• 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!

[W:875] Trump administration 'looking at' suspending habeas corpus, Stephen Miller says (2 Viewers)

Says who?

Based on some made up definition of investing force in just supposed to accept because you say so?

I don't think there was a suspension of habeas corpus

Trump wields some sort of power in the government when he wasn't part of it?

That somehow a non government entity has some effect on government?

I don't think Donald Trump is some sort of shadow dictator. You may say he has influence but the degree is debatable.

You can't be that out of touch or nieve and expecting folks like me to be is insulting.

Google A.I. definition of "invading force":

"An "invading force" refers to armed forces that enter a country or territory with the intention of conquering or taking control of it. It's a military offensive aimed at breaching borders and establishing dominance, often with the goal of overthrowing the existing government or making territorial gains.
What else are they but individuals. You think this is a unified, organized, group breaching our borders. Prove it. Where is the evidence that indicates their training? Where is the intel of a unified "plan of attack"?
Habeas corpus is a foundational pillar of due process. Due process violations were already an issue. Miller opened his big fat mouth that speaks for Trump and put habeas corpus on table. I and others didn't do that. Trump's chief winged monkey did that.
1747264225058.png
 
You can't be that out of touch or nieve and expecting folks like me to be is insulting.

Google A.I. definition of "invading force":
Why would I Google words you were trying to put in my mouth that I absolutely didn't say?

The only argument you have against these people being an invading enemy is that you are promoting gangsters murderers and rapists that are welcome that's the only way.

Otherwise they are not welcome when they enter they invade.

Invade is a verb to enter without welcome.

You keep trying to twist this into some sort of legalistic semantics and I'm not dumb enough to fall for that. Try your dishonest tricks on someone more gullible.
 
Trump wields some sort of power in the government when he wasn't part of it?

That somehow a non government entity has some effect on government?

I don't think Donald Trump is some sort of shadow dictator. You may say he has influence but the degree is debatable.







Finally Trump's own words at the time:

"I'll fight it all the way," Trump told supporters at a Las Vegas rally Feb. 8. "A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they're blaming it on me. I say, that's okay. Please blame it on me."


Source ABC 30 Action News: https://abc30.com/live-updates/dona...-presidential-debate/15283723/entry/15288428/
 





Finally Trump's own words at the time:

"I'll fight it all the way," Trump told supporters at a Las Vegas rally Feb. 8. "A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they're blaming it on me. I say, that's okay. Please blame it on me."


Source ABC 30 Action News: https://abc30.com/live-updates/dona...-presidential-debate/15283723/entry/15288428/
Yeah I know there was some conspiracy theories about Trump wielding some sort of shadowy power but sorry not buying it.

When you have to use garbage cure sources like CNN and Disney to back up your claims it's probably because your claims are wrong.
 
Why would I Google words you were trying to put in my mouth that I absolutely didn't say?

You didn't write: "Invading enemy force" [It is right above in the this very thread if you care to refresh you memory.]

The only argument you have against these people being an invading enemy is that you are promoting gangsters murderers and rapists that are welcome that's the only way.

I worked in law enforcement in an urban area where these people lived. I can tell you that the numbers of them as a percentage of the whole that are gang members, murders and rapists are very small. Most are fleeiing either escape from those very type of people, economic opportunity, or both.

That doesn't mean I don't want to see illegal immigration stopped.

I simply do not want suspension of the law I swore an oath to uphold to get tossed in the doing of that.


You keep trying to twist this into some sort of legalistic semantics ...


This is ENTIRELY based in legal issues and there for NOTHING about it is "legalistic semantics".

That is like saying bread isn't about flour.
 
Says who?

Based on some made up definition of investing force in just supposed to accept because you say so?

I don't think there was a suspension of habeas corpus

Trump wields some sort of power in the government when he wasn't part of it?

That somehow a non government entity has some effect on government?

I don't think Donald Trump is some sort of shadow dictator. You may say he has influence but the degree is debatable.
Compact Clause require entry plus enmity
 
So foreign gangsters are welcome here to rape and murder at their desire?

Invasion means entry without welcome. Have you ever heard of a home invasion? There doesn't have to be a declaration of war or anybody actually armed.
not legally it does not. If your definition were true..there would be no requirement for due process against someone who trespasses.
 
Yeah I know there was some conspiracy theories about Trump wielding some sort of shadowy power but sorry not buying it.

Sorry, I know there is some sort of conspiracy theories about the Earth being round and all. Things like being able to see the actual curve of it from airplanes and all those pictures taken from space. I am not buying that though.

When you have to use garbage cure sources like CNN and Disney to back up your claims it's probably because your claims are wrong.

Yeah, I can believe their Trump backing donor class Boards of Executives are lying to us.
 
You didn't write: "Invading enemy force" [It is right above in the this very thread if you care to refresh you memory.]
It's a description invading means entering without welcome enemy means foe. Enforce means to apply might against I was accurate.
I worked in law enforcement in an urban area where these people lived.
Anecdotes are never good arguments.
I can tell you that the numbers of them as a percentage of the whole that are gang members, murders and rapists are very small. Most are fleeiing either escape from those very type of people, economic opportunity, or both.
I'm not interested in your feelings based on your anecdotes.
That doesn't mean I don't want to see illegal immigration stopped.
I'm not playing this game there's no such thing as illegal immigration. Immigration is legal so you're going to play semantics games I'm going to play them right back.

The term is illegal aliens that cannot be immigrants if they're illegal those two things are mutually exclusive.
I simply do not want suspension of the law I swore an oath to uphold to get tossed in the doing of that.
Your opportunity to object is long gone. Going all the way back to George Bush jr they made it possible for illegal aliens to just wander in.
This is ENTIRELY based in legal issues and there for NOTHING about it is "legalistic semantics".
Then quit making arguments about legal semantics.

And then fading force is a group of people using Force to enter whether or not welcome. It doesn't matter if there are country or a gang or a group of clowns.
That is like saying bread isn't about flour.
I'm sure this makes sense to you.
 
Sorry, I know there is some sort of conspiracy theories about the Earth being round and all. Things like being able to see the actual curve of it from airplanes and all those pictures taken from space. I am not buying that though.
So this leftist conspiracy theory of a shadow government that Donald Trump has been the supreme dictator of is just as valid as the flat Earth conspiracy theory I agree
Yeah, I can believe their Trump backing donor class Boards of Executives are lying to us.
That's the basis for any conspiracy theory they're all lying to us and there's some sort of money changing hands behind the scenes I've heard the same thing from flat earthers so have something more than people it's fun to laugh at on the internet.
 
wouldn't a person trespassing be invading private property? Or even public property?
Yes. And the people who own the property have every right to remove them immediately.

What you're saying is that I need to go through court and have to process for the person that's invading my property because I need to prove they don't have the right to be there.
That said...even the Taliban was entitled to due process per the US Supreme Court.
I don't think they were as big of a threat to the US.
 
It's a description invading means entering without welcome enemy means foe. Enforce means to apply might against I was accurate.

Anecdotes are never good arguments.

I'm not interested in your feelings based on your anecdotes.

I'm not playing this game there's no such thing as illegal immigration. Immigration is legal so you're going to play semantics games I'm going to play them right back.

The term is illegal aliens that cannot be immigrants if they're illegal those two things are mutually exclusive.

Your opportunity to object is long gone. Going all the way back to George Bush jr they made it possible for illegal aliens to just wander in.

Then quit making arguments about legal semantics.

And then fading force is a group of people using Force to enter whether or not welcome. It doesn't matter if there are country or a gang or a group of clowns.

I'm sure this makes sense to you.

None of the above answers any of the thngs I asked of you to make or greater define you actual point.

You called it an "invading enemy force". I didn't choose those words, you did. How is it an invading enemy force? I get how it is invading, but how is it an enemy and what makes it a force?

How is it NOT about issues of legality? It certainly seems to be ALL about issues of legality.

How is it semantics, when the very thing you want addressed is the focus of the questions I am asking? How can something SPECIFIC to the point be "semantics".

I'd appreciate actual answers to the questions rather than, "I am not playing the games.", as they are not games. They are relevant to the specifics of what is being discussed, that YOU brought up.
 
So this leftist conspiracy theory of a shadow government that Donald Trump has been the supreme dictator of is just as valid as the flat Earth conspiracy theory I agree

That's the basis for any conspiracy theory they're all lying to us and there's some sort of money changing hands behind the scenes I've heard the same thing from flat earthers so have something more than people it's fun to laugh at on the internet.

{sigh}

I am referencing no "leftist conspiracy", but you know that. I gave you Trump's own quoted words from his well documented pre-election Vegas rally where he himself claimed credit for killing the bill.

What more do you want?
 
None of the above answers any of the thngs I asked of you to make or greater define you actual point.
I'm rejecting your dishonest framing
You called it an "invading enemy force". I didn't choose those words, you did. How is it an invading enemy force? I get how it is invading, but how is it an enemy and what makes it a force?
I was accurate and describing it as an invading enemy Force. Are people who invade to rape and murder and steal welcome to you? Rape murder and theft are crimes of force.

Again I reject your dishonest framing.
How is it NOT about issues of legality? It certainly seems to be ALL about issues of legality.
Here's the legality if you're and illegal alien you'll get deported that's it.
How is it semantics, when the very thing you want addressed is the focus of the questions I am asking? How can something SPECIFIC to the point be "semantics".
How can someone with a legal status of immigrant also be illegal?
I'd appreciate actual answers to the questions rather than, "I am not playing the games.", as they are not games.
Quit with the dishonest framing and I won't have to point out your dishonest games and refuse to play them.
They are relevant to the specifics of what is being discussed, that YOU brought up.
I pause it that people are coming here unwelcomed are invading. When they come here to commit murders and rapes and theft that makes them enemies. And when they use Force to commit these crimes which they all require that makes them a force.

Now as far as how there needs to be a declaration of war with some country that only exists in your imagination no not answering that nonsense.
 
{sigh}

I am referencing no "leftist conspiracy",
So proof that there is a shadow government that Donald Trump is the supreme dictator of.
but you know that. I gave you Trump's own quoted words from his well documented pre-election Vegas rally where he himself claimed credit for killing the bill.
You're citing what Donald Trump says this is your error. Donald Trump bloviates and takes credit for a lot of crap that is false.
What more do you want?
Evidence of Donald Trump being a supreme dictator of some Shadow government.

If you can't provide that Donald Trump was being obtuse like always saying stupid things to trigger imbeciles in the media. It worked. It does every time the media is a busted hunting dog every single time they focus on the red herring.

I'm sorry you put your faith in the most discredited pack of liars in our country. I am not bound by that mistake.
 
Yes. And the people who own the property have every right to remove them immediately.

What you're saying is that I need to go through court and have to process for the person that's invading my property because I need to prove they don't have the right to be there.

I don't think they were as big of a threat to the US.
they don't have the right though to declare them terrorists and send them to El Salvador, do they?
 
they don't have the right though to declare them terrorists and send them to El Salvador, do they?
Someone who owns property doesn't have the right to adjudicate anybody that's where you're simile falls apart.

They have every right to remove them immediately without jury or judge or any of that crap.
 
I'm rejecting your dishonest framing

I was accurate and describing it as an invading enemy Force. Are people who invade to rape and murder and steal welcome to you? Rape murder and theft are crimes of force.

"An enemy invading force" strike a VERY specific image. I asked you to stand behind your own words and make the case that backs up that imagine. How is that being "dishonest"?

Again I reject your dishonest framing.

And I make the same case in response. How am I being dishonest. I said what I had to say on the matter and provided links to back it up. What have you done to substantiate your case?

Here's the legality if you're and illegal alien you'll get deported that's it.

Here is the legality, written by someone who actually worked with it. If you enter this nation illegally you are entitled, CONSTITUTIONALLY, to due process. Where in a hearing is held and a case outlined as to your illegal presence and the alleged offender allowed to explain why that might not be the case. Like some of the very cases involved here, like having previous court documents that bar you being deported; like being an actual native born citizen in others.

This is the ACTUAL legal framework that sets the RULE OF LAW involved, and none of that is "semantics". It is THE LAW and I take that seriously and do not play games with it. I am kind of insulted you'd suggest a law enforcer, active or retired, would.

How can someone with a legal status of immigrant also be illegal?

I didn't coin the term. it is in our lexicon. So I deal with it as it exists.

Quit with the dishonest framing and I won't have to point out your dishonest games and refuse to play them.

And again... That you can't seem to address it doesn't make my framing of the case invalid, or "dishonest". I am being quite honest and my framing is based on the DOCUMENTED unfolding before us and the RULE OF LAW as it exists. There is nothing dishonest about any of that.

I pause it that people are coming here unwelcomed are invading.

I said I can see how such a large group could be seen as an "invasion". I asked how it is an "enemy" and what makes it a "force".

When they come here to commit murders and rapes and theft that makes them enemies. And when they use Force to commit these crimes which they all require that makes them a force.

I am sure your extended family has a few members of it that have been less than lawful. Most extended families have. Mine certainly had one or two. Would you have me define your whole family as a "Illegal" because of their actions.

Same with these people. There are very few of them who have a history of gang activity, rape and murder. You can't tar them all with that brush for the actions of a very few. That is a violation of Golden Rule Ethical Thinking.

Now as far as how there needs to be a declaration of war with some country that only exists in your imagination no not answering that nonsense.

I didn't say any or that. YOU tiptoed up to implying it and I asked what you based that on.
 
"An enemy invading force" strike a VERY specific image.
I explained how you were mistaken the thing to say is okay I guess I was mistaken. Not to insist that this phrase can only mean one thing despite me telling you I didn't mean that one ****ing thing

This is your dishonest framming and I will no longer engage with you until you stop.

Once you shut your mouth for 5 seconds and listen and quit talking past me then the conversation can move forward but until you do that there's no sense in wasting time.
 
So proof that there is a shadow government that Donald Trump is the supreme dictator of.

Answering a question with a question isn't actually answering the question. I am not implying anything. TRUMP CLAIMED IT IN HIS OWN WORDS, which I quoted back to you and provided documentation of their having be said.

Address that please.


You're citing what Donald Trump says this is your error. Donald Trump bloviates and takes credit for a lot of crap that is false.

This is your answer? He lies regularly so if he claims credit for something we shouldn't use that to make a case that he was responsible?

You know that is utter nonsense, right? It is not an intelligent argument. [I am NOT saying you are not intelligent, I said the argument you are presenting isn't]

Evidence of Donald Trump being a supreme dictator of some Shadow government.

And again, his own words, his actions, the RESULTS.

If you can't provide that Donald Trump was being obtuse like always saying stupid things to trigger imbeciles in the media. It worked. It does every time the media is a busted hunting dog every single time they focus on the red herring.

I'm sorry you put your faith in the most discredited pack of liars in our country. I am not bound by that mistake.


IF you break something, you own it.

It is not MY fault that Trump lies as much as he does. It is not MY fault he said what he said. It is NOT a bona fide defense to say that state that because he lies so much we can not take him at his word when he claims ownership of an action.

If it is broken HE broke it and HE owns it.
 
I explained how you were mistaken the thing to say is okay I guess I was mistaken. Not to insist that this phrase can only mean one thing despite me telling you I didn't mean that one ****ing thing

This is your dishonest framming and I will no longer engage with you until you stop.

Once you shut your mouth for 5 seconds and listen and quit talking past me then the conversation can move forward but until you do that there's no sense in wasting time.

Again, MY framing is based soley on the RULE OF LAW as it exists an the documentation of the words, actions and other doings of the parties involved.

That can't be defined as "dishonest" in any sense of the meaning of that word.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom