• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Border agents used tear gas only after being assaulted by asylum-seekers

According to Donald the First, the key question is "why would mothers run up to where the tear gas was forming with their children". Another stunningly idiotic take by the Donald.
 
jnug said:
According to Donald the First, the key question is "why would mothers run up to where the tear gas was forming with their children". Another stunningly idiotic take by the Donald.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Maccabee said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Because it assumes that a mother saw the cloud of tear gas forming recognized it for what it was and ran toward it. IDIOTIC...staggeringly so. Donald level idiotic.

A) Donald has no clue if the woman saw the tear gas forming or even saw the canister dropping
B) Donald has no clue if the woman recognized it for what it was even if she saw it

To assume she purposefully ran toward something she knew was a threat is absurd and it can only be an assumption at best based on the laughable absurdity that must go on between Donald's ears minute to minute.
 
jnug said:
Because it assumes that a mother saw the cloud of tear gas forming recognized it for what it was and ran toward it. IDIOTIC...staggeringly so. Donald level idiotic.

A) Donald has no clue if the woman saw the tear gas forming or even saw the canister dropping
B) Donald has no clue if the woman recognized it for what it was even if she saw it

To assume she purposefully ran toward something she knew was a threat is absurd and it can only be an assumption at best based on the laughable absurdity that must go on between Donald's ears minute to minute.
Click to expand...

Don't attempt to storm the border and you won't get tear gassed. simple as that.
 
Maccabee said:
Don't attempt to storm the border and you won't get tear gassed. simple as that.
Click to expand...

A) You clearly have not read the posts in this thread up to this point or you just don't care.
B) Even assuming your take on how she got to that point at the border is correct and not provoked by provocateurs what does that have to do with Donald's take that that assumes she ran toward the tear gas?

Thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
According to Donald the First, the key question is "why would mothers run up to where the tear gas was forming with their children". Another stunningly idiotic take by the Donald.
Click to expand...

Good question. Why would they?
 
holbritter said:
Curious....do you have a link to where he asked that?
Click to expand...

Fox has the video. Fox pees itself over everything Donald says. They probably have it memorialized somewhere on their web site.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Don't you think they should start using some tactical nukes along the border? It would rotate stock, and maybe turn enough of the area to glass, with enough residual radiation to keep it free from life for some years.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an idea trump would come up with.
 
JustHanging said:
Trump is to blame for this in large degree.

When you constantly court the White Supremacist vote, going so far as to publicly support the KKK and Neo Nazis, as Trump has done, and you've based an entire campaign strategy around energizing cowardly racists to vote for you, as Trump just did in this latest election cycle, people will naturally question your motivations in a situation like this. Honestly, it's not that complicated.
Click to expand...

Trump is to blame for the seeming hypocrisy of other people? Nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Irwin Corey said:
You, maybe. "I" don't hate anyone.
Click to expand...

No, I too avoid hate. I learned many years ago that embracing that emotion harms the person doing the hating. It is counterproductive.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, I too avoid hate. I learned many years ago that embracing that emotion harms the person doing the hating. It is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Fledermaus said:
Seeking asylum = Good.

Busting down doors and or hopping fences demanding it = Bad.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I feel for most of those people, really I do, but if they don't do things the right way I can't feel too bad for whatever happens to them.
 
Doc91478 said:
~~~~~~
MEANWHILE, you never uttered a peep during the Obama era, tear gas and pepper spray was used at the border routinely by border agents. Certainly what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Tear gas used once a month at border under Obama
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/
The same tear gas agent that the Trump administration is taking heat for deploying against a border mob this weekend is actually used fairly frequently — including more than once a month during some years under President Obama, according to Homeland Security data. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used 2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, or CS, since 2010, and deployed it 26 times in 2012 and 27 times in 2013. The use dropped after that, but was still deployed three times in 2016, Mr. Obama’s final full year in office. Use of CS rose again in 2017.... Border authorities also use another agent, pepper spray, frequently — including a decade-high record of 151 instances in 2013, also under Mr. Obama. Pepper spray, officially known as Pava Capsaicin, was used 43 times in fiscal year 2018, according to the CBP numbers.
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem with tear gas being used, as Congress past the funds to purchase the tear gas. What I do have a problem is the ability to stop anyone to ask to enter America. Police in gear to stop people and the use of tear gas in the knowledge that children are in the group is a problem. This is a issue for the courts to settle just to overturn a failed Trump policy.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
I do not have a problem with tear gas being used, as Congress past the funds to purchase the tear gas. What I do have a problem is the ability to stop anyone to ask to enter America. Police in gear to stop people and the use of tear gas in the knowledge that children are in the group is a problem. This is a issue for the courts to settle just to overturn a failed Trump policy.
Click to expand...

Likely you have no problem with torture either, eh? As long as it's not you or yours being tortured. :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Likely you have no problem with torture either, eh? As long as it's not you or yours being tortured. :lol:
Click to expand...

Tell us again about all the "women and children" in the VIOLENT Thug-o-van....



 
Atheist 2020 said:
I do not have a problem with tear gas being used, as Congress past the funds to purchase the tear gas. What I do have a problem is the ability to stop anyone to ask to enter America. Police in gear to stop people and the use of tear gas in the knowledge that children are in the group is a problem. This is a issue for the courts to settle just to overturn a failed Trump policy.
Click to expand...

~~~~~~
Obviously you fail to understand that entering any country is at the courtesy of the country. those entering are required to do so legally. However, as most of us have seen, the people at the Southern borders of America habitually do not enter legally, nor do they entend to do so.
 
Doc91478 said:
~~~~~~
Obviously you fail to understand that entering any country is at the courtesy of the country. those entering are required to do so legally. However, as most of us have seen, the people at the Southern borders of America habitually do not enter legally, nor do they entend to do so.
Click to expand...

Except in the case of Asylum:
Two paths to asylum
In "affirmative asylum" cases, an individual is in the U.S. or has arrived at a point of entry and has declared his or her application for asylum to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within one year of their arrival in country. A decision can be made by a USCIS asylum officer.
In “defensive asylum” cases, an individual has requested asylum as a form of relief or defense against forcible removal from the U.S. before an immigration judge. The individual may have been undocumented or in violation of his or her status when apprehended in the U.S. or were caught trying to enter the U.S. without proper documentation and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture.

Notice there is little stated or claimed for how the individual seeking Asylum has made it into the US because there is not a standard for it in the case of individuals seeking Asylum. Would we PREFER they come through Ports of Entry. Yup. So what. Our Asylum Law does not demand it and the International Law we are signed onto dues not demand it. The only person actually breaking the law is the President of the United States.

The system needs more Immigration Judges (about 500 more should do it, not the thousands Trump claims are being asked for) and a streamlined process for making determinations. It is really very difficult for an Individual to prove he or she deserves Asylum. So the issue is simply one of processing. If we do not change the standards for approval those wagging their fingers and alternately shaking in their boots get what they want....few Asylum seekers accepted into the country. Its baked into the standards.

Donald does not want a solution just as he did not actually want a solution to DACA or Illegal Immigration even when it included more money for his stupid wall. Trump does not want a solution to that either unless it includes Miller's draconian modifications to Legal Immigration Law.

Now we can overlay the issue we have in Mexico our neighbor for not having added to our stockpile of Immigration Judges and streamlining the process. Again Donald does not want a solution. He prefers to see people pile up on the border and hopes for worse than that. Mexico could likely be coaxed to dealing with more of the purported Asylum seekers as they work through Mexico under some terms or another with the US. But again, Donald is not looking for a solution. So it remains to be seen if there will actually be anything substantive that happens between the US and Mexico beyond what is already in place and whether we adopt a solution geared at processing Asylum seekers more rapidly which actually has the added benefit of getting most every US citizen where we want to go with this mess.
 
Grokmaster said:
Wanting a "better job" is NOT a valid reason for asylum.

Pretty sure the actions in the video provided isn't the "valid process" for seeking asylum, either.
Click to expand...

I don't expect to change any minds here. We all have our own opinions. Trump created the conditions for incidents to happen at the border. Stuff is going to happen when you have desperate people. A normal President, even a Republican normal President would have added processing agents and judges to adjudicate the cases. You have 5000 people at the border and Trump is slow walking what is being done. 0 to 100 is being processed per day in a haphazard sporadic way. Meanwhile more people come. Stuff is bound to happen when you create the conditions for it to happen. And yes I know that the reply will be Trump is a genius Saint and didn't create the conditions. Immigrants created the conditions. There are lawsuits already in the courts. Your genius Saint is breaking US immigration law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom