Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you see typical liberal hypocrisy.

Surely, the best thing for these illegals and refugees is to encourage them to live in areas where they are welcome such as in sanctuary cities. I don't understand the consternation of liberals and those in blue states who have advocated supporting these people.

Unless of course the it is a case of welcoming refugees and other illegals for humanitarian reasons but not in my backyard!

Yep, you nailed it. Of course they’re welcome here, and anyone who disagrees is a “racist”. Wait, they’re actually coming??? NIMBY!!!
Typical.

This thread should be marked as one of the all-time greatest in this forum. Wild.

No kidding. We've got actual teachers here spewing lies. God knows how many students over the years!

DP. What are the "actual lies" in the PP's post? Please elucidate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The right-wingers here run on emotions, don't confuse them with actual facts and logic. They just don't have the mental capacity. It's a waste of time.

Fixed that for you.

You right-wingers need to stop projecting. And lying. We see right through you.

You know, your tactic of calling those you disagree with "liars" doesn't work anymore. Speaking of "seeing right through you" - liberals are now completely transparent. The country has watched your hypocrisy for years and this thread is evidence that you haven't learned a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is exactly who we're dealing with.

Looks like a Trump supporter to me. Rabid with worry about the immigrants! The immigrants! Build the wall! Build the wall!

You can slap your ridiculous text on there, but everyone knows who is really afraid.

Anonymous wrote:If this thread doesn't outright prove what liars Trump supporters are, I don't know what does. Misdirection, misinformation, attributing their own bad behavior to others...blah blah blah. So steeped in their own shite they can't smell it anymore.

Anonymous wrote:The Trump supporters on here keep projecting feelings to "libs" based on what knowledge? The rantings and ravings of Tucker Carlson? Certainly NOT reality.

You don't understand what sanctuary ciy actually means.
You assume the outrage is NIMBY because your feeble brains can't understand that the actual outrage is against people used as pawns by the POTUS.

If all you have is your anti-lib fantasies, expect to be called liars and fools. Because you are.

Anonymous wrote:The Trump supporters on here keep projecting feelings to "libs" based on what knowledge? The rantings and ravings of Tucker Carlson? Certainly NOT reality.

You don't understand what sanctuary ciy actually means.
You assume the outrage is NIMBY because your feeble brains can't understand that the actual outrage is against people used as pawns by the POTUS.

If all you have is your anti-lib fantasies, expect to be called liars and fools. Because you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The right-wingers here run on emotions, don't confuse them with actual facts and logic. They just don't have the mental capacity. It's a waste of time.

Fixed that for you.

You right-wingers need to stop projecting. And lying. We see right through you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Exactly. Liberals are hypocrites.

That wasn't WHY they were designated sanctuary cities, but go ahead and send them. That will surely encourage another huge wave of refugees.

Ok - now we're trying to wordsmith.

Sanctuary cities are INDEED much more hospitable to newcomers. That's a FACT! The availability of resources necessary to provide a comfortable solution for these people is the reason why people come. an added benefit? the ability to track newcomers in case there's another Rockville HS rape incident . . .

EVENTUALLY, MOST will report to friendly areas, which translates into sanctuary cities.

So you can dance around the definition all you want, but liberals created the rules and now you have to learn to live with them.

And I do question what I added in bold. I may be stupid to make an ASSumption, but I'll do it anyway. Is that "threat" one that comes from fear? It appears as though you DON'T want to invite more of "them" in. Am I correct?

It's not a threat. Just a likely outcome.

Would you consider it a threat? Intentions don't matter, so I'm told. So it's really just how you'd interpret it, right?

lol

It's NOT a FUTURE outcome. It's already in place. That's what you don't seem to get.

You don't think that even LARGER groups of refugees will come if they know that Trump is welcoming them into the country?

Spring and Fall caravans have been growing in size and frequency over the course of many, many years. These groups aren't coming because Trump wants to build a wall, they are coming because they know they are able to get services and a world class education from the moment they make it across the border. Widening 270, building new schools, building the purple line are all necessary to accommodate the explosion in economic and population growth unless someone picks up the can instead of kicking it until the next Election Day, then the next, and the next.

Trump picked up that can. Unyielding Democrats are tossing it back on the ground to kick it through the next election. Democrats, you want it, you got it. You own the can.

Once we reach the tipping point, we'll have no choice but to go to a VAT.

Well said, and very true. I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but I have to hand it to him. He does NOT shy away from disrupting the status quo. Good for him.

Anonymous wrote:A poem on the statue of liberty is not law. Yawn. Using that line to discuss immigration law is tired

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Carlson segment made me chuckle. Calling out the hypocrisy of the left LOVING immigrants...just not in their posh neighborhoods or in their kids exclusive public and private schools.

Is this why you think Dems aren't welcoming the immigrants? You watch some crappy RWNJ show? LOL. You're so gullible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t sound like Stephen Miller was looking out for their well-being.

““It was basically an idea that Miller wanted that nobody else wanted to carry out,” said one congressional investigator who has spoken to one of the whistleblowers. “What happened here is that Stephen Miller called people at ICE, said if they’re going to cut funding, you’ve got to make sure you’re releasing people in Pelosi’s district and other congressional districts.” The investigator spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect the whistleblower.”

“It was during that mid-February standoff that one whistleblower went to Congress alleging that the White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats if they did not relent on ICE funding for beds. A second official independently came forward after that.

According to both, there were at least two versions of the plan being considered. One was to move migrants who were already in ICE detention to the districts of Democratic opponents. The second option was to bus migrants apprehended at the border to sanctuary cities, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/white-house-proposed-releasing-immigrant-detainees-in-sanctuary-cities-targeting-political-foes/2019/04/11/72839bc8-5c68-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html

These plans were not meant to help immigrants...they were meant to PUNISH US citizens.

You all keep using words like "punish." Its not a punishment if you want them to come. He knows you want them to come. The cities/state's own laws have declared that these people are a delight. Your assertion that this is a punishment is off when they've stated explicitly that these people are a joy.

Precisely. Funny that only now, when there's a real chance these immigrants could be living en masse in these cities, do liberals think it would be "punishment". So many examples of liberal hypocrisy, and this is one of the best. Nice work, liberals!

Hey morons. TRUMP THINKS IT IS A PUNISHMENT. That is the issue.

Yes, you have repeated this ad nauseum. But why would you care what Trump thinks? You hate the man. Instead, you should be rising to the occasion to prove to everyone how selfless and giving you are. Right?

Not that you really care since you just want to “stick it to the libs”, but I’ll say again...

I have an issue with his intentions. He intends to punish US citizens. He intends to “stick it to the libs”. It doesn’t matter if it’s a punishment or not. The POTUS is looking for ways to punish Dems because they disagreed with ICE funding. This is just one example of his vindictiveness.

His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that?

You probably wouldn’t have an issue with that but I would because I don’t think the POTUS should act like a vindictive, hateful a&$hole to any US citizens. But again that’s where we differ. You enjoy any chance to “stick it to the libs”. That is precisely why you put a vindictive, hateful a$$hole in the White House.

You obviously enjoy the phrase, “stick it to the libs” as you repeat it whenever you can. Rather than obsess over a stupid phrase, how about you acknowledge the utter hypocrisy in advocating for sanctuary cities and for “showing compassion” to illegal immigrants, but then being completely unwilling to consider a solution to where to put all of these “asylum seekers” who are currently being released into the country anyway?? What’s YOUR brilliant solution?

I've said it a few times...bring them to blue areas.

Can you answer the question:
His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that? Would you think that is OK?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Exactly. Liberals are hypocrites.

That wasn't WHY they were designated sanctuary cities, but go ahead and send them. That will surely encourage another huge wave of refugees.

Ok - now we're trying to wordsmith.

Sanctuary cities are INDEED much more hospitable to newcomers. That's a FACT! The availability of resources necessary to provide a comfortable solution for these people is the reason why people come. an added benefit? the ability to track newcomers in case there's another Rockville HS rape incident . . .

EVENTUALLY, MOST will report to friendly areas, which translates into sanctuary cities.

So you can dance around the definition all you want, but liberals created the rules and now you have to learn to live with them.

And I do question what I added in bold. I may be stupid to make an ASSumption, but I'll do it anyway. Is that "threat" one that comes from fear? It appears as though you DON'T want to invite more of "them" in. Am I correct?

It's not a threat. Just a likely outcome.

Would you consider it a threat? Intentions don't matter, so I'm told. So it's really just how you'd interpret it, right?

lol

It's NOT a FUTURE outcome. It's already in place. That's what you don't seem to get.

You don't think that even LARGER groups of refugees will come if they know that Trump is welcoming them into the country?

Spring and Fall caravans have been growing in size and frequency over the course of many, many years. These groups aren't coming because Trump wants to build a wall, they are coming because they know they are able to get services and a world class education from the moment they make it across the border. Widening 270, building new schools, building the purple line are all necessary to accommodate the explosion in economic and population growth unless someone picks up the can instead of kicking it until the next Election Day, then the next, and the next.

Trump picked up that can. Unyielding Democrats are tossing it back on the ground to kick it through the next election. Democrats, you want it, you got it. You own the can.

Once we reach the tipping point, we'll have no choice but to go to a VAT.