Timmy’s thread for general discussion

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

It will be shown that Mayorkas broke the law, by issuing a directive that is counter tot the law. And just like with Biden, where it was shown he committed felonies, nothing will happen. Some people are under above the law, while others are crushed by it. 

[Voltaire 4,560]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

No surprise that I disagree with your take on most of this but it’s too much to unpack in one post. I’ll focus on one aspect of what you wrote: sanctuary cities. Here is a definition of a sanctuary city: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Pleaee go to the third paragraph which cites the numerous studies which show that sanctuary cities have no relationship to increase in crime and actually increase and strengthen the economic prosperity of the cities who are welcoming to migrants. These studies would seem to contradict your arguments. 

I'll go read the third paragraph, I went to fish up this link first.

I'll see how it comes to Eric Adam's assement here at the 1:20 mark

 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

1) seeking a better life is not a reason for asylum

2) they aren’t using the ports of entries 

3) international law states must be refugees from war and must go to nearest safe country. In times we do take Asylees from places like Somalia etc but they come here legally they done cross

4) only those from Mexico or Canada would be eligible and neither are facing war or political harm

5) why are their Chinese and middle easterns flooding the border

6) why does the leftist and msm call all these people asylum seekers when they are not?

1. Agreed. 
2. This fact doesn’t make them ineligible to seek asylum. 
3. I don’t mean to doubt you but which international law are you referring to and why does it take precedence over our asylum laws which I linked? 
4. Why? This is not part of our asylum laws. 
5. I assume some are seeking asylum and at least some should be given it IMO. 
6 You haven’t proven your point here. Some of those arriving at our border legitimately deserve asylum. Others will not be granted it but legitimately deserve to be called asylum seekers. Your main argument against this appears to be your points 3 and 4 and I don’t find them compelling as they are not part of what the rules actually say. 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why are you referring to “studies” from no better than 2017, and I assume the “study” was completed before that? I don’t know who you think you’re talking to around here at times. You run to google and find something that you think makes your point, that is outdated and inaccurate, and you think you’re the one seeking intelligent, serious conversation? You’re not. This is proof of that. 

How are the studies outdated and inaccurate? Are there new studies that contradict them? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

How are the studies outdated and inaccurate? Are there new studies that contradict them? 

Yeah, the amount of people coming in is the same. I remember illegals living in hotels in sanctuary cities in 2016. Don’t you? You’re right. All the data is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago.  But hey, it’s a study so it should be used forever.  

[Voltaire 4,560]

17 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

No surprise that I disagree with your take on most of this but it’s too much to unpack in one post. I’ll focus on one aspect of what you wrote: sanctuary cities. Here is a definition of a sanctuary city: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Pleaee go to the third paragraph which cites the numerous studies which show that sanctuary cities have no relationship to increase in crime and actually increase and strengthen the economic prosperity of the cities who are welcoming to migrants. These studies would seem to contradict your arguments. 

Your links are from 2016-7. I'll see if there are more recent numbers for you.

 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

6 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

I'll go read the third paragraph, I went to fish up this link first.

I'll see how it comes to Eric Adam's assement here at the 1:20 mark

 

I understand what Adams is saying. But nowhere in his statement does he ever suggest changing sanctuary city laws. What he wants is federal help. 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, the amount of people coming in is the same. I remember illegals living in hotels in sanctuary cities in 2016. Don’t you? You’re right. All the data is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago.  But hey, it’s a study so it should be used forever.  

The increase in numbers is certainly a strain on resources no question. But that is an entirely different issue than whether or not sanctuary city rules lead to an increase in crime, For that you’re going to have to show numbers which contradict the studies. I don’t think you will. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I understand what Adams is saying. But nowhere in his statement does he ever suggest changing sanctuary city laws. What he wants is federal help. 

Why should he get federal help? The people of NY voted for this. 

[seafoam1 1,879]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

The increase in numbers is certainly a strain on resources no question. But that is an entirely different issue than whether or not sanctuary city rules lead to an increase in crime, For that you’re going to have to show numbers which contradict the studies. I don’t think you will. 

My God, you are stupid. Stop posting. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The increase in numbers is certainly a strain on resources no question. But that is an entirely different issue than whether or not sanctuary city rules lead to an increase in crime, For that you’re going to have to show numbers which contradict the studies. I don’t think you will. 

No I won’t. I’ll just listen to what the NYC police commissioner and his deputies tell us is going on. The study will have to  get funding first. Until then we can only rely on eye witnesses. And videos. 

[Voltaire 4,560]

edit fail hold on

 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

No I won’t. I’ll just listen to what the NYC police commissioner and his deputies tell us is going on. The study will have to  get funding first. Until then we can only rely on eye witnesses. And videos. 

Does the NYC police commissioner propose ending NY as a sanctuary city? If he does I will listen to his argument. But my experience is that the police in sanctuary cities do NOT want to change that status as it would be cost prohibitive and they don’t have the resources, also it would actually lead to an INCREASE in crime since they often use migrants as informers. 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

19 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Until then we can only rely on eye witnesses. And videos. 

I don’t think we should ever rely on such anecdotal evidence to make sweeping judgments. I won’t ever do it if I can help it. 

[seafoam1 1,879]

The focking guy "wants a serious discussion" spewing the same bullshlt on this site since fbgheys gave up on him and the other liberal focks and called it quits. 

Take the hint dude. 

 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

23 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why should he get federal help? The people of NY voted for this. 

That’s a separate issue from sanctuary cities. 
 

My answer is that the increased number of migrants is a national crisis. Long term I think it’s beneficial to our country so long as we deal with it in an organized, regulated fashion, which we are not doing. But I also think it creates great burdens especially short- term which are our national responsibility to bear. So yes I believe that New York and other cities that have to deal with the immediate problems head on deserve federal aid. 

[TimHauck 1,801]

7 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

The focking guy "wants a serious discussion" spewing the same bullshlt on this site since fbgheys gave up on him and the other liberal focks and called it quits. 

Take the hint dude. 

 

Speaking of take the hint…

 

 

 

[seafoam1 1,879]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Speaking of take the hint…

 

 

 

Oh boy. That's what you got. I'm so devastated. A perpetually out of work IT guy and a bunch of liberal dooshbags. Damn, you are really stupid. 

[Voltaire 4,560]

Tim is accurately quoting MSM sources when he tells us that crime rates do not go up with illegal immigrants. That's crime rates, not crime. The government data indicates that they commit fewer than the domestic population. Also that's based on red state numbers because blue states do not record the immigrant status of people they arrest.

Crime, of course, does go up.  Here's the state of Texas' numbers: https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/crime-records/texas-criminal-illegal-alien-data

That's Several tens of thousands of crimes that should not have happened.

The same link has this to say 

Quote

These figures do not attempt to allege that foreign nationals in the country illegally commit more crimes than other groups. It simply identifies thousands of crimes that should not have occurred and thousands of victims that should not have been victimized because the perpetrator should not be here. It is also important to note that these figures represent the minimum number of crimes associated with criminal illegal aliens

 Of course we've seen several high profile situations involving crimes committed by illegal immigrants, my personal "favorite example" (for lack of a better word) being the immigrant gang of five that beat up those NYC cops who all got released without bail with the one flipping the cameras with double middle fingers and another that got arrested for comitting armed robbery a couple of days ago.

[TimHauck 1,801]

1 minute ago, Voltaire said:

Tim is accurately quoting MSM sources when he tells us that crime rates do not go up with illegal immigrants. That's crime rates, not crime. The government data indicates that they commit fewer than the domestic population. Also that's based on red state numbers because blue states do not record the immigrant status of people they arrest.

Crime, of course, does go up.  Here's the state of Texas' numbers: https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/crime-records/texas-criminal-illegal-alien-data

That's Several tens of thousands of crimes that should not have happened.

The same link has this to say 

 Of course we've seen several high profile situations involving crimes committed by illegal immigrants, my personal "favorite example" (for lack of a better word) being the immigrant gang of five that beat up those NYC cops who all got released without bail with the one flipping the cameras with double middle fingers and another that got arrested for comitting armed robbery a couple of days ago.

So basically, you’re saying illegal immigrants don’t commit zero crime?  Groundbreaking stuff.

[seafoam1 1,879]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

So basically, you’re saying illegal immigrants don’t commit zero crime?  Groundbreaking stuff.

Illegals are a walking crime. By definition. 

[Strike 3,979]

6 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Tim is accurately quoting MSM sources when he tells us that crime rates do not go up with illegal immigrants. That's crime rates, not crime. The government data indicates that they commit fewer than the domestic population. Also that's based on red state numbers because blue states do not record the immigrant status of people they arrest.

Crime, of course, does go up.  Here's the state of Texas' numbers: https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/crime-records/texas-criminal-illegal-alien-data

That's Several tens of thousands of crimes that should not have happened.

The same link has this to say 

 Of course we've seen several high profile situations involving crimes committed by illegal immigrants, my personal "favorite example" (for lack of a better word) being the immigrant gang of five that beat up those NYC cops who all got released without bail with the one flipping the cameras with double middle fingers and another that got arrested for comitting armed robbery a couple of days ago.

The problem with using simplistic things like crime stats is that the flip side of this argument is that we have to legalize illegals because when they have illegal status they don't REPORT crimes.  That's one of the arguments people like Tim make for making them legal.  Well, you can't have it both ways.  They don't affect the crime rate BUT we have to make them legal so they can feel comfortable reporting crimes.  That's one of the problems with discussing things with Tim.  He looks at very little pockets of data but doesn't use common sense and logic to put together the entire picture.  He focuses on those little pockets instead of the entire picture due to that lack of capability.

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

12 minutes ago, Strike said:

The problem with using simplistic things like crime stats is that the flip side of this argument is that we have to legalize illegals because when they have illegal status they don't REPORT crimes.  That's one of the arguments people like Tim make for making them legal.  Well, you can't have it both ways.  They don't affect the crime rate BUT we have to make them legal so they can feel comfortable reporting crimes.  That's one of the problems with discussing things with Tim.  He looks at very little pockets of data but doesn't use common sense and logic to put together the entire picture.  He focuses on those little pockets instead of the entire picture due to that lack of capability.

Well my “common sense” isn’t yours. We certainly look at things differently. But I don’t recall ever making the argument that we should make people legal so that they feel safer reporting crime. I DO believe we should make most undocumented people legal, though not citizens, but I have different reasons for it. 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

20 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Tim is accurately quoting MSM sources when he tells us that crime rates do not go up with illegal immigrants. That's crime rates, not crime. The government data indicates that they commit fewer than the domestic population. Also that's based on red state numbers because blue states do not record the immigrant status of people they arrest.

Crime, of course, does go up.  Here's the state of Texas' numbers: https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/crime-records/texas-criminal-illegal-alien-data

That's Several tens of thousands of crimes that should not have happened.

The same link has this to say 

 Of course we've seen several high profile situations involving crimes committed by illegal immigrants, my personal "favorite example" (for lack of a better word) being the immigrant gang of five that beat up those NYC cops who all got released without bail with the one flipping the cameras with double middle fingers and another that got arrested for comitting armed robbery a couple of days ago.

Do you not see a parallel here between these high profile incidents and mass shootings? In both cases these anecdotes are being used to make sweeping judgments. Everytime there is a mass shooting, Biden calls for a ban on AR-15s, yet we know that the vast majority of these rifles are never used in any crime and are owned by law abiding citizens. Everytime there is a murder or vicious crime committed by an undocumented immigrant, Trump calls for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants, yet we know that that the vast majority of these people commit no crimes. It seems to me that in both cases these are lazy arguments designed to appeal to emotional thinking rather than than logic and reasonableness. Would you agree? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

1. Agreed. 
2. This fact doesn’t make them ineligible to seek asylum. 
3. I don’t mean to doubt you but which international law are you referring to and why does it take precedence over our asylum laws which I linked? 
4. Why? This is not part of our asylum laws. 
5. I assume some are seeking asylum and at least some should be given it IMO. 
6 You haven’t proven your point here. Some of those arriving at our border legitimately deserve asylum. Others will not be granted it but legitimately deserve to be called asylum seekers. Your main argument against this appears to be your points 3 and 4 and I don’t find them compelling as they are not part of what the rules actually say. 

1) ok

2) 3)

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

• Is located outside of the United States
• Is of special humanitarian concern to the United States
• Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group
• Is not firmly resettled in another country
• Is admissible to the United States

these from your link just don't even make sense and contradict themselves

the top 3 bullet points are our Asylum laws, the bottom 5 are the rules of refugees

3) continued, also maybe I am incorrect but this is EU on refugees/asylum.  I thought it was a geneva convention thing

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/emn-asylum-and-migration-glossary/glossary/first-country-asylum_en

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/569051/EPRS_ATA(2015)569051_EN.pdf

via geneva convention, allows each country to determine

5) I doubt there are many Uyghur Muslims from China in those camps flooding the borders

6) I will reiterate none of them deserve asylum, maybe 100 a year at most, not 8 million scam artists who want a better life

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

bottom line, democrats love illegals in Cali cause it boosts their power and thats what its all about, same with arizona, new mexico and an attempt in Texas to turn the state

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Does the NYC police commissioner propose ending NY as a sanctuary city? If he does I will listen to his argument. But my experience is that the police in sanctuary cities do NOT want to change that status as it would be cost prohibitive and they don’t have the resources, also it would actually lead to an INCREASE in crime since they often use migrants as informers. 

I’ll play, as silly as your notion is.  Who do you think they're informing on ? The mafia? 

[Strike 3,979]

11 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Well my “common sense” isn’t yours. We certainly look at things differently. But I don’t recall ever making the argument that we should make people legal so that they feel safer reporting crime. I DO believe we should make most undocumented people legal, though not citizens, but I have different reasons for it. 

So do you reject my point that illegals don't report crime, especially illegal on illegal crime, due to their illegal status?   Because that's not the consensus amongst law enforcement.  And it's one of the arguments for sanctuary cities. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think we should ever rely on such anecdotal evidence to make sweeping judgments. I won’t ever do it if I can help it. 

I guess we have to wait for a study instead. Meanwhile….

[Strike 3,979]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I guess we have to wait for a study instead. Meanwhile….

Tim is against anecdotal evidence until it suits him.  Then he has no problem posting it. 

[Maximum Overkill 646]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I guess we have to wait for a study instead. Meanwhile….

Timmay is hanging on by a thread. 

Now ask him why he won't condemn and supports a Pedophile President? 

[Dizkneelande 839]

10 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

1) ok

2) 3)

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

• Is located outside of the United States
• Is of special humanitarian concern to the United States
• Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group
• Is not firmly resettled in another country
• Is admissible to the United States

these from your link just don't even make sense and contradict themselves

the top 3 bullet points are our Asylum laws, the bottom 5 are the rules of refugees

3) continued, also maybe I am incorrect but this is EU on refugees/asylum.  I thought it was a geneva convention thing

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/emn-asylum-and-migration-glossary/glossary/first-country-asylum_en

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/569051/EPRS_ATA(2015)569051_EN.pdf

via geneva convention, allows each country to determine

5) I doubt there are many Uyghur Muslims from China in those camps flooding the borders

6) I will reiterate none of them deserve asylum, maybe 100 a year at most, not 8 million scam artists who want a better life

Nobody with a brain believes that the chi-coms are letting tens of thousands of Chinese nationals leave China without their permission. 

[Dizkneelande 839]

EVEN asylum applicants found to have a credible fear of persecution must be detained until their cases have been fully adjudicated. (Section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.)

Anyways there’s no point in debating this sh!thead on the issue. He won’t bend an inch. He’s fully admitted he doesn’t understand asylum rules and even then, will continue to parrot msnbc talking points. 

Like everything else affecting the country that normal Americans want to see fixed, the left turned this into a political issue. Just look at how far the left via polls have gone off the deep end on this issue. We went from a majority wanting to curb the influx of illegals which the right and independents have remained consistent on, the 20-30% of lunatics shifted to nobody is illegal, everyone is a human and deserves to be let into the U.S. with limited delay and restriction. They show up, they get citizenship as soon as possible. They get to vote. They get benefits.

[Engorgeous George 1,176]

2 hours ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Are you the one that has a drunk for a wife or is that the other Liberal guy? 

Thats the other guy, the one with a Nana who is a hobo.  Also, drunk wife is battling a weight problem.

[squistion 896]

I keep misreading this thread title as:  

Timmy’s threat for serious discussion and debate

Which somehow seems for appropriate in a way. 

 

[Engorgeous George 1,176]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think we should ever rely on such anecdotal evidence to make sweeping judgments. I won’t ever do it if I can help it. 

What are polls if not anecdotal evidence, and yet they are among your favorite forms of buttressing evidence.

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

38 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

bottom line, democrats love illegals in Cali cause it boosts their power and thats what its all about, same with arizona, new mexico and an attempt in Texas to turn the state

 

This doesn’t apply to me. Their reasons (and I think you mistate them anyhow are not mine. 

[The Real timschochet 2,940]

Enjoying this but I gotta run. If you have more specific questions for me I will try and respond later on. 

[jerryskids 5,206]

13 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Yes, and two times in the past when we took isolationist, America-first positions preceded our involvement in two world wars. 

Russia clearly is in old-school aggression mode and already has telegraphed its next moves should it conquer Ukraine. Trump's outrageous encouragement of Russian aggression has thrown gasoline on the fire.

It makes us look weak, although we're not, just like the Axis powers mistakenly underestimating what happens when you fock around and find out about our country. The world doesn't unerstand us.

Skids' lack of context in what he posted just underscores the lack of understanding in our place in the world.

We have the No. 1 juggernaut economy, the world's most powerful military and freedom that other countries can't comprehend.

We put America first by cutting off Russia's balls in Ukraine and put a stop to aggression and the spread of authoritarianism.

We did this dance before in the early 1930s, and it didn't end well.

 

I know you Lefties like to live at extremes and false dichotomies, but there is a middle ground between complete isolationism and giving more to Ukraine than the entire rest of NATO combined.  Trump actually understood that NATO was living high on the hog off our benevolence, which is why he pushed them to meet their financial goals, and tossed out the possibility of leaving NATO so that they had an incentive to act.  Your TDS will never allow you to see it, but that's on you.  

Feel free to look at my posting history; I have never advocated we completely disengage from Ukraine.  I think we should support them.  But this is happening in Europe, it is at its core a local issue, it's not the first step in Russia trying to take over the world.  As such I think the EU should have more skin in the game, not take their typical stance to back off, let us do all of the heavy lifting, and then act superior because they give more money in entitlements to their people.

[Pimpadeaux 2,267]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Speaking of take the hint…

 

 

 

Yet he doubles down with his Maxipad Overdoosh alias while accusing others of using aliases.