Thinking about how to vote in 2024? I Am!
We all know it will be party-line loyalty for most voters. According to Pew Research, six percent of voters for the 2022 elections crossed party lines. For the mythical independent voter, it is a binary choice for the President.
We are fortunate to be able to assess two Presidents based on criteria each holds as having importance. However, it is a given Biden has only served 3 years of his term. As an independent, I now look at different variables for my vote. So, the following is where I begin that journey.
One element I consider is the bottom line; I ask what the compare/contrast on the economy is.
Note: I consider the pandemic's unforeseeable misfortune affecting both presidents.
Donald Trump (2017-2021)
• GDP growth: 2.6%
• Unemployment rate: 6.4%
• Inflation rate: 1.4%
• Poverty rate: 11.90%
• Real disposable income per capita: $48,286
• Disposable income per capita (adjusted for inflation): $48,286
Joe Biden (2021-Present) [Jan 7, 2024 – 3 yrs.]
• GDP growth: 2.6%
• Unemployment rate: 3.5%
• Inflation rate: 5.0%
• Poverty rate: 12.80%
• Real disposable income per capita: $46,682
• Disposable income per capita (adjusted for inflation): $46,557
From LBJ to Biden: How the Economy Performed Under Each President by Yahoo Finance (Jan 7, 2024)
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/economy- … 38478.html
U.S. Debt Change is measured as a percentage by the President.
Trump = 33.1% increase
Biden = 8.8% increase
U.S. Debt by President: Dollar and Percentage by Investopedia (Jan 4, 2024)
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by … ge-7371225
Regarding the deficit, I equally place responsibility on Congress with the President. It's too complicated to assess; others can review it and weigh in.
However, I post key takeaways from U.S. Presidents With the Largest Budget Deficits by Investopedia (Sept 28, 2023)
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer … ficits.asp
Key Takeaways
• Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush had the biggest budget deficits in U.S. history.
• The deficit topped $1 trillion in 2020.
• The deficit declined to about $900 billion by 2022 under Joe Biden's administration. (What it is today, I don't know)
• The U.S. government has run a budget deficit for nearly all of the last 60 years.
• A president's influence over a budget deficit doesn't begin until after the federal fiscal year ends on Sept, 30 of their first year in office.
Anything else I should consider?
Should I take the position of wait and see?
Thoughts?I can't speak for you or your choices, TSmog.
Yes, I vote staunchly Democratic. As I have fundamental problems with the Republican viewpoints as to governance, social issues, there are no options.
At least with Haley as the nominee for the Republicans,the ideas surrounding fascism and authoritarianism promoted by Trump is off of the table. Moderates and independents will have to struggle with openly voting for very possibly a convicted felon. Regardless, it would provide a divide and conquer scenario allowing my chosen candidate to win.Thanks for sharing while saying, I support Haley, while hanging onto hope for her. But, alas, I am not resolute about the choice between her and Biden, yet. I am waiting to see if I hold my nose or vote for Teddy Roosevelt again if it is between Biden and Trump. I am sure you noticed the purpose of the OP is sharing the journey of deciding my vote.
Yes. Please consider criminal charges against each candidate. Please consider number of lies credited to each candidate. Please consider assaults on democracy by each candidate. Please consider unethical behavior on the part of each candidate's party.
Oops! Kathleen, I just reviewed the thread noticing I did not reply. Sorry! Funny, I did research project on lying the other day by both Trump and Biden inclusive of gaffes. I agree Democracy is at issue. I have done some research on that as well. Interestingly, both sides of the fence say Democracy is at threat.
The question for graphic below is: How well would you say democracy is working in the United States these days?
Just because both sides say something, doesn't mean both sides are equally correct. Three most indicted administrations in recent American history (last 50 years): Trump, Nixon, Reagan. See a pattern?
That is what discerning & educated voters. They also vote what is intelligently in their best interests regardless of what party they are affiliated with. Thank you Kathleen.
I'd say the Constitution remaining intact is in everyone's best interests.
It appears that your primary focus is on the economy. Perhaps, instead of solely examining its impact on your financial situation, you might want to reflect on whether you are content with the current state of affairs and your overall well-being. While ideologies certainly play a role, consider whether you are at ease with the present administration or if you desire some form of change. It's worth noting that there are broader aspects beyond just economic factors to consider.
You have time to sit back and watch what is to come. It seems all changes very quickly under this president.From the OP, " So, the following is where I begin that journey.
One element I consider is the bottom line; I ask what the compare/contrast on the economy is."
Otherwise, thanks for suggestions.Sorry, I did stray off subject --- I will redeem myself and head back to the OP subject.
Well, I think the economy changes almost weekly. Back to the subject of the economy. Just today I noted the inflation rate had a bump up, as well, and this. ---
ECONOMY
U.S. deficit tops half a trillion dollars in the first quarter of fiscal year.
This is very ugly and indicates we are headed in the wrong direction.
"The U.S. government ran up another half a trillion dollars in red ink in the first quarter of its fiscal year, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.
For the period from October 2023 through December 2023, the budget deficit totaled just shy of $510 billion, following a shortfall of $129.4 billion in just December alone, which was 52% higher than a year ago. The jump in the deficit pushed total government debt past $34 trillion for the first time.
Compared to last year, which saw a final deficit of $1.7 trillion, 2024 is running even hotter." Please read more
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/11/us-defi … idappshare
In my view, I see no way to compare the Trump economy to our current economy in any respect. Just looking at my monthly expenditures tells me I was very much more satisfied with the Trump economy.Thanks! And, for the article link. Maybe it is as suggested with the OP a matter of wait and see at this point. Subjectively, I can say with prices resulting from inflation, "Ouch!" Pain is something hard to forget.
My comment was to add to your lengthy economic stats. As I explained my economic information was fresh off the presses... As you mentioned, Joe has not yet crossed the finish line.
It appeared to me you were hoping to have others join in an answer to this thought you shared --- "One element I consider is the bottom line; I ask what the compare/contrast on the economy is."
How can one compare at this point, three years in?
As you mentioned --- "We are fortunate to be able to assess two Presidents based on criteria each holds as having importance. However, it is a given Biden has only served 3 years of his term."
Hence I added some new pertinent economic information for you to be abreast of, and to consider.
I must ask, what did you hope others would share regarding your OP? I am lost.
And now I see the well-used term Nazi pop up in the conversation. Never surprised, always left smiling."I must ask, what did you hope others would share regarding your OP? I am lost."
Sharing, I had no expectations whatsoever. My 'hope' as most writers was for just one person to read it. No response required, though any is icing on the cake.
I am appreciative of any and all contributions. I think I did say, "Thanks!" for your response. That was followed with, "And, for the article link."
Of all the responses thus far, not meant as criticism to any, your second one was the only one on the economy. What I garnered is to be aware of the deficit as comparative component of the economies between the two front runners.
With review, I see I need to take responsibility for the responses.
My first question, is "Anything else I should consider?" which is an open ended question, though not by design. The responses did answer that question. Lesson learned. As they say in the writer world, Edit, Edit, Edit.
However, I did learn. Hooray!"Sharing, I had no expectations whatsoever. My 'hope' as most writers was for just one person to read it. No response required, though any is icing on the cake."
I think after rereading your OP, I can see you were just sharing, and not necessarily seeking chat. Perhaps just a thread to follow your adventure, a place to record info to aid you in making a very clear decision on who you will ultimately vote for?
Interesting, and I applaud you for being so scientific. I will step away for now, but keep an eye on your progress... But keep my two cents to myself.
Just putting a No Party Affiliation California voter's perspective out there.
I listened to the responses to the OP garnering important information for future consideration with my journey for my vote.
Trump has been falsely accused, framed, robbed (in more ways than one) and persecuted to this day; he has earned America's vote, the most difficult way possible.
Thanks for weighing in. I 'do' take that into consideration while am somewhat undecided.
A moment of clarity has arrived, my thanks tsmog for prompting it in another thread.
Understanding the moment in time America is now in
Depending on your political beliefs, the majority of America, willing or not, is divided into two camps, in general... Left/Progressive and Right/Conservative.
Political words and phrases trigger a network of associations and emotional evaluations that do not necessarily come to the surface of conscious awareness, but which nevertheless shape our reaction in a positive or negative direction based on our leaning Left or Right.
Consider the reaction to the phrase “limited government under a Constitution.”
Let us consider the perspectives of the two sides today, one Right/Conservative and the other fully immersed in the Left/Progressive worldview.
Conservative = Liberal, Constitutionalist, Proud to be American, Equal, Opportunity (based on merit and ability), Freedom, etc.
Someone grounded in the Conservative worldview described above would have a network of associations that might look something like this:
Note that conservative ideas about human nature and the source of our rights are all triggered by the phrase “limited government under a Constitution” and form a kind of mental structure that supports the idea of limited government. Even images from history, with the horrible abuses of power under fascist and communist regimes, could be part of that architecture.
And here are two critical points: A person with a network of associations such as that above would experience the idea of limited government in a positive light without necessarily having to think about the underlying reasons.
And let us note explicitly that the abstract principle of “limited government under a Constitution” is grounded in a deep moral desire to prevent abuse of power and to protect innocent people from harm.
But what if the person hearing that same phrase has been immersed in the Left’s worldview through public schooling and other cultural institutions?
Their network of associations might look something like shown below:
The idea of “limited government under a Constitution” is on shaky ground when it rests on a mental structure as shown.
In the Left’s view, that idea is an antiquated holdover of an earlier and less “woke” era promoted by white males to preserve their privileged positions of social and economic power.
Because the Left views the proper role of government as that of activist, seeking out and eliminating inequality wherever it is found, the Constitution’s limits on governmental power represent to the Left an actual barrier to true progress towards economic and social equality.
And once again, note that, at least within this set of associations, innocent people are actually harmed by the limits imposed by our Constitution.
The growing influence of that perspective is direct evidence of the success of the Left’s long march through our educational and other cultural institutions.
The implications are even more stunning when we realize that any word or phrase having to do with role of government—”tax cuts,” “border security,” “law and order”—would run into that deep set of associations.
Of course, there will be people in the middle with elements of each worldview. But at its core, the political struggle for our future is not just between policies but between the fundamental differences in worldview of left and right and in our competing understanding of right and wrong.
In this sense... Trump represents Constitution, America first, Border Control, limited global/war engagements. Biden (and really anyone approved by the establishment) represents the continued march into a Constitution-less America, a Border-less America, a UN Agenda 2030 America.
I think it is important that it be understood in this context, because this is exactly where we are today. This is the real battle, the real political struggle ongoing right now, everything else is distractionary.
For a full review of where I took the majority of that from, read the link below:
https://capitalresearch.org/article/the … nd-part-2/
abwilliams: Any evidence of any of that or just MAGA opinions?
I don't know Kathleen, you tell me, have you actually seen the pee tapes? Are you in conflict with Mueller's findings/report, and if so, why?
We can start with "falsely accused" and then, methodically, work our way on through.I don't have that kind of time. Just Google "indictments" with each candidate's name.
It looks like you have considered the economics of it very well.
Though, as you say, it is hard to evaluate without the asterisk of the Pandemic. Not to mention the never-before-seen political antics used to oust a very un-friendly-to-the-establishment President.
So, other things to consider.
One:
The Open Border of the Biden Administration that helps facilitate migrants arriving here and being supported by American social services vs. the functioning effort to slow migration Trump had created in partnership with the Mexican government.
Two:
Continued funding and escalating global conflicts, as the Biden Administration has done, instigating and funding foreign 'proxy' wars and allowing hundreds of billions to flow to State sponsors of terrorists like Iran vs. the efforts to end America being the primary funder of NATO, sanctioning Iran and withholding hundreds of billions from being sent to them, and not funding new 'proxy' wars.
Three:
The social issues, like men having to be recognized as women and being protected as a minority class, children being mutilated rather than protected and kept from making irreversible decisions until they are an adult, and that whole shift in progressive politics to accept the insane as normal.Thanks, Ken!
#1 - Living in San Diego the border is an issue as well as viewing it from the national perspective. As they say a cluster . . .
#2 - From what I learned with the article I referenced at our other conversation; The “Ghost Budget”: How America Pays for Endless War by Just Security (Jan 3, 2024) and the other two I am inclined to agree. Noted! I do have reservations regard NATO.
#3 - Some I agree and some I don't.I read your opening post and realized you were asking for other things to consider.
In general, I disagree with the direction the Biden administration has taken on 80% of its goals, ambitions, agendas, and efforts.
I do like the effort to improve infrastructure and the grid, but I have concern that was much more of a feeding frenzy and waste of money than a real answer to the issues.
In fact, I am fairly certain of it. Elon Musk revolutionized the Space Industry, this was made possible by the decisions the Obama Administration made to open up space to the private sector and to help facilitate this with government support/funding.
The Biden Administration on the other hand, threw money at companies like GM and Ford to build new EV factories and threw money at energy companies to diversify to 'renewable energy' rather than pushing for new companies to supplant them, as Space X did NASA... so I suspect this money spending splurge will prove ill spent, you don't ask dinosaurs to change their ways... you invest in the next generation/evolution instead.
Everything about the Biden Administration has been old school wrong, corrupt politics of old... except in the social arena, where they have gone off the rail with displacing women with men (who claim they are women), and with Equity over Equality, and all the other deranged efforts they have implemented.
There are other factors people will consider as well, such as relinquishing abortion back to the states to decide... unfortunately, that is an issue that will loom large, and a primary consideration, even as the rest of the issues cause much more significant long term harm to the nation.
Lastly, there is amazing show of abuse of power with this administration, how they have used the FBI to intercede in free speech on social media, in attacking their political opponents, in going after businessmen that do not bend the knee to their efforts (IE - Elon Musk). This is a step away from Stalinism and I fear what this Administration will do if they retain power.
Or what they might do to ensure it is never threatened, and that there is no alternate choice allowed to America.Thanks, Ken!! I agree with, "you don't ask dinosaurs to change their ways... you invest in the next generation/evolution instead."
Where I stand on abortion, 'against it, but pro choice', I am happy with it being up to the states. I didn't expect SCOTUS to enact through law when life begins. In that case, I am thankful I live in California.
The rest I noted, stewing on them for now, and researching. Thanks for your insight!"There are other factors people will consider as well, such as relinquishing abortion back to the states to decide... unfortunately, that is an issue that will loom large, and a primary consideration, even as the rest of the issues cause much more significant long term harm to the nation."
That was a Trump/GOP move - not President Biden.As a woman, Kathleen, not sure if you are a Mom or not, that doesn't matter, I don't want to know....does it bother you in the least what abortion actually is, what it does, what it causes?
Does it bother you in the least that abortion is the only thing that Joe Biden is stronger on than Donald Trump, in the polls?
Who will allow for the most babies to be killed, could be a determining factor going forward.....
Does that not bother anyone else?
It's okay, if I stand alone on this, it wouldn't be the first time.Does this bother anyone?
A Florida woman, unable to get an abortion in her state, carried to term a baby who had no kidneys.
Deborah Dorbert’s son Milo died in her arms on March 3, shortly after he was born, just as her doctors had predicted he would.
“He gasped for air a couple of times when I held him,” said Dorbert, 33. “I watched my child take his first breath, and I held him as he took his last one.”
She said her pregnancy was proceeding normally until November, when, at 24 weeks, an ultrasound showed that the fetus did not have kidneys and that she had hardly any amniotic fluid. Not only was the baby sure to die, her doctors told her, but the pregnancy put her at especially high risk of preeclampsia, a potentially deadly complication.
Her doctors told her it was too late to terminate the pregnancy in Florida, which bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The only options were to go out of state to get an abortion or to carry the baby to full term, and Dorbert and her husband didn’t have the money to travel.
Cruelty really is the point isn't it? Where is the sense in this? That a state government should force these circumstances on a woman.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/health/f … index.htmlThere is no sense, there should be medical exceptions, that would be common sense.
Just as there is no sense that we, the greater society, need to accept a man as a woman because he wants to act like, compete with and invade women's spaces.
People will have to make a list of what the priorities are to them and vote accordingly... neither side is perfect.I have plenty of common sense, yet I don't agree.
You have plenty of common sense? You? Whooo weeee that's a knee slapper.
.
.
.
.
Wait, hold on. I didn't mean it. I was joking. You have your share of sense. But comon' bud, ya can't open doors like that and not expect somebody to walk through them.
GA ;-)Well... that is debatable... you live in Florida don't you?
Maybe I should refer to you as Florida Man?
This generation of Republicans will be categorized in history along with Nazis. Just read the rationalizations in this discussion.
A result of a conversation with Sharlee I pondered the deficit as it is today. Doing some poking about I arrived at Deficit Tracker; BPC’s economic policy team analyzes the government’s running budget deficit and updates the Deficit Tracker. BPC is Bipartisan Policy Center. They update the tracker monthly most recent date Jan 11, 2024. (Bookmarked)
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/
Following is a snap shot of their presentation:
Tracking the Federal Deficit: December 2023
$128 billion deficit, increasing year-over-year (YOY) by $43 billion.
$430 billion in revenues, decreased YOY by $25 billion (6%).
$558 billion in outlays, increased YOY by $18 billion (3%).
The December 2023 deficit was impacted by unique timing shifts in outlays, if not for which it would have been $126 billion instead of $128 billion, resulting in a YOY increase of $41 billion.*
That is followed by:
Fiscal Year Comparisons with FY2023. It has the cumulative deficit, revenues, and outlays. They state the cumulative deficit is $509 billion so far in FY2024.
Their concluding analysis is:
"The Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged in December and signaled that it is considering reducing the federal funds rate in 2024. The gross national debt also set a new record, $34 trillion.
Members of Congress continue to negotiate FY2024 funding, hoping to avert a government shutdown before laddered continuing resolutions expire on January 19 and February 2. Some lawmakers are also negotiating a bipartisan tax package that, if enacted, could impact FY2024 revenues and spending projections. Legislators have also been asked by the Biden administration to consider emergency supplemental funding for security and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and Indo-Pacific allies, U.S. border security, and other domestic spending including natural disasters and child care."The mythical independent voter grows to encompass 43% of respondents to a recent Gallup poll (Jan 12, 2024). With jest, Phew! I thought I was alone.
Republicans and Democrats both come in at 27% of voting bloc.
However, the story highlights are:
Story Highlights
** 43% identified as independents in 2023, tying 2014 record
** Record-low 27% identify as Democrats, tying Republicans
** Republicans maintain slight edge in leaned party identification
** Ideological identification steady; conservatives, moderates largest groups
The Gallup Organization concluding implications for the poll is:
Implications
As 2024 begins, the parties are closely matched based on political party identification and leanings. However, Democrats are clearly in a weaker position than they have been in any recent election year. This is based on the new low percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Democrats, as well as the Republican advantage in leaned party identification. In the past four presidential election years, Democrats had at least a five-point advantage in leaned party identification. They won the popular vote each of those years, though Republican Donald Trump won the 2016 election based on the Electoral College vote.
This presidential election year is likely to see a drop in the percentage of political independents, as has occurred in six of the past seven presidential election years (all but 2012), amid intense focus on national politics and the two major parties. Still, even with a slight election-year drop -- which has ranged from two to five points -- independents will remain the largest, and arguably most persuadable, group of voters. In what is expected to be a close election contest, it is critical for each party, but especially Democrats, to nominate a candidate who can appeal to independent voters.
Article at this link:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/548459/ind … w-low.aspx
Note: As interesting as it is remains the consideration of battle ground states.Tsmog, I read the Gallup article. Interesting.
You say you “identify” as a conservative. Or are you now an Independent, which seems more likely?
My question to you:
What is your stumbling block?
What makes you so undecided?
Is it the faltering economy, or perhaps the wide open borders, or maybe abortion up until the ninth month and even afterward, or perhaps the selective confusion regarding gender dysphoria that is promoted by activists?
If we know, we can better answer your question as to what it is, specifically, that concerns you.
Regarding my last point about gender dysphoria, I recall that on another forum you stated that you took the side of doctors. This video gives you the side of the victim. FYI: This is a voting issue.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f9QwZNhLjfYThanks for the reply, Savvy!
I will answer your questions as best as I can considering your statement, “If we know, we can better answer your question as to what it is, specifically, that concerns you.”
Allow me to first preface I am doing a step by step process. Along that line of thinking Nov. 5 is a little ways down the road, so time is on my side. An intent is to share that journey, maybe, as I go along.
The OP stated I am looking into the economy as the first element of that process and I am still doing that today. You stated it is faltering. I appreciate that position with respect, however I am undecided. At this time I am focusing on debt. Trump was a 33.1% increase while Biden through three years is 8.8%. I created an OP/Thread on debt.
Sharlee gave a hint to keep an eye on the deficit. Noted, while I shared ‘how’ I am doing that earlier in this thread.
Yes, I did ask, “Anything else I should consider?” However, intention was the economy. Oops! My bust my inquiry statement was incomplete.
However, the replies are noted and valuable to me.
Now, your questions . . .
“What is your stumbling block?” Answer: For what? Voting? I am voting for Teddy Roosevelt as it is ‘today’. In other words, I 'will' vote!
Or, to vote Trump? That is what this whole process is about beginning with this thread. Should I vote for Trump or Biden as a binary choice? However, today, I think both parties have gone off the rails.
[Edit: By parties I mean the big picture inclusive of aligned constituency while looking at recent history.]
“What makes you so undecided?” Answer: I am an independent with a conservative lean, yet have liberal views important to me. Conflict.
For now, those liberal views, are personal having no desire to share them in a public arena. I am working them out for ‘myself, today.
I appreciate your sharing on social issues. Noted!
Just for info purposes, as stated continuously:
I am against abortion, but pro-choice
As far as the border goes I am unhappy with the direction it is going today, even though I have empathy for those crossing the border.
Gender dysphoria is not important to me
Note: Social issues is not in my scheduled topics to delve into at this time. Again, I am at this time focused on the bottom line, which is the economy with its elements importantly the debt.
You can spare a cigar, I trust?
Let us imagine that this cigar...
...is the time traveler.
The lever in front of him
controls movement.
Forward pressure (D) sends it
into the future...
...backward pressure, (R) into the past.
The harder the pressure,
the faster it travels.
As a student of American History, I am not enticed by the past and would leave it as the proper preserve for Republicans and Conservatives and thus, I vote accordingly.Thanks, Cred!
I both got a giggle from your comment as well consider it great food for thought. I shall say I am weak with history paying attention to the politics/social issues forum while learning. Many a time over the recent five years my curiosity has been piqued with history sending me on journeys of discovery.
However, I get the point you made!
Sharing a thought, reflectively, what flashed into my mind reading your comment was something Ken said. Where he said it I am unsure.
Essentially he said you can't get a dinosaur to change its ways and to invest in the future instead. He used the controversy as well as the compare/contrast of Biden and Musk to elaborate his point. Or, my memory is failing me, which it does at times.Ken and I have had interesting discussions. The dinosaur is extinct because it ceased to evolve.
When I listen to him speak of a return to a greater domestication of women, I have to ask what other accommodations to the past is he pining for? There was a time where me and mine were considered fit for only shining shoes for a living. How far back or how fast does the Right want to reverse the lever? That is not the kind of dinosaur whose continued existence can my receive my vote.
Musk has shown me much nastiness in the deportment department within the last week or two, he is hardly the ideal.Thanks, Cred!
Reading that comment I was perplexed last night considering it. I get the point made!
Introspectively, regard how far back in the past one goes, my first thought was Social Security and Medicare, both of importance to me. I reflected on if it is eliminated that would be approximately $3 trillion dollar savings per year. A little dent in the debt, yet what is the social cost?
Next, remaining introspective, I considered cause and effect. I have the benefits of Social Security and Medicare due to Democrats. A question is do I owe any loyalty to the Democrats because of that? hmmm . . .TSmog, would you really be comfortable living in what could even be considered the recent past, say 1924?
You can't really understand politics without an understanding of history. Would you find 1924 and uncomfortable tight fit?Gosh, how about we just go back to the recent past...right before the fundamental transformation at the hands of the not-so-dynamic-duo of Obama-Biden?!
The U.S. was in a good place (B.O.B.) They couldn't have that!!Surprise me, AB...
Would you really be satisfied with just going back to 2007? i would have though that conservatives would be more comfortable with 1907 for the type of world they REALLy want to go back to.
Appreciate the comment, Cred!
First, I agree knowing history does give one an advantage with understanding politics. I am not sure what you mean by your statement. I have confessed to you that I have a lack of knowledge in history elsewhere in another thread.
Should I hang my head saying woe is me and not vote? Should I blindly follow someone who does have more history knowledge? Should I not participate in the political process?
As far as would I be comfortable in 1924, frankly I don't know. Alas, once again I am confessing my lack of knowledge in history or at least have a cursory knowledge of it.I don't know, I am not much help. Don't be blind about anything ,your instincts are as fit as anyone else.
It is just that we all have differing experiences to shape those values. I am not the one to ask.
I am a staunch Democrat and left progressive, not even fond of the relatively ""squishy" left of center group who are dangerously accommodating toward Trump. I have no patience for the American Right trotting out apologists, excuses and hypocrites. The very reality of my existence and what I see as the threat is that I don't have the luxury to be "moderate" in the current struggle.Thanks for the response! I appreciate your position while within the forums it has given me perspective since joining in 2015. I applaud not only you, but everyone that I have learned from over those years. It has brought me perspective. So, thanks!
Yes, I agree, we look through a personal lens first. For me it kind of goes like the following:
me → significant other → immediate family → extended family → social circles (HP is an important one) → where I live (Mobile home park - community, to San Diego County) → my state (California) → the greater society within the US → a world view
What is interesting for me is the interaction or connectivity of those. Also, the struggle of which to give the greater weight. In other words, the struggle of subjective vs. objective.
For instance, with my recent years with health issues I place a lot of weight on Health Care as an issue to consider with voting. I look at that two ways. Today and my history.
[Edit: Also, Facebook, is an online community I give weight to. However, for info purposes I painstakingly unfriended the people that were too heavy into politics. I look at FB as being a safe place.]
Tsmog, If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Thomas Sowell, author and economist. While he is not a fan of Trump’s manners, he knows Biden is even worse than Hilary, and that Trump would be the better pick. He believes that if the Democrats win the next election, we may reach the point of no return.
https://www.westernjournal.com/sowell-b … an-empire/
Also, to understand real history, how Democrats skew numbers, and how easily they dismiss empirical evidence that does not fit their vision, as well as how simplistic their “logic” really is, you might consider reading Sowells book, The Vision of the Anointed.Thanks for the info Savvy! I admire Sowell's intellect. I will check to see if that book is available at my local library. My, oh my . . . my reading list just grows and grows.
As to the article, informative, but is not persuasive for my vote. What did catch my attention is a post I made at the debt OP/Thread I created this morning. I'll post it again here.
I stated; "The Hill offered a compare/contrast for Trump vs. Biden on debt."
I posted an excerpt from the article following next:
"The Biden White House dishonestly blames GOP-led tax cuts under Donald Trump for “90% of the debt increase.” For the record: under the Trump administration, the debt went up significantly only after Congress passed relief measures aimed at keeping the COVID-impaired economy afloat. In his first three years, the debt rose by $3.3 trillion — too much, for sure, but nothing compared to the $6.25 trillion jump in debt during Biden’s first three years. And there has been no emergency to excuse Biden’s spending."
It is from:
Joe Biden’s extremist spending is a danger to the US by The Hill (Jan 4, 2024). Consider it is an opinion article. Also, The Hill per Allsides Media bias places them at Center edging 'Lean Left'.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/438 … to-the-us/
I will verify that at a later time as far as a binary choice between Trump vs. Biden. As far as party vs party I am continuing my research.Edit: Just checked seeing the link didn't work. Oops! The link next works.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/438 … to-the-us/I urge you to find the book. You can also buy it outright. Paying for Sowell’s knowledge is worth a few extra dollars. He doesn’t make statements lightly.
Meanwhile, here is a video about Basic Economics featuring Sowell:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bOMksnSaAJ4Thanks Savvy! The book is out of my reach, so the library is where I will have to get it from. But, our local library sources from all of San Diego county, so who knows. Thanks for the video link book marked for a later time. I will watch it.
Savvy, I just watched the video. Thanks for recommending it. I did notice it was from back in 2010 allowing me to book mark for a compare/contrast with what happen since then when/if time is of avail. I think it is important to consider that with the references Sowell used. Otherwise some of what they discussed I knew and a greater portion didn't like the history references.
I think it is going to be very hard to avoid a recession this year.
I think the violence in the Middle East, and even Russian border, is going to spiral out of control.
The incompetence and arrogance of this Administration will shine during 2024.
Many, many tens of millions of Americans will vote for Trump, a continuation of a failed Biden Administration will scare the majority into flocking in his direction.
Damn, all these years I thought Dinosaurs became extinct due to some great meteorological event. And those scientists who said some of today's birds are (or, likely are) evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs had me convinced too.
But, the analogy might work if "dinosaurs" were considered as representing ideas, and, as a basket of subspecies rather than an all-encompassing whole.
"Return to a greater domestication of women" A guess, based on your past thoughts, assumes there is an 'abortion' tie-in to your view of the conservatives' domestication efforts—as in returning to a breeding stock status?
As for Musk . . . Bless your heart, he does have a problem with 'deportment' doesn't he?
Smile bud, like that CNN pundit said; "It was your turn in the barrel." ;-)
GAGA, to answer your first point, I thought that I read somewhere that there are more than a few amphibian and reptile species alive during the period of the dinosaurs that are with us today, so if they could could survive the cataclysm, why not the dinosaurs?
Dinosaur is representive of ideas and the people who hold them. The very concept of MAGA represents that subset being of a greater size and having more influence than some would have us believe.
On the domestication of women thing, when speaking with Ken about his ideas, I got the impression that we talking about more than abortion rights but about a belief that women are being brainwashed to avoid lives of home and hearth in favor of entering the labor force. Ken laments as to why men have been experiencing depression, their numbers decreasing in college and their role model of the sole provider is being threatened, as an assault on their masculity, which in my opinion is more an illusion and quite Flintstone as no one wants to live under those sort of restraints involuntarily, anymore. Pushing the "lever" forward should reflect a society open to people being and doing whatever they like based on their qualifications, determination and work. No one should be proscribed to do anything. Pushing the lever firmly in reverse is just the opposite, whalebone corsets, with exclusion from work outside of the home, not being allowed to vote, etc.
So, which direction are you going to pull the lever?
As for Elon Musk, it proves that once people get a little money they believe that they pronounce for GoD himself.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-mus … 55785.html
Yes, my turn in the barrel, let's do it again sometime.....My position on women is not a position, it was an explanation of why we see the society we do today.
Why we see the demise of marriage, the demise of families, and the marginalization of men in general in our media sources, particularly Hollywood catering to messaging of empowerment to women at the expense of men.
These social changes I have explained.
The Pill. Computers and Air Conditioning. The ease with which our Western World now runs... built of course on the backs of hard working men, but now that it has been built, they can be cast aside and the women set free, so to speak.
Hard Times will create strong men... we are not in hard times right now... we are in the easiest times of human history, we will see how long that lasts.
It is my belief that the Western Civilization turn in evolution is fast bringing about its own demise, the whole Enlightenment, Open Borders, be what you feel you are...
All very dependent on a high tech system of operation, with an abundance of cheap energy and food supplies to keep everyone that is part of it fat and happy.
The amount of people with their hands out, expecting more and more from 'the system' for little or no amount of effort put in to procure it is growing. People pursuing their fantasies and expecting others to indulge them is becoming normalized, even lauded, its an unsustainable system that is not bound by logic or hard work.Understood, Ken, but the explanation is YOUR explanation, it may well not be only one or even the correct one. There is the rising costs of living requiring both adults to work. It is a increasingly technological society where the skills relevant for the rock quarry or coal mine is not relevant today. Another apt quote from the "Time Machine", "time changes space".
Would you be willing to go into the time machine and turn the lever just how far backward? Did you believe that the previous state of affairs that you go on about was any more of a cohesive and harmonious world? Me and mine were not satisfied, so where does the peace and harmony come in? White men are quick to take the credit for everything in the modern world, even though a great deal of contribution by others have been carefully concealed. Is everyone else relegated to mere slavery because men "worked so hard"? Ken, everybody is free, that is what it means to push the time machine lever forward.
This idea of handouts and lack of work ethic is an old refrain that I heard when I was growing up to define young people in the 1960s and 1970s, so what else is new? It has sustained itself in the past 50 -60 years.
People pursuing fantasies?
As a man, I will do what is necessary to survive but enslaving others is not an option, as I have seen that movie, too,Cred, it is a far different societal paradigm now. What has been defined as the middle class is no more. Middle class is passe. In order to live comfortably at the present time, one has to be at least a millionaire or in the high six figures. The low six figures is now working class. Anyone is who even earning in the middle to high five figures is considered poor & anyone earning less than $40,000 per annum is impoverished.
Society has changed. A Bachelor's Degree is now equivalent to a high school education. In order to get a starting professional job, one has to have at the minimum, a Master's Degree. This has been predicted 40 years ago. The old society is dead. You are correct about this & I concur. It is futile to live in the past.
Low level white collared & blue collared jobs are being phased out by computerization. Even in the 1970s, manual jobs were being phased out. Society is constantly changing & sometimes evolving. There are evolving definitions of relationships, marriage, & family. The 50s paradigm of what is marriage & family is no longer relevant in this advanced technological age. Increasing education is the rule. Either one obtains advanced education or h/she will be left behind.
While I state that inflation is out of control & must be curtailed, even corrected-I know civilization is becoming increasingly computerized which I welcome. I embrace postmodernity. While there are those who assert about the changing work ethic among younger generations, the latter don't & won't succumb to the idea of job loyalty & job security. They will do what is in their best career interest. They realize that from previous generations that corporations view them as the bottom line to be disposed of at will. The idea of work ethic is changing-there is nothing wrong w/demanding respect & acknowledgement in the workplace.Oddly enough, i agree with most of the points that you have made here.
When you once said that it took 6 figure incomes to be truly middle class, at one time I scoffed at it. Well, no more, the difference today from years past is that there is no such thing as an inexpensive American retreat where it is a bargain to live. You are going to pay, whether you live in Wyoming or Manhattan. I read an article discussing Californians leaving the state over the relatively high cost of living, preferring Texas for example. Well, what you don't pay in no-income tax states you make up for in property taxes, like Texas.
The Master Degree requirement was predicted 40 years ago was not in force then, while It may well be today.
Technology has made the old societal models obsolete. So much of what were considered professions, a great deal of the information could be now obtained by any savvy Googler
.
Just like in real estate you are only paying realtors because they have the licenses, it is not like you really need them to sort desired properties out for you. That was my case, anyway.
People are talking about a return to a time that never really existed as if it were some sort of shangri-la. What they saw on their TV screens during the 1950s was an illusion anyway. TV was not so much a window on the world as it was more a funhouse mirror.
Ken and and spoke about men dropping out of college, Why are they dropping out, while woman are increasing in attendance? If I had a daughter, I would teach her to acquire a skill and profession and when she desires to mate, it will be based upon respect for her talents and ability beyond the kitchen and the bedroom. I don't like being vulnerable and I would teach mine the same.
The future will demand that we all get better, but isn't that what everyone's "future" entailed? That was the reality for my grandparents who had similar challenges relative to their time and place. The pension arrangement that I received from an earlier period that has long since been superseded, will not come again. The new generation will no longer owe their soul to the company store and are smart enough to be prepared to be found expendable and resist being vulnerable under those circumstances. They will assume risks associated with that that I did not face.
The past is an ugly and dismal place, who wants to live there?The past was a different era, no more no less. However there were some good things in the past. However, present is here & people have to learn to own the present. People have to discard the victimology & powerless paradigms. People (well, the majority) believe that they are insignificant & just passive pawns. They contend that they just have to accept the situation or live in dreamland.
The traditional middle class is over. The middle class is part of the poor. The middle class is just the glorified poor. Today if one isn't earning a high six figures or above, h/she is STRUGGLING & at the mercy of the present socioeconomic climate. As I have reiterated, the future will belong to the uppermost middle & upper class. The lower classes DON'T HAVE A CHANCE in the 21st century. There are so many people who have futurephobia. They are comfortable having an unreal mindset.
Blue collar jobs are being computerized. Technology is becoming advanced at an accelerated pace. One can't have an agrarian mindset & outlook in a complex urbanized society.
It was in the 1980s, where the meaning of education & socioeconomic class started to change. Even in the middle 1970s, it was difficult for many Liberal Arts & Social Science majors to obtain jobs with a mere Bachelor's Degree. One had to have a specialization or an in demand degree such as Business Administration. Those with STEM & Business Administration Degrees had a much easier time finding employment. Even then, a Master's Degree was preferred over a Bachelor's Degree. Rent & housing prices were rising. I was reading in THE DAILY NEWS at that time that a 1 room apartment in the East Village was $900.00 monthly. This is when homelessness was rising. It wasn't unusual at that time to see homeless people. Homeless people abounded in the 1980s. The 1980s were the rise of the YUPPIES who had six figure salaries. No we won't return to the time where there was reasonable inflation. Most people will STRUGGLE & DIE IMPOVERISHED. Many people will work UNTIL THEY DIE."They contend that they just have to accept the situation or live in dreamland."
-------
Or they will continue to fight against it making everyone uncomfortable as a result, the burr in the saddle will remain.Funny that one can see the socioeconomic view of victimhood, but not the fact that the main theme of one of the two political parties, for the 2024 election, is victimhood.
The essence of my extreme contention is that those who have will be the elected while those who don't have will be doomed, even damned. The former will become even more powerful while the latter will eventually become socioeconomic slaves. People are too mired in their paradigmatic patterns to revolt. People in America are learning to accept whatever socioeconomic situation they are in. People just complain. Only a minute percentage of those who view their dire socioeconomic situation will revolt against the socioeconomic inequality.
The wealthy, for the most part, are pleased w/their socioeconomic situation. They know that they are in the driver's seat. They know that they have the power to do as they please. The traditional middle class are in trouble. They are the ones who are becoming declasse. They are falling- those with scant skills are falling into the lower socioeconomic classes while those who have the prerequisite skills are becoming upper middle, even upper class. As Aldous Huxley stated it is a NEW WORLD.Agreed.
As AI makes more jobs obsolete this will become more of an issue, where the majority in order to maintain a 'middle class' existence will depend on government social welfare.
This is why the Trade fields are going to become the new 'well off'... at the end of the day we really don't need a DEI specialist to tell us if we are within hiring quotas or not.
But you do need someone who can replace your plumbing line when the old cast iron pipe collapses, or someone who can wire in that new fancy home security system. AI can't do those things... not yet, it will be another decade before robots get to that level of sophistication, at least, and then all of humanity becomes obsolete and no one will need to work.
That's when things get scary... that's when some people who believe that 9 billion people need to be slimmed down to 90 million... well, lets hope they aren't the ones with the power, the ones pulling the strings.
Regarding your perception on education.
There will be plenty of Humanity/Social related degrees that amount to being useless, which today help create our tribal, victim, environment.
There are plenty of employers that try and steer clear of recent graduates as they have been burned by their radical beliefs and lack of work ethic.
The money will actually be in trades, I would direct any young man today to pursue becoming an electrician or plumber over getting a college degree.
The amount of money a smart plumber will make, one that is capable of starting and running his own business and being at least somewhat personable with his customers will be far superior to what a person getting a typical college degree, on par with what a Doctor or Lawyer would make.Agree a liberal arts & humanities education doesn't carry the weight with opportunities in today's world.
Curious I discovered two articles offering a compare/contrast of opportunities and education.
U.S. News Best Jobs Rankings by US News
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-j … src=usn_pr
Note: It is inclusive of construction and maintenance/repair jobs.
Fast Facts offered by National Center for Education Statistics through 2021. It appears from looking at other sources that data year is common.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37
Note: It could be considered deceptive or misleading. That is because the highest category includes sciences along with liberal arts, general studies, and humanities.
From personal knowledge working in the automotive field for 40 years specific to the company I worked for last (24 retail tire/repair stores) the lead technicians made as much as the store managers. I left in 2012 and a lead tech made over $100k/per year.This issue will only compound based on the lack of interest and ability to do critical labor (work) in the younger generations.
The generation before mine, my dad, uncle, etc. were able to read blueprints and did everything to build a home, they built their own that our families lived in, did all the electrical, plumbing, digging, foundation, framing, etc.
This may or may not have been unusual for that generation, but from my experiences, it was far more common, they had been given those skills in school, or learned them on their own.
My generation, myself, so many I know, are less capable... no one I know can build a house from scratch, but myself and many I know are capable of renovating a home, fixing, installing, pouring concrete, roofing, whatever it takes to maintain a home.
The generation behind me, I see less of that, certainly not in my sons, my nephews and nieces, they have enough wherewithal to know how to call an expert to have them come out and fix it.
Is that a fault of my generation not teaching them the way the generation before taught me? Partly. My dad and Uncle didn't do much teaching, but schools were different back when I went... you had woodshop, drafting, basic classes that taught you how to read a blueprint and use tools.
The point of this rambling is I believe the younger generations are far less capable of plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc. than mine is, which means those trades are going to be more necessary than ever, those skills are going to be more in demand than ever.
The opposite will be true of DEI Specialist or Philosophy Majors, the world doesn't need them to run, when your toilet won't flush or HVAC doesn't work, that IS something you need to have. Trades will always have work/employment/means-of-income... what colleges are producing in overwhelming amounts today, are degrees in things totally unnecessary, and when push come to shove, unneeded.I am in agreement with a lot or your sentiments especially what is being passed down generational. Perhaps, that is seen more in rural settings contrast suburbia and metro. I don't know, just a thought.
I do most of the maintenance work at 69 years of age and have over my lifetime. The only outside help I need today is with landscaping due to COPD. Oops! A lifetime smoker. However, as you suggested recently I had to hire a plumber to replace my water heater. There is a need for tradesman.
Yeah, I understood the 'dinosaur' thing. I was just poking at the
'all' inference of the wording.
After a thought or two, maybe the dinosaur analogy isn't right for a label on extremist ideas (your MAGA grouping). Dinosaur seems more related to old and outdated ideas. They might not be right for the times, but they also might not be wrong at the core. Most extremist views are bad, period. Times don't justify them, ever. (in the political sense of the discussion)
For instance; I could find a lot to agree with in many of the 'patriotic' and "Conservative' concepts that MAGA says drive their efforts. But, that agreement is like the old saying "It looks great on paper, but fails in application,'
As another 'for instance, your views on what the conservatives want to revert to, re. women, are extremist ones. "Barefoot and in the kitchen' is not how I see the conservative view, even though it's probably a safe bet there are some conservative Neanderthal extremists that fit your characterization.
A Conservative dinosaur view would be the value of a nurturing mother at home doing all the old-time 'mother' things. Now, that's an outdated idea because times change. We still think a mother is best for the job, and that that job is critical to childhood development, but we adapt and accept a nurturing father could also fill the bill. And, that some women can be a good mother and have an outside career too. So maybe that is one of the old 'dinosaur' ideas that at least evolved into something instead of becoming extinction-worthy.
I think your view of Musk is skewed by your ideology - he's a conservative so he must be bad. The few 'slams' against him: the Jewish retweet, the HBC retweet, et al., that I checked out weren't exactly as portrayed. For instance, the HBC/lower intelligence slam because of a retweet about DEI practices in pilot training and hiring. His retweet comment was about factoring in DEI as a priority over ability. He wasn't commenting about the poster's HBC comments — as I read it.
On the Jewish retweet slam, he admitted it was one of the dumbest things he had ever said, and then went to Israel to apologize in person.
The point is that I don't think you would have such a negative perception of him if you looked beyond the headlines. After all, he voted Democrat until 2022. He supported Clinton, Obama, and Biden. He was a party fav. You guys must have done something really bad to make him change religions.
GATheir extremist ideas are an embrace of old and outdated concepts which they are anxious to bring back to center stage. When adherents profess a preference for a leader who is willing the "break the rules" so as to give them what they want, that is contrary to Democratic traditions. Is that not a revert to the lure of tyrants of a past period?
What MAGA says and what MAGA actually promotes are two differing things. Hyper patriotism is the linch key for every Right wing movement. If that is a virtue, it is the only one they have.
I never had a problem with domestication and motherhood and all that, it is that people should not be compelled to assume dinosaur gender roles in the interests of what some would say would be a more cohesive society. Both proposed mom and dad can decide between themselves how they are going to raise the young.
First of all the conservatives that you continue to reference as reasonable and moderate, is, in this MAGA (Republican) world, a dinosaur, not so much representing old and outdated ideas, but more like just simply being extinct.
Musk reminds me of Nikki Haley and her faut pas. Her not stating that slavery was the cause of the Civil War and her efforts at damage control to the whole world that knew better, all the way down to her confessions of going to school with black kids when young, etc. What was going on in her or Musk's mind to make such statements in the first place?
Musk got on the GOP train that favors the very wealthy over the rest of us. Being the richest man in the world would prompt one to see the world in a different way, and to identify threats to that wealth and power heretofore not considered.
I am still learning while he has made a negative impression on me, I am not beyond taking a closer look.I'm already out on a limb, so I'm sticking to the concepts first and maybe the details next.
You say "their extremist ideas are an embrace of old and outdated concepts which they are anxious to bring back to center stage."
Excepting Trump-specific stuff: election denial, J6, lying, etc., pick a couple of MAGA specifics and let's look at them. (The Freedom Caucus platform might give you some ideas)
Yep, as in almost all ideological battles, what MAGA says is often different from what they do.
Innocently, what dinosaur gender ideas are people being compelled to assume? There is a rhetorical aspect to that question: it excludes the transgender issue.
And to the extinction of the Moderate conservatives . . . if we can get through the next 4 years I think you will see a big change (evolution rather than extinction) in the power of the Independent vote and Moderate Republican conservatives. The extremists on both sides have a chance to get what they want in this election and Middle America is going to grade them in 2026.
GA
[ADDED]
"Musk got on the GOP train that favors the very wealthy over the rest of us."
I don't think you know enough about him to legitimately hold that view.
Obviously, I have checked into his history (aka Googling) and see nothing to fit your description. He got rich in 1999 when he sold PayPal to ebay for $300 million. In 1995 he was sleeping in his office because he couldn't afford to rent another place. As noted before, he voted Democrat for 21 years (or at least since 2008) and he was 'rich' for at least 10 of those years. He abandoned the Dems in 2022. By your statement he stepped caring about us guys and became an evil rich guy in a short two years.
He doesn't look like he's that easy to manipulate, so we're back at the original question; What did you guys do to cause him to abandon you?
I know I'm going overboard on this issue, but I'm just trying to help you out bud, your Musk perception is wrong and you would know it if you looked. And you know, when one is wrong about one perception, folks might wonder if you're as wrong on some other perceptions.
Unsupportable statements, even when opinions, still make you look bad. I'm just trying to save you some dings. ;-)
GAI allow for the possibility of looking into Musk further, with jaundiced eye, rest assured. I will apply my judgement and come to a decision, fairly arrived at.
But is it possible for the all prescient GA to be wrong about opinions as well? Can that even be a possibility? For instance, i think that we will be lucky to get through the next year let alone the next 4 in the current political climate. Where do you get the confidence that it all this Trumper stuff is going to go away? Gifted insight? What do you think that the Dems did to offend the richest man on earth?
I will check on this so called Freedom Caucus and see if what they say matches their strategy on the ground....
By the way, I understand that Trump was once a Democrat, any grand theories as to why he went "turncoat"?Ok, moving beyond Musk. You ask if it's possible that I may be wrong. Of course it is. And I know it because I thought I was wrong once before, back in 78', but I was mistaken. So sure it could happen again. ;-o
We struck a chord on the next four years thing. You think we'll be lucky to get through the next 4 and I also wondered if we could make it through them.
My confidence that all the 'extremist' stuff will go away is because whichever extreme it is, D or R, it's going to be visible and will affect all of us, not just the ideologues that championed it.
Yes, I do have an idea what the Dems did to lose Musk. The same stuff they did to lose most moderate support, they promoted and adopted moral and cultural extremes that defy the reality of the real 'real' world (the Republicans have done the same thing—in reverse).
America is the Middle American, and the social equity and justice issues that activists pushed went too far for the majority of moderates of both parties—and the Biden administration went along with them. Remember the hearings and the "What is a woman?" question?
You identify as Progressive, further left than just Democrat left, yet you don't go along with the multiple sex argument that the party now supports. If you can't support it, imagine how moderate and centrist Democrats feel about supporting it.
GAAn overview of the "Freedom Caucus" confirms that I can have no use for a rabid rightwing organization such as that. A large portion of them were involved in the "big lie" orchestrated by Trump. If they have that little integrity, I have no use for them.
Your record has been good since 1978, huh? Jack Benny spent the bett r part of his life telling us all that he was just 39, right...
Yes, I am nervous about the coming year and the threats Trump has made about retribution and bringing authoritarian features into Government if he wins. I have never heard such rubbish from any Presidential candidate in the past, either Democrat or Republican. Yet there are scores that see this usurper as a viable candidate.
So, what extremes from the Left scared Musk off so throughly ?
Social justice and equity is at the foundation of the American creed and it will have a prominent place as a yardstick and as a determinant as to how we live up to our professed values. So what happens with MAGA? They burn books that challenge the status quo. They throw books from our intellectual writers in places beyond access, using the excuse of "Woke" they replace scholarly American History with folklore and fables. We have a contender for the presidency that could not confess something that any grade school teacher would honestly admit to his or her students. Is that the "conservative" response to social justice and equity issues in America? Sounds like we are backsliding, and this is never going away until we all do a lot better. Embracing Trump and MAGA is certainly going in the wrong direction.
I stand two magnitudes left of center, a magnitude beyond President Biden and those just left of center. If there were 10 factors that would allow me to take my position in this progressive class, I am on board for 9 out of the 10. I am sure that my more moderate associates would take issue with many more than one issue to be considered moderate in their views. While there are any number of bigoted right wing factions, that Republicans merely wink at, I cannot assume that they all take the most extreme positions all the time, but they still remain hard core right wingers all the same.GA, the Republican Party started to go extreme in the 1980s with Reagan but not as extreme as the 1990s into the 2000s. The Democratic Party countered with going extreme in the 2000s under Obama. You are correct in your premise that the average American is moderate/centrist. I am of the traditional Liberal school. The Democratic Party has concentration in less relevant social issues instead of the main crux which is socioeconomics.
America don't need any more illegals coming which is taxing the infrastructure. Send the illegals back to their respective countries & concentrate on remedying America's ills which there is plenty. The present Democratic Party is not speaking to the middle of the round American. The Democratic Party is pandering to leftist, even socialistic views. Even those who are Democrat in orientation have become disenchanted with the party. My cousin stated that she is utterly dismayed at what Biden is doing. Many Democrats are looking at Biden & the party in a whole new different perspective & the perspective isn't positive in the least.
Regarding the Republicans, there used to be Liberal Republicans. Now the Republican Party has gone right, even reactionary. The Republican Party has become the party of the Christian Right, the evangelicals, & other reactionaries. The average Republican is centrist. There are even a few Liberal Republicans. It is the extremists who have the proverbial chair. I don't support the extreme policies of both parties. Both parties need to listen to their respective constituents & get it together. People are becoming disenchanted w/both parties- the RADICAL party & the REACTIONARY party." It is the extremists who have the proverbial chair. I don't support the extreme policies of both parties. Both parties need to listen to their respective constituents & get it together. People are becoming disenchanted w/both parties- the RADICAL party & the REACTIONARY party."
In the following opinion piece there are too many quotes to copy/paste giving food for thought, for me to ponder.
Our new political reality: Democratic elitists versus Republican populists by The Hill (Jan 10, 2024).
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/43 … populists/
The author is J.T. Young who writes for the Federalist. A little about him is; " J.T. Young was a professional staffer in the House and Senate from 1987-2000, served in the Department of Treasury and Office of Management and Budget from 2001-2004, and was director of government relations for a Fortune 20 company from 2004-2023."Quoting that linked article:
Today, Democrats and Republicans have not simply shifted positions on issues or even areas of the country where they are dominant, they have shifted their constituencies at the most basic level: Now Democrats represent the elitists and Republicans are the populists.
Democrats have long dominated the establishment media. This is hardly inconsequential since this was (and still is for many) the way the public stays informed. It is a surprise to no one that college campuses are Democratic nurseries. However, if the aftermath of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel has shown America anything, it is just how far left academia is — especially on the most elite college campuses.
Now they also dominate entertainment, sports and the arts. The same applies to science, where nothing short of a cabal exists that enforced groupthink on COVID theories during the pandemic that influenced social media policy. Of course, the same has existed on climate change for years now.
'Nuff Said.
This is an interesting thread. The two sides trying to swing Tsmog to vote for their candidate. The main issue seems to be the economy for him, as noted in the original post.
I'll note that the economy tends to get stronger the longer a Democrat is in office. It improved under Obama, recovering from where it ended under Bush. It has improved under Biden, recovering from where it ended under Trump.
Others have put out the issues that are important to them. Myself and Kathleen are in the pro-democracy camp until MAGA candidates are no longer running. Others want the border to be a concern or woke causes, or favor the United States becoming a country such as Russia, China, or North Korea with a leader above the laws.
Personally, when one of the two candidates is telling everyone that he should be immune from our laws, and his lawyer argues that killing his political opposition should be acceptable as long as his allies do not remove him from office, that's pretty disqualifying. Especially when the base of voters sides with him over those allies, meaning - he owns their political futures and, therefore, their votes, then we are at a place where democracy is going to end if that person gets elected. Let alone that candidate tried to overturn the last election that he lost, using legal tactics devoid of facts, using illegal means such as intimidation and forgery, and then organizing and inciting a domestic terror attack on his own Congress to try and stop the certification of the election he lost, I just cannot understand how any patriotic American could vote for such a treasonous and criminal candidate.Valeant: Proud to be counted in your ranks.
I'd be shocked if gender issues were anywhere in the top-eight of the issues. Democracy, Abortion/Healthcare, and Competent Governance will likely be the issues the left will try and frame. Immigration, Government Overreach, and Foreign Policy will be the ones for the right.
Both sides will try and frame the economy and corruption, with Trump's upcoming trials taking center stage in the latter. Neither side can really tout fiscal responsibility or a great record on Covid. Age favors neither candidate as Biden has too many senior moments and Trump cannot remember world leaders or what city he's in sometimes.
The right will ding Biden for chaos in foreign policy, inflation, and Hunter. The left will ding Trump for his actions to overturn the 2020 election, eliminating Roe, and his desire to turn the United States into Russia or North Korea from a leadership standpoint.
The left doesn't want Biden, but they don't want Trump more. The right doesn't want Biden, and about half of them actually want Trump. The never-Trump contingent is stronger than the never-Biden group. The wildcards being Latinos and women in 2024.I am as left as they come and I want Biden as there really is not a viable alternative right now. And despite all the whine from conservatives, he has done well under the circumstances. He and his administration need to be more aggressive in the selling the product,
What supposedly is to be "sure thing" may not be as certain after all.
A couple of articles as just food for thought....
https://www.salon.com/2024/01/17/domina … -campaign/
https://www.salon.com/2024/01/17/meghan … omination/Great articles as you suggested for food for thought. I get the Salon's newsletter both general and politics. The Onion too. That, to me, offset's getting The Daily Caller.
The first article had great observations and supported an earlier post by you stating only 15% voted. Revealing. The second article left me thinking, "Of course Trump will win the nomination, so why the BS about Haley. Was it needed?" Overall I saw it more as criticism of McCain.Trump's plan to go after Haley in New Hampshire has the unintended effect to alienate her voters. Might be hard to get them back when Trump's attacks are usually steeped in racism (already brought out the birtherism attack on her in Iowa) and demeaning insults (like bird-brain).
You don’t give the voting public very much credit, do you?
Considering 70% of one party still thinks there was fraud in 2020, why should anyone? Trump has a large segment of the population brainwashed.
You DO have a point, we DO have a President Biden, you may be onto something.
It could have been president anyone. Over 50% of Biden voters said they were voting against Trump. Guess that's what happens when a president lies to the American people about the dangers of a deadly pandemic.
Trump was on pace for a re-election through 2019. He was bombastic, but kept the economy flowing from where Obama left it, albeit by massive deficit spending thanks to a tax cut that everyone knew would not pay for itself. But then a national emergency hit, and he tried to weave one of his fake realities instead of just being honest. Those lies got Americans killed and exposed his inability to handle a true emergency and were ultimately his downfall. I wrote an article about it, how Trump's inability to address Covid would give us president Biden. Everyone could see it was about removing someone in over his head, not about who the replacement would actually be.You aren't doing the American voting public any favors, it may be time to switch gears.
abwilliams: I give the voting public a lot of credit. In seven of the last eight presidential elections a majority have voted for the democrat candidate whether the electoral college gave that candidate the victory or not.
Biden, Clinton, Obama, Obama, Gore, Clinton, Clinton.
So why does he have such an abundance of support? You may want to ask yourself that. He is well-liked, and loved by so many Americans. Yet so hated by some that they would vote for a man that clearly can't do the job, for many reasons. Hate never conquered love in the end. In my view, those who voted for Biden have done our Nation a great disservice. Were they brainwashed or just motivated by hate?
Abundance? Last time he ran, he won Iowa with 97% of support. This time, he only got just over 50%. You may want to ask yourself what he did to turn off 46% of his supporters and why he is not liked at all by so many Americans.
Yet we saw this -- Trump's margin of victory in Iowa GOP caucuses smashed previous record
Washington — Former President Donald Trump's margin of victory in Monday's Iowa caucuses smashed the previous record for Republican presidential candidates, underscoring the broad support he attracted in the first contest of the 2024 nominating process.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-iowa … f-victory/
He will most likely do very well in the upcoming caucus too.Only a record if you consider him a new candidate. If you look at him as the incumbent of the Republican Party, which considering he was the party nominee in each of the last two elections, then this might be a record low for an incumbent.
Charlie Sykes and his guest discuss this very point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-mp_3zGO00The information as to the 2016 Iowa Primary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa … l_caucuses
Showing a significant increase in popularity for Trump compared to then.
I don't think 2020 tells much of a tale, there really wasn't a campaign against him, if there are no alternative choices, then getting nearly 100% should be expected.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/election … /iowa-gop/Thanks for the link... Makes perfect sense. I think he will do well across the board. Republicans are eager to win in 2024. Most feeling if we don't pull a win, we are looking at the end of America as we know it, and like it.
I expect more problems to hit this administration in the coming month, and perhaps Biden will be hosted by impeachment. However, I bet on Biden to create many more serious issues shortly.
I think the two issues where biden is weakest is illegal immigration and inflation.
Economics always has had a strong influence in the way people vote.
I have friends from different countries contact me about biden. He LOOKS bad. He falls down. He looks confused as if he has no idea where he is at much of the time. Then there are all of his cognitive issues that seem to appear when he's speaking. I've been asked "Why did Americans elect a president with dementia?" "Why did Americans want a president who is so old?" K. Harris is just a joke to people in other countries. Friends in Australia and New Zealand have contests to imitate her laugh. They all enjoy mocking her ridiculous word salads.
It's embarrassing.2022 could have easily been about economics. But you know what issues dominated? Election denying candidates and a woman's right to choose. Since 2022, the economy has gotten much better, while immigration has gotten worse. So what you've really got left is immigration.
I agree that Biden is too old. But people will take too old over a rapist and dictator-wannabe.Inflation is still a very significant issue. Especially when you compare it to the previous administration. The cost of everything is more expensive since biden took office.
That is a fact.
I believe it will be a major issue in the 2024 election.Only among the far-right that refuses to acknowledge that the United States is now a world leader of a global problem (inflation) that stemmed from the pandemic that began under that previous administration. Just another example of the partisan blame-games they play to ignore any culpability from their own party. That is also a fact.
Stealing my Government away from me, or ridiculous handsmaiden tale, anti-abortion policies "Trumps" the rising price of a pound of ground beef.
People, ultimately, will be smart enough to see the magnitude of what is at stake, at least I hope so.Maybe obstructing justice in trying to hoard the nation's classified documents will endear him to new voters. Maybe inciting a domestic terror attack on his own Congress to try and prevent the peaceful transfer of power will expand his voter base. Perhaps he's appealing to more women by taking away their right to body autonomy and telling them they have less rights than men or even dead people. When a jury finds that he raped a woman with his fingers, that should expand the bloc of people willing to vote for him.
I would disagree and say that inflation under biden is a direct result of his energy policies as well as economic policies. He has over regulated several industries. The man even wants to ban gas stoves, for regular Americans, K. Harris has one, so that says it all.
The man does not want to ban gas stoves. A Commissioner at the US Consumer Product Safety Commission said anything is on the table to protect people from respiratory issues from indoor gas emissions and the right took that as Biden banning gas stoves. One, of many, great examples of the right creating something for Biden that is just not true in any way, shape, or form.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden … te-change/
And if you actually look at when gas prices spiked to their highest point, it was when Russia announced their intention to invade Ukraine. Hardly a fault of Biden's."Russia announced their intention to invade Ukraine. Hardly a fault of Biden's."
THAT is debatable. biden was seen by the russians as a weak leader and they were correct. His weakness is what probably led to their bold action. I don't think many Americans understand how the Russians think. Projection of power is the only thing they respect.
The gas stoves don't really matter because the house passed a law so they can't be banned, so the gas stove of K. Harris is safe.The gas stoves claim matters because you just brought it up despite it being patently false. You attributed it to Biden because you fell for the misinformation, a common theme in these forums.
And Russia 'probably' acted because of their perception of Biden? That's more your own perception than theirs. If anything Biden strengthening the US relationship with Ukraine was more the reason, as ken tries to convince you of often as the real reason.I believe that if we had a president who displayed strength and set clear boundaries when Russia approached the Ukrainian border, we might have averted the current war. In my view, President Biden's leadership has been characterized as weak and lacking intelligence, contributing to a series of issues. It seems evident that his perceived ineptness is becoming increasingly apparent.
Moreover, Biden's approach has allegedly emboldened Iran in the Middle East, leading to heightened aggression that may result in conflicts drawing in the U.S. The challenges in the Red Sea region are anticipated to contribute to rising inflation once again. Some argue that his performance warrants impeachment, as Russia historically responds to strength rather than weakness, and diplomatic gestures to rogue nations are viewed as ineffective and taken advantage of.
Most congressional, Senate are local elections.
Things change when it's a national election.I agree that Biden is too old. But people will take too old over an old rapist and dictator-wannabe.
Fixed it.I don't understand the comment, yes, Biden has been accused of rape, and yes he acts like a dictator-wannabe... so what is the point here?
Was Biden found by a jury of his peers to have sexually abused a woman - meaning to have used his fingers to have penetrated a woman's vagina without her consent? Has he in any way been proven to been involved with any of the Trump legal cases? The answer to both questions is no, meaning that both claims were inventions not grounded in facts.
I recommend you consider watching the interview that discusses Tara Reids' accusation against Biden, particularly the distinct differences between her claims and those of Carroll. The media appears to overlook certain crucial aspects.
The evidence includes a call made by Tara's mother to the Larry King show shortly after the incident, recounting her daughter's rape by a "well-known Senator." Additionally, there is a video account of Tara's neighbor providing a firsthand recollection of what Tara disclosed soon after the incident.
In Carroll's case, she asserted entering a dressing room with Trump at Bergdorf Goodman. However, the store has and still has locked dressing rooms, and customers are assisted by representatives upon entering the store. While these details may raise doubts about her story, Carroll had multiple witnesses supporting her accusations.
Both women deserve to be heard, and if one is believed so should be the other in a fair society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4keY4YNGTTgYou act as if no one has done their own research about Reade's accusations, even though we've discussed the topic multiple times before. The different being that Reade's situation did not happen in a state that allowed her to bring her case to a trial like Carroll's did. Reade did not testify under oath, and she has many inconsistencies that are troubling to her narrative, such as bragging about knowing Biden to others and speaking positively about their relationship to establish credibility in the years following when she claims the incident occurred.
Tara did report her concerns to her superiors, but unfortunately, they were disregarded. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and I was simply presenting the accusations from both women's perspectives. It seems there might be some selective thinking on this matter. While the cases share similarities, the inclusion of Tara's mother's call adds credibility to one of the accounts.
Additionally, Caroll's narrative appears questionable due to the department store's strict policies. Familiarity with the store's practices would highlight that shoppers are not allowed to wander freely.
It's clear that I have reservations about Biden's behavior, finding it somewhat unsettling, especially with numerous accounts from Democrats at public events. There seems to be a recurring pattern of him invading personal space, particularly with a tendency towards smelling hair, as evidenced by multiple instances.It seems like you might not fully grasp the dynamics of a chat forum. Expressing my viewpoint after exploring the experiences of both women, I believe that diverse perspectives are welcomed and customary in a chat setting. I've shared my sincere thoughts—do you comprehend the significance of perspective?
I believe you're referring to a civil trial and not a criminal trial. Big difference.
So the jury in the E. Jean Carroll did not find that Trump sexually abused her? Even though the judge said exactly that.
“As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.” - Judge KaplanThis is not a criminal conviction. This is a jury decision for damages. Ms. Carroll was out after money and nothing more. I will admit, she did get it. Remember a criminal trial has to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. ALL of the jurors must agree. In a civil trial, the majority of jurors must agree.
There is so much wrong with that trial, I won't waste my time going into it. One thing is there was never even any solid evidence she had even met President Donald Trump. I could go on and on and on...but when you objectively look at the trial, it was a shame.Again, more misinformation. The jury in the federal civil case had to be unanimous, and it was. There was plenty of evidence that the two had met each other, including photographs where Trump pointed at E. Jean Carroll and mistook her for his own wife, so that claim is more misinformation. It gets tiring correcting all your false claims, I swear.
Some people here only read right-wing propaganda.
The ignorance and desinformation levels in a good chunk of society is something alarmingly sad.I agree, and that goes for anyone who believes the propaganda they are fed from CNN or MSNBC is anything other than just that... government approved propaganda, stamped with FBI approval.
And yet, what we just claimed was evidence from a videotaped deposition and the rules from the trial that were noted by the judge to reach a verdict. You believing that either of those sources were mainstream media sources is where the right deludes itself as to the veracity of information.
Ken, it appears that some individuals selectively embrace certain aspects of information while discarding the rest, labeling it as right-wing propaganda. Despite the information being verifiable or contributing to an overall understanding, they dismiss it. This peculiar mindset seems to be more prevalent in recent years, though I believe it represents a small minority. Observing this phenomenon is intriguing, just wondering where this will lead regarding society.
It leads to American citizens attacking their own Capitol based on the misinformation they are being fed, or attacking an FBI office when they serve a legal subpoena from the courts. Really easy to see where it leads, at least for one party.
I've observed a distinction in conversing with both liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to employ hyperbole, selectively choosing bits from media reports without always applying logical and common-sense reasoning. They might overlook information that contradicts their preconceived notions derived from these fragments. If need be, they reach for vague insults against any opponents who do not hold their views.
On the other hand, conservatives approach reporting more directly, considering a comprehensive view of the information and avoiding selective perception. They scrutinize all aspects before forming their opinions, often highlighting and comparing details to expose any hypocrisy. To be fair, they also can point a finger back at their opponents.
Regarding your specific mention of Jan 6th, the events in Portland with protesters setting fires and damaging federal property, leading to law enforcement response, including tear gas and impact munitions, resulted in extensive damage, deaths, and billions in costs to cities. The aftermath, labeled the "Summer of Love," left lasting destruction in many areas, with some cities still struggling to recover. In comparison, it is suggested that the events of January 6th pale in comparison to this liberal free-for-all.
During that summer, misinformation played a significant role in fueling the protests. In my perspective, the events of January 6th are overshadowed by what transpired during the "Summer of Love." It was, in essence, a protest that escalated, with protesters carrying guns that were not fired. The damage to the building was minimal, and only one person, a protester, was shot. Congress resumed its session in the chamber later that same evening. While many have embraced the hysteria surrounding these events, I remain unconvinced.Your use of the comment 'liberal free-for-all' really highlights the hypocrisy of your post. Considering members of the Boogaloo Bois (a far-right group) were involved in the shooting in Oakland and the burning of the police department in Minneapolis, it wasn't only liberals rioting during the Summer of 2020. But you do exactly as you accuse, omit any information that is damaging to your case.
Let alone the numerous times we have to add in all the information that the MAGA members of this forum leave because they would make their orange cult leader look bad.
And what misinformation was spread that led to social justice protests? We all watched Chauvin murder a man in the streets with our own eyes. How was that misinformation? What a false label in trying to make the latest false equivalency for the right."We witnessed Chauvin's act of killing a man in the streets with our own eyes—how can that be considered misinformation? It's a misleading label in an attempt to draw a false equivalency for the right."
Indeed, this is an undeniable truth. However, some of us chose not to resort to street protests, looting, arson, or violence. Instead, we opted to trust in the justice system and awaited the legal proceedings. This underscores a distinct difference between conservatives and liberals—we are content to have faith in our legal system to address matters of murder.
"Let alone the numerous times we have to add in all the information that the MAGA members of this forum leave because they would make their orange cult leader look bad."
Again you prove my point --- as I said --- If need be, they reach for vague insults against any opponents who do not hold their views. Oh well...
Val, I do like that you debate, hey is that not what this forum is for? Kudos'Indeed, this is an undeniable truth.' - So you concede that it was not misinformation that led to the protests.
'However, some of us chose not to resort to street protests, looting, arson, or violence.' - And some conservatives did, as I noted, which you still deny even when I list the actual violent crimes they did commit and were convicted for.
Which, again, proves my point, that there is a constant omission of the basic facts, even when trying to claim it's the other party that does the omitting."And some conservatives did, as I noted, which you still deny even when I list the actual violent crimes they did commit and were convicted for."
I have no idea what you are referring to... when commenting on this. I deserve to have an example. How does one defend such an accusation?
I believe I have mentioned that I felt most that broke to law on Jan 6th were arrested and given their day in court. I do not condone violence in any form. Some time back offered a lengthy list of the protesters that were arrested, and what they were charged with. I was making the point none to my knowledge were officially charged with insurrection.
Again, I feel the Jan 6th was a protest that got out of control, yes violent, many were arrested, and our courts handled their punishment. I do not feel some in that crowd pre-planned to become violent. I do not feel Trump in any respect planned what occurred at the Capitol.I was referring to the Boogaloo Bois, which are anti-government and pro-gun, which aligns them with conservatives.
But as you continue to deny the numerous January 6 convictions for seditious conspiracy (which is the charge for using force or violence to overthrow, destroy, oppose, prevent, hinder, or delay the government or its laws, or to seize or possess its property) and is a synonym for insurrection in legal terms.
As for Trump, he may have only wanted to pressure Congress with a show of force, but his reckless speech called for both a peaceful walk to the Capitol and to fight like hell (which they could have interpreted to do once arriving there), which left a violent option open to his supporters. Once the violence started, Trump's lack of action to halt it, as well as his tweet against Mike Pence, could easily be seen as support.Not sure what more I can say in regard to "But as you continue to deny the numerous January 6 convictions for seditious conspiracy (which is the charge for using force or violence to overthrow, destroy, oppose, prevent, hinder, or delay the government or its laws, or to seize or possess its property) and is a synonym for insurrection in legal terms."
Again -I believe I have mentioned that I felt most that broke to law on Jan 6th were arrested and given their day in court. I do not condone violence in any form. Some time back offered a lengthy list of the protesters that were arrested, and what they were charged with. I was making the point none to my knowledge were officially charged with insurrection.
My link offers hundreds of names of those who were arrested and their charges. I did not read into the charges, or put my spin on them. Here is the link I offered some time back that I referred to. I think it is clear we look at problems, and situations a bit differently. In the case I can find a factual source I use it, or I stipulate my comment as a view. I did not see any charges of Insurrection connected with Jan 6th.
There were a lot of reckless statements made by Trump leading up to Jan 6th, and he remains fixed upon his claims. This is what I have witnessed. I agree he should have spoken up immediately on not only social media but on Cable News. He did factually tweet, but it came late, and I was not satisfied with his words. He was the President and should have stepped up with great speed to try to stop the riot.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Please consider the context of my statement, where I'm expressing my perspective on the distinctions between Liberals and Republicans without mentioning far-left, far-right, or radical groups unaffiliated with either political faction.
I conducted research on the Boogaloo movement, a decentralized ideological network that does not align with any specific political party. This movement anticipates a second U.S. civil war and advocates anti-government and anti-law enforcement sentiments. While some Boogaloo members endorse white supremacist ideologies, others have supported and demonstrated alongside advocates for racial justice, making it challenging to categorize the movement within conventional political boundaries.
I do not associate this group with Republicans or individuals who hold genuine conservative values. They appear to be a radical anti-government entity, and their organization, if any, seems unclear. My primary information source for this understanding was derived from this research.
Regarding misinformation, my comment did not single out social justice protesters or any specific group. I conveyed that during that summer, misinformation significantly contributed to the intensity of the protests. The prevalence of misleading information on social media likely exacerbated the situation and could have influenced the riots.
It appears there might be a misunderstanding, and I want to emphasize my commitment to fairness and truthfulness when expressing my viewpoints. I try to maintain an open-minded and fair approach, avoiding any rigid positions.I will concede that the Boogaloo Bois are not necessarily associated with the Republican Party if you can do the same for BLM. Every single MAGA member tries to tie the two together, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Again, just asking for a little consistency.
I should have been more specific in my comment, regarding the misinformation that did occur during the summer of love -- I picked it up mostly on social media. And it was more from the right than the left. I was considering that misinformation did run rampant and certainly could be attributed to furthering the riots.
"There was plenty of evidence that the two had met each other, including photographs where Trump pointed at E. Jean Carroll and mistook her for his own wife"
So, this is evidence they were in the same room at an event. How many other people were in that room?
You say there was "plenty of evidence" the two had met each other? One person pointing to another at an event is really not proof people meeting. What other evidence was there?
Any photographs or video evidence of them together? Any correspondence of them talking to one another? Any recording of them speaking to one another?
This would be actual evidence of them having interacted with one another.
???????
Interesting she can't remember the date. It was late 1995 or early 1996. So, 26 years after this happened, and she gets lots of attention for mentioning it in an article she wrote, she decides to file suit? Interesting how she started to talk about it after Trump became President Donald Trump.
There was no real evidence provided other than Carroll's examination A Carol Martin testified that she corroborated Carroll's account.
That's it...NO real evidence. NO physical evidence. NONE.
Also interesting is how it only moved forward on a federal level during the biden administration.
Also, if you read the verdict the the jury did NOT find him guilty of rape but sexual harassment.
I just can't take this case serious.
It's a joke.Just as we cannot take you seriously for not even being informed enough to know that they were photographed...together. Carroll sued Trump for defamation in November of 2019 and again in November of 2021 when he defamed her again, long before Biden took office. And if you had actually read the verdict, it was not guilt at all, but they found him liable for defamation and sexual abuse. And not for sexual harassment, for sexual abuse - which is New York's term for rape when someone uses fingers instead of genitalia. And the misinformation from you continues.
What do the terms of New York matter since it was tried in a federal court? Again, the jury found Carroll did NOT prove President Donald Trump raped her.
I would say that a picture together does not prove he knew her or they had any type of relationship. Have you ever been to events with celebrities? They take hundreds of pictures.
Anything else? Is that it? You take a picture with someone and you've raped them?
I find it interesting that Carroll's legal expenses were paid for by Reid Hoffman. He is a co-founder of LinkedIn, venture capitalist, and a huge donor to the Democratic Party.
How convenient.'Again, the jury found Carroll did NOT prove President Donald Trump raped her.'
- Your complete denial of the facts makes this conversation pointless, especially since I already posted the quote of the judge saying exactly that the jury did find that he raped Carroll, just with his fingers.That makes no sense.
Who was doing the ruling?
The judge or the jury? In a jury trial it doesn't matter what the judge finds, it's what the jury finds. It was NOT a bench trial.
If the judge said such a thing during trial, that is undue influence of a jury and he could be in big trouble for it.
Post your source.
I wonder if the judge was friends with Reid Hoffman? It would make sense.Not that you care but...
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.
Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.
“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.
A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.
Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.
He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”
New York’s legal definition of “rape” requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.
The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration.
“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote.
Memorandum Opinion by Judge Kaplan
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap … .200.0.pdfThat is simply a judge's opinion.
That means there is an argument against his interpretation of the word and standards.
It is the jury's ruling that is important, not a judge's opinion.
I've already posted the judge's exact quote in this thread, which he stated in direct response to Trump's lies about what the jury verdict actually meant. The fact that you don't even know when the judge said it just puts on full display your lack of research into this topic.
Yes, and it is simply a judge's opinion. HIS interpretation of the legal standards. It is NOT a legal ruling.
THAT is a fact.
President Donald Trump was NOT found guilty of rape no matter how a biased democrat judge appointed by Bill Clinton tries to spin it.
Does any democrat have anything other than the opinion of a biased democrat judge appointed by Bill Clinton...like actual physical evidence? Any photo, video, evidence? Any witnesses that saw them together?
A man is accused of rape based on a woman's testimony and a friend who said she told her about the rape 26 years ago. THAT is enough evidence to prove a rape?
A woman takes a picture with a celebrity, 26 years later, after he becomes president, she claims rape, and a wealthy democrat doner urges her to pursue a civil case for rape. Not a criminal case, a civil case where she can make money.
When you add up all the actual FACTS the entire thing stinks.
This makes democrats seem so desperate that it is sad.So it's your take that judges do not define what charges mean for a jury before a trial begins? That they do not interpret the law. I find that to be completely at odds with how the courts work. Let alone labelling judges biased because of who appointed them.
As to your claim about what evidence was presented at the trial, it is missing many pieces of evidence, as is the usual case for MAGA. You've got Trump on tape admitting he sexually assaults women, you've got multiple other female witnesses testifying about how Trump assaulted them in a similar manner. Please do more research, get out of your far-right media bubble.
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/e-j … ape-trial/
The guy's a predator, deal with it.This is why Republicans can't take these allegations against President Donald Trump serious.
It's also the reason I believe TDS is a real thing.
The trial was a joke.
There no actual evidence he raped her. NOT one piece of physical evidence was presented. NONE. It is all hearsay evidence and nothing concrete.
I think a judge should respect the ruling of a jury and keep his opinions to himself. That how is works in most courtrooms.
I can just imagine being a guy who has political success and then has some woman come up and say, "You raped me 26 years ago." He says, "I don't know you." The woman says, "I have a picture here we took together so that proves you raped me." "I took hundreds of pictures that day." "I have a friend who will say I told her you raped me the day after the rape 26 years ago." "So?"
Then a huge political doner from the other side tells the girl to pursue a civil trial because he will bankroll her and she'll make money. So, there is a trial, with no physical proof, no evidence they were ever in the same room together, just hearsay evidence. The jury says, "We don't care if there is no physical evidence or proof they were ever in the same room again. We will believe the hearsay evidence and say, yes, he defamed her, but he didn't rape her. That is the jury's ruling. The judge in the case says, "Those silly jurors, they didn't realize they actually did say he raped a woman 26 years ago based on hearsay evidence and no concrete proof or physical evidence...they just didn't realize it.
Then the people on the opposite political spectrum say, "He's a rapist." HIs supporters say "A jury said he didn't rape her" "NO, the judge gave his opinion of the evidence after the ruling. We don't care about that silly jury's ruling, the judge, who is a democrat judge appointed by a democrat president said it's a rape so it's a rape no matter what the jury ruled."
It' can't be taken serious.
When you add this to the bogus impeachments and more, the democrats just seem sad and desperate.
THAT is why President Donald Trump remains so popular. Most people can see these attacks on him for the ridiculous attempts to keep him from running again for office.
If he hadn't run for president again, I doubt this case, and many other cases would have been brought against him.
This is just sad.The really sad part is the way you distort and deny the actual facts.
First Example: 'If he hadn't run for president again, I doubt this case, and many other cases would have been brought against him.' I've already shown how the cases were brought in 2019 and 2021, Trump was likely going to run again in 2020 with the 2019 case, but he had just lost in 2021 and everyone imagined he was going to slink away after he incited the attack on Congress. These cases were brought before Trump announced any intention to run for office again.
Second Example: I just provided you a link to evidence of Trump admitting he does the exact conduct he was accused of in the E. Jean Carrol Trial. In that link, it provides the testimony of two other women who Trump did very similar things to, establishing a pattern of illegal conduct. And yet, you couldn't even acknowledge that in your response. The blinders that MAGA has is the real TDS - Trump Demagogue Syndrome. The guy confesses to the conduct, and you still can't imagine him doing it. TDS is the cult-like behavior to ignore that as a basic fact and evidence that helped a jury find him liable.
Third Example: A finding of sexual abuse is the same as rape in New York. Sexual abuse is used when it cannot be determined if a man used genitalia or something else, in Trump's case - his fingers, to penetrate a woman's genitalia without her consent. The judge explained that in other states, the charge would have been rape, but New York uses sexual abuse in these cases - but it still is the equivalent of a rape, after Trump denied the charge meant what it meant. The judge did not 'give his opinion of the evidence after the ruling,' he interpreted what the ruling meant since Trump was trying to rewrite it in the media to downplay that he is a rapist.1. President Donald Trump was NOT found guilty of rape. No matter how the judge in the case spins it. His interpretation of the ruling is the same as giving his opinion. To say that President Donald Trump was found guilty of rape is a blatant lie. Period. NO matter what TDS delusional thinking is used. THAT is a fact.
2. There is NO physical evidence. No photographic evidence. No witnesses that saw them together. NOTHING. THAT is a fact.
3. How can the judge say such a thing simply on hearsay testimony? How could the jury come to such a finding on just hear say testimony? I think because he is a democrat, Bill Clinton appointee.
The case should have never been brought to trial. I will not be at all surprised if it is overturned on appeal.
This case was more about a pathetic female who was a nobody, getting a rich democrat doner to bankroll her lawsuit against a celebrity she took a picture with over a quarter of a century earlier. It was a way for her to get media attention that she never had before and get a big fat paycheck for her efforts. It's sad.
So, you've really not proven anything other than how corrupt the federal court system is in New York.1.) No one has said he was found guilty of anything. However, a jury did find that he penetrated a woman's genitalia without her consent - which fits the definition of rape, making him a rapist. THAT is a fact.
2.) Physical evidence may help a case, but it is not all that matters, especially in a civil proceeding.
3.) How can a jury come to a conclusion? Because unlike these posts that I continue to respond to, they looked at all the evidence that was presented. I notice that you haven't once acknowledged Trump confessing that he does sexually assault women. Or that there were two other witnesses that testified that he did similar things to them, establishing a pattern of illegal conduct. Your claim that the decision is solely based on hearsay is just ridiculously false and steeped in misinformation that it puts on full display how uninformed you are about the topic.
And when you have so little basis about the case, it might lead one to come to those conclusions. And what this conversation proves, is that the corruption is with MAGA supporters who choose not to acknowledge the basic facts of the case and evidence presented to then continue the smears of a rape victim. Which is disgusting."a jury did find that he penetrated a woman's genitalia without her consent"
NO...that was an opinion and only an opinion of a judge based on no actual physical proof of it. He interprets it using New York law, and it was tried in a federal court. The statute of limitations for New York had long run out on this case before it was tried in federal court. What does New York law matter? It doesn't, not in this case.
"Your claim that the decision is solely based on hearsay is just ridiculously false"
Is there any OTHER evidence other than hearsay evidence? Please provide it.
What this case really proves is the depths democrats will sink to go after a former president. They will even have a large democrat doner fund a very strange woman who wants to cry rape after 26 years because she took a picture with a guy. She wasn't after justice, she was after money. That is obvious to all who look at it honestly.
What frustrates democrats is that MAGA and Republicans refuse to buy into their never ending lies, distortions and propaganda about a former president. They can see the facts and they don't add up at all.
So, this is more proof that TDS is a real thing.So the jury finding of sexual abuse does not mean what defines sexual abuse in New York? That's your argument?
And you keep asking for the additional evidence, that I've now provided twice.
I'm going to bow out of this conversation. No amount of facts can change someone this deep in Trump Demagogue Syndrome. Just like election fraud that you were a true believer about, Trump has hoodwinked you again on this issue. It's not worth conversing with you about any longer. Despite the facts, you're going to believe what he tells you. And I've cut most of those kinds of people out of my life.
It's sad that this site allows people to spew that kind of misinformation and denigrate rape victims in such a manner. It's why I do not recommend it to friends any longer."I'm going to bow out of this conversation."
Wise move.
"So the jury finding of sexual abuse does not mean what defines sexual abuse in New York?"
Maybe you forgot the issue was rape.
"And you keep asking for the additional evidence, that I've now provided twice."
You can't provide anything other than hearsay evidence because there was nothing provide during the trial other than hearsay evidence. There is nothing new you can provide.
'Trump has hoodwinked you again on this issue.'
Again the frustration because someone doesn't buy into the democrat propaganda machine. The behavior of the democrat party and the russian communist party are eerily similar.
People should take the time to review who these Judges and AGs are.
Be it the loons running the circus in NY, or the Fani Willis affair going on down in GA.
Bias. Corruption.
This is the issue, the FBI has been caught over and over again manufacturing, falsifying, interfering... protecting corrupt political hacks that are part of the system while persecuting those trying to hold the system accountable.
The FBI and DOJ have no credibility, their bias has been shown, proven.
So even where Trump may be guilty of a legitimate crime, in one or two of the 95 various cases against him... the fact that the other 95 are bogus, biased, politically motivated circus shows being run by corrupt and or extremist individuals... it discredits ANY case where guilt is found.
Most people who are not completely brainwashed into one extreme political position or another see the nonsense going on, they recognize it... or they are truly a-political and don't give a crap... which most Americans don't, until it starts hitting home.
So it doesn't matter how many convictions they get against him... the majority of Americans are going to choose Biden in 2024 if things are doing BETTER at that time than they are now... and they are going to vote for Trump if things are WORSE at that time than they are now.
Go ahead, throw Trump in jail and deny America the change they are demanding if the crap is hitting the fan in 2024, I am curious to see how that will play out.
I will bring the popcorn.If Trump becomes the Republican nominee (an almost foregone conclusion), what will states such as Maine and Colorado do? Ban him from the Presidential ballot?
If they do, and he wins anyway (it won't hurt his chances no manner how many blue states won't accept Trump votes), what then? Will those states insist he isn't President, and try to install their own "winner" into the White House? That's a fight that looks like it could be interesting!The Supreme Court is taking the Colorado case, and they will follow whatever decision they choose. If they allow them to keep Trump off the ballot, and he wins the national election anyway, it won't change what happens. They will send their state's electoral votes in for Biden and let Congress certify the election for Trump.
Not sure why you're inventing something new for what might happen. No individual state elects the president - their citizens often choose the losing candidate, send in their electoral votes to Congress, and then have to accept that enough of the rest of the country went a different direction. Apparently, when the right loses a national election, they still expect their states to reject the results.You may be sanguine that Trump haters will quietly vanish into the night if they lose but I'm not. They have not been rational since even before he was elected, calling for an impeachment before he was sworn in, and have gotten worse over time.
I'm not at all convinced they will accept what they view as an illegal election, not at all.You view it that way to justify the continued support for someone who tried to overturn a free and fair election. It's that simple. If you believe the other side might also engage in the conduct of your party, that makes it alright in your own mind to try and steal an election. Despite Hillary conceding the very next day and only a handful of unimportant reps who mentioned impeachment right off the bat - for collusion with a hostile foreign nation, which the Senate proved beyond a doubt from Trump's Campaign Chairman.
"You view it that way to justify the continued support for someone who tried to overturn a free and fair election."
No, I view it that way because Democrats were screaming for an impeachment even before he took office, and since then have pulled every dirty trick in the "legal handbook" to force him out of office and out of politics. Including refusing to investigate claims of voter fraud, even when given specific examples of states violating their own laws.
And where did the whole "collusion" thing come from? The same foreign nation Trump was accused (falsely, as you know) of colluding with. OK for Democrats, not OK for the opposition, right?
No, Val, while I don't like Trump and hope a different Republican takes the office, the manner and road Democrats have taken to oust a political rival is beyond the pale and we would be better if the entire party simply vanished quietly into the night. Their actions have crossed so many lines it is amazing that anyone at all could ever stomach following them or accepting one of their candidates.Amen and hear, hear and all the more reason(s) for.....
Trump, Trump, Trump!
You know, there are always some who buy into the madness.
There are those that put party politics ahead of religion or rational thinking.
Often quite intellectual individuals, not the 'salt of the earth' types.
Someone had to buy into Stalin and do his dirty work, someone had to buy into Mao and do his dirty work, the travesties they brought upon their people did not happen without the support of many to make it happen.
Trump never called half the nation Extremists, Terrorists, and the greatest threat to Democracy ... Biden did.
Trump never co-opted the DOJ or FBI to do his political dirty work or silence the opposition. He didn't use the IRS to go after his political rivals.
There is certainly a silencing of voices, of political opposition... there is round ups of thousands individuals and imprisonments going on... there are charges being brought up against those lawyers who attempted to represent and defend... none of this was done by Trump. But it is being done today.Ken, Nicely articulated, and highly factual. The extent of blatant manipulation is absurd, reaching a level where it becomes challenging to hold any respect for those embracing the distorted mindset some are clearly adopting.
Something I've been meaning to put a little more info out on:
Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big Deal
The FBI and CIA Are Deeply Enmeshed
The files confirm something that we’d previously only learned through a lawsuit: that Twitter and other tech executives were having regular monthly and even weekly meetings with not just the FBI and its Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) — the eighty-person counterintelligence division made to combat foreign disinformation campaigns — but pretty much every security agency under the sun. Besides the bureau, those named include the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, state governments like that of California, the justice and state departments, even the National Security Agency (NSA), which requested to be included in a special Signal channel set up for the election period to let government agencies feed information to social media companies, or “the industry.”
One of those agencies happened to be OGA, or “Other Government Agency,” something both Twitter’s emails and former officers make clear was the CIA, which Matt Taibbi writes was “nearly always” present at regular FITF meetings with every major tech firm you can think of. Far from merely listening, the CIA was an active participant, regularly kicking off FITF meetings with a briefing, according to Taibbi, and sharing intelligence through the bureau and FITF with a list of firms as broad as including Wikimedia, “to develop potential investigative leads.” In one email, then head of trust and safety Yoel Roth made clear he regarded giving information to the FBI as giving information to the IC [“intelligence community”] by proxy.
This relationship went deep. Twitter employed so many ex-FBI personnel that, according to Michael Shellenberger — one of the conservative writers given access to the files — they had their own private Slack channel. They even created a “‘Bu to Twitter’ translation chart,” a cheat sheet for FBI alumni to translate former bureau jargon into its Twitter equivalent (“BLUF (bottom-line up front)” at the FBI was “TL;DR (too long, didn’t read)” at Twitter, for example).
In the run-up to the election, the FBI gave Twitter executives temporary security clearances and shared classified information with tech firms, stressing that there were “no impediments” to such sharing. A special platform named Teleporter was created to let the FBI send its reports to Twitter, similar to the special portal we learned the bureau uses to request throttling of content by Facebook. At one point, the FBI’s Elvis Chan even asked Twitter to provide “any location information associated” with a list of accounts singled out for spreading election misinformation.
The result was a deluge of censorship requests from the FBI. The bureau, Taibbi reports, sent over “lists of hundreds of problem accounts” to Twitter executives, often so lengthy they came in the form of Excel spreadsheets, and “thousands of mostly domestic reports,” despite the fact that the FITF was meant to be focused on foreign influence.
The significance of this should be obvious. Many shortsightedly dismissed the first Twitter Files release about Twitter’s outrageous censorship of the New York Post on the grounds that because the government wasn’t involved, such censorship shouldn’t concern us. That premise is wrong, but even if we were to accept it, the fact is that the FBI and a host of other shadowy security agencies are clearly knee-deep in the decisions over what Twitter and other companies decide to censor.
There are also questions about the role of agencies like the CIA and NSA. These are meant to be foreign-facing spy services that are least nominally barred from turning their powers on Americans, and yet here they are clearly taking part, to different degrees, in domestic-based operations.
To be clear, this is why Elon Musk has become enemy #2 to the entrenched DC establishment and the Progressive Left (Biden Administration). Musk's stance that we should actually have 'Free Speech' in America, not controlled and monitored disinformation and propaganda approved by a corrupt government, has made him a lot of enemies.
The fact that he exposed what America was fed in 2020 as lies and propaganda, and that he allows open and uncensored, uncorrupted, information to be shared on Twitter/X today, puts him right behind Trump as persons they intend to destroy.
Fortunately powerful people like Musk are risking it all to make a stand.
Much like the Founding Fathers, whose actions created America, we are at one of those moments in time... the evil inherit in the WEF and those who fund it, support it, and work with it need to be stopped before all of humanity is enslaved, or worse.
WEF Summit: Argentina's Milei slams the WEF at Davos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtegqgKYR-U
Heritage President Goes Scorched Earth on Globalist Elites at WEF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5rV5aVRYeg
The Biden Administration is a proponent and advocate for this evil, they have brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands with their wars, they have caused the displacement and misery of millions more, and they are bringing about the ruination of America.
Americans need to wake up and ensure they are swept out of DC in 2024... if they are given the chance... not willing to bet this corrupt cabal in control today will even allow another 'free' election.Ken, I think that with Trump’s big wins thus far, first in Iowa and now, New Hampshire, the People are establishing that they are very aware and very awake!
At this moment in time, supporting Trump (whether he's loved or just tolerated) is the People taking a stand, fighting back against the "corrupt cabal", the best (and only) way we can for now.You have to love how they are trying to spin Biden only getting 25% of the vote as a win in New Hampshire.
I don't care if he was a write in or not, the guy couldn't pull a majority of votes out of his own party primary.
Picture of Joe declaring his win in NH:
Hey, my faith is strong that many Americans will come to see what's been right in front of them but unable to see --- until now. They are waking up to the obvious huge problems this president has attributed to.
My take it that a lot of democrats in democrat states are furious over how the democrats have favored illegal aliens over them. I believe this failure at the border will be a huge factor in the election.
I agree that the Democrats have mishandled the border crisis, and it seems too late for them to suddenly claim they can fix it. The bill pushed by Biden in his early days in the White House seemed like an invitation for people to come to our borders, with open arms. It appears foolish for them to only now show a willingness to work on solutions. In my opinion, this seems like a political maneuver, a tactic that has become too familiar to Americans. Many are seeking change and may realize that voting Republican is the necessary step for achieving that change at this
point.
I think immigration tied to the economy will sink the Democrats. Not to mention the pure ideologies they have pushed over Biden's term. The green deal -- Come to Michigan and have a look-see at all the many EVs (last year's models) sitting unsold, taking up space. Auto workers are pretty discussed with the Dems --- that's word on the streets.
I am closely monitoring the situation in Iran, and I fear that the aggression may escalate, potentially leading President Biden into a significant conflict in the Red Sea region. I believe there is negative karma surrounding Biden, and I anticipate more challenging developments in the future. Unfortunately, I foresee a scenario where Houthis might pose a threat to American soldiers. It's disheartening to acknowledge, but I attribute it to the way Biden is addressing this highly perilous crisis, or rather, his lack of effective handling.I believe that the auto industry overestimated EV demand last year.
But it's undeniable that the EV segment has enjoyed a long period of exponential growth. At any rate they're here to stay.I live in Motor City, and I guess the local media is being more truthful than the larger cable networks. The dealers are parking all the unsold in literally mall parking lots due to the dealers needing them moved off their lots. Due to a lack of sales, they have waiting lists to sell fuel-powered vehicles. All three companies lost billions last year and all that what we call "the big three" have cut back production on EVs. We are starting to see layoffs, occurring this very week.
https://www.bridgemi.com/business-watch … sh-returns
https://electrek.co/2023/12/21/ford-con … l-opt-out/
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/239 … 3-earnings
https://www.fastcompany.com/90999268/un … o-industryYes, we have a real uprising with car dealers here in Michigan due to the overabundance of unsold EVs. I have not tracked down how what will be done with the many unsold EVs... Must be a secret. Hey, at least the auto manufacturers waited until after Christmas to start layoffs.
We are a swing state, and it looks like we will swing in the right direction.
To be fair, anyone with the ability to afford buying a new EV is most likely going to buy a Tesla.
I myself own a Tesla, I also own a Chevy Bolt, both EVs.
Having done plenty of research (as most people who buy EVs do) I realized owning anything other than a Tesla was a bad decision:
A} Because GAS focused companies (IE - GM) are only making EVs because of government demands and requirements and to present an appearance of being 'Green'.
B} Only Tesla has a Nation wide Infrastructure built to allow you to travel the entire country with ease, without worry about range or ability to recharge.
C} Tesla has the best product, the most advanced vehicles, and their focus has always been EVs... it is not a side-gig like it is for GM, Ford, or any other legacy automotive maker.I disagree with your B) point. I live in the west, where charging stations are not common. Particularly in winter time, with shortened range, it would be difficult to travel the hundreds of miles between stations.
My solution was to purchase the latest hybrid from Toyota. I get about 50 miles of EV (summertime) and around 32 miles (winter). Most of my travel is around town, and I have a charging station at home, so I end up getting 3,000 miles per tank of gasoline. The only time I need gas is when I leave the valley and go on a trip. Works well for me.I see a few glaring problems with EVs. One affordability, and two a garage to keep your charger in... LOL
Can't imagine what apartment, dwellers will do. I like the idea of EVs, but we need to ready infrastructure, and beef up fixing some of the glaring problems that are occurring with them.This is another truth, that you just pointed out.
Owning an EV is really for those (in America) that own a garage (which can be used for the car, not as extra closet-storage).
You can charge outside, but it is one of those 'necessary conveniences' that you have a garage and a designated outlet (dryer outlet).
We took the Telsa across country... to the most remote parts of Wyoming and Montana, so the ability to travel the nation in a Tesla is legit, and just as easy as with a gas vehicle.
Owning an EV is cheaper than owning a new gas vehicle, a save hundreds of dollars every month not having to pay for gas, I never have to pay for oil changes or engine repairs... so literally, a new Tesla is as cheap to own as a USED (decent) gas vehicle, and cheaper than a new gas vehicle.
Obviously, on top of owning a garage, you should live in the southern half of the States, as places like Montana and New York get way to cold and get way too much snow.
So... if you live in a place like California or Florida and if you own your home and it has a garage, then I would recommend a EV... doubly so if you are retired, or just don't do much more than put-around town, never going much more than a 100 miles in a trip... if so, you would almost be foolish not to own an EV, they are a lot less hassle.So... if you live in a place like California or Florida and if you own your home and it has a garage, then I would recommend a EV... doubly so if you are retired, or just don't do much more than put-around town, never going much more than a 100 miles in a trip... if so, you would almost be foolish not to own an EV, they are a lot less hassle.
---------
Definitely something for me to consider, thanks....Ken, My understanding is that EV’s are much more expensive to repair. Do you own an EV or a hybrid. I ask because they are not the same.
Repair costs: I own a hybrid (toyota) that was rear ended. The collision crushed the right rear corner, pushing sheet metal into the small 12 volt battery all cars have.
The repair shop wouldn't touch it until the Toyota shop found why the electronics were dead (because the small battery was shorted out). At that point the car was totaled...IMO because the repair shop was afraid to work on it. There was simply not enough damage (and they told me so) to justify scrapping the car, but it was done anyway.
This will, for some time, be a major problem. No one wants to work on a damaged EV, even if it is a hybrid as mine was. Anything that damages that hybrid system is unknown.I owned a hybrid before, a 2012 Chevy Volt, great car until it... and thousands like it of the same year, mysteriously died, all on the same day.
Strange that... anywho... other than its unusual demise, it was a great car.
Will never buy a hybrid again tho, what that taught me, was that even if the engine of a vehicle is fine, they design them so that they won't work if the battery dies or is otherwise compromised, then you have to pay 10K to repair/replace it.
So my recommendation is go full EV or full GAS but do NOT mix them, as nice as it may seem, it is TWO systems you have to worry about failing.
As for EVs... DON"T own one past the Warranty. While under warranty, if they battery dies or the car has electrical issues it is FULLY covered. So no expenses for an EV other than tires really.
Once the warranty is expired, you are living on borrowed time, and had better not owe anything on that vehicle.
I really need to stress this point... an EV is cheaper to own than a USED gas vehicle or a NEW gas vehicle.
People I know who drive decent used vehicles are not only paying for gas, they are constantly paying for repairs, replacements, oil changes etc. You have NONE of those expenses with an EV.
It really depends on your needs. If you are driving 98% of the time in a 100 mile radius, the benefits of an EV, in a warm climate State, far outweigh any issues you might have.
If, as I stated above, you own your own home and can park it in the garage.
If you live in a Condo Complex... without a garage, I don't recommend it. If you live in a cold weather State, I don't recommend it. If you don't have the ability to buy NEW I don't recommend it.I started with a Prius, then a Volt and now the new Rav4 plug in. No problems with any of them, and the Prius was over 100,000 when I traded it off.
But I certainly agree that a full EV is useful...if you make no long trips, if you have an indoor charger and if you live in warmer climates. If any of those are not true I would still opt for a hybrid.I don't see the benefit.
When I had the Volt, I did not have to pay for gas, but when the battery had an issue, the total car was a loss. ALL the savings I got from not having to pay for gas during those years was lost... when I had to dump a car that was otherwise still in perfect shape, with new tires, etc.
If that had been a normal vehicle, I would not have to worry about the battery, and would have been able to get another 50-100k miles easy.
They key, is an EV or a Hybrid should NOT be owned past the warranty.
The batteries for those vehicles, and the installation, runs 10K... easy.
So, if you do not plan on owning the vehicle past the warranty... go for it.
If you plan on owning it until it dies... stay away from hybrids. Stay away from EVs too, for that matter.
I don't plan on owning either vehicle past the warranty date, and I am strongly considering getting a gas powered truck. One gas vehicle that can haul stuff, one EV that is for daily driving. Not sure yet. That decision time is coming up tho.From everything I’ve observed, car warranties are worthless, unless one can secure an arbitrator who understands lemon laws and who can persuade a dealership/manufacturer, to the table, to address said warranty issues.
Initially, car dealers almost always do anything they can to avoid honoring their warranties. I’ve seen it happen with many people.
Anyhoo, it sounds like EV’s are useful for people who only need to piddle around town in a warm climate and who are willing to trade in the vehicle every few years or pay an extra $10,000 if the battery dies.
Sounds like too much trouble for me, but thanks to you and wilderness for sharing your experiences with EV’s.Its very simple. When they give you a 8 year or 100,000 mile warranty on the battery... you have 8 years or 100k miles where you don't have to worry about the battery.
The battery is the component of the car that is not affordable to replace, anything else is a minor expense, if it does break.
With a gas car you have a ton of things that cost money... transmission, radiator, belts, alternator, etc. plus oil changes, plus gas. $$$$
Gas vehicles have many of those components with very short warranty timeframes, which is why you probably hear about so many people having problems... they think the whole car is covered for 8 years or whatever it is... that is not the case, that is probably only the transmission.
Those people who don't take the time to understand what is, and what is not, covered in a Warranty are the ones that have all the problems. I am sure the Service Stations that work with Dealerships are deluged with such people all the time.
The problem, more often than not, is a not so savvy car owner.Ken… Have you had an EV for eight years? Probably not. Replacing a big, huge, massive EV battery, that is 1000 times bigger than the regular battery of a gas fueled car, is expensive. I do not believe for 1 minute that you can replace an EV battery as easily as you claim, whether you pay for an extended warranty or not.
No dealership or manufacturer is going to put out an extra $10,000 dollars, at a loss to themselves, for any reason.
Dealerships who do not honor warranties, extended or not, is a big problem in America. I assure you. This is why we have Lemon laws.
Perhaps your experience is unique because you trade your cars in every few years, according to what have said here.
Just so you know, dealerships have learned how to get around (not honoring) warranties. They do this by prolonging the time they “say” they can fix a car… by claiming that they do not have the parts and that parts will take weeks to come in,” and on and on it goes until the warranty time has expired.
Long story short, car warranties are generally useless unless the dealership is honest, or you have a good arbitrator or a good lawyer.I have for a few years now, owned a Volt or a Bolt or a Tesla.
Dealerships will do exactly what they are required by law and Warranty to do.
The Chevy Bolt we had bought was only a couple years old, and had less than 10k miles on it, when Chevy/GM did a recall and replaced the battery, for free... so, even though the car technically is a few years old, the battery is less than two years old and has less than 7k miles of use even though the car has 16K miles on it.
If the warranty says, the battery is covered for 100k or 8 years, whichever comes first... then it is covered for 100k or 8 years. So long as you follow whatever stipulations are in the warranty. IE - if it tells you to take the car in for a check once a year, or the warranty is void, I suggest you do so.
BUT my experience has taught me... trade out of the car before the warranty is up, like any recharge battery, it will eventually lose the ability to charge and function properly... and once that happens the entire vehicle is useless.
As for dealerships jerking people around... I am sure of it, they tend to prey on those that are unaware or uneducated in these things, or who don't know how to do much more than get in the car and turn the key, relying on the "nice" people at the dealership to "take care" of them.I'll add that battery warranties often contain language indicating that gradual loss of performance is not covered; it is a natural function of batteries and is to be expected.
Yes, this is true, a certain level of degradation is to be expected.
If it falls below a certain level, during that 8 year 100k Warranty, they fix part or all of the battery.
For those who have never owned an EV, I keep noting 8 years or 100K, because that is the industry standard. When you buy an EV, that battery is covered for 8 years... or 100k miles.
So, if you are doing 10K or less on it a year, you only have to trade in that vehicle after 7 years... otherwise it is covered.... 7 years is a good amount of time, to be relatively worry free, and not have to pay for maintenance or gas.Maybe I know too many arbitrators. Just because a warranty says something and makes promises… does not necessarily mean said warranty is honored. Perhaps you have been lucky.
Many people have to find arbitrators or hire lawyers when a car goes bad early on.Again, I am sure there are some bad dealerships out there.
Tesla doesn't really have dealerships, they own their own service stations. Dealerships are independent from the manufacturers (IE - GM, FORD) and so it is probably very true that issues arise, as you attest.
Tesla:
Model 3 & Y Warranty - 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
Model S & X Warranty - 8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.
Other components of their vehicles:
The Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty covers your vehicle for 4 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first.
This comes directly from their site:
https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty
So, you see, even here it shows that the entire car is not covered for 8 years or 100k miles... just the battery (the only thing that really matters in an EV).
Some people will never read the warranty, some people will think the whole car is 8 years or 100k... it is not.
Good thing about Tesla, you do not have to deal with corrupt dealerships, just Tesla.Ken,
Perhaps Tesla is unique when it comes to warranties. I don’t necessarily doubt that. Although, I would have to do more research for myself.
Regarding warranties… I take my information from the FTC and my experience with arbitrators who help consumers who have been “screwed” over.
Perhaps we are speaking of two different animals. My focus is on extended warranty contracts that do not often pan out for consumers.Yes, I agree, the extended warranties are offered to the buyer at the dealership by the dealers, and not the manufacturers (GM, FORD).
Two separate things, and those extended warranties are essentially useless, a waste of money... practically fraud. They take advantage of people, its part of the scam of dealing with dealerships in general.
There is none of that with Tesla. You order your vehicle online, you choose the color and make online, you don't deal with salesmen or dealerships, ever.
If car dealerships can get away with not honoring their warranties, they will do it. It happens frequently. This may not have been your experience, but it is a problem. Again, this is why Lemon laws exist.
A recall is a different matter. However, perhaps those who follow all the stipulations of auto warranties have better luck.
I do not buy extended warranties on cars. In my opinion, they are a waste of money. Then again, I am not one to follow stipulations if the car is running well.
Anyhoo, I guess we have veered of the subject of how to vote, somewhat.
Ken… Have you had an EV for eight years? Probably not. Replacing a big, huge, massive EV battery, that is 1000 times bigger than a regular battery of a gas fueled car, is expensive. I do not believe for 1 minute that you can replace an EV battery as easily as you claim, whether you pay for an extended warranty or not.
No dealership or manufacturer is going to put out an extra $10,000 dollars, at a loss to themselves, for any reason.
Dealerships who do not honor warranties, extended or not, is a big problem in America. I assure you. This is why we have Lemon laws.
Perhaps your experience is unique because you trade your cars in every few years, according to what have said here.
Just so you know, dealerships get around not honoring their warranties by prolonging the time they “say” they can fix a car… by claiming that they do not have the parts or that “having to order parts will take weeks,” and on and on it goes until the warranty time has expired.
The primary benefit is that I purchase precious little gasoline, while having the ability to make long trips out of town with the same car.
And, of course, I share in the lack of maintenance as the large majority of the miles is in "EV" mode.Its all good so long as its still under warranty.
That is the key to EV or Hybrid.Well, the Prius went over 100,000 miles and the Volt was approaching that figure. I think your experience was an anomaly; I have read nothing indicating breakdowns are common in hybrids (have not researched EV's except to note that Tesla's are hard to get worked on).
It pales by comparison to women's rights and democracy. The border has been an issue, and until Congress changes asylum laws, or passes any meaningful legislation, which the MAGA wing refuses to do, it's easy to see that they are just as much to blame.
Biden's about to get the most substantial immigration bill passed in decades. Bipartisan on top of it!
I think (hope) you are right...but I would say that if it passes it will be because of Biden's exceedingly stupid handling of the border crises. Not because he worked hard to get a re-write of our immigration policies.
Had he closed, or even slowed, the border problem there would be no big push for immigration reform. But instead he welcomed anyone that could get here, and that has caused a massive uproar all over the country.I think this could be categorized as biden doing election year legislative pandering.
Curious about the motivation behind attempting to accommodate a large number of undocumented migrants in the U.S. over the last 3.5 years. The apparent lack of effective problem-solving has led to a significant crisis. It seems unreasonable to entertain any legislative proposals from the current Washington administration at this juncture, as it feels like a transparent and overused political maneuver. Hopefully, the majority can discern its true nature. So insulting to one's intelligence.
Yes, but we still lack election security. Republicans need to work much, much harder on that. The Democrats will cheat. That’s a given. They can manufacture a win even if they don’t have one. It’s what they do… and they’ve been playing the long game, which is to have a one party system, since the 1960’s. Most people don’t realize that.
Thus, many Americans, who take freedom for granted, still have quite a lot more “waking up” to do if we are to save our Republic.
Ironically, while Democrats claim to have superior intelligence, the reality is that they are stupendously ignorant about the history of fascists."while Democrats claim to have superior intelligence, the reality is that they are stupendously ignorant about the history of fascists."
You are correct. Fascist, racist, homophobe, etc. are just emotional words they use to scream down those who disagree with them. I don't know if I've seen a liberal who actually knew how to use the words.
Recently had a white college lib tell me the Bible was written by cis gender white men from Europe. Huh? Luckily, a friend of mine who is black told her the Bible was written in Africa. It was written by people from the Middle East, so, no, Europe had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible. She refused to believe it...and she...is going to be a teacher.
As the old saying goes, "Ignorance is Bliss."
Like most things coming from DC... they tell you its one thing, it really is another.
What the new "landmark bi-partisan immigration bill" does is actually help the immigrants, not slow/stop the flow.
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed a bill reforming America’s current immigration system, opening the possibility of a path to citizenship for the country’s 11+ million illegal immigrants that have entered the country since Biden took office.
In addition to the pathway to citizenship, the proposed bill would also increase security on the border by adding 20,000 new Border Patrol officers and building 700 miles of new fencing. The final bill and increased security will cost a total of $40 billion.
This minor 'concession' to 'Republican' concerns is just window dressing, these efforts will be used, just as the efforts and agencies at the border are used today... to help facilitate and control the entry of the millions of migrants into the country... not to deter them.
It is sad to see this ongoing debate about immigration. The Biden Administration, and for the most part our body of elected officials in DC, have signed on to the Open Border Society, the UN Global Compact on Migration, and the subjugation of the nation to higher International, borderless, institutions of authority.
The Americans that believe this new Immigration bill is going to do anything to deter the continued increase of immigrants are just as delusional and duped as those that thought voting for Biden was going to make things better for them, economically or socially (unless you happen to be a transgender or non-binary type, no such luck).All it is is a more inviting invitation to come on down. And I ask, we don't need change? OMG
This is exactly what it is.
Don't forget this is 'Bi-partisan' ...this is supposed to look like they are doing something to stop the flow of immigrants, but in reality all it is doing is giving it a more controlled, documented and humane way of allowing in millions of new migrants every year and ensuring those migrants get the proper government support and trackability once they get here.
This is your government putting the goals and agendas of the UN, WEF, Open Society - Borderless World ahead of the interests or desired intent of its citizens.
Same thing that goes on with the EU, UK, all Western Nations today... they give lip service to the population and continue on their destructive path toward total enslavement for everyone, so the elites can control everything.Bringing it back to the election debate and reasons why to consider who to vote for. I came across this video, a discussion about the Space Force and the impact the Biden Administration has had on the military.
If you want to understand the potential threat this "woke" agenda of theirs is, this former Colonel brings a lot of it to light in a very articulate way.
If you want to skip the niceties and the explanation of what the Space Force is, and get down to the pertinent details, skip the first ten minutes.
Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier: Does US Have a Fighting Force?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZs00IfkG3sExcellent interview. My focus is not on recognizing the evident issues related to the woke mindset; that much is apparent. Rather, my concerns center around acknowledging and addressing the challenges that have become conspicuous due to a segment of our society adopting this mindset.
I am encouraged by the emerging awareness among many that they may have been misled. Additionally, I observe some Republicans demonstrating a willingness to challenge the status quo, adopting a strategy of fighting fire with fire.
So, yes I see many pointing out wokeism, what it is, what it causes in society -- But, I think it is time to say we may be seeing the tail end of "this pet rock".
I feel a great upheaval in pure dissatisfaction when it comes to "we the people". My hope streams eternal.What should be alarming is the information provided, in which he states they have conducted a political/ideological witch hunt through the ranks of the military... if you don't support the most radical 'progressive' beliefs of the current Administration they have made every effort to exorcise those soldiers from the ranks, especially the officer ranks.
While Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier's discourse was undeniably gripping, shocking, and downright unsettling, what struck me most was his courage in speaking out. It instills a glimmer of hope that many others might follow suit—anyone. I sense a tremor beneath the surface. Hopefully, the dam will break.
I believe 2024 will make a resounding statement. Between us, Ken, do you think Republicans will adhere to their traditional approach and resort to grandstanding to camouflage their perceived lack of determination? The track record of such tactics seems quite prevalent.
I have shared I see more steam and starch... But what are your thoughts?If you have a society that believes in nothing it is completely doomed on every level.
In stripping away traditions and cultural unity, which allowed our culture to prosper in healthy ways, we are destined to decline.
Remember, our greatest accomplishments came once we stripped away the worst of those elements in our society... like slavery... and moved forward into a world of innovation as well as enlightenment.
It is the balance between the rather strict moral/religious code of American society that existed into the 1960s with the enlightened philosophies that lit the French Revolution (only to flame out because it was not balanced with realism and moral structures which faith based society brings) that allowed America to become what it was/is.
Today much of this Equity, Social justice, Feminism, CRT which is being pushed down the throats of Americans... is destroying that, is counter to what makes a great society or a functional/healthy one, as time is going to prove out.
Its like a new form of Nazism or Stalinism that is taking hold... it just doesn't seem like it because the economy seems to be doing well... in fact the world is too different for that type of mass murder to take place, that type of enslavement of the populace.
But what we could see, is what occurred to Venezuela a decade ago, where a country that was doing very well tanked almost overnight because of corruption and idiotic leadership which put 'socialistic ideals' ahead of economic realities.
Venezuela went from a top tier nation to a failed nation so quickly not just because of falling oil prices, or U.S. sanctions but because the State to control of all vital economic industries, such as state control of the agricultural industry, as its control increased, Venezuela's food production fell 75% in two decades, while the country's population increased by 33%.
The same could happen here, as the State forces small and mid-sized businesses and farms to fail, helping the mega-corporations to become the only game in town, and as the State decides to regulate to death the use of coal and natural gas, America will face a similar fate.
This is where the Biden Administration is taking America, it has worked tirelessly to put into effect regulations and agendas that will cripple America in the years ahead.Alright, Ken
“In stripping away traditions and cultural unity, which allowed our culture to prosper in healthy ways, we are destined to decline.”
These traditions and concepts of cultural unity has been to the detriment of many, I would not be in so much of a hurry to support the right wingers desired standard for the status quo.
________
“Remember, our greatest accomplishments came once we stripped away the worst of those elements in our society... like slavery... and moved forward into a world of innovation as well as enlightenment.”
And replaced it with legalized apartheid and segregation, subjecting the unfortunate recipients with endless terror, both in reality and enshrined in our laws through systemic racism. That being continued by erasing the literature and authors that do not parrot right wing speak. Conservatives have always had a problem with contrary ideas.
_______
Today much of this Equity, Social justice, Feminism, CRT which is being pushed down the throats of Americans... is destroying that, is counter to what makes a great society or a functional/healthy one, as time is going to prove out.
We are never going to be content with those that consistently try to cover up, disguise the truth for what is and was. And we are not going to get along in a society that will not acknowledge equal opportunity for all.
—————-
But what we could see, is what occurred to Venezuela a decade ago, where a country that was doing very well tanked almost overnight because of corruption and idiotic leadership which put 'socialistic ideals' ahead of economic realities.
This is the same claptrap I have been hearing from conservatives since the McCarthy scare during the 1950s. So, yes, is the sky falling?
___________
The same could happen here, as the State forces small and mid-sized businesses and farms to fail, helping the mega-corporations to become the only game in town, and as the State decides to regulate to death the use of coal and natural gas, America will face a similar fate.
You conservatives are always trumpeting the virtue of capitalism and free markets. Isn’t your hard and fast rule being if you can’t keep up, you don’t survive? I have never seen Republicans embrace eliminating monopolies and trusts, not since Teddy Roosevelt. the last Republican president that I would have been proud to vote for.
————-It's a safe bet that you have a pocket full of detrimental 'American prescriptions' and cultural traditions examples, but are there any that you think still hold value and are worth holding onto?
Have we evolved beyond the values of nuclear families or personal responsibility? Now that we have smartphone video connections are special-day family gatherings valueless?
Surely there must be some American cultural tradition you hold onto. Is our structure as a republic of states rather than one national mass conglomeration of citizens a relic now?
As a side note, the Venezuela example might be a fair caricature of its intended point. The public got on board with identity politics and they lost their democracy. (as an opinion of course ;-))
GAYes, GA, your "bet" is correct.
Nobody is attacking families gathering for Sunday dinner nor the idea that we work to obtain advancement and advantage. Horses use to be used as primary modes of transportation, what role do they play today? Technology and change are inevitable part of our lives. But, I forget, it is only that Right that want to prevent the sun from rising a new day. A total exercise in futility.
Let's focus on the grievances expressed by MAGA and listed by Ken in an earlier response?
Equity, Social Justice, Feminism, CRT
Conservatives love to erringly state that equal opportunity mean equal outcomes, it is just another one of their ruses. It is not the same and I know better even though they like to pretend that I don't.
Social Justice: isn't that be something that we attain to, to work toward a more just and fair society for all instead of casting off such concepts as Woke?
Feminism: we have come along way from June Cleaver to Sally Ride and Kamela Harris. Instead of resenting and blaming feminism as MAGA and the Right always do, maybe we need to recognize it as a necessary step toward more just and fair society. No wonder that I read so many articles about MAGA Neanderthals having trouble getting dates. No one is going to allow their lives to be circumscribed by social mores designed to keep them forever in a subordinate position. I would not accept that, why should they? I have nothing against homemakers as long as everyone has a choice.
CRT: I take issue with only a portion of the theory, while I consider most of it as correct. I acknowledge that conservatives resist these kinds of discussions, but hiding the truth through censorship and lies is not going to put out the fire. The correct idea is that the US has used systemic racism in law and in custom through the lion's share of its history. The residual effects we are currently living with to a varying extent, today. Anyone saying otherwise is part of a gross fabrication of reality.
I live with the Electoral College because I still think it too contentious to attempt to remove. But the idea that the majority of the people should elect the President rather than engage in these slight of hand from small red states for whom the Electoral College process gives an advantage is something I would prefer."But, I forget, it is only that Right that want to prevent the sun from rising a new day. A total exercise in futility."
Geez bud, with that stage setting, futility jumped on my shoulder and asked "Why bother?" But, I did butt in, so . . .
It's probably more accurate to say conservatives say that is what liberals want - equal outcome, not equal opportunity. I'm thinking a huge majority of conservatives could get behind the equal opportunity goal quest. It isn't conservatives that push for ethnic and diversity parity in abilities decisions, they're the ones pushing the merit mantra (as you noted further on).
Working towards the common goals of social justice is a good thing. I'm usually all for it. But, the next step beyond that agreement is agreeing on the goal specifics.
The goals your use of "woke" implies aren't common goals they are fringe goals that, typically, are only common to that fringe. There are good goals to go after, but those of 'woke', as being demanded, aren't good or just. I'm not shortchanging you by omitting listed specifics because Ken has already noted most of the prominent ones.
Your horses and cars analogy is good for one point, but not yours. It illustrates technical and knowledge evolution as social advancement but its point is the evolution of tools. You could have used balloons and rockets or even handsaws and chainsaws. But, you couldn't use biological definitions. "We used to have two sexes but now we have evolved and advanced to ...." wouldn't work. Biologically a woman is still a woman and there are still only 2 (+1) biological sexes. You're going to have to drag conservatives all the way on those.
GAGeez bud, with that stage setting, futility jumped on my shoulder and asked "Why bother?" But, I did butt in, so . . .
Yeah, You did choose put your two cents in.....
Conservatives always talk about equal outcomes verses equal opportunity when except for choice lip service I don't think that they really support either one, nor a viable path toward improvement beyond status quo. You have a more optimistic view of conservatives than do I.
But it was the conservatives and their love of the status quo and rigid hierarchies that maintain the structural advantages that made certain that the ethnic and diversity crowd were never in a position to ever compete on a level playing ground in the first place.
I do agree we need plans and targets and less of those sweet sounding words that tickle the ear, but has no reality beyond the lips of those that utter them.
I don't know, GA, that "fringe" seems to have lot of adherents and support. It has grown more prominent rather than more obscure. Case in point: Donald J. Trump.
My use of Woke is to define anything rightwingers believe that threaten their values as they have always needed to control the narrative. I am not as confident that it is so "fringe". This sort of rubbish, censorship and such, has manage to get a lot a mileage over the last two years.
I never touched on the gender identification stuff. But can we agree in that in the 21st century women have a right to express themselves as individuals and dispense with the "handmaidens tale" stuff? This is the "conservatism MAGA and Ken was alluding to in his comment. They want to return to that, I consider that extreme.Lefties and Righties (a favored term) will be the better labels. Liberals and Conservatives are too broad.
Conservatives embrace equal opportunity, Righties support the 'by your bootstraps' access to opportunity mantra—only. There is a difference. Liberals support affirmative action-type solutions Lefties want statistical parity.
As for resisting change and preferring the status quo - that's all Rightie stuff. And demanding instant societal upheaval is all Leftie.
Hierarchies are a human thing, not a Conservative or Rightie one. You might ding them for preferring certain ones but you would be wrong to consider belief in hierarchies as a negative thing.
Lefties want to smash the hierarchies because they think they're oppressive, but all they're doing is replacing them with ones that Righties think are oppressive. Hierarchies are us bud, belief in them as a concept is not bad, it's reality. Something Lefties and Righties have a problem with.
As for the fringes getting bigger (deeper, wider?), maybe they are, and maybe their increased voice will make them easier to define and confront.
Consider this: The current 3-way election race—Biden, Trump, and Haley, illustrates the public's division. Biden is the Left, Trump is the Right, and Haley is the middle. The only reason (it seems) Haley is still in the race after all the others (particularly DeSantas and Ramaswamy) have failed is because the non-fringe independents and moderates of both parties still support her.
The point isn't about their political affiliations, it's about the strength of the independent and moderate block. Haley is still in the race because we're coming out of the woodwork to confront both extremes.
With Biden and Trump as the final choices, nobody wins in this election. We're going to get what we have earned. The next four years will see stuff so bad (from either side), that there may be a valid Independent choice in 2028.
I told ya bud, moderates are not extinct in either party. The campaign stats are beginning to define those three segments and it's the Independent and moderate categories that have grown the most.
GAIf I may offer a differing perspective.
Biden - Corrupt Establishment hack - Dem version
Haley - Corrupt Establishment hack - Rep version
Trump - Not Establishment, if nothing else
RFK - Independant, Outsider, not approved by the Establishment (but who knows how that plays out in the end, if he gets in).
There really has been a shift in what politics are in America today, that many, be it the MSM or here in the forums, don't see or don't want to acknowledge.
It is less about Dems or Reps or Independents or Libertarians...
It is more about anti-establishment, anti-same-old-corrupt-DC.
That is what Trump truly represents, the people tired of a lying government that fails them and does not put their interests first.
When Trump is gone, the number of discontented Americans will continue to grow, will continue to have contempt for the government we have that focuses on pleasing the corporations and international institutions at the expense of the American people.
This is the primary reason why there is a focus on the #1 threat to "Democracy" being "domestic terrorists" aka American citizens.Trump - Corrupt for his own Self-Interests hack
There, fixed it for you.
The inability to identify the candidate with 91 felony indictments as corrupt is duly noted.Your different perspective was of a different representation. The three may fit (or not) your described representation, but my use of them was as representing blocks of voters: Liberals, Conservatives, and Independents (& moderates).
I think you're right about what Trump represents to Republican conservatives but, as a trend, I think he's lost that mantle with most moderates and independents. That's just a perception and arguing about it is a different conversation.
It's not hard to nod at the cynicism of your uni-party and DC uni-game thoughts. Politics seem to no longer have any moral ground anywhere, on any issue, in either party. I think poll pundits have been saying that for years with their annual Congressional approval polls. It's probably in the single digits by now.
Speaking of polls, the irony just set in. Pols tout their polls as the voice of the electorate to prove they are right, yet the Congressional Approval poll never gets a mention.
GaThats fair (reference to paragraph one) I suppose I did, and you did.
To paragraph two, yes indeed... but not entirely.
There is all that you say, regarding Libs and Cons, Biden or Haley supporters.
But there is more as well.
There is a legitimate... 10%... 20%... 30%... of Americans that are done with this corrupt "establishment"... "things as usual"... vote for change, which is no change... they recognize the difference between Biden and Haley is, in reality, nothing... all the same policies and agendas will be continued.
The government recognizes this, recognizes that there is this growing percentage of Americans that are disillusioned with our government and its lack of response to its citizen's needs and wants.
We haven't gotten to the point where we are at Elysium (a 2013 American dystopian science fiction flick) levels of disconnect and abuse, but damned if it isn't getting pretty obvious those running the show, and those supporting them, wouldn't like to get there.I can go along with the sentiment shared in that people are dissatisfied with our government, governing, and politics in general. I did a study a ways back to learn in that topic area.
A Pew Research study, Americans’ Views of Government: Decades of Distrust, Enduring Support for Its Role (June 6, 2022) presents some stark realities. Some are:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … -its-role/
** 65% say most political candidates run for office 'to serve their own personal interests'
** Trust in the Federal government peaked in the 60s at 77% and since then it has been a rocky road declining to 20% in 2022
** Only 18% have a lot of confidence in the nation's future with 51% saying some. (2022)
It is an eight page report with plenty of graphics for a skim to grasp the dissatisfaction sentiment in our political/governing today.
Another Pew Research Study, Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics (Sept 19, 2023) shares:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … -politics/
** 65% say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics
** Just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well; another 23% say it is working somewhat well. About six-in-ten (63%) express not too much or no confidence at all in the future of the U.S. political system.
An overall sentiment snap shot for how Americans feel when they think about politics is:
** Exhausted = 65%
** Angry = 55%
** Hopeful = 10%
** Excited = 4%
It is a twelve page report also with plenty of graphics.
But, as you shared it is common knowledge overall people are dissatisfied with governing and politics today!! And, it has been a trend for decades now.
I ask myself why? We all have our views to answer that question. Those two reports, for me, answers a good portion of it while I find agreement too.Those are reasonably current that makes them pretty good sources to help back up the claim I made.
Voters (obviously some 45 to 65% of them) recognize there is no difference between Biden and Haley, they are "establishment" shills that will push all the same policies and agendas.
Not when it comes to social affairs, the people controlling our politicians are happy to let us fight over abortion, gender, child mutilation, child abuse... they don't care about those things, they use them to divide.
The significant issues regarding power, control, economy, privacy... so long as they can continue to take more of those, from the people, from the government of the people, from foreign nations that try to resist... they don't care.
You want to call yourself a woman if you're a man, or a non-binary, or a furry freak... go right ahead, heck, they'll pass a law or write up an executive order, make it headline news so everyone can argue about it.
But don't you DARE question why we have troops in Syria or have spent a dozen years there trying to overthrow the government.
Americans that don't have any desire to wake up are being woken up, that's bound to happen when we have multiple wars breaking out and when neighborhood schools and churches are being overrun with migrants.
I don't know their are varying forms of "lefties". There are the just left of center Dems like Biden, who was hardly a bomb throwing leftist, no more than Obama was. Then there are people like me, further left from center who embraces Warren and Sanders as viable candidates. Then there is the AOC and the bomb squad that would tear it all down and start over.
The Right has similar delineation, it is just that a larger percentage of them are on the extreme end, Donald Trump, willing to tear it all down is the case in point.
Bootstrap concepts are fine, as long as you have boots to start with. Righties know that you are at that disadvantage already, so their concepts and words are meaningless.
Liberals supported Affirmative Action remedies, what did conservatives support to promote equal opportunity, as they resisted affirmative action from the outset?
Hierarchies are a human thing. But unjust hierarchies as alluded to by Ken and his anti-feminist position are something different. Hierarchies based on merit, education, experience, qualifications are acceptable as you or I could obtain to the same if we wished. But hierarchies based solely on the color of ones skin or gender is not amongst those. That is unearned privilege and I won't buy it. Righties like hierarchies that bestow the Right of Kings, much like any monarchy, what gives you the right to rule over all of us?
Don't fool yourself about Haley, she is MAGA through and through. The only difference between her and Trump is she is not Trump and does not threaten the democratic process, at least not openly. She is a just more engaging form of a DeSantis, let's say.
While Haley is in the race, she will not win the nomination for the party. So the extreme represented by Trump is synonymous with today's Republican Party. So we Dems get what we want, Donald Trump attempting to run again with an extremist agenda, forcing moderates to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Republicans are just kicking the dust over Biden for purely partisan reasons when every statistic indicates an improving economy. The GOP has been good at redirecting and diverting away from the fact that the cause of economic distress took place during Trumps watch.You're arguing about which fringe is more extreme I'm arguing about which segment (mainstream or extreme) is larger — all within the three represented groupings: Liberal, Conservative, and Independent/moderate.
You mentioned three liberal lanes: Biden, Progressives, and The Squad. I don't think Biden is a Moderate, so you need one more lane: Left of center (moderates), Biden Left), Progressives, and then the Squad.
But that's a small point. You're right, conservatives have the same divisions.
So get rid of the bad hierarchies, don't kvetch about the reality of hierarchies. We've made some pretty good progress in the last 60 years. A lot of bad hierarchies have been demolished.
I wasn't promoting Haley as anything more than a representation of a block of voters: most Independents who want a choice other than Trump or Biden, and the moderates of both parties who don't like their nominee.
GACurious, which Democrat candidate do you or have considered to be left of center moderate, since Biden is a radical lefty?
While we have made progress in the last 60 years, that progress is becoming all the more precarious just based on the grievances of MAGA as presented by Ken.Perhaps if liberals stopped moving ever further left there wouldn't be a problem.
Perhaps, if conservatives stop moving tyrannically right we would have even less of problem......
As you well know, conservatives are moving left as well. Occasionally we see something from the far right (abortion comes to mind) that defies that trend, but it is there just as is the leftward movement of the left. 50 years ago the left was where the right is now.
I don't know that I agree with that. There was a time conservatives were concerned with federal spending and states rights, (Nelson Rockefeller and the 1960s). Now they are involved in culture issues, abortion is not just an aberration but part of that. They slavishly follow a clown of a man, whose malevolent influence has intimidated even people in Congress who should know better.
Trump has had the election stolen from him? They all got on board without a scintilla of proof. Why? Because Trump says so?
This is not representative of conservatives moving left in my opinion.Moving away from fiscal conservatism to "spend at will" is not moving left? Moving to more and more "cultural issues" (such as trans issues, gay issues, etc.) is not moving left? Accepting and encouraging ever bigger government is not moving left?
Trump has nothing to do with the entire government moving left; it began and went on long before Trump was on the scene.Are conservatives really the responsible spenders of tax payers dollars, or are they simply more profligate in differing areas? Trump has added the largest increase in our deficit during his one term over either ObAma or Biden.
So, conservatives bring in replacing actual American history with Disneyesque versions as a clear lie and distortion? They also have the book banning biddies, that is the ugly face of the right, in your face.
If bigg r government is tied to bigger spending the Republicans do not necessarily get a passing grade...
Until the Right is ultimately brought to heel, I certainly going have trouble with this universe shifting left stuff from the RightThe government started to go leftwards beginning in 1965 with the implementation of the Great Society which later developed into the welfare state as we know it.
OK. I wasn't just dissing Trump, but trying to discuss the gradual but very real movement of the parties. You wish to discuss Trump - have at it.
Pew Research disagrees saying since '71 - '72 (92nd Congress) both the House and Senate has moved more conservative.
The polarization in today’s Congress has roots that go back decades (Mar 10, 2022) They have two graphics sharing their findings.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … k-decades/
Three key findings are:
** Both parties have grown more ideologically cohesive. There are now only about two dozen moderate Democrats and Republicans left on Capitol Hill, versus more than 160 in 1971-72.
** Both parties have moved further away from the ideological center since the early 1970s. Democrats on average have become somewhat more liberal, while Republicans on average have become much more conservative.
** The geographic and demographic makeup of both congressional parties has changed dramatically. Nearly half of House Republicans now come from Southern states, while nearly half of House Democrats are Black, Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander.Thank you, I have always suspected as much.
We can see now where the lines are being drawn in the sand.I don't think lines are being drawn in the sand.
I think the Parties are drifting apart.
The goals of the two parties had more things in common 50 years ago.
The differences weren't as noticeable.
That was before there was really any representation of women, or minorities, of any significance. But I don't think that is the primary reason for the growing divide.
Even if you made Congress 50% minority back in 1970, that wouldn't have made it as divisive as we see it today.
Americans shared much more common ideology and background back then, and the transformation of 'higher learning' into campuses of ideological indoctrination camps didn't exist.
Today, your average 50 year old leftie would be considered far-right on many of today's college campuses.Thanks for your comment. Ken.
"That was before there was really any representation of women, or minorities, of any significance. But I don't think that is the primary reason for the growing divide."
--------
Maybe, that is why there was less contention between the parties back then, white men dominated both sides. We had our champions that spoke for us, Ted Kennedy, while the other side had their Strom Thurmond. I Had the good fortune of meeting Senator Kennedy at Stapleton Airport in Denver as a teen in 1971. I swore that I would never wash those hands that I shook, but I did, anyway.
If I returned to my old alma mater 50 years after my heyday, would even I be considered a conservative relative to what goes on in today's campus? I really dont know, a certain amount of conservatism is going to come with age and that is unavoidable.
Universities were always hotbeds of relative leftist dissent. In my day, it was Nixon and Watergate, we were no less contentious relative to our times than young people are today. The very introduction of relatively larger number of minorities on campus was controversial in of itself at the time.
Each time and era has its own challenges unique to itself."Universities were always hotbeds of relative leftist dissent. In my day, it was Nixon and Watergate, we were no less contentious relative to our times than young people are today. The very introduction of relatively larger number of minorities on campus was controversial in of itself at the time."
Cred -- At a certain juncture, you mentioned, "We are different, more or less..." (not a direct quote). I attempted to emphasize the importance of individuality, highlighting that humans possess diverse traits beyond just their political inclinations. Recognizing and acknowledging these shared traits could potentially lessen the societal divide. I've consistently observed your appreciation for history, and in that aspect, we share a common trait.
I can only imagine if we shared a kitchen table back and forth on our thoughts regarding American history.Thanks, but speaking for myself. I have to say (our) individuals have shared experiences and problems in common where it had to be recognized that solutions had to be tribal, as those who making the problems certainly knew who to identify as subject to them.
Back then, we, in response to being "out of place" on a predominately white campus created organizations as encouragement and support for Black students to stay the course. Things have changed where many of those provision may well not be needed today.
As for the kitchen table, we could probably solve the problems of the universe over a few cups of coffee!!
Ken, In the past, Americans had a more unified ideology and shared background, and the concept of higher education was not characterized by the ideological indoctrination seen today. In my view, presently, a person with left-leaning views at the age of 50 might be considered conservative on many contemporary college campuses. The division in society seems to have arisen from discontent with traditional American values that were once embraced across political affiliations. It appears that some on the left now promote ideologies that many believe deviate from the foundational American principles cherished in the past. This perceived shift is at the core of the significant societal divide, giving rise to the widespread appeal of the "Make America Great" sentiment as people yearn for a return to what they see as essential American values. (Please take note I am speaking in general, just addressing the subject.)
This is as I see it, though I acknowledge Cred's reply to that comment as well, that each time/generation "era has its own challenges unique to itself."
At the same time America had its Civil Rights marches and movements, we had 'red scare' blacklisting of communists and extreme leftists.
The 60s led to Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, and a healthy skepticism and accountability of our government.
Sixty years later we see almost the complete opposite to all those things.
Instead of Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity, what is being pushed and championed today is Equity and Race Theory, the exact opposite of what was being fought for in the 60s.
Instead of blacklisting and ending the careers of those accused of being communists, they are now attacking/silencing/deplatforming/arresting those accused of being conservatives (a more extensive list of names, I umbrella under the term conservative, for arguments sake).
And instead of a healthy skepticism for our government and effort to hold it accountable, we have not just the MSM making excuses and lying on its behalf, we have a good amount of average America accepting the corruption and overreach, outright defending their Party politics, right or wrong, like fanatics protecting their faith.
One side in particular seems to have the establishment, the MSM, and the big money donors fully behind it.
It seems like conservatives have a diverse range of perspectives. In my view, this diversity might be a source of discomfort for Democrats. I believe the outcome of the 2016 election should have served as a clear indicator of the direction the Republican party was heading. The pedestal peachers such as Romney, have become a thing of the past in the Republican party. Many are more than willing to fight fire with fire, and mud with mud.
Nope, I didn't say Biden was radical. I said he wasn't a moderate. I would have put the Squad as a radical and since you put Progressives a step before AOC, and beyond Biden, are you (Progressives) a radical Leftie?
For your question, no name pops to mind. Maybe Kennedy when he started, but I don't know where he's going now. He's courting the Libertarians. He might be heading for your center-left lane.
GAI believe that Biden is a moderate in the Democratic Party tradition, and RFK Jr. is more of a Republican and would never be acceptable to real Democrats.
And no, I am not a radical Lefty but anything not MAGA is considered radical left by Republicans these days.
Things have to be considered in proper context Credence, something many in today's America have no ability to do... no desire to do... it's just another part of the delusional norm that has taken hold.
Yes, there were very biased, racist, laws and social restrictions as recent as the 60s being enforced.
However, adding some context, this is the country that abolished slavery and has enforced that across much of the world.
This is the country that in the 60s did away with the laws and societal norms that were racist allowing for Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity.
What our government is pushing today is not Rights and Opportunity, it is pushing Tyranny and Racism, divide and control.
One could say we had some of our best moments in the 60s, and some of our worst moments in the 60s... we had some of the best and brightest step forward as examples for us all, and we had the seeds of the nation's downfall planted... all in that decade.
The best... and the worst... the best shone bright and paid the ultimate price for it. The worst slithered in the shadows planting the seeds which has led America to become the twisted, corrupt, nation (at least in DC and its NY media sycophants) that it is today.
To listen to our "leaders" today... Biden... Graham... these sick and twisted individuals that call out for war against Iran, Russia, wanting to bring the world into a World War which will cost the lives of tens of millions of people and ruin the lives of hundreds of millions more.
Supporting the ruination ongoing throughout the Middle East, Ukraine, and if they have their way it will spread into Asia as well.
All the while enforcing their twisted ideals on Americans and telling them they better accept it or lose their jobs... men being women, children being mutilated, insanity being tolerated.
This Administration and those in DC that support it will be cast out, not just for the betterment of America, but the world... or America will become the new tyrannical evil that the entire world (minus some allies) unites against to defeat. The new Axis of Evil... we are very close to that point now.
I hope Americans wake up to what is going on, we literally have two fronts of war raging right now... with a possible third to open up in Asia, take your pick North Korea or China. It isn't by accident... these things didn't just occur... America has funded one side of the Ukraine conflict and is funding and arming most sides of the chaos erupting in the Middle East.Those who scream racism are the most racist. Just listen to their words against Whites and Jews.
Nothing you say will change their minds.
Obviously, if they are willing to vote for FDR, a white man who was a racist, LBJ, a white man who was a racist, and Joe Biden, a white man who is still a racist, then you have to conclude that white racist men in power still have control over their minority constituents.
But not all “minorities” vote for racist men and women, including myself.
Many minorities are waking up. Enough to make a difference.Identifying an act of racism is often straightforward, as it can be triggered by mere words. However, proving the intent behind such actions is a more challenging task. The process of attempting to establish intent can inadvertently contribute to perpetuating pure forms of racism. This, in turn, hinders progress toward achieving positive outcomes in the ongoing efforts to combat racism.
Is this not a very sad disruptive circle?
"Yes, there were very biased, racist, laws and social restrictions as recent as the 60s being enforced."
That, Ken, is what is meant by systemic racism.
The conservatives always look at the 1960s with dismay and the beginning of the end. I say the conditions of the 1950s were not sustainable and was equivalent to a boiling cauldron waiting to explode. But conservative see it as some sort of nirvana. As such, we should all be grateful that the 1960s happened.
I no more support the war lords than you do. I criticize Biden for rushing in too fast and being far too conciliatory with Israel in general. Netanyahu is more than capable of executing his "final solution" to the Palestinian question all by himself. We needed to take a more neutral stance and avoid the DEFCON 1 stuff on their behalf. For all the aid we given them which is exorbitant in my opinion, to have Netanyahu ignore our desire that he be more selective about his terror in the region and flip us the bird, he is playing us for a chump.
'Trump never called half the nation Extremists, Terrorists, and the greatest threat to Democracy ...'
Perhaps you don't actually listen to his speeches. He cannot refer to the left without using the word radical. He also uses Marxist and Communists in pretty much every speech, showing his complete lack of understanding of the terms. He refers to the media as the enemy of the people.
Next, your claim that Biden referred to half the nation as Extremists, Terrorists, and the greatest threat to Democracy ...' really exaggerates the scope of MAGA. Republicans represent around one-third of the voting population. Maybe MAGA has about 80% of that party under their spell. 80% of that third is closer to 25% of the country. Like everything else these days, MAGA really exaggerates how popular they actually are to make themselves believe that people actually like them. It's the same mirage as the red wave and election fraud in 2020, just not grounded in actual reality.
As to the DOJ, FBI, and IRS, pretty sure Barr changing the meaning of what Mueller said in his report two weeks before its releases was a co-opt. Pretty sure firing the FBI Director for investigating Trump's Campaign 's ties to the Russians was a co-opt. And Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe might disagree with the weaponization of the IRS against them.
I watched a report last week discussing the likeliness of big money donors (Wall St.) getting behind Trump, in an interesting twist.
They realize he is the only politician with a rock solid populist following, they seem to have come to the realization that they can't destroy his popularity with 40% of Americans, so they might as well try and work with him...
A lot of commentary coming from some of the most influential and powerful financiers about how things weren't so bad under Trump, that infact, he did quite a few good things for the economy.
In contrast to that, with average day Americans, the wars are not popular, the state of the economy is not favorable, and Biden is getting worse bumbling and stumbling about as time goes on.
Right now major Democratic money (funding from private sources) is pouring into Haley's campaign, she is the 'establishment' shill, for those looking for a continuation of the Biden Administration... the wars and overspending and continual 'progressive' insanity... Haley is the Republican candidate that DC would be happy with.
Like I said, we'll see where things are at in a few months... if things are trending worse, there is no chance for Biden, and the smart money will start smoozing up to Trump... unless they can pull a rabbit out of their hat and get Haley the nomination, then they won't care who wins, it will remain the same.
Kaplan in New York is highly respected, and if people would actually do the research instead of letting themselves be brainwashed by Trump's false narratives, they would have realized this. He's overseen cases of the Gambino crime family, Chevron, Giuffre v Prince Andrew, and recently had the Sam Bankman-Fried case.
Again, the brainwashing to exaggerate the level of corruption at the FBI is another win for Trump's constant barrage of propaganda. The FBI and DOJ absolutely have credibility, just not with MAGA thanks to Trump's lies. It's no different than what we've seen in relation to voter fraud, despite the historical proof of Trump's lies, his cult followers will believe whatever narratives he feeds them, even when it's as ridiculous as massive amounts of fraud in a national election that Joe Biden coordinated with numerous GOP Secretaries of State, from his basement, while suffering from dementia.
Most Americans think people that follow Trump lack critical thinking skills to understand they are being lied to. In my own opinion, I believe those people to be traitors, willing to support and reelect someone who tried to overturn a free and fair election using criminal means. We'll see if the evidence Jack Smith presents backs up that belief or if the Trump defense is able to change my mind.
And it will be surprising if 'America' demands a change back to the guy who organized and incited a domestic terror attack on his own Capitol. Let alone the guy who is claiming responsibility for taking away a woman's right to her body autonomy. Maybe your version of America might demand that change, but as we've seen since 2018, the actual majority of Americans have been rejecting MAGA candidates enthusiastically. Someday, we hope that MAGA will wake up to the fact that the MAGA movement is not well-liked at all in this country.
And if Trump gets jailed for the crimes he committed, I think most people will accept those results, since it will be a jury of his peers that will make that decision. Just as when he called for protests at the courthouse in New York after his indictment, more people showed up to support the indicters than the protest for him. They saw what happened on January 6, and did not want to fall victim to his incitement again, or to him using them - as he could have issued pardons to his supporters in the two weeks after January 6 if he really cared for them.“Go ahead, throw Trump in jail and deny America the change they are demanding if the crap is hitting the fan in 2024, I am curious to see how that will play out. “
Ken, don’t you mean MAGA America? There are several millions that are not a part of that. If Trump is convicted of a crime he will go to jail just like anybody else, no exceptions.
No popcorn, Fearless Freep may well be preempted won’t be able to do his high wire act……
One thing is there was never even any solid evidence she had even met President Donald Trump.
Maybe you're right. But then again, there's that photo of them toghether where Trump mistook his "not his type" accuser for his wife. Ha.That's the problem with being a celebrity like Trump was, you are always in the mix and people are always getting photos in your presence.
But unlike Bill Gates and Bill Clinton, Trump never took a plane trip to an exotic island with Epstein, as much as the media may allude to otherwise.
But there are photos of Epstein and Trump in the same room... probably until the time Trump through him out of his resort for accosting a friend's teenage daughter.
You don't get the truth from the MSM anymore than you get Justice from the NY Justice Department. Those who have dealt with NY courtrooms know of what I speak all too well."Maybe you're right."
I consider that to be HUGE.
Accusing a person of rape with no solid evidence is horrible.
The lack of solid evidence made this civil trial a real joke.
IF President Donald Trump had been found guilty at a criminal trial, and then a civil lawsuit was filed against him, that would get my attention.
Realistically, people from afar look at what is evident, without bias. In my view, Biden is incapable of being the President, he has proven this time after time.
I get sent clips from Sky News in Australia. You should see what their commentators say about biden and harris. Ukrainians like that he supports them but fear he isn't strong enough to stand up to Putin. They worry that he may back down to Putin eventually. biden's presidency has caused significant stress in a lot of countries in Eastern Europe.
Sky News...Australis's version of Fox News. Circular logic. Also, the site that Alex Jones goes to back up his own conspiracy theories.
I do like the Sky News segments called "Lefties Losing it."
Understatement of the year. People are waking up. The propaganda machine of the radical left is not particularly popular amongst informed Americans. Americans are not born to be cogs in a wheel as the elites in Davos have told us we must be.
The good news? Even Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan, has seen the writing on the wall, much to his chagrin… He’s now covering his bases:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/busines … n/3425573/
Just a note that Biden's first three years in office is not the measure of debt under Biden, as he's only three months into his third year of budgets. Measure the debt added from when his budget started in October of 2021, not January of 2021 as that was still Trump's budget. Informed Americans would know this, I suppose.
I found a great link that gives some insight into the nation's debt. Why some presidents spent more. Trump would have done very well if he did not need to get us all through a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.
"Similarly in 2020, when the government's response to the outbreak of COVID-19 shut down businesses and caused a sharp rise in unemployment, Congress passed a $2.2 trillion stimulus bill called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which then-President Donald Trump signed into law in March 2020. The $2.2 trillion price tag makes it the largest financial rescue package in U.S. history.
The CARES Act authorized direct payments to American families of $1,200 per adult plus $500 per child for households earning up to $75,000 annually."
"Top 5 Presidents Who Added to National Debt by Percentage
Here are the top five presidents in modern U.S. history who recorded the largest percentage increase to national debt during their term(s) in office.
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933 to 1945)
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) contributed the largest percentage increase to U.S. national debt to date. Roosevelt entered office when the United States was in the depths of the Great Depression, the longest economic recession in modern history. FDR’s New Deal, a series of government-funded programs to fight the devastating effects of the Great Depression, added significantly to the national debt.
The U.S. national debt went up when FDR took office because of the New Deal.
But the biggest contributor to the national debt under FDR was World War II.
2. Woodrow Wilson (1913 to 1921)
President Woodrow Wilson added to the U.S. national debt with funding war efforts during World War I. Under Wilson, U.S. government debt increased from over $2.9 billion in 1913 when he took office to over $23.9 billion when he left office in 1921.
3. Ronald Reagan (1981 to 1989)
President Ronald Reagan added over $1.6 trillion to the U.S. national debt.
The actor-turned-president supported supply-side economics and believed government intervention reduced economic growth. His economic policies involved widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, and more military spending. Reagan increased defense spending by 35% in his two terms as president.
4. George W. Bush (2001 to 2009)
President George W. Bush added about $4 trillion to the U.S. national debt.
Military spending increased to record levels under Bush, due to launching the war in Afghanistan and War on Terror in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as the Iraq War in 2003. Additionally, Bush supported and signed into law significant tax cuts which contributed to increases in national debt. Bush and his administration also dealt with recessions in 2001 and 2008 (the Great Recession).
5. Barack Obama (2009 to 2017)
When looking at which president added the most to the national debt in dollar amounts, President Barack Obama takes the lead.
Obama’s efforts to spur recovery from the Great Recession through his $832 billion stimulus package and $858 billion in tax cuts contributed to the rise in national debt during his presidency.
Obama White House Archives. "The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Five Years Later,"
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by … ge-7371225
It seems clear that the top five came up against circumstances that made it necessary to spend.
Biden, perhaps not... He spent on unnecessary policies that we just could not afford at this time in our nation's growth.
National Debt Continues to Rise Under President Biden
The national debt has grown by over $6.24 trillion since Biden took office in 2021, largely driven by COVID-19 relief measures. If we measure from the start of the new fiscal year on October 1st, 2021 the debt has grown by over $5.56 trillion under President Biden.
According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Biden’s American Rescue Plan would add $1.9 trillion to the national debt by 2031
Biden also signed a bipartisan infrastructure bill into law in November 2021. It provides funding for improvements to roads, bridges, public transit, drinking water, and expanded access to the internet, among other initiatives.
The plan is estimated to cost around $375 billion over 10 years.
Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, which would have canceled up to $20,000 of federally held student loan debt per borrower, was expected to cost the federal government about $305 billion total over 10 years, according to an estimate by the U.S. Department of Education.
However, that plan was overturned by the Supreme Court in June 2023.
A new plan called Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE), which officially became available to student loan borrowers in August 2023, will provide a new path to relief for borrowers.
The plan could cost $230 billion over 10 years.
Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which aims to invest in green energy initiatives and reduce healthcare costs, could actually reduce the deficit by $58 billion over the next decade, according to an estimate by the CBO.
Congressional Budget Office. “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 117-169, to Provide for Reconciliation under Title II of S. Con. Res.”
I feel that perhaps fighting the expenditure would have been prudent until we could recover from the Pandemic expenditures. Some economists feel his overspending following the Pandemic caused the inflation we have felt now for three years. Inflation stats show progress, but we are left paying higher prices for just about everything we purchase, as well as high-interest rates.Thanks, I appreciate the info. Noted! Almost overwhelming. It will take some time to digest. As an aside, I am waiting for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget release on Biden. They already published one for Trump.
How Much Did President Trump Add to the Debt? (Jan 10, 2024)
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did … p-add-debtHey, i was still adding LOL
I am sorry for the lengthy post. I hope you will just check out the link when time permits. Good food for thought, and a very straightforward article that shows no bias, just facts.
Hey, something to consider on your journey to decision-making.
What I got out of the article --- I stood back and considered who spent what, whether was it necessary at the time, and how a president's decision on spending it affected the general economy.Thanks! As a novice learning I appreciate everything regard the debt. Interestingly the Investopedia article is on my Word document created for links about debt. So, we have similar agreement for a source. It is an educational article or at least for me it was.
At the Debt OP/Thread I created the Committee for a Responsible Budget created a tool for balancing the budget as an interactive. Enlightening. And, could be said overwhelming. I gained great respect for all legislators reviewing and using it.
Right now I am within the Defense category looking specifically at bettering Veteran health care and stiffening border security. Both are a cost. So, where to get the money is the question. Do I do it within Defense itself or elsewhere. BTW . . . I am pro-defense.
As a learning tool it is sharpening my personal positions contrast cost/savings.
Debt Fixer
https://www.crfb.org/debtfixerI feel we do it in the defense budget. The border has become a true defense problem in my view. Allocation of cash for the border is one I can support, at this point over sending cash to offshore wars. However, I see some need to continue to support both Israel and Ukraine, it would be a humanitarian effort at this point. These two wars need to be diplomatically handled at this point. The devastation that is occurring is unbelievable.
Good for you, after reading the following, I've more questions than answers.
NEW YORK POST - Why did jurors find Trump liable of sexual abuse and not rape?
Mixed verdict in Carroll suit explained
By Priscilla DeGregory
Jurors in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against Donald Trump found him liable of sexual abuse — and not rape — likely because they expected “Law & Order”-style forensic evidence to prove the more serious claim, legal experts told The Post on Wednesday.
The Manhattan federal jury that awarded the “Ask E. Jean” advice columnist $5 million Tuesday decided that Carroll, 79, had proven her claim of sexual abuse in the alleged 1996 attack by Trump, 76, inside a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room.
But they let the 45th president off the hook in her rape allegation — even though both claims were part of the same alleged incident.
"So the question is why would this jury believe [her] but also reject something she is saying?”
The panel — made up of three women and six men — might have expected to see evidence such as a rape kit, a police or doctors report, blood samples or fingerprints in a rape case, Levin said.
“A lot of juries come in now having watched ‘CSI’ and ‘Law & Order’ and expect forensic evidence in any case,” he told The Post.
“I think it’s not based on their disbelief of her, just that they were looking for some more evidence on such a heavy charge,” the lawyer continued.
“But they believed her enough to give her an award on the other claims — the sexual assault and defamation claims.”
Carroll testified at trial that she didn’t go to the police for myriad reasons, including that she feared what the real estate tycoon could do to her legally and professionally if she reported the alleged rape.
Her friend Carol Martin also told jurors that she advised Carroll not to report the incident saying Trump would “bury” her.
New York Law School Adjunct Professor Heather Cucolo told The Post, “people want to see physical evidence and we are obviously nowhere near that,” given the age of the case.
“Physical evidence is hard to get in a criminal rape trial when you’re in real time — a couple days, a couple weeks out even,” she said.
Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room in 1996.
Long Island lawyer Andrew Lieb said he believed the biggest problem Carroll had on the rape claim “was that she couldn’t pinpoint the day [or] time.”
“Without concrete details it’s really problematic,” Lieb said.
Carroll told jurors that the incident took place most likely in the spring of 1996, but she couldn’t remember an exact date — despite racking her brain for the timeframe for years.
She didn’t decide to come out with her allegations until after the #MeToo movement over two decades later, in June of 2019.Thanks for that, AB. Noted! The part about evidence makes strong sense especially with the socialization impact with the crime dramas of TV. Isn't it amazing how much TV and movies influence our thinking. It does me while saying they do influence me. For instance, the popularity of crime dramas and real life investigations.
With me, a favorite is watching 'Bones', and the old CSI shows. The application of science to solve a crime meaning concrete evidence. Who was it that said, "Follow the evidence"? Grissom?
What is interesting from the post on spending is that each of the presidents listed were in office for two terms. Second, the right likes to omit Covid stimulus packages from Trump's tally, but keeps the one from Biden in his. If you're going to omit for one, be consistent and do so for both as money was needed for the states to actually implement the delivery of the vaccines. Lastly, doing debt by percentage, shields the figure for record debt added in one term, which is Trump's.
Strong evidence should always be present and he said/she said, scrutinized carefully!
I think most of us understand that, without needing dramatization.
As a woman, I have found myself in predicaments (in the past) which made me feel very uncomfortable.
I walked away or caused a major ruckus.....whichever was necessary.
I had my doubts about this woman, the first time I saw her interviewed, by Anderson Cooper - but I wasn't in the dressing room with them.
None of us were!To be truthful, I find it odd that women would enter a dressing room with a stranger. I also find it odd that I know for a fact that Bergdorf Goodman dressing rooms are locked, and they don't let you past the door without a sales assistant greeting, and assisting with one's shopping visit. It's the most exclusive luxury fashion retailer in the world. I do not feel Trump would have entered without a sales rep greeting him. My God, they have models on hand to model clothing at BD. So, her accusation seemed off to me. However, I feel all women must be heard regarding sexual abuse.
I guess one could say I would not have been chosen for that jury, just recalling Bergdorf Goodman store policies.Wow Sharlee, more Info. I had not heard... and yet the jury saw fit to make her a millionaire!?!
What was that about "painting each group with a broad brush"?
SMH.I appreciate your close attention to my comment and my words. Nevertheless, it might be beneficial to revisit the concept of context. I suggest taking a moment to explore the definitions of "perceptive" and "view" for a more comprehensive understanding.
You know it's bad when Kayleigh McEnany is giving Kamala Harris praise for the messaging and how effective it's going to be for Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yvB6hxLCi0
On top of that, the states where groups are trying to get abortion measures on the ballot in the 2024 election are: Nebraska, Missouri, South Dakota, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New York, and Maryland.
FLORIDA
In the Florida case, they just reached the signature threshold and county qualifications, now the measure goes to the state supreme court to determine the exact wording. As of November 8, the group had just under 500,000 signatures and had 10 weeks to get the last 400,000. They got that in around eight weeks. Seems like women are very motivated on this issue and might turn out in Florida. We've seen in other abortion ballot elections that 10-point swing in favor of Democrats - can anyone imagine what that might do to a national Florida election?Yes, Valeant, the issue is a hot potato here. DeSantis and the GOP are desperate to avoid a referendum on this where the odds are that they may lose. They have taken an extreme position on this matter and it will be challenged. I will do everything that I can to sabotage Republicans and their agenda here in Florida, promoting Democrats.
So long as people can put issues like abortion and climate change at the top of their list of what they are voting on, we will continue to see the slide into self-destruction and deconstruction America has been on the last 30 years.
So, in effect, I agree with your sentiments regarding the pushback we will likely see in Florida.
Things are going as well in Florida as anywhere in the country, due in large part to the Conservatives having control for so long here, but the very fact that our economy is doing good and our streets aren't overrun with homeless and migrants flowing in unchecked will allow many, especially women, to go vote on issues that have nothing to do with economic stability or State/National wellbeing.
It will only be when the rug is pulled out from the economy completely, which they will do everything possible to postpone until after the 2024 elections, that the truth will come home to roost for many Americans... issues like when a pregnancy can be terminated and how many regulations are going to be forced on companies to combat 'climate change' won't matter when you can't pay for your next meal or next mortgage payment.I don't know so much about climate change, but abortion and reproductive rights will have top billing in more than a few red states. As Florida is not crimson red and has a growing and diverse population with large urban areas, this may well be the death knell for certain levels of conservatism in the state. Now, if we can just get rid of DeSantis.
This issue will be an Achilles heel for the Republican Party and The Dems need to target properly. People are more concerned about their bodily integrity rights over the rising price of hamburger, I would think.
The economy is doing just fine, it is only the rightwing "doom and gloom" merchants that are finding vulnerabilities in it for purely partisan reasons.That is not the reality, I wish it were.
It will continue to appear as if it is fine, until it isn't.
One thing that the last four years has shown me, or made me more aware of, is how much impact an Administration really can have on the economy.
The war in Ukraine has had a major impact, not merely because we are funding the nation's budgetary needs, not just its war needs, but because of how world trade has been impacted.
The same can be said for the escalating conflict in the Middle East, which will have a worsening impact on trade in the coming months.
The experts are concerned, not afraid yet, but seriously concerned, enough that they are making the rounds on national news shows, not only expressing those concerns... but even making statements suggesting things were better under Trump, that not all that he did was so bad after all.
When the people who control trillions of dollars in transactions daily are making public statements like that, then the people who have the pulse on the economy and where it is headed are most definitely concerned... and not all is well.You are speaking from a speculation point of view, and as always for me, the proof has to be in the pudding.
When the proof is in the pudding, the goose will be cooked.
Then the only thing you can do is lament, the goose laying the golden eggs is no more.
Ken,
What could be more effective than steering women voters' focus towards issues like abortion and climate change, placing them at the forefront of their concerns? It undoubtedly captures attention and elicits passionate responses, diverting minds from the multitude of challenges currently confronting America due to what is inadequate governance.
The idea of instilling the belief that abortion holds greater importance than economic, educational, or safety concerns appears to be a strategic approach. The implication that women should prioritize abortion over these significant problems, in my view, is a deliberate attempt to influence their perspectives. The abortion issue certainly hits a cord with women. I mean we all can remember the coined words --- barefoot and pregnant... What better way to divert them looking over here, instead of there? Turning away from all the big problems that certainly affect them more than an unwanted pregnancy.
I have developed a skepticism about the ability of some women to comprehend and engage with the broader challenges facing the nation. I certainly realize their concerns regarding abortion rights, but should this issue be at the top of a list when choosing a President to govern over the well-being of our Nation? I mean we have some nasty problems, and more brewing...It is a tactic that proves over and over again to be successful.
I am sure there are studies that show how certain topics and concerns impact women differently then men.
58% of women voted for Biden only 44% of men did.
If you want to focus on any demographic to shift an election one way or another, that is it. Women, they make up 53% of the voters.I agree, women do as a rule view things differently from men. But, times are changin'... LOL
edit - call it mindset evolution
So sad that murder is what motivates Dems!
Murder is what the GOP is trying to do to mothers, like in Texas, where the life of the mother was at risk and the fetus was terminal, but they were still making her carry it to term as she had health complications. Despicable. Dead people have more rights to their bodies than that mother.
And still waiting for anyone in the GOP to tell us any other medical procedure that can kill you, that the government is allowed to force onto people.I understand that opinions on abortion vary in todays society, and I respect your perspective. It seems to me that some individuals who support abortion may not perceive it as equivalent to murder, but rather as a permissible choice. It appears that certain segments of our society have come to accept the termination of a conceived human being as acceptable, viewing the rights of the unborn as only beginning at birth.
There has been a shift in attitudes towards conception and the significance of childbirth, reflecting what I feel as a decline not only in moral values but also in human empathy. In my view, I see perceived a lack of responsibility in managing birth control measures, I am skeptibal about women's ability to effectively control pregnancies with common sense birth control. While I acknowledge that some situations are beyond one's control, it appears that a majority of abortions are not attributed to cases of rape or incest.
Approaching abortion from a scientific perspective, I believe choosing to terminate a developing human being is equivalent to ending a human life, killing.
Moreover, I share your sentiment that human life is a gift from God. I realize my statement is straightforward. In my view, everyone has the right to share their views without the need to embellish those views.
I also realize my thoughts will draw hyperbolic reactions. Proud to say, I can handle these reactions, without wavering or doubting my thoughts on the subject of abortion.
There is nothing which can be compared to what abortion is- what abortion does!
If we went back a few years in these forums, we'd be able to look at dozens of fearmongering posts along the lines that we just saw. Apparently, the economy is supposed to crash as soon as any Democrat takes office, despite the historical trends that state just the opposite. Living in such a state of fear must be taxing on the nerves.
Trump's cognitive decline continues, says he offered Nikki Haley 10,000 troops on January 6 because Nikki Haley was in charge of Capitol security on that day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_khnb6FLgUY“By the way, they never report the crowd on Jan. 6. You know Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, you know, they — do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it,” Trump claimed. “Because of lots of things … like Nikki Haley is in charge of security — we offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guards, whatever they want. They turned it down. They don’t want to talk about that. These are very dishonest people.”
Anyone can mix up names every once in a while. But the ramblings... they keep getting worse. Yikes!
Yeah, that was really pretty bad. First the lie about them deleting 'all of the evidence' when it's well known that the transcripts of the video depositions are the official record, not the videos themselves. Then him repeatedly misusing Haley when he's trying to lie about Pelosi. Not only deluded, but confused. Ouch.
'Screaming for impeachment even before he took office?' Al Green was one of the earliest to talk about it, but that didn't happen until after Trump had fired Jim Comey (May 2017), something that Mueller stated was obstruction of justice in his report.
So, if holding someone accountable for obstructing an investigation into an attack on our elections by a hostile foreign government, or for blackmailing a foreign government to create the appearance of an investigation into a political rival, or for organizing and inciting an attack on Congress, are 'dirty tricks,' then I think your idea of dirty tricks is really warped.
As to election fraud, 62 of 63 court cases, with many looking at the 'evidence' denied the claims. There were audits run, even partisan ones by conservatives in Arizona that found Biden actually won by more. Mike Lindell and Sydney Powell even hacked voting machines and got into the programming and could not find evidence of fraud. The Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and even Trump's own Campaign hires all found Trump's claims of fraud to be lies.
Ah, yes, changing the 'Trump Campaign' wording to Trump to try and deny the collusion that was clearly proven against Manafort with the many meetings being proven, as well as what Manafort was giving to the Russians. Just the latest MAGA denial of facts.
One of the two parties colluding with Russia, obstructing justice in the investigation in an effort to protect Russia, blackmailing a foreign government, organizing and inciting a domestic terror attack on Congress, obstructing justice to illegally retain the nation's top secrets - and yet you have the gall to say that 'the actions of the Democrats have crossed lines.' Not sure the far-right in this country understands what a line is if they still back the person that did everything that I just listed.On the Economic Front Lines
"The House Ways and Means Committee voted overwhelmingly Friday to approve a $78 billion tax package that would revive a trio of business tax incentives and expand the child tax credit."
Strong bipartisan showing in first test of tax deal’s support by Roll Call (Jan 19, 2023)
https://rollcall.com/2024/01/19/strong- … 01/22/2024
The vote was bipartisan, 40 to 3. The three dissenters were Democrats.
"This bill contains important provisions that individually have bipartisan support,” said Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo. “We can show our constituents, who are struggling with inflation and high interest rates, that when Congress works together, we can still achieve big things: bipartisan tax relief that grows wages, supports better jobs, gives families more breathing room and keeps America competitive on the world stage.”Anyone here who "knows" me, knows that this is pretty much all that I write about and have written about, in my articles. I don't need to reiterate my thoughts, I just pray that eventually common sense will prevail or we are doomed!
That doesn't mean, all hope is on the shoulders of Trump, it is much broader and deeper than that, and you either get it or you don't." I believe there is negative karma surrounding Biden, "
And Trump creates what? Peace and love?
SheezeI'm uncertain about Trump's impact, but it's evident that his rallies draw large crowds, and attendees appear to enjoy themselves. His statements often trigger strong reactions from the left-leaning media. Despite facing numerous court cases and managing a busy schedule, his demeanor in interviews is often pleasant. Overall, his karma seems positive, in my view.
I mean who would have the guts with all that he has facing him choose to run for president? And it will appear he has tons of Americans feeling he is the guy they want back in the White House. Go Figure. So, I would say he has some form of karma on steroids.
Got to love when a Trump voter claims that they don't vote for a racist person when that candidate continues to use the birtherism claim against minority candidates. It's so clearly racism that it's comical that they cannot recognize it as such.
So, could you share why you found Trump's question about the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate an issue that should be labeled racist?
There is no doubt he did openly question Obama's birth, but were the statements racist? I found a piece on CNN that did list his quotes. I did not find the quotes racist, I found them to be dog whistles, and uncalled for. But, I did not see racism jump out at me. He also seems to be very attuned to what will get people keeping him in the headlines.
(not baiting, looking to learn on this one)
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics … index.htmlDo you really not understand why birtherism is racist? That just because someone is black, or American Indian, that they must not be eligible based on false claims they weren't born in the United States. First Obama, then Harris, now Haley - Trump has made the false claims with all three. The assumption that a minority, and if you notice that Trump never spreads these lies about his white opposing candidates, should have their citizenship questioned is what makes the birtherism movement openly racist.
That is not necessarily true.
You do realize members of Obama's immediate family were telling people he was born in Kenya? His brother, aunt, etc.
When John McCain ran for president, the democrats made quite an issue of him being born in the Arizona territory before it became a state. Many legal scholars weighed in on it and some said McCain wasn't eligible.
Is this an example of democrat racist birtherism?
"McCain's citizenship called into question
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions — raised in the liberal blogosphere — about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president. But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it's a serious question with no clear answer."
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23415028The difference being that Cruz had the same issue as McCain because it was public knowledge that both were born outside of the United States.
Trump literally invented that Harris and Haley were not born inside the United States. The Obama claims started before Trump, but he used them early in his political career and they were proven false by multiple birth certificates.Really?
"Trump said, “I heard today that she doesn’t meet the requirements.” He referred to a lawyer who raised the issue in a Newsweek article, Chapman University professor John Eastman, as “very highly qualified.”
Trump then said he has “no idea” whether it’s true Harris doesn’t meet the requirements. He then asked the reporter if she was saying Harris doesn’t qualify because Harris “wasn’t born in this country.”
Hardly an invention by President Donald Trump.
Nikki Haley was an off the cuff remark where he said "Wherever she is from."
Hardly saying she wasn't born in the United States.Yeah, really. Eastman was working for the Trump Campaign. So he heard something that his campaign was promoting - about someone born in Oakland. Haley was just more of the same playbook - create a conspiracy not even remotely true about a minority candidate's citizenship. Just pure racism as he only does it to the minority candidates, and not surprising to see his followers trying to justify it. Actually, it's expected.
"Just pure racism as he only does it to the minority candidates, and not surprising to see his followers trying to justify it. Actually, it's expected."
With Trump, I would be surprised if he could or ever have done anything above board...I like this second and third hand information.
No proof at all.Exactly. Just more emotional outbursts from the Left, as usual. Zero proof. But, it is a good way to deflect from their own prejudice.
Savvy,
Proof and evidence are both terms that are misunderstood by the left. I would also say facts are things they struggle to comprehend. I agree, they are excellent and emotional outbursts and deflections.
All we have to do is remember how Hunter biden's laptop was handled. How the FBI falsely claimed it was russian disinformation when the facts show it was just the opposite, and the FBI knew it. Then there are those many polls that show if voters had known about it, they wouldn't have voted for biden. I think honest election may be something that's a completely foreign concept for those on the left.Or the foreign concept to understand that it was Trump's FBI, with Trump's appointed FBI Director, doing everything that was claimed.
And what exactly has been proven to be on Hunter's laptop - nothing that would implicate Joe Biden. So it was a misinformation campaign aimed at a candidate's son in the long run. Again, proof and facts matter - and the Hunter laptop saga lacks both.IF there is nothing there then WHY the huge effort to cover it up by the FBI in an election year? Why the false claim of former intelligence agents? Why did the FBI try to control the story in social media? Why?
What were they worried about?The FBI has a long-standing policy not to comment about investigations during elections - a policy only the GOP leaders of that organization seem willing to break as Comey did in 2016.
Former intelligence officers told everyone they did not know for sure, but that it had the appearance of Russian misinformation - I notice how you always leave that part out - that they told you they didn't know for sure.
After 2016, the FBI likely did not want their names involved in elections again, so they told social media to make their own choices, but that there was a chance it could be misinformation. Guess, what? The laptop has not incriminated Joe Biden at all, now has it? Meaning, it actually was misinformation. So in the end, the FBI looks like they were right.
Readmikenow… The radical Left and Globalists know that facts undermine their narrative. This is why they push their propaganda so hard, and rather effectively, truth be told. They lie, and they know they lie. However, they do know the truth. They also know that the truth has the power to undermine their political ambitions.
So they continue to lie, repeatedly. Over and over and over.
Everyday American Leftists, who hold no real power, are the minions of the powerful. They believe anything the radical Left tells them to believe. They are the unquestioning soldiers of the Left, much like the Germans in the 1940’s, who actually believed that Jews were subhuman.
The more radical Leftists dream of the day when they can become members of the Globalist elite, whose only goal is to “reset” America. They think they will be rewarded. They are sadly mistaken. They will only be used.
Yet, such individuals are dangerous because they are not “smart.”
That is not to say that modern Leftists do not have intelligence… they often do. But intelligence does not equal wisdom or insightfulness, which they lack sorely.
Leftists (but not necessarily all Democrats) are happy to concede their power to Globalists who have always used them for their selfish agendas. They think they are righteous. Self righteous, maybe, but not righteous in any meaningful or noble way.
On the other hand, freedom loving Americans respect truth. That’s what we fought for when we created this great nation and what we fight for today.
We’re not about to go back in time.
This is not something that many Democrats (and Republicans in name only) understand. They haven’t the insight to realize that Progressive politics is a move backward, not forward. The Rhinos think they must always make concessions. They get played, and our country suffers for it.
You and I, and so many others, believe that nations, and the people in it, must and can become ever more prosperous, enjoy more safety, have food to choose from, and the right to happiness.Savvy - As always I enjoy your strong perspective on the ideological divide between the Left and the Right. I also share that your comparison to historical events, such as the Nazis in the 1940s, adds a layer of gravity, and rings true.
I appreciate your continuing to see freedom-loving Americans, as defenders of truth and advocates for progress. I feel much the same, I trust America in the end to use good common sense. I underscore your belief in the importance of preserving the values that you associate with the creation of the nation.
I never anticipated seeing such a profound divide, and it's increasingly evident that the issue is escalating. My only wish is for common sense to prevail. I will cling to hope and strive to contribute to bringing some semblance of clarity to the situation.Hi Sharlee, We have a lot to do to make sure this election is not stolen. Keep the faith. Volunteer when you can. Same goes for me.
On his social media platform, Trump shared a post from the Gateway Pundit, a right-wing website that traffics in hoaxes and conspiracy theories, that falsely claimed she might not be legally eligible for the presidency because she’s somehow not a natural-born citizen. Why share something like that? The man is lacking in any sort of judgment.
Whatever Haley’s parents’ citizenship status was, the fact that she was born in a US state means that she is, undeniably, a natural-born citizen. It is her birthright, as enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Unsurprisingly, that didn’t stop Trump from sharing the conspiracy theory about her citizenship.
The birtherism schtick is simply "otherism". Just a little suggestion that the other is not really like us and probably isn't a "real" AmericanSoooo, President Donald Trump simply shared a story. He never gave an opinion on it one way or another.
Stuff like this makes the left seem sooo desperate.
So, the man who would be a candidate for President of the United States we would leave to Trump to determine whether or not Obama qualifies under the Constitution? As if that man who has never bothered to open a book always know more than the experts, or so he says.....
"Do you really not understand why birtherism is racist? That just because someone is black, or American Indian, that they must not be eligible based on false claims they weren't born in the United States."
Trump stirred controversy by questioning Obama's birth certificate, but it seemed like he was attempting to connect it to presidential eligibility laws. I doubt he could have used the same approach with any other opposing candidate. However, you never know; he might have exploited an opportunity if he saw one. During the birther issue, I didn't perceive it as racist, but rather as a cheap political ploy that went below the belt.
Yes, he and it racist, who is so arrogant to assume that Mr. Obama would have not been vetted by the experts over this issue long before he even could be considered as a candidate. What gives the right to pull all this false assertion out of the air? Is it not a coincidence that he used the same tactics on Kamela Harris and Nikki Haley?
The dog whistles were racist ones, for which he no business being involved. "Uncalled for" merely is attempt to ameliorate what it is in actuality.Is there no possibility that Trump was engaging in highly exaggerated speech? Trump's use of over-the-top language has been a consistent trait for decades. While he did stir controversy by questioning Obama's birth certificate, what stood out to me was his ability to link these attempts to his rhetoric and connect them to presidential eligibility laws. Throughout the birther issue, I didn't interpret it as racist; instead, I saw it as a cheap political tactic that was in bad taste. I certainly can understand how so many did, and do feel his pushing such a thought as possibly being race-motivated.
Just my view.
Trump uses tools in his tool box that any candidate that wants my vote certainly is not going to have.
Birtherism is racism right in your face.
Analogously, racism, today, is like porn. You know it when you see it.
Biden opens up lead on Trump amid growing gender gap: Quinnipiac poll
President Biden has opened up a 6 point lead in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up with former President Trump, new polling shows, amid signs of a growing gender gap in support for the two party front-runners.
A new Quinnipiac University national poll found Biden with 50 percent support among registered voters, ahead of Trump’s 44 percent.
That’s a shift in the incumbent’s favor from December, when Quinnipiac found the same Biden-Trump hypothetical “too close to call,” with Biden at 47 percent support and Trump at 46 percent.
Biden also scored majority support among independents in the latest findings, with 52 percent support to Trump’s 40 percent.
The poll additionally found a growing gender gap when it comes to support for the current and former presidents as they each run for a second White House term.
Fifty-eight percent of women say they support Biden, up from 53 percent in December.
At the same time, 53 percent of men say they support Trump, “largely unchanged” from 51 percent in December.
“The gender demographic tells a story to keep an eye on. Propelled by female voters in just the past few weeks, the head-to-head tie with Trump morphs into a modest lead for Biden,” Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in the report.
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3889No less should be expected.
The least popular president in American history will win re-election in 2024.
Also, the gap for women that they noted, is the same as it was for 2020. Women put Biden in office in 2020, they are 53% of the total vote, and 58% of them voted for Biden last time as well.
According to their statistics anyways, if you put stock in those things.
Joe Biden is winning female voters by a historic margin
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/politics … index.html
Early exit polls show President-elect Biden winning the votes of 57 percent of women, compared to 45 percent of men.
https://www.msnbc.com/know-your-value/h … n-n1247746Good news,
I knew that it was a matter of time before moderates and independents came to their senses. As Republicans and the Right reap what they had sown in regards to the abortion rights issues.CNN ---
"Former President Trump is holding a narrow 4-point lead over President Biden in a new poll.
Forty-nine percent of registered voters in the CNN poll, conducted by SSRS, said they would be “more likely to vote” for Trump, while 45 percent said they would be “more likely to vote” for Biden."
"Fox News Poll: Trump leads Biden in Georgia, receiving just over 50% support
Trump is ahead of Biden in Georgia among independents and voters under age 35, according to the Fox News poll"
Feb 1 2024 As the election year ramps up, former President Donald Trump leads fellow Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley in her home state of South Carolina and President Joe Biden in key swing states. Kristen Welker shares the latest on Meet the Press NOW.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ … 3434053730
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po … joe-biden/
Just a look at the wider picture.We will see, evidence points to problems Trump will have with independent and moderate voters.
The goal is to isolate MAGA as a cult among itself.Hey, I was pleased to see IB post something that I find important. I mean this is a political chat. I applaud her for taking the time. Not many posts here anymore, and some that do are more about tossing around derogatory labels.
My true view of polls --- They are all we have to give us some form of the idea of what Americans are thinking, they fluctuate almost daily, and in the end, much of the time come out to mean little in the very end.Yes, nice to have her drop by.
I believe that it may well be true that the only accurate polls with be the one taken on Election Day.Yes, the last polls will be a better meter... Very fatigued at the high bar one needs to jump to communicate one's point. here. It's either right or left --- Where did all the free-thinking individuals go? Ya know 50 years ago that was the liberal. free-minded, common sense, and in my view so much more likely to question something that might be odd.
I still have hopes to see some true awakening.I will say that 50 years ago, Nixon was forced to resign, because partisan considerations were subordinated to Nixon's abuse of discretion while President. Both sides realized that the line had been crossed, a line that Republicans and Democrats both respected. Barry Goldwater told Nixon it was time to go.
What happened to that sort of integrity in the last 50 years?I was talking about liberal ideology. -- It's either right or left --- Where did all the free-thinking individuals go? Ya know 50 years ago that was the liberal. free-minded, common sense, and in my view so much more likely to question something that might be odd.
Not sure how you came up with your reply. Simply pointing out I see a true change in the mindset of liberals in general.
I have been following along and not contributing to the conversation, but I must respond to:
"the goal is to isolate MAGA as a cult among itself".
A cult?
Wanting the best for your Country and her citizens is now considered cultist? Oh wait, permission to say "her"? I know the left is so easily offended. Is it wrong, cultist of me, to say "the best", is that too, insensitive?
Who do we (well some of us) Americans think we are? Wanting to compete, be the best, be proud, achieve, win? That's only allowed in other countries, not this one. This one we are supposed to hate, work to dissolve, tear down, break apart, dis-unite.....and why?
Do you know Cred?
What is the real goal with fundamental transformation?
What does it look like without form, shape, color....borders or laws?
Is this Utopia a place that any one of us will wish to be a part of?
Sell it, I am not sold.So, let's hear your take, AB
I want the best for my country as well, but it comes through following the rules prescribed within our Constitution and not giving in to desires of any one man to disrupt that.
I am all for a united citizenry, but that is not accomplished through treason and Trump and MAGA support for the criminal activities of January 6th. I did not give Trump nor MAGA the authority to replace legitimate electors with fake ones when the votes were tallied. He was clearly behind that and he confirms it with his desire to obtain some sort of immunity for criminal behavior because he was president?
We all know that a utopia is always unattainable, but a objective of making the best for the greatest number is not unreasonable.Nothing is "clear" about J6 and you are failing miserably in making a case for Biden’s America.
It is clear, AB, if you want to take a serious look.
I will take Biden or anyone else in preference over someone trying to steal my government from me.Hi AB. --- When I reflect on the events of the day, I gain a clear perspective. I observed thousands attending the President's speech, where he urged a peaceful march to the Capitol. Despite reports indicating his intention to join, Secret Service advice prevented him. Upon reaching the Capitol, I witnessed a group of protesters turning combative, entering the building. I also witnessed some officers guiding some around and amidst the chaos. I heard one gunshot and saw a young protester shot. While aware some protesters carried guns, they refrained from using them. Thousands were arrested and faced trial, but none were charged with treason or insurrection. Minimal damage occurred, and sadly, one protester lost their life, and several officers were injured.
However, it is apparent that many interpreted the events differently then I did.
I then personally witnessed the impeachment of President Trump based on unfolding statements, that reled on second and third-hand accounts. When I reflect on the events of the day, I gain a clear perspective. I observed thousands attending the President's speech, where he urged a peaceful march to the Capitol. Despite reports indicating his intention to join, Secret Service advice prevented him. Upon reaching the Capitol, I witnessed a group of protesters turning combative, entering the building. Officers guided some around, and amidst the chaos, I heard a gunshot and saw a young protester shot. While aware some protesters carried guns, they refrained from using them. Thousands were arrested and faced trial, but none were charged with treason or insurrection. Minimal damage occurred, and sadly, one protester lost their life.
However, many interpreted the events differently. I personally witnessed the impeachment of President Trump based on unfolding statements, relying on second and third-hand accounts. In the end, former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial came to a climactic end, with Trump being acquitted for his alleged role in inciting the deadly event. A majority of senators voted to convict the former president but failed to reach the super majority threshold needed for a conviction. So, once again I looked at a fact --- he was acquitted. Yet to follow, and question the Congress's decision I witnessed what was called the Jan 6th hearings... Which once again lacked any evidence of a crime, just more second, and tried hand testimony which was often opinion orrinted. Yet, many once again seem to look beyond a lack of evidence of a crime.
So, what did I overlook? It appears that amidst the blurred lines, I maintained a commitment to fairness, making judgments based on what I directly observed rather than succumbing to external narratives attempting to shape my perception.I witnessed what was called the Jan 6th hearings... Which once again lacked any evidence of a crime,
Yet a grand jury ( not Biden, not the DOJ) indicted him on 4 counts for his role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The speech he made that day is irrelevant at this point.
The indictments vindicate the work that the committees did to lay the ground for the special prosecutor.Yes, the verdict is still out regarding the 4 counts for Trump's role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Is it not? It is very relevant that the DOJ indicted Trump. However, I am of the mindset to give Trump his day in court, he has a right to defend himself. I am very much a person who respects the law, and a person's right to remain innocent until proven guilty.
" The speech he made that day is irrelevant at this point." Very relevant, all his words, not just a few."
Hopefully, there is more than Trump's speech brought forward as evidence. In my view, the Jan 6th hearings did not offer evidence of a crime.
You have hit a sore point... I have little respect for those who condemn anyone without offering them their day in court.
I will wait for a verdict. I just feel it fair, and kind.It is very relevant that the DOJ indicted Trump."
A grand jury indicted Trump. Not the DOJ. The case was brought by a special prosecutor but that special prosecutor did not determine indictment. A grand jury of citizens heard the case presented and decided and indictment was warranted.
I see right wing media all too often inaccurately portraying how our justice system actually works.It seems lately that people assume that an indictment is equal to a trial; an indictment indicates guilt.
That's not how our system works.Numerous people tend to presume guilt prematurely, swayed by media reports. The sequence appears notably inverted, with condemnation preceding the quest for evidence, leading to public judgment before evidence is showcased. These are undeniably precarious times. What's peculiar is that this trend seems to affect those with common sense, who may seemingly fully grasp the normal. But now draw individuals discontent who have deviated from what we once knew as rational thinking. Go figure...
I very well understand the procedure this case has followed. The grand jury was assembled Under federal law. In the United States, federal grand juries are impaneled by a federal district court judge. The process is initiated by the United States Attorney from the DOJ who is the chief federal prosecutor in each judicial district. The U.S. Attorney presents evidence and requests the judge to impanel a grand jury to investigate potential criminal conduct.
The grand jury is composed of a group of citizens, and its role is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor, hear witness testimony, and determine whether there is enough evidence to issue an indictment or charge against a person. Grand juries are used in the federal criminal justice system to assess the validity of charges before a trial. Trump will be prosecuted by A DOJ special council as far as I know.
In any case, I noted this morning "WASHINGTON – Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on federal charges he conspired to overturn the 2020 election has disappeared from the D.C. District Court’s calendar, confirming that his fight over whether he is immune to the charges will delay the case.
The delay could have a ripple effect on other cases pending against the former president. The change in Washington makes it likely that Trump's first criminal trail will be in New York, where he is charged with falsifying business records in a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film star and a former Playboy model. That trial tentatively set for March 25.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has said the judge was waiting to see what happened in other jurisdictions. He said in December he would have a better idea of the schedule after the next hearing in the case Feb. 15.
In the federal case in Washington, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan set the tentative trial date in August, weeks after the former president was indicted on three conspiracy charges and one obstruction charge.
But the case has dropped off the D.C. District Court’s calendar and hasn’t been rescheduled before the November election. Chutkan hasn't explained the change in the court docket."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 448799007/
Shar, your observations are comparable to my observations.
Guess that makes us "cultists"?!It's quite peculiar how some individuals are willing to overlook certain aspects that are evident to the naked eye. While I understand the frustration among citizens regarding protests taking place in the Capitol building and the resulting violence, I personally find it challenging to equate this with the 2020 summer protests, which escalated to incidents of burning, looting, and loss of lives. I acknowledge that some may perceive me as part of a cult". I strive to rise above hyperbolic narratives and adopt a more balanced perspective, and always will. I find those that need to use unsubstantiated labels, do so as a defense mechanism. Turning away from the subject, and just talking at me instead of adding anything of value. It is navigating, but a very common out for not really having anything but personal insults.
Sharlee,
I saw this and need to make it clear that I have issues with MAGA and what attacks and offense I see as warranted has nothing to do with attacking or offending those forum members that claim affinity with it.
Can't stay in a straight jacket where offending MAGA and attacking the same is equivalent to personally insulting anyone here.The comment to which you're responding was a personal perspective exchanged with AB. Regarding the remark, "Shar, your observations align with mine. Does that make us 'cultists'?" I didn't seek or prompt your opinion on the "cultist" label. I'm uncertain why you inserted yourself into this exchange. It seems you may have misunderstood I shared a general view, as I was directing it to AB. You may not care for my personal feelings on the subject. That would be your problem, not mine. If I intended my words for someone else, rest assured, I would make that explicit. Regarding your stance on "MAGA" or any other concerns, your right to express your thoughts is equal to mine.
I simply shared an opinion. I note that you took some form of offense. Hey, you have the right to share your views, just as I do.OK, I have taken no offense. Just reminding all that my opinions are never anything to take personally.
Right. Like when he compares evangelicals to the KKK. Apparently, revisionist history allows Democrats to forget that the KKK were Democrats.
Covering his a** much?
One thing the the Left fears is getting banned. So they insult you and say, “It’s nothing personal.”
There is a war against Christians. As an example, Biden sent the FBI to the homes of Christian’s who were praying peacefully at an abortion clinic. The FBI handcuffed them at their homes, and led them away to jail in front of their children.
Militant atheists and radical Leftists approve this move. Not something a discerning woman admires. That is certain.
The word “spineless” comes to mind.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/360 … ost4320621Right. Like when he compares evangelicals to the KKK. Apparently, revisionist history allows Democrats to forget that the KKK were Democrats.
---------
Yeah, 150 years ago, who are they today? So you can drive you wayback machine wherever you like. It is still going into a ditch.
Did I compare YOU to that? Conservative and rightwing politics always suck from my standpoint and your point of view regarding this is as irrelevant from my prospective as it can get. I will attack the Right as anathema and reserve my right to do so, a 50,000 watt, clear channel -guaranteed.
The only ones that have been banned are left oriented posters as they do not fear contrary ideas.
There is no war against Christians, more rightwing BS. I am not going to let anyone tell me what believe or think, while the white supremacy movement is giving a foundation to these so called places of worship
So many of these hypocritical evangelicals adhere less to Jesus and the Cross and more toward Trump and the doublecross.....
Regardless, it is nice to see you again Savvy.......
I agree, I think I could have taken more care with my context where my words would have been taken in a more general sense. Perhaps my words were relaxed due to it being obvious AB and I share many common views.
It's quite apparent that the remaining individuals who contribute to this forum are familiar with each other's ideologies. We should feel at ease discussing our beliefs with those who share similar views as well as those who hold different ideologies.Why are you apologizing, Sharlee? If you were any more careful with your words, you wouldn’t be able to speak at all. I supplied the link where Credence called MAGA supporters vermin. He then went on to say that evangelicals are the next KKK.
That is hate speech, and while all conservatives here (except AB, and readmikenow, bless them) are willing to over look such nasty language, I am not, which is why I called it out.
There is a difference between free speech and hate speech. Hate speech has the power to bring harm to others if enough people believe the words… which may influence more people to hate and sometimes act upon that hatred, as we see in news reports daily.
Hitler called the Jews vermin, and the German people believed him. Stalin went after Christians, locked them up and tortured them.
Biden has made speeches saying that MAGA is a threat to democracy. That is not true and not okay for him to speak so recklessly.
Today, Biden is sending the FBI to arrest MAGA supporters based upon flimsy reasons, as well as men and women who pray outside abortion clinics. That is a threat to democracy.
Wanting to Make America Great Again is not a threat to democracy. Our nation was running well under Trump. The only reason he spent too much money was because of COVID. However, he handled things in such a way that our recovery was on schedule.
As you know Biden turned that around by turning off the oil spigots and opening the border. Now we are trillions of dollars in debt with no end in sight.
Anyway, this is my long winded way of saying that “discussing beliefs” and using hate speech are not the same things.Savvy,
When engaging in conversations with someone like-minded, I find comfort in the shared values, ideas, and ideologies we share. Addressing them, I assume a common understanding, confident that the person I'm communicating with recognizes the common ground we share. For instance, in a recent exchange with AB, I openly expressed my views. However, Cred did not respond favorably. Despite standing by my convictions and reminding him of our right to express diverse opinions, I've observed a trend where individuals assert that their words are the final and most important ones, a sentiment prevalent in various discussions.
Reflecting on your specific instance containing Credence's derogatory remarks about MAGA supporters and evangelicals, I wonder about the origin of his beliefs. Typically, statements like these lack an explanation of how one arrived at such conclusions. This raises the question of how to approach discussions about such a view. It's evident that many employ labels and harsh accusations in online conversations. Personally, I attribute this trend to the left and perceive it as fueled by politically motivated language from figures like Biden. I strive to rise above these divisive tactics, advocating for civil discourse based on the values we as conservatives aim to preserve.
Expressing concern about the prevalence of derogatory labels and rhetoric, particularly fueled by the media, I emphasize the need to stay above the fray and engage in meaningful dialogue. I also believe the majority of Americans reject hate speech, recognizing its potential to divide society. I emphasize the importance of truth prevailing. As a Christian, I trust in the power of truth.
I assert that, in my view, Americans, as a majority, possess a unique identity. Despite occasional dissent, history demonstrates a resilient pushback against divisive ideologies. SharWe cannot rely upon history. We must not ignore hate. Those who hate will not change because the other side is conciliatory. This only strengthens them.
If we say nothing about specific hate speech, it goes unchecked. … And the time comes when discussion is over.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hi … -july-1943
The history of Marxism is bloody and it is stronger than ever because the Right makes concessions. The radical left ever does.
Nevertheless, thanks for sharing.Savvy, We are on the same road. I am trying to provide a space where all start standing back behind the glass and looking through and able to see clearly what is happening, and that ultimately it is us that are being played.
We did not end up here accidentally. We are in a very dangerous place, one that could be very hard to ever return to what we were in this country.
Ultimately we have one vote --- We need to work on bringing clarity to the general public on the need for change, a new administration that could work for all, and fix the pressing problems so many are willing to ignore. This will be a hard task. We need to fight, but we also need to be able to share what we are fighting for in a calm clear manner.
Right now, I see us very much winning. I feel citizens are truely seeing all the problems this administration has caused. Historically citizens turn away from what they see as destructive.
No matter what the Democrats have thrown at Trump (some very heavy stuff) Polls show Americans figuring it all out for themselves.
So, what do I say when left oriented posters have been called Communists, Marxists, out of their minds, etc. Not all of us believe that Trump is this great problem solving messiah, or that Joe Biden is Satan, incarnate
You folks can sure dish it out, but can you take it?
So, can I trouble you to "bottle the acid" now, Savvy?Credence, I ask that you refrain from using hate speech. Calling MAGA vermin is not okay. Calling evangelicals the KKK is not okay. It is also false.
I do not use ugly, untruthful language and I ask that you respect myself and others, for we have been very patient with you.
If you want to have meaningful discourse, surely you can omit the hate speech. It is only then that meaningful discussions can occur and bear positive fruit.I ONLY promise no personal insults, I will attack institutions, politicians that in my opinion are not what they profess to be or are misleading others.
My attack on the Right is and will be unrelenting for every reason that I am more than happy to explain when pressed.My disdain for the MAGA movement is on a level equal to Cred's. Anyone that can support a person who unequivocally tried to overturn an American election (using both illegal and by engaging with violent means) is, in my opinion, a traitor to the Constitution. This before adding in the multiple other domestic terror attacks conducted in the name of the movement. Or before factoring in the leader of the movement is now a proven rapist.
If you cannot see the hundredfold vitriol heaped upon Trump and those who support him (or have a kind word for him) for what it is and has been Cred, you will never even begin to understand it.
Perhaps, AB, but who is it that are constantly attacking Biden, blaming him for a rainy day, and attacking Democrats without let up?
I certainly do see that.....There's no comparison!
I don't blame Biden for rainy days, but I do blame him for undoing all of the protections which were in place, when he took over! We, (all of us: Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, Marxist, apolotical, etc.) are less safe, as a result of his lack of focus.What I have noted --- Some of us point out issues we feel Biden may have caused. However, I have not noted him being called derogatory labels here as a rule. I also see the posts as political views. He is the current president, his policies are under scrutiny not only by the media but Americans.
This is a political forum, so yes, if one finds they want to label our
political representatives with derogatory labels. I guess one could label that under free speech.Oh no, I have seen assaults of all manner on Biden and the Democrats within this forum from the Right. So no one gets to wear a halo here.
My posts are "political views" as well but coming from a different direction. And as you say, we do have free speech.
Marxism is a philosophy, while communism is a system of government based on Marxist principles. Is using the items an insult or a comparison to point to views?
When Trump used it, it was intended in a derogatory manner, and again there is the issue of "radical left" vermin.
So, I guess if he is able to define his opposition in such terms before a national audience, i suppose it is OK for me to express in similar terms among a considerably smaller audience?You called MAGA supporters “vermin” in a derogatory manner, and you made no apology for doing so. Rather, you and your friends deflected your guilt onto Trump, supposedly because he has a bigger audience. The issue is not the size of the audience. The issue is intent, which you seem to have conveniently denied to keep from having HP take a closer look.
But hey, congratulations on getting “conservatives” here (not myself) to go along to get along!!
I figured they would.
As Savvydating, I have a clearer perspective on men who take no personal responsibility for their actions. Guess I’m not into weak men, or women who coddle weak men.
Anyway, hope you enjoyed the video I attached earlier. I felt every word of it.
It is currently #1 on the charts."You called MAGA supporters “vermin” in a derogatory manner, and you made no apology for doing so."
Well, savvy
Yes, I did and you want to know something? I was being kind as you ain't seen nothin yet for the descriptive expletives that I could use to describe the MAGA but don't so as to not to impose too much upon my audience. But regardless, I will never mince words. I say what I mean and mean what I say.
Trump and MAGA are inseparable. My intent regarding my comment and his intent is the same. I avoid the treacherous chickens!t righties ready to go to mama with a skinned knee because they are not adult enough to accept that we all do not think or believe the same way. So, I dissect and assualt the Right with the deftness of a skilled surgeon.
--
"But hey, congratulations on getting “conservatives” here (not myself) to go along to get along!!"
-----
Great, I always extend an invitation to you to join the club.
Maybe your perceptions are not lucid as you would have us believe? I am not into people who are not capable of appreciating someone else points of view.
Yes, I am going to disassemble the political Right, but I am going to discredit it a piece at a time and do it nicely.
I am a Bay Area Baby and left coast liberal, the Rightwingers worse nightmare. So that there can be no confusion about my intent or methods
1. I want Trump either deceased (a hot head combined with the pile of nauseating blubber he becomes makes that possibility not so far fetched at 77 years of age) this might sound harsh folks but he could vaporlock at any time.
2. In jail on any one of several charges.
3. Judicially disqualified for holding office.
4. Using the shank that Nikki Haley has thrusted into Trumps side to have him stagger to the nomination rather than boast about arriving there. People may actually ask pertinent questions about the process along the way.
5. Then we scatter MAGA to the four winds or they will have to
scurry to find a new figurehead.
As for the video, I don't care for Rap Music, but that just is me. That applies to Black, White, Red or Yellow. I come from a more genteel era. I am surprised that in this role of Savvydating, I would have thought that you would have had a more refined taste than the music you offer here.
You well know that I simply cannot buy most of the stuff your selling.....Credrence2, Biden is dismantling, rather destroying America bit by bit. There is escalating inflation that even affect the SOLIDLY middle class. There are middle class people homeless because of Biden. Biden is concentrating on totally insipid & inane social issues instead of more crucial socioeconomic issues. Then there is the migrant crisis. More migrants are entering this country, increasing the crime wave even more.
These migrants are exhausting our infrastructures. We don't need these migrants- they are totally superfluous to the American economy & socioeconomic structure. Trump did great things for America. This included lessening the migrant crisis. The economy was MUCH BETTER under Trump. Yes, there were some negative things but what Trump has done for America for MOSTLY POSITIVE.Trumps sucks.
Every economist worth their salt has given Biden credit for an improving Economy far beyond anything Trump presided over. I don't care what partisan Rightwingers "say".
Trump is mostly negative, more so than anyone else that has ever held the job.
We are in total and complete disagreement.
Reuters - Considered a neutral (but still biased towards Biden) review is not so sunny, very detailed yet condensed and informative:
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/b … 023-11-09/
Cato Institute - Gives Biden a Fail at Economy 101 (22 review but valid points made):
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/july … s-econ-101
AP - Biden goes into 2024 with the economy getting stronger, but voters feel horrible about it
https://apnews.com/article/biden-econom … 4254208272The fact that the author of the Reuter's article gives the 2021 budget to Biden to credit him with a loss there should have been a red flag that the author either didn't know what they were talking about or was a little biased.
The Cato article is nearly a year and a half old and it might be interesting to see how McKenzie feels the economic policies have allowed the United States to keep a strong economy while navigating the soft landing in inflation. It's also worth noting that McKenzie does not note world inflationary figures in his attempt to ding Biden. By all measures, the United States has been at the forefront of recovery from Trump's Covid year.Even Fox. And this IS recent.
I was wrong
Fox Business host and former Trump economic advisor Larry Kudlow conceded that his prediction of a looming recession was wrong and admitted that the U.S. economy is doing much better than expected under President Joe Biden.
Talking on Fox News' America Reports on Thursday, Kudlow offered a "mea culpa."
“I mean, my, mea culpa!” Kudlow replied, “I was wrong about the slowdown and the recession. So was the entire forecasting fraternity," Kudlow, now a Fox Business Network host, said.
On Wednesday, he said: "Nobody expected a 3 percent plus growth rate in the second half of 2023. [...] We were supposed to have had either a big slowdown or recession. Exactly the opposite happened. I'm not even looking at this left vs. right. This is something for the economics profession to sort through."
Kudlow, who was director of the National Economic Council under Trump, made a similar confession about the strength of the economy last month when the gross domestic product GDP jumped faster than expected.
“He gets his due,” Kudlow said of Biden. “If I were he (Biden), I would be out slinging that hash, too. No problem.”
Did Trump lessen the "migrant crisis?"
Or did COVID?
The COVID pandemic produced a significant decline in international immigration to the USA between 2020 and 2021 according to one of many studies.
The pandemic led to sharp drops in immigration to the US to levels not seen in decades. Trump was unable to pass legislation reforming our immigration laws even though he held the White House and Republicans held the House and Senate.
His attempts at border management were largely struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. He was able to slap a couple of Band-Aids with title 42 and the wait in Mexico policy, both of which are currently no longer available since the pandemic is over and Mexico it says it will not be going back to MPP.
Also, rarely are factors that affect immigration discussed. Our immigration policy has remained unchanged for at least 30 years yet factors that drive immigration are always changing. Too many ignore the push and pull factors of human migration. We would rather point quite simplistically toward one person to blame.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 … 23-00972-yNoticeable is the failure to mention the family separation policy that was deemed a violation of basic human rights of children.
According to stats, this statement is not true.
"The COVID pandemic produced a significant decline in international immigration to the USA between 2020 and 2021 according to one of many studies.
The pandemic led to sharp drops in immigration to the US to levels not seen in decades."
The chart indicates Obama as well as Trump saw a much improvement over the prior years. And yes 42 did bring great relief in 2020.
I appreciate your view, and I can see where you're coming from. Consider this: is it more strategic to acknowledge that attempting to shift the opinions of individuals with firm beliefs may be an impractical endeavor? Engaging in endless debates on entrenched ideals might not contribute positively to our cause. From my observation, many participants here have already expressed their fundamental political inclinations, and I've made mine clear as well. Reiterating these points excessively may come across as repetitive. Savvy, we share a common goal, that should be evident. The fight we have is obvious, the way we fight need not be.
Hitler called the Jews vermin, and the German people believed him. Stalin went after Christians, locked them up and tortured them.
Donald Trump...
"We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country," he told a New Hampshire crowd.
Hate speech? He is clearly calling the left, vermin.I doubt we'll get a reply from the vermin-accusing members of the MAGA wing about this post. If it's that damning, it has to be ignored.
Geez, I almost forgot about this. I guess the MAGA crew will scatter to the 4 winds to save face.
Their media generally doesn't cover these sorts of things so I find them generally unaware of Trump's speech.
So it’s okay for you to call all the individuals that comprise MAGA “vermin,” but if Trump uses the word against factions that are destroying this country, it’s not okay?
Wow. Double standard much? Instead of getting your panties in a bunch, you could have apologized.
I don’t have the time to coddle a grown man. I’m interested in facts.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5kGpohEpuTE
He explicitly pledged to "root out" individuals affiliated with Marxist, fascist, and radical left ideologies, whom he likened to vermin within our nation. The context provided does not specify a focus solely on" the left", but LEFT THUGS. and his unequivocal words, coupled with his committed demeanor, suggest Trump perceives a rising issue involving Marxist, fascist, and radical left elements in the country.
Given your opening statement, I must ask, do you anticipate or believe Trump would take punitive measures, including imprisonment and potential "torture", against certain Americans as part of his stated commitment? As well do you feel generally that America would be on board with imprisoning and torturing citizens? Very curious, and I feel your answer could help me understand your mindset.I answer that for you, yes I believe that he would, his so called Agenda 2025 gives one a taste as to what is possible. With Trump, I never have the confidence to rule it out.
My opening statement is a quote from savvy. I apologize for leaving the quotations off. She obviously understands that Hitler called people vermin and now she hopefully realizes that Trump has said the same thing.
Will Trump take punitive measures against those he has labeled as vermin if he becomes president? No clue. He has shown himself to be erratic, unpredictable and most recently in cognitive decline. I wouldn't even speculate. What does "root out" mean? How would they be rooted out? And once rooted out what would happen? I have no idea.
His spokesperson, Steven Cheung further commented in a statement that “their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.”. Take it for what you will but Trump certainly didn't refute that statement.
Let me ask you this, was the vermin statement acceptable for a candidate for the office of POTUS? Should a candidate call those on the left vermin, echoing Hitler? For me, that's a step too far. That's beyond politics.
Are citizens of this country not allowed to hold principles of Marxism or fascism? I would contend that MAGA absolutely has fascist qualities."My opening statement is a quote from Savvy. I apologize for leaving the quotations off. " Thanks for clarifying.
Regarding the root out statement --- I am not aware of what came before or after that statement. I am not sure of his train of thought. However, I found the statement shocking, and hyperbolic, that it could work to provoke some to feel this kind of act could be acceptable.
I have witnessed to some extent inappropriate words on both sides, the other side more subdued, yet vitriolic.
I will be honest, I see both sides share adverse ideologies that don't align with my own.
"The context provided does not specify a focus solely on" the left", but LEFT THUGS. "
Actually, when I listen to the speech, he is calling the left radical thugs as well as vermin. I think he has single handedly normalized the use of name calling and generally lowered the bar for civil discourse. Most of us wouldn't speak this way to our fellow citizens but some how it's excused and accepted when Trump does it.
"As well do you feel generally that America would be on board with imprisoning and torturing citizens?"
I feel that his MAGA base would support anything he would put forward. He can literally do or say no wrong in their eyes. His speech and behavior are continually rationalized by his followers. He can lie, name call, defame, sexually assault a woman commit fraud and MAGA doesn't bat an eye.
As far as his "rooting out" comment, sounds like McCarthyism to me.The assertion that the MAGA base would unquestioningly support anything put forward by a political figure is a complex and contentious viewpoint. While it is true that some staunch supporters of the former president might exhibit unwavering loyalty, it is essential to avoid thinking that the entire base is of the same mindset. Supporters often hail from diverse backgrounds and hold a range of opinions. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the base has displayed a high tolerance for controversial behaviors and statements. The phenomenon of rationalizing or dismissing questionable actions can be attributed to a variety of factors, including deep-seated political allegiance, distrust of mainstream media, or the belief that the ends justify the means or simply the lesser of two evils... Down to Republicans just hoping to regain the White House. Lots of variables.
Sharlee's got a point. Only 70% believed those ridiculous claims of 2020 election fraud which galvanized a large group to commit a domestic terror attack on their own nation's Capitol. It's not everyone, but many can suspect that the 30% in the minority won't be doing a thing to stand up to such heinous beliefs and actions.
I think Republicans currently show less genuine concern about the controversies surrounding Trump's alleged election fraud and the Capitol violence. Many seem more focused on a political struggle to reclaim the White House, showing a willingness to move beyond the past and look toward the future. Considering the time that has passed and the continuous emphasis on "all things Trump,"
it's improbable that a significant majority of Republicans would oppose Trump or another party candidate, despite differing views on his actions. The party itself communicates dissatisfaction with the current administration, a sentiment shared by their constituents. In contrast, Democrats appear less inclined to let go of Trump's past, whereas Republicans aim to distance themselves and secure victory in the 2024 White House race. This perspective underscores the nature of politics.I would argue the perspective backs the theory that it's a cult - one that puts the leader ahead of the laws of the country. Because let's be clear, we're talking about actions that multiple grand juries, both at the state and federal level, found enough evidence to determine a criminal trial was warranted. And the current Republican Party doesn't find that concerning. That's not looking forward, that a refusal to admit that their candidate may have committed multiple crimes in multiple jurisdictions of the country.
I think it important to acknowledge the legal proceedings and concerns raised by multiple grand juries, an alternative view might put forth that the characterization of the situation as a cult is an oversimplification. The supporters within the party may contend that their loyalty is rooted in political ideologies or policy preferences rather than blind allegiance to a leader. Some might argue that what some perceive as a refusal to admit guilt may stem from skepticism about the legal processes, concerns about the motivations behind the investigations, or a belief that the evidence presented may not be as conclusive as suggested.
Moreover, those within the party might assert that their focus on policy matters and political agendas does not necessarily equate to an endorsement of criminal behavior. They could argue that it is possible to separate the leader's policies from alleged personal misconduct and that their support is more aligned with the former rather than an endorsement of any legal transgressions.
Keep in mind, that it is not only the party to puts forth a presidential candidate, but the people. What would you have the Republican party do if Trump is the people's choice?You keep saying policy, policy, policy. But there were other candidates with the same policies. I disagree that it's policy. Instead the support seems to be the blind allegiance. We see it with the border bill - Trump told MAGA how high to jump, and they all are finding a way to excuse his tanking of a bill that would be such a benefit for the border and the GOP reps who help to craft it. It's not Biden unwilling to solve the issue, it's MAGA who is standing in the way of solutions, and that is becoming so clear to people.
I think It's essential to recognize the influence of leadership and the dynamics within political movements. Blind allegiance can indeed play a role in shaping support, and this is very evident in the case of Trump and his influence on MAGA.
Policies alone don't guarantee success or implementation. Leadership, communication skills, and the ability to rally support are crucial factors in the political landscape. Trump's personality and unconventional style have resonated with a significant portion of the population, creating a strong and very loyal base.
Regarding the border bill, Trump's sway over his supporters in my view, will contribute to their stance. The blind allegiance you mention could be a result of the trust his supporters have in him as a leader. This trust admittedly can lead to a willingness to overlook or rationalize decisions that may seem detrimental, such as the handling of the border bill.
The polarization in politics today often results in a "team mentality," where loyalty to a particular leader becomes a defining factor.
I have come to recognize that political support is complex, and influenced by a combination of factors, including leadership style, communication, and in Trump's case the dynamics of a political movement. While policy is undoubtedly a significant aspect, it doesn't operate in isolation from the broader political context shaped by leaders and their influence on their followers.Isolation is the key word in your post. Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans are willing to find solutions. House Republicans have already come out against the border bill even before they have read the thing. Proving once again, that MAGA is not there to solve issues.
And when Trump was in office, his solutions were so distasteful, such as the family separation, that he had to do so by executive order and not bipartisanship. Meanwhile, many Republicans are touting Biden's infrastructure bill in their home districts, there has been a bipartisan gun control bill, and Biden is willing to sign-on to a conservative border bill.
That is the choice Americans are being offered. Bipartisan solutions or governance by the whims of one man that ends in the violation of the basic human rights of migrant children. Pretty easy choice if you're asking me.https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-sl … raffickers
https://oversight.house.gov/release/hea … %EF%BF%BC/
Do you know where any of these children are?The children that Hawley references were separated from their families under Trump's zero tolerance policy...
"It’s been two years since the Biden administration took on the task of reunifying children with their families after they were separated at the southern border under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy. While the Biden administration has succeeded in uniting some 600 children with their parents, about 1000 remain separated.'
The Trump administration's zero tolerance policy separated more than 5,000 children from their parents with no process for reuniting them.
Shocking huh? I'm glad to see that Biden is working to reunite them with their families. Cleaning up the mess that Trump left.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/hundr … unite-themI quote your source -- "It’s been two years since the Biden administration took on the task of reunifying children with their families after they were separated at the southern border under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy. While the Biden administration has succeeded in uniting some 600 children with their parents, about 1000 remain separated. Geoff Bennett spoke with Caitlin Dickerson about the process."
My post pertains to the Biden administration and is unrelated to Trump's separation policy, which was implemented during his tenure. Shifting the focus to a past issue under Trump does not address the current problems under the present administration. The sheer number of unaccompanied children that have presented at the border in the past 3 years, is alarming, not to mention that 85,000 are unaccounted for. In my view, comparing one administration's problems with immigration just does not nullify either administration.
Again --- "Hawley Slams Biden Official for Releasing Migrant Children to Human Traffickers
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
Today U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) questioned Robin Dunn Marcos, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, about the ongoing child migrant crisis at the southern border and the 85,000 children that the Biden Administration has lost track of.
"Do you really think that you are helping these children by releasing them to labor traffickers and yes, sex traffickers?" asked Senator Hawley. "85,000 children whom you have no contact with and your answer is—we gave them a presentation before we turned them over to these people who are exploiting them on a scale not seen in this country for 100 years."
When Senator Hawley pressed Director Dunn Marcos to say exactly how many migrant children the department had released into the United States and was also currently in contact with, the Director had no response.
"Let me just ask you this," said Senator Hawley. "How many kids right now—of the 430,000 approximately unaccompanied children who have crossed the border under this administration, it's an astounding number—how many are you in regular contact with, right now?"
Director Dunn Marcos could not answer Senator Hawley’s question."
Please watch the live testimony --[ Watch the full exchange here or below.
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-sl … raffickers
No, but can you prove how many do not respond because they think the child might be getting notified of deportation? Or how many were not placed with immediate family members? Or if Hawley has any stats about the percentage of children that are actually being exploited? He comes to many conclusions without many facts. But I'll concede that there is the potential for an exploitive situation with the sheer volume of admitted children.
I am so glad that you added that last sentence V, I was ready to explode, now I am just steaming!
We should all be on the same page for common sense immigration, for a secure border, for keeping drugs and terrorists out.....and for there to be ZERO trafficked, exploited children coming across our border!!!
If anyone argues this point with me, you are dead to me.I'm sure we can agree on wanting the safest environment for migrant children. But jumping to conclusions about the outcomes, without the evidence to back it up, is just more fearmongering, in my opinion. We've said for a long time that the asylum laws need to be changed. Now, we have the opportunity to do just that and one faction is burying it to play politics. That's what should have everyone steaming.
This amnesty bill is the playing of politics....in spades! Come on now.
Val, I am concerned about the cost of the bill and the minimal allocation for immigration. Wouldn't it be wiser to separate aid provisions from the bill to provide citizens with a clearer understanding of our expenditures on foreign aid?
I'm hopeful for a stand-alone immigration bill. It's time for Congress, on both sides, to cease these political games.Sure, that could have been done. But the GOP said they wanted the aid and immigration tied together to leverage the Democratic Senate. Then they got exactly what they wanted and have now reneged, wasting the time of legislators and the American taxpayers. It's only one party going back on what they wanted in this case and dealing in bad faith.
It appears that while some members of the GOP initially sought to tie aid to the bill, the majority did not, favoring instead HR2, which lacked such provisions. However, as the new year approached, a faction within the GOP was open to negotiating the immigration bill with aid funding attached. This highlights a significant fracture within the Republican Party, particularly as attention turns to the upcoming 2024 election. Many seem unwilling to relinquish this political tool, viewing it as advantageous for their end goals. Despite the optics of wavering on commitments, it underscores the evolving nature of the Republican Party, which no longer operates as a monolithic entity. Rather, it appears deeply divided, with little indication of imminent unity.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4343 … -aid-bill/I think hell will freeze over before hr2 would pass. Just as the original framework Biden provided on day one. MAGA seems to feel that it's their way or the highway. They have forgotten that they are there to do a job and that certainly involves compromise. At this point they are simply obstructing progress
Do you not think that the lack of urgency surrounding a border bill has contributed to Congress's reluctance to address Biden's prolonged neglect of border issues? Furthermore, his hopes for aid funding seem to be dwindling as the cash flow slows down. It will certainly be intriguing to observe how this situation unfolds. The notion of compromise, albeit arriving three and a half years late, now seems somewhat ridiculous. From my perspective, he appears quite absurd at this juncture. His blame game has grown old, and nonsensical. As was the speech he gave today.
The notion of compromise, albeit arriving three and a half years late, now seems somewhat ridiculous.
He threw out a framework on day one for them to begin to craft a bill. It want until this recent spending package came up that Republicans hitched immigration reform to it... I suppose the urgency was on the part of the Republicans. They are the ones who requested the latest bill. Not Biden. At the end of the day, compromise is their job. Absolutely no one is going to gain 100% of everything they want, that's a fantasy.
I also keep hearing of this accusation floated that The binding administration is breaking immigration law, not enforcing law? Which laws exactly would those be and is there current litigation that has been brought as a result of the administration breaking the law?Yes, he did her is a link to what he proposed. I truly hope some here will read it carefully, and note the context. I need not debate this document, it is filled with wonderful perks for any migrant who will brave the trip to walk into America.
So once again here is a link to Biden's Immigration plan. Actually, in my view, his open invitation of goodies worked well to overflow America with millions of illegal migrants. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … on-system/
So why did the Senate wait so very long Biden proposed his plan in Jan 2021 . Yet the Senate bill was just drafted a few weeks ago -- Why did they wait so very long? As you claim Biden put forth is wish list Jan 2021... You seem to jump from one time period over three years ago to the present day. What of all the in-between?
I have cited House Speaker Johnson's in another comment here, where he shared immigration law, which Biden could have, and still can enforce today. I take him as a learned man and trust he is very aware of immigration laws. Biden had many laws he could have enforced.
And no the Republicans were not the party that initially tried to hook aid to the bill... Eventually, some did -- the majority did not. I believe it was back in Dec 2023 when the Dems and Joe started trying to hook aid to the bill.'So why did the Senate wait so very long Biden proposed his plan in Jan 2021 . Yet the Senate bill was just drafted a few weeks ago -- Why did they wait so very long?"
"Republicans in both chambers of Congress have made clear that they will not support additional aid for Ukraine unless it is paired with border security measures to help manage the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. ". Why did Republicans wait so long to take up the issue of immigration? The invitation was there on day one to work on the issue. To craft a bill. To come to a compromise.
I believe it was back in Dec 2023 when the Dems and Joe started trying to hook aid to the bill.'[
Please provide some citation. I see this is nowhere to be found.
https://apnews.com/article/immigration- … 00988444f7
Val, I believe Willow's post is a diversion, containing information I consider to be misinformation. Senator Hawley was evidently questioning Robin Dunn Marcos, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, regarding the alleged loss and unaccounted status of 85,000 migrant children. His focus was not on the children separated from their families under Trump's policy. In my opinion, both of these issues warrant consideration as separate problems. One should not overshadow the other. I perceive these problems as distinctly different: one stemming from a harmful policy affecting families directly, while the other arises from a lack of effective policy to manage the influx of unaccompanied children, seemingly exacerbating the issue through neglect.
One administration's mistake does not negate our current administration's mistake... I can see the two problems could be weighed if needed to compare administration performance. Other than that I see the problems that occurred under Trump's separation policy and Biden's loss of 85,000 children are very different.We are in agreement that Willow misunderstood the issue at hand, and that they are different. But the lack of contact on follow ups could be the result of many different outcomes, even one of complete satisfaction where no further contact was deemed necessary.
On the flip side, if it is not a stipulation to have such a contact, for the safety of the child, it should be. A phone call would not have the necessary effect though, because if a child was in a bad situation, there's no doubt that the abusive host would be hovering and threatening a child talking on the phone to a government rep checking in on them. Therefore, it would need to be an in-person follow up, and that is going to incur some costs."We are in agreement that Willow misunderstood the issue at hand, and that they are different. "
I agree,
I think follow-up on a majority of migrants young and old would be a task. Many come to work, blend in, and do not want to bring attention to themselves.
Why would I not believe this? Below. The component parts usually contribute to a composite whole. Is it true that most MAGA people believe that Trump won in 2020? They do all share one opinion, that they will support their leader regardless of what he says or does and thereby there can be no innocents amongst them.
"While it is true that some staunch supporters of the former president might exhibit unwavering loyalty, it is essential to avoid thinking that the entire base is of the same mindset."
I can't deny that Trump did relatively well in 2020, considering the contentious nature of both him and his campaign. Trump and his drum beat of xenophobia put a fear in Republicans and conservatives to the point that Trump was to be their salvation and protection from the "great replacement". Under those circumstances, they would have supported Satan, himself.Cred --- The assertion that most MAGA (Make America Great Again) supporters believe Trump won in 2020, and that they all share a blind loyalty to their leader, may oversimplify the diverse views within this political faction. While it is true that some staunch supporters of the former president might exhibit unwavering loyalty, it is essential to avoid thinking that the entire base is of the same mindset. I have always found political affiliations to be complex, and within the MAGA movement, there exist individuals with varying degrees of support and dissent.
Trump's performance in the 2020 election does indicate a substantial level of backing from a significant portion of the conservative base. However, just attributing this support solely to fear or a belief in a "great replacement" narrative may overlook other factors that influenced voters' choices. People within the MAGA movement, like any political group, hold diverse perspectives on policy, governance, and their expectations from a leader. Conservatives are more likely to be very common sense oriented thinking and weighing pros and cons...
Not sure election deniers should be posting about understanding what proof is. Pretty sure they showed a disconnect with that term back in 2020 and 2021.
Comical that the people backing the guy quoting Adolph Hitler claim the other side is more comparable to the Germans of the 1940's. It's apparent who the Nazi-wannabe's truly are in this country - where one party is openly courting neo-nazi's with their speech. The amount of projection in that post was what we typical see from the in-denial MAGA followers.
And those lacking the actual intelligence cannot see through the obvious lies of a malignant narcissist inventing election fraud to shield his brittle ego from a loss everyone could see coming.
Even in the descriptors, you see the projection. It's not the Democrats, it's the radical democrats, because those who use those descriptors have moved so far to the right, that everyone not with them appear to be radicals. GOP members not buying the MAGA message, independents, and all Democrats will seem like radicals when you've gone that far to the fringe and think everyone else but the guy who is a business fraud, confirmed rapist, and indicted on 91 felony counts, are liars. Never has a case of Dunning-Kruger existed more than in recent posts in this thread.What's with the excessive use of bitter labels? This distinguishes you from other contributors here. It's worth noting that others refrain from employing derogatory terms. Does such rhetoric contribute to a meaningful conversation, or does it simply reflect on the person using it?
'What's with the excessive use of bitter labels? This distinguishes you from other contributors here.'
Only if you fail to read the post I responded to, the one you seem to agree wholeheartedly with, that lobbed many of those same labels towards the liberals in these forums. If someone is going to generally attack the left, calling them radicals and comparing them to Nazis, do not be so shocked and pearl-clutching when the left pushes back.Rest assured, I was fully aware that your response was directed towards my comment intended for Savvy. I hope it was apparent that I was expressing a personal perspective to Savvy. I took care in crafting my viewpoint and presenting it as such. It's important to note that I hold no accountability for the contributions of others here on HPs. I reserve the right to express agreement, disagreement, or any stance in between.
My comment shows the clarity of my view -- It may not match your thoughts, but I have the right to share my thoughts in a personal note to Savvy. I also realize this is an open chat, and you have the right to post freely.
"Savvy - As always I enjoy your strong perspective on the ideological divide between the Left and the Right. I also share that your comparison to historical events, such as the Nazis in the 1940s, adds a layer of gravity, and rings true.
I appreciate your continuing to see freedom-loving Americans, as defenders of truth and advocates for progress. I feel much the same, I trust America in the end to use good common sense. I underscore your belief in the importance of preserving the values that you associate with the creation of the nation.
I never anticipated seeing such a profound divide, and it's increasingly evident that the issue is escalating. My only wish is for common sense to prevail. I will cling to hope and strive to contribute to bringing some semblance of clarity to the situation."'Rest assured, I was fully aware that your response was directed towards my comment intended for Savvy.'
Actually, it wasn't intended as a response to you at all, although it was noted that you agreed with the post I was addressing. I believe a few of us understand how vast our differences are and that when we directly address each other, one, or both of us tend to get banned. So we now talk in generalities about each other's parties as a means to still opine while avoiding the touchy Hubpages Police force.I too believe most of the posts here are very acquainted with each other's ideologies, no argument there. As with my post to Savvy, I made it clear that I aligned with her view. I have found it much easier to go by the Rules here... I am a guest on HPS.
To be fair, I posted a reply to Wilderness about the Congress direction with conservative and liberal. That may reflect the voting populous, yet may be arguable. The next YouGov poll shares "Americans agree that the country's politics have moved in a single consistent direction over the past decade: away from their own politics." For all adults 30% say it has moved further left and 26% say further right.
For a deep dive at the graphic and others see; Liberals say the country has moved to the right; conservatives say it's moved to the left by YouGov (Dec 15, 2023)
https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic … moved-leftI'd like to say I'm surprised to see the MAGA forum posters trying to defend Trump's Hitler quotes, but it's pretty much par for the course. His followers will defend the most vile statements he makes.
For courtesy with the ongoing debate about the recent Senate immigration bill debate the text has been released. Next, is a link to that text for those interested.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/i … l_text.pdf
Subtitle B—Asylum Processing at the Border is at page 115.
TITLE III—SECURING AMERICA Subtitle A—Border Emergency Authority is at page 205.The wording of this Senate border bill, is alarming; not just seeing the astronomical numbers of those crossing...illegally...but the fact that there's no mention of stopping it!?!?!?
What am I missing?Ask others AB. I only as a courtesy posted a link to the text of the bill. All 370 pages of it. I also gave hints to where to look for the text to the immigration and border areas of the bill. I will be reading the text later in the day after lunch and my nap.
"Former President Trump reacted to the newly released Senate immigration bill by calling it "horrendous" and a "gift to Democrats" while calling for immigration and foreign aid to be dealt with in separate bills.
"Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5000 Encounters a day, when we already have the right to CLOSE THE BORDER NOW, which must be done," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday morning.. "This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. Don’t be STUPID!!!"
Trump continued, "We need a separate Border and Immigration Bill. It should not be tied to foreign aid in any way, shape, or form! The Democrats broke Immigration and the Border. They should fix it. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"
"The ridiculous ‘Border’ Bill is nothing more than a highly sophisticated trap for Republicans to assume the blame on what the Radical Left Democrats have done to our Border, just in time for our most important EVER Election," Trump wrote. "Don’t fall for it!!!"
The long awaited release of the Senate immigration bill on Sunday night sparked backlash from conservatives including House Speaker Mike Johnson who called the bipartisan $118 billion border security and foreign aid package is "even worse than we expected" and would be "dead on arrival" in the lower chamber.
Republicans have taken issue with a provision of the bill that states the border will be shutdown only when 5,000 illegal immigrants a day cross the border as well as the billions of dollars of spending attached that goes to Ukraine and Israel.
What the bill text does is create a new "border emergency authority" to turn people away, which may be used if the average number of migrants encountered reaches an average 4,000 per day across a seven-day period. The authority would be mandatory if that number hits 5,000. " https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … -democrats"Republicans have taken issue with a provision of the bill that states the border will be shutdown only when 5,000 illegal immigrants a day cross the border as well as the billions of dollars of spending attached that goes to Ukraine and Israel.
Billions to Israel and Ukraine??Republicans ASKED for immigration to be linked to aid to Israel and Ukraine.
"Senate Republicans initially INSISTED that border policy changes be included in Biden’s $110 billion emergency request for funding for Ukraine, Israel, immigration enforcement and other national security needs."
https://apnews.com/article/congress-bor … b067d8dd9a
Trump made a statement "That’s a terrible bill. Five thousand a day? That’s a lot. That’s, like, record-setting stuff."
But that's NOT actually what the bill proposes. Let's try and cut thru the fox fog..
Migrants would not be able to cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings.
Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews.
Good or bad so far?
If the bill were to become law, migrants who come to the border at official ports of entry would be diverted to a new "removal authority program" in which they would have 90 days to make their initial asylum interviews. Those migrants would NOT be released into the interior of the U.S., either; they would either be detained or kept under government supervision.
If they failed their initial asylum interviews, they would be removed immediately.
But migrants who passed the asylum interview would get to stay in the country for an additional 90 days until their asylum cases were decided. In the meantime, they would receive work authorizations. Once their cases were adjudicated, they would qualify for a path to citizenship.
Makes sense so far?
So where did this 5,000-a-day figure come from?
The bill does include provisions that would shut down the border entirely if a certain threshold is hit, but those are border encounters, NOT crossings. As noted above, no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision.
In addition to those provisions, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims
DHS would have the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border ENCOUNTERS. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.
The bill would also raise the standard to seek asylum. And it would provide other resources for the border, including increasing detention capacity for migrants who were held pending asylum claims.
Those attempting entry between ports would be immediately turned away. If the same person tried to cross twice when the border was shut down between ports of entry, the person would be barred from entering the U.S. for one year.
sounds like a significant piece of legislation. But we have folks saying that doing nothing is preferable?
Or what, very specifically, is preferable?I'm currently crunching the numbers on the additional aid funds included in the bill. The math is staggering... And very little will end up in fixing the border. It seems like the media coverage might have overlooked this. They have come out and corraled down one path. I will light step around the horse sh-- on this bill.
Considering the past 3.5 years, I'm inclined to wait a few months and observe what unfolds. This appears to be a transparent late "please save me" political ploy, and it's a bit laughable. The damage has already been done. Hey, we have all watched it. Sorry, Joe a little late to position yourself as the savior. Quite dramatic, isn't it? But no cigar"Sorry, Joe a little late to position yourself as the savior. Quite dramatic, isn't it? But no cigar"
How is this about Biden? He didn't negotiate the bill, it was a bipartisan group of senators led by Republican Lankford... Literally one of the most conservative. Why did they begin to negotiate this bill? Because Republicans insisted they do so. They insisted it be tied to funds for Israel and Ukraine.
What's the alternative? Even if Trump somehow ended up back in office, what do you really think he could do that is any better? He didn't do it when he was in office and Republicans held both the house in the Senate. His attempt at reform failed. Title 42 is no longer a possibility, nor is MPP or his fantasy that a president can waive a wand and shut the border completely. What is the MAGA stance on this issue? Again, it's obstruct and tear down but never a solution.
It's a solid bill that adds real solutions to things that people have been complaining about for years.Uncertain about the upcoming occupant of the White House in 2025; hopefully, they can address the significant challenges arising from Biden's handling of a broken border. It seems Biden did a pretty good job tearing down America. Biden has rapidly deteriorated the country, and I strongly disagree with your perspective on this matter. Hopefully, the House will work on a stand-alone immigration bill without all of Joe's spending attached. Apologies, but I cannot share the same viewpoint.
'Hopefully, the House will work on a stand-alone immigration bill without all of Joe's spending attached. "
Joe's spending? Because the Senate Republicans wanted to link Ukraine and Israel to immigration reform, it is all of a sudden Joe's spending?
I do believe a majority of Republicans want aid to Israel and Ukraine also. It's MAGA that only wants aid to Israel...aid for Neytanyahu to continue genocide on Gaza. I'd pass on that one.
Trump's plan if God forbid he lands in the white house again...
Trump has said he would restore his 2019 "remain in Mexico" program,. Too bad Mexico has said no thanks.
Trump has said he will seek to detain all migrants caught crossing the border illegally or violating other immigration laws, ending what he calls "catch and release."
that's in the current bill he is railing against lol.
Trump said in June he would also seek to block communists, Marxists and socialists from entering the United States. How does this even work?
Trump has said he would implement travel bans on people from certain countries or with certain ideologies,
How do we root out their ideology??
Ideology screenings?
And because cruelty is always the point...In a town hall with CNN in May, Trump declined to rule out resuming his contentious "zero tolerance" policy that led thousands of migrant children and parents to be separated at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018. He defended the separations again in November, telling Spanish-language news outlet Univision that "it stopped people from coming by the hundreds of thousands."
And maybe the crowning jewel...
Trump has promised to carry out the "largest deportation operation" in U.S. history, modeled after the Eisenhower administration's infamous "Operation Wetback" in 1954, when hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants and American citizens were deported. Cool stuff?
To facilitate the mass deportations, Trump has said he will give the National Guard and state officials the authority to arrest and deport immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, a move that would challenge long-standing legal limits on the military engaging in domestic law enforcement. A little bending of the law is okay right?
Trump has also said he would revive the Title 42 pandemic-era policy. How is this one even possible?
He's offering a lot of legally questionable promises. Nothing in the way of actual reform. None of this address the issues at border. It's just red meat for the base.
Please, someone, anyone make a case that Trump's plans are preferable to what is being offered in the bipartisan bill.I'm uncertain about how Mexico would respond if the US attempted to negotiate a waiting process there. However, I can attest that when analyzing border encounter statistics from the Bush to Biden administrations, I observed a significant improvement in border control under Trump. Presently, the escalating numbers speak volumes.
The ongoing child migrant crisis, particularly the revelation that the Biden Administration has lost track of 85,000 children, deeply troubles me.
"Hawley Slams Biden Official for Releasing Migrant Children to Human Traffickers
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
Today U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) questioned Robin Dunn Marcos, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, about the ongoing child migrant crisis at the southern border and the 85,000 children that the Biden Administration has lost track of.
"Do you really think that you are helping these children by releasing them to labor traffickers and yes, sex traffickers?" asked Senator Hawley. "85,000 children whom you have no contact with and your answer is—we gave them a presentation before we turned them over to these people who are exploiting them on a scale not seen in this country for 100 years."
When Senator Hawley pressed Director Dunn Marcos to say exactly how many migrant children the department had released into the United States and was also currently in contact with, the Director had no response. https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-sl … raffickers
"Let me just ask you this," said Senator Hawley. "How many kids right now—of the 430,000 approximately unaccompanied children who have crossed the border under this administration, it's an astounding number—how many are you in regular contact with, right now?"
Director Dunn Marcos could not answer Senator Hawley’s question." https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-sl … raffickers
What I would like to clarify is how much of the $118 billion will be allocated to address border concerns. And why the very sudden urgency? Have the lost children been found? The urgency I feel about this problem is undeniable.
While I cannot predict what Trump might do if he returns to the White House -- I am very aware of his actions when he was president.
I am also very much aware of what I have witnessed under the current president.
I agree with Candace Owens. E. Jean Carroll is certifiable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoXZ8Uln-lg
This is an illustration of the corruption in the NY Justice system as well as mainstream media.Its stuff like this that makes it so obvious they just want to destroy him.
Its all about politics, power, and destroying Trump.
This is why they lose all validity, why NO charges brought against Trump are going to ring valid with a majority of Americans... instead of the MSM dragging this woman through the mud for being a nutjob, they validate her, they make her into a super-star.
Most of us can see she is a nutcase, and we can see that NY twisted around its own laws and Statutes of Limitations to be able to prosecute this case.'...why NO charges brought against Trump are going to ring valid with a majority of Americans...'
And yet, 62% of voters think Trump committed a crime amid his four indictments, including 92% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and even 28% of Republicans.
As usual, MAGA supporters just make up their own realities devoid of the actual polling of what the majority of Americans are saying.I find it interesting that the interview with Anderson Cooper was not permitted to be played during the trial.
THAT is miscarriage of justice.
NY is known for its corruption, but it is now put on display for the world to see.
And the 'ripped the country down in record time' narrative is about accurate as 2020 election fraud and that 2022 red wave. It's just a conclusion arrived at when one ignores the actual facts of what happened to, and is happening in the country.
I am going to say this- America is way oversaturated with migrants. We don't need any more migrants. Because of the migrants, our social, educational, & medical infrastructure are taxed by their use. The intelligent solution is to DEPORT ALL MIGRANTS to their countries of origin. These migrants are escalating crime. Eventually, they will bankrupt America. Biddy Biden's border policies are putting America into an abyss.
In my view, we will see decades of problems evolve from this enormous influx of migrants. Our poor will become poorer, our children will have to endure more problems regarding education... They will fall into the cracks.
If we live that long!!
We have no idea of how many terrorists cells are here, within our borders, plotting our destruction!!
This is such madness. I cannot fathom anyone okay with the events which have brought us to this place, much less, ready to defend it!?!My truth --- I totally can not understand how anyone can defend what this administration has done at the border. I can't fathom how anyone could become this dummied down to defend this huge crisis. I am saddened, discussed, and very much fearful of what we will see next due to no one being at the helm.
You cannot understand how an administration would follow the current laws of the country that have not been updated since the 1980's? Which is their job, to duly enforce the current laws.
If you have issues with the laws that allow such abuse, talk to Congress. It's no secret that asylum laws are being abused, so Congress needs to change them. And now they have, and the GOP, on orders from Trump, may well refuse to enact the changes that could help to improve the problem."You cannot understand how an administration would follow the current laws of the country that have not been updated since the 1980's? Which is their job, to duly enforce the current laws."
Trump portrays presidential power as boundless. "I alone can fix it". He's got them convinced that a president is akin to a king or better yet a dictator rather than a co-equal branch of government, each having it's own limitations and powers."Trump portrays presidential power as boundless. "I alone can fix it". He's got them convinced that a president is akin to a king or better yet a dictator rather than a co-equal branch of government, each having it's own limitations and powers."
While you may argue that Trump's rhetoric and actions have portrayed presidential power as boundless, it's essential to consider perhaps another view.
In my view, I feel it's important to acknowledge that Trump's statements such as "I alone can fix it" are often viewed by some through a political lens rather than as literal assertions of unchecked power. Politicians across the spectrum have employed similar rhetoric to inspire confidence and assert leadership qualities. "Here is my promise to you." I will pass policies to fix this pressing problem"
Furthermore, the assertion that Trump has convinced his supporters that the presidency equates to kingship or dictatorship truly oversimplifies the dynamics of political discourse and the broader understanding of constitutional governance in the United States. You might want to consider, that Trump's supporters, like supporters of any political figure, have a range of perspectives and interpretations of his statements.
Let me remind you that the constitutional framework of the United States, with its system of checks and balances, clearly delineates the powers and limitations of each branch of government, including the presidency. While clear presidents have sought to expand their authority, they are ultimately subject to legal and institutional constraints. Do you fear this does not apply to Trump? If there is one very notable thing, Trump has not been held above the law.
It's also worth noting that critiques of presidential overreach are not unique to the Trump administration but have been raised throughout American history in response to actions taken by presidents from various political backgrounds. Few have gone unscathed.
Trump's rhetoric may have at times portrayed an expansive view of presidential power. However, please consider it essential to consider the broader context of political discourse, the constitutional framework of the United States.
We have laws on the books. Laws that have not been followed. Biden could, and should have utilized the current immigration laws.
“While a bipartisan group of Senators has begun extensive negotiations over the past few weeks to try to find a compromise, they have not yet been able to finalize an agreement,” Johnson said in the letter. “Statutory reforms designed to restore operational control at our southern border must be enacted, but the crisis at our southern border has deteriorated to such an extent that significant action can wait no longer. It must start now, and it must start with you.”
“I urge you to immediately take executive actions available to you under existing immigration laws to stem the record tide of illegal immigration,” Johnson said.
The Speaker called for executive actions to “turn back or detain all illegal aliens encountered between ports of entry,” ending the so-called catch-and-release policy; grant parole solely on a case-by-case-basis rather than for entire classes of migrants; reinstate asylum cooperative agreements and negotiate with Mexico to reinstitute the “Remain in Mexico” program; expand the use of expedited removal; and restart construction of the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Johnson also referenced a border law that conservatives have used as the core of a “dereliction of duty” impeachment argument against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
“I also urge you to utilize Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to regain operational control of the border,” Johnson wrote. “That provision empowers the President to ‘suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate’ if the President ‘finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4371 … on-border/
There is no argument that we need to perhaps change the immigration laws. In my view, why the urgency? Have we not sat by for 3.5 years and ignored the many problems occurring at the border? I would suppose if the president saw the gridlock, and no end to the stream of people crossing the border illegally he may have decided to act and stop the flow.
I truly can not comprehend how anyone can defend Biden's lack of problem-solving regarding the border. Oh well to each their own."Have we not sat by for 3.5 years and ignored the many problems occurring at the border? "
We haven't had comprehensive border legislation since 1986, I think there's plenty of blame to go around .
Let's not forget that Trump despite holding the house in the Senate did not pass any immigration legislation. Do folks somehow think if he wins the White House he'll suddenly be able to? Doesn't seem like a good bet"We haven't had comprehensive border legislation since 1986, I think there's plenty of blame to go around ."
However, the Biden administration had a full-born crisis develop regarding the many million that accumulated over the past 3.5 years.
I have frequently made mention of the fact that many of our recent presidents had the true power of Congress to provide new or amended immigration laws.
Predicting the future is impossible, but I believe Trump would have put effort into crafting improved immigration laws. Considering this, is it sensible to keep a president in office who appears to have disregarded border issues and allowed millions of immigrants to enter unchecked? I'm concerned about the potential problems these migrants might bring in the future.'Predicting the future is impossible, but I believe Trump would have put effort into crafting improved immigration laws.'
How about simply looking at the present. We have negotiated legislation that is heavily-skewed for conservatives on border security and Trump is torpedoing it for his own personal gain. If he were to get back into office, he would not have the same leverage with the Democrats in the Senate. This could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the nation and he's undermining it, from the sidelines, for his own gains. Just the latest example of Trump betraying his country for his own ends.Again you are predicting what could happen... If I were to look into a crystal ball, I might see the Senate flip. And a new Republican president could have the perfect opportunity to push through an immigration bill. In my own view, I think Americans are right back to 2016, and looking for change, a disrupter. I myself am weary of listening to all the rhetoric and coming to feel that I am dissatisfied with the liberal ideologies that the Demacrats have overly pushed... I think it best not to predict, but to recognize the here and now, and wait to see what tomorrow brings.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/01/politics … index.htmlThat's not a prediction, Trump has come out and demanded those backing him to not vote for the current legislation. That is fact.
Even if the Senate flips, it won't flip enough to give the GOP 60 seats, which is what it takes to pass legislation.
And I think we're back to 2020, where the country wants adults that put the country first. Trump lost in 2020 because he put his own reelection ahead of public safety. Now he's putting his own reelection ahead of border security. No way voters reward him for that kind of selfishness. The border mess is now his since he's torpedoing bipartisan legislation that gave conservatives so many wins.
It's not a crisis if it was funded and planned by the Administration.
The Biden Administration’s First 100 Days
On his first day, President Biden took six executive actions reversing or rescinding executive orders and policies issued by President Trump regarding the Border and Immigration.
https://www.fairus.org/legislation/bide … gLg2PD_BwE
What we’re seeing at the border is close collaboration and collusion between open-borders advocates within and outside of government.
https://www.heritage.org/homeland-secur … der-crisis
Biden Admin. Sends Millions to Religious Nonprofits Facilitating Mass Illegal Migration
https://cis.org/Bensman/Biden-Admin-Sen … -Migration
Its not a crisis if it is manufactured, funded, promoted and allowed by the government. Its exactly what they set out to accomplish. It is exactly what will continue, after 2024, in continued escalation as we have seen up until now, if Biden is re-elected.
It would be nice if people took the time to realize that the government in control today, is not working for the citizens of America, is not working in their interests or on their behalf.
Once you understand that, you can begin to make decisions... such as who to vote for... based on that reality. This Administration is trying to take the country from the people, trying to strip away the country from the citizens who live here, work here, and have invested their lives into being an American.Ken, it's becoming increasingly evident that open borders were part of a deliberate plan, putting our country at risk. Just take a look at the irrational hysteria and warped mindset surrounding this current immigration bill. In today's speech, Biden appears emboldened as he points fingers at Trump for the migrant crisis, conveniently sidestepping his own responsibility. It's utterly ridiculous. Some people in our society seem so indoctrinated that they fail to recognize absurdity staring them in the face.
It's like some in our society have been brainwashed, dwelling on the past while failing to be able to see current events. We endured 3.5 years of an open border with millions pouring in, yet now it's somehow Trump's fault, and Biden supposedly can't fix it immediately. As if this crisis all came about just days ago. It's mind-boggling!So, The Great Replacement Theory. Not surprised.
Have you looked into the previous actions taken by presidents? None of them were long term and would certainly be challenged in the courts by pro- or anti- immigration factions. It's easy to defend Biden because his job is to enforce the laws that Congress creates. In the same manner you find it easy to defend Mike Johnson for this naked political aspiration that puts Trump's personal goals ahead of what is clearly best for the nation.
I'm not defending Mike Johnson; I simply referenced his insights on immigration laws that Biden could have leveraged as interim measures to address the border situation. I trust Johnson's familiarity with immigration law and intended to provide a basis for understanding my perspective.
So far, I believe Johnson has handled this issue adeptly. He has been transparent in his stance on the immigration bill and seems open to supporting a standalone immigration bill.
This issue has become highly politicized. Did you not anticipate this turn of events?
I believe the House is going to vote on a stand-alone bill tonight
that will fund Israel, and it has been reported Biden will not sign the stand-alone. There is very little room for the two sides to work together.Like I said, have you research the laws that have been used, because I think Johnson is gaslighting people about the powers that Biden actually has based on historical uses. This is what we see all the time from MAGA. They just accept the gaslighting that their reps spit out in the media. And remember, this is the same Mike Johnson that spearheaded failed cases of 2020 election fraud - so his understanding of our laws should be questioned.
And no, when the Democrats capitulate and give the GOP a win on the border, I fully expected them to take the win. Instead, they look like idiots and now the border crisis is on them - they own it now because the Democrats have the high ground as the only adult party in the room willing to put country over party. But, we've seen the party over country so often from the GOP, you're right, it shouldn't be surprising any longer.
And after the GOP asked for aid and immigration to be tied together, why on Earth should Democrats in the Senate reward Mike Johnson for wasting the time and effort they put forth to craft that legislation by only doing Israel aid. I wouldn't want them to reward the childishness of the GOP reneging on their own demands either. Forget Biden, Israel aid isn't making it past the Senate.
At the end of the day, Laws, Rules, Regulations, Statutes, are only as good as the people who enforce them.
When those who are enforcing them are biased, corrupt, or evil, then the laws are twisted to commit wrongdoing and evil.
Whether we are talking the border, the warmongering, or the persecution of Trump and many of his supporters, the abuse is obvious, to those who can see.
The migrant crisis & open borders is analogous to open college enrollment & we see how open college enrollment has decreased the quality of a college education. We can't let just anyone come to America as we shouldn't let anyone attend college.
Exactly, the migrant problem is way out of control. They are flooding our cities. For example, Adams proposed $53 million dollars for debit cards for the migrants for their needs. New York City DOESN'T have that money. They are put into nice hotels. Really? This has GOT TO CEASE. In New York, children were put out of a public school for one day to accompany migrants. Migrants are mugging women for their cellphones.
Migrants being arrogant towards Americans. Migrants feeling superior to Americans. C'mon now. These migrants don't wish to assimilate at all. They feel that they are ENTITLED to the good life. It is TIME TO DEPORT ALL OF THEM back to their respective countries of origin. Americans DON'T NEED nor WANT them. As I stated on previous posts on the same subject years ago, if the migrant problem isn't solved, America will be bankrupt in addition to being a 3rd world nation. I am so sick of extreme liberal policies regarding the migrants as well as other issues. I beleive that immigration should be reduced 60%-75% & only the best & brightest w/o a criminal record & a great skillset should immigrate to America. People w/o a skillset & other negativities SHOULD REMAIN where they ARE.I believe those who advocate for handling the migrant crisis fail to grasp the immediate and future challenges it poses. This oversight further endangers our most vulnerable American citizens. Take, for instance, the decision by the Massachusetts governor to convert a recreational center in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston into a migrant shelter due to what is deemed a lack of alternative options. This move jeopardizes the essential youth and adult programs previously offered at the center.
Food banks are overwhelmed, struggling to meet the needs of their communities. Public schools, already grappling with overcrowding issues, are now facing a crisis. Consequently, the most economically disadvantaged are vying for housing opportunities. The implications of leaving the border open are vast, and I find it difficult to fathom the full extent of the problems that may arise. There's an inherent risk in not knowing who is entering our country and the potential harm they may pose to innocent individuals.
I really can't comprehend why Biden opened our borders. I guess this is what disgusts me and angers me most. Not knowing why anyone would do this to America."I really can't comprehend why Biden opened our borders".
Exactly how did he open the borders? Immigration law is the same, completely unchanged, under Biden as it was Trump. I'm also not understanding why you wouldn't be disgusted with those who oppose the current immigration bill that Senator Lankford says that if it was in place already, it could have resulted in one million fewer illegal immigrants in the country right now.
How, exactly does MAGA hope to achieve this?We hold starkly contrasting perspectives on border policies. I firmly believe that Biden's decision to open them from day one remains unchanged, while Trump's approach led to better encounter statistics. Numbers, in my opinion, convey this message more effectively than words ever could. I am dismayed by those who fell for what seems like an overtly political tactic. One would expect the Democrats to recognize that many Americans see through these desperate maneuvers. Times have evolved, and such strategies now insult people's intelligence.
"Senator Lankford says that if it was in place already, it could have resulted in one million fewer illegal immigrants in the country right now."
Really -- Guess he might want to realize what many Americans have -- too little too late.
"How, exactly does MAGA hope to achieve this?"
Late I look we have a guy named Joe Biden in the White House. Up to him to do his job.
The Biden Inflation Catalyst - written by one of our own, worth the read
https://hubpages.com/politics/biden-inflation"New Speaker Mike Johnson told Republican senators Wednesday that a fresh Ukraine aid package linked to U.S. border security will come quickly in the House, as soon as lawmakers wrap up the $14.5 billion Israel aid package that is heading for passage later this week."
"But the GOP leader McConnell had also made it clear earlier this week that Democrats “will have to accept” a serious US-Mexico border security measure as part of any package with Ukraine funding."
WOW...will they really?
https://apnews.com/article/mike-johnson … 3d087396a8
"senators have for weeks been looking for an agreement to implement stricter immigration policies and curtail arrivals at the southern border with Mexico, which have surged during Joe Biden’s presidency. Republicans have named passing that legislation as their price for approving aid to Ukraine
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … l-aid-deal
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he is “confident and optimistic” that Congress can push through supplemental funding for Israel and Ukraine — but he did not commit to tying the two together, saying Ukraine funding must be accompanied by border policy changes.
And then a few months later he flip-flops..
"It’s a complex issue. I don’t think now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform, because we know how complicated that is,” Johnson said.
Lol he was confident he could get aid for Israel... They tanked that last night also. This group can't get anything done and it's a good idea to hand the keys over to them? Nah. Many of them will lose their seats over this mess.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4329 … ass-house/
"We can’t allow [Russian President] Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine, because I don’t believe it would stop there and it would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan, we have these concerns,” he continued. “We’re not going to abandon them, but we have a responsibility — a stewardship responsibility — over the precious treasure of the American people"
REALLY MIKE??
Still, he said, “we must insist that the border be the top priority. I think we have some consensus around that table. Everyone understands the urgency of that.”
Eh not anymore I guess. I think Republicans have lost the right to say anything more about the border. Apparently it a-ok the way it is.
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/ne … -shootingsSuffice it to say, all bills and all funding, should stand alone or not at all!
I concur that immigration laws pose significant challenges for America. Priority should be given to resolving domestic issues before extending aid globally. My focus is on solutions that prioritize the well-being of American citizens over immigrants. I advocate for supporting allies through separate, transparent bills that are financially feasible for our country.
Well that bill does none of that.
It does not prioritize American citizens over immigrants or over foreign/global issues.
It addresses those concerns at the expense of the best interests of American citizens.The bill was a big porous bandaid --- That would ultimately not offer any fixes to stop the flow. This is precisely what Biden wants more migrants admitted, with a big old come-on-down invitation ...
Bull. Biden has to follow the law, and granting asylum claims is the law. If Congress could change asylum, which the bipartisan bill does, he could act. Republicans want the crisis, and refuse to change laws that have been on the books for over thirty years, ones that are being abused. The GOP is allowing that abuse to continue, it's that simple.
I think that we can all agree, both parties have screwed up. Let’s bring back Trump and get this fixed, once and for all. MAGA!
One person ran on Open Borders, rejoining the Global Compact On Migration, etc. and the other worked to close the border and restrict immigration, it is simple.
WATCH: Biden says migrants shouldn't be detained just for crossing border | 2019 Democratic Debates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Yh4OyQ2xw
Candidate Biden Calls On Illegal Immigrants to Surge the Border
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwLYMPLYbo
Biden: I'll give pathway to citizenship to 11 million undocumented immigrants | PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbzEuEr7FioIt is that simple, but Trump has been made out to be the boogeyman and the propaganda machine which promotes this, has been working overtime! It’s the same discussions over and over and over and the fact remains, Trump, accomplished more in four short years than the Biden bunch ever have, ever could…ever will!
The bill's wording is meticulously crafted, granting authority to the president to make decisions once a quota is met. However, this provision leaves considerable discretion to the president, raising concerns given our current president's apparent cognitive decline. Over recent weeks, his mental state seems to be deteriorating further, prompting questions about his fitness to govern and make crucial decisions.
I understand that this is my perspective, but it's becoming increasingly apparent to the general public that Biden's state of mind is becoming more noticeable. The media is well covering the concerns regarding Biden's cognitive state.There is a process you must go through for getting asylum. NO, biden doesn't HAVE to grant asylum.
IF someone goes through the border in a legal fashion they can then be given an asylum hearing. A judge at the hearing will then determine if the person qualifies for asylum.
MANY people don't show up for such a hearing and just stay in the country.
Simply because you make it to a port of entry does not grant you asylum.
People who do NOT come through a port of entry and are here illegally have to return to a port of entry to apply for an asylum hearing. THAT is the law.
NOW, people who come here legally have a long list of things they must do to be in the United States legally. There is paperwork, forms to fill out, money to pay, etc.
It make me laugh that my relatives had to secure employment to stay here so they wouldn't be a "burden" to the system.
When I see what the people here illegally here get I want to scream.
I have relatives who went through the process legally.
I know a bit about it.You, yours and so many others Mike! I feel as if I overuse this word, but it is “madness” what has been allowed to happen at our southern border. We are ALL less safe, as a result of it! That’s the bottom line and nothing matters more right now, than getting Trump back in, closing the border until the threats cease and those that threaten us are properly dealt with! Then, we can focus on getting other violators out of here permanently, and back to the business of legal entry!
Exactly, the DEMONcratic party is ruining America as predicted. AB, you are right-nothing matters more than returning Trump to the White House. This needs to be done. Also a more stringent immigration law a/k/a 1924 must be implemented.
And who will broker the deal for a 1920s immigration law? A bipartisan group? a MAGA group? 60 votes to pass it? Pretty certain that is a pipe dream
"2024 Senate Elections: Consensus Forecast
The U.S. Senate has 51 Democrats (including three independents) and 49 Republicans. There are 34 seats up in 2024 - including a special election in Nebraska - of which 23 are held by Democrats or Independents. Republicans can retake control with a net gain of two seats or by winning the 2024 presidential election along with a net gain of one seat."
https://www.270towin.com/2024-senate-el … edictions/
I find predicting a risky game.
Lots of Americans are very dissatisfied with the path the country is on.
The polls are very disheartening.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1669/gener … untry.aspxA gain of two or three seats on either side guarantees nothing will get done at a 60 vote threshold. These people simply need to come to the realization that compromise is crucial. We cannot vote in Representatives with a "my way or the highway" attitude. We all lose. As evidenced by the recent border bill.
Sharlee, this reminds me of the groups that came into Rome to destroy it-there was one last group that was particularly fearsome & destructive. This is analogous to the current state of American society. Read any book regarding the fall of the Roman Empire
Might want to check the law on needing to be at a port of entry to file for asylum. It may have been how your relatives did it, but the law, and some court cases I've seen, have allowed asylum for those crossing not at ports.
Be in the U.S. or at a port of entry, which can be an airport, seaport, or border crossing.
That or is pretty important to law.This is from the ACLU...and I know how the left loves the ACLU.
"To be granted asylum, people must come to the U.S. or the border and must prove their case.
Elected officials and news outlets often mischaracterize those seeking asylum at the border as breaking the law or failing to seek protection “the right way.” However, under U.S. law, a person seeking asylum may do so by arriving at the border and asking to be screened by U.S. officials at a “port of entry,” or by entering the U.S. without prior inspection and then declaring their fear of persecution.
In either case, people seeking asylum at the border are subjected to a criminal background and security check. They must then navigate a complex and lengthy process, involving multiple government agencies, in order to prove that they have a well founded fear of persecution. Those who lose their cases and any appeals are ordered removed and are deported. Since March of 2020, most people seeking asylum at the border have been denied the right to do so under normal rules, and have instead been expelled from the U.S. under Title 42."
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-ri … eek-asylum'However, under U.S. law, a person seeking asylum may do so by arriving at the border and asking to be screened by U.S. officials at a “port of entry,” or by entering the U.S. without prior inspection and then declaring their fear of persecution.'
At a port of entry or by entering the US...and then declaring their fear of prosecution. Again, that 'or' backs up my point.Yes, it is important to realize simply because you come into the United States you are not automatically granted asylum. There is a process and an asylum hearing in a court.
Over 90% do not show up for their asylum hearing and simply remain in the United States illegally.
Australia does a far better job on immigration. If you don't show up for a hearing there, they send people after you for deportation. My wife's sister immigrated to Australia. They are very serious about it. Many other countries have a much stricter immigration policy than the United States.Australia wants to remain somewhat homogeneous. They want to maintain a strong dominant culture. America under Biden want to be very multicultural. The Liberals among them want a multicultural society, it doesn't matter the type of people who come to America. America, on the other hand, see a dominant culture as racist.
If only the United States was an island.
And I would like to see your research on the 90% claim. Here is mine: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … show-court
I honestly believe we need to shut down asylum once we hit the totals we set for the year for how many we are willing and capable of allowing to enter the country, which needs to be much lower than where Biden sees it, that's for sure. We need to make those totals more public so immigrants know that we won't be an option. And our asylum laws do need to be updated - it's disappointing to not see the current bill go through, if anything to see if Congress could have an impact on immigration instead of just complaining about it endlessly while not doing their job to assist.
As I previously mentioned, in December, I corrected my earlier statement from November 2023. Several GOP Congress members began advocating for negotiations that involved attaching funding to the bill. It's important to emphasize the qualifier "some" here. It became evident that certain Republicans in both chambers of Congress were open to including aid for Ukraine in the bill as a bargaining tool. However, I haven't come across any quotes supporting the notion of withholding the bill unless aid was attached, as you are presenting. What I've gathered is that some GOP members were leaning towards the idea and expressing willingness to wheel and deal, and attach aid to the bill. Nevertheless, this stance faced significant criticism from many GOP Congress members. The split has been reported by the media. A line was drawn in the sand --- and as it stands now the bill is shelved.
It should be clear that many in the GOP did not support the bill for many reasons.
"I’ve seen enough. This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created. As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes.” If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival,” Johnson said in a statement on X, echoing comments he made before the bill's release."
"House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the legislation, which includes millions of dollars in new foreign aid and is the first major overhaul of the country's immigration system in years, will not even receive a vote in the House.
“Let me be clear: The Senate Border Bill will NOT receive a vote in the House. Here’s what the people pushing this “deal” aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients—a magnet for more illegal immigration,” Scalise said in a statement on X."
"GOP Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota is also against the Senate bill.
"I’ll say it again: Any deal from the Senate that explicitly allows for even ONE illegal crossing will be dead on arrival in the House. What we’ve seen is an insult to the American people who’ve been forced to bear the consequences of Democrats’ open-border policies," Emmer said in a statement on X.
GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York voiced strong objections to the bill in her post on X.
"This Joe Biden/Chuck Schumer Open Border Bill is an absolute non-starter and will further incentivize thousands of illegals to pour in across our borders daily," Stefanik, a top ally of former President Donald Trump, said on X."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/speaker … =106944092
"House Republican Leadership Statement on Senate Immigration Bill
February 5, 2024
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Conference Chairwoman Stefanik, Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Scalise, and Majority Whip Emmer issued the following statement regarding the Senate’s immigration bill:
“House Republicans oppose the Senate immigration bill because it fails in every policy area needed to secure our border and would actually incentivize more illegal immigration.
“Among its many flaws, the bill expands work authorizations for illegal aliens while failing to include critical asylum reforms. Even worse, its language allowing illegals to be ‘released from physical custody’ would effectively endorse the Biden ‘catch and release’ policy.
“The so-called ‘shutdown’ authority in the bill is anything but, riddled with loopholes that grant far too much discretionary authority to Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas – who has proven he will exploit every measure possible, in defiance of the law, to keep the border open.
“The bill also fails to adequately stop the President’s abuse of parole authority and provides for taxpayer funds to fly and house illegal immigrants in hotels through the FEMA Shelter and Services Program.
“Because President Biden has refused to utilize his broad executive authority to end the border catastrophe that he has created, the House led nine months ago with the passage of the Secure the Border Act (H.R. 2). That bill contains the necessary components to actually stem the flow of illegals and end the present crisis. The Senate must take it up immediately.
“America’s sovereignty is at stake." https://stefanik.house.gov/2024/2/house … ation-bill
H.R. 2 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con … summary/00However, I haven't come across any quotes supporting the notion of withholding the bill unless aid was attached, as you are presenting. What I've gathered is that some GOP members were leaning towards the idea and expressing willingness to wheel and deal, and attach aid to the bill.
You got it wrong/backwards. Republicans blocked the aid unless it was attached to a border bill.
Dec 2023
Senate negotiators and the White House are scrambling to strike a last-minute deal on a framework for border policy changes that Republicans have demanded in exchange for approving billions in military aid for Ukraine.
The complex negotiations, triggered by Senate Republicans blocking a $110.5 billion foreign-aid bill earlier this month, have become a high-stakes challenge for lawmakers and President Joe Biden as the U.S. is set to run out of funding to provide more weapons and equipment to Ukraine by the end of the year.
“I will not help Ukraine, Taiwan, or Israel until we secure a border that’s been obliterated", said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, said on NBC’s Meet the Press
At the center of the debate, Republicans want stricter border security measures, including tightened restrictions on asylum-seekers and the reintroduction of some Trump-era immigration policies, in exchange for approving additional funding to Ukraine, which Biden and Democrats want.
The Committee for a Responsible Budget released an article; CBO's February 2024 Budget and Economic Outlook (Feb 7, 2024)
https://www.crfb.org/papers/cbos-februa … ic-outlook
Revealing highlights are:
** Debt will reach a record 116 percent of GDP by 2034. Under current law, CBO projects that federal debt held by the public will grow by $21 trillion over the next decade, reaching $48 trillion by the end of FY 2034. Debt will grow from 97 percent of GDP in 2023 to 116 percent by 2034; it could grow to 131 percent of GDP by 2034 if policymakers extend various expiring policies.
** Deficits will reach $2.6 trillion by 2034. Deficits will total 5.7 percent of GDP ($20 trillion) over the next decade and will reach 6.2 percent of GDP ($2.6 trillion) by 2034.
** Spending and revenue will remain far apart. Spending will grow from 22.7 percent of GDP in 2023 to 24.1 percent by 2034, while revenue will grow from 16.5 percent of GDP in 2023 to 17.1 percent in 2025 and then rise to 17.9 percent of GDP by 2034 after large parts of the TCJA expire.
** Interest costs will explode. After nearly doubling from $345 billion in 2020 to $659 billion in 2023, interest costs will double to $1.3 trillion by 2031 and reach $1.6 trillion – a record 3.9 percent of GDP – by 2034. Interest costs have already passed Medicaid and will exceed the cost of defense and Medicare this year.
** Major trust funds are approaching insolvency. The Highway Trust Fund will deplete its reserves by 2028, Social Security’s retirement trust fund will be insolvent by 2033, and the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund will run out of cash by the mid-2030s. Upon insolvency, all three face across-the-board cuts.
** The FRA improved the fiscal outlook. CBO now projects $1.4 trillion less borrowing between 2024 and 2033 than it did last May, due entirely to savings from the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Other factors, including higher interest rates and stronger economic growth, were largely offsetting.
** The economy will normalize while interest rates remain high. CBO projects inflation will return close to its 2 percent target this year and unemployment will stabilize at about 4.4 percent per year. Meanwhile, interest rates will remain high, with ten-year Treasury yields at 4.1 percent by the end of the budget window.
What does the CBO say? FEBRUARY | 2024 The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-0 … k-2024.pdf
Fire up the coffee pot and wonder what we left for the next generations. Whose responsible and why? Was it worth it? Do we need to offer a class to our legislatures: Home Economics 101 to get them to a basic understanding before promoting them to Economics 101?One of the many reasons I was supporting Kasich in 2016. He had the history of being a main player in balancing the federal budget while in Congress.
How to vote?
Jan. 6 was an insurrection. Trump agrees.
A freudian slip, a short circuit, spin, backtracking. All in a matter of seconds.
That must be a record! LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3IS87jWUNcTsmog - your initial post in this thread seemed to be heavily skewed to the economic factors. Has any of the recent positive economic news had an effect on your thinking about how to vote in 2024?
A fair question, Valeant. Yes, the change in the 'macro' economy, which I see as favorable, has shall we say given sway to at least not count out Biden. However, at the micro level I still have emotional feelings with prices being high that affect me. Pain is difficult at times to forget.
As far as attempting to compare Biden with Trump, quoting from the OP, "Note: I consider the pandemic's unforeseeable misfortune affecting both presidents." Comparing is difficult as the pandemic's affect is vastly different for each. It tanked Trump's economy as I see it while Biden had to pursue recovery, of which one may say is just now entering the tail end now as I see it.
As to the blame game of what caused inflation I have considered the additional spending by both Trump and Biden. I place most of the blame for inflation on the pandemic itself yet consider Biden's spending that affected inflation like eating candy with a diabetic. The blood sugar spikes then slowly goes back to normal.
I have sought to discover some measure of positive results from the spending thus far while know results may not occur until the future arrives. For instance, the infrastructure. (See link next)
Biden's infrastructure law has begun 40,000 projects. Will it help him in 2024? by Reuters (Nov 10, 2023)
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens … 023-11-10/
For local to me in San Diego County comes; San Diego County Recipient of $421M in Federal Funds for Air, Rail, Road, Port Projects by Times of San Diego (May 20, 2023)
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/20 … -projects/
I consider how fast was the recovery from inflation, though it still continues. In that context, I have been looking into other countries success and failures for recovery as a guide. Ours from my reading is stronger than other countries at least with G7 countries tilting favorably toward Biden.
From; Britain to suffer highest inflation in the G7 in 2024 and 2025, OECD by the Independent (Feb 5, 2024) comes;
"In 2024, The OECD is predicting that UK inflation to be above Canada at 2.6 per cent, France at 2.7 per cent, Germany at 2.6 per cent, Italy at 1.8 per cent, Japan at 2.6 per cent and the United States at 2.2 per cent."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p … 90688.html
Also, from The US Department of Treasury; The U.S. Economic Recovery in International Context (June 5, 2023)
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured … ntext-2023
The Key Subtitles are:
** U.S. Economic Recovery Fastest Among Comparable Advanced Economies
** Despite Higher Growth, U.S. Core Inflation is Now Lower Than in Many Other Major Advanced Economies
** The U.S. Labor Market Recovery Has Been Exceptionally Strong
I am sure there are counter arguments and I am open to listening. My biggest concern is with the ever growing debt as seen with the earlier post I made. Also, the Committee of a Responsible Federal Budget has not released their report on Biden for debt yet, where they have for Trump.
How Much Did President Trump Add to the Debt? (Jan 10, 2024)
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did … p-add-debt
But, back in 2022 they did do a report on Biden's deficit spending estimated at 4.8 trillion then.
The Biden Administration Has Approved $4.8 Trillion of New Borrowing by The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Sept 13, 2022)
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/biden-admini … -borrowingYou have a thorough thought process, take note of anyone accusing you of not being fair and balanced.
Each of us have our priorities of what means the most to us, when we consider whom to vote for.
For myself, its the mess Biden has made of foreign affairs, its the duplicity of how the Administration operates, giving Iran billions so they can fund terrorism throughout the world, while having our troops deployed in obscure and vulnerable locations we no longer (never) belong, for example.
For others it is how the Border has been handled, for others it will be Abortion, for others it will be his mental faculties (how obvious it is becoming that others are running the country and he is just a frontman).Yes, we each have our reasoning for a vote for whomever. I still have not decided as yet while have time on my side. Many of the issues you raised I have my concerns as well such as our immigration policy as it is today and the border crisis. That definitely will affect my vote for choosing between the candidates for Senator in California. I put the blame on Congress more than President, so have a keen eye on the candidates.
Tsmog, Ken and I agree on this, your decision-making paradigm comes with research and reason. No one can accuse you of being an uneducated voter. One who weighs the pros and cons of the decision.
For me, the democracy angle will still be chief among the issues. I truly believe that Trump is a malignant narcissist that will try and end our democracy as we know it and attempt to turn our government into something similar to Russia. It is my belief that he aspires to be Putin or Kim, and now that he understands the roadblocks a bit better, a second term may be catastrophic to our system of government. He has already shown a willingness to break our laws to achieve those goals.
Biden, for his many faults, still believes in a three-branch system of government, attempting to use bipartisanship and diplomacy to achieve his goals. Trump believes in bullying, lawlessness, and executive orders by whim, even when those whims are steeped in cruelty as we saw from his family separation policy.
I would be on-board with a candidate from either party preaching a balanced-budget platform though - on this we agree. I just don't think we will have that option in 2024 as neither will be great stewards; as Trump was increasing spending thanks to a tax-cut that everyone knew would not pay for itself, based on the historical examples of those tax cuts not paying for themselves. How many times do we need to watch a president cut taxes before cutting spending to realize that choice will be a disaster? While Biden has cut deficits from the last two years of Trump's budget during Covid, he has not approached anything resembling a balanced budget. Both get a grade of D if I were teaching budgeting.
Thanks for the response to my question. While the rest of us haggled over the issues, it seemed you got lost in your own thread.Issues are important to me. I am just not vocal about them. For instance, I am against abortion, but pro-choice. Living in California I don't have to worry about that, though align myself that there should be reasonable laws for it and think some states have gone over the edge with restrictions.
At this time one negative I have with Biden is his age and some doubt of his mental acuity fueled by the media's back and forth and observation with videos. However, I have doubts about Trump as well. So, that is draw between the two as I see it.Yeah, I think many of us are in this camp, where neither of the two candidates that will likely end up as the nominees are really the best options based on age and mental acuity. Biden and Trump are both slipping, but that's where I give Biden an edge because at least he's not a malignant narcissist on top of it.
I don't mean to get off track, but I do think this goes hand-in-hand. I just watched the Carlson-Putin Interview and one thing was glaringly obvious. Putin doesn't take Biden seriously enough! He mentioned talks and relationships with Clinton, both Bushes, Trump, but seemed annoyed with each mention of Biden. He couldn't be bothered to remember the last time they had talked, as if approaching the subject, was a complete waste of everyone's time! This may not be pertinent to the topic at hand...but it is very relevant!
Well, Putin is attacking an ally of the United States and we are backing that ally. Not really all that surprising or relevant that Putin would be annoyed with Biden. But as usual, it does put on full display who MAGA sides with when the two options are Putin and Biden.
I'm curious if NATO would have set a clear red line with Russia. Letting Putin know they would not allow Russian troops to advance into Ukraine.
In my view, It appeared imperative for Europe to safeguard its own sovereignty. The presence of a robust NATO force along the Ukraine-Russian border could have likely deterred Russian aggression and the war that ensued. However, instead, they opted to let Ukraine become a war zone to selfishly protect their own Nations.Yeah, I had that same thought at the time. If we approached Ukraine about putting some US or NATO troops near their border, if that would have dissuaded Putin from invasion.
That is the primary reason for this war.
We wanted Ukraine to join NATO, we wanted to (we do) control Ukraine, and use it as a lever against Russia.
The United States and NATO dismissed Moscow’s security demands as nonstarters in every written response to the Kremlin in the last 20 years.
In a speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin accused Western powers of violating a solemn pledge by considerably enlarging NATO such as the Baltic countries joining the Alliance in 2004 asking, "What happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?"
NATO has continually expanded since the fall of the Soviet Union, growing from 17 countries in 1990 to 31 today, nearly doubling since the demise of the USSR, several of which were once part of the Soviet-led Warsaw pact.
This is the reason why there is war in Ukraine, America's CIA and State efforts to attempt to, or successfully overthrow governments in Ukraine and in Georgia for the last 20 years.
Its what America does... Iraq, Syria, Libya... along the Russian border it uses internal operatives and revolution rather than outright military might, or it did, until now.
Russia/Putin might not be a nice guy... but our government/CIA is far worse the world over.
You can be pretty sure this is a big reason why so many don't want a return to Trump, he wasn't interested in making the MIC fat and happy, he wasn't interested in bringing war and destruction the world over... the Biden Administration can't get enough of it, no amount of funding, weapons, death is enough for them. War with Russia, war in the Middle East, war with China... this crew is the worst ever to control the White House. And I mean, ever.Maybe NATO should have recognized that most Americans are primarily focused on their own country's interests. While they attempted to sway opinions, it seems they underestimated the intelligence of the American people. Their efforts have ultimately failed, and the consequences have been significant. The house of cards has come down like a ton of bricks.
This administration could not look more unintelligent, more ridiculous, or more pitiful. In my view.America (and the UK) is NATO... we almost fully fund and arm it.
Just like we almost fully fund and arm the Ukraine war effort.
NATO is nothing if not a puppet for American interests and authority.Europe has recently unlocked 55 billion for Ukraine.
If that is the case, it is time for America to bow out.
A good time to let Russia "do whatever the hell it wants"? I wonder what kind of message that sends to North Korea and China?
Willowarbor: You make an excellent point. I am more concerned, though, about the Americans who still don't "get the message" when Trump says things like this.
Taken out of context, not what he said/meant at all. Typical media BS political hit pieces twist his words, the normal MSM lies.
Here is a 5 minute excerpt of that speech, in context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0p6yeSXKYoWhat do you think the context was? I totally do not see the point after watching the video. He said what he said. Are you interpreting his comment is something different?
He misspoke completely about the amount of aid to Ukraine.
The country's committing the most aid to Ukraine...
https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/uk … id-donors/
"Europe has clearly overtaken the United States in promised aid to Ukraine, with total European commitments now being twice as large".
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/ne … -as-large/He did indeed.
He was relaying to the audience how he got members of NATO to pay their percentage of funding that they were expected to pay.
He was talking about what he did when he was President and was negotiating with those NATO countries.
I suppose, if you are completely unaware of that occurring, or did not realize that was what he was referring to, one might get confused... the MSM is not confused, they are taking it out of context, on purpose, as they always do with Trump.
This is the problem with relying on MSM news for your information to understand what is going on in the world... the MSM is biased, is owned by corporations that have their own interests and agendas, controlled by Ad revenues and ideologues, and is unreliable to be factual and unbiased."He was relaying to the audience how he got members of NATO to pay their percentage of funding that they were expected to pay."
Those are target goals toward investments in their own military, not payments to the US or anyone else. Trump always seems to inaccurately portrayNATO. He's sort of leads people to believe that there is one big pot and some members aren't throwing in.
"In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness."
"Nato sets alliance members the aim of spending 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP)]b] on defence.[/b]"
At this point I believe we have almost half reaching those goals.
I still don't understand how that has anything to do with his quote
Trump said “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the US would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”
“No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”
He would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want? For me, there's no justification for this comment.
I am not sure what you are responding to, but I was responding to:
READMIKENOW WROTE:
Europe has recently unlocked 55 billion for Ukraine.
Meaning they can take it from here. We have done our part.
What is your problem?"A good time to let Russia "do whatever the hell it wants"? "
It's evident that Russia is pursuing its objectives despite NATO's support for a conflict that doesn't directly impact NATO member states. From my perspective, I couldn't be less concerned about Russia's actions toward NATO nations. It seems they're exploiting Ukraine to shield their own countries and citizens from the consequences of war.
Indeed, it's vital to take into account the perspectives of China and North Korea on this administration. The broader international community's opinions are also significant, albeit challenging to gauge accurately. While this administration receives low ratings domestically, my primary concern is with domestic perceptions rather than worrying about the sentiments of other nations.
Regarding Trump's stance on NATO, he hinted at the possibility of withdrawing during his 2016 campaign and consistently criticized member nations for failing to meet their financial commitments. He reiterated this sentiment at a NATO meeting in 2018. However, it seems like old news now, and MSNBC appears to be struggling to find new topics to cover, resorting to dredging up past events. Personally, I was disappointed that Trump didn't follow through with withdrawing from NATO or reducing our funding for it. It may be time for NATO nations to bolster their military capabilities and prioritize their own defense.
The reality is that Putin's aggression escalated during Obama's presidency with Crimea and continued during Biden's tenure with Ukraine. Trump, on the other hand, perceived no aggression from Putin.NATO member countries pledge to meet certain thresholds in spending on their own defense which, by making each country stronger, indirectly contributes to the common defense of the Alliance.
NATO members also make direct cash payments for what are referred to as “Common Funding Arrangements.” These payments are a more accurate reflection of the “cost” of being a member of NATO and are based on the Gross National Income (GNI) of each member. The payments support NATO’s staff and operating costs of alliance headquarters, NATO’s military budget (the costs of the alliance’s integrated command structure), and the NATO Security Investment Program, helping improve military capabilities of newer member nations.
Thankfully, Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress.
I do not think Trump's statement about letting Russia do whatever it wants to another country to be fodder. That a candidate for the office of the President would support Russian interests and regularly fawn over murderous dictators is not a great quality in my book.
https://www.taxpayer.net/national-secur … o-budgets/I expressed my opinion that Russia's pursuit of its objectives persists despite NATO's involvement in conflicts unrelated to its member states. I emphasized my lack of concern regarding Russia's actions towards NATO nations. Additionally, I highlighted the importance of considering the perspectives of China, North Korea, and the broader international community, alongside domestic concerns about the current administration's low ratings. My primary focus remains on domestic perceptions rather than worrying about international sentiments.
I also noted the escalation of Putin's aggression during Obama's presidency with Crimea and its continuation during Biden's tenure with Ukraine. In contrast, Trump seemed to perceive no aggression from Putin.
However, you seemed to imply that I needed a tutorial on NATO, which I found puzzling.Or that Putin did not see a need for aggression because he had Trump in his pocket, like we saw in Helsinki in 2018, when Trump sided with Putin over the intelligence services of the United States.
Trump in Putin's pocket, really?
Trump administration imposing sanctions on Russia abound. Throughout his presidency, Trump consistently utilized economic penalties to demonstrate disapproval of Russia's actions. Some notable instances include:
These examples illustrate the Trump administration's consistent use of sanctions to challenge Russian behavior and protect U.S. interests, despite occasional rhetoric suggesting a friendlier stance towards Russia.
"WASHINGTON — The Trump administration imposed new sanctions on seven of Russia’s richest men and 17 top government officials on Friday in the latest effort to punish President Vladimir V. Putin’s inner circle for interference in the 2016 election and other Russian aggressions."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/us/p … archs.html
"President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish a pipeline into the European Union.
The sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline that will allow Russia to increase gas exports to Germany.
The US considers the project a security risk to Europe.
Both Russia and the EU have strongly condemned the US sanctions."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935
"Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine
The Trump administration first approved the sale of Javelins to Ukraine in 2017." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-a … d=65989898
"Reuters
December 22, 2020
"MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Tuesday that the new round of U.S. sanctions against Russia marked another hostile act by the outgoing administration of President Donald Trump and would further harm already poor ties between Moscow and Washington.
The Trump administration on Monday published a list of Chinese and Russian companies with alleged military ties that restrict them from buying a wide range of U.S. goods and technology."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russ … KBN28W11Q/
"On the record: The U.S. administration’s actions on Russia"
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/on-t … on-russia/
I should have quoted what I was responding to, which is the following.
"Personally, I was disappointed that Trump didn't follow through with withdrawing from NATO or reducing our funding for it.".
We don't "fund" NATO beyond administrative cost that are based on the GNI of each member country.
In terms of the other comments. Would it be accurate to say that your assessment is that Trump's isolationist leanings are preferable? That we don't support allies? That we send the message that Russia can be rewarded with Ukraine for its unprovoked aggression, would that signal to China a green light to go to Taiwan and what would it say to North Korea? And what would our world look like afterward?
You will not find a collective force more powerful than NATO, but it's preferable to give that up? For what? To save the administrative costs? Sort of just common sense that there's more power in a group than alone.
And I disagree, it is my view that Trump signals appeasement and acquiescence to murderous dictators, not strength. How long until unchecked dictators show up at our door? Or should I be so naive to think that they just wouldn't do that?
I'd rather keep a boot on their neck.Interesting post.
I think things were going pretty good in 2019, prior to the pandemic, despite coming into his Presidency with Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan all in various stages of disarray, he calmed things down, nothing escalated.
I love that last sentence of yours "I'd rather keep a boot on their neck."
The only boot on necks that I see, is the Biden Administration's boot on the American citizen.
Get a vaccine or you're fired, properly call that person Zhis or Mx or you're fired, share the woman's bathroom with that Trans or you're fired, etc. yeah... no boots on our necks here in America.
Between Ukraine and Gaza, Biden has presided over slaughter and horrors of war not seen on this level since WWII.
I'd hate to see how bad things would be in the world if the Biden Administration wasn't giving hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran and Ukraine to fund these wars.
I'm glad they are keeping a boot on their necks.Appreciate your view, it's very different than my own. I will say I believe your view is shared by many.
I think, the more basic we keep the questions, the closer one can get to answering those questions, without getting lost in the weeds.
Do you think the world is safer under Biden or more dangerous?
Do you think the economy is better under Biden or worse?
Are more immigrants coming in now, or less?
Are your bills getting easier to pay or harder?
Answer these types of questions for yourself, and you can come up with your own reason for supporting Biden or supporting change.
If you don't support change, things will continue to move in the direction that the Administration has set, whatever changes they have/will make to aid their efforts to win in 2024 aside.. in other words, if they really want a ban on drilling in federal lands they will re-institute those bans after the election, if they prefer an open-border policy they will go back to it after the election.I believe you've accurately pinpointed the issue. Frequently, straightforward inquiries are swiftly diverted, and discussions devolve into a comparison with Trump. It's evident that some individuals here are unwilling to entertain alternative viewpoints, insisting that only their own perspective matters, which inevitably leads to repetitive exchanges.
Your questions are relevant and should indeed serve as the foundation for decision-making in the upcoming 2024 elections. However, it's apparent that each of your inquiries would likely trigger the familiar "Let's Compare Trump" game. Personally, I've grown weary of this repetitive cycle and have reached a point where I feel engaging in it diminishes the quality of discourse and undermines intelligence.The assumption that others are unwilling to entertain alternate viewpoints is a false one. We just have the opinion, which as you always note that everyone is entitled to, that other issues are of more importance than the issues that make the right's candidate seem to be the best option. Options such as democracy and equal rights to body autonomy are two that come to mind right off the bat.
And voters have a choice in 2024, so playing the 'let's compare Trump to Biden' game as it was called it is what American elections are all about. Telling people that they must accept the 'foundation for decision-making' that members of Trump's cult all agree on is ludicrous. If the right doesn't want to hear about all the issues, maybe don't start the conversation. And if that grows weary, maybe the weary people should disengage from these forums, because it's going to continue to happen because intelligent people would want to hear both sides of an argument before making a decision, in my opinion.My stance is evident in my comment. I don't perceive users here who lean towards the right as avoiding or backing away from discussions until they become repetitive. Conversely, I find left-leaning individuals tend to repeat themselves and often divert from uncomfortable topics. Those on the right, however, typically remain focused, express themselves straightforwardly, and engage in civil discussions.
I believe using derogatory terms like "Trump's cult" does not contribute to productive conversation. Such statements often reflect poorly on one's intelligence and hinder the development of cohesive discourse.
I'm committed to remaining active on HubPages. I'll continue to participate, express my viewpoints civilly, and exercise discretion in deciding when not to engage.
I will also continue to keep the most current information front and center in regards to the current president, and his administration. There are two candidates...
Indeed, a good example of this is in the effort ongoing right now to twist Trump's words to say he would invite Russia to attack NATO nations.
Those who watch the two minutes before and two minutes after that sentence, should easily be able to determine that he is speaking about when he was negotiating with NATO nations regarding paying the part of expenses they were responsible for, back when Trump was President.
So, seeing that entire clip, and then seeing the great lengths the media is going to twist his words and make them mean something that he clearly did not mean... how can you argue with that, why would you, other than to tell people to go watch the full clip.
The only thing it does is show how much of a sham our MSM is, they lose all credibility.
Sure, if you want to frame the election on those issues.
Here are some additional questions that need to be asked:
Which administration wants to remove your right to body autonomy and your right to vote?
Which administration alienates our allies and coddles murderous dictators, making their aspirations to make the United States government more like the countries of Russia and North Korea plain as day?
Yes, when you look at the actual numbers about the economy and not make your decision based on the propaganda you're being fed, who should you trust more? Who ended their term with record debt and a net-negative jobs gain?
Who was in charge and was pulling scientists out of China at the same time that their State Department was getting warnings of dangerous testing in the country - which ultimately led to a global pandemic, world economies and supply chains being crushed, and the rise in prices that you are paying today as well as a massive influx of immigrants to our country? Who do you trust to understand the science of deadly pandemics?
Who didn't commit election-related crimes to get into and then try and stay in office? Who will actually uphold their oath of office to oversee the laws of the country?
Do you want someone in the Oval Office that a jury has found liable for raping a woman and a separate court has found committed massive business fraud?
Who do you trust not to organize and incite a domestic terror attack on Congress when they do not bend to his alternate realities and illegal whims?
Who do you trust not to use dangerous rhetoric that has led directly to numerous domestic terror incidents and at least one mass shooting?
I'll stay with the change we made in 2020. As Stephen Colbert put it last night, the choice is between (and he quotes the Hur report) 'a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory or a contemptable, malicious, elderly rapist with a poor memory.'
Mike, there's been a notable lack of updates on the Ukraine/Russian conflict lately. How are you personally processing the ongoing situation? Do you believe Ukraine stands a chance of prevailing in this war? The commitment of NATO to support Ukraine is evident, but considering the potential for a prolonged conflict, what concerns you about the lasting impact on Ukraine and its people?
Are you at all concerned that the United States, known for its tendency to withdraw from international conflicts, might one day abandon Ukraine, leaving behind a devastating vacuum that could severely harm the country and its people?
I choose the United States of America in every instance....
So, If I must spell it out for you, Putin does not respect, nor does he fear, Biden. Do you think he is the only one?I doubt Putin respects anyone. That's a trait of narcissists. Amplifying a hostile foreign leader's message that undermines US leadership during a time of conflict is not choosing the United States of America, in my opinion.
Dodge my questions with a personal assault; you are so good at it! But, I have come to expect that from you.
I simply gave my opinion, one that many Americans share, that when the United States has chosen a side in a war, patriotic Americans rally to the cause and not with the message of the leader of the country on the other side. In fact, it's worse than that, there was the creation of a narrative of our own leader being weak based not on what was said. Maybe you've forgotten what happened with the Dixie Chicks when they criticized Bush during a time of conflict.
I believe Putin specifically stated he has not spoken to Biden, at all, since the war began.
What is interesting, I don't think Putin was his best there, under the weather perhaps... and yet, he could still speak at length and in detail.
I came across this opinion of why that interview has the weight and importance it does, I agree with much of what is said here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf1X4spqmNg
Its only six minutes, worth considering.
An interesting, somewhat sad, interview to listen to - 2024 World Economic Summit -
LIVE: Tucker Carlson, Takes Part in World Government Summit at What’s Next for Storytelling? | IN18L
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2xa7hHMUhoSomething one might want to consider when casting your ballot for president in 2024. An administration that would make this decision ---
"FIRST ON FOX: President Biden is facing increased scrutiny over his administration providing health care administrative services to illegal migrants amid a worsening border crisis, potentially exacerbating long wait times for American veterans utilizing Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) facilities.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., touted his recently introduced No VA Resources for Illegal Aliens Act, which he introduced alongside Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., that would ban such action, one of the many problems he says are facing the country as a result of the border "disaster" taking place under Biden's watch.
"[Biden's] decided, OK, we've got to feed all these 10 million people we've let come across the border, we've got to house them, and we've got to give them health care," Tuberville said. "They've opened up care from the doctors in these [VA] community care systems. The lines now in the VA's are getting longer. Our funds that are supposed to go to the veterans are going to these illegal immigrants that are coming across."
"Tuberville lamented that the VA was already not able to provide care for all 19 million veterans living across the country and that the community systems he mentioned had helped reduce wait times until the border crisis began to get worse.
The arrangement between the VA's Financial Service Center (VA-FSC) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to process claims for migrant medical care is a longstanding one that actually predates the Biden administration and was outlined in a 2020 memo during former President Trump's administration.
When an illegal migrant under ICE detention requires health care, they are typically treated onsite by medical professionals. However, if specialist or emergency care is required, they may be taken to an independent private provider.
In such cases, ICE contracts with the VA’s Financial Service Center (VA-FSC) to process reimbursements to those providers. According to a report from July, ICE has hundreds of letters of understanding in which ICE’s Health Service Corps (IHSC) will reimburse providers at Medicare rates. That uses the VA-FSC’s Healthcare Claims Processing System, which a portal that allows providers to submit and view claims and access other resources.
The VA told Fox News Digital in December that it has had an interagency agreement with the IHSC since 2002 to provide processing, but it also noted that the department neither provides health care nor pays for it. Under the agreement with IHSC, ICE pays fees for the claims processing services rendered and covers disbursements made to pay for claims.
However, the crisis at the border, with record numbers of migrants crossing into the U.S. and needing medical care, has likely worsened what one former veterans' affairs adviser told Fox News Digital in December was a "history of a backlog of medical claims which has resulted in veterans getting bills they shouldn't be getting, and … having dissatisfied community care providers who are not getting paid in a timely manner."
Tuberville expressed hope that the bill could get some bipartisan support, considering the election year and that a number of Democrats up for reelection are running close races.
"I think we've got a great opportunity to get this, maybe not to a vote, but at least where we discuss it on the floor, where the American people start to understand it," he said. "An election year is a great year to try to get some kind of bipartisan help on any type of bill, especially when it comes to the veterans. That means so much to us here in our country."
Tuberville went on to blast the Biden administration's selling of border wall materials purchased under the previous administration rather than using them as a barrier to deter border crossings, and he blasted Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who narrowly survived an impeachment vote last week, as a "globalist" who has no interest in walls or borders."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-se … immigrants
Other Sources
https://www.daines.senate.gov/2023/12/0 … -veterans/
https://nypost.com/2024/01/10/news/va-r … rans-wait/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … e_vignette
https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/va-d … healthcare
"WASHINGTON (TND) — The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), despite having a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, is appropriating resources to provide medical care for illegal migrants, according to a July report.
The report by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security details the operations of the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention healthcare facility. The facility works with the VA to contract "with the Department of Veterans Affairs Financial Services Center (VAFSC) to process medical claims reimbursements” for migrants who did not serve in the U.S. military."
"In 2022, the facility provided healthcare services to over 118,000 detained illegal migrants, according to the report. These services amounted to a cost of more than $63.6 million and is expected to be even higher for 2023.
"VA does not provide or fund any health care services to non-Veteran individuals detained in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody," a VA spokesperson told The National Desk (TND) Thursday. "At no time are any VA health care professionals or VA funds used for this purpose." Please read more...Thank you for replying to my comment. I went to good lengths to research my post, as well as offer various sources, that shared information on this issue. Perhaps, you can have a look at a few other sources I offered, and share your thoughts on the subject.
What would be the point?
Have no problem with your other sources.Perhaps I misunderstood your comment -- KATHLEEN COCHRAN WROTE:
FOX is a discredited source.
What did you hope to infer from that comment? You made mention of only one of my sources. It appeared you did not take into account the many other sources. I certainly can understand that you may not have wanted to comment on the subject, no problem... But why only point out the one source, and ignore the rest?Because when you lead with the most discredited source in Fox News, one where Tuberville makes a completely false statement within the first two paragraphs, it undermines the rest of the claims. You could have just made your point and posted the links instead of copying and pasting stuff from Fox - which most of us on the left completely understand to be a propaganda network.
You may believe Fox is a discredited source, but I personally find it to be very informative and inclined towards factual reporting compared to other news networks. I have provided numerous resources for you to read and compare. Ultimately, I have no interest in which media outlet you find unacceptable. It's evident that you do not respect my views, and similarly, I do not respect yours. I have no desire to prolong this conversation. In my perspective, you avoided addressing my comments subject, and are attempting to bait me, with a diversion regarding ONE of my sources --- Sorry, I do not engage in when baiting is obvious.
Sharlee,
What I find interesting is the stories on Fox can be found in many other media outlets. Many times, they are abbreviations of a Fox story. Some of the stories found on Fox are from other media as well.
It's how the news works.
I'm always amazed the left doesn't understand this simple aspect of news reporting.Not baiting, just trying to give some constructive criticism. That constructive criticism is to skip the copy and paste and just write your point with sources if you want some engagement on a topic. Fox may be credible to you, but it is automatically disqualifying for many of us. I didn't make it to the end of your post because it lost me at the Tuberville gaslighting.
Your comment is quite amusing. Why would I bother with your so-called constructive criticism? I've made it abundantly clear that I'll post whatever I please and include sources that support my viewpoint.
I adhere strictly to HP's policies and guidelines. I ensure that my posts remain relevant within the realm of politics and make a conscious effort to present my viewpoints without resorting to personal attacks or assuming that my opinions hold more weight than those of others who participate here.
Copying and pasting media reports that pique my interest is fair game as well. Frankly, I couldn't care less about what some may find disqualifying here. I share what intrigues me and utilize sources I trust. If you happen to disapprove of a particular post where I've included a source you don't like, I suggest you report it to the moderator. As you're aware, I don't hesitate to report anything I find inappropriate either.When those sources contain such misinformation such as feeding 10 million people, with that 10 million figure repeated in these forums that ignores deportation data, it's not just the sources trying to gaslight everyone. And why people like Kathleen and I will disregard whatever point follows.
"You may believe Fox is a discredited source, but I personally find it to be very informative and inclined towards factual reporting compared to other news networks. "
It is not a "belief". It is a documented fact. " inclined towards factual reporting" Did the Dominion verdict not make a dent in your convictions?First, I did reply to your post in regard to my choice of using Fox's article --- I thought I addressed your concerns. --- Here is my reply --- "SHARLEE01 WROTE:
"Thank you for replying to my comment. I went to good lengths to research my post, as well as offer various sources, that shared information on this issue. Perhaps, you can have a look at a few other sources I offered, and share your thoughts on the subject."
I did understand your comment and your view of Fox in general. That is your prerogative. We disagree on this matter. However. It seems you hope to continue the conversation regarding your objection. I think we have come to the point of agreeing to disagree. I truely can respect your view, and your right to offer it. However, please consider, that I have the right to my personal view.
"Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million and acknowledged the court's earlier ruling that Fox had broadcast false statements about Dominion. The settlement did not require Fox News to apologize. It is the largest known media settlement for defamation in U.S. history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_ … 20history.
The incident described above has unquestionably marred the reputation of the network. However, Fox News has consistently upheld a strong reputation for accuracy, which undoubtedly plays a role in its status as the leading cable news network. While acknowledging the example you provided as a stain on their reputation, I still consider Fox's longstanding commitment to accurate reporting.
While I could provide instances of misreporting from other popular cable news networks, I see no need to engage in such comparisons. I prefer to express my perspective on Fox News and leave it at that."I personally find it to be very informative and inclined towards factual reporting compared to other news networks."
Probably because they tell you what you want to hear.'Probably because they tell you what you want to hear."
Again, as you should have understood by now --- I offered several sources in the comment in question, which I would not have offered if I did not respect the views they shared.
Your comment comes across as unnecessarily offensive and personally demeaning. It is obvious you feel you have the right to make such an accusation, as free speech offers you that right. However, I have rights too --- I prefer a more respectful and constructive style of communication. Despite my efforts to engage politely and respectfully, it seems you're aiming to provoke rather than engage in meaningful discussion. I won't engage further with such behavior.
"no need to engage in such comparisons" because there are none.
Alex Jones v Sandy Hook families, 2022: $1.438bn awards (possibly under appeal) – USA. ...
Dominion Voting Systems v Fox Corporation, 2023: $787.5m settlement – USA. ...
ABC News v Beef Products, Inc, 2017: $177m settlement – USA. ...
Those are the top three defamation settlements in the U.S. The one after FOS is $610 million less - not even close, so there are no close comparisons.
If I seem like a dog with a bone on this issue, it comes from 50 years as a journalist and the greatest sin in journalism is knowingly telling a lie. Not getting a fact wrong - but telling a lie.I acknowledge that you've expressed your viewpoint. However, it appears that you haven't fully grasped the essence of what I was attempting to convey. Initially, you didn't address the main topic of my comment. Furthermore, despite my polite explanations, you continue to focus solely on the mention of Fox, even though I've clarified multiple times that it was just one of several sources I used to present different perspectives. At this juncture, I'm inclined to disengage from further discussion on this matter.
I appreciate you sharing your view. It is clear our views differ.
FYI
In this new bill that the Senate passed during the SB, so they could fund their wars, in it is a clause allowing the establishment to continue to fund these wars... in the event Trump somehow wins the Presidency and does not want to fund/continue them.
On non-social issues, we do not really have a Republican - Democrat divide in DC we have those that are beholden to the establishment and corruption within, and those who are not. Few are the ones who are not.Do you think the House will push the bill through without additional amendments? While many in the House are eager to pass an aid bill, there's disagreement on the amounts and potential hidden clauses. It's evident that both Democrats and Republicans are entrenched in the Washington status quo.
I find some satisfaction in witnessing the growing division within the Republican party. Surely, Democrats are equally taken aback by the fractures emerging within the Republican ranks.You are right, many, be they in the House or Senate, would like to push this bill through.
The continuous trend is the World comes first, before Americans.
Open Borders... good for the world, good for corporations, bad for Americans.
Funding foreign wars... good for the MIC, good for Blackrock, Vanguard, Shell, BP... bad for Americans.
The World comes before America... the continuous trend out of DC. The Biden Administration and Congress today, for sure.
This is what many Americans are sick of, this is why Trump is so popular, why America First is so popular. America is crumbling down around our ears, and we are funding foreign wars and leaving our borders wide open.I strongly believe in prioritizing America's interests at this juncture in our development. With numerous crises plaguing our nation, I've grown weary of turning a blind eye. From my perspective, our country is in disarray, and its diminished state is difficult to comprehend. I am deeply concerned about the potential consequences if we fail to enact a change in administration—one that will prioritize America's needs above all else.
Our country is quite capable of rebounding.
The millions of migrants are not a huge problem that dooms us, but our turning a blind eye to crimes committed in our county, their assaults on police, their organized robbery rings and other serious offenses may.
Our multiculturalism is only a strength if we expect all cultures and all religions to adhere to the same standards and laws... it is a weakness and a divisive wound when the government emphasizes prioritizing opportunity and social benefits based on minority status and equity and victimhood.
The problem is our corrupt, divisive government which is beholden to immensely wealthy and powerful corporations and institutions that do not have the best interests of America or Americans in mind.Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Our country's resilience is undeniable, but it's imperative that we address the real issues that threaten our societal fabric. Turning a blind eye to crimes, regardless of who commits them, undermines the very foundation of justice and safety for all citizens. Multiculturalism should indeed celebrate diversity while ensuring that everyone is held to the same standards and laws.
Any emphasis on prioritizing opportunity based solely on minority status or victimhood can indeed breed division rather than unity, in my view. Today, we are seeing reports of migrants breaking our laws, disrespecting our police, and being treated differently than American citizens.
Moreover, the root of many of these problems lies in the corruption and divisiveness within our present government. It's disheartening to see it beholden to the interests of migrants rather than serving the best interests of the American people. We must strive for a government that truly represents and works for all Americans. Yes, I have great hope that many are seeing more clearly as of late.
We're making progress; news just came in that Mayorkas has been impeached. Finally, we'll uncover the truth behind the actions of this administration at the border.
Just another sharp nail in this administration's coffin. Another page of disgraceful crisis that will be added to Biden's legacy. Biden and his administration as well as the Democratic party are struggling under the burden of its poor decision-making and neglecting to acknowledge the consequences of the challenges resulting from those decisions. OMG
What next?
Considering Tuberville starts with the false premise that we're feeding the 10 million that came across the border, totally ignoring the deportation data, that should have been a red flag to the original poster that they were posting massive disinformation. If we wanted Fox News stories, a company who admitted in court that they openly lie to their viewers for ratings, we would go there to get lied to. We don't need their propaganda here.
I provided multiple sources to support my viewpoint. I'm offended by your insinuation that I posted propaganda. It's worth noting that you focused solely on criticizing one of the sources without addressing the main subject. I hope other readers recognize my effort to provide thorough evidence by offering several sources on the topic and encourage them to share their perspectives. One will find the sources offer non-biased information. I did not offer a view. Just offered information on the issue.
I encourage others here to share their perspectives on this issue after carefully considering the multiple sources I have provided.
I would argue that providing migrants services is the humane thing to do.
How we have gone about it so far is not the right way.
Instead of funding foreign wars so that hundreds of thousands are killed, and millions more refugees are created, its time we stopped with this evil practice... when will Americans start saying enough is enough?
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine... how many nations are we going to destroy?
A huge shift has occurred on the world stage that Americans are unaware of, and this is primarily because of the Biden Administrations warmongering and ineptness.
Nations like the UAE no longer trade oil in the dollar, more and more nations are willing to do so, Saudi Arabia is doing so. The shift away from the dollar is happening at an alarming rate.
Instead of funding wars we should have avoided and found peaceful solutions to resolve, rather than getting into very costly and harmful trade/sanction wars against nations the EU relied on for its own economic wellbeing.
The money we are using to continue the war in Ukraine, that cannot be won by Ukraine, without starting WWIII, as I stated two years ago... could be used to deal with the migrant crisis we have today, even tho, that crisis is created by our funding UN and NGO initiatives to get those migrants to America.Piquing my inquiring mind I just read an interesting article about Bush and Iraq. It is by Salon, however it is from a book . . . Doris Lessing's classic science fiction novel, "Briefing for a Descent Into Hell."
"The book revolves around a group of beings from another planet who are sent to save Earth, known for its "aggressiveness and irrationality." They must save our beleaguered planet because they have learned what we have not: that everything is interconnected. They must save us to save themselves. During the "briefing," the beings are told about their mission, and then memories of their own home are erased from their consciousness -- because remembering the sane place they came from while living on Earth would drive them mad."
"The following is what might occur if the Briefer from Lessing's novel were compelled to explain our planet's current crisis to one of the beings who has volunteered to help save it. The discussion begins after the being has spent several hours watching the war on satellite television. The innocent, sad-eyed extraterrestrial creature is filled with queries about this troubled place called Earth, so we will call him the Questioner."
From there it is dialogue between the Questioner (Alien) and the Briefer. Interesting, though somewhat of a lengthy read. I read it while keeping in mind the perspective of all the recent conflicts going back to Vietnam.
https://www.salon.com/2003/04/02/hell_3/
[Edit: Bear in mind it was written in 2003. Twenty years has passed since. Ponder what has happened both nationally and on the world stage.]I am reading that now, but the first thing that entered my mind after reading this is...
Perhaps we are in our Revolutionary moment, in this case, the world seems to be rebelling against American authoritarianism gone amuck..
Certainly that is part of it, many nations are chafing under our efforts to maintain the American hegemony.
But I think the big shift, the reason for this escalating effort by nations to get out from under the dollar and America is just how badly the Biden Administration has bungled everything related to foreign and economic decisions it has made.
The sanctions against Russia, the war effort against Russia, has really raised eyebrows around the world... they KNOW there was more than one opportunity for a peaceful resolution but America has, and still does, choose war over negotiation and compromise.
And then there is the escalating conflict/crisis (some would say genocide) in the Middle East, this is becoming more troublesome every day. This is only increasing/hardening other nation's efforts to get out from under the "American system".
America, in the eyes of much of the world today, is coming across as dangerous, and certainly the Biden Administration as untrustworthy and dangerous.
EDIT -
OK read the first few paragraphs of the dialogue... enough to say that one could take that, apply it to Russia... only Russia really has weapons of mass destruction, many, many of them.
Agree... insane.
EDIT 2 -
And reading further, I am reminded of how much more competent that Administration was, compared to this one... Powell, Rice, Cheney, might not like them, but they were highly competent, intelligent individuals.
Yes, it is quite clear that our immigration policy is not suited for modern day issues. If migration rates do not decrease, we certainly could see some systems stretched in our country.
But a border wall does not change asylum law. Requests for asylum have gone up yearly for decades now. If those laws are not changed, absolutely nothing changes at the border.
Biden did attempt some action on asylum but a federal judge blocked a rule that allows immigration authorities to deny asylum to migrants who arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border without first applying online or seeking protection in a country they passed through. Not sure if it was appealed. The court has generally knocked down most action taken by Trump and Biden when it comes to asylum.
Today we have Republicans in the house refusing to pass aid to ukraine, Israel and Taiwan unless...guess what? Deja vu... The border is addressed!
What exactly are they looking for? What is the fix in their mind? I do think that it is clear to even the hardcore right wingers that executive order will not begin to address the issue. But there is also the reality that hr2 has no viability either.
This is a release from the Trump White House in 2018. It's interesting that it was understood back then what was contributing to the problem but somehow people have forgotten? Or I guess the narrative has changed?
"Weak asylum laws encourage increase in illegal immigration"
Well we all know how laws are made and changed. The immigration bill did address asylum.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/br … migration/
New York Times --- Why This Group of Undecided Independent Voters Is Leaning Toward Trump
"What can President Biden say and do to win over undecided voters? What concerns and arguments will draw these voters to Donald Trump? For our latest Times Opinion focus group, we spoke with 13 undecided independent voters from across the country about how they see the two leading presidential candidates and explored some issues that might affect how they vote in November. To a striking degree, most of the participants tilted toward Mr. Trump, even though they disliked his personality.
So why did they lean toward Mr. Trump? As you’ll read below, almost all the voters (who range in age from 22 to 64) were most worried about the economy and how their groceries and other bills were too costly. Some were also deeply troubled by the crisis at the southern border, and some were concerned about the Israel-Gaza war and disliked U.S. aid to other countries. The participants’ comments indicated that most did not feel they were in good hands with Mr. Biden or trust that they would be, using words like “senile,” “unfit” and “disingenuous” to describe him. And while the group viewed Mr. Trump negatively, some people suggested that the country was on its toes more with him in office.
“At least Donald Trump started a conversation. Sure, it was divisive, and sure, it really wasn’t the most productive, but it really highlighted problems and the divisiveness that was already hidden inside of our country,” said Yalena, a 22-year-old Latina from Alabama. At the same time, she described experiencing more racism while Mr. Trump was president, including an ugly incident while dining out with her mother.
These seeming contradictions came up with other matters as well; there was concern about the future of abortion rights yet skepticism that Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump would be any different on the issue. Many didn’t seem to understand the Democratic president’s views on abortion. If there was one takeaway, it’s that Mr. Biden has his work cut out for him to win over these voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … group.html
Please consider reading the entire article. It presents personal perspectives from poll participants, which, in my opinion, reflect their most profound concerns.What's thinner than a whisker? That’s essentially Republicans’ current majority in the House...only three seats. You think governing has been hard for House Republicans? It just got much harder.
Tom Suozzi wins the NY 3 seat vacated by George Santos.
The secret sauce? He ran predominantly on the border and immigration along with abortion. Suozzi said the border needed to be secured, called for a bipartisan compromise and supported the immigration deal that was tanked by Trump and the hard right. His MAGA opponent, Pilip, came out against the bill.
Reading the tea leaves.. This seat represents a suburban district. It's evidence that the Republicans continue to struggle in the suburbs.
The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that almost two-thirds of suburban voters have an unfavorable opinion of Trump and, in a head-to-head matchup, Biden leads Trump by 16 points with suburban voters.
Overall, Democrats essentially framed the race as a moderate, adult in the room vs. an extremist, MAGA candidate. This has been proven to be a winning formula.NY-3 was supposed to be a bellwether for the upcoming election. In 2022, Santos won it by eight. In 2023, Suozzi won it by 8, marking a 16-point swing to Democrats. Polling had Suozzi leading by 4 heading into the race. Again, democrats overperform what the polls were saying. When do we think MAGA will start seeing the trend and be worried about the polling?
Pilip is registered as a democrat, but currently holds office as a republican and aligns with GOP stances. She definitely ran as a republican in this race.
She is a Democrat. The people chose the non-wishy washy candidate; as they should!
She's MAGA-LITE. She praised Trump, although he said not enough, aligned with his talking points and said that she voted for him. Nothing "Democrat" about her form what I've seen.
As far as wishy-washy...
Trump registered as a Republican 1987; since that time, he has changed his party affiliation five times.
In a 2004 interview, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat", explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.".
I agree Donald!Stuart Stevens explains it pretty well why the GOP keeps losing:
He {Stevens} then proceeded to list all the ways the GOP had made itself repellant to swing voters.
"A party led by a rapist that believes it can fix its problem with women by attacking Taylor Swift, with weird little creeps like Mike Johnson as a public face in Congress, that has no serious policy, that has decided to abandon decades of support for freedom in Europe to back a genocidal dictator, a party that is 85% white in a 59% white country, a party that has decided higher education is a gateway drug to Socialism, that believes public health policy should be set by random freaks on the internet and not doctors, a party that is still fighting cultural wars of gender politics the rest of America ended a decade ago, a party that has replaced American optimism with anger and fear of the future," he stated.
The fact that anyone on the right can claim that Trump represents Constitution, while being under criminal indictment for trying to steal an American election in direct violation of that Constitution, is pretty comical. Let alone claiming Trump is border control when he just torpedoed any changes to asylum laws, which is the cause of the influx of immigration to our country.
What is clear is that members of the left and right are living in two alternate realities, with the reality of the right based on outright lies and conspiracy theories.I am a person that one would identify as right-leaning. Perhaps I can share my view to address the thoughts you shared in this comment.
"What is clear is that members of the left and right are living in two alternate realities,"
"The fact that anyone on the right can claim that Trump represents Constitution, while being under criminal indictment for trying to steal an American election in direct violation of that Constitution, is pretty comical. "
First, I acknowledge the fact that Trump is currently under criminal indictment. However, I firmly believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," a value cherished by many Americans regardless of political affiliation. Therefore, it's important to recognize that some of us may perceive your comment as lacking respect for this fundamental principle, which is esteemed by citizens across the political spectrum.
"Let alone claiming Trump is border control when he just torpedoed any changes to asylum laws, which is the cause of the influx of immigration to our country."
"What is clear is that members of the left and right are living in two alternate realities, with the reality of the right based on outright lies and conspiracy theories."
This type of comment can be seen as insulting because it generalizes and dismisses the perspectives of individuals based on their political beliefs. By characterizing one side as living in an "alternate reality" based on "outright lies and conspiracy theories," it implies that their viewpoints are not grounded in truth or rationality. This is offensive to those who identify with that political ideology, as it disregards their perspectives and delegitimizes their beliefs without engaging in constructive dialogue or understanding. Additionally, it perpetuates divisiveness by reinforcing stereotypes and only works to deepen political animosity.
In my case, I am comfortable saying, and sure, you and I live in "alternate realities.I could agree with that, but it doesn't quite cover the point I was making that his comment slandered.
If you believe in Small Government and all that the Constitution promises and provides, if you believe America and Americans should come first and that there should be a difference between what a Citizen is allowed and provided vs. what a migrant should be allowed and provided, etc. etc.
Then you don't have any other choice that can win in 2024. Trump is the only candidate that will attempt to build a wall and limit the inflow of migrants and what the government provides them. He is the only one that will put Judges in position to protect the Constitution not work around the Constitution.
And on the flip side, the Left, will work to try to undermine the Constitution and the Rights it promises. The Left is all about using the government to control every aspect of your life and correct everything they believe to be wrong. As seen in their Critical Race Theory in schools and their Equity in every Federal government branch and agency. UN Agenda 2030 and Progressive ideals 100%.
Voting Democrat is voting for EXTREME Left policies and goals, it is the agenda... Climate Change Taxation, Vaccination Mandates, all of it.
You don't get a choice of taking only some if it. You can't say I don't agree with Men in Women's sports or children being mutilated... you aren't going to change this beast from the inside, you get steamrolled by it or you stop it.
At this time, all of America is getting steamrolled by it, and most of us aren't even aware of it... we are only beginning to wake up to it... and a lot of that does have to do with how insane they have been the past couple of years, including their pursuit of Trump.Ken, I concur with your perspective. My intention in commenting was to highlight the injustice of attributing the "reality of the right" solely to falsehoods and conspiracy theories. It wasn't my aim to defend your original comment, as I've consistently found your contributions to be articulate and thought-provoking. However, the swift resort to insults in response is telling.
Advocates for the Left, as it is today, will see anyone not choosing their side in that light.
That is the point of that post... my AHA moment ... understand, you don't have a choice in being rational, in being intellectual about it.
You will fall in line with the Left, or eventually you will be targeted by the Left. The only science, logic or facts that will be accepted are the ones that support their ideology and agenda... everything else is Conspiracy, Falsehoods, or Racist, Sexist, etc.I tend to push back when I come up against those who lean into that mindset.
One could say the extreme right is the same.
I think what one needs to realize is it is extreme Left that dominates the Left's politics today.
I don't believe this to be the case for the Right, I think the "Right' is largely the side of people that want to maintain the 'old system', Constitution, Liberty, Meritocracy.
The Right is being painted as extremist, but it seems made up primarily of regular folk, that don't want to accept a government acting like a activist, seeking out and eliminating inequality no matter whose rights get trampled, banning stoves, demanding you allow your child to have a sex change under-age, etc.
The whole point of America, its founding, its ideals... was for government to GTF out of their lives, except where and when absolutely necessary, where the Left is taking it is completely and totally the opposite of this... where it will control everything you do, see, hear, think.I agree with your perspective. However, there exists a significant faction within the Republican party that champions progressive ideals in terms of challenging the status quo. This group advocates for withdrawing from entities like NATO and the UN, and reevaluating commitments such as the Paris Climate Accord. They prioritize redirecting funds from military expenditure toward domestic issues like education, poverty alleviation, and homelessness. Transparency in government is also a key concern for many. These "new Republicans" are causing considerable consternation among Democrats, who seem somewhat powerless in the face of their bold demands for change. I feel it very clear this is a big part of why Trump continues to be popular --- No matter what... He continues to offer the agenda he started without apology.
From my perspective, the left indeed appears to aim at dismantling and reconstructing the country, aiming for extensive control over all aspects of our lives. However, they seem oblivious to the fact that this agenda doesn't resonate with the broader American populace. We cherish our country and have little interest in assimilating into a global framework.I don't consider this group to be the majority of Republicans, there are too many RINO (Uniparty) Republicans to keep them from dominating or controlling the Republican efforts in Congress.
These politicians will all be labeled as Trumpsters, Alt-Right, Extremist, etc.
It appeals to the majority of indoctrinated (educated) individuals that have passed through our Universities and Colleges over the last couple of decades and now fill the Corporate Board Rooms, the Halls of Government, the MSM sources, Social Media, etc. they may technically be a minority of Americans but they are the majority of those who decide what we see, what we hear, what rules and regulations are put in place throughout the Federal government and Federal institutions.
The beliefs and ideals of those running the country today align with, or exceed, lets say, what you would read from Eso or Valeant.
"Trump is the only candidate that will attempt to build a wall and limit the inflow of migrants "
As our asylum laws are currently written, and have been unchanged in decades, how would a wall impact or change the "inflow" of migrants.
I'm not so sure there is an actual border "security" crisis anymore. The composition of arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border has changed dramatically. The decades-long flows of largely young Mexican males crossing illicitly and evading Border Patrol have been replaced by Central Americans fleeing a mixture of violence and poverty. Increasing numbers of families and unaccompanied children SEEK out Border Patrol agents so they can turn themselves in and apply for asylum.
Calling this a border crisis isn't accurate. It is in fact a crisis in the asylum system. Laws that can only be amended by our non-functioning Congress.
It doesn't matter where people are turning themselves in, they can still claim asylum.Let alone the claim that Trump alone is willing to build parts of the wall or staunch the flow. Biden allowed sections of wall to be built when he first took office and as we've recently seen, Trump is actually standing in the way of solutions to the issue of immigration for personal gain.
Generally I agree with this.
But it is certainly true we do not have a functional border, or border wall, that has any ability to deter or deny entry to anyone wanting to cross it.
It is also true Biden struck on day one, nearly every effort Trump made to slow or deter migrants.
It is also true Biden has instructed border agents to focus not on denying entry or detaining, but rather to processing and aiding.
What we have, is not just a "non-functioning Congress" but an Administration that wantonly works to increase migration to the States.
You have to follow the money, not listen to the rhetoric.
Very similar to the catastrophe that is unfolding in the Middle East, follow the money, don't listen to the rhetoric.
The Biden Administration tells the American people one thing, with the MSM covering for it, while ensuring the funding they allow does just the opposite.
'Therefore, it's important to recognize that some of us may perceive your comment as lacking respect for this fundamental principle, which is esteemed by citizens across the political spectrum.'
Which is part of the issue with the right, what they perceive is invented in their own minds. I specifically said indicted, meaning there was enough evidence of wrong-doing to warrant a trial by jury. As you often say, where there's smoke...well, an indictment is lots of smoke as a grand jury, scratch that - multiple grand juries, found enough evidence of crimes that are in direct violation of the Constitution. I said nothing about the man's guilt at this time, now did I?
When 70% of a party still believes the election fraud lie, I don't really have a problem generalizing. If someone in that party feels insulted because they are lumped in with the majority that is as deluded as that, maybe they should reconsider who they are choosing to associate with. Supporting the candidate spewing those lies is support for those lies that undermine our democracy - i.e., choosing to live in that alternate reality. So those people can go ahead and be offended - their tacit support for such dishonesty is abhorrent in my eyes.
As for Ken's latest claims that it's the 'extreme left's policies or get steamrolled,' that's just his latest fabrication. The progressive left was screaming to defund the police prior to the 2020 election. What did the left do? Nominated someone who said just the opposite and he kept the support of the party. I have no problem, after seeing the research back up the stance, that trans athletes do not belong in women's sports - nor would I feel ostracized from the party for stating that opinion as it's backed up by facts. I think it's all part of another false reality that members of the right create to justify their hate for their fellow Americans that won't bend the knee to MAGA. And it'd just be sad, except that it's become dangerous with the domestic terror threats and violence that we've seen stemming from the rhetoric that the cult leader uses.
And you miss mine. FOX should never be used as a source again based on its record. Our views differ because you (politely) continue to refer to them as if their reputation hasn't changed. I will challenge every writer on this site who makes the same mistake. For people who scream and holler about fake news - you'd think this kind of blight on their record would matter.
"And you miss mine. FOX should never be used as a source again based on its record. " This is your view. Not sure you comprehend as an individual I have my own view, and as my view means little to you, I hesitate to say, yours means little to me.
No, I did not miss your view... I said this, which it is apparent you just can't respect I have a view too.
My comment -- " I did understand your comment and your view of Fox in general. That is your prerogative. We disagree on this matter. However. It seems you hope to continue the conversation regarding your objection. I think we have come to the point of agreeing to disagree. I truely can respect your view, and your right to offer it. However, please consider, that I have the right to my personal view."
It appears that my use of multiple perspectives, some of which aligned with Fox's report, was overlooked. I made an effort to substantiate Fox's viewpoint with other sources, acknowledging that not everyone favors Fox News. However, it seems you disregarded this effort, possibly without even engaging with the provided links. Your response didn't address the topic at hand and instead leaned towards insulting the commenter, a pattern I've noticed from you before. This approach doesn't align with the spirit of respectful discourse, as it shifts focus away from the subject and towards attacking the individual expressing the viewpoint. Not sure why you feel your view should be the only view.
It is common knowledge other news outlets have been sued for misinformation. In actuality they have. However, it is your right to challenge comments. I certainly have no problem with other's views. I do have a problem when one gets personal and insults another's views. Which you did in our conversation. "Probably because they tell you what you want to hear."
I in no respect disrespected your views... In any of my replies.
I will concede the last word to you. I've shared all I intended to, and I won't engage further with your comments. I must express, respectfully, that I've grown to disapprove of your communication style.
The New York Post ----
The Department of Veterans Affairs is facing blowback for helping pay out millions of dollars to medical providers who treat illegal immigrants while they are in federal custody — while a backlog of hundreds of thousands of claims from veterans has grown.
The VA’s Austin, Texas-based Financial Services Center (FSC) has been contracted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since 2002 to process reimbursement claims by providers who offer services to detained migrants.
In fiscal year 2022, which ended Sept. 30 of that year, FSC processed 161,538 such claims, with the ICE Health Services Corps (IHSC) paying out an average of $584 — a total of $94.3 million in taxpayer money, according to a July 2023 Department of Homeland Security report on “Healthcare Costs for Noncitizens in Detention.”
In the previous fiscal year, 2021, ICE’s health care arm budgeted more than $74 million for the VA’s FSC to assist with “outside referral care” and “medical claims processing,” according to a report from July 2022.
Meanwhile, the pile of benefit claims by veterans and their families awaiting adjudication has grown to 417,855, according to the VA’s own website — up from around 150,000 as of late 2022.
When contacted by The Post, the VA was adamant that the veteran claims backlog and the millions of dollars doled out to migrant health care providers were not related.
“VA does not provide or fund any health care to ICE detainees,” VA spokesman Terrence Hayes told The Post.
“This involves no more than 10 employees and is fully funded by ICE. This has no impact [on] veteran care or services,” Hayes added. “At no time are any VA health care professionals or VA funds used for this purpose.”
‘Should shock American taxpayers’
A handful of Republican lawmakers ripped the VA for working with ICE to pay for medical treatment of people who they say shouldn’t be in the US at all.
“I am a disabled veteran and get 100% of my health care through the Veterans’ Affairs system,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), a retired Navy SEAL who sits on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, told The Post." PLEASE READ ON
https://nypost.com/2024/01/10/news/va-r … rans-wait/If these Representatives truly cared about veterans healthcare and if it was being compromised by migrants wouldn't they come to the table and negotiate a border/immigration deal and good faith rather than just complaining about it?
When contacted by The Post, the VA was adamant that the veteran claims backlog and the millions of dollars doled out to migrant health care providers were not related.
“VA does not provide or fund any health care to ICE detainees,” VA spokesman Terrence Hayes told The Post.
“This involves no more than 10 employees and is fully funded by ICE. This has no impact [on] veteran care or services,” Hayes added. “At no time are any VA health care professionals or VA funds used for this purpose.”
So if there's that much of a backlog, and the GOP has control of the House, just pass legislation to get the VA more funding to hire more help. Instead, as always, all they have is to try and blame immigrants for something they are unwilling to solve with additional resources. Just the latest example of them being unwilling to put their money where their mouths are, just like they voted against the burn pit legislation to play politics. Scumbags.Indeed, I concur that the challenges observed at the border have persisted for a span of a couple of decades. It is my hope that in due course, Americans will scrutinize the individuals they elect to represent them in Washington. Ultimately, it seems we have relinquished our ability to effectively voice our concerns.
You are a pitbull on the Border Issue. Anyways...
In regards to those who say the Republicans don't want to fix the border:
The House passed the Secure the Border Act on May 11, 2023.
Real border security has been sitting on Senator Schumer’s desk since then.
https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage … e-illegal#A bill that focuses predominantly on security without reform is more of a band aid than anything.
In an evenly divided congress, would you expect HR2 to gain 60 votes?
There will be no bill, no security, no changes unless our Representatives act in a bipartisan manner. Those who have dug in with a "my way or the highway" attitude are blocking progress. Yet they have the audacity to complain to every camera they can get themselves in front of. It's well passed to the point that Americans realize too many of our Representatives are disingenuous when it comes to the border.
We had a bipartisan Bill negotiated. That was a starting point. They didn't even allow amendments. I'd call that a complete dereliction of duty by Mike Johnson in service of Trump.
Republicans have basically lost the ability to even speak to immigration at this point, let alone criticize what's happening at the border. It just makes plain sense that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Just an aside, why is this do nothing congress on another vacation? Personally I think their vacation days should be slashed in half.I read something the other day where someone put forth that this was how Congress (America's Government) was meant to work.
It was a sound argument, you don't want decisions being made quickly, emotionally.
Change is supposed to be hard, debated, compromise is supposed to be found.
No one wants that today, they want change made immediately, so they can move onto the next thing that needs to be changed immediately.
In truth Congress has gotten a ton done... they have passed a large number of bills that Biden wanted, I'm not sure that is a good thing.
The 27 Bills That Became Law in 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/p … gress.html
Five major bills Congress passed in 2022
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … -rcna61472
5 significant bills and 5 executive orders Biden signed in 2021
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics … index.html
There were a lot of Laws passed and a Lot of Executive Orders signed.
More than Trump, or Obama for that matter, changed/passed in their first 3 years, if memory serves correctly. Obama used up a lot of his political capital on the Affordable Care Act... politicians still talk about rescinding it 20 years later, so, it was costly.
What is BROKEN in DC... in American Politics... is our moral compass, never more so than with this Administration.
America is supposed to be the Global Leader, the 'Father figure', the one that is supposed to bring peace... maintain order... negotiate.
If a father instigates a fight between two of his children, so that they brutally beat up on one another, he is evil. Your job as a father is to maintain peace within the household, to protect your kids from harm.
Stop the fighting... not instigate it.
We are a nation with awesome power... and we abetted war for our own sake. We goaded Russia into attacking Ukraine... we pit brother against brother for the sake of making rich corporations richer, and corrupt politicians richer, and warmongers within the Pentagon and DC happy.
The Administration is responsible for the horror we see in the Middle East as well, this Administration has bent over backwards to ensure Iran got every dollar, hundreds of billions of them, that it could get them... so that it could fund Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and who knows who.
If not for Biden's billions and his lifting of sanctions, Iran might have had a revolution by now, its people overthrowing its government and installing a democracy.
The depths of depravity within this Administration is hard to fathom.
Ken, I am deeply concerned about the situation at the border, feeling that under the Biden administration, it appears to be essentially open with policies like catch and release. It's perplexing why this administration would seemingly encourage an influx of illegal immigrants into the country. The strain on many of our major cities due to this overflow is evident. I echo Willow's sentiment that this is a significant issue, one that Congress has failed to adequately address. It's imperative for us to hold our elected representatives in Washington accountable and demand more action on this pressing matter.
Looking at how the current situation is being handled by Republicans, it's clear they're aiming to use the issue as a tool to criticize Biden. Frankly, considering Biden's plummeting approval ratings, it seems evident that many are dissatisfied with the handling of the migrant influx under his administration.
He's in a lose-lose situation, appearing ineffectual with his delayed responses that now come off as transparent political maneuvers. Attempts to shift blame onto Trump or MAGA supporters aren't gaining traction; the polls consistently hold Biden responsible for the border crisis. It's apparent that a significant portion of the American populace has observed Biden's lax approach to millions approaching our borders, granting many of them easy entry and subsequently causing numerous issues in cities across the nation. This mess will only get worse. I want a republican win in 2024, so I can accept pounding Dems over the head with the border issue. They are nuts if they don't.
That bill was crap between me and you --- I think H.R. 2 was on the right track, but I want laws, with brand new asylum restrictions. Laws that will curtail the number of asylum seekers we allow in yearly, and stick vetting of asylum seekers. Yes, we would need a Congressional majority to bring about new immigration laws. But I hold out hope."That bill was crap between me and you "
What did you find that was lacking? It's seemed to be a compromise that split the difference between what Biden laid out as a vision on day one and the MAGA- drafted HR2. Either of these standing alone would never reach a 60 vote threshold.
But many Republicans voiced concerns about HR2.
First, HR2 would subject all 11 million undocumented immigrants, including Dreamers who have legal status under the DACA program, to immediate deportation. This is something Trump was unable to do even as he had the White House, the Senate and the house.
HR2 would send unaccompanied children all alone back to their country of origin. Sort of inhumane?
It would make it near impossible to apply for asylum even if you qualify under US law. A reversal of decades of American law. We all know this would be slapped down by the courts pretty quickly.
Require DHS to resume construction of the same "Trump border wall" they did not build when they had congressional majorities....but really, the issue is no longer migrants attempting to evade border patrol. It is quite the opposite, time and time again we see they are seeking out officers and are turning themselves in to claim asylum. It does not seem that a wall is going to deter anyone set on presenting themselves at the border to claim asylum.
HR 2 does not offer any tangible, useful or realistic solution.
"it appears to be essentially open with policies like catch and release."
In terms of "catch and release" the fact is that the U.S. does not have nearly enough detention space to hold those that are currently crossing the border. Beyond a shortage of space, there is also a massive immigration backlog.... It all goes right back to asylum.
But let's look back to the Trump years in a white house release titled
"What You Need to Know About Catch and Release"
"Catch and release loopholes encourage more and more illegal immigration into the U.S. Catch and release loopholes, which are the result of statutory and judicial obstacles, encourage illegal immigration into the U.S. and prevent the removal of aliens once they are here. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can only detain UACs for a few days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for resettlement into the United States. Immigration enforcement efforts are further hamstrung by the fact that current federal law exempts UACs from non-contiguous countries, such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, from being promptly returned to their home countries. This results in nationals from these and other countries entering and never leaving."
Additionally..in 2019
"The surge of migrant families arriving at the southern border has led the Trump administration to dramatically expand a practice President Donald Trump has long mocked as “catch and release.”
With immigrant processing and holding centers overwhelmed, the administration is busing people hundreds of miles inland and releasing them at Greyhound stations and churches in cities like Albuquerque, San Antonio and Phoenix because towns close to the border already have more than they can handle."
Also, November 2018..
"A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States,". (Even Trump couldn't single-handedly alter asylum laws but Biden is expected to?)
The judge wrote.. “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,”
The recent bipartisan bill that Trump rejected?
The bill would end "catch-and-release" by speeding up the adjudication of asylum cases.
What is MAGA looking for that would realistically win 60 votes? If we want to make progress, it will need to be bipartisan.
Every time bipartisan talks got close, Republicans backed out–in 2006, 2013, 2018, and 2022.
Congress did make some progress back in December of 2022, when Sinema and Tillis led efforts to craft a bipartisan immigration deal that would've provided 2 million Dreamers with a path to citizenship in exchange for investments in border security and reforms to US asylum law. These talks failed when Republicans....once again...got cold feet and refused to come to the table.
Compared to what was crafted in 2022, the recent bipartisan effort is much more conservative.
https://apnews.com/article/san-antonio- … 02bc43e1d6
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/br … h-release/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/j … olicy.htmlIt did more than split the difference. It set a baseline and made migration acceptance a permanent feature.
Look, there are a dozen... literally a dozen threads on migration started by Sharlee and others, or that devolved into nothing but the border issue.
You will probably find everyone's responses to the matter in them."It set a baseline and made migration acceptance a permanent feature".
Migration acceptance? Are you implying that we should somehow eliminate migration?I have stated all I want about Migration in the threads regarding the Border and Migration:
The Border The Crisis The Last Straw
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/360 … last-straw
Multiculturalism in America-Good or Evil
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/360 … od-or-evil
For Conservatives Only, Migrants are Out of Control
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/360 … of-control
" What did you find that was lacking? It's seemed to be a compromise that split the difference between what Biden laid out as a vision on day one and the MAGA- drafted HR2. Either of these standing alone would never reach a 60 vote threshold."
As I shared with Ken, I felt HR2 needed work, not going into specifics. The latest bill gave the president power to decide if and when the border would be closed. I have no faith in this president to make sound decisions. As you know, I blame him for the many migrants that have been let in to roam free, many poorly vetted.
I want that border closed to asylum seekers for a given time to clear up the many migrants that are in the country waiting for their hearings. I don't want a cap, I want it closed. I also realize this will not happen."The latest bill gave the president power to decide if and when the border would be closed. I have no faith in this president to make sound decisions.
The parameters for closure though are well defined and at a certain point even becomes automatic. The bill adds measures to dramatically speed up the processing of asylum claims.
And these changes would all be tools available to the next president whoever that may be but since the bill was killed... We will continue with status quo. If Trump, God forbid, should win the election he will not have these tools at his disposal. He failed at immigration reform previously and prospects for him making appreciable changes in 2025 are even worse.
Lankford said this
"Not only would the border would be shut down today it would have been shut every single day the last four months," Lankford said while on Fox News' Fox & Friends. "If this would have been in place four months ago, we would have had a million fewer illegal immigrants into our country right now.".
Even Rupert Murdoch's WSJ says the Senate bill has reforms Trump never came close to getting.
"By any honest reckoning, this is the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades. Previous immigration talks have involved trading security measures for legalizing more immigration. There is little of the latter in this bill—nothing for nearly all of the Dreamers who were brought here illegally as children, no general pathway to citizenship or green cards for most illegal immigrants already in the U.S."
We have no 'honest reckoning" though do we.
Also, just heard Lindsey Graham say that he thinks we can get a border deal through that includes wait in Mexico and bringing back title 42 LOL
What is wrong with this man? Does he think that we are that stupid not to understand these policies?"If this would have been in place four months ago, we would have had a million fewer illegal immigrants into our country right now."
Such a statement is based on the assumption that if we do not let them in, providing them food, shelter and clothing (along with all the rest) then they will not come in.
This is exceedingly foolish, for we know that we are catching only a small percentage (and sending them back). Stop legal entrance and we will see that many more coming illegaly...whereupon we will feed them, clothe them and provide for them.Such a statement is based on the assumption that if we do not let them in, providing them food, shelter and clothing (along with all the rest) then they will not come in.
No it's based on the changes that are proposed in the immigration bill that Trump turned down. I'm not sure you're understanding what our immigration law currently is. It allows people to come to the border and ask for asylum. It doesn't matter if it is 100,000 or 1 million... The law remains the same.
If you look at the proposed changes, would you rather have those or remain as it is?And if they can't apply for asylum them will simply remain in Mexico? I don't think so - do you?
We have no effective method of stopping the influx, and while the bill said there will be money to do so I don't believe it will be done. Do you? Will we deport pregnant mothers that cross illegally? Children? Or will we simply continue the catch and release? What do you think?
Unless you are the one committing it. I made myself a promise not to interact with you again. I should have kept it.
"Unless you are the one committing it. I made myself a promise not to interact with you again. I should have kept it."
Committed what?
What are you accusing me of? Your comment lacks coherence and seems to imply an accusation against me. I hope you refrain from further interaction with me. Despite my efforts to maintain politeness and kindness, your comments are unwarranted and include personal insults. Should you continue to engage with my posts, rest assured I will not respond to your comments.
I bear no resentment toward you; it's apparent that our viewpoints diverge greatly on various issues. This is precisely why I refrain from initiating conversations with you. However, I've consistently responded out of courtesy to the comments you directed at me. It's in our best interest to steer clear of each other.Excuse me for interfering with your total control of these discussion boards.
Related Discussions
- 75
Majority Say Biden Seeking to Jail Trump to Stop His Reelection
by Readmikenow 9 days ago
In our new national poll 56% of all voters think Biden really wants to stop Trump from winning by putting him in jail.Democratic constituencies also have a negative view of Biden's actions with African Americans at 41%, Hispanics at 53%, and women at 53% agreeing.Here are more findings of our poll...
- 148
Is Biden the real danger to Democracy?
by Readmikenow 2 weeks ago
To suppress Americans who disagree with biden he is currently fighting in the Supreme Court to continue having the power to violate Americans' 1st Amendment rights & censor them online. Supreme Court frowns at limiting biden administration’s contact with tech companiesThe high court...
- 116
Danger: Biden's Presidency akin to the Weimar Republic redux?
by Credence2 2 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
- 39
Rumor Has It Biden Is Considering Another Big Money Giveaway
by Sharlee 24 months ago
It is rumored that President Joe Biden is considering a broader push to forgive federal student loan debt. Biden discussed the issue this week with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and lawmakers said he is exploring legal options to provide some type of wider relief, according to The New York...
- 7090
What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
by Scott Belford 3 hours ago
This is, of course, an open question since he has just started his four years, but since the RINO Party is already saying defeating Covid and growing the economy is a disaster, I thought I would start a thread that proves them wrong.I just listed two things he has done:- Got America well on its way...
- 118
The Many Cost Of Illegal Immigrants - Hard To Face But Relevant
by Sharlee 19 months ago
Illegal immigrants who entered US since Biden took office to cost taxpayers $20+ billion a year: analysis -- Biden administration has released more than a million illegal immigrants into the US"FIRST ON FOX: The number of illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. since President...