Shutdown Over Border Security?

[Bill the Cat]

Not that Jim cares about things like this, but...

https://wtvr.com/2018/08/30/ice-file...d-hit-and-run/

[carpedm9587]

Not that Jim cares about things like this, but...

https://wtvr.com/2018/08/30/ice-file...d-hit-and-run/

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[Littlejoe]

Not that Jim cares about things like this, but...

https://wtvr.com/2018/08/30/ice-file...d-hit-and-run/

Yeah, it's very common here in Texas for illegals to pay cash to an individual seller for a vehicle, get the title and never change the registration. Meanwhile they drive it with no license or insurance and if in an accident, they run away knowing the vehicle can't be traced back to them. I know several people this has happened to. And the owner can be held liable as the car is still registered in their name.

[Tassman]

Yup. Pelosi.

No, it was Trump who owned the shutdown, he said so himself. It was he who held the workers hostage to get his own idiotic way. And he got nothing.

Trump was the one to realize that people needed their paychecks. Ayatollah Pelosi and Sheik Schumer acted just like the good little terrorists and held the furloughed workers hostage in order to make sure Trump couldn't shut off their steady flow of illegal future voters.

Democrats are socialists. And I'm sure Trump will win out over the two tyrant pimps.

Language! You're as bad as Trump.

He will not win out because, his opponents in government do not think a wall is the panacea to effect border security and nor does the majority of the electorate. In short, the country is against it. Only his relatively small base led by Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh care about the wall. And they are all Trump cares about.

[Bill the Cat]

No, it was Trump who owned the shutdown, he said so himself.

But the facts contradict his owning it. Not that you'd know what a fact was or anything...

It was he who held the workers hostage to get his own idiotic way. And he got nothing.

Proving it wasn't HIM taking hostages.


Yet it was Trump who got them back to work and getting paid, not Ayatollah Pelosi and Sheik Schumer. Proving THEY were the hostage takers all along.

Language! You're as bad as Trump.

Pimp isn't a naughty word. Socialist might be. It's certainly evil.

He will not win out because, his opponents in government do not think a wall is the panacea to effect border security and nor does the majority of the electorate.

The majority of the electorate are ignorant twits.



So don't tell me that just because a bunch of the ignorant electorate thinks something, it is the right answer. And who cares what they THINK will work. Those who actually DO THE JOB say they need more and better real physical barriers, along with technology and personnel.

In short, the country is against it. Only his relatively small base led by Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh care about the wall. And they are all Trump cares about.

Keep eating that spoon-fed left wing news, media tourist.

[JimL]

Not that Jim cares about things like this, but...

https://wtvr.com/2018/08/30/ice-file...d-hit-and-run/

Immigrants illegally in this country commit far less crimes than do citizens like yourself. I do however understand how the right wing propagandists fire you suckers up with such cherry picked bs.

[carpedm9587]

But the facts contradict his owning it. Not that you'd know what a fact was or anything...

Proving it wasn't HIM taking hostages.

This is an odd claim. So if a hostage taker is "talked down" and gets nothing as a result of his hostage taking, that is "proof" that he never took hostages?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Yet it was Trump who got them back to work and getting paid, not Ayatollah Pelosi and Sheik Schumer. Proving THEY were the hostage takers all along.

Same comment only this seems to go even further. It suggests that, if a hostage negotiator says, "you're not going to get what you want, so you might as well let them go" and the hostage taker actually lets the people go - it proves that it was the hostage negotiator that was holding the people hostage.

I have deleted the rest of your post because I was primarily interested in the logic of this argument. Note, also, that I am not taking a position on Trump/Pelosi. I am simply questioning your reasoning process.

[Bill the Cat]

Immigrants illegally in this country commit far less crimes than do citizens like yourself. I do however understand how the right wing propagandists fire you suckers up with such cherry picked bs.

So what? If they weren't here, they couldn't commit ANY crimes on American soil, you clod.

[Bill the Cat]

This is an odd claim. So if a hostage taker is "talked down" and gets nothing as a result of his hostage taking, that is "proof" that he never took hostages?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

That starts with an assumption that the one talked down is the actual hostage taker.

Same comment only this seems to go even further. It suggests that, if a hostage negotiator says, "you're not going to get what you want, so you might as well let them go" and the hostage taker actually lets the people go - it proves that it was the hostage negotiator that was holding the people hostage.

That is the wrong way to look at it. You have already assigned the roles of hostage taker and negotiator and then examined the result based on that.

[carpedm9587]

That starts with an assumption that the one talked down is the actual hostage taker.

Your statement was that the fact that a person gets nothing proves they are not the hostage taker. If this is true, then anyone who gets nothing cannot be the hostage taker. So in a scenario where hostages have been taken, but no one gains anything, there is no actual hostage taker. That seems illogical to me.

That is the wrong way to look at it. You have already assigned the roles of hostage taker and negotiator and then examined the result based on that.

Again, your position in this case appears to be that the person who frees the hostages cannot be the hostage taker. Yet we all know of situations where the hostages were freed by an outside force (negotiator, SWAT, etc.) and situations where the hostages were freed by the hostage taker (remorse, fear, etc.). By your argument, if the actual hostage taker frees the hostages, then that is proof that they are not a hostage taker.

Again - the logic does not work.

[Bill the Cat]

Your statement was that the fact that a person gets nothing proves they are not the hostage taker. If this is true, then anyone who gets nothing cannot be the hostage taker. So in a scenario where hostages have been taken, but no one gains anything, there is no actual hostage taker. That seems illogical to me.



Again, your position in this case appears to be that the person who frees the hostages cannot be the hostage taker. Yet we all know of situations where the hostages were freed by an outside force (negotiator, SWAT, etc.) and situations where the hostages were freed by the hostage taker (remorse, fear, etc.). By your argument, if the actual hostage taker frees the hostages, then that is proof that they are not a hostage taker.

Again - the logic does not work.

In this specific circumstance, it does. The specifics typically show which side held the gun and which side tried to get them back. It isn't an absolute, it is situational.

[carpedm9587]

In this specific circumstance, it does. The specifics typically show which side held the gun and which side tried to get them back. It isn't an absolute, it is situational.

Sorry, BTC, but it doesn't even apply in this situation. That Trump "caved" does not mean he wasn't holding people hostage. That Trump got nothing doesn't prove he wasn't the hostage taker. And that has nothing to do with whether or not I think Trump was the hostage taker - it has to do with the logic of the argument.

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry, BTC, but it doesn't even apply in this situation. That Trump "caved" does not mean he wasn't holding people hostage.

Yes it does. It showed quite clearly who held the workers' return to work in their grubby little hands.

That Trump got nothing doesn't prove he wasn't the hostage taker.

It most certainly does.

And that has nothing to do with whether or not I think Trump was the hostage taker - it has to do with the logic of the argument.

Again, this is situational. The end result showed who was holding the workers' return up. Nancy and Chuckles.

[carpedm9587]

Yes it does. It showed quite clearly who held the workers' return to work in their grubby little hands.

It most certainly does.

Again, this is situational. The end result showed who was holding the workers' return up. Nancy and Chuckles.

[Littlejoe]

Immigrants illegally in this country commit far less crimes than do citizens like yourself. I do however understand how the right wing propagandists fire you suckers up with such cherry picked bs.

100% of illegal immigrants have committed at least one crime, hence the term "illegal". Therefore you're wrong.