trump: immigrants eat dogs?

[Ming]

Yep... if it's on youtube it MUST BE TRUE
Do you consider the city officials a data point ?

[Dinner]

One city official.

[Ming]

One young Black Woman

[Dinner]

One eaten cat.

[Ming]

So I guess that means you didn't consider it.
But continue to believe everything you see on youtube

[Dinner]

Just pointing out evidence you wish to ignore. All while falsely claiming there is no evidence, of course.

[pchang]

1 cat eaten
in a different city
not by a Haitian immigrant

So, somehow this negates claims that JD Vance and Trump are lying?

[Dinner]

BTW, who has more of an incentive to tell the truth? An elected Democrat politician or the regularly people who are telling their lives truth? I still think these are relatively isolated incidents but you need to stop being stupid, man. Certainly stop lying and denying that such things have happened.

[Ming]

So if I went on youtube and claimed Trump ate babies, you would believe me?

[Geronimo]

it seems to me that we are really getting out in the weeds here. I never doubted that some strange person ate someone's pet or even that there could be a history of dozens of strange instances of pets being eaten nationwide That doesn't matter. The real issue is why raise this at a presidential debate? It might make some sort of sense if there were a discernible pattern of pets being lost to the culinary habits of illegally present migrants. There is not. there is nothing like that at all. If Trump is learning about some ghastly story of someone's pet being eaten by a disturbed illegal alien and raising that "fact" at a presidential debate we have much bigger problems. Like, did we have a president who could hear such a limited story from social media or local news and alter border and immigration stances as a result? I'm sorry that's just messed up. Instead of wasting breath calling Trump's eccentrically selected out of left field data point a "lie" the attention should be to calling it "irrelevant". Presidents should not gauging policy by one-off tangentially related anecdotes like this. That's nuts. Don't call him a lar call him clueless. debate him on in it. Now all his followers have to do is find an instance of an illegal migrant eating a pet and all those Trump followers feel instantly vindicated. it's nuts.

[Ming]

And lets not forget the bigger issue... Many more AMERICANS mistreat their pets every day. That is a far bigger problem.

[Geronimo]

And lets not forget the bigger issue... Many more AMERICANS mistreat their pets every day. That is a far bigger problem.

I'm not sure that's a federal issue frankly. possibly the massive animal misery in industrial animal husbandry is a federal issue due to federal agricultural subsidies but I don't see much a president can do to reign in pet owners abusing their pets. maybe make trafficking animal abuse videos a federal crime or something like that I suppose but even that would likely run afoul of the 1st amendment.

[Ming]

But that's the whole point... Based on some questionable information, Trump is trying to make a campaign issue out of a possibly isolated case. His wild claims has possibly lead to a massive level of bomb threats at local schools in the community. And as you say, it's NOT a federal issue.

[N35t0r]

What is an issue is that there's been several bomb threats against schools in Springfield ever since, and Haitian immigrants are getting threatened.

And meanwhile, the Republican VP candidate washes his hands from any responsibility while simultaneously calling the Haitians illegal immigrants.

[Geronimo]

honestly don't think calling people who are resident illegally in a country "illegal immigrants" is an inflammatory problem. "undocumented immigrants" is certainly not going to look like anything other than a ridiculous euphemism. the defining trait is not whether they have a state driver's license a library card, credit card arrest records or any of a mountain of documentation that may exist. the defining trait is legal residence. people being "illegal" is no more inflammatory than being a labeled as a trespasser or a jaywalker or ex-convict what ever other title our actions might earn for us.

[N35t0r]

honestly don't think calling people who are resident illegally in a country "illegal immigrants" is an inflammatory problem. "undocumented immigrants" is certainly not going to look like anything other than a ridiculous euphemism. the defining trait is not whether they have a state driver's license a library card, credit card arrest records or any of a mountain of documentation that may exist. the defining trait is legal residence. people being "illegal" is no more inflammatory than being a labeled as a trespasser or a jaywalker or ex-convict what ever other title our actions might earn for us.

Right, so then there's no problem with the hundreds of thousands of legal Haitian immigrants getting harassed and threatened. Because clearly Vance must have not been talking about them, and will surely quickly make the record straight and also urge would-be harassers to please make sure that it's not legal immigrants they're harassing.