Trumps Presidency 2025

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, GalagaGuy said:

Absolutely we should go after people that employ people who are not in the country legally.  Suggesting that we stop enforcing immigration laws until that happens is kind of silly though, don't you think? 

about as silly as arresting junkies and leaving pushers on the street, don't you think?

[Motown Bombers]

I've just realized I haven't seen my Ukrainian neighbors in a while. I don't know their legal status, but part of me wonders if they are in Alligator Auschwitz. 

[GalagaGuy]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I am not saying any of these "nonsense" things. You're the one saying them, I assume as straw men statements.

If somehow who purports to be a sworn officer of the law refuses to identify themselves or whom they work for when asked by citizens, that means they are trying to hide their identities and whom they work for, and they're doing it on the citizens' dime. Maybe that's fine for you. It's not for me.

No, what it means is that they don't have a legal requirement to do so and aren't about to take orders from some random person seeking only to antagonize them.  If I showed up at your place of employment and started demanding info from you, you'd probably do the same thing. 

Just because you want something doesn't mean you're entitled to it, right? 

[GalagaGuy]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

There have been a few well known cases of folks with legal status deported in error.  As far as citizens, that one child with cancer enrages me, but you have an argument that it was the parents deported.  Note, they claim they wanted the kids to stay, which they would have a right to do.  I don't know more details on that though.  

Definitely tons of US citizens detained.  There was that dad with DACA status that was legally here that made the mistake of visiting family in Mexico and he got deported back before finally getting it cleared and getting back home a few weeks later.  Heck, might have been under Obama there was a citizen that was detained for almost four years before ICE finally stopped trying to find a way to deport him (if I remember correctly, he immigrated from somewhere with his mom and later became a citizen, but they were arguing his mom didn't have rights to bring him here, so he technically shouldn't be a citizen).   So if that can happen pre-Trump, with administrations that were pro-immigrant, I'm guessing the rhetoric of a non-lucid old man that cheats at golf and spouts that he wants to find a way to deport actual citizens might be the reason there is a lot of concern.

Yeah, the kid with cancer is just a **** move if what the family alleges is true.  They're saying they were never given an opportunity to contact family in the USA to arrange to keep the child.   I'm also not a fan of the tactic being used where they dismiss immigration cases and then wait outside the courtroom to snatch up the person.

As for this case, I see no reason to be outraged over the dude being arrested and removed.  The cop was a **** for the comments he made, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the arrest was warranted.  

 

[romad1]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I've just realized I haven't seen my Ukrainian neighbors in a while. I don't know their legal status, but part of me wonders if they are in Alligator Auschwitz. 

Hope not. 

[pfife]

1 hour ago, GalagaGuy said:

No, what it means is that they don't have a legal requirement to do so and aren't about to take orders from some random person seeking only to antagonize them.  If I showed up at your place of employment and started demanding info from you, you'd probably do the same thing. 

Just because you want something doesn't mean you're entitled to it, right? 

This dude is gonna fake being a cop to show people dont fake being cops.

Absolutely nailed it LOL

[pfife]

Also awesome that everywhere is their workplace in that nonsense metaphor.

[pfife]

49 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

Yeah, the kid with cancer is just a **** move if what the family alleges is true. 

 

Unfortunately for you, it's an extremely predictable result of the policies you choose to come here and champion.  

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, GalagaGuy said:

No, what it means is that they don't have a legal requirement to do so and aren't about to take orders from some random person seeking only to antagonize them.  If I showed up at your place of employment and started demanding info from you, you'd probably do the same thing. 

Just because you want something doesn't mean you're entitled to it, right? 

I think I should be entitled to have law enforcement officers identify themselves and the agency they work for. How do you like that?

You don’t want that? You prefer a police state? Then move to Russia, comrade.

[GalagaGuy]

44 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think I should be entitled to have law enforcement officers identify themselves and the agency they work for. How do you like that?

You don’t want that? You prefer a police state? Then move to Russia, comrade.

I prefer the police be able to do their job without being harassed by idiots that think they know everything.  You'd want that same respect I think.   

[ewsieg]

9 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

I prefer the police be able to do their job without being harassed by idiots that think they know everything.  You'd want that same respect I think.   

I rewatched it and there were blue and red lights.  I can't say what the laws are there, but in Michigan you can't have the blue.  Initially I didn't catch that, I was focusing on the interaction.  I'm guessing the guy is going to be tried with obstruction and assault on an officer.  That said, I can understand the guy resisting initially, seemed like he had no clue they were law enforcement at first.  As for the assault, the two guys had him on the ground, seems like you're typical over policing scrum which led to the one officer getting hurt.  

Legally, it doesn't appear they did anything wrong.  But I can't believe you don't show pause when you see action like that on a street because the guy hasn't taken care of some traffic tickets (and is on a moped, not a semi).

[pfife]

1 hour ago, GalagaGuy said:

I prefer the police be able to do their job without being harassed by idiots that think they know everything.  You'd want that same respect I think.   

I prefer that a delivery guy be able to do his job without being assaulted by the Gravy Seals 

[GalagaGuy]

31 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I rewatched it and there were blue and red lights.  I can't say what the laws are there, but in Michigan you can't have the blue.  Initially I didn't catch that, I was focusing on the interaction.  I'm guessing the guy is going to be tried with obstruction and assault on an officer.  That said, I can understand the guy resisting initially, seemed like he had no clue they were law enforcement at first.  As for the assault, the two guys had him on the ground, seems like you're typical over policing scrum which led to the one officer getting hurt.  

Legally, it doesn't appear they did anything wrong.  But I can't believe you don't show pause when you see action like that on a street because the guy hasn't taken care of some traffic tickets (and is on a moped, not a semi).

Both of the officers he's initially scuffling with are wearing vests with POLICE clearly visible on the front and back so I don't see how there's any way the dude didn't see that.  The officer who smashed his head on the ground fell backwards during the scrum.  

This whole narrative of "we don't even know if you're police" is just stupid to me.  Doesn't matter what someone is wearing, you could say the same about any member of law enforcement if you wanted to. 

 

[pfife]

what if they were actually strippers dressed as cops

[GalagaGuy]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

I prefer that a delivery guy be able to do his job without being assaulted by the Gravy Seals 

Hilarious that you leave out the details you find uncomfortable.  You know, the whole being in the country illegally and having warrants thing.  

[pfife]

Just now, GalagaGuy said:

Hilarious that you leave out the details you find uncomfortable.  You know, the whole being in the country illegally and having warrants thing.  

It's actually that I don't give a **** about what you believe happened but go off 

[pfife]

And again, you're a hypcrite,  You just glossed over the obvious fact that your preferred policies that you hunt and peck in support of on this pages caused the issue with the family with the kid with cancer.  YOU   Can't acknowledge that .   Just ignore it like it didn't happen. 

But you expect others to acknowledge every single thing you believe about a video.

Get over yourself.   You're just a self-admitted bootlick hypocrite

Edited yesterday at 02:45 AM by pfife

[GalagaGuy]

5 minutes ago, pfife said:

It's actually that I don't give a **** about what you believe happened but go off 

What you don't give a **** about are the facts, we've already established that.  But hey, you're totally different than the morons in the Trump cult who do the same thing, right? 

But you do you and keep supporting open borders, that's how we know what an awesome dude you are!

Edited yesterday at 02:46 AM by GalagaGuy

[pfife]

2 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

What you don't give a **** about are the facts, we've already established that.

Again, hypocrite, quit lying about my posts.  I said I don't give a **** about what you believe.  You even quoted it in your poast.

Edited yesterday at 02:47 AM by pfife

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

 

But you do you and keep supporting open borders, that's how we know what an awesome dude you are!

sweet beliefs hoss

[pfife]

Imagine thinking pfife posts here so others think he's awesome

have you read my posts?  LMAO that's hilarious

[pfife]

You support policies that result in kids with cancer not getting their treatment so everyone knows how awesome you are

[GalagaGuy]

4 minutes ago, pfife said:

You support policies that result in kids with cancer not getting their treatment so everyone knows how awesome you are

No I don't, I already said that was wrong if true.  What we do know for a fact though is that you support people attacking law enforcement as long as you support their cause.  Hey, that's also just like the Trumpers supporting the people who attacked officers on Jan 6th.  

Really interesting how much you and the Trump cult have in common.   

[pfife]

1 minute ago, GalagaGuy said:

No I don't, I already said that was wrong if true.  

Wrong.  You repeatedly chose to vocally support policies that directly led to this very predictable result.   I'm sorry you chose to do that.   But you did choose to do exactly that.

You could have not done that, but here we are.

[pfife]

You say I have a lot in common with the trump cult ..... while you're literally the one here choosing to vocally support the trump cult policies repeatedly.

That's pretty hypocritical.