-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Video: Protesters throw rocks at CHP officers from LA freeway bridge
- Thread starter ThatRobGuy
- Start date
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 25,878
- 28,470
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think if ICE were actually focused on going after mobsters you wouldn’t see quite so much pushback. It’s when people see a paramilitary force being used to apprehend a dishwasher at a restaurant or a tile guy at a Home Depot or a child at their school promotion that people start to say “hey, this seems wrong, I don’t agree with this.”
Upvote
0
rambot
Senior Member
- Apr 13, 2006
- 28,181
- 15,889
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
This is not really in question. It was reported numerous times. Telling that individuals still are unaware of this fact...
Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests - Wikipedia.
There are THREE citations for that fact that you can check with if you have a problem with wikki itself.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,933
- 16,886
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
And as I keep replying to people, what's you're alternative solution for how final removal and absentia removal orders should be executed?
Nobody's answered, they just keep circling back to the "it's the way they're being enforced" talking points.
I have a hunch that any method of enforcement would be drawing these sorts of social backlash.
The people out there have it printed on their protest signs "End Deportations" "Abolish ICE"
Seems like they don't want any method of deportation or enforcement at all.
Yeah, about that 94% statistic...it came from the ACLED project, which reviewed 7,750 BLM demonstrations.
(there are some methodology criticisms that could be made about that, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend it's 100% accurate and reflective)
6% of 7750 = 465 different protests that ended with violence.
That's still a lot of violence.
And contextually, given that most protests don't erupt into these sort of crap shows in general (regardless of the cause), people could say the same about just about any protest group.
Over 90% of Proud Boys demonstrations were peaceful, over 90% of Tea Party rallies were peaceful, same goes for pro-life rallies, etc etc
I don't recall anyone taking objection to them getting labelled as domestic extremists based on the hell breaking loose at the other 10%.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,933
- 16,886
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Like I've noted, I'm open to other suggestions for alternative approaches to the "raid/sweep" methodology.
If someone can provide a way that would be an effective way to apprehend and enforce final deportation and absentia deportation orders that didn't involve tipping off half the neighborhood days in advance, thereby letting 99% of them move into hiding to evade apprehension, I'm all ears.
I've heard "it's the way they're doing it" no less than a dozen times in the past 2 days.
Yet, nobody is saying the actual way they'd prefer it to be done.
(mind you the brick throwing at ICE vehicles and clashes with police started happening long before the National Guard showed up)
"I don't agree with ICE raids/sweeps... I'd prefer that the apprehensions and deportations be done via _________________________________"
So, the floor is open to anyone who'd like to field the question and fill in the blank.
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,327
- 19,045
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
You dont need to do violence to be an "extremist" - which is really just about the content of your political positions. Are they "extreme" or not?
Upvote
0
BPPLEE
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2022
- 15,937
- 7,429
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
So we just shouldn't enforce immigration laws because we like dishwashers, construction workers and landscapers.
Like when some people decided shoplifting laws shouldn't be enforced, how did that workout?
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,327
- 19,045
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
I dont view those as the same.
People who want to come here just to live and do honest work are not the same moral category of people who would steal from you and I.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,933
- 16,886
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
But that "attempt to make it sound moral framing" of the situation is obfuscating the actual issue of legality.
"I just wanna live in a house and raise my family" sounds like a noble goal, but it wouldn't be justification for sneaking into someone else's house and squatting there for six months, unbeknownst to them, while they're in Florida for the winter.
You can attribute a "moral sounding" backdrop to just about any illegitimate action.
Upvote
0
rambot
Senior Member
- Apr 13, 2006
- 28,181
- 15,889
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
Explain to me why it would be my responsibility to find an alternate solution. My critique of how it is done does not become weaker when I can't provide an alternative but you seem hellbent on making that connection.
Biden's government AND Obama's govt. BOTH had ICE do their work without this reaction. Trump SEVERELY under funded internal enforcement during his first term; Even the CATO institute got on him for that.
Trump for weeks has been tooting the "tough on immigration" rhetoric. Weeks...well really months at LEAST. Look at the lather he has posters on here worked up. Do you expect people when confronted with that kinda rhetoric to just roll over?
When your threats and intimidation provoke a reaction, why aren't the threats and intimidation a problem?
There have been a few studies. All numbers are 93.9-96.1%.
The characterization we ONLY see on Christian Forums is that "the BLM protests were violent" and the "the left is so violent". Demonstrably, those are both false.
I don't really understand why people make arguments like that: that 465 protests being violent is "a lot of violence". In the totality of it, that is NOT a lot of violence. IT just isn't. I'm sorry but it's not. It's pretty specific circumstances where people will argue that "4% of something is a LOT of that thing".
It's more than 0; perhaps it's more than an expected or acceptable amount, but it shouldn't be characterized as "a lot".
And yet here we are, in this VERY thread, with posters arguing against that with the left. But your post doesn't come to the defence of those on the left.
Yeah. It's weird.
Proud Boys demonstrators were frequently acting as provocateurs at BLM rallies but black people weren't being provocative at Proud Boy Rallies. And PB were doing it to discredit BLM as a peaceful legitimate movement.
No. That would be the stuff like trying to damage critical electrical infrastructure that gave them that label.
Upvote
0
rambot
Senior Member
- Apr 13, 2006
- 28,181
- 15,889
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
You missed the argument:
Trump said he was going to get rid of criminal. Golden Boy there pretty clearly said "If he were going after mobsters and obvious criminals, while still doing what he wanted legally, there wouldn't be complaints"....or certainly not as many.
Just because someone is in your country "without status" doesn't mean they are a danger to you. And yet that is how 100% of these people are getting characterized and too many of them are getting treated.
Upvote
0
Oompa Loompa
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2020
- 8,948
- 4,741
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
No. I am talking about the leftists throwing bricks on the overpass.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2015
- 15,871
- 7,589
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
So Minneapolis wasn't really burning then?....What were they then, just really good FX?......and the LA riots were really just an elaborate hoax, right?
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,933
- 16,886
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Because you're critiquing the current approach.
And if it's so horribly demonstrably wrong to do the raid/sweep approach, then it should be easy to find an alternative.
Seeing something as really bad is (or at least should be) the result of awareness of a much better way of doing it.
"The wrong way of doing it" is an evaluative descriptor. Evaluative descriptors are based on some sort of basis comparison/standard/expectation.
For instance, if I said "having speed limits in the name of road safety is wrong", me claiming that's wrong means I have some sort of other expectation or standard in my head. As something can't be "wrong" compared to nothing.
And Obama used the same approach...
2009-2011: ICE used workplace sweeps
2012: Nationwide multi-day sweeps occurred under "operation cross-check"
(and Obama's numbers far exceed that of Trump's)
The operative word in your statement - "reaction"
The pronounced difference in the reaction of the same people (who, let's be blunt, loved Obama but hate Trump with a passion) isn't the appropriate metric by which we should be judging the procedural mechanism itself.
If Obama put pineapple on his pizza and "Steve" responds with "meh, it's kinda gross, but what can you do" and went on about his day
Yet, when Trump put it on his pizza, "Steve" says, this can't be tolerated! We're living in a backwards hell hole! This makes me so mad I'm going to hit the streets and protest and perhaps throw a brick or two...the fact that Trump would bastardize pizza that way is indicative of his racism against Italians!"
Then that's not an Obama or a Trump problem, nor is it inherently indicative of a "pineapple on pizza" problem, that's purely a "Steve" problem.
Upvote
0
The thing is that during the BLM riots 19 people were killed and the property damage was between 1 to 2 billion dollars. That is a lot of damage. I remember seeing the thugs ransacking and destroying mom and pop shops that took away their way of making a living. I’m not big on wiki but here is the one where I got the numbers and it also has references.
George Floyd protests - Wikipedia
Protests that devolve into violence and riots are not protected speech. People should not have to die during these.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,017
- 15,621
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Yet another monstrously naive selection of posts who seem bemused that people are protesting against the manner in which ICE is operating. I mean, really...at what point did you think that people would start protesting the methods? When military style methods, weapons and tactics start being used to bundle up some people working at a home store or a diner? When the National Guard is called out against the wishes of the governor? When Marines are prepared to take to to the streets?
What is happening has been purposely made worse by Trump with the precise intent of getting people like you talking about the violence, which frankly is a given in situations like this, and forget about what he is doing. It's his SOP and you guys fall for it time after time after time.
Every picture of a rock being thrown or something burning and the reaction is not 'Oh, this is terrible. How on earth did we get to this point?' You don't want to address the reason. You will ignore it. So the reaction is always 'Great! Another reason to beat the left with accusations of violence. This is wonderful!'
You're being played for a fool.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,933
- 16,886
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
So what are the better methods?
Given that both Obama and Trump have leveraged the mass sweeps and workplace raids (and from what people are saying, that's wrong), what's the right way to do it? (that's both effective and efficient)
Earlier, people insisted that "it's not that the administration wants to deport people who are here illegally, it's the way they're doing it"
(despite the fact that protestors are out there with signs reading "End Deportations" and "Abolish ICE" -- kinda sounds like they want no immigration restrictions)
So if the way they're doing it is wrong, and the objection isn't to the notion that people here illegally should be deported, then what is the "right way" to deport someone who's been given a final removal order or absentia removal order?
Still waiting on an answer for that...
Here was my response to all of the others who've expressed concerns
"I don't agree with ICE raids/sweeps... I'd prefer that the apprehensions and deportations be done via _________________________________"
the floor is still open to anyone who'd like to field the question and fill in the blank.
To you statement about how
Every picture of a rock being thrown or something burning and the reaction is not 'Oh, this is terrible. How on earth did we get to this point?' You don't want to address the reason. You will ignore it. So the reaction is always 'Great! Another reason to beat the left with accusations of violence. This is wonderful!'
Obama's administration did the same kind of raid/sweeps (and more of it), they didn't riot. Trump does it, they riot.
So I already know the answer to the question to "how we got here" and the reason, they've been convinced that Trump is the devil so they're willing to hit the streets and protest (and sometimes get violent) over something they were willing to largely overlook when a president they liked did it. It's not rocket science.
It's not unlike when republicans acted like it was a "grave moral infraction" when Bill Clinton was cheating on his wife and womanizing...but then took an "overlook it, it's not a huge deal" with regards to Trump.
Highly partisan people are fickle and extremely prone to selective outrage, but I didn't think that needed explaining.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,327
- 19,045
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Similar threads
