
That may, or may not be "the reality". What is "the reality" that is beyond dispute is that you haven't provided any actual proof of your claims about Clinton. You haven't even attempted to provide proof. That is 100% your burden. It's not my fault that your behavior has caused me to abandon any reasons I once had to trust you. But, the burden of proof rests on you.
"to destroy our nation with his perversion and corruption".
Based on what you just wrote, I'd agree that you can't prove that Trump "tried to destroy our nation". If you've got proof of that claim, proof that shows intent, then let's see it.
"It would be stupidly false of you to suggest that never happened"
But (as usual) you've just tried to attribute to me something that you have made up out of whole cloth. I'm not suggesting that it "never happened", I'm stating that you haven't provided any proof that "it happened". That reality, is not in dispute. You simply asserting things isn't proof, it's simply self serving, unsupported, claims. It's obviously, indisputably True to say that you haven't proven your claims, and it would be stupidly false to claim that you have.
"Shame on you both."
1. By what bizarre standard should I feel shame for the actions of others?
2. Biden's got his own history of "cheap feels", sniffing, and other inappropriate sexual contact, but you'll wait until a few more accusations come up before you say much. It's almost like the "cheap feels" part isn't the problem, it's how many times it happened.
Craig... "By all means, let's see some proof of this. It's strange that the only times you're this against a Dem is when there's no way to verify your alleged actions."
Do you want to ask my wife?
The thing is, you have no reason not to believe me. I am telling you this is what happened in the real world. Why would I make that up? Why would I make that up? It's a stupid thing to make up.
The thing is, I have not been dishonest with you ever about what I've said. You can't point to any place where I've been dishonest with you. Yes, there been endless places where you misunderstood me, but you misunderstanding me is not the same as me being dishonest with you.
You've told me that you work with refugees or immigrants and I've takenthat at face value. I have no reason not to believe you. Likewise, you have no reason not to believe me.
I don't have access to 1990s-era newspapers where you can read letters to the editor that I wrote. Nonetheless, it is reality. You don't want to believe it? To hell with you. Question reality all you want.
Craig... "yet with Biden and P-BO it's miraculously not a moral issue."
The hell you say. I've condemned Obama for using cages to keep children in period I in my friends condemned it in wrote letters and called Congress seeking change. It was wrong. And trump's much worse actions xenophobia were wrong.
That you bring this up when you have no problem with it when Trump was doing it shows your hypocrisy. You don't care about immigrants beyond just using them as a political tool. Using them the same way that trump did. Shame on you.
Or, show that you care. Condemn it. Condemn it when Obama did it and condemn it when Trump did it. Choose a side.
Absolutely none of that self serving bullshit can offset the fact that you can't prove your claim.
My pointing out the objective, factual, reality that you are unable to prove these claims, is doing tow things.
1. It's holding you to the same standard you hold others to.
2. It's pointing out the reality that you can't prove your claims.
Given the fact that you've chosen to attribute a claim to me that is a complete 100% fabrication in this very thread, coupled with the fact that you regularly refuse to trust me when I relate things I've done, is reason enough not to blindly accept your word on anything. I'm not even going to attempt to go back through the recent threads where you've made shit up and attributed it falsely to me, or when you've tried to pass of a false paraphrase as a quote".
Unfortunately for you, this is what happens when you don't hold yourself to the standards you demand of others, when you falsely characterize and misrepresent others words. Lack of trust is the casualty.
I'm not questioning "reality", I'm pointing out your inability to prove your claims.
Craig... "You haven't even attempted to provide proof. That is 100% your burden."
To hell with you. Of the two of us, I am the one who knows what I did. Not you.
If you think you have evidence that my testimony is false, YOU can provide it. That's how it works in the adult world. You don't get to tell people to prove their lives. Do you understand the arrogance and that? To hell with you.
"The hell you say. I've condemned Obama for using cages to keep children in period I in my friends condemned it in wrote letters and called Congress seeking change. It was wrong."
Where are the blog posts, the FB posts, the vitriol? When P-BO did it, it was "wrong" when Trump continued P-BO's policies it was "immoral" and "evil". If the problem was the actions, why the inconsistency on describing the actions/ Again, the problem is that you apparantly can't prove your claim.
What's interesting and inconsistent is that with P-BO and Biden, your "opposition" is quiet and behind the scense, yet when trump does the same things, your "opposition" is loud, public, and full of vitriol, expletives, and hatred. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, that you "yelled and screamed" for the 4 years of Trump, while you "wrote letters" for the 8 years of P-BO and sat quietly for Biden.
"That you bring this up when you have no problem with it when Trump was doing it shows your hypocrisy."
That you make this false claim about me only shows your hypocrisy and reinforces why you're not worthy of my trust.
"Or, show that you care. Condemn it. Condemn it when Obama did it and condemn it when Trump did it. Choose a side."
I have, I've written letters to my congressmen and senators asking them to act legislatively on immigration.
"Of the two of us, I am the one who knows what I did. Not you."
You are correct, I don't know what you did, that's why I'm asking for proof. You know, just like you demand proof of every "claim" I make, and more than a few "claims" that you've made up and said I made.
"If you think you have evidence that my testimony is false, YOU can provide it."
Damn, I love it when you roe my points so perfectly and in real time.
I'VE LITERALLY NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR CLAIM IS FALSE. I have pointed out that you don't have evidence to prove that your claims are True. The first is some bullshit you've made up to try to avoid the reality that being held to the standards you hold others to sucks. The second is simply indisputable reality.
"That's how it works in the adult world."
Really, making up bullshit, false claims is how it works in the "adult world", that's just one more claim you can't prove.
"You don't get to tell people to prove their lives."
You are correct, I don't get to tell people to prove their lives. Of course, I haven't told your to do so. For you to claim that I have is simply false. What I have done is to tell you that your self serving claims about your past actions are unproven, and that (due to your actions) I simply don't believe you and the stories you tell. I especially don't believe them when they are so self serving, and completely without proof. You see, you don't get to demand that others believe or trust you absent proof of your claims. You don't get to expect others to live up to standards you don't apply to yourself, without consequences.
"Do you understand the arrogance and that?"
Not nearly as much arrogance in asking you to prove your claims, as there is in making up bullshit and trying to attribute it to me.
"To hell with you."
OHHHHHHHHHHH, scary. Dan is condemning me to an imaginary place that he doesn't believe exists.
I believe hell exists. I believe white evangelicals are creating and living it.
If that’s supposed to be clever, it’s one more miserable failure on your part.
Craig... "If that’s supposed to be clever, it’s one more miserable failure on your part."
No. I'm factually pointing out that you were factually mistaken when you falsely claimed that I'm "condemning you to an imaginary place that he doesn't believe exists."
You've read my words and reached a false and mistaken conclusion (in spite of me being quite clear about it) and then passed it on as if it were my actual opinion, which it isn't.
Craig... "What I have done is to tell you that your self serving claims about your past actions are unproven, and that (due to your actions) I simply don't believe you and the stories you tell."
You simply "don't believe you..." But you do so IN SPITE of my EVER passing on a false claim about my positions or my history. You say "due to my actions," but I have never made a false claim about what I believe or what I've done. At least not to you (and really, never that I can think of). That is, my "actions" should give you no reason to suspect that I'm making a false claim about what I've done.
Do you recognize the reality that you can point to NO CLAIM I have ever made about my life that is false and that you have demonstrated to be false?
The reality is, I have no reason to lie to you. It's not self-serving for me to tell you the truth that I never voted for Bill Clinton and that I supported his removal from office when the Lewinski story broke. What gain would I have from lying about that reality? Especially when it IS reality?
Perhaps part of your problem is your belief (I think) in the "inherent evil of humanity" (or however you might phrase it).
The fact of the matter is I have no reason to make up my history for you. You must think a lot of yourself that I would lie to you for whatever sick reason you may have in your head. That I haven't proven it by finding those 1990s newspapers - letters to the editor from a quarter century ago! - to satisfy your sick sense of trying to get me to jump through your hoops? That's not evidence.
I have never asked you to prove you actually do the work you do or have traveled to the places you've said you've been. We're adults in a conversation, I take what you say as believable because I have no reason to doubt you. And you have no reason to doubt me. I've never lied to you and you can't support any claim to the contrary.
Craig...
"You know, just like you demand proof of every "claim" I make, and more than a few "claims" that you've made up and said I made. "
ALSO Craig...
"Not nearly as much arrogance in asking you to prove your claims, as there is in making up bullshit and trying to attribute it to me."
1. You DO know that I've never demanded proof of every "claim" you make? You recognize that this is, itself, a false claim?
2. You DO know that you regularly make up claims that I have not made?
3. You DO know that I don't make up bullshit and attribute it to you?
4. You DO know that you can't support that claim?
5. Finally, you DO recognize the irony in these statements?
Craig... "and sat quietly for Biden."
?? I've "sat quietly" for THREE MONTHS waiting to see what he'll do? Well, yes, I have, insofar as I've not commented yet on my blog on it. I've certainly talked with my friends about whether or not he'll come through, but no, I have not called for him to be removed or anything because he hasn't fixed everything in THREE MONTHS that he's been in office, WHILE dealing with getting vaccines out and the Covid relief package passed.
Further, Biden IS making progress on the immigration issue. There ARE plans in place and he's ended the deadly rhetoric that was common to the Trump administration.
Here's the thing, Skippy, when people are saying they're working on it and they appear reasonable and not overly evil and corrupt, people are willing to give them some leeway and benefit of the doubt.
If you're trying to compare Biden/Obama policies and attitudes to Trump, just stop right there. There's no comparison. It's a failed attempt before you start.
The problem isn't that he hasn't "fixed" everything, it's that things have gotten significantly worse, it would be absurd to think that anyone could fix "everything", but you'd hope that he wouldn't make things worse.
Ahhhhhh, "plans in place". Rhetoric, not action.
Except that P-BO and Trump policies were virtually the same. Hell, the pictures of the kids Trump put in cages were actually from P-BO's administration.
As long as you just sit quietly by while the situation get;s worse, I'm fine.
"1. You DO know that I've never demanded proof of every "claim" you make? You recognize that this is, itself, a false claim?"
Yet, you do so regularly. It's more hyperbole than a false claim, but I guess anything that moves the attention away from your double standard is fair game.
"2. You DO know that you regularly make up claims that I have not made"
Really, where's the evidence?
"3. You DO know that I don't make up bullshit and attribute it to you?"
Other than the fact that you've done so in this thread and I've pointed them out to you, and you've done so regularly over the past few months.
" 4. You DO know that you can't support that claim?"
Well, I've already pointed out at least two examples of this in this thread alone, so there's that.
"5. Finally, you DO recognize the irony in these"
The irony in the fact that you've ignored the fact that I've pointed out what you've done, and that you refuse to hold yourself to the standards you demand of others, yes I do. I also recognize that you've not provided any evidence of any of your claims.
Dan,
You can't prove your claims, it's that simple you moron. Between your bullshit and your typos, I've said all I have to say.
Craig... "Ahhhhhh, "plans in place". Rhetoric, not action. "
It's been THREE MONTHS. WITH a pandemic going on.
Do you recognize how crazy that is?
And beyond that, I'm GLAD to start with decent rhetoric. After four plus years of the overtly evil and corrupt rhetoric of the white evangelical's pet deviant, decent rhetoric is a nice change. I can't tell you how nice it is.
Look, set aside your irrational suggestion that immigration should have been fixed in three months, do you even SUPPORT Biden's plans he is putting in place AND ENACTING ALREADY?
As to your claim that things have gotten worse, provide support, please. Because I'm calling Bullshit. This is simply another unsupported and overtly stupidly false claim on the face of it. If you can't support this claim then it should be treated as false by rational people.
Every spring as the weather improves, immigration efforts have increased. This is to be expected for those familiar with our history. And without the overt hostility from the previous administration, we might expect numbers to increase of people seeking refuge.
AND THAT IS A GOOD THING. People SHOULD seek refuge if their lives and homes and families are at risk. That's a reasonable and moral thing to do.
Do you disagree?
In what possible sense have things gotten "significantly worse..."?
I suspect that larger numbers of refugees is, for you, what you consider "worse..." but I think our Lord and Savior would disagree.
Biden has failed to have a sufficiently large response ready to deal with the annual increase of refugees and that's on him. But again, THREE MONTHS and a VACCINE rollout to deal with a pandemic AND getting the covid relief bill out were the necessary priority. I'm willing to give him some time, given that the plans he's putting in place are at least in the right direction.
What would you consider a "success" for immigration policy. Telling these refugees and immigrants, "Go, be warm and well fed..."?
As to your "rhetoric, not action," claim... again, BULLSHIT.
He has BEGUN to implement policies.
"Biden has declined to resume the Trump-era practice of expelling unaccompanied immigrant children. Several hundred kids and teenagers are crossing the border daily, most fleeing violence, poverty or the effects of natural disasters in Central America. In some cases, parents refused entry into the U.S. have sent their children across the border alone, hoping they will be placed with relatives eventually."
"HHS is housing children at convention centers in Dallas and San Diego and is opening large-scale sites in San Antonio, El Paso and elsewhere."
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-immigration-texas-59d0eafb23d135f901dfc50ff326cfcd
"President Joe Biden's administration has secured an $86 million contract for hotels to house migrants, Axios reported Saturday. The contract comes as the president struggles to address the surging numbers of families and kids trying to enter the US."
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-to-spend-86-million-hotel-rooms-migrants-near-border-2021-3
"The Pentagon said Tuesday it had received a request from the federal government to temporarily house migrant children at two U.S. military posts in Texas, as the Biden administration grapples with crowded immigration facilities amid a surge in arrivals at the southern border."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ginaheeb/2021/03/23/biden-administration-wants-to-shelter-migrant-children-at-military-bases/?sh=10d978335dea
Craig...
"Well I've already pointed out at least two examples..."
You may have cited two examples where you MISTAKENLY thought I said something I didn't say, but that's only proof of your failure to understand words.
You can't support this claim. It's stupidly false.
"Marshal stupidly claimed... "Dan couldn't support the "stupidly false claim" that Trump tried "to destroy our nation with his perversion and corruption". He can't even describe what that looks like or how it manifested."
And then Dan goes on to not do it.
"Trump spent years attacking the press as an enemy of the people."
How has this "destroyed" the nation? Did Trump intend that the leftist media would double-down on their malfeasance as they have? If anything, this was a reminder to the people of America as to the danger of relying on the leftist media. It has prompted the creation of many other outlets and sources who more often than not provide better coverage of stories, and certainly clarity to the lazy reporting of the mainstream. Thus, less destruction due to more facts. That's a plus.
"Trump spent years attacking our voting systems and any results that would say he wasn't the God-ordained winner in a landslide."
Voting integrity and election fraud has always been worse than the left-leaning news outlets and enablers would prefer the nation believe. There have been studies and investigations for a long time. Had the left...in any form or manifestation...cared about truth, honesty and the good of the nation, they would have done more than pretend fraud is more rare than it is. But then, the left has always benefited by less than perfect elections, so it would be silly to think they'd do anything to insure election integrity. Since November 2020, we're all seeing just how out of hand it is, especially with the intention of Congressional Dems to foist upon the nation a bill that would codify all the worst changes to our system...particularly daring to wrest control of election law from states as the Constitution mandates.
Yet even some of the biggest names in Dem/socialist politics have whined about this highway robbery. Elizabeth Warren warned against the use of Dominion voting machines. Bernie Sanders alleged victimization during the 2016 primaries. And who can forget Georgia buffoon and liar Staci Abrams insisting still that she's the rightful governor. This is just another case of Dan ignoring his side while hyping and demonizing the other.
"And this, THIS evil, from Marshal... "how many off of whom Trump may merely have gotten cheap feels. ""
This is hilarious and some incredibly chutzpa given what he is doing himself. There's simply no evil in dismissing sexual assault allegations based on it coming from one woman alone...never mind the details of relative savagery. Or that most of Clinton's accusers reported force against them by him.
Yet I don't in any way make any statement regarding the fact that both a slap and a brutal beating are both examples of assault. But degrees matter. If this fake Christian wants to play the game, he must be consistent. I've been totally consistent. I've excused nothing, nor denied anything regarding allegations against Trump for which there is no evidence. I'm perfectly free to make my own personal judgements as to credibility, and unlike Dan, I focus on actual charges and whether they make sense, not on who is accusing whom. Trump, Clinton, Biden, whomever. Prove the charges and I'll be happy to see them hang. But don't pretend one is worse than the other because of how many accused them, as if that's a more legitimate criteria than the manner in which they were accused to have assaulted anyone.
"Do you want to ask my wife?"
Oh, that'll settle things, because as we know, we have tons of comments and posts from Dan's wife in order to insure that we can rely on her word in defense of her husband whose word is in question.
"I don't have access to 1990s-era newspapers where you can read letters to the editor that I wrote."
I seem to recall doing research for school projects (1969-73) at the local library. When their catalogue of hard copies of newspapers was exhausted, there was micro-film records to research older publications. Very tedious, but access has been around in many forms for quite some time, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a great deal of it digitized and far easier to access than ever before. Just sayin'.
more later....
Actually I’ve cited at least two examples where you’ve attributed things to me that are patently false. You are, of course, welcome to demonstrate specifically where I’ve failed to understand your exact words and clarify.
Of course then you’d have to find the examples, come up with explanations, and actually prove your claim. It’s probably easier to just pretend that everyone else is always wrong and all you need to do is simply make assertions.
So, he’s building nicer cages, excellent plan. Do these folks have their vaccine passports.
The problem with this is that you assume that these measures will be implemented in a way that can be spun as a positive.
At this point it’s gotten worse, and so far it’s mostly rhetoric not action.
“ Look, set aside your irrational suggestion that immigration should have been fixed in three months,”
Why look, another example of you making up some bullshit and ascribing it falsely to me.
Please, provide the quote and link to where I’ve actually said what you claim I suggested.
“
As to your claim that things have gotten worse, provide support, please. Because I'm calling Bullshit.”
You mean you want me to prove my claims, I’m happy to (I’ve cited the numbers), but how about you go first. You prove yours, I’ll gladly prove mine.
FYI, the above requests aren’t options. Failure to comply will result in your comments being placed in moderation purgatory until you do.
Even if we can be so blind as to concede that Biden is making things better, the question is, "better for whom"? Clearly not better for our nation as we bear all the costs and risks of hundreds of thousands of unvetted migrants breaching our border. Dan, in his vile hatred for Trump, simply accepts any alternative to him because the alternative is something or someone other than Trump or his policies.
By the way, Dan...did you actually read those links you posted? Did you research them at all and are you ready to explain where the "make things better" part 8s detailed? I haven't the time at present, but it appears once again you've offered headlines with anything within the links actually making your case. You'd be perfect for left-wing media. Jeez.
Craig... "Actually I’ve cited at least two examples where you’ve attributed things to me that are patently false. You are, of course, welcome to demonstrate specifically where I’ve failed to understand your exact words and clarify."
Well, seeing as how I don't see ANY places where you've accurately found a false claim on my part, I don't know WHAT WORDS of yours you think are factual. IF you want me to prove it, then YOU will have to cite the claims that you think I've made that are false.
I can't correct what it is you won't show me. And since nearly EVERYTHING you say is false or mistaken, I have no way of knowing which place you think you actually got it right.
The ball's in your park, Skippy. Or be irrational as well as dishonest, that's on you.
By using the word "attribute," I found this claim from you. It's in response from THESE words of mine...
DAN:
"Now, you can choose to IGNORE or NOT BELIEVE reality, Craig, but that's on you, not me. It would be stupidly false of you to suggest that never happened."
To which you responded...
CRAIG:
"But (as usual) you've just tried to attribute to me something that you have made up out of whole cloth."
IF you will look at what I actually said, I said, "It WOULD BE STUPIDLY FALSE of you to suggest that never happened..."
The WOULD in that comment is a conditional statement. It means IF you are saying that, IT WOULD BE WRONG. Conditional.
You do understand how the English language works, right? You DO understand that this is a conditional comment, not a claim?
SO, that's not it. Can you agree, now, that THIS claim of yours is false, as it misinterpreted my words? That is, while MY statement was conditional, YOURS was a direct and false claim. "You've just tried to attribute to me..." Clearly I didn't. Clearly, you misunderstood.
Understand now?
That's the only one I can find that is even close to you "proving" a false claim on my part. If you want to SHOW me what you have misunderstood (ie, what you think I've falsely attributed to you), then you can.
Oh, here's this one that just happened...
DAN: "set aside your irrational suggestion that immigration should have been fixed in three months,”
CRAIG:
"Why look, another example of you making up some bullshit and ascribing it falsely to me."
THIS comment of mine was in response to YOUR words about immigration concerns...
" while you "wrote letters" for the 8 years of P-BO and sat quietly for Biden."
That SEEMED to me to be saying that I should have been reacting somehow to Biden not having done enough in his three months in office, that I shouldn't be "sitting quietly" because Biden hasn't acted quickly enough.
Did I misunderstand you?
Please, explain what you MEANT to convey about sitting quietly for Biden... if not the suggestion that I should think he hadn't done enough.
"That SEEMED to me to be saying that I should have been reacting somehow to Biden not having done enough in his three months in office, that I shouldn't be "sitting quietly" because Biden hasn't acted quickly enough. Did I misunderstand you?"
1. I have no earthly idea what you "understand" and don't understand.
2. Even if you misunderstood me. There is no way to get " "immigration should have been fixed in three months,”, from what I actually said.
3. I was addressing your silence, NOT Biden's inability to perform a miracle.
4. Thinking that things aren't going to get worse in 3 months, is not the same thing as "fixed in 3 months"
The reality is that you (once again) focused on how something "SEEMED" as opposed to how it actually WAS. Then you proceeded to try to take what "SEEMED" (in your imagination) to the the case and to attribute something to me that was 100% false.
The adult thing to do would be to simply admit that you made a "mistake", acknowledge that I did NOT say what you claimed I said, and move on. Instead you're likely to try to blame me for your made up bullshit.
"That's the only one I can find that is even close to you "proving" a false claim on my part. If you want to SHOW me what you have misunderstood (ie, what you think I've falsely attributed to you), then you can."
Not my problem, I've identified them as they happened. If you can't find them, don;t blame me. Your inability to find them does not equal my failure to provide specific examples.
However, since you've already pre judged everything to exonerate yourself, why should I bother. When you make those kinds of claims without even bothering with evidence, it's clear you're only interested in how you can weasel out of your false claims.
FYI, If you can't find a direct quote and provide it, you're likely going to falsely represent what I actually said.
It's clearly pointless to confront Dan with his falsehoods, he's going to play semantic games or be unable to find things in order to protect his ego.
Is clearly pointless to confront Craig with His stupidly false claims. Even when I point them out as they happen,he still can't see them even when they're clearly stupidly false. Even when it's clearly not Anything that I've said. I don't know how to help Craig with that.
Ohhhhhhhh. well played. By ignoring the fact that I've demonstrated that one example was clearly you making up bullshit, the fact that your big win was to play semantic games (instead of pointing out where I'd actually said ANYTHING even close to your characterization), and the fact that you've pre judged everything in your own favor, means that my continuing down this path is a waste of time. I've learned that evidence is useless when you've already made up your mind.
Here's how to "help". If you are going to claim that I said or "suggested" something, provide my exact words in context to make your point. Don't try to attribute what "SEEMS" to you to me. Stop paraphrasing your made up bullshit and attributing it to me.
Craig... "By ignoring the fact that I've demonstrated that one example was clearly you making up bullshit..."
But you quite literally did not demonstrate that. I did not make up anything. Just as a point of fact in the real world. You do understand that, don't you? At worst, I misunderstood you. And even that remains to be seen.
Here's your explanation...
". I was addressing your silence, NOT Biden's inability to perform a miracle."
My alleged "silence" Would only be alarming if there was something wrong in by the not making more progress than he has in 3 months.
That is, if you attacked my silence about BidenHaving adopted 2 dogs, that would only be alarming if there was something wrong with him having adopted 2 dogs. There's nothing to speak out about, no reason for me to not remain silent about him adopting to dogs. It's not notable.
Super haps you can understand why a reasonable person would see you attacking my alleged silence would mean that you think there's something wrong with Biden having not made more progress yet.
Do you understand now?
Do you understand how come at the worst, I misunderstood you. But it is a false claim to say that I made up bullshit? You understand your false claim now?
Craig (and his exact words)... "It's clearly pointless to confront Dan with his falsehoods, he's going to play semantic games or be unable to find things"
and...
" If you can't find a direct quote and provide it, you're likely going to falsely represent what I actually said."
...and other places where he falsely accused me of, as he falsely stated, it "was clearly you making up bullshit..."
And he COMPLETELY failed to find ANY PLACE where I "made up bullshit." The closest he came was ONE place where MAYBE I misunderstood (although that remains to be seen because he hasn't answered what he meant by what would, to a rational person, appear to be an attack on Biden not doing enough on immigration).
On the other hand, when I quote YOUR words speaking about what YOU THINK (incorrectly) I've said or thought, you either ignore it or fail to understood. For instance, when YOU falsely claimed I don't believe in hell, your EXACT words were,
"Dan is condemning me to an imaginary place that he doesn't believe exists."
And yet, as I clearly pointed out, I DO believe in hell and see people working on it all the time. It's a small thing, but you were clearly literally wrong when you made the claim. And yet, no admission of your error, no owning up of your false claim.
And so, I HAVE shown where you are factually wrong. You have NOT done the same. I HAVE quoted you and got the words and intent correct. You have not done the same.
Ball's in your park, Skippy, but a better adult would begin with an apology and an admission that he was mistaken and I was correct.
To reiterate, I believe it best to copy/paste the specific words in contention, as well as provide the date & time when the comment was made for the purpose of providing context.
Art,
I'm not sue who you're referring to, but I have dealt with these as they've happened. Dan has chosen to ignore them until now, and I believe is trying to use the "i can't find them" excuse to avoid dealing with his false statements. Given that belief on my part, I am not motivated to go back and search for Dan. If he's concerned, it should be his deal.
"And he COMPLETELY failed to find ANY PLACE where I "made up bullshit.""
I've dealt with each incident at the time it happened over the course of multiple threads, the fact that you can't find those isn't my problem.
"The closest he came was ONE place where MAYBE I misunderstood..."
You mean the one I dealt with a second time, and you still can't quote anything I said that is remotely close to what you made up?
" I HAVE quoted you and got the words and intent correct."
That's quite a claim. You claiming that you've gotten my "intent" correct, I was unaware that you could read minds. Or just one more claim you can't prove.
"Do you understand now?"
That you've concocted some after the fact way to make yourself look less bad, yes.
"Do you understand how come at the worst, I misunderstood you."
If that helps you, cool.
"But it is a false claim to say that I made up bullshit? You understand your false claim now?"
No, you literally claims that I said something that I didn't say or even hint at. The fact that you have to pile assumption on assumption to spin some after the fact "explanation" doesn't really help you at all.
DAN'S EXACT WORDS
"Look, set aside your irrational suggestion that immigration should have been fixed in three months,”
Unless you can show (using my own quoted words) where I actually suggested anything of the sort, you've literally invented a "suggestion" and attributed it to me. Yet, I said nothing that suggests anything of the sort. You even admitted that you were basing your response on how things "seem" to you. Perhaps less time obsessing over "seem" and more time focusing on is would be a better plan.
If you can't acknowledge this one very obvious case of you making something up and attributing it to me, then why would I enable your laziness by pointing out others?
I know that it's hard to admit that you're wrong, but maybe just acknowledging reality and moving on would be a good strategy.
"I'm not sue who you're referring to..."
Actually, it's just a helpful hint I believe would benefit both sides of any argument and have been trying to employ it myself, particularly when I fall behind. Not as necessary when the comments are small and the response is rather immediate, but providing the date and time means anyone, including the person whose comments are scrutinized, can go back, see the full context and then determine in what way the response failed to properly address it.
But you're right about Dan's tactics. Equivocation, deflection and accusations regarding "understanding" are just ploys to avoid owning up and admitting failure to whatever degree failure has occurred.
Another helpful hint especially for Dan's benefit:
If something "seems" to be what another says, simply say, "It seems you're saying 'this'. Is this what you're saying?" and leave it there until you get a response. Don't try to argue against what it "seems" someone is saying, which clearly indicates at least the minimum of honesty that you're not sure you're understanding. Why bother with what might be totally NOT what the other person is saying...unless the whole purpose is to obfuscate, confuse and distract?
Craig... " you literally claims that I said something that I didn't say or even hint at."
Ah. Maybe you didn't say something that you INTENDED to sound like "immigration should have been fixed in three months,” but you said something that DID sound like it.
Just a reminder: THIS is the quote from you that raised this silly little rabbit you're chasing and making false claims about...
"What's interesting and inconsistent is that with P-BO and Biden, your "opposition" is quiet and behind the scense, yet when trump does the same things, your "opposition" is loud, public, and full of vitriol, expletives, and hatred. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, that you "yelled and screamed" for the 4 years of Trump, while you "wrote letters" for the 8 years of P-BO and sat quietly for Biden."
The topic is immigration. YOU are complaining that I "sat quietly for Biden..."
My response to this was...
"?? I've "sat quietly" for THREE MONTHS waiting to see what he'll do? Well, yes, I have, insofar as I've not commented yet on my blog on it."
Note the question marks. I was confused. Are you actually complaining that I've "sat quietly" for THREE months, as if that's problematic.
CLEARLY, your comment made no sense to me. I ASKED you for clarification. You're complaining that I've sat quietly...? Why are you asking that? it's only been three months!
Instead of clarifying, you doubled down on the criticism...
CRAIG:
"Ahhhhhh, "plans in place". Rhetoric, not action. "
To which I responded:
"It's been THREE MONTHS. WITH a pandemic going on.
Do you recognize how crazy that is?"
My point was clearly that you're being confusing. IF you think I should be speaking out because there has been insufficient change in THREE months... that's a crazy expectation.
You following me so far?
Then, AFTER YOU REFUSED TO CLARIFY YOUR meaning and AFTER I GAVE YOU MULTIPLE chances to clarify, THEN I said the comment in question:
"Look, set aside your irrational suggestion that immigration should have been fixed in three months..."
I was TRYING to get you to clarify. You didn't. When you don't clarify and don't answer questions, THEN people will try to make sense of your words and what YOUR WORDS SEEMED to say - and not irrationally - was that Biden was not "fixing" or improving immigration quickly enough. IF that was what you were saying, THEN that was an irrational suggestion.
NOW, do you understand how this is on you? I sought clarification, you opted to remain vague, as is your normal practice.
Thus, your claim that I "made up" is factually mistaken. I SOUGHT clarification, I TOLD you how it sounded and sought clarification and WHEN YOU OPTED not to clarify, I decided you must have meant what it sounded like you were suggesting.
This is on you and there is no false claim on my part.
And THIS is why you're impossible to talk to. You don't engage in rational conversation. If I have to wade through dozens of comments to point out your errors and false claims and show you why they're false and mistaken... and that's just for ONE MINOR POINT, it's just not worth it.
That’s quite a lengthy comment to acknowledge that I DID NOT suggest what you said I suggested. I understand that you made up an interpretation of what you thought I said and overreacted to your made up interpretation.
But if you think insisting that your interpretation is reality, you’ve got bigger problems than making shit up about me.
"Don't try to argue against what it "seems" someone is saying, which clearly indicates at least the minimum of honesty that you're not sure you're understanding. Why bother with what might be totally NOT what the other person is saying...unless the whole purpose is to obfuscate, confuse and distract?"
That's an excellent suggestion. Had Dan simply asked instead of assumed based on how things seemed to him, this could have been avoided. Instead he has to try to take all sorts of things, twist them around, and add a huge dose of "seems" in order to make the claim he made.
"IF you think I should be speaking out because there has been insufficient change in THREE months... that's a crazy expectation."
Wow. That's rich. I would question the fact that you didn't speak out because there was momentous change, and it was outrageously bad. In just the short time President Depends has been in office, his "policies" have been an unmitigated disaster and there appears no end in sight. The truly crazy expectation would be any suggestion that you would acknowledge the disaster and utter the slightest criticism. No. You actually expect anyone to believe he's improving things. Good freakin' gosh!
"That’s quite a lengthy comment to acknowledge that I DID NOT suggest what you said I suggested."
Yes, Craig. It's almost as if he saw my comment and did just the opposite. "Seems" is OK if the point of saying it is to point out one is not understanding what was said. But there's no point in going on about it. Simply copy/paste the damned point of contention, add the "seems" and await clarification without another boring word. Why is that so hard?
Art,
It seems to me that if one feels strongly and passionately about an issue (kids in cages), that one would be continuously vocal on that issue. Even if one was to take a break with a change in administration, one would think that the issue getting significantly worse would trigger some vocal response.
If, however, the vocal response was tied to a person (not an issue), then it makes sense that there would be silence when the person is no longer available to blast.
I'd say that simply watching someone's behavior could possibly provide clues to whether they're invested in the issue or the person.
If one looks at the original post, I think it's safe to say that Biden's supporters did not want record numbers on immigrants turned away, nor did the want record numbers of kids in cages. Yet they got both of those things, and they aren't particularly vocal in expressing their concern. They seem much more willing to accept the situation (maybe put the kids in slightly nicer cages) in the hopes that Biden will magically save the day. Or that they'll be able to blame the party that doesn't have the votes to stop any legislation.
I suspect that this will never be Biden's responsibility, no matter how long he's in office or how little he does.
Craig... "It seems to me that if one feels strongly and passionately about an issue (kids in cages), that one would be continuously vocal on that issue."
You DO realize, I suppose, that of Trump's four+ years of xenophobic racism and attacks on refugees and immigrants, I posted precisely ONE blog post on the topic. One. And that, in 2019, his third year in office.
You can bet that if Biden is even 1/10th as bad as Trump is on immigration policy, I will be posting on it at least once.
And that's if he's 1/10th as bad.
Your argument fails under the bright spotlight of reality.
One blog post. Which ignores the multitudes of comments, other social media posts and comments etc.
But, great point.
Craig... " They seem much more willing to accept the situation"
Well, what we may SEEM willing (to you) is not the same as reality. It's just that we recognize that Biden is our best hope right now, in the system we have, in which the Trump GOP is actively hostile to helping immigrants/refugees escaping danger and poverty.
And of course we had four years of Trump's xenophobia get a pass from people like you who may, on some level, actually want to help immigrants, while it got cheered on by the vast majority of the white evangelical conservative movement.
"Well, what we may SEEM willing (to you) is not the same as reality."
You are correct. When people who've spent the past four years filling my social media feeds with post after post about with pictures from the P-BO years as proof that Trump was evil, or when people like AOC go completely reverse their public stance, it does seem like that.
Of course, I intentionally used the word "SEEM" to indicate that I WAS NOT making a claim about "reality".
Not likely that Dan will bother to read this now that the post has been forced to page 2, but just the same:
"You DO realize, I suppose, that of Trump's four+ years of xenophobic racism and attacks on refugees and immigrants, I posted precisely ONE blog post on the topic. One."
One post on something that isn't real is one too many anyhow, so...
I would love to hear Dan explain his accusation of "xenophobia" alone. But then, he's never proven Trump is racist, or that he's "attacked" refugees and immigrants, either.
"You can bet that if Biden is even 1/10th as bad as Trump is on immigration policy, I will be posting on it at least once."
First, Dan would need to explain...not merely assert...how Trump's immigration policy was bad at all, much less worse than Biden's. But given the current state of affairs, only a partisan hack would suggest that Biden hasn't reached and far surpassed that "1/10th" threshold.
"Your argument fails under the bright spotlight of reality."
That made me laugh.
"Well, what we may SEEM willing (to you) is not the same as reality."
So did that.
"It's just that we recognize that Biden is our best hope right now..."
OK. That's NOT funny. It's just incredibly sad and pathetic. I don't even believe that's true when considering all Democrats. There just has to be someone better than Biden! If he's "our best hope", we're totally lost!
"...the Trump GOP is actively hostile to helping immigrants/refugees escaping danger and poverty."
This is a straight up lie. But we (that is, rational Americans) are actively hostile to those disregarding our laws and sovereignty on the pretense of escaping danger and poverty. We (that is, rational Americans) are even more hostile toward lefty morons who lie about what our positions are and who put us at risk in order to appear morally superior to those who bear the burden of their stupidity.
"And of course we had four years of Trump's xenophobia..."
What "xenophobia"? You keep saying this and offer nothing that suggests it even exists. When did regaining control of our borders and immigration laws become "xenophobia"?
Post a Comment