Why Does Trump Want To Set Mexican Rapists Free?

[g5000]

We now return you to our regularly scheduled topic, already in progress.

Donald Trump seems to think Mexico will accept the rapists and murderers and pay for them to be imprisoned for the crimes they committed here. Or else he seems to think we should just drop them off in Mexico as free men.

We know this because it is current US policy to deport the worst criminal illegal immigrants back to their country of origin after they have served their time. Since Trump is clearly implying he is going to do something different, from First Day, then that can only mean he is going to deport them immediately.

I don't see Mexico agreeing to take them and put them in Mexico's prisons. That would cost them a fortune. They simply won't do it.

The only other alternative is to set them free in Mexico. I don't think a rape victim would be pleased with that outcome.

Actually, that is not the only other alternative. The third alternative is that Trump is lying and bloviating out of his ass. This topic was intended to get Trump's Chumps to think through the mountain of bullshit Trump is shoveling down their willing throats.

What do I mean by that? Here goes:

Right now, in some cases, we have a difficult time in getting Mexico to accept criminals who have served their time here and are released from jail or prison.

Here is a breakdown by the ICE of criminal convictions associated with illegal aliens who have been placed in a "non-custodial setting" in 2015.

Now, if you read the usual propaganda outlets, or listen to Trump, you would be led to bleev they are all murderers and rapists.

But if you go to the fucking source, instead of getting your information filtered through a piss outlet, you find about 200 of the 64,197 are murderers. These are the ones we have a particularly hard time getting the home country to take back.

About a third of them are traffic violators.

One murderer is too many to be released back into America. Do not mistake me as being okay with this situation.

But it isn't like these murderers escaped from prison. That's not what is meant by a "non-custodial setting". It means they served the time for the crime they committed and were cut loose.

64,197. Not millions, as Trump would have you bleev. And actually, it is much less than 64,197 since many of those 64,197 convictions are one person with multiple offenses, as stated in the link.

It is far, far less than the millions of "bad ones" Trump would have you bleev.

I just wish, for once, a politician would be honest with their numbers.

But they don't do that because it is hard to scare you with a handful of bad guys. Better to make you shit your pants thinking there are MILLIONS of Mexicans out there trying to kill you.

In short, if Trump found a way to deport the 500 or so really bad Mexicans, you wouldn't even notice the difference.

Okay. Now go fetch an "angel mother" and puke up an Appeal To Emotion fallacy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I follow Paine, you follow Marx.

And THIS is what a straw man fallacy looks like, Indeependent.

Boy, UC is providing us with quite a case study of logical fallacies today! Awesome.

You're providing us with examples of Malapropism...

Description of Straw Man


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Learn what the fallacies are, prior to accusing others of using them, G-Tard.

 

[Indeependent]

We slowly choke off business with Mexico.
Americans having job opportunities!
The HORROR!

 

[g5000]

I follow Paine, you follow Marx.

And THIS is what a straw man fallacy looks like, Indeependent.

Boy, UC is providing us with quite a case study of logical fallacies today! Awesome.

You're providing us with examples of Malapropism...

Description of Straw Man


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Learn what the fallacies are, prior to accusing others of using them, G-Tard.

I (Person A) am a conservative who leans libertarian (position X).

You (person B) presented me as being a follower of Marx (position Y).

You (person B) then attack me as being a marxist (position Y).

Staw man fallacy, retard.

You really need to take a Logic 101 course.

 

[easyt65]

Why do libs always accuse others of doing what they have been and are doing?!

 

[Correll]

That is not an ad hominem. I notice you have been throwing that phrase around a lot today. Did someone just teach it to you? Go back and ask them to teach you how to use it correctly.

IDIOT.

Liberals offer nothing but insults, otherwise known as ad hominems.

I knew it!

I knew UnCensored was a liberal!

It's all starting to make sense now...

Ideologues on this site are all too often guilty of ad hominems.
I'm not an ideologue.

I am an ideologue, but I nearly always offer on topic substance, and I generally only resort to ad hominems if some asshole starts it.

And even then I nearly always try to include something on topic, and my goal is always to move the discussion back to the topic.

I do not consider you to be an ideologue.

Thank you,

IMO, an ideology is a system of ideas and ideals about how the world works and how the world SHOULD work.

I was people to discover the RIGHT ideas about how the world works, so that we can pursue our national interests most effectively.



My Ideological view of the world has taken a hit in the last couple of decades in couple of regards, and I am working to address that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I follow Paine, you follow Marx.

And THIS is what a straw man fallacy looks like, Indeependent.

Boy, UC is providing us with quite a case study of logical fallacies today! Awesome.

You're providing us with examples of Malapropism...

Description of Straw Man


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Learn what the fallacies are, prior to accusing others of using them, G-Tard.

I (Person A) am a conservative who leans libertarian (position X).

You (person B) presented me as being a follower of Marx (position Y).

You (person B) then attack me as being a marxist (position Y).

Staw man fallacy, retard.

You really need to take a Logic 101 course.

You, (person A) are a hack, who posts moronic shit from leftist hate sites 100% of the time

You, (person A) lies about yourself and claims to be a "conservative" in some strange Allinsky belief that if you pretend to not be the DNC hack that you are, you can fool people into supporting leftist positions for your party.

I, (person B) point out that you are a complete fraud and post to the left of rdean, but are less original in the use of ThinkProgress and MSNBC

I, (person B) acknowledge that your views are more aligned with Karl Marx than with any actual liberal or conservative,

 

[Indeependent]

Liberals offer nothing but insults, otherwise known as ad hominems.

I knew it!

I knew UnCensored was a liberal!

It's all starting to make sense now...

Ideologues on this site are all too often guilty of ad hominems.
I'm not an ideologue.

I am an ideologue, but I nearly always offer on topic substance, and I generally only resort to ad hominems if some asshole starts it.

And even then I nearly always try to include something on topic, and my goal is always to move the discussion back to the topic.

I do not consider you to be an ideologue.

Thank you,

IMO, an ideology is a system of ideas and ideals about how the world works and how the world SHOULD work.

I was people to discover the RIGHT ideas about how the world works, so that we can pursue our national interests most effectively.



My Ideological view of the world has taken a hit in the last couple of decades in couple of regards, and I am working to address that.

You views on Off-Shoring, Business Visas and Trespassers keep you out of the Neo-Con POV.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do libs always accuse others of doing what they have been and are doing?!

It's rule #3 from Allinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

G-Tard is convinced that this is the path to victory for Hillary and the others of his party.

 

[Correll]

I knew it!

I knew UnCensored was a liberal!

It's all starting to make sense now...

Ideologues on this site are all too often guilty of ad hominems.
I'm not an ideologue.

I am an ideologue, but I nearly always offer on topic substance, and I generally only resort to ad hominems if some asshole starts it.

And even then I nearly always try to include something on topic, and my goal is always to move the discussion back to the topic.

I do not consider you to be an ideologue.

Thank you,

IMO, an ideology is a system of ideas and ideals about how the world works and how the world SHOULD work.

I was people to discover the RIGHT ideas about how the world works, so that we can pursue our national interests most effectively.



My Ideological view of the world has taken a hit in the last couple of decades in couple of regards, and I am working to address that.

You views on Off-Shoring, Business Visas and Trespassers keep you out of the Neo-Con POV.

oh, definitely.

Best label at this time I believe would be Paleo-conservative.

 

[Indeependent]

Ideologues on this site are all too often guilty of ad hominems.
I'm not an ideologue.

I am an ideologue, but I nearly always offer on topic substance, and I generally only resort to ad hominems if some asshole starts it.

And even then I nearly always try to include something on topic, and my goal is always to move the discussion back to the topic.

I do not consider you to be an ideologue.

Thank you,

IMO, an ideology is a system of ideas and ideals about how the world works and how the world SHOULD work.

I was people to discover the RIGHT ideas about how the world works, so that we can pursue our national interests most effectively.



My Ideological view of the world has taken a hit in the last couple of decades in couple of regards, and I am working to address that.

You views on Off-Shoring, Business Visas and Trespassers keep you out of the Neo-Con POV.

oh, definitely.

Best label at this time I believe would be Paleo-conservative.

Anything like the diet.