Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
I think I see the difference, and attempted to convey as much in my post. I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear.
I don't know at which stage of the process the people referred to were in, as I don't think the article mentioned that. They were in a shelter, so I imagine some steps had already been completed. Unless I'm mistaken, normally while their asylum application is pending, asylum seekers are released and many of them travel to different parts of the country. Sometimes the authorities in states (or some governments, in other instances elsewhere) which feel they are experiencing challenges with irregular migration help those individuals along. While this is doubtlessly distasteful from the viewpoint of the states on the receiving end, having not been consulted beforehand, and lying to the asylum seekers about what is going on and leaving them on their own makes this particular instance of relocation doubly objectionable, onward movement of asylum seekers is a thing whether one likes it or not.
I get how using the distress and desperation of other human beings for one's own political gain is disagreeable, but, I don't know, I guess I have a lower standard of expectations when it comes to politicians.
Well, I am aware that in principle it is the same thing, but I'm not sure telling people you're taking them to Boston and then taking them to Martha's Vineyard is quite equivalent to telling people that you are taking them to Italy and then taking them to Finland. The distances between where you are and where you are supposed to be differ by a couple of orders of magnitude, as does the inconvenience of getting from one to the other.
It could be that I'm missing something obvious.
I can get behind that.
These people were moved from San Antonio to Martha's Vineyard, which is 3350km.
The distance from Rome to Tampere is 3250km.
Considering most asylum seekers don't enter in Rome but far further south, I'd say that's pretty much the same distance. It's not about "they were told they're going to Boston", it's "we're in a shelter in Texas and suddenly we're forced onto planes under false pretenses and dropped completely somewhere else".
I feel like the majority of the exasperation from our end is that it is difficult to determine whether the obvious things are being missed/overlooked ("I had no idea this stuff actually happens to people"), or whether they are being dismissed/ignored ("It's one banana, Michael. How much could it cost? Ten dollars?") for being so out of touch.
--Patrick
You know what's weird? As soon as the story broke various conservative circles were already spreading memes with the tagline "Martha's Vineyard right now..." With like Homer Simpson holding a BLM sign slowly creeping into the hedge and then coming out with a no trespassing sign, or a picture of Obama and Michelle superimposed over that lawyer couple photographed in their front yard with guns.
Can honestly only see two possible explanations. Either the people who did this had set up the memes ahead of time, or they all really are just living in their own reality were they can't even see what is happening with their own eyes.
Either way both explanations require a huge helping of projection. Martha's Vineyard was chosen because it's where a bunch of rich Democrats have houses, and they want to nothing more than these people to snoot up their noses and send those families back to South America. When that didn't happen, and when people started helping instead, they just kept trucking with the narrative.
Can honestly only see two possible explanations. Either the people who did this had set up the memes ahead of time, or they all really are just living in their own reality were they can't even see what is happening with their own eyes.
Either way both explanations require a huge helping of projection. Martha's Vineyard was chosen because it's where a bunch of rich Democrats have houses, and they want to nothing more than these people to snoot up their noses and send those families back to South America. When that didn't happen, and when people started helping instead, they just kept trucking with the narrative.
I see a lot of people haughtily claiming the people were shipped right off to Boston (where they wanted to go) instead of...??
I don't know you have somebody defending human trafficking it's going to always be surprising. Sure it makes sense with his character but to see it laid out there for the world to see isn't what I thought I'd see today.
Human trafficking... what? Did I misread that he was for selling people for profit? I thought he was just unable to have a well adjusted understanding that other people were deserving of being treated with respect and was devoid of empathy.
Please show me where I misunderstood.
Yeah, it's not human trafficking. There's no profit motive or implication of bondage. It IS kidnapping though.
figmentPez
Staff member
They were doing this for political gain and they were clearly hoping that the people they transported would end up imprisoned or otherwise harmed. That's enough for me to consider it human trafficking.
I assume you’re talking about two different people. Cause Ron Desantis was the one doing human trafficking while Tommi was the guy going “it’s not really a bad thing to do.”
Per the US Department of Justice...
A.) They weren't being sex trafficked. They were put on a bus and dumped somewhere, with no attempt at forcing them to perform sexual acts.
B.) They weren't asked to perform any services, nor were they detained upon arrival for the purposes of forcing them to perform a service against their will for no compensation. No, being a pawn in a political game isn't a "service".
Political gain does not factor into this and is not a stipulation for human trafficking. Therefore, it's not human trafficking. We don't just get to make up charges, no matter how horrible the crime nor how likely our opponents would be to do it.
HOWEVER... it IS kidnapping.
These people were mislead about the reason they were being transported (decoyed) and were not allowed release until they arrived (confined). That IS legally kidnapping and just about everyone involved could be charged with conspiracy to kidnap, as a federal crime because it occurred over the jurisdiction of multiple states. If they had simply loaded them on a bus, drove them to the state line, and dumped them there or something it might be different (they could argue they were acting under the authority of the State Government if there is a law to allow this sort of transport) but because they transported them across multiple states, it's now a federal issue.
To put it mildly, this is actually kind of a big deal if the Justice Department actually pursues it. They won't (at least until after the Nov. elections because of the 60 day rule) but they could. That's not even getting into how many of these people are now going to be unable to attend court dates and such because of actions of the State of Florida, which is it's own bag of worms.
Thank you. I believe I have a much better understanding now of where you all are coming from.
I believe the onus is on you to demonstrate that human trafficking has actually occurred.
I hope that, should one day the circumstances of the case be such that you and I were to meet face to face, that I could convince you to re-examine your present evaluation.
As do I, though I will re-evaluate on a post by post basis as well.
Not really no. Currently the only argument besides your psychopathic “dropping people off in an area they don’t know where people don’t speak their language that lacks any resources to help them in a way specifically designed to cause chaos is exactly like two countries working together to provide humanitarian aide to refugees.” is whether it was trafficking or “merely” a mass kidnapping across state lines. Whichis really arguing whether it’s six or a half dozen.
Last edited:
I'm
Ok with hypocrits exposing it to the world. Just makes them easier to spot.
Hey, they already say the FBI is exempt, might as well add the SA sheriff's office.
figmentPez
Staff member
I don't think this is just Tennessee. I think Florida may be doing it as well. I saw a traditional Florida plate yesterday (the one with the oranges) with the "In God We Trust" at the bottom, and it caught my attention because I don't remember seeing it there before.
There are plenty of people out there trying to muddy the issue by pointing out that, in Canada, there are women fighting for the right TO wear the hijab, and spreading their hands like, "Oh those silly women. Hijab, no hijab -- they just can't make up their flighty little minds, can they?"
--Patrick
I don't get what's so difficult about letting women have choices
That's been available at least since 2015 when I moved to FL. I chose sunshine state
Christian brainwashing works on men and women.
Although…you should probably edit that post. I’ve heard that referring to devoutly religious women who were born into it and have spent their adult lives endlessly pumping out children as broodmares is super offensive.
GasBandit
Staff member
Fine line of distinction between calling someone one, and saying that certain men want them to be it.
Sort of like calling a black person a slave and saying Republicans want black people to be slaves are two things entirely, attacking two different entities.
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member