DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Here's your 'drip drip drip"

Lisa Page, former FBI lawyer, says she wasn't given enough time to prepare for testimony. So, under subpoena, she refuses to testify.

How much prep do you need to testify to the truth?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/attorney-ex-fbi-lawyer-page-wont-show-house-012323535--politics.html

Drip drip drip. Seems like the dripping might be on the D side?

Over a year and counting if you're the President.

Might be. And if they commited a crime they should be punished.

See how that works? No denials, protecting criminals, or spreading propaganda to discredit an investigation. Just a simple, lets find out. let's find the truth. (If truth still exist)

Has he been subpoenaed to testify? Lisa Page was.

Not yet. He hasn't been charged or even confirmed as a target yet. He just keeps acting so scared and guilty. If he acted normal and unphased, I probably wouldn't think he is such a scumbag crook and or traitor. But when something stinks, it's often rotten.

Do you feel the same way about Illegals?

You mean asylum seekers?

I'm amazed by the people who don't understand the difference and the laws about each.

LMAO.. this has become the new $20 catch phrase.. went from illegal immigrants to undocumented immigrants to migrant workers to now.. everybody who tries to sneak into our country is an "asylum seeker"...

That's why I made the distinction in my post about abolishing ICE

You cannot apply for asylum once you've been caught living here for a few years.

Are you seriously comparing this to what Trump and his gang are doing?

Global Warning to Climate change. There is definitely precedent here. lol

Do you comprehend when you read? If you do, answer your own question.

Social Security to entitlements. Yes there definitely is precedent. The GOP are the masters of the $20 catch phrase. And folks seeking asylum is not a catch phrase used for illegal immigration. Geez there are still over a thousand young children separated from their families illegally and have been ordered to be reunited. And you people argue seeking asylum is a catch phrase. Pathetic.

Cop out dude. Get over that. You can't enter the country without going through the proper channels.

Asylum seeking is a proper channel...

Your chronology is off. Migrant workers have been around for longer than any other. They always faced deportation.

I'm going to say this bluntly. I am sick and tired of all the phrases that you people have about other people. You mocked what one poster said, but were apparently okay with another calling them "Illegals." Others call them "aliens."

You get away w/it because it's okay under the current social opinion. You could not do that to gays. You could not do it to blacks. You can't do it towards women. But, because Hispanics, Muslims, and Native Americans have a weaker voice in American society, it is fine and dandy to label them w/unflattering terminology! It is also okay to harass them and discriminate them.

I am not a minority, but if I were gay, black, or a female.........I wouldn't trust anyone who blatantly discriminates against other minorities.

The bottom line is that we respect the rights of all people or we don't. It is a mistake to select only certain groups worthy of our respect.

I posted the laws for how to become a citizen the other night. Apparently you did not read them. Either that, or you "choose" to ignore them.

And yet, just last night, you called me racist.

Did I? I don't remember. However, what in the hell does that have to do w/the two posts I just made?

Yes, you did. And if you can't remember, that's not on me.

Actually, it is. Because you are an insignificant person whose only note of worth is annoyance.

Speaking only for myself, calling someone an illegal alien is not name-calling. It's an accurate statement based on how that person has chosen to enter this country. I (still speaking for myself) would not call someone who goes through the proper channels of immigrating to this country an 'illegal' or an 'alien' because their method of coming to this country does not fit those descriptions. Flipping that around, calling someone that entered this country illegally an 'immigrant' is not an accurate statement, as they did not legally immigrate to this country.

That is probably a cold an callous way to approach the issue, but that is the law as it is now. I think folks that believe they can build a better life in this country vs their country of origin would be much better served by taking the effort expended whining about hurt feelings and using it to pressure our government to take meaningful action to overhaul our immigration laws/process.
Long story short, I believe that our borders should be more secure, while at the same time it should be easier for good people to legally immigrate to this country.
I also believe (but am risking taking this thread way off course) that we would be waaaay closer to fixing the immigration issue (and many others as well) if the majority of voters in this country that (more or less) blindly vote for one of two political parties could come to the realization that neither group has really done anything substantive to fix anything, and that other options besides red and blue exist to get that done.

/rant

The legal definition is still "illegal alien" .

I comprehend just fine... My question remains, you are comparing this to the stuff Trump and his gang have done?

This is why “Geico insurance Co. used cavemen in their commercials.

What then should we call "them"? With the understanding that we still have to make the distinction between the legal and illegal and those who might be somewhere in the process?


Using terms that identify the legal distinction isn't "labeling them with unflattering terminology".. it's the only way to have an intelligent conversation.. so that somebody can be clear in which segment of the immigrant population they are talking about... it's those who have removed all reference to legal status who are being disingenuous in the conversation by now injecting "asylum seekers" as the definition for any and all who come to our border.

As for gays, blacks, and women.. I don't mean anybody any disrespect so I do my best to avoid disparaging labels... but if it's a gay black woman who is here illegally.. then that person is still an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT..

There is a difference in people who illegally try to cross our borders and people coming to our border seeking asylum. There's also a legal process that most certainly differentiate the two.

What is the difference and how do they even decipher such a thing? Every immigrant should just say they are seeking asylum no? I'm not being snarky I genuinely don't know.

The difference, and how they decipher it, is that an asylum speaker has to declare.. if they want to enter the country, they have to go first to the authorities at the entry point and declare that they are seeking asylum.. if they are already in the country by some other legal means (like an athlete here to compete) then they must go to a US official and declare...

From what I understand, you cannot enter the country illegally and then claim to be seeking asylum... though I'm not fully informed on the nuance of the process..

I just know the term "asylum seeker" has been thrown around a lot lately in a very general way, when it only applies to a very specific set of folks.

To be considered for asylum you must go to e legal border crossing and request asylum. Being caught attempting to cross the border anywhere but a legal crossing negates your ability to be considered for asylum. From my understanding of it, being from Mexico isn't considered.

You must come from a country such as some of those in Central America where the violence and gangs are so bad that living anywhere within that country poses a significant risk to your safety.

It also doesn't mean you'll be granted asylum. It simply means you will be granted a hearing IF they feel you have a case. You can be denied asylum right away if they feel your claim is bogus from the get go.

Seems like the better option to make it is to cross illegally. Being granted asylum would seem like a much bigger risk of being denied.

Shoplifting is probably a better option because paying for something legally requires the hassle of having a job.

But the there is the right way and the wrong way. While I'm sure some seeking asylum are trying to scam the system, there are also those truly deserving. I commend them for trying to use a legal process to accomplish it.

Complete agreement. It is a complete slap in the face denying people truly worthy of asylum because we can't prove it or they can't and then turn around allowing people to cross legally and contemplating granting them asylum.

In a matter of life and death it's better to error on the side life. I don't like reading that people we deport in up dead in a matter of weeks.

But you are for abortion isn't it better to error on the side of life then?

There's the rub, I don't consider it life because it's just cells. Do you clip your fingernails or cut your hair? And when you try to switch that up to make me feel like we are killing babies and not cells; you have no answers for taking care of those unwanted babies. So why don't you care about that part of their life?

If they didn't want a baby don't do the deed, get tubes tied etc...

Does your hair or nail turn out to be living breathing human beings?

When you are able to show me nails and hair holding a job raising children I'll agree with you.

j/c:

I had to stop reading because I was getting agitated.

How are people unable to not distinguish between "illegal aliens" and the following: "illegals" and "aliens?"

I also am agitated about whites spouting off about entering the country "legally." I have posted the steps involved. Any reasonable person can surely see that entering this country legally if you are poor and uneducated is next to impossible.

Let's ignore that and stand all high and mighty w/our man-made laws that are prejudicial and biased against the weakest of the weak minorities.