d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Trump 2016 > Trump Vs Clinton
Prev1311731183119312031213169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 53,338
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Jul 27 2019 05:42am
Quote (fender @ 27 Jul 2019 07:22)
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/18/dod-majority-of-mission-critical-bases-face-climate-change-threats/

maybe you should get a clue before you accuse others of talking out of their asses... whenever a president, who isn't a science denier, takes office, that emergency can be addressed without even involving congress, and republican activist judges in the supreme court set the precedent for it. not that i necessarily expect this to happen because in general, democrats tend to value checks and balances more, and try to get things done the intended way, but in theory this opens the door for a whole lot of re-appropriation of billions of dollars by the executive branch...


odd that fender aka heinrich is calling anyone a denier when he openly denies math and the Holocaust
Member
Posts: 52,272
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
Jul 27 2019 05:44am
Quote (fender @ 27 Jul 2019 13:37)
pathetic. you really think that you playing with words of headlines doesn't allow for a similar phrasing as trump's caretakers did for the border "emergency"? you're delusional...


the border wall is a reaction to an imminent national security threat. the report you cited to support your argument explicitly calls climate change "something with potential impacts".

too bad if you dont understand the difference between "imminent" and "potential", or think that this distinction is just irrelevant playing with words. in reality, this is a significant difference, particularly when it comes to a dicey legal undertaking such as redirecting defense funds.
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Jul 27 2019 05:52am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 27 Jul 2019 13:44)
the border wall is a reaction to an imminent national security threat. the report you cited to support your argument explicitly calls climate change "something with potential impacts".

too bad if you dont understand the difference between "imminent" and "potential", or think that this distinction is just irrelevant playing with words. in reality, this is a significant difference, particularly when it comes to a dicey legal undertaking such as redirecting defense funds.


what YOU don't understand is that there actually was no imminent threat to the border, it merely was framed that way, and there are literally thousands of studies detailing how climate change is not only an imminent threat, but actually an already PRESENT threat. again, your personal phrasing and interpretation of specific headlines is completely irrelevant for this issue, a coma patient would be able to make a convincing argument as to why climate change has to be addressed urgently and immediately, and this ruling will allow a president to do re-appropriate funds without congress having a say in it - the part you conveniently ignored in this conversation because you don't want to outright admit that you hate the separation of powers as well as checks and balances - at least while your precious cult leader holds office...
Member
Posts: 53,338
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Jul 27 2019 06:00am
Quote (fender @ 27 Jul 2019 07:52)
what YOU don't understand is that there actually was no imminent threat to the border, it merely was framed that way, and there are literally thousands of studies detailing how climate change is not only an imminent threat, but actually an already PRESENT threat. again, your personal phrasing and interpretation of specific headlines is completely irrelevant for this issue, a coma patient would be able to make a convincing argument as to why climate change has to be addressed urgently and immediately, and this ruling will allow a president to do re-appropriate funds without congress having a say in it - the part you conveniently ignored in this conversation because you don't want to outright admit that you hate the separation of powers as well as checks and balances - at least while your precious cult leader holds office...


>illegal immigration is not a problem

just because no one is lined up to pour into your pathetic little gutter in Dresden doesn’t mean there is not illegal immigration in America. Then again your idea of ‘immigration’ is forced one-way train trips

i’d report your post but someone wisely already took the liberty of doing so
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jul 27 2019 06:19am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 27 2019 07:44am)
the border wall is a reaction to an imminent national security threat. the report you cited to support your argument explicitly calls climate change "something with potential impacts".

too bad if you dont understand the difference between "imminent" and "potential", or think that this distinction is just irrelevant playing with words. in reality, this is a significant difference, particularly when it comes to a dicey legal undertaking such as redirecting defense funds.


There is no imminent threat at the border. That is a histrionic statement. Exaggerating the issue greatly doesn't change it into an imminent threat, just an exaggerated issue.

Only conservatives would think it is more important to keep brown people out than prevent poisoning our planet anymore lol.

I'll just challenge your statement: What imminent threat to the United States is there? What are these concentration camps addressing? As far as I understand it is just people coming here. They aren't armed, have tanks, are agents of a foreign government etc, just people our ancestors who came here before us.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 27 2019 06:22am
Member
Posts: 52,272
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
Jul 27 2019 06:56am
Quote (Skinned @ 27 Jul 2019 14:19)
There is no imminent threat at the border. That is a histrionic statement. Exaggerating the issue greatly doesn't change it into an imminent threat, just an exaggerated issue.

Only conservatives would think it is more important to keep brown people out than prevent poisoning our planet anymore lol.

I'll just challenge your statement: What imminent threat to the United States is there? What are these concentration camps addressing? As far as I understand it is just people coming here. They aren't armed, have tanks, are agents of a foreign government etc, just people our ancestors who came here before us.


Control over a country's borders is part of the definition of national security, lol. Moreover, since these people coming across the border are entitled to certain benefits once they cross the border, they pose an imminent fiscal threat to american taxpayers. Losing control and oversight over which drugs, and potentially over which arms and terrorists, are coming across the border also directly undercuts national security.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 27 2019 06:56am
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Jul 27 2019 07:07am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 27 Jul 2019 14:56)
Control over a country's borders is part of the definition of national security, lol. Moreover, since these people coming across the border are entitled to certain benefits once they cross the border, they pose an imminent fiscal threat to american taxpayers. Losing control and oversight over which drugs, and potentially over which arms and terrorists, are coming across the border also directly undercuts national security.


that's the thing though, this whole 'we're losing control over it, and therefore it's an emergency' narrative is not backed by any facts or serious arguments. trump has 'worked' hard to CREATE an emergency situation, his policies HAVE increased the pressure on the border to a certain degree, but he still did not manage to create a situation that demands for executive overreach of that magnitude by any reasonable definition. and again, if something like this is encouraged by the supreme court, it will be the easiest thing in the world to make a significantly more convincing argument for climate change being a real emergency, and it's not even close...
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jul 27 2019 07:23am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 27 2019 08:56am)
Control over a country's borders is part of the definition of national security, lol. Moreover, since these people coming across the border are entitled to certain benefits once they cross the border, they pose an imminent fiscal threat to american taxpayers. Losing control and oversight over which drugs, and potentially over which arms and terrorists, are coming across the border also directly undercuts national security.


Tax payer dollars being lost isn't an imminent threat. I don't accept Taliban coming from Mexico tinfoil hat mumbo jumbo so knock it off. No terrorism is occurring from Mexico. Name the attack that has happened in the past couple of decades that informs this. The only real problems you mention are indirect, abstract, one fictional, and not an immediate threat.

That is why the challenge stands to anyone else. Your answer was wholly insufficient.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 27 2019 07:26am
Member
Posts: 34,223
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 319.37
Jul 27 2019 08:00am
Quote (Skinned @ Jul 27 2019 08:19am)
There is no imminent threat at the border. That is a histrionic statement. Exaggerating the issue greatly doesn't change it into an imminent threat, just an exaggerated issue.

Only conservatives would think it is more important to keep brown people out than prevent poisoning our planet anymore lol.

I'll just challenge your statement: What imminent threat to the United States is there? What are these concentration camps addressing? As far as I understand it is just people coming here. They aren't armed, have tanks, are agents of a foreign government etc, just people our ancestors who came here before us.


Control of borders defines government. No borders, no government.

Yes, it is a crisis when you overwhelm local infrastructure and significantly decrease quality of life for American communities.

We do not have the means to successfully integrate millions of undocumented migrants annually. Congress wants to enact a $15 minimum wage, are we going to pay undocumented immigrants with no skills $15 an hour? Are they going to work at all? Are our schools equipped to teach the children English, or communicate with Spanish speaking parents? Is local infrastructure set-up to withstand the sharp population spikes and negligible increase in tax revenue?

All of this with no end in sight. Central America will continue to be poor, gangs will continue to ravage those countries, and we will be left absorbing millions of refugees, with no hope of integration, until our southern states might as well be Mexico.

The Democratic party is split between nihilists seeking the end of it all (certainly the end of the United States) and cynical party operatives who just see these poor millions as a cheap vote.

As Obama's former DHS Secretary said:

Quote (Jeh Johnson)
And the other reality is that, when we change our policy and we signal to people beyond our borders that, effectively, our borders are open, and that you will not be deported unless you commit a crime, for example, the migrants will hear that message.

It will be aggravated and amplified by the smugglers. And instead of 100,000 a month, we will be dealing with 200,000, 300,000 a month, and these overcrowded conditions will be even worse.

Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jul 27 2019 08:16am
Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 27 2019 10:00am)
Control of borders defines government. No borders, no government.

Yes, it is a crisis when you overwhelm local infrastructure and significantly decrease quality of life for American communities.

We do not have the means to successfully integrate millions of undocumented migrants annually. Congress wants to enact a $15 minimum wage, are we going to pay undocumented immigrants with no skills $15 an hour? Are they going to work at all? Are our schools equipped to teach the children English, or communicate with Spanish speaking parents? Is local infrastructure set-up to withstand the sharp population spikes and negligible increase in tax revenue?

All of this with no end in sight. Central America will continue to be poor, gangs will continue to ravage those countries, and we will be left absorbing millions of refugees, with no hope of integration, until our southern states might as well be Mexico.

The Democratic party is split between nihilists seeking the end of it all (certainly the end of the United States) and cynical party operatives who just see these poor millions as a cheap vote.

As Obama's former DHS Secretary said:


And you think human driven pollution since the beginning of the industrial revolution isn't a serious problem?

There are a ton of ways we are impacted by industrial waste and technological byproducts that hurt our economy and our health. Putting printed money over the natural environment is as nihilistic as it gets Bogie.

Nothing you listed is more imminent than anything I've listed. Neither are imminent threats. I'm not minimizing either or saying that there's not a crisis. But we are not under attack either. They are not attacking home depot they are standing outside of it. Is they are arrested and put in a concentration camp they go with the majority of prisoners in the United States that have not been convicted of a crime.

When these people come to the hospital it's written office charity it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. They're not eligible for medicaid or medicare. They aren't eligible for SNAP or other public assistance programs. Don't only help they get is from the Christian church more or less. Thank God the Christian's haven't turned on the immigrants, outside evangelicals who are more of a cult.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 27 2019 08:20am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1311731183119312031213169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll