ADVERTISEMENT

This affects us all

In this new progressive America, girls need to sit out girls sports, if they want a safe environment.

In this progressive America, Jewish kids need to stay home from school, if they want a safe environment.

Almost like progressive policy is not good for America.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: bung23 and ILisBest


Waiting for the progressives to tell us this is a good thing.
This is why we need a strong leader like Trump. Call out the National Guard and shoot them. "Shoot them in the legs" as Dear Leader said. We have been here before it was the anti-Vietnam War protests of the "60's. Remember Kent State?
 
This is why we need a strong leader like Trump. Call out the National Guard and shoot them. "Shoot them in the legs" as Dear Leader said. We have been here before it was the anti-Vietnam War protests of the "60's. Remember Kent State?

It’s too bad that a significant % of your party hates Jews and women. I’m sorry that this has been exposed.
 

no image description available
 
Yes, you must be right when you look at how they vote! o_O

That is starting to shift. Jews might be starting to realize that it’s radical leftists that are threatening them.

The left is now known as the party that causes school closures too. Congrats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ILisBest
I note that I still have never seen a single substantive argument against the border bill on this thread. Not one. You guys don’t even seem to understand what it did.
I did not read the bill. We all have our people we trust and two of the people that I follow that read the bill, claim it does little to address the real problem.

Biden creates problem at border with his pen. Biden can fix it with his pen. No, let's allocate piles of money to hopefully do something. See the disconnect for conservatives?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bung23
The reason to control the border is to ensure an orderly system of immigration. Not because these immigrants are scary. I suspect if you went down to the border and surveyed them they’d seem a bit less like criminals than they are being portrayed in certain media outlets.
I see plenty of them at the SA airport when I fly out. Here is the rub, I can't tell who they are by looking at them. Most are probably looking for a better life, but it won't take many that are here to harm us to create a major problem. I know a border patrol boss. He assures me we have no idea who the majority of these people are. That is a problem. And that makes a larger problem fairly predictable imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bung23 and Uncoach
I note that I still have never seen a single substantive argument against the border bill on this thread. Not one. You guys don’t even seem to understand what it did.

It is high time to leave the infotainment realm as the driver of opinions. I totally get the argument that I don’t think the border bill is worth funding Ukraine. But Congress funded Ukraine anyway.

If Trump died tomorrow and the border bill came up for a standalone vote in a year, Rs would give it nearly 100% approval and Dems would vote against it almost unanimously.

Trump didn’t want it because he didn’t want Biden to argue he was doing something on the border and it was easier to kill because it was tied to Ukraine. But Ukraine just got funded anyhow.

Didn’t that bill still allow 4,000 people to come into the country each day, and didn’t count children?
 
Didn’t that bill still allow 4,000 people to come into the country each day, and didn’t count children?
I seem to recall 5,000 being the number. It didn’t stop the flow of anything. Numbers like that must not bother dtrain. They bother the very poor people whose jobs, infrastructure and government resources who depend on them. These people take up space in ER’s that are already at capacity. These people do not have insurance yet hospitals are required to treat them. Money loser. Hospitals are not non-profs. There is a balance that keeps them afloat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bung23 and ILisBest
I seem to recall 5,000 being the number. It didn’t stop the flow of anything. Numbers like that must not bother dtrain. They bother the very poor people whose jobs, infrastructure and government resources who depend on them. These people take up space in ER’s that are already at capacity. These people do not have insurance yet hospitals are required to treat them. Money loser. Hospitals are not non-profs. There is a balance that keeps them afloat.

I think it said it would not be an emergency unless there was 7 consecutive days with at least 4,000 migrants crossing the border, not including children.

Let’s be honest, it was just going to speed up the asylum process, likely by approving people more quickly. It wasn’t going to do anything to slow the movement of migrants. No conservative could look at that bill and think it was a good deal.

We also know that Dems are not looking to compromise. “That is the best deal you will ever get” is not a serious conversation starter. They don’t care about the border.
 
I did not read the bill. We all have our people we trust and two of the people that I follow that read the bill, claim it does little to address the real problem.

Biden creates problem at border with his pen. Biden can fix it with his pen. No, let's allocate piles of money to hopefully do something. See the disconnect for conservatives?

You need to get new sources to trust. I know more than those people, and I make not a single dollar by manipulating your emotions.

You are right about Biden not having a good border policy. And when it comes to the border bill, so what? The bill constrains his bad policies, and does not undermine the next Prez having better policies. The only large expenditure in that bill is to speed up processing of claims THAT US LAW REQUIRES THE US TO VET NO MATTER WHAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BIDEN OR TRUMP IS IN OFFICE.

I'm starting to think none of you have any clue what's actually at issue. When someone crosses the border, should they be caught (anywhere), they can claim asylum. The US has to give them a process to vet the claim. The bill allocated funds to speed this up a lot, and reduced the requirements to reject the claim on the front end (which is a huge deal). If the claimant loses, they are ejected.

Trump's better policy than Biden's still had to vet the claims. He just sent people back to Mexico while this was done, thus disincentivizing the weak claims that were going to lose. However, at one point Trump tried to limit migrants' ability to make the claim at all, and he lost that case in the federal courts.

If Trump wins, he would totally benefit from this change in the law, especially the requirements on the front end of the process, as it would mean a lot of the claimants never were able to invoke the more arduous legal process.

But alas ... infotainment hosts and right wing outrage magazines told you to think the opposite. It's a party beyond hope right now, and it will probably lose again in the fall due to this despite having an ancient, pathetic, beleaguered opponent!
 
Where do you get these stats?

I will send two links. First one is a more general assessment of who comes to the US illegally and what they do.


Second one looks like an advocacy group and is a little old, but they aren't making up the employment stuff (you can discard the commentary tho it's probably "arguably true" on most fronts). Illegals come to the US to work. Menial jobs pay more here than even good jobs where they come from, and life is a lot better in most case even at the bottom of the food chain here. The fact that anyone would say that illegals come to the US to get "government benefits" that even legal immigrants can't access for 5 years is borderline hilarious, but hey I don't have the juice of the infotainment hosts in telling people the truth.

 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffT818
Didn’t that bill still allow 4,000 people to come into the country each day, and didn’t count children?

NO, IT DID NOT. These people can come in and claim asylum NO MATTER WHAT YOU ALL WANT. That's long established US law and has been adopted by most of the world (there's some international protocols on asylum).

The law capped the claims at this number. Right now, the daily claims are UNLIMITED. It also mandated border closures at certain numbers of encounters daily (again, that doesn't happen now).

I'm at a total loss how people don't understand the basic facts on what's happening. Imposing controls on something that is totally uncontrolled is usually deemed a positive. Only in Trump La La Land would that not be the case.
 
I think it said it would not be an emergency unless there was 7 consecutive days with at least 4,000 migrants crossing the border, not including children.

Let’s be honest, it was just going to speed up the asylum process, likely by approving people more quickly. It wasn’t going to do anything to slow the movement of migrants. No conservative could look at that bill and think it was a good deal.

We also know that Dems are not looking to compromise. “That is the best deal you will ever get” is not a serious conversation starter. They don’t care about the border.

Again, only a person totally unburdened by the facts could believe this. What % of asylum claims are rejected? You clearly have no ****ing idea based on the above.

So ... the answer is like 80-85%. So what it would have done is booted more people out much more quickly, and limited the efforts to game the system because losing a phony asylum claim in a few months is a bad outcome, losing one 8 years later is still a pretty good outcome.

And yes, Dems were looking to compromise. They wanted UKRAINE FUNDING desperately. So they conceded a bunch on the border because Rs claimed that's what was needed!

Lo and behold, it wasn't what was needed, as Republicans funded Ukraine without any of these concessions, all of which they could have gotten FOR FREE.

So again ... the bill cost Republicans nothing. And they gave their own concession regardless.

Every one of you needs to spend an hour or two learning about what the actual issues are. Stop listening to right wing BS that was 100% directed by the whims of the Orange Fool. If he comes out in support of the border bill, it gets nearly 100% GOP support. Because it was a win. Maybe it was a double and not a Grand Slam. But it cost nothing but Ukraine funding THAT HAPPENED ANYWAY.
 
I will send two links. First one is a more general assessment of who comes to the US illegally and what they do.


Second one looks like an advocacy group and is a little old, but they aren't making up the employment stuff (you can discard the commentary tho it's probably "arguably true" on most fronts). Illegals come to the US to work. Menial jobs pay more here than even good jobs where they come from, and life is a lot better in most case even at the bottom of the food chain here. The fact that anyone would say that illegals come to the US to get "government benefits" that even legal immigrants can't access for 5 years is borderline hilarious, but hey I don't have the juice of the infotainment hosts in telling people the truth.


Study after study has shown undocumented workers commit crimes at a lower rate. For the most part, they are taking jobs nobody else wants. How many white/black people do you see doing landscaping work? The government benefits claims are ludicrous. Undocumented workers are afraid to have any contact with government so the idea that large numbers are lining up for government benefits is crazy.
 
Talk about missing the mark. It was written, negotiated by probably the most conservative Senator, Lankford of OK.

Probably not the most conservative, but he's 100% a solid right winger who was undertaking a serious effort to improve the law.

The reason the bill went down is Trump decided the "election issue" was better for him, but I'm skeptical the bill helped Biden much (as it simply limited the problem, didn't eliminate it).

At the end of the day, if you asked me if I wanted Ukraine funding or the border bill more, I'd answer Ukraine funding. So I - like the Dems - got a win. But unlike the Dems, I also wanted a better border policy, so it was an opportunity wasted. An opportunity that isn't coming back anytime soon. I do think Trump could fund a wall with the trifecta tho, that would be a win. But even if he wins, the trifecta isn't a sure thing.
 
Study after study has shown undocumented workers commit crimes at a lower rate. For the most part, they are taking jobs nobody else wants. How many white/black people do you see doing landscaping work? The government benefits claims are ludicrous. Undocumented workers are afraid to have any contact with government so the idea that large numbers are lining up for government benefits is crazy.

They do impose a cost on the HC system, their children are eligible for benefits if citizens, and they can exert a downward pressure on the lowest wage markets. So there are some costs, but it's a mixed bag.

I think it's fairly obvious that need-based systems for low skill workers are the way to go, but it will require controlling the border better to get there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffT818
I haven’t seen a conservative say it was a good deal. I’ve heard them say it’s the best deal they will get from Democrats. Big difference between those 2 statements.

Democrats got nothing.

Are you confused that this was some sort of "fix everything" border bill? No one ever claimed that, because that would be impossible for Rs without at least 60 Senate seats. Not sure the last time Rs were above 2/3s, but it's likely 100 years ago.
 
You need to get new sources to trust. I know more than those people, and I make not a single dollar by manipulating your emotions.

You are right about Biden not having a good border policy. And when it comes to the border bill, so what? The bill constrains his bad policies, and does not undermine the next Prez having better policies. The only large expenditure in that bill is to speed up processing of claims THAT US LAW REQUIRES THE US TO VET NO MATTER WHAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BIDEN OR TRUMP IS IN OFFICE.

I'm starting to think none of you have any clue what's actually at issue. When someone crosses the border, should they be caught (anywhere), they can claim asylum. The US has to give them a process to vet the claim. The bill allocated funds to speed this up a lot, and reduced the requirements to reject the claim on the front end (which is a huge deal). If the claimant loses, they are ejected.

Trump's better policy than Biden's still had to vet the claims. He just sent people back to Mexico while this was done, thus disincentivizing the weak claims that were going to lose. However, at one point Trump tried to limit migrants' ability to make the claim at all, and he lost that case in the federal courts.

If Trump wins, he would totally benefit from this change in the law, especially the requirements on the front end of the process, as it would mean a lot of the claimants never were able to invoke the more arduous legal process.

But alas ... infotainment hosts and right wing outrage magazines told you to think the opposite. It's a party beyond hope right now, and it will probably lose again in the fall due to this despite having an ancient, pathetic, beleaguered opponent!
I think Bill O is fair and intelligent. I thought you told me that you agreed with that?

Onto the asylum claim process.... Isn't there a major problem with the people coming in and not showing up for these proceedings? Especially a foreign born terrorist or criminal?
 
Lankford is the one who missed the mark. Grossly in fact.

I just keep wondering when we will get any sort of substantive argument, but I've resigned myself to never. Because there isn't one.

Lankford didn't get taken advantage of. He assumed Republicans would want improvements in the border laws in return for funding Ukraine. Dumb assumption ... it turned out Republicans needed nothing to fund Ukraine.

I'm just laughing at this point. You don't favor funding Ukraine, I do. I got something from this whole exchange, and I'm irritated I didn't get more in the form of the border bill. You actually lost on the exchange, and you seem totally fine with it for reasons I could never explain.
 
I think Bill O is fair and intelligent. I thought you told me that you agreed with that?

Onto the asylum claim process.... Isn't there a major problem with the people coming in and not showing up for these proceedings? Especially a foreign born terrorist or criminal?

Yes, of course. But the bill massively speeds up that process, making it far easier to manage while not farming asylum claimants out across the country. It also allowed the intake agent to reject an asylum claim more easily at the point it is made (and trust me, those agents want to reject these lolol).

Bill O is a smart guy. He also has an audience. I don't. I have no reason to even waste my time discussing this other than to inform you that Republicans gave up literally nothing for some improvements.
 
I will send two links. First one is a more general assessment of who comes to the US illegally and what they do.


Second one looks like an advocacy group and is a little old, but they aren't making up the employment stuff (you can discard the commentary tho it's probably "arguably true" on most fronts). Illegals come to the US to work. Menial jobs pay more here than even good jobs where they come from, and life is a lot better in most case even at the bottom of the food chain here. The fact that anyone would say that illegals come to the US to get "government benefits" that even legal immigrants can't access for 5 years is borderline hilarious, but hey I don't have the juice of the infotainment hosts in telling people the truth.

I honestly didn't see either article list how many crossers already have a place to live. Maybe I missed it?
 
Yes, of course. But the bill massively speeds up that process, making it far easier to manage while not farming asylum claimants out across the country. It also allowed the intake agent to reject an asylum claim more easily at the point it is made (and trust me, those agents want to reject these lolol).

Bill O is a smart guy. He also has an audience. I don't. I have no reason to even waste my time discussing this other than to inform you that Republicans gave up literally nothing for some improvements.
I do not see it as an improvement to quickly process the good ones. The timing of their processing means little to most, I would guess. Losing large amounts of potentially very dangerous people into the US is the larger concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bung23 and rillaman
Finally something we can agree on!

Some key numbers from that video, thanks for linking.

Top line mostly good for Trump (though a meaningful decline from a month ago), the rest really terrible.

15% of Trump voters would go RFK, only 7% of Biden voters. This isn't actually going to happen, but what it really shows is that there are far more Trump leaners less connected to actually voting. If you are switching from Trump/Biden to RFK, you are likely entirely disengaged from the election and probably won't vote. This is why polls screen for likely voters, a lot of these folks will be screened out in a few months (so expect Biden to start going up when the LV screens are put in place).

Even worse for Trump, Biden leading by 9% among 2020 and 2022 voters. Let's be clear, Rs won the 2022 election by about 2% nationally. Almost all 2022 voters voted in 2020. That means Trump is actually really down among the "regular electorate." Trump is +22 among those who didn't get off the rears to vote in 2020 or 2022. Very few of these voters will show up, we know this from history. And the lack of enthusiasm tells me to expect a lot less than we saw in 2020 and maybe less than 2016.

What the polls appear to be showing right now is that Trump is hypothetically running strong for a Republican among those least likely to vote - the young and blacks/Hispanics. Almost certainly as a protest vehicle. And when these kids and others very unattenuated to the electorate don't show, he will underperform his polling.

On a positive note, there again exists the real possibility that generic Rs will far outpace Trump as his diehards will vote R and a lot of the more engaged middle will do split tickets after going heavily Biden.
 
I honestly didn't see either article list how many crossers already have a place to live. Maybe I missed it?

I don't know how you statistically measure that, but it's just a longstanding reality among illegal immigrants. They often have significant family and geographic connections from people they know who have preceded them. You can look this up pretty easily if you'd like.
 
I do not see it as an improvement to quickly process the good ones. The timing of their processing means little to most, I would guess. Losing large amounts of potentially very dangerous people into the US is the larger concern.

Huh? I think you are misunderstanding. If the intake agent doesn't believe the claim has a good chance of success, then he can reject it on the spot. That's a yuge win. The current law is basically you have to invoke the court process if the claimant just has a decent chance of success.

The quick processing is even better because claimants lose their court cases like 80-85% of the time. Very few get through the screening legally. The asylum claim is a ruse, probably one being used now because the Border Patrol has been increasingly adept at catching border jumpers before they get far into the US.
 
Study after study has shown undocumented workers commit crimes at a lower rate. For the most part, they are taking jobs nobody else wants. How many white/black people do you see doing landscaping work? The government benefits claims are ludicrous. Undocumented workers are afraid to have any contact with government so the idea that large numbers are lining up for government benefits is crazy.

Undocumented workers are afraid to have contact with government/police?

Yes, that’s true. It also leads to them often not reporting crime, which skews the statistics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ILisBest
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT