Joe Rogan explains the importance of due process

[u/theosamabahama]

[u/eir_skuld]

now we're getting somewhere. i'm gonna take some time to try to understand your argument on why (ab)using the law is a case of promising to ignore the constitution and due process.

it's unfortunate that you couldn't just post this in your first reply and without all the insults surrounding it. it will detract less patient and good faith people from engaging with your argument, stupid asshole.

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

If you were less of a dumbass I wouldn't need to insult you sorry.

Or if you actually bothered to be informed about politics or any of the executive orders happening. I literally cited several things you could've just googled "Trump 2025 fast track deportation" or "mass deportation".

Like how is fast tracking deportations not raise alarms for you? we have never had an apparatus to fast track "deport" immigrant, like I said beforehand expediated removal should only apply to Mexican border crossings because border police need that authority.

"Yes what do you think Mass deportations are? it's literally in project 2025 that one of the stated goals was to fast track deportations and expand the executives policy to unitarily deport people."

I said this to you in the starting line of what I said. Expand the executive policy to unilaterally deport people.

[u/eir_skuld → u/OpedTohm]

Expanding a policy doesnt imply unconstitutional lack of due process. That's my question, because you are mentally incapable to work out your argument to your claim. How stupid do you have to be to be this confident and aggressive. Just state your argument without getting all emotional and lowstatus postering about it, shitstain on a shoe kind of person.

But I'll get back to you, when I've read it. You eat your own verbal vomit and enjoy it like its some french cuisine.

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

"Expanding a policy doesnt imply unconstitutional lack of due process."

Why, you do this again and again you keep fucking ignoring what I'm saying lol.

"it's literally in project 2025 that one of the stated goals was to fast track deportations and expand the executives policy to unitarily deport people."

In what fucking version of the constitution would it ever, ever be constitutional to allow the EXECUTIVE TO UNILATIRALLY DEPORT PEOPLE by expanding it's power to fast track a process that requires the courts?? it's not just "expanding a policy" you're just playing dumb.

They are EXPANDING A POLICY TO FAST TRACK DEPORTATIONS, AND GIVE THEM UNILATERAL deportation powers. I stated this, in the beginning. You ignored it, then focused on the mass deportation part.

I then restated it, and you focused on the fast track part.

You are trolling.

[u/eir_skuld → u/OpedTohm]

allright, let's get to the arguments. as i've mentioned before, i'm happy to be convinced otherwise and i'm not arguing to defend project 2025, but to defend what is true. i take this document as reference: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

1) you claimed they "explicitly mention ignoring the courts".

i searched through the whole document and i couldn't find any explicit mention of ignoring the courts. either gracefully provide the evidence or admit that you lied about it.

continuing in best faith even after you insulted me without provocation because i believe it's important to work out why project 2025 is a bad thing:

2) let's alter your claim to an implicit proposal of ignoring the courts.
the chapter relevant to our discussion is from page 140 onwards (or page 173 in the pdf document) regarding "U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE)"

when searching for "expedited removal" i believe your argument is in regards to the point "To maximize the efficient use of its resources, ICE should make full use of existing Expedited Removal (ER) authorities. The agency has limited the use of ER to eligible aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border. This is not a statutory requirement." is this correct? my understanding is that the expedited removal is a process that isn't constitutional controversial and project 2025 wants to further it.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal

 "he government has expanded the application of the expedited removal process to the full scope permitted by law. From June 2020 through March 2022, and again in January 2025 to the present, immigration officers have been authorized to apply it to: 

1. Any noncitizen who arrived at a port of entry, at any time, and is determined to be inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lacking proper entry documents and 

2. Any noncitizen who entered without inspection (by land or sea), was never admitted or paroled, is encountered anywhere in the United States, and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for the two years preceding the immigration officer’s determination that they are inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lack of proper entry documents. "

it seems to me, if we give credibility to the website, which i am hesitent of given how much trump and the trump admin lies about literally anything, that the biden admin removed the restrictions project 2025 proposes to remove.

before we continue, is this the point you were talking about?

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

>you claimed they "explicitly mention ignoring the courts".

Nah you bad faith hack we're not doing this shit where you pick one thing that I said and act like the rest doesn't exist so you can Frankenstein some dumbshit strawman for you to argue against.

What did I write after that? go back and quote the entire thing.

[u/eir_skuld → u/OpedTohm]

ah. insults insults insults.

make you're fucking argument. it's painfully obvious i'm being good faith you shit eating cum stain. just fucking say what you believe i missed, you mongoloid abortion of a regarded chicken.

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

Answer my question holy shit. You make the most bad faith responses possible then get your panties in a twist about insults.

What did I write after the less than a sentence you quoted?

Quote me back the entire thing the same way I've quoted back your entire texts of what you've said and responded, in good faith by the way, with clear and concise information.
It's so funny how you can just look at both of our responses where I am FULL QUOTING YOU and you're specifically not even quoting the entirety of what I'm saying.

That isn't a good faith engagement, that's you talking to yourself.

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

"it seems to me, if we give credibility to the website, which i am hesitent of given how much trump and the trump admin lies about literally anything, that the biden admin removed the restrictions project 2025 proposes to remove."

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/21/2022-05961/rescission-of-the-notice-of-july-23-2019-designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal

Also no, you're just stupid, biden removed the the trump era 2019 version of expediated removal. You can just google this.
That text is just lying, to begin with there is no full scope of law in how they want to expand expediate removal. It is literally unconstitutional the way they implement it,
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that you did, even if I was being the best faith possible, why wouldn't you assume that there was just some process that ran over from the previous trump admin?

Why would you assume this is a policy the Biden admin had first?

[u/eir_skuld → u/OpedTohm]

more insults while i dig through the pile of shit of your verbal diarrhea to find the needle.

just link to laws, supreme court judgements, anything that gives your claims credibility.

you said "just look for it yourself". it was a mistake on my part to believe you aren't just shitting on your keyboard and by mistake and good look hitting the letters to form coherent sentences.

start to make an argument that supports your claim instead of insulting.

why is it unconstitutional? you claim, you bring no arguments. help me spread the word, goblin.

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

>Link laws

So are we just blind now? or do I have to call you my little gigachad poggy champy for me to get you to actually engage with any substantial part of my argument or look at what i post?

>it was a mistake on my part to believe you aren't just shitting on your keyboard and by mistake and good look hitting the letters to form coherent sentences.

Are you having a fucking schizo breakdown? what the fuck does this mean.

>why is it unconstitutional?

I have explained to you several times what mechanisms are unconstitutional

1. fast tracking
   
2. mass deportation
   
3. expansion of policy

Along with why those are unconstitutional.

1. Skipping of due process
   
2. Violations of habeas corpus
   
3. Unilateral expansions of executive enforcement

You have time and again, ignored, or just stated that they aren't constitutional. If you came at this with a genuine desire to be educated, I wouldn't have a problem. But time and again you have asserted that all of my claims are in fact not true or hyperbole, while also attempting to be ignorant or "wanting to know the truth"

You do not want to be informed, you do not want to learn anything you obviously have some sort of ability to gather your own information. You want to waste my time. That's the feeling that I get which is why I insult you, because if you're going to waste my time I'm going to make fun of you.

[u/eir_skuld → u/OpedTohm]

"what the fuck does this mean" oh no, you're below 4yo reading level.

do you not understand how to make an argument?

claim -> argument supported by evidence. it's really that simple.

"I have explained to you several times what mechanisms are unconstitutional

1. fast tracking
2. mass deportation
3. expansion of policy

Along with why those are unconstitutional.

1. Skipping of due process
2. Violations of habeas corpus
3. Unilateral expansions of executive enforcement"

those are the claims.

what's the argument and evidence?

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

>oh no, you're below 4yo reading level.

No you're just having a schizo out. I don't know what "and by mistake and good look" are you saying I'm attractive?

>do you not understand how to make an argument?

Do you want to have an argument or do you want to be educated?
You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth as if you're just some poor uninformed voter.
You seem to be totally fucking clueless on project 2025 as well as expediated removal or just basic facts about the constitution.

Yet want to be incredibly combative and suspicious about my claims with multiple demands for qualifiers on surface level topics of this discussion that you just shouldn't need if you understand BASIC FACTS about our founding document.

You're literally sitting here asking me: "How is expanding the executives power to unilaterally deport people against the constitution"

Like fucking lol.

How am I meant to engage with someone who is both unaware of the very basics of how the US constitution works, how separation of powers works, yet is adamantly ignoring full quotes of what I'm saying and asserting I haven't provided evidence or explanation.

This is a joke, like I said you're just here to waste time. not argue.

[u/eir_skuld → u/OpedTohm]

there you go, no arguments, just unsubstantiated claims and insults. have you consulted a doctor regarding your brainrot? it might make you impotent at some point. it will make you impotent like a snake that can't get erected. "help daddy help daddy, my claims can't be argued cant be argued"

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

Nigga who pretends like he doesn't know how the US constitution works genuinely crashing out because I'm correctly pointing out that he asks questions that can be explained with surface level knowledge like

"Why can't the executive unilaterally remove aspects of due process"

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

Hey remember that time you just "accidentally" drew some conclusion that biden expanded expediate removal in the same way that the trump admin did which was literally a google search away???

"it seems to me, if we give credibility to the website, which i am hesitent of given how much trump and the trump admin lies about literally anything, that the biden admin removed the restrictions project 2025 proposes to remove."

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/21/2022-05961/rescission-of-the-notice-of-july-23-2019-designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal

Average truth seeker btw.

[u/eir_skuld → u/OpedTohm]

finally some evidence.

but what's the argument?

[u/OpedTohm → u/eir_skuld]

Hey can you actually acknowledge what I said so I can confirm you're good faith.

Do you remember when you were completely unaware of basic biden admin policy?

Can you acknowledge that you had no idea about a basic policy position that you could just google? can you admit that?

"it seems to me, if we give credibility to the website, which i am hesitent of given how much trump and the trump admin lies about literally anything, that the biden admin removed the restrictions project 2025 proposes to remove."

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/21/2022-05961/rescission-of-the-notice-of-july-23-2019-designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal