Trump declares war on Minnesota

[Peeples]

Ah, yes, the judges who rule against Trump are "activist" judges. Straight from the Trump playbook.
Seriously, for someone who is happy to dismiss claims without evidence, you offer nothing yourself except the party propaganda lines.
But I won't discuss with someone so blinkered and one-sided as you on this. Yes, I note the projection you're doing. That's also part of the playbook you seem so keen on following.
So I'm out. I'll leave you to your Fox News mentality.


So that's Ostronomos and now Syne who have shown themselves to me to be not worth conversing with. Anyone normal around here?

[Syne]

Ah, yes, the judges who rule against Trump are "activist" judges. Straight from the Trump playbook.

Notice you can't be bothered to even look. Who appointed them? How many of their political ruling against Trump admin have been overturned?
Just blanket deflection. 9_9

Seriously, for someone who is happy to dismiss claims without evidence, you offer nothing yourself except the party propaganda lines.

Yet I've cited laws, you haven't.

But I won't discuss with someone so blinkered and one-sided as you on this. Yes, I note the projection you're doing. That's also part of the playbook you seem so keen on following.
So I'm out. I'll leave you to your Fox News mentality.

I knew you would beg off... and verifying your binary view to boot.

BTW, I never watch Fox News, but so telling that you'd assume so.

Ta-ta.

[Magical Realist]

Syne thinks all the news is controlled by a leftist propaganda cabal. I don't know where he gets his news. Probably from MAGA rightwing podcasters. Or Stormfront.

[Syne]

Syne thinks all the news is controlled by a leftist propaganda cabal. I don't know where he gets his news. Probably from MAGA rightwing podcasters.

Oh look, MR has a new friend. Isn't that sweet.

[Peeples]

I don't need to look. There are many examples of even Trump-appointed judges ruling to limit aspects of what ICE are doing. Hundreds of federal judges, including a number of trump-appointed ones, have ruled the ICE mandatory detention policy unlawful, for example. But you know that not all decisions against Trump and his administration have been by so-called "activist" judges. But that's what your playbook has you call them, right. So you can dismiss them out of hand.

You've cited one rule without understanding it's applicability to what Bondi has asked for. But, let me guess: you're a legal expert so know that the state is legally required to comply, right.

And you can claim not to watch Fox News, but if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it is one.

So please try not to quack too loud. Thanks.

[Syne]

I don't need to look. There are many examples of even Trump-appointed judges ruling to limit aspects of what ICE are doing. Hundreds of federal judges, including a number of trump-appointed ones, have ruled the ICE mandatory detention policy unlawful, for example. But you know that not all decisions against Trump and his administration have been by so-called "activist" judges. But that's what your playbook has you call them, right. So you can dismiss them out of hand.

You've cited one rule without understanding it's applicability to what Bondi has asked for. But, let me guess: you're a legal expert so know that the state is legally required to comply, right.

Just as I thought, this was a lie:

So I'm out. I'll leave you to your Fox News mentality.

I don't need to look.

Argument from ignorance.

And notice how you can't be bothered to actual cite any examples. You know, with AI, it's very easy, even for the intellectually lazy.

Wait, you mean to tell me you're not aware that there are anti-Trump republicans? And that they can't be activists with their bias too?
Again, if you'd cite any specific cases, I wouldn't have to address your unsupported arguments. Yes, arguments without evidence can be dismissed out of hand. Intellectual laziness doesn't deserve any better.

I cited three laws. That you have to lie about it tells me that you're also intellectually dishonest.

And you can claim not to watch Fox News, but if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it is one.

You'd think any view even slightly right of center is a Fox viewer. So your binary view is meaningless twaddle.

[Peeples]

Just as I thought, this was a lie:

No lie, as that was with regard the thread topic. You've shown you're more concerned about the individual than having an actual discussion with them. Bullied at school were you?

Argument from ignorance.

False. It is an argument from shared knowledge base.
An argument from ignorance is to claim something and say it is true because you can't prove otherwise.
I have said I don't need to provide details because you should aleady know the principle, anecdotally or otherwise. Are you sayng you don't accept the principle that Trump-appointed judges have ruled against his administration on ICE activity?

And notice how you can't be bothered to actual cite any examples. You know, with AI, it's very easy, even for the intellectually lazy.

Then feel free. We both know there are examples. Citing a specific case won't change that. Requesting a specific example in this case is not necessary.

Wait, you mean to tell me you're not aware that there are anti-Trump republicans? And that they can't be activists with their bias too?
Again, if you'd cite any specific cases, I wouldn't have to address your unsupported arguments. Yes, arguments without evidence can be dismissed out of hand. Intellectual laziness doesn't deserve any better.

And therein lies the problem. You are clearly here to argue. I am happy to chat. Let me know when you are.

I cited three laws. That you have to lie about it tells me that you're also intellectually dishonest.

You did, I apologise. I am reading this on a very poor display, and they seemed like a single citation. However, it is telling that you jump to the assumption of lying and accusations of intellectual dishonesty. I guess you're not much into assuming good-faith. Fair enough.

You'd think any view even slightly right of center is a Fox viewer. So your binary view is meaningless twaddle.

Not at all. The entirety of mainstream US politics is right of centre. Or weren't you aware of that from inside your bubble? You really should get out more. Or is Fox News a 24 hour entertainment program?

---

Syne thinks all the news is controlled by a leftist propaganda cabal. I don't know where he gets his news. Probably from MAGA rightwing podcasters. Or Stormfront.

The more it speaks, the better one's chance of winning MAGA-phrase Bingo.
"Activist judge(s)" and "leftist legacy media" were on my card. I reckon if I keep it talking long enough it'll come up with rest I need!

[Syne]

Just as I thought, this was a lie:

No lie, as that was with regard the thread topic. You've shown you're more concerned about the individual than having an actual discussion with them. Bullied at school were you?

Ah, deflection. 9_9

Argument from ignorance.

False. It is an argument from shared knowledge base.

Sure, biased left-wing media. Just because you don't realize you're being fed false information doesn't mean you're any less ignorant.

I have said I don't need to provide details because you should aleady know the principle, anecdotally or otherwise.

Assuming you are correct is not an argument.

Are you sayng you don't accept the principle that Trump-appointed judges have ruled against his administration on ICE activity?

I just said there are anti-Trump republicans. Are you saying they can't be activist judges? @_@

And notice how you can't be bothered to actual cite any examples. You know, with AI, it's very easy, even for the intellectually lazy.

Then feel free. We both know there are examples. Citing a specific case won't change that. Requesting a specific example in this case is not necessary.

Deflection again. 9_9

Wait, you mean to tell me you're not aware that there are anti-Trump republicans? And that they can't be activists with their bias too?
Again, if you'd cite any specific cases, I wouldn't have to address your unsupported arguments. Yes, arguments without evidence can be dismissed out of hand. Intellectual laziness doesn't deserve any better.

And therein lies the problem. You are clearly here to argue. I am happy to chat. Let me know when you are.

You're here to spout your opinion without any push back... looking for your echo chamber.
As if discussions cannot possibly include any disagreement. 9_9

I cited three laws. That you have to lie about it tells me that you're also intellectually dishonest.

You did, I apologise. I am reading this on a very poor display, and they seemed like a single citation. However, it is telling that you jump to the assumption of lying and accusations of intellectual dishonesty. I guess you're not much into assuming good-faith. Fair enough.

You've proven yourself to be intellectually lazy, requiring others to look up support for your own claims. Not a far step to intellectually dishonest.
You're the one who started by not assuming good faith, accusing people of being Fox viewers and Trump lackeys. Hypocrite.

You'd think any view even slightly right of center is a Fox viewer. So your binary view is meaningless twaddle.

Not at all. The entirety of mainstream US politics is right of centre. Or weren't you aware of that from inside your bubble? You really should get out more. Or is Fox News a 24 hour entertainment program?

Again, you can't claim to be discussing in good faith while ignoring when I honestly say I don't watch Fox News. And no, you're view of the Overton window has to be very skewed to the left to think that legacy media leans right. You may not realize it, but the left is now further from the center than Obama was from the right-wing in his first term. That legacy media doesn't openly push socialism doesn't make it right-leaning.

---

More victims of illegal alien criminals no one talks about in the news:

[Image: 622133081_10239999883045637_428380714319...e=697DFDEA]

[Syne]

Seems these federal agents have a licence to kill. Just how important is the Somali operation? Just feel there is more to it than meets the eye. All this for illegal immigrants?

No license to kill, but when officers spend all day having people insult, threaten, throw stuff, obstruct (often with vehicles), yelling, blowing whistles, assaulting officers, etc., any further escalation of the chaotic situation can readily turn deadly when a weapon (gun, truck, etc.) are involved. Deadly force would never be justified if these people were only protesting, without obstructing, assaulting, etc.. But democrats have ginned up maximum chaos, seemingly for the purpose of getting these exact sorts of martyrs to the cause. It's PR warfare, akin to what Hamas did with human shields and civilian casualties.

[Magical Realist]

The problem with Alex Pretti..

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1804735156853059