No, Haitian Immigrants Are Not Eating Pet Cats

Unfortunately, both candidates tend to run to the extreme on immigration. Those who are here legally shouldn’t just be sent back, while I believe those who are here illegally should be. Further, immigration should be limited, and should be done in a way advantageous to U.S. interests. My personal feelings on how immigrants should be treated is very similar to what Theodore Roosevelt wrote:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American …

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” —

Theodore Roosevelt

Emphasis above mine. It’s easy to decry those against open borders as xenophobic or racist, when really, we just want immigration in measured amounts and done legally. And yes, we want people to obey our laws, learn our language, learn to drive if they are going to do that, and assimilate into our culture. You remember the idea of the “great American melting pot?” They can worship (or not) as they please, and have pride in their national origins and way of life, but to live here they should respect our cultural norms, how we treat people (particularly women and children), respect property rights, and so forth. This wasn’t always a radical idea, but if believing that makes me radical now, I’m happy to wear the label.

As to selecting a candidate, one of them has a goal of keeping the borders completely open (in spite of mealy-mouthed comments otherwise and some small amount of deportations here and there) and one does not want to do that. There is a lot of extreme rhetoric going around, which is often unhelpful, but the fact is, if we don’t have a border, we don’t really have a country, so which of those positions is likely to get my vote should be obvious. And this is only one issue. Both candidates are far from perfect, but I still have information enough to make a choice I can live with.

What does that have to do with the question of whether the stories about eating pets and animals from local parks are true?

When you can provide some reputable sources or local Springfield authorities who will vouch for the story, then it's a conversation. So far there haven't been any.

So when did you stop beating your wife, eh? This is just more Trump Derangement Syndrome on display. Sad.

pvawter,

A peer-reviewed published study in 2021 around, "Trump Derangement Syndrome", actually found that there was significant bias on the side of Trump supporters, and a lack of bias on Trump detractors. It was a study across 3 other studies, and it concluded there was no existence of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and was instead a derogatory term used by Trump supporters for those who opposed anything Trump did. It is actually a form of gaslighting leveraged by Trump supporters. Gaslighting is a type of emotional abuse, but we won't continue down that rabbit hole.

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/11/3/113

....a study by professors of the most liberal cohort in the university (which is saying something) finds that Trump advocates are, in their view, more biased than their detractors. And amazingly, it passed peer review among professors that are 90% liberal!

Forgive me if I don't take that study terribly seriously, David. Yes, Central Michigan is thankfully a bit more sane than Berkeley or an Ivy, but still...

For my part, I'll remind this forum that a series of psychiatrists violated professional standards to "diagnose" Trump with mental illness without actually consulting with him, that 51 members of the intelligence community came together to declare Hunter Biden's laptop "classic Russian disinformation", and a lot more.

The "Russian disinformation" bit hits me hardest, because many of those 51 signers had seen the FBI evaluation of that laptop personally, and knew very well it was authentic. But they signed the document to pull Joe Biden across the line, knowing that Biden had sold influence for bucks to keep his crackhead son in hookers and blow.

It doesn't excuse Trump latching on to whatever nonsense is out there, no. But there is a degree to which the left is changing the rules to get him as well.

My approach is not to defend the left and attack Trump. What I find very odd, is the overwhelming fascination and love that Christians have for Trump, their unwillingness to call him out on his sin and stupidity and their quick shift to pointing at the left when Trump is attacked. Trump is not all bad, and the left is not great. My call, is that Christians and the church should be consistent and call out the sin and stupidity of Trump. We are all the more willing to attack every Christian leader, author or pastor who makes a slip up or has a slightly different view that we have, but we are so resistant and unwilling to attack Trump for his actions, out of this fear that it somehow empowers the left.

The left has problems and a lot of incompetence, no doubt. But what bothers me on the right is this incessant need to lie in the clear face of lies. The election was stolen. Despite a single shred of evidence, it is still the main speaking point at every single one of his rallies. 4 years to find evidence and nothing. If you watch the testimony of his inner circle including family, they told him there was no evidence. They said they told it to him under oath. Hatians are eating cats. Not a single shred of evidence. Was never any evidence to begin with. But I guarantee it will continue to be told. Biden sold his influence. The House held hearings. Jim Jordan was desperate to find something. What did they find? Nothing. The lie will continue to be told. Would we allow a church member to accuse one of our church elders of sin, without any shred of evidence? Why isn't it sin here and it must be called out, but we will deflect and cover for Trump. I am fine if Trump and others want to disagree and it is because of different perspectives of data or information. But this is just plain fabrication in the face of not a single shred of evidence.

“Despite a single shred of evidence, it is still the main speaking point at every single one of his rallies.”

I would say this is not true at all. I’ve watched quite a few rallies and I’m not even sure he mentions this every time, let alone it being the main point.

I agree with you in that I wish he wouldn’t mention it all.

It’s very easy to exaggerate when trying to make a point. Also agree that Trump should not do that.

I’m voting for Trump because for all his many awful flaws, the other sides flaws and policies are worse. I don’t have any problem calling out his flaws. I wish he were not the Republican nominee, but I really dread what 4 years of Harris would mean for our country.

I have not watched a recent rally where he didn't say it. He has already talked about fraud in the 2024 election, much like he did throughout the year in 2020, or what he espoused when the Apprentice didn't win an Emmy. He spouted on about stolen election during the debate. I guess I haven't watched all his rallies, but there is a statistic out there that has scanned all of his speeches and it is the most talked about item.

I don't care if someone votes or doesn't vote for him. I am not critical either way. I am not so doom and gloom over Harris, because to be honest, Biden didn't really accomplish much and everyone was so doom and gloom that Biden was going to ruin everything. And most of what Trump will do in the WhiteHouse doesn't bother me. The one thing that scares me is his potential for not giving up his power. His willingness to craft lies to remain in power and the potential that could have is the only thing that scares me. Will he do it? I don't know. But I never thought I would see gallows erected on the front lawn of the Capital and his supporters storming the capital to look for Pence so they could hang him on those gallows. But it seems, unlike me, most Christians aren't that concerned with that, as long as they don't have Harris as president. Maybe most conservative evangelicals wanted to see Pence hung from the gallows. I don't know, but it doesn't seem to have concerned many.

...a study by professors of the most liberal cohort in the university (which is saying something) finds that Trump advocates are, in their view, more biased than their detractors. And amazingly, it passed peer review among professors that are 90% liberal!

Forgive me if I don't take that study terribly seriously, David. Yes, Central Michigan is thankfully a bit more sane than Berkeley or an Ivy, but still...

Bert, my friend...let's not go down the rabbit trail of the genetic fallacy. The fact that it is peer-reviewed should allow us to give it at least some serious consideration, even if they are mostly liberal. You are correct that the group of psychiatrists violated professional standards, but there was no real serious scholarship or research methodology attached to their "diagnosis." Of course, peer-reviewed studies can be wrong, and review bias is one of the common flaws that pops up periodically. But in my 20 years of reading peer-reviewed research that deals with fatherlessness, poverty, crime, and race related to my job, past flawed research that passes the peer-reviewed process is often corrected by other peer-reviewed articles/studies proving the flawed studies wrong a few years later, exposing their errors and discrediting their scholarship.

And You may be right. Maybe its liberal bias has affected the judgment of these social scientists and their peer reviewers. Having done a quick read of it, it's too bad that one of the three studies/statements wasn't on the issue of abortion. From my anecdotal experience, I think Trump detractors would show just as much bias as the Trump supporters. I live in an urban neighborhood that has gentrified into one where the majority are progressive, white, middle-class/upper middle-class secular hipsters (living side-by-side with the poor, most of whom are black and Latino). Their (progressive hipsters) hatred and bias towards Trump and his MAGA supporters is real, and much of it comes from the fact that Trump's three appointed judges were vital to overturning Roe vs. Wade. They bought into the lie that Trump commissioned "his conservative minions" at the Heritage Foundation to write Project 2025, which Trump will immediately implement if elected president and no amount of proof can convince them otherwise. There may be other flaws to this study, but frankly, I didn't want to take too much time to analyze it due to time constraints.

When the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is attributed without discernment towards anyone who strongly opposes Trump, it comes across as a lazy ad hominem attack used to shut down political conversations whenever Trump says or does something unethical. I long for just one moment when the populist wing of the GOP politicians and conservative media shows a spine by holding Trump accountable when he lies rather than making excuses for him or protecting him at all costs.

Let's not forget that Ken and others on this thread continue to ignore the point I have made repeatedly and to attribute to me love and loyalty for Donald Trump which is empirically false. But yeah, I'm guilty of gaslighting because I call out this foolishness. Sure.

As far as TDS is concerned, all I can say is that I lived through Walker Derangement Syndrome here in Wisconsin in 2011-12 over Act 10 (that was a real insurrection, btw, for all of you who want to bring up Jan 6), and I watched it go national in 2016 after Trump won the White House. So peer-reviewed studies are nice, but forgive me if I cry foul when the thread is constantly turned into an outcry about Trump's campaign rhetoric rather than a discussion of the OP.

"thread is constantly turned into an outcry about Trump's campaign rhetoric rather than a discussion of the OP"

Isn't Haitian Immigrants eating cats, campaign rhetoric? It was a key point in the debate. It was reiterated by Trump on the campaign trail after the debate, it was key talking points from JD Vance while on the campaign trail. It was published on official Republican party social media channels.

It turns into an outcry about Trump's campaign rhetoric, because this is another example of false statements made on the campaign trail. So yes, haitans are not eating cats, the election wasn't stolen, countries are not releasing prisoners to come to the united states....

Guess we shouldn't be surprised by the released poll that show 52% of Trump voters believe that Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets in Springfield Ohio. The need for truth is absent in that bunch. The big question on this thread should not be whether Kamala, Biden or democrats are more dangerous than Trump, but whether Christians should hold our leaders accountable for the moral ethic practice of being truthful. Is that serious attribute for any person, especially a leader, especially a world leader to have? What message does it send within church and our theology on the holiness of God, if we are willing to defend the lies, sweep it under the rug, because we prefer Trump over Kamala? Are they mutually exclusive? Isn't it an indictment on the weakness of Christians to not vehemently speak out against that? Mohler did speak out against the meme's, but in my opinion, not strong enough against the moral weakness of telling lies. He focus more on the fact that it was deflecting from the real issues of immigration. It is the original sin and too many are willing to gloss over it. Not try to deflect.

Yes, Immigration is a concern. Is Trump going to do something about it? I am not sure, most of his comments are inflammatory directed at his base, and not well thought out strategies. So maybe the cat idea was to cover some of that up. Don't get me wrong, the democrats don't really have much of a plan. From what I can tell with Trump, as well as on his site it is:

• Mass deportation of illegal immigrants, using the military as necessary. He indicated yesterday that he was going to mark them with identification numbers (which seemed bizarre). This will be fraught with legal challenges.
• Build the Border wall. He wasn't so successful in his first four years with this. Mostly as a result of a lack of funding.
• Ending a myriad of legal immigration statuses, like certain types of assylum, temporary protections....
• Get rid of citizenship for children born in the US by illegal immigrants. This will also be fraught with challenges as it is fairly clear in the US consitituion.
• Remain in Mexico program - this one will be the most successful
• End DACA - again, wasn't able to do this in his first four years although he tried.

I think some of the deportation will work, but if he is successful in deporting all illegal immigrants quickly, it will collapse the economy. But I think there will be waves, starting with criminals. Whether he is successful or not, I think the fear, will slow the flow into this country at a much quicker rate than the actual deportation. The border wall won't do a lot at the end of the day, and I am not sure he will get much funding for it. I also think the remain in mexico will be quite successful and decrease the flow of migrants. I think the other programs, more or less play to the base and won't be successful or won't impact much, as legal immigrants are here legally, filling jobs, increasing the economy and paying taxes. I wished he would focus more on his plan, and just stop the incessint lying to drum up his base. We don't need to have an immigration policy based on irrational fear built up by flat out lies, but a policy built on real facts, and just stay focused on that.

Let's not forget that Ken and others on this thread continue to ignore the point I have made repeatedly and to attribute to me love and loyalty for Donald Trump which is empirically false. But yeah, I'm guilty of gaslighting because I call out this foolishness. Sure.

I've already responded to your point. The story is a bit sensational, and the burden of proof really should be on the one telling the story, not on everyone else to disprove it. There are no reputable sources validating the story, and until there is there's not much to discuss about it. I'm not sure what more you are looking for. If you can explain to me what you're looking for, and I mean this sincerely, I'm willing to listen.

Also, I don't think I've said anywhere that you have love for Trump. I do question why many on SI in general seem so defensive of a person of Trump's character.

Ken,

What I have defended is truth, and simply cautioned against accepting the word of the self-appointed fact checkers. I am not sure why you think I owe you proof of some kind, since my only point has been to avoid a rush to judgment.

The discussions on SI about Trump's character have been ongoing since 2015. I don't recall seeing anyone defend him on the basis of his character, and I have been here the whole time. Quite a few of us have been critical of him since Rush Limbaugh began priming the pump, even before he came down the golden escalator to announce his candidacy. We can (some of us) still recognize the good things he accomplished as President, and we don't need peer-reviewed studies to tell us that others seem unable to allow themselves to admit anything good about the man.

Joel, if I'd argued that it proved my point without providing other evidence, yes. But I did. Moreover, looking closely at the abstract, it really does not address the central complaint about "Trump derangement"; that key players in journalism and government were putting their fingers on the scale to oppose him. Reading just a bit further, the authors are clearly in the bag for the left--the bias is just that darned thick.

I write this as no major friend of Trump. I groan when he talks about Ukraine, ignoring the fact that Putin is more or less trying to reconstitute the old USSR. My "nonsense meter" pegged when the cat story came out. But he still deserves a fair shake.

What I have defended is truth, and simply cautioned against accepting the word of the self-appointed fact checkers. I am not sure why you think I owe you proof of some kind, since my only point has been to avoid a rush to judgment.

I guess I just feel that there hasn't been a rush to judgment. It seems that you are wanting us to wait for some nebulous "truth" to come out when reliable sources including the Springfield police and the governor of Ohio have already said the story is not true. I don't look at those as self-appointed fact checkers.

I'll bow out of this conversation now.