Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
Kristi Noem âCompletely Made Upâ Story of ICE Deporting a Cannibal
"At the time, the Department of Homeland Security and ICE wouldnât respond to requests to confirm Noemâs story. Now multiple federal law enforcement officialsâincluding one from the DHSâare saying itâs a lie..."
Kristi Noem âCompletely Made Upâ Story of ICE Deporting a Cannibal
"At the time, the Department of Homeland Security and ICE wouldnât respond to requests to confirm Noemâs story. Now multiple federal law enforcement officialsâincluding one from the DHSâare saying itâs a lie..."
And yet he refuses to answer on how he can support someone who so consistently breaks his vow to defend the Constitution... a document that Kurt repeatedly references in defense of an immigration enforcement gestapo that is inept and mismanaged.
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Handling complexity is not really your thing is it?
Juggling responses to support Trump isn't easy.
Call it complexity... nuance... reason... whatever it is, Kurt requires a black and white answer in a world of gray. Regardless of the issue, Trump is always right.
Being a conservative who supported Biden primarily because I couldn't imagine anything getting better under Trump puts me on the other team. The interactions here with a dozen people are at this point as much sport as they are "conversation", mostly to see just how pretzeled Kurt can twist himself in defense of the indefensible. The moment everyone agreed that the "worst of the worst" should be deported, he pivots to sanctuary cities.
Good vs. Bad. Right vs. Wrong.
The nuance and reason for allowing illegal aliens to report crimes without the fear of reprisal/deportation is grounded in research. It is the lesser of 2 evils. There is no right or wrong....there's only the better or worse. That's not possible in a world where the person you elected to close the border and deport those who invaded under Biden uses indefensible tactics, including masked squads who harass, detail, and injure legal residents and US citizens in the process.
It's not just those who post here... a year ago today, Trump had a net +11% approval rating on immigration. Today he sits at -12.3%. That's a HUGE drop. Even those who supported the notion of mass deportations find the tactics unacceptable. Kurt keeps swinging like he's sitting on the moral high-ground, all while defending the most immoral leader in the history of the US.
When Jeffrey Epstein calls your hero âthe worst person heâd ever known,â stating he had ânot one decent cell in his bodyâ and was âdangerousâ... you'd think maybe it was time to cut your losses. Not Kurt.
rgio made this a binary discussion. And you voluntarily replied. So it is what it is.
At the very least, you are opposed to open borders, otherwise deportation is irrelevant as in "deporting the worst of the worst". That is pure and plain simple logic.
But then again, you only gave a +2 response rather than state that you support deporting the worst of the worst and if you support open borders then your response means nothing.
Handling complexity is not really your thing is it? Here you are flailing around in a sea of chaos, clutching at straws that give you at least a semblance of certainty.
So, no, it was not rgio who made this a binary discussion. Rather, everyone was calling you out on your binary logic and you grasped at it, thinking, all hail the mighty power of binary logic! I'm saved! I can build my castle on the rock of the singular certainty that illegal aliens are bad and we, the legal citizens, are the good guys, and in this castle in the sea, I can place Trump at the throne!
Well, you're not saved. The sea is still chaotic and teeming with conflict and even here, on an issue that you think could not be more black and white, your binary "with me or against me, everything else be damned" approach fails. Nothing is quite that simple. And your chosen saviour of the white race and Christian religion is a pedophile, serial liar who doesn't give a shit about anyone else and certainly not the church. If you are looking for moral certainty and ethical guidance you've chosen a peculiarly bad king to place at the head of your movement.
My ex was a special needs teacher. There was a time just after the Kosovo war when Germany got flooded with refugees. She had a couple of them in her class. One of them had seen his family slaughtered in front of his eyes. In class this kid had a habit of hiding himself in the cupboard and defecating there.
He was severely emotionally and psychologically damaged. Understandably. A lot of people are damaged for a load of different reasons. Every three or months or so in Germany you get reports of some Syrian kid, losing it and attacking people with a knife, or worse. The damaged people who do these things are, in your view, among the "worst of the worst". Along with the drug dealers, gang members and other Group W types.
Sure, some should be deported. But some just need massive care. Many will never be healed because the scars are just too deep.
Will deporting these victims of earlier crimes solve their problems? Almost certainly not.
So is looking after them going to solve all these problems? No, that is not true either. But it is the human thing to do.
At the very least, you are opposed to open borders, otherwise deportation is irrelevant as in "deporting the worst of the worst". That is pure and plain simple logic.
Wait, do you want them jailed or deported? I don't see a position farther down the worse scale than 'men who rape children'. Of course there are those with other criminality as well, like 34 felonies (and counting). While I'm sure there are some immigrants worthy of deportation, I think simply submitting them to the criminal justice system is good enough. I'd also note that I think the same standard should apply regardless of immigration status.
You're right, of course: Deporting the worst of the worst is a slap on the wrist. They need to be imprisoned. Maybe in their home countries, assuming we haven't soured relations with them so badly that those governments would let them walk right back to the US to continue whatever it was they were up to. So: jail for the worst of the worst, ideally in some other country, I don't care. That leaves not many that need to be deported and it certainly isn't a priority for me.
There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst.
While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children.
Wait, do you want them jailed or deported? I don't see a position farther down the worse scale than 'men who rape children'. Of course there are those with other criminality as well, like 34 felonies (and counting). While I'm sure there are some immigrants worthy of deportation, I think simply submitting them to the criminal justice system is good enough. I'd also note that I think the same standard should apply regardless of immigration status.
Based on the way the question was framed, then it is safe to conclude that both of you are opposed to open borders and Sanctuary Cities / States.
You can conclude whatever you like - as your poorly developed reasoning leads you to . I do not live in your binary world, so your presumptions about what I do or do not believe are, as always, invalid.
rgio made this a binary discussion. And you voluntarily replied. So it is what it is.
At the very least, you are opposed to open borders, otherwise deportation is irrelevant as in "deporting the worst of the worst". That is pure and plain simple logic.
But then again, you only gave a +2 response rather than state that you support deporting the worst of the worst and if you support open borders then your response means nothing.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Feb 15, 2026 - 9:34am
kurtster wrote:
Thank you for your responses.
Based on the way the question was framed, then it is safe to conclude that both of you are opposed to open borders and Sanctuary Cities / States.
You can conclude whatever you like - as your poorly developed reasoning leads you to . I do not live in your binary world, so your presumptions about what I do or do not believe are, as always, invalid.
There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst. While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children.
+2
Thank you for your responses.
Based on the way the question was framed, then it is safe to conclude that both of you are opposed to open borders and Sanctuary Cities / States.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Feb 15, 2026 - 9:04am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst.
While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children.
How about the fact that no one here has said other than you, that they "support deporting the worst of the worst". It's a really easy thing to do.
So I lay out a case that logically explains my assertion and you counter with find a quote. Pretty flimsy on your side. Until someone else here says that they "support deporting the worst of the worst" there are only two saying so.
There was a time that something like this didn't need to be said. But these are the times we're in, I guess, so: I, ScottFromWyoming, do enthusiastically support deporting the worst of the worst.
While we're stating the obvious, I also support jailing men who rape children.
