Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
This is definitional.
"contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law."
People cannot be forbidden by law. They can do things that are forbidden by law, but THEY are not forbidden by law. Acts can be illegal. People cannot. Not hard to understand.
But have entered the country illegally. And are migrants. Ergo illegal migrants. Not hard to understand, regardless of your apparent word games.
Can you show me why I should care? This legislation thing is entirely your deal and has nothing to do with me.
I don't care whether you care or not. No, the legislation is to correct your erroneous claim that the term "unauthorized alien" is misused and that they were "undocumented" while omitting they were undocumented due to entering the country illegally. When you say "undocumented" your clear implication is that's how they're referred to as. They aren't. Not by the US government anyway, as in the entity who ultimately decides the faith and status of unauthorised aliens and illegal migrants. Regardless of what cute word games you wish to play. So get on to them about their "gross attempts at othering" and see what their response is.
For the record, people (alien or not) cannot be legal for the same reason they cannot be illegal, so that doesn't fix the problem.
But your opinion is noted and stored with the other crap I don't care about.
This is pure bullshit semantics that doesn't mean anything. This entire issue was within the context as to how they're referred to. They aren't referred to as undocumented and before you claim you never said they were, again that's the context we're discussing this in, so your post is utterly pointless.
Seems to me to be a term that disambiguates those who engage in conduct that can be either legal or illegal depending on specific circumstances or context, for example "illegal cannabis grower", "illegal drug user", "illegal immigrant". At least I suspect that's how it was originally intended, I can sort of see why it might be considered objectionable although in general I'm not a fan of overly policing language in the interests of political correctness.
Anyway don't be alarmed at my AK47, I'm just off down the bank to make an unorthodox non-standard outside of usual protocol cash transaction . Some haters may call me a bank robber but they're just misusing the term and engaging in gross attempts at othering.
But have entered the country illegally. And are migrants. Ergo illegal migrants. Not hard to understand, regardless of your apparent word games.
I don't know if English isn't your first language or if you are just incapable of understanding this. I'll try one last time.
In the phrase "illegal migrants" illegal is modifying migrants. But definition, only acts can be illegal. You could say that person illegally migrated. There, illegally is modifying the act of migration.
I don't care whether you care or not. No, the legislation is to correct your erroneous claim that the term "unauthorized alien" is misused
Could you please quote for me where I ever said the term "unauthorized alien" was misused? You seem to think I said a whole lot of things I never said, dude. Watching you struggle to keep up with like the simplest conversation is a bit painful, my guy.
and that they were "undocumented" while omitting they were undocumented due to entering the country illegally.
You asked why I used the term undocumented. I said because they are undocumented. Why would I need to say why the reason, especially when not all of them who are undocumented are for the reason you are ascribing? Adding what you think I should have said would have made my descriptor imprecise, which for me at least, is a damn good reason not to add it, especially when it is not helpful to the answer I was giving, even if true.
... They are undocumented. Jfc
hahaha hahaha yes my using words always implies that the US government uses the same words. If you aren't parroting the government, why even talk dude? Obviously!
This is literal insanity you're posting dude. What on actual earth
So get on to them about their "gross attempts at othering" and see what their response is.
Buddy you are the only one here that gives a crap about what word they used. If you want to get on to them, feel free. I do hope you keep trying on this one, though, because it's hysterical.
Anyway don't be alarmed at my AK47, I'm just off down the bank to make an unorthodox non-standard outside of usual protocol cash transaction . Some haters may call me a bank robber but they're just misusing the term and engaging in gross attempts at othering.
My point is, there is no point calling you an "illegal bank robber" because bank robbery is always illegal. Drug use and immigration can be legal or illegal depending on circumstances, hence disambiguation is required.
Your argument that illegal immigrants are criminals is echoed by many on the right whereas on the left it's mostly seen as akin to speeding. Speeders break the law but you wouldn't exactly call them criminals. I guess which language you prefer to use reveals something about your political leanings.
My point is, there is no point calling you an "illegal bank robber" because bank robbery is always illegal. Drug use and immigration can be legal or illegal depending on circumstances, hence disambiguation is required.
Your argument that illegal immigrants are criminals is echoed by many on the right whereas on the left it's mostly seen as akin to speeding. Speeders break the law but you wouldn't exactly call them criminals. I guess which language you prefer to use reveals something about your po
It should be noted that I was not policing anyone's language. I was asked why I used a term and why I didn't use a different one. I never once said anyone else has to do the same. I simply gave my reasons for my choice. You, and the US legislation writers are free to do the same, and I am free to draw conclusions from those choices.
I apparently am not free to use the language I chose without a belligerent conservative getting triggered into next freaking Thursday about it.
So, out of cv and I, which one of us is actually policing other people's language?
It should be noted that I was not policing anyone's language. I was asked why I used a term and why I didn't use a different one. I never once said anyone else has to do the same. I simply gave my reasons for my choice. You, and the US legislation writers are free to do the same, and I am free to draw conclusions from those choices.
I apparently am not free to use the language I chose without a belligerent conservative getting triggered into next freaking Thursday about it.
So, out of cv and I, w
I doubt CV cares, I think he just likes being argumentative. I don't know if he's even a conservative, I don't think he is.
Walks like a duck
My point is, there is no point calling you an "illegal bank robber" because bank robbery is always illegal. Drug use and immigration can be legal or illegal depending on circumstances, hence disambiguation is required.
Your argument that illegal immigrants are criminals is echoed by many on the right whereas on the left it's mostly seen as akin to speeding. Speeders break the law but you wouldn't exactly call them criminals. I guess which language you prefer to use reveals something about your po
illegally watching a movie on a dodgy streaming site is technically criminal. Doesn't mean you're Ronnie Kray. Same principle applies to migrants who illegally enter countries. There seems to be a reluctance to refer to this as a criminal act though as if people will lose any sense of nuance and context if they do. I just find that rather bemusing is all.
I don't know if English isn't your first language or if you are just incapable of understanding this. I'll try one last time.
In the phrase "illegal migrants" illegal is modifying migrants. But definition, only acts can be illegal. You could say that person illegally migrated. There, illegally is modifying the act of migration.
Again semantic bullshit, obviously people aren't illegal for being people and nobody at all meant this...which you just have to know.
Could you please quote for me where I ever said the term "unauthorized alien" was misused? You seem to think I said a whole lot of things I never said, dude. Watching you struggle to keep up with like the simplest conversation is a bit painful, my guy.
Is illegal immigration misused?
You asked why I used the term undocumented. I said because they are undocumented. Why would I need to say why the reason, especially when not all of them who are undocumented are for the reason you are ascribing?
They're undocumented because they entered the country illegally. Ergo are illegal migrants. Doesn't mean they're career criminals. But most assuredly are illegal migrants. Yes they are all undocumented for the reasons I gave, via their illegal entry into a country. If they have "reasons" then there's protocol for that.
Adding what you think I should have said would have made my descriptor imprecise, which for me at least, is a damn good reason not to add it, especially when it is not helpful to the answer I was giving, even if true.
... They are undocumented. Jfc
You're being disingenuous and you know it.
hahaha hahaha yes my using words always implies that the US government uses the same words. If you aren't parroting the government, why even talk dude? Obviously!
This is literal insanity you're posting dude. What on actual earth
Buddy you are the only one here that gives a crap about what word they used. If you want to get on to them, feel free. I do hope you keep trying on this one, though, because it's hysterical.[/QUOTE]
"Undocumented migrant" because they don't have documents = fine
"Illegal migrant" because the people are somehow illegal = othering. Useful though for when people can excuse themselves for not giving a ****.
Again semantic bullshit, obviously people aren't illegal for being people and nobody at all meant this...which you just have to know.
Asks a semantic question, starts a conversation about semantics, complains about the discussion being about semantics. It was a bold strategy, but I'm not sure it's working out for you, champ.
Oh my god the struggle bus. No. Because immigrating is an act. Illegal immigrant is the misuse.
You do realize this doesn't describe all undocumented immigrants, right? Take me for example. I entered the country legally in 1998. I had to stay up on my paperwork to stay here for work. If I had not done that I would become an undocumented immigrant and subject to deportation. I did not and eventually became a citizen.
I prefer not to use that term because illegal modifies the person not the act. The way you are arriving it also leaves out other undocumented immigrants, which my descriptor does not.
No. You just don't like that I don't share your opinions. Sorry, big guy. You won't be policing my language today. It's just going to have to keep triggering you.
Man. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it's not a criminal act. It's civil.
What, illegal streaming? No, it can be criminal.
Re migrants it depends. If you're in the country illegally and you get deported and then come back again and get caught, you'll go to Federal Prison. The migrant has committed a criminal act by re-entering the country illegally. Said migrant may be simply desperate and not a career criminal but has committed a criminal act via re-entry. So again, depends.
Oh my god the struggle bus. No. Because immigrating is an act. Illegal immigrant is the misuse.
You do realize this doesn't describe all undocumented immigrants, right? Take me for example. I entered the country legally in 1998. I had to stay up on my paperwork to stay here for work. If I had not done that I would become an undocumented immigrant and subject to deportation. I did not and eventually became a citizen.
I prefer not to use that term because illegal modifies the person not the act.
Yeah. My sister entered the country legally in the 80s and then very deliberately stayed there after her visa expired and did so for a number of years before coming home, so yeah I do realise this. She never referred to herself as undocumented though and stated she was an illegal after her visa expired. Reason being she knew what she done was illegal. She just didn't gaf as she was young and kinda wild, but not a career criminal. Nobody is objecting to nuance or context.
No. You just don't like that I don't share your opinions. Sorry, big guy. You won't be policing my language today. It's just going to have to keep triggering you.
I actually haven't opined on the matter of illegal migration. They aren't referred to as undocumented though. If that's your preferred term then that's kool and the gang as opinions are like a-holes, everyone's got one. Just don't assert it as if it's empirical fact. It's just a term you like.
Again semantic bullshit, obviously people aren't illegal for being people and nobody at all meant this...which you just have to know.
Asks a semantic question, starts a conversation about semantics, complains about the discussion being about semantics. It was a bold strategy, but I'm not sure it's working out for you, champ.
Oh my god the struggle bus. No. Because immigrating is an act. Illegal immigrant is the misuse.
You do realize this doesn't describe all undocumented immigrants, right? Take me for example. I entered the country legally in 1998. I had to stay up on my paperwork to stay here for work. If I had not done that I would become an undocumented immigrant and subject to deportation. I did not and eventually became a citizen.
I prefer not to use that term because illegal modifies the person not the act. The way you are arriving it also leaves out other undocumented immigrants, which my descriptor does not.
No. You just don't like that I don't share your opinions. Sorry, big guy. You won't be policing my language today. It's just going to have to keep triggering you.
Yeah I responded to all of this in my other post
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Things seem a bit glitchy actually, I couldn't quote and earlier post of yours for example.
Undocumented is a false descriptor though. You can have documents and still illegally be in the USA (or any other countries).
Viceversa you can lack documents but be a legal resident, or at least authorized (not subject to deportation), see people covered by TPS. Or american citizens without documents.
Why not use the available "unauthorized" descriptor if you dislike illegal?
Undocumented is a false descriptor though. You can have documents and still illegally be in the USA (or any other countries).
Viceversa you can lack documents but be a legal resident, or at least authorized (not subject to deportation), see people covered by TPS. Or american citizens without documents.
Why not use the available "unauthorized" descriptor if you dislike illegal?
I don't have a problem with the word unauthorized. People can authorized our unauthorized to be in a location. That's a normal use of language. Note that I was never advocating for the use of my choice. I have always been answering questions of why I used it in one single post. Because it all streams from my choice triggering the living eff out of this one guy.
btw your semantic take is objectively wrong. Because if it's illegal to fish in a specific water surface, doing it makes you an illegal fisher, semantically.
And yes fishers can be illegal, it's a possible property of being a fisher, if... they fish where it is illegal to fish.
Same for migrants.
Migrant isn't synonymous with "human being", which is something that can't be illegal per se. Migrant is a specific sub-cathegory of human beings which can be of the legal or the illegal type.
It is not true that only acts by definition can be illegal, semantically.
For example if you build a house where you can't, that's an illegal house. Or "illegal dwelling unit" to encompass a broader set of structures.
And of course ILLEGAL DRUGS exist, uncontroversially semantically, and those are objects not acts. So, your take that "by definition only acts can be illegal" is objectively utterly wrong and totally made up.
And semantics aren't a choice, in the sense that dictionaries exist to tell you the meaning of words and expressions.
And semantics aren't a choice, in the sense that dictionaries exist to tell you the meaning of words and expressions.
Everyone has this take until it comes to their pet words, which mean whatever they want them to mean. We have one guy here who struggles with what "lying" means. And another one who struggles with what "leftism" means...
Everyone has this take until it comes to their pet words, which mean whatever they want them to mean. We have one guy here who struggles with what "lying" means. And another one who struggles with what "leftism" means...
words like leftism have vague , and changing definition because the topic discussed is broad. So people can have different definitions (even people who self identify as leftists do) so the solution is for a person to clarifies what it means for him when he uses it.
But gorgo take is different, he claims that illegal is a descriptor which is semantically valid only for acts. That's absolutely, utterly false, as the examples i provided prove conclusively. People routinely use illegal to refer to groups of people, and items. And that's a fact which determines semantics, and it doesn't depend on gorgo preferences on the topic.
As for lying, the only semantic ambiguity is about a person saying something which is false, without knowing it is false.
It's not obvious that is a lie for everyone. Aside from that, lying means "saying something false", it isn't particularly ambiguous.
And another who struggles with what Marxism means. Oh wait, that’s the same guy.
