***Official H&F LC Thread***

Oh, nothing edgy about that either. That's true.

I was assuming that you were accounting for gender (e.g. men and women who lift tend to vote Trump, which might also be true). My bad. As you have stated it, it's not wrong.

LOL. So many ways to go with this post. Let's try this one.

So we're just giving Orange Man a pass for not having and implementing a successful "school security plan" during his first term? Why is that?

Maybe my recollection is fuzzy on this, but is the following possible?

1. Politard forum bans jdock
2. They discover he is posting on H&F under a new name
3. They claim that he is circumventing ban and ban new account, even though new account never posted in politics forum.

I seem to remember something along those lines, but I could well be wrong. Jdock could never help himself and always ended up there repeatedly .

I didn't say anything about Trump's first term and I'm not Trump's defender. I know "what about Trump?" is the go-to defense for Biden, but we were talking about him always talking up school shootings, only to offer up a "solution" of eventually banning some guns.

If a person (I don't want to reference any specific poster) was banned site-wide due to posts in one forum, he could then be banned on sight anywhere in 2+2, even if he steered clear of the forum where his posting drew a ban. If he got banned from posting in one forum only, he should be fine in other forums. But, he would not have to create a new account to do that, so it seems it was the former and not the latter.

I intentionally didn't look up jdock's history because I don't want to discuss his specific history here.

Good to see we're focused on the really important issues, like school shootings.

LOL WAT? Well, for a non-defender, you're doing a whole lot of defending.

Yes, for any issue that one might discuss, "what about Trump?" on said issue is a legitimate question.

In any case, here's the real issue. You don't actually care about "having a plan". The problem is not that Harris "did not have a plan for X". The problem is that you don't like her policies, objectives, values, etc. It doesn't matter if she has a plan for anything or not. You wouldn't like it. The main reason she or most Dems don't have a "school security plan" is largely because they don't believe that it is realistic. Yes, they think gun control is a better approach. Yes, you disagree with that. Their problem is not a lack of a plan, per se. And because they don't have "school security plan", it doesn't mean they don't care about school shootings (which is the nonsensical conclusion that you were trying to draw).

The reason why we know you don't actually care about plans is because Trump pretty much never has any. I'm sure you remember his "health care plan" that he always promised was coming out in "two weeks" and never did. He has no plan to reduce inflation and some of the things that he wants to do will increase it (tariffs, deporting undocumented workers who do not demand great wages or working conditions). And it's not just you. People who vote Trump don't vote for him because of his plans. The entire demand for specific plans is disingenuous. They don't actually care.

Are we really using party mandated newspeak like "undocumented"?

Also, there is a lot of work you're gonna need to show that removing criminal immigrants will increase inflation (by whatever ******ed definition you wanna use).

Well, it's true. They are undocumented. Sorry to disappoint you. Feel free to use what ever descriptors you like instead. I'm not disputing them.

True, but I don't need to do it, because I'm not the one demanding plans. He is. But if you don't believe that is true, that's OK. Just ignore it and focus on the tariffs. Very little work needed there. You could even ignore that too. Doesn't change the fact that Trump's doesn't have anything that a reasonable person would call a plan on the matter.

Also, I wanna use CPI. Which I believe neither you nor I think is ****ed at all.

Lets pause here.

You think that they are "undocumented". I'll let you unpack that. Feel free to engage in whatever sort of weasel words you want, since we are discussing both documented and undocumented immigrants who have violated federal law to enter or overstay in the US illegally. DACA applicants, prospective dreamers and any number of actual illegals in America who have been subject to temporary reprieve fit this definition effortlessly. But lets hear some more **** from Brave New World.

But you don't have the faintest ****ing clue what you're discussing. So go off bro.

I don't think it. It's not disputable. The ones I was referring to in my comment are indeed undocumented. Yeah, there are probably some documented ones too that Orange Man would also like to deport.

If you want to call them the other stuff too, you can do that. I haven't disputed any of it.

LOL, the guy who isn't actually reading the posts involved, says I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm discussing. Cool story bro.

Here's the cliffs: the specific immigration policies of Trump, Biden, Harris or anyone have almost zero to do with the initial point being discussed. The specifics of those policies or the words you want to describe the people being deported are completely irrelevant to my point. Yes, Rich seemed to want to talk about that stuff a lot. He was also very confused at the beginning.

Cool. So you're using newspeak and lying about using newspeak.

Glad we got that covered.

You can **** off back to your troll hole now.

U mad bro? Crazy that the word "undocumented" can rustle the jimmies so much. Not lying about using it, obviously. I'm acknowledging it repeatedly. I'm using "undocumented" to refer to "undocumented" people. See, there it is again!

I don't understand why this is so upsetting. Call them whatever you want. As I said, it has nothing to do with my point.

You keep going on about Biden and Harris not having a plan for school safety. Yeah, his term is almost over. The issue is that he didn't do anything or even try, but he instead politicized it. LOL at his "plan" being to ban some guns. Is it a coincidence that doing so would require Democrat control of the House, the Senate, and the White House?

Again, it's politicized nonsense. Find a case where a politician was shot and the only proposal to address it was a gun ban.

Except you aren't. You are using newspeak to hide the fact these are illegal immigrants.

You wanna paint yourself as the educated party in this whatever-the-****-it-is. But you are actually just a parrot for disinformation and dishonesty.

As you said, some have documentation, so please stop lying.

I wonder if the people who push these stupid terms on everyone call burglars "undocumented guests," refer to store thefts as "undocumented purchases," etc.

It is annoying how they use euphemisms for everything. If they were really confident in their positions, they'd describe it all in plain English.
- Abortion, not "health care"
- Sex change, not "gender affirming care"
- Illegal alien, not "immigrant," "undocumented," etc.
- Gun ban, not "gun safety"

No they aren't. They're illegal aliens. They aren't documented because they chose to break the law and not get themselves documented through the legal immigration process. But, libs will be happy, because we'll document them all when we deport them back to their countries of origin.

I don't agree with all of this. But the US has a vastly larger problem (~15x) than the EU on illegal immigration which is an ongoing subject of discussion here.

National ID for anything meaningful would solve this. So would basic sane policies like summary refusal for non-port of entry asylum applications.

Also keep splitting them families, lest you are a kiddie diddler who wants to support child sex trafficking.

Looks like we agree!

I also agree that they are indeed illegal aliens.

You can use the words you want. I'll use the ones I prefer.

LOL, you too with the reading? I'm not hiding it. They entered here illegally. I'm not disputing that. I never said otherwise.

How can I be lying if I'm the one who said it!

Trump want to deport lots of undocumented immigrants. There are probably people who are here legally with documents who he also wants to deport (e.g. applied for asylum at a port of entry and awaiting a hearing). Again this whole thing is in the context of a discussion with Rich Muny (which you said you didn't read) where even he is talking about undocumented people. He just posted it again, so you don't even have to read a previous text wall:

Also, again, this has nothing to do with the original point, so feel free to call them what you like.

Both of those terms are factually incorrect, but you would have to have a strong grasp of the English language to understand that. In the case of undocumented immigrants, even you agree that they are indeed "undocumented'. Just read your own post above,

You do realize that sometimes more than one word can be used to describe an idea, right? This can't possibly be a foreign concept to you, can it? Of course, heading for the fainting couch because of word choice is an outstanding way to avoid actually discussing an issue. Let's not discuss whether abortion access is important, let's discuss what term we should use to refer to the issue instead! That is what is really important.

Some people are ****ing idiots and some people are Melkerson.

Best of luck with this. You're openly dishonest and full of ****.

This is cool and all, but you're missing the points. Here they are again.

1. Just because they don't have "school security plan", it doesn't mean they don't care (this is what you argued earlier). It may, in your opinion, mean that they are misguided. That's different.

2. The problem is not they don't have a plan. It's that you don't like what they want to do: Gun control. We know this because Trump almost never has a plan for anything. Yet you never criticize him for that. You don't actually care about specific plans. You care about policy goals. If people cared about plans, Trump would never make it out of a primary.

It's weird that you use euphemisms.

Melk: Burglars are really "uninvited guests"
Rich: Yeah, they are uninvited because they never sought an invitation, breaking in instead
Melk: See...told you they were uninvited!!!!!!