The Thread of Democrats

Post Reply
User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 14952
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Cunt » Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:00 pm

So you consider all the news reports a 'conspiracy theory'? Which report? Which fact was baloney?

Or is that just your way of evading?

Wait - you still haven't answered - which policy shows the Dems are NOT the party of open borders?

Trump turned them back to wait in Mexico until their case was heard. Biden brings them in. Not an example of the dems being against open borders.

But you keep chanting conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, your country could save those migrants, by shipping them to Australia to have a more comfortable place to wait for their case to be heard.

Or they could practice a much more closed border instead.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists

I don't want to forget this enlightening quote by our prestigious and sage member...
Hermit wrote:
Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:41 am
Trump supporters are fundamentally racist.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 37151
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: against conspiracism
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:20 pm

The Democrats, as are both parties, are a loose collection of politicians that share some ideas. Our Minnesota Muslim is for open borders and no deportations. Biden is not for those. He merely stopped family separations so far. Republicans think of child refugees as mini ticking time bombs that will destroy our Christian nation.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
You! Yes! You behind the bike sheds! Stand still, laddie!

Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 14952
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Cunt » Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:29 pm

Tero wrote:
Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:20 pm
The Democrats, as are both parties, are a loose collection of politicians that share some ideas. Our Minnesota Muslim is for open borders and no deportations. Biden is not for those. He merely stopped family separations so far. Republicans think of child refugees as mini ticking time bombs that will destroy our Christian nation.
While that view of the republican side is enjoyable, it isn't exactly what they say for themselves.

What they have complained about, are coyotes bringing kids along, to complicate the jobs for border enforcement, and get in to the country.

And other issues, but that's an ugly one.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists

I don't want to forget this enlightening quote by our prestigious and sage member...
Hermit wrote:
Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:41 am
Trump supporters are fundamentally racist.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 55238
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:30 pm

Cunt wrote:
Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:00 pm
So you consider all the news reports a 'conspiracy theory'? Which report?
As soon as you post a report backing your conspiracy theory we can decide. As you never back up anything you say, this is moot.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 37151
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: against conspiracism
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:16 pm

Image
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
You! Yes! You behind the bike sheds! Stand still, laddie!

Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 37151
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: against conspiracism
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:00 pm

Kamala Harris does not salute the military when she arrives at or steps off Air Force Two, unlike her predecessors former Vice Presidents Mike Pence and Joe Biden
https://taskandpurpose.com/mandatory-fu ... is-salute/

Whatever reason Harris had for not returning the salute, there’s one indisputable fact: She didn’t have to anyway. And had the video shown President Joe Biden, or former President Donald Trump, or Vice President Mike Pence, they wouldn’t have been required to either, for that matter.

Why? Because the presidential salute is not a real thing, and neither is the vice presidential salute.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
You! Yes! You behind the bike sheds! Stand still, laddie!

Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 37151
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: against conspiracism
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:50 pm

Democrats To Hand Out Democratic Water and Vegan Water at Every Georgia Election
https://karireport.blogspot.com/2021/03 ... water.html
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
You! Yes! You behind the bike sheds! Stand still, laddie!

Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 3867
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:42 am

Fine political theater from both parties in Georgia lately.


The governor signing the vote suppression bill while a gaggle of white Republican men look on in approval, with a painting of a former slave plantation in the background. Superb, really. Couldn't ask for a better image for the history books to characterize the vote suppression mania sweeping Republican state governments nationwide.

For the Democratic Party on the other hand we have a black woman politician knocking on the door of the governor's office and getting hauled away in handcuffs by a couple of well fed Georgia state troopers, charged with a felony. Effective grandstanding, and it helps if the cameras are rolling.


User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 67665
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by JimC » Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:19 am

"We hear you knocking, but you can't come in..."
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 23874
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:28 am

JimC wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:19 am
"We hear you knocking, but you can't come in..."
She's not white enough.

So you talk about mobs and the working classes as if they were the question. You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. - G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 3867
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:49 am

A little history on the question of US policy on its southern border. Some readers would be best served by exchanging 'villain' for 'hero' in the headline.

'The Real Presidential Immigration Villain Is Bill Clinton'
Who’s the father of the modern immigration restrictionist movement? It’s not who you might think.

Americans get confused by the immigration debate. The party that they think is lenient on immigration actually has strong anti-immigrant undercurrents, which are disguised as concern for U.S. workers. And the party that they’re sure is tough on immigration actually can’t wait to open the borders with gimmicks like guest worker programs, which are designed to provide foreign laborers for U.S. employers.

The immigration debate is like a Dishonesty Olympics. Everyone lies to everyone about everything—and you can’t believe anything.

Truth is, the real hard-asses on immigration are usually Democrats. And the ass who was hardest of all was Bill Clinton. Yep, the 42nd President of the United States is in fact the father of the modern immigration restrictionist movement.

[Explication]

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 23874
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:11 am

Requires subscription
So you talk about mobs and the working classes as if they were the question. You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. - G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 3867
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:42 am

Strange. I don't have a subscription but it opened OK for me. Then tried a different browser and I got the same result you did.
While serving as governor of Arkansas, Clinton was part of the Democratic Leadership Council, along with Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and others. And one of the issues that some of its centrist Democratic members emphasized—along with opposition to welfare and support for the death penalty—was a firm hand in dealing with immigration. These middle-of-the-road Democrats worried about being outflanked by Republicans as soft on immigration enforcement, just as they had been portrayed as soft on Vietnam in the 1970s and soft on crime in the 1980s. They overcompensated by dropping the hammer whenever they had the chance.

For Clinton, that opportunity came in 1994. In California, white Republicans rattled by the state’s changing demographics were having success gathering signatures for Proposition 187, a ballot measure that sought to deny benefits to the undocumented and their U.S.-born children. Clinton had carried California in the 1992 presidential election, which was not a given back then, as George H.W. Bush had won the state in 1988. It’s a good bet that Clinton was keeping an eye on what was happening there with regard to immigration; Democrats were about to find themselves in a tough spot since opposing the initiative would open them up to charges of being soft on illegal immigration. If only Democrats had an enforcement mechanism of their own, to counter what the Republicans were concocting.

On Oct. 1, 1994, the Clinton administration launched an effort to militarize the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego with Operation Gatekeeper, which installed more fencing and deployed additional border patrol agents. In 1993, the administration had launched Operation Hold-The-Line near El Paso, Texas. In 1995 came Operation Safeguard, near Nogales, Arizona. Today, these initiatives are seen as having produced mixed results.

For instance, Operation Gatekeeper appears to have done a lot of good in cleaning up the border area. But it also pushed thousands of immigrants into the Arizona desert, where many died.

Many of those who got through settled in Phoenix and laid the groundwork for changing that city into one that is now 46.2 percent Latino. In turn, this demographic shift caused many white people to panic and led to the racist 2010 Arizona immigration law, which required local and state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law even if they have to engage in ethnic profiling in order to do it.

Then came Clinton’s 1995 State of the Union address, where he said the following: “All Americans… are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

That sounds positively Trumpesque.

The following year, Clinton did one of the most anti-immigrant things a U.S. president has ever done. He signed The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, authored by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX. The enforcement-only measure made it easier to deport people and nearly impossible for them to return legally once deported. The bill passed thanks to the votes of many Democrats, including 22 Democratic senators.

To this day, my friends who are immigration attorneys have to battle the 1996 law tooth and nail to keep clients from being deported.

Thanks for nothing, Bill.

It’s important to remember that, before Clinton was sworn into office for the first time on Jan. 20, 1993, there was, for the most part, no national immigration debate.

Sure, Congress had passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the dialogue had been contentious. But most of the arguments had focused on employer sanctions, not the provision that would eventually give amnesty to nearly 2.7 million people. The GOP’s fingerprints were all over that bill. The chief author was Sen. Alan Simpson, R-WY. In the Senate, the 63 lawmakers who voted in favor of the bill included 29 Republicans. And, on Nov. 6, 1986, it was ultimately signed into law by a Republican President—Ronald Reagan.

Reagan had long been a supporter of amnesty, as was his primary rival in the 1980 presidential campaign and future running mate and vice president, George H.W. Bush. Besides, in 1980, there were still relatively few illegal immigrants living in the United States. And that wouldn’t change for another 14 years. After the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement on Jan. 1, 1994, parts of the Mexican economy took a hit and displaced workers headed north to los estados unidos.

In other words, in 1980, the immigration debate was—at least on the national level—pretty much chill.

The same definitely could not be said for what would happen that year at Fort Chaffee, a military base in Arkansas. President Jimmy Carter had ordered that as many as 20,000 Cuban refugees be housed at the facility. On June 1, some of the refugees rioted and a fire broke out. Local residents were terrified, and many armed themselves to the teeth. The whole situation was a powder keg.

Sixty-two people were injured in the melee, and even after the riot was quashed, there was still a political price to be paid by those who let the situation get so far out of hand. The young governor of Arkansas was voted out of office in November 1980.

A rising star in the Democratic Party, that young man would run for governor again in 1982 and win back the seat. Ten years later, he would run successfully for president and take with him to the Oval Office the major lesson of the Fort Chaffee uprising: Never underestimate the power of the immigration issue—or its first cousin, the refugee issue—to blow up in your face. And it’s better to be seen as too tough than too weak.

Bill Clinton took that lesson to heart while serving as president. And, in doing so, he wrote the script for the telenovela that Americans are still living to this day. That is one shameful legacy.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 23874
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:08 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:42 am
Strange. I don't have a subscription but it opened OK for me. Then tried a different browser and I got the same result you did.
Thanks for providing the full article.

It was blocked almost immediately on Firefox. I just tried Chrome. When I got several paragraphs into it, it was also blocked.
So you talk about mobs and the working classes as if they were the question. You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. - G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 19834
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by laklak » Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:13 pm

Ah the good old days when Dems were racist Southerners and Republicans favored assault weapon bans.

Whooda thunk it?
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests