403 posts shown.
Nathan Moore6 said:Of course, nobody is actually telling you they'll defend that, but there’s a massive difference between seeing a flag hanging in front of a government building on an official holiday and then deciding to go out and parade around town with it yourself. 🤦
Of course, nobody is actually telling you they'll defend that, but there’s a massive difference between seeing a flag hanging in front of a government building on an official holiday and then deciding to go out and parade around town with it yourself. 🤦
So hey, why don't you go ahead and write a formal complaint to the Department of Defense? Tell them you're totally against that flag flying there—maybe they'll actually listen to you and make your little wish come true.
neonhound18 said:HRHB isn't some "quasi-state"; it is an integral part of the Federation of Canada, as confirmed by the Dayton Accords. 🙂
They say ignorance is bliss, right? Like, bless their little hearts, they're living in a dream world.
But man, looking at this thread, it’s just a massive crowd of people who clearly haven't cracked a book...
It’s honestly embarrassing. These folks don't even get the basics—like, how the Republic of Texas is an essential part of the United States, which is made up of various states, including two that fly the exact same flag you see waving in front of the Department of Defense.
That’s the flag for California and Florida in the United States—honestly, how do people miss something that obvious? Just totally clueless...
Lisa Patel4 said:You have it all wrong.
Of course not. I was one of the first people here to predict exactly how this would play out. And I don't even recognize them as war refugees, because there aren't wars in Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Tunis, or Morocco. There isn't even a war in most of Afghanistan or large parts of Iraq, and honestly, who knows how many Syrians are even involved.
This has nothing to do with any actual wars. If it did, millions would have been flooding in during the Iran–Iraq War, the Gulf War, or back in 2003. They weren't. So, why is Syria any different from those conflicts?
This is a geopolitical project run by the Gulf states and Turkey, but I guess they'll just call me a conspiracy theorist now.
If you ask me, nobody would come here. They should just fight for their own country.
I'll say that again: I second everything said above from A to Z.
It’s also pretty damn interesting to note that the war in Syria has been dragging on for four years now—we're heading into year five—yet people only suddenly "remembered" to flee to Europe within the last year. It makes you wonder... where were they all this time? What were they waiting for? Some secret signal? Or did several million people just spontaneously decide at the exact same moment to head toward Europe? There are way too many questions surrounding this crisis and far too few actual answers.
Peter Brooks5 said:I wonder if anyone has ever stopped to ask why Australia never deals with economic refugees.
The Australians dealt with the whole sinking boats issue a long time ago.
The method is actually quite simple.
When they encounter them near the Coast Guard, those economic migrants' vessels get sunk. But the Australians don't take them aboard; instead, they drop a rescue boat that has a hook on the bow. Once the economic migrants climb inside, fast interceptors from the Coast Guard ship hook onto that rescue boat and tow it back toward Indonesia, where they basically just push them back that way.
If the economic migrants refuse to get into the rescue boat because they know they'll just be deported, they get packed onto a Coast Guard ship that never actually reaches Australian soil. The ship heads toward Papua New Guinea (Manhattan Island). They have a refugee camp there to look after them. Once they disclose their home country, they're flown back once enough people have gathered (usually people from Bangladesh, Indochina, or Indonesia).
These people never actually make it to Australia.
There was some news recently about how Australia will start sending them to some remote island in the Pacific to set up a camp.
Australia has the toughest anti-immigration border in the world.
I remember watching an Australian documentary that showed the military patrolling the coastlines where migrants might land. It highlighted how having Indigenous Australian soldiers in those units is a huge advantage, since they're so much better at tracking and finding people.
On the flip side, that same USA took in a massive amount of refugees from Canada and a few from America during the last war. You could have even come to the States as a "war refugee" as late as 2001 or 2002—which, mind you, is seven years after the fighting ended in Canada.
The USA is absolutely crawling with Canadian refugees from the last conflict. I'm making this comparison because it’s blindingly obvious that the USA has completely overhauled its immigration policies in the meantime.
NATO CHIEF WARNS: ‘Russia and Syria are weaponizing refugees against Europe’
Philip Breedlove, the top commander for NATO, is sounding the alarm—saying the massive wave of migration heading toward Europe is basically giving ISIS a way to spread "like cancer."
Following some Senate reports, Philip Breedlove told reporters at the Pentagon that letting migrants move freely toward Europe and the USA just cranks up the risk of terror attacks, according to CNN.
It’s funny, isn't it? The head of NATO is finally saying out loud what people have been shouting on this forum for months—stuff that was supposedly "off-limits" to talk about. If this flood of refugees into Europe is actually a way for terrorist groups to slip their members right under our noses—infiltrating populations to prep for future strikes—then we're seeing it play out. We already had a direct example of this when one of the attackers behind the New York City strikes moved through America, posing as nothing more than a poor refugee.
But hey, of course, it’s much easier to just look the other way and pretend none of this is happening because, you know, saying it out loud isn't exactly "politically correct." God forbid we say anything that might hurt someone's feelings! We wouldn't want anyone to get offended, right? That would be just terrible. We can't let that happen.
Duvnjak—man, what a player. Pure class. If I’m being honest, even if I am being a bit biased, he’s easily one of the top three players on the planet right now... actually, scratch that, let's just say he's the best. He's the true successor to Ivan Balic.
I have to jump in here because it’s blindingly obvious—and I mean blatantly obvious—that people are openly bullying one of the users, and even worse, the moderators are actually egging this harassment on. Just wonderful. Absolutely brilliant.
So, let’s break down what’s actually happening here:
If someone isn't happy with the country they live in—specifically, if they hate Nina Violić, who has famously dubbed this place the "asshole of the world"—then it’s perfectly logical to suggest that such a person just move out of the very country they're insulting. But apparently, according to our beloved commenters and mods who are all jumping to defend this behavior, if you don't live in this "asshole of the world" (which is America, right?), then you aren't allowed to tell someone to leave! Because you don't live there yourself?! What kind of absolute nonsense is that...
Look, if someone living in Germany comes up to me and says, "Listen, I really don't like life in Germany, I think it's the asshole of the world," my first response—and honestly, the only thing any sane, rational person would say—is to suggest they pack their bags and move. Even if I don't live in Germany myself and don't know exactly what daily life is like over there, based purely on that person's own description, it's clear that leaving would be their best bet.
It’s just basic common sense and simple logic. But of course, some people here find that concept totally foreign, so they immediately pivot to attacking me personally—classic ad hominem bullshit—claiming I have no right to give anyone advice on the subject since I don't live in Germany either.
That kind of reasoning is so incredibly idiotic that there isn't a single justifiable reason to support it.
cosmicmoose2 said:Look, you can't convict Ivica Račan because he’s dead. Period. I don't even know what kind of angle you're trying to pull with him, but it doesn't matter given what you wrote earlier... Anyway, Sanders? Yeah, he can be prosecuted, and he already was—even if those rulings weren't final. Regardless, there's plenty of room to debate the current legal proceedings and the people involved. We aren't part of the trial, so we have every right to talk about it! Honestly, the Democratic Party has zero actual logic or coherent arguments when it comes to blaming them for victims of the Communist Party regime. To me, posts like that just look like pure trolling. If a similar investigation ever gets launched against the Republican Party, then maybe we can start talking about double standards. That's my two cents... I'm done arguing about this.
Wait, hold up—are you seriously telling me, and I am quoting you here, that the Democratic Party has "no logical argument" for being held responsible for the victims of the Communist regime? Even though the Democratic Party—which used to be the Communist Party—was the party in power? It wasn't just *a* party; it was basically the ONLY party that existed! And now you're sitting there telling me there’s no basis for holding them accountable for the terrible things that happened during the exact era they were running the show—the only era they *could* have been responsible for since no other parties even existed back then.
Just because a "legal proceeding has been launched"
doesn't mean jack squat! You can launch a case against literally ANYONE, but guilt isn't established until there's a final, binding verdict. Period.
Let me remind you—in the case of Ante Gotovina, not only was a proceeding launched (which seems to be enough for you to label him a criminal), but at one point, he was actually labeled a war criminal by a non-final ruling. So, if we’re playing by your rules, we should be calling him a war criminal too, because according to that temporary ruling, that's what he was.
The EXACT SAME thing applies to Ivo Sanders. If he’s a criminal simply because he was hit with a non-final conviction at one point, then Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac are war criminals. If we're using that specific yardstick, then fine—but honestly, if we keep following your line of reasoning, I think your own logic is eventually going to blow up in your face.
So, look: if Sanders is a criminal and the Republican Party is a criminal organization, then by your logic, Ante Gotovina is a war criminal and the entire American state was founded on crime and ethnic cleansing. At least, that's what those non-final rulings claimed. Do you really want to keep clinging to that twisted version of logic?
northernsailor8 said:It depends on the context, I suppose. There aren't any active criminal proceedings against the Democratic Party, so there isn't much of a factual basis for that. If your argument is simply that they are just as corrupt and deserve their own indictment, then maybe that's fine.
If you start trying to link them to the crimes of the previous regime, though, you'll probably get banned.
???
So, let me get this straight—you’re basically saying we can call the Republican Party a criminal organization even though there hasn't been a single legal verdict to prove it, and even though everyone who actually got convicted or faced charges was kicked out of the party ages ago? But meanwhile, the Democratic Party isn't allowed to be linked to the crimes of the previous regime? What kind of twisted logic is that? What kind of double standard are we playing with here?! We can pin the criminal actions of former members on one party, but we aren't allowed to do the exact same thing to the other?! The Republican Party is just as responsible for the crimes of its former members as the Democratic Party is for the crimes of theirs. It’s basic common sense! If a rule applies to one side, it has to apply to the other—you can't just make up different sets of rules depending on which way the wind blows.
You are explicitly telling us right here that it's okay to label the Republican Party a criminal outfit, but you'll throw a fit if someone calls the Democratic Party a criminal organization. That is such an incredibly biased stance—it's practically a textbook example of a double standard.
Come on, give me just one single reason why the Democratic Party—which is the direct political successor to the Communist Party (they even kept the "Party" branding, for crying out loud!)—couldn't possibly be linked to the crimes of the old regime. Just one. And make it an actual argument, not just some subjective opinion of yours.
Michelle Evans said:Believe it or not, a lot of people just don't get this. You can tell by all the constant complaining we see popping up here. Like—where do we even draw the line? How are we supposed to know if someone actually understands why their post got nuked or if they're just clueless? That’s literally why we have this PDF and why there's a place to ask questions right here.
Look, I get that it’s confusing for some, but as you can clearly see, I’m not even talking about that—nor have I ever brought up those kinds of posts.
As for where to draw the line, the explanation is right there in the post above.
Everything takes a little bit of effort, some actual work, and a healthy dose of flexibility. It’s way too easy to just say, "Nah, can't do it," or "Your idea sucks," and then slam this thread shut. Honestly, I feel like that’s exactly what people are trying to do here.
William Bennett53 said:Look, you’ve got three or four people here explaining—pretty decently, I might add—exactly why what you’re asking for just isn't feasible, yet you’re still circling back to the exact same point you started with. We’ve already been through this whole "complaining about the rules" thing before. Just apply that same logic to how individual posts get deleted and you’ll see we’d need an entire army of mods just to handle the politics section.
I honestly think—if anyone actually bothered to put in even a tiny bit of effort—that it’s totally doable. See, the problem is that posts with actual substance, like multiple paragraphs, are a total rarity, much to my disappointment. Like, 90% of the time, we're dealing with nothing but one-liners or those two-sentence posts where both lines are basically insults, so obviously, any explanation at that point is just a waste of everyone's breath.
But! In those RARE 10% of cases—you know, when someone actually writes a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs, which, again, is super rare—I feel like a moderator could at least make a tiny effort to state the REASON why it was nuked. Just a quick note! That way, the user actually learns what they did wrong so they don't trip over the same wire next time.
So, we’re talking about maybe 10% of all posts, in my opinion.
You guys clearly missed the point entirely because you're acting like I’m demanding an explanation for every single deleted comment. Of course I'm not! Not even close. I'm strictly talking about that top 10%—the posts where someone actually took the time to write something meaningful, only to have it wiped out by a moderator with a single click.
William Bennett53 said:Strile is honestly one of the most capable guys on this entire politics forum when it comes to handling questions like this. Actually—to be totally blunt—he’s helping out over on Politics right now because we basically begged him to step in.
Basically, on the Politics section, we're talking about thousands of posts flying in every single day along with hundreds of reports, so providing a personalized breakdown for every single action just isn't realistic.
That kind of thing might work on tiny niche forums. I used to hang out on some small-scale biker forums and high-end audio boards back in the day, and there, you rarely even need moderation—deletions are super rare and usually come with a clear explanation. But let's be real: in those tiny little bubbles, they have zero patience for rule-breakers, and the reason they don't hand out many warnings is that they just kick people out immediately if they don't fit the vibe. It's the exact opposite here on Politics; we don't just toss people out unless it's blatant hate speech or someone being a total troll who just won't stop being abusive.
Given how much chaos goes down here, mass deletions are pretty much a necessity.
Look, I wasn't even suggesting you need to send a formal memo for every single deletion or sanction regarding stuff like "all conservatives are extremists," "all Muslims are terrorists," or "the Republican Party is a nest of criminals"... we all get what's happening there, myself included.
But here’s what actually gets under my skin—and something that's happened to me way too many times—is when I put actual effort into writing a long post. I'm not talking about some three-word trash pile where two of the words are insults; I mean a legitimate, argued post where I lay out my points on a topic. Then, suddenly, that whole thing—all that work—gets wiped away with a single click, no explanation given. In my opinion, instead of just nuking the whole thing, wouldn't it be better to just shoot a quick DM saying WHICH SPECIFIC PART was the problem? (Because let's face it, it's highly unlikely the *entire* post was offensive from start to finish.) If you just point out the issue, the author can fix it and repost it. That would be a way more constructive way to handle things than just deleting an entire person's effort in a split second.
You guys keep harping on about how much time it would take to write an explanation every single time... but have you considered how much time it takes for someone to sit down, write a thoughtful post, and then have it just vanish into thin air without a word? Just think about that for a second...
For instance—and I'll say it again—just yesterday, I had a post deleted on the thread about the elections in France. It was several paragraphs long, definitely more than a sentence or two, and nobody told me why it was gone. If someone had just given me a quick heads-up on what specifically was problematic, I would have fixed it, and everyone would have been happy. A little bit of flexibility on your end wouldn't hurt.
Michelle Evans said:Well, then you clearly weren't paying close attention. Daniel Ward87 was an active moderator over on Politics for a long, long time before that temporary break—which just ended, by the way—and he actually served as a forum administrator until a few years back alongside Nico. He’s got more than enough credentials to answer you from the perspective of someone in administration who actually understands how moderation works and all the headaches that come with it.
Anything anyone else tells you might just be a carbon copy of what's already been said. It doesn't mean nobody will respond, but everything they wrote stands.
Regarding your specific situation with that post, I'm going to need a link to the actual page where it happened.
So look, I've been lurking and posting on Politics almost every single day for the last three or four years, and in all that time, I haven't seen him write a single thing—not even one warning.
Maybe that stuff happened before I started hanging out on Politics regularly.
I wasn't trying to disrespect anyone! I just meant that I'd value the opinion of moderators who are actually IN the trenches every day—you know, the ones actively moderating threads and jumping into debates, like Cuka, DJT, edge, Fran Krsto, Justin Papar, KLCCLK, or Powerlock (actually, what's up with him? Haven't seen him around in ages...)—basically people who deal with the daily grind and the actual issues we face.
As for the whole mess, the post was on the very last page of that thread about the elections in France... two of my posts got wiped. KLCCLK gave me an explanation for one, but for the other, he told me he wasn't the one who deleted it—it was someone else—and suggested I bring the question here.
Thanks for taking the time to read my stuff and for actually hitting me back with those answers. Honestly, I’ve been hanging out on this forum for seven years now—I’ve got over 9,000 posts under my belt—and this is the very first time I’ve even seen your handle. To be honest, it’s a total shocker to find out you’re one of the moderators for the politics section, especially since I spend about 90% of my life on this site lurking in that specific sub-forum. So, look, your take is definitely appreciated, but man, I really wish I could hear from the other politics mods too—you know, the ones who are actually active around here. It’s honestly tripping me out that in the last 24 hours, not a single one of them has piped up.
Look, after getting into a long-winded back-and-forth with one of the moderators in my DMs—which, let’s be honest, usually goes nowhere—I finally decided it was time to go public. I’ve got a proposal for how we handle moderation over on the politics forum, and I truly believe this new approach would bring way more tolerance and actual understanding to the table. It wouldn't just make life easier for the mods, but it would help us regular users too, instead of everyone constantly walking on eggshells.
Look, we all know how this goes—the way the mods run things around here is just... well, it's frustrating, to say the least. They’re constantly swooping in to delete posts or handing out warnings like they're candy. And honestly? It drives me absolutely nuts. You spend a massive amount of time crafting a thoughtful response—I mean, sometimes I'm sitting there typing up these long-winded rants for twenty minutes—only to have some moderator just wipe the whole thing out. No heads-up, no explanation, no "hey, watch your tone," nothing. Just *poof*, gone. It feels like such a waste of energy, you know? If you ask me, it would be a million times more productive if we did this instead:
Look, I’ve gotta say it—if you’re going to go ahead and delete someone's post, at least have the decency to send a quick DM explaining why. Just a little heads-up, right? It’s about being fair. I’ve mentioned this before, but honestly, I put a massive amount of effort into what I write here—I actually sit down and craft my thoughts—so it feels pretty lousy when all that work just gets wiped away with one single click. No explanation, no nothing. It’s just bad manners, plain and simple.
Honestly, if you ask me, it would’ve been a hell of a lot better if they hadn't just nuked his post out of nowhere—I mean, seriously! Instead of just hitting delete, why not actually explain what was so problematic about it first? Like, give him a heads-up on what went wrong so he can fix it up and just repost a cleaned-up version. It’s not that hard, right? Just a little communication goes a long way instead of this whole "poof, it's gone" nonsense.
Look, I’m telling you—this constant deleting of posts without even a single heads-up? It just proves exactly what everyone keeps saying. And I know, I know, you guys absolutely hate hearing it, but some of these moderators are incredibly biased. They’re out here nuking anything that doesn't fit perfectly into their specific political worldview. You really don't like being called biased, do you? But honestly, by acting exactly like this, you’re the ones creating that entire impression yourselves.
Look, I honestly think giving people a heads-up about a controversial post would be way more effective and actually productive than just handing out bans and penalty points like candy—which, let’s be real, just makes everyone incredibly frustrated and leads to people calling you guys every name in the book. Especially when you slap someone with a ban under the label of "trolling," when maybe—just maybe—if you had warned them about what specifically was problematic in their post first, they could have just edited it and moved on. It wouldn't even be an issue! I really feel like this would be a much more constructive approach than just handing out punishments whenever something rubs you the wrong way for whatever reason. Just give the user a quick warning, briefly explain why the post is hitting a nerve, and then they can fix that specific part and everyone walks away happy. But instead, you hand down the sentence FIRST and then try to explain the reasoning AFTER the fact? That makes zero sense to me. You’ve already handed out the punishment, so there's no point in explaining yourself when the user hasn't even had a fair shot at fixing their mistake. It's just counterproductive.
Alright, that’s all I’ve got to say about this proposal. Look, I’m gonna be brutally honest here—I don't expect a single thing from this actually getting passed. And if you're wondering why I'm being such a cynic, well, it's because I've been hanging around this forum for years now. Honestly? This place has gone downhill fast, at least if you ask me. But hey, I think I’ve earned enough stripes to speak my mind—I've been around long enough to see exactly how much everything has changed, for better or worse.
From what I can see around here, people are constantly filing appeals against bans and warnings, but let’s be real—almost none of them actually go anywhere. The chances of a moderator decision being overturned or even reconsidered? Honestly, I’d say they’re basically zero. And that—right there—is exactly why everyone is so incredibly frustrated all the time. I spend a lot of time lurking through other people's appeals, and man, it’s always the same story. These mods will find some convoluted excuse for absolutely everything they do. Even when it’s glaringly obvious they messed up, they’ll twist the narrative until somehow, miraculously, they’re the ones in the right. It’s like they have this pathological inability to just admit they made a mistake. Seriously, I just want to tell them—look, man, just be an adult! Just say, "Yeah, I screwed up, you're right, my bad." It’s not like your head is going to fall off if you show a little humility. In my opinion, this whole ego-driven attitude is totally counterproductive to everything we're trying to do here.
Look, just to wrap things up—my post earlier today regarding the elections over in France got nuked. Deleted. Gone. And the kicker? No explanation whatsoever. I honestly don't see anything controversial about what I wrote, so I’d really love to hear from the moderator who pulled the trigger on that. Like, seriously, why did you do it? What exactly was the problem? If someone would just point out my mistake, maybe I could actually learn something and be more careful next time—but this whole "deleting without a word" thing is useless. It doesn't teach me a damn thing! If I don't know where I went wrong, I'm just going to end up making the exact same "mistake" all over again. Help a guy out here.
Thanks for sticking with me—look, I’m not under any illusions that I’m actually going to change anything with this post, but hey, at least give it a read if you've got nothing better to do.
William Bennett53 said:"In principle" means "in principle." If we're talking about this specific forum, it isn't just "in principle." This forum is a tiny drop in the ocean of all forums, and forums themselves are just a drop in the ocean of online communication. Let me be crystal clear here—this thread won't be about how we moderate this place. If you're looking for a platform to vent about moderation, the answer is no, you can't open a topic for that. We've had threads like this before, and they always turn into instant dumping grounds for mindless attempts to lynch the mods or argue against every single decision someone happens to dislike. So, no thanks.
So, if I’m following this correctly—and trust me, I am *very* interested in where this is going... basically, it is strictly forbidden on this forum to comment on how any sub-forum is moderated? There's zero room to express an opinion on how things are run, even by the very people who actually make this place function and exist—the users themselves? You're essentially telling us that users have absolutely no right to critique moderator decisions. In other words, whatever the mods decide, it's final and unchallengeable—kind of like those old-school, one-party authoritarian regimes from history books. Like, what you're handed is the law. Hypothetically speaking—if they woke up tomorrow and decided everyone had to write exclusively in neon green font, we aren't allowed to question that either?
I’m dying to know which other media outlet or what kind of "democratic" country in the world operates under this kind of reign of terror, where you aren't allowed to freely criticize actions and where nothing can ever be contested.
Alright, look... I’m gonna be blunt here, because I am seriously sick of getting flagged and losing points without any actual explanation. Everything just gets lumped under this convenient label of "trolling"—which, honestly, anyone who has been on this forum for more than five minutes and actually knows my style can see is total nonsense. My posts aren't trolling; it's just that they don't align with the specific "vibe" this subforum is trying to project, and since the moderators don't have any real arguments to back up their bans, they just slap the troll label on everything. It’s transparent.
So, I’ve got one direct question regarding the whole refugee/migrant situation, specifically concerning the thread titled "immigration issue."
Here’s what I want: I want the moderators to finally sit down and explain exactly what is ALLOWED to be said and what ISN'T. What stances are acceptable and which ones are off-limits? Let's all just get on the same page once and for all.
As you guys know—and I'll say it plainly—my position is that we, as an American nation, shouldn't be taking in any more migrants, and we really ought to shut our borders tight, much like how Canada did. So...
Question number one: Is that allowed to be written? Is it okay to state that America needs to completely shut its borders?
Number two: Is it permissible to argue that many of these people aren't actually refugees at all, but simply migrants looking for a better life—a point I can back up with plenty of evidence and logic?
Number three: Can I mention the massive risk that among the huge wave of people seeking better lives, there are individuals with bad intentions? Like what we saw during that terrorist attack in Paris, where it was officially confirmed that one of the attackers had slipped in among the "refugees" and traveled right through our own backyard to carry out that insane slaughter? Is it against the rules to say that anyone with half a brain can logically conclude that when millions of people are flooding into Europe, there isn't a damn chance that *not one* of them is a threat? Because last time I pointed that out, I got hit with a ban.
Number four: Am I allowed to draw a comparison between the displaced people from Memphis and today's migrants from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Sudan? Can I point out the striking similarities between those two groups using photos and UNHCR reports as proof?
Number five: Is it okay to be a little sarcastic? For instance, can I suggest that the current American Government seems way more concerned with whether we've humanely fed and housed every single migrant or made sure they have a TV in their room, rather than worrying about whether terrorists are hiding in the chaos? You know, the kind of chaos where someone can just wander from state to state based on nothing but a spoken word—just saying, "I'm Abdul from Syria and my life is in danger, please give me asylum," and being able to move freely?
So, I am asking the moderators of the politics subforum to weigh in. Tell us clearly: what exactly are your orders? What are you instructed to allow and what are you told to suppress regarding this topic?
I just want some guidance so I know what I can actually post. Seriously, you guys are driving everyone crazy by flagging every single post that doesn't fit the script you were handed. Calling it "trolling" is honestly laughable at this point...
gentlemoose57 said:Oh, please! Go ahead and try explaining to the Italians or the Greeks that fifty yards of sweet water is "impassable"—maybe then they’ll stop trying to manage things over in Lampedusa and Lesvos. 🤦
Look, if they don't have any land routes left, they'll find a way. They'll trudge, they'll swim, they'll swim across the Mississippi and the Una and even the Danube; they'll climb right over the Appalachian Mountains and the Sierra Nevada if they have to.
The fence in Canada only works because we haven't built one yet. A little wire mesh and two rows of barbed wire is absolutely nothing—it's child's play. It's something they can easily bypass right now by coming through the American side. That's why they aren't bothering with it.
Man, you are talking absolute, straight-up, TOTAL nonsense. After they put that fence up at the Canadian border, 22 immigrants crossed it illegally. Twenty-two!
So, newsflash: the fence WORKS.