Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[Vassenor]

What crime was Nixon tried and convicted of?

Richard Nixon was facing near-certain impeachment by the House of Representatives, and more importantly, equally certain conviction for the Watergate scandal in the Senate.
He wasn't quite convicted yet, but it was rather close and effectively certain that he did what he was accused of.

If Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio prior to his conviction, but near the end of the trial, what would you think?

That you're using hypothetical situations to try and make me look like a hypocrite.

Doesn't that fall under attacking the arguer rather than the argument?

[Proctopeo]

Richard Nixon was facing near-certain impeachment by the House of Representatives, and more importantly, equally certain conviction for the Watergate scandal in the Senate.
He wasn't quite convicted yet, but it was rather close and effectively certain that he did what he was accused of.

If Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio prior to his conviction, but near the end of the trial, what would you think?

That you're using hypothetical situations to try and make me look like a hypocrite.

Doesn't that fall under attacking the arguer rather than the argument?

I was using hypothetical situations to gauge your opinion on these matters, not to "...make [you] look like a hypocrite". I have no intentions of making you look like a hypocrite this way.

Refrain from jumping to conclusions. Now, back to my hypotheticals.

[Luminesa]

Vassenor, I wonder.
If you were alive when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, would you consider people neutral or in support of this "...[having] no respect for rule of law..."?

What crime was Nixon tried and convicted of?

...You...you do realize...the chain of events that happened surrounding Nixon?...He...resigned before he could be impeached. It was pretty much accepted that he had been involved in Watergate, and then Ford...pardoned him anyway?...

[Senkaku]

that sounds like a case of

party

over

country

I don't know about that. Trump would still be a shit president if he was incompetently trying to do things I approve of in between playing golf and talking shit on Twitter. He'd still be using America's highest office to profit himself and his family. He'd still be a detestable human being I'd cross the road to avoid. I'd prefer if he was freeing the weed or whatever while doing those things, but a bad president doing things I like is still a bad president.

Yeah, he'd still have all kinds of problems and there'd be better alternatives, but Clintonburge is basically saying no matter what Trump does, he'll never get their support. Which is silly.

[Luminesa]

Richard Nixon was facing near-certain impeachment by the House of Representatives, and more importantly, equally certain conviction for the Watergate scandal in the Senate.
He wasn't quite convicted yet, but it was rather close and effectively certain that he did what he was accused of.

If Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio prior to his conviction, but near the end of the trial, what would you think?

That you're using hypothetical situations to try and make me look like a hypocrite.

Doesn't that fall under attacking the arguer rather than the argument?

...That's not an answer to the question. If you don't want to argue, don't argue. But he's merely asking you to make a consistent argument.

[Zanera]

That you're using hypothetical situations to try and make me look like a hypocrite.

Doesn't that fall under attacking the arguer rather than the argument?

...That's not an answer to the question. If you don't want to argue, don't argue. But he's merely asking you to make a consistent argument.

Those hypotheticals came from no real place of debate and I don't see them going anywhere.
It seems like some odd attempt to score personal points to me, too.

[Computer Lab]

...That's not an answer to the question. If you don't want to argue, don't argue. But he's merely asking you to make a consistent argument.

Those hypotheticals came from no real place of debate and I don't see them going anywhere.
It seems like some odd attempt to score personal points to me, too.

It is very clearly an attempt to see if Vassenor opposes the pardon on partisan grounds or legalistic ones.
Whether it pulls that off well is another story, but the intent is obvious enough.

[Zanera]

Those hypotheticals came from no real place of debate and I don't see them going anywhere.
It seems like some odd attempt to score personal points to me, too.

It is very clearly an attempt to see if Vassenor opposes the pardon on partisan grounds or legalistic ones.
Whether it pulls that off well is another story, but the intent is obvious enough.

Wasn't Arpaio convicted of a crime though?

[Clintonburge]

It is very clearly an attempt to see if Vassenor opposes the pardon on partisan grounds or legalistic ones.
Whether it pulls that off well is another story, but the intent is obvious enough.

Wasn't Arpaio convicted of a crime though?

He was convicted of contempt of a Federal Court order, but pardoned before sentencing.

[Computer Lab]

It is very clearly an attempt to see if Vassenor opposes the pardon on partisan grounds or legalistic ones.
Whether it pulls that off well is another story, but the intent is obvious enough.

Wasn't Arpaio convicted of a crime though?

I believe so. Again, regardless of the efficacy of the hypothetical, the above is what I immediately assumed the intent was.

[The Black Forrest]

Some Examples of Trump attacking Hispanics:

1) Trump calling Mexican immigrants criminals, drug-smugglers, rapists. (Assumed some are good)

2) Trump claiming a Judge with Mexican heritage could not adjudicate him fairly

3) Trump referring to undocumented as "bad hombres" during a presidential debate

4) Trump pardoning of Joe Arpaio, who racially profiled Hispanics/Latinos, violating civil rights

5) Trump ending of DACA, which largely benefited Hispanic youth.

1. Only within the context of illegal immigrants.

Explain. Only drug-smugglers and rapists?

[Zanera]

Wasn't Arpaio convicted of a crime though?

I believe so. Again, regardless of the efficacy of the hypothetical, the above is what I immediately assumed the intent was.

The efficacy of the hypothetical is why I question its motives. It seems like too much of a twisted reach to be anything else to me but a poor attempt to swipe at their morals or whatever.

[Computer Lab]

I believe so. Again, regardless of the efficacy of the hypothetical, the above is what I immediately assumed the intent was.

The efficacy of the hypothetical is why I question its motives. It seems like too much of a twisted reach to be anything else to me but a poor attempt to swipe at their morals or whatever.

I said it was an attempt to see whether Vassenor considered the pardon a problem for partisan reasons or legalistic ones.
Doing things strictly for partisan reasons tends to be negative for most people, so you could say it was a swipe at their morals if you read it that way.

I tend to assume miscommunication or awkward phrasing rather than ill intent. Regardless of someone's actual intent, the resulting conversation is more likely to be meaningful.

[Northern Davincia]

1. Only within the context of illegal immigrants.

Explain. Only drug-smugglers and rapists?

Trump deemed that illegal immigrants were criminals, drug-smugglers, and rapists.

[Proctopeo]

Those hypotheticals came from no real place of debate and I don't see them going anywhere.
It seems like some odd attempt to score personal points to me, too.

It is very clearly an attempt to see if Vassenor opposes the pardon on partisan grounds or legalistic ones.
Whether it pulls that off well is another story, but the intent is obvious enough.

Yes, that was more or less my intent - to see if the opposition to the pardon was partisan or legalistic.
The hostility I received in response didn't give me an answer, so I sadly don't know.

[AiliailiA]

Explain. Only drug-smugglers and rapists?

Trump deemed that illegal immigrants were criminals, drug-smugglers, and rapists.

No, actually. When he said "Mexico is sending us" he did NOT distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

Mexico doesn't deliver illegal migrants to the border and give them bottled water and a packed lunch for the walk, so in what sense is Mexico ... the nation or the government ... sending anyone? The only way that makes sense is if Trump was talking about LEGAL immigrants!

That's not what he meant of course. He was talking complete bollocks cobbled together around some xenophobic buzzwords and deliberately NOT distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants.

[Proctopeo]

Trump deemed that illegal immigrants were criminals, drug-smugglers, and rapists.

No, actually. When he said "Mexico is sending us" he did NOT distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

Mexico doesn't deliver illegal migrants to the border and give them bottled water and a packed lunch for the walk, so in what sense is Mexico ... the nation or the government ... sending anyone? The only way that makes sense is if Trump was talking about LEGAL immigrants!

That's not what he meant of course. He was talking complete bollocks cobbled together around some xenophobic buzzwords and deliberately NOT distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants.

Arguably he's using it correctly, if you go by the definition of "send" that means "cause to go", in which case the area and environment that Mexico encompasses, not the government, is being referred to as "Mexico".
The funny thing about the English language is that it's very easy to be technically correct, if you use the right definitions in the right ways.

[Zanera]

It is very clearly an attempt to see if Vassenor opposes the pardon on partisan grounds or legalistic ones.
Whether it pulls that off well is another story, but the intent is obvious enough.

Yes, that was more or less my intent - to see if the opposition to the pardon was partisan or legalistic.
The hostility I received in response didn't give me an answer, so I sadly don't know.

I would try further with a hypothetical that needn't twist much at all.

[Oil exporting People]

Trump deemed that illegal immigrants were criminals

Which they are, by definition.

[Clintonburge]

Explain. Only drug-smugglers and rapists?

Trump deemed that illegal immigrants were criminals, drug-smugglers, and rapists.

In his speech where he said "Mexico is sending..." he specifically called immigrants from Mexico criminals, drug-smugglers, and rapists. Which is not true, most people who come from Mexico are not "bad hombres". Even if you're right that he is calling "illegal immigrants" criminals, drug-smugglers, and rapists, how is that true? Where are the data to generalize an entire group of people and the 11 million believed to be present in the USA?

[Zanera]

Trump deemed that illegal immigrants were criminals, drug-smugglers, and rapists.

No, actually. When he said "Mexico is sending us" he did NOT distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

Mexico doesn't deliver illegal migrants to the border and give them bottled water and a packed lunch for the walk, so in what sense is Mexico ... the nation or the government ... sending anyone? The only way that makes sense is if Trump was talking about LEGAL immigrants!

That's not what he meant of course. He was talking complete bollocks cobbled together around some xenophobic buzzwords and deliberately NOT distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants.

If the government made me have to illegally immigrate I'd at least expect two packed lunches. Lunch is the best meal.

[Clintonburge]

No, actually. When he said "Mexico is sending us" he did NOT distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

Mexico doesn't deliver illegal migrants to the border and give them bottled water and a packed lunch for the walk, so in what sense is Mexico ... the nation or the government ... sending anyone? The only way that makes sense is if Trump was talking about LEGAL immigrants!

That's not what he meant of course. He was talking complete bollocks cobbled together around some xenophobic buzzwords and deliberately NOT distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants.

Arguably he's using it correctly, if you go by the definition of "send" that means "cause to go", in which case the area and environment that Mexico encompasses, not the government, is being referred to as "Mexico".
The funny thing about the English language is that it's very easy to be technically correct, if you use the right definitions in the right ways.

"When Mexico sends its people..." He is not referring to the land mass he is referring to the Mexican government, anyway you spin it he is still demonizing a large group of people.

[Ifreann]

No, actually. When he said "Mexico is sending us" he did NOT distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

Mexico doesn't deliver illegal migrants to the border and give them bottled water and a packed lunch for the walk, so in what sense is Mexico ... the nation or the government ... sending anyone? The only way that makes sense is if Trump was talking about LEGAL immigrants!

That's not what he meant of course. He was talking complete bollocks cobbled together around some xenophobic buzzwords and deliberately NOT distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants.

Arguably he's using it correctly, if you go by the definition of "send" that means "cause to go", in which case the area and environment that Mexico encompasses, not the government, is being referred to as "Mexico".
The funny thing about the English language is that it's very easy to be technically correct, if you use the right definitions in the right ways.

Trump can't even spell. Tell yourself that he was technically correct if it makes you feel better, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.

---

Trump deemed that illegal immigrants were criminals

Which they are, by definition.

False.

[Oil exporting People]

False.

Let's hear about this fantasy world you're in.

[Clintonburge]

Trump deemed that illegal immigrants were criminals

Which they are, by definition.

Trump said "Their bringing drugs, crime, rapists,..." not that the undocumented are criminals in themselves.