Shooting Terrorists in Flip-Flops
Plus: J.D. Vance won last night's debate, longshoremen update, and more...

Buckle up, a lot went down yesterday: Last night, two terrorists shot people at the light-rail in Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Israel. Seven people were killed and 17 reportedly wounded. One of the victims was Inbar Segev-Vigder, who had her 9-month-old strapped to her body via carrier at the time she was shot. Another light-rail passenger apparently heard the baby crying and took him to the hospital. His name is Ari, and he is safe, but he will grow up without his mom, who eyewitnesses say shielded him from harm.
7 people were murdered in this attack a few minutes south of where I sit in Tel Aviv. One of them was Inbar Segev, a 33 year old Pilates Instructor. Inbar and her dog were shot; a good samaritan grabbed her 9-month-old baby from his carrier unharmed and took him to safety. ???? pic.twitter.com/HlTAa5bXgY
— Yael Bar tur ????️ (@yaelbt) October 2, 2024
"The two terrorists, Muhammad Chalaf Sahar Rajab and Hassan Muhammad Hassan Tamimi, from Hebron [but not Israeli citizens], were shot dead by members of a Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality security patrol unit and citizens using personal firearms, according to the police," according to The Jerusalem Post. Those citizens using personal firearms included Lev Kreitman, the head of Israel's Burning Man equivalent, who was wearing flip-flops when he neutralized one of the terrorists.
"I carry a personal weapon because I'm a reservist," said Kreitman. "I was sitting, having a drink, when suddenly I heard gunshots. I ran toward them and shot the terrorist."
Happy New Year, now head to the bomb shelters: Most Israelis are getting ready for the start of Rosh Hashanah, which begins tonight at sundown. Unfortunately, Iran decided to send nearly 200 ballistic missiles their way, forcing pretty much the entire country into bomb shelters for a portion of yesterday evening.
"Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps said the hourlong assault was retribution for the recent assassinations of the heads of Iranian proxy groups, Hezbollah and Hamas," reports The New York Times. "Mohammad Bagheri, Iran's top military officer, said the missiles had been aimed at three military bases and the headquarters of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service." (Indeed, video footage shows explosions near Mossad, showing that the strikes got close to their targets.)
Iran and Israel last exchanged strikes in April, in what most observers considered a symbolic show of force following an April 1 Israeli air strike on a Syrian embassy compound that resulted in the death of one of Iran's top military generals. In April, the United States and other allies helped Israel shoot down Iranian missiles. Last night, the same protocol played out, but there's reason to believe this most recent escalation will play out differently than it did several months ago.
For one, Israel has recently started a ground invasion in Lebanon, trying to stamp out the terrorist group Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, which has grown increasingly emboldened. Last week, Israeli forces assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's longtime leader; Iran said explicitly that last night's attack was meant as retribution for Nasrallah's killing, a death that was mourned throughout much of the Middle East.
"Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel," said President Joe Biden following news that U.S. naval destroyers positioned in the Mediterranean had helped Israeli forces shoot down the ballistic missiles. Biden had, in recent months, grown more critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, it seems his support for defending Israel during its time of need is ironclad; what remains to be seen is how Israel responds to Iran, and whether that response will draw scorn from allies or be seen as sufficiently measured.
Meanwhile, a vice-presidential debate happened: And, turns out, Donald Trump's running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, is really good at this. A sampling:
Every American should watch every second of JD Vance fielding a question on abortion ???? pic.twitter.com/TDoR0BxFCR
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 2, 2024
He seemed to turn away from his philosophy-bro podcast-appearance personality, which is frequently snarky and callous, and toward a much more palatable and compassionate persona. He seemed poised and articulate. Broad swaths of the internet—or maybe just the portion of the internet I occupy?—found him hot.
"The key thing that Vance accomplished was demonstrating that you can behave on a national stage in a manner that restores pre-Trump standards of political conduct while persisting in Trumpish political heterodoxies," opined writer Wesley Yang.
The moderators appeared to be pretty staunchly biased in favor of Walz and against Vance, but it didn't end up mattering much since Vance held his own. Case in point:
Historically awful moment for @CBSNews here, interrupting JD Vance as he was rebutting a misleading D talking point from Margaret Brennan, who a) isn't supposed to debate the candidates and b) shut off his mic rather than allow his true statements pic.twitter.com/Shwqy1A4Y0
— Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) October 2, 2024
I largely disagree with Vance but he has every right to jump in and address the moderators when they attempt to blithely assert that he is factually incorrect. They said they wouldn't do that. It's Walz's job, not theirs.
— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) October 2, 2024
The debate was policy-oriented, but there was nothing new revealed; everyone was semi-antagonistic toward free trade, no one properly diagnosed the issue with housing costs, there was a little bit of surprising/nice lip service toward gun rights, and Vance at one point admitted how his party has lost the trust of many voters on the issue of abortion. But the debate wasn't really about policy; I'd hazard a guess that anyone watching a vice-presidential debate already knows how they're going to vote. It was about demeanor. Both men treated each other with mutual respect, which was oddly refreshing, but more than anything it was a proving ground for Vance, who showed that he has a lot of potential (for better or worse) as the heir to Trumpism.
Scenes from New York: A walk down memory lane…all the corrupt New York City mayors throughout history. Yay, government!
QUICK HITS
- Kamala Harris running mate/Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was caught in another hilarious lie, this one about whether he was in Tiananmen Square on the day of the massacre in June 1989. "Walz suggested [in a House hearing in 2014] that he was in the then-British colony of Hong Kong in May 1989, but he appears to have been in Nebraska. Public records suggest he left for Hong Kong and China in August of that year," reports the Associated Press, which also dug up "a 2009 congressional transcript about Tiananmen Square in which Walz seemed to insinuate that he was in Hong Kong during the day of the massacre." When asked about it in the debate last night, Walz gave a bunch of pablum and ultimately admitted he "misspoke" which is an odd way to say "lied."
- A good thread detailing how both candidates get housing so very wrong:
"You've got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes," argues @JDVance. Why are the homes scarce? There is not a fixed supply of homes. We can build enough homes!
— M. Nolan Gray (@mnolangray) October 2, 2024
- "More than 38 container vessels were already backed up at U.S. ports by Tuesday, compared with just three on Sunday before the [longshoremen] strike, according to Everstream Analytics," reports Reuters. "The walkout could cost the American economy roughly $5 billion a day, JP Morgan analysts estimate." (And how do our ports compare to, say, China's? Not so great, guys. Not so great.)
- True:
There are not quite 50K longshoremen on strike. For $50B -- chump change, really -- we could give them each $1M to retire in 5 years while we spend some multiple of that to fully automate all the ports. I bet they'd take it, then we could just move on.
— jonstokes.(eth|com) (@jonst0kes) October 1, 2024
- Also true:
— Richard Morrison (@RichardMorrison) October 1, 2024
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And, turns out, Donald Trump's running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, is really good at this.
It's telling that I'm not seeing any narrative today about Walz winning.
Or how poorly he did.
Is "I'm friends with school shooters" a winning message or not?
Walz misspoke, he meant to say Trump shooters.
Fair.
JD is a true MasterDebater. He let Walz have enough rope to do the hanging by himself while weaving in and out landing shot after shot. Him running over the phony, pre-planned fact check on flying in the migrants was the best part of the night. He erased any doubt whatsoever that the moderators weren't working for Walz and still won handily.
I don't have the stamina or patience to sit through a whole debate. Just give me the sparknotes the next day. If any highlights happen, I'll watch them on my own time.
The Not-The-Bee has his 2:47 non-answer to the Hong Kong question, and I did manage to watch the whole thing. It was worse than I expected, and enough to last me another four years.
Walz’s political career committed seppuku last night. He’ll be lucky to remain governor much less be VP.
Of course. It's a well-known fact that losing a debate disqualifies one for public office. Oh, Donald Trump is still running? Never mind.
What debate did Trump lose? The last one he was able to stand against three at once.
He got his ass handed to him. He was rambling, incoherent, and unable to stop telling easily exposed lies. Hell, the thing people remember about the debate is that Trump lied about Hatians eating cats. I wish they'd remembered his lies about abortion and his lies about winning the 2020 election more, but it is what it is.
Harris manipulated him from start to the finish, baiting him into constant self-aggrandizing statements about crowd sizes and other things any American not named Donald Trump doesn't give a shit about. And Harris isn't particularly skilled at manipulation. Putin will play Trump like the cheap fiddle he is.
The "three against one" whining is just typical conservative victimhood. It's the way conservatives can ignore the fact that Trump didn't make a valid (or even a coherent) policy statement the entire night.
I'm pretty sure he never finished a single sentence, just slowly winding down as he wandered through various rally applause lines. He was lost and overwhelmed, clearly struggling to speak coherently, and mentally confused.
He got crushed.
Neither of them won, but Harris masterfully baited Trump while her two cheerleaders fluffed her.
Sure. And neither did Tim Walz?
Oh, that's only in PartisanBizarroWorld. In the real world both Trump and Walz got their clocks cleaned.
Oh hey, it's Nelson. Must not be a Monday or a Thursday.
It wasn’t just losing the debate, jackass. The Tiananmen Square lies (along with other lies) will dog Walz anywhere and everywhere now.
Sure they will. 99% of people who watched the debate (a miniscule number) would even know what you're referencing today. It's already forgotten.
Walz lost so badly that I expected you to come into the comments today and declare that Walz is a conservative.
Walz doesn't hold conservative beliefs, unlike the two Trump assassins. You fools really struggle with the idea that someone's beliefs is what places them on the liberal/conservative spectrum, don't you.
You should try to be less stupid. Or at least be more careful about displaying your stupidity for everyone to see.
He did really well waiting to bury Waltz on legalizing killing born alive infants from failed abortions too. Waltz could only stutter he was lying.
Wish JD corrected the false Georgia story where the mother died due to abortion complications. The GA law has no effect on her death. The law requires a heart beat which wasn't present at all.
"He did really well waiting to bury Waltz on legalizing killing born alive infants from failed abortions too."
Yeah, that doesn't happen. Ever. It's called murder and it's illegal everywhere in America.
I would wonder how you could be so credulous as to believe something so obviously untrue and insane, but I think you also believe Trump won the 2020 election. So believing obviously untrue and insane things is your brand.
"The law requires a heart beat which wasn’t present at all."
The law might, but does anyone think that would stop an anti-abortion prosecutor from arresting the doctor anyway? The point of these laws is to make doctors afraid.
The laws aren't reasonable or logical or sane, but doctors are supposed to trust that prosecutors won't be equally irrational? Please.
And trusting doctors who espouse cloth masks is logical and sane, but you do endear me to your plight.
"Yeah, that doesn’t happen. Ever."
*Governor Ralph Shearer Northam has entered the chat*
Was that a case where a baby was killed by a doctor after a failed abortion? Because regardless of pointing to a gross mischaracterization of a statement by a single politician, killing a baby that has been born alive is not legal anywhere in America.
Nowhere.
Not blue states, not blue cities, not anywhere.
The "abortion after birth" lie is as clear, plain, and obvious as it gets.
It isn't legal anywhere in America under any conditions in any way, shape or form.
Anyone who states differently is a complete, total, and knowing liar. Or so slavishly credulous that they shouldn't be trusted to make any decisions for themselves because they aren't me tally competent.
does anyone think that would stop an anti-abortion prosecutor from arresting the doctor anyway?
Prosecutors make arrests in Nelson world.
Fair point.
Replace "arresting" with "prosecuting", which is the much more dangerous part of the legal game.
I noticed even you didn't have the necessary level of dishonesty to claim anti-abortion prosecutors wouldn't prosecute a doctor even if they said there wasn't a heartbeat.
Anti-abortionists are too irrational to be trusted to make any decision that is within spitting distance of abortion.
It happened 5 times in Minnesota retard.
No, it didn't. Not even once, let alone five times.
MSNBC thinks Walz won. I don't think any other outlet is pushing this.
Vance for himself and showed he had a future, but he did not win for the ticket. Waltz and Vance both showed what a civil discussion of politics looked like. Waltz wasn't the loser, Trump was.
LOL, please. We all know you'd be crowing like proudcock if Tiananmen Tim had actually won the debate, and wouldn't be spouting this lame "Trump really lost here" line of Madison bullshit.
Kudos to Vance for being the first Republican in ages to actually understand that he's not just debating the Democrat opponent, he's also debating the Democrat media "moderators" trying to hold his opponent's hand.
Parody.
Bad parody.
Stupidity.
Malicious stupidity.
Stuparody.
Walz is a looser
He’s also a loser. Like Nelson.
REALLY?
How in the world would they come up with that?
1. Vance had to change his persona, Waltz did not.
2. Vance continued to throw out some lies rather than deal with issues.
3. Vance's demeanor showed how bad Trump is. Vance could articulate issues Trump can't even remember. Waltz did no harm, Vance made Trump look bad.
Vance had to change his persona
Lol, wut?
He means JD showed the false narratives Waltz and media made of him was false.
Parody.
M4e, you’re trying too hard. You’ve got to be some kind of parody account at this point.
I am going to assume this is MSNBC's cope, not anything you actually subscribe to.
Vance had to change his persona
What it showed is that he's capable of doing the reasonable conservative statesman thing, if he wants to. He can do smack-talking attack dog, if he wants to. He can do bearded philosophy bro, if he wants to. If and when he tells a whopper, he knows exactly what he wants to accomplish with it.
He's got intelligence and self-control, deployed to advance stuff I disagree with. In other words, he's dangerous.
He wants to do stuff ducksalad disagrees with, therefore, he's dangerous. QED.
Why are the left-leaning posters here all morons?
They aren't left leaning. At best they're Bush Republicans with blue hair and septum piercings.
He’s got intelligence and self-control, deployed to advance stuff I disagree with. In other words, he’s dangerous.
He's not dangerous at all. He's a counter-revolutionary antidote to the revolutionary party.
I don’t think anyone, including Republicans, knows what Vance really believes or would do if he advanced to POTUS. Whatever he says is carefully calculated toward career advancement. I believe he could do a very convincing academic leftist or union man persona if it was in his interest to do so.
show us on the doll where the politician touched you.
You can't do a very convincing 12th grade grad.
I don’t think anyone, including Republicans, knows what Vance really believes or would do if he advanced to POTUS.
This hardly makes him dangerous.
The same messaging seen on CNN and MSNBC. Weird.
Have you ever tried… listening to JD instead of the narrative your side created about him?
#NotADemSalad
Thanks Mike. Forgot your hash tag
Deer god what an idiot
The same way Trumpkins came up with Trump beating Harris. Wishful thinking, completely unconnected to reality.
LOL
Fortunately, abysmal moderators bailed Trump out. As did Harris' continued inability to actually express any cogent thoughts on any issues without lying.
Anybody want to guess the number of cases SHE tried against intl cartels for human trafficking? She --- not her office --- SHE.
Want to guess it is less than one?
For those who want a real-world example of wishful thinking, completely unconnected to reality, I present Damikesc.
“Trump won because Harris didn’t actually, personally, try any cases. But he also won because Vice President Harris, who doesn’t set any priorities for the White House, was personally responsible for any perceived failures of Joe Biden.
So which is it, Trumpkin?
Is Harris responsible for things that she, the one who made decisions (as DA and AG) about priorities, chose to have her prosecutors prosecute? That would mean Joe Biden, the one who made decisions (as President) about priorities, was responsible for the last 3 1/2 years. You can’t have it both ways.
You don’t want to give her credit for the actions she made as DA/AG, but want to give her the blame for the actions of Joe Biden. You can see how that’s a self-contradicting position, right?
Or do you have a handy conspiracy theory that would square that circle for you?
I tried to make sense of your chain of logic here... but it resembles a plate of spaghetti, so I gave up.
You struggie with "the one who chooses the policies and priorities is the one who is responsible for them"?
Conservatives want it both ways, which isn't honest.
Harris is responsible for rhe prosecutions of her DA/AG offices (going after drug cartels). She isn't responsible for Biden's economic/border policies.
Unless you think she shouldn't be credited for prosecutorial successes, which she had control over, but should shoulder the blame for the President's policies, which she had no control over? How exactly would the work?
I'll use small words to try to help you understand: boss is responsible, underling is not.
How does the boss being senile affect this “reasoning”?
Also, even leaving the senility aside, if you volunteer to be someone’s vice president, it’s fair to assume you have some level of agreement with that person’s policies, no?
"it’s fair to assume you have some level of agreement with that person’s policies, no?"
Broadly? Sure. But I broadly agree with Mike McDaniel's offensive philosophy. That doesn't mean I think he is making the right calls in the game.
The problem is that Trumpkins are trying to take broad agreement and morph it into responsibility for Biden's actions. It's dishonest.
The problem is that Trumpkins are trying to take broad agreement and morph it into responsibility for Biden’s actions. It’s dishonest.
There's nothing dishonest about applying responsibility for Biden's actions to his Vice President.
You call Bertram Guilfoyle a conservative, but I've seen no evidence that he ever donated to Act Blue.
Yeah, you struggle with the whole "beliefs determine conservatism or liberalism" thing. It shows your lack of mental prowess.
You seem to struggle with the fact that CLAIMING the shooters had "conservative beliefs" is not the same as them having conservative beliefs, nor is your claim evidence for that.
We are all mocking you because your 50 cent attempts to retcon the assassination attempts are laughably absurd. Yet you keep doubling down on it. So you will continue to be mocked for it.
Or, she has simply been terrible at everything she does, except maybe for on-the-clock blowjobs. Diversity hire, and nothing else.
In other words, a perfect democrat.
Ah, the "slept her way to the top" trope. That's a sad mix of misogyny and dishonesty, all wrapped up into a package of hate that speaks to your failings, not anyone else's.
Willie Brown said she blew him and he appointed her to positions she had no qualifications for.
Take up your beef with SF Democrat powerhouse Willie Brown.
No, he didn't, and which position was she unqualified for, exactly?
And was this what Willie said to Donald Trump when their helicopter was going down? Because that wasn't Willie Brown and the guy Trump was actually with didn't know Harris.
Yeah, he did.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the Medical Assistance Commission. He was known for putting friends and the like in positions like these.
She was qualified for neither. And the relationship with her and Brown was not terribly secret, either.
And in what way was she unqualified? Because it seems like political appointees to oversight boards are usually less qualified than Harris was.
What exactly were the qualifications that she lacked? What are the qualifications required for those positions?
Considering the source, I'd lean towards this being a talking point from a far-right "journalist". I doubt you knows the requirements for a member of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, nor the Medical Assistance Commission.
"And in what way was she unqualified?"
Outside of her utter lack of qualifications, you mean?
"Because it seems like political appointees to oversight boards are usually less qualified than Harris was."
This is based on...?
"Considering the source, I’d lean towards this being a talking point from a far-right “journalist”. I doubt you knows the requirements for a member of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, nor the Medical Assistance Commission."
You could always prove me wrong.
But you won't.
Because you cannot.
Because a) it is factual and b) you're not very bright.
"Outside of her utter lack of qualifications, you mean?"
Which qualification did she lack?
"You could always prove me wrong."
I could prove wrong your claim that Harris lacked ... which qualifications, exactly? Where would one find such a list of necessary qualifications?
I'm sure you know exactly what they are, since you so boldly asserted her lack.
So where are these qualifications found? I certainly can't find them.
"Because a) it is factual and b) you’re not very bright."
Factual, eh? OK, I'll bite. Where are these facts found? Maybe it's because I'm not very bright, but a genius like you would know exactly where to find them. Right?
Or, perhaps, you are a mindless paleocon anger machine, lashing out in futile rage whenever your loser worldview is exposed.
She and Willie Brown both admit her first jobs were given to her by him. Was Willie's 78th job though.
They "admit" it? Yeah, hiring people is something that no one ever does honestly.
Do you even realize that you just claimed that hiring someone for an available job is somehow nefarious?
What the actual fuck are you going on about?
You ARE aware Biden has said he delegated plenty of domestic and foreign policy decisions to Harris...right? His policies ARE her policies, per Biden (and, given her lack of any discussion of issues with the admin, she does not disagree).
SHE refuses to say what her disagreements with the last 3.5 years are. Seems to be nothing. She CLAIMS she prosecuted intl organizations for trafficking but there is a decided lack of evidence of her claim.
Wow. You really are scared Trump's gonna get crushed in November, aren't you? Overstating her decision-making power and using a vague statement by the President to do it?
Smell that? That's the stench of paleocon desperation.
Honestly, I assume the Dems will steal the election. But I think Trump is in amazing position to win handidly. Harris is busy pissing all over NC. Union guys dislike her, so that will harm her in the NE. Men overall do not like her, which is not a positive for her.
It was not a "vague statement" by Biden. Your cope, however, is entertaining beyond all words. Cope HARDER!
So if it wasn't vague, what decisions were delegated to Harris?
Do you have any idea, or are you just trying to take a vague statement and pretend that it means she made all the decisions about immigration?
Vague means lacking Iin specificity. What specifics do you have?
The border is a big one. Man she shat the bed on that one, no?
She was in the room for the decision to abandon Bagram AFB. GENIUS move, no?
She has STILL made no moves to reinstate any of the Trump EO's that had the border under control that her admin cancelled. Nor has she done anything to enact these policies she swears (really, pinky promise and everything!) she will do when she is in the White House.
Again.
For four more years.
THIS TIME...she will get it right.
"The border is a big one."
"The border", eh? That isn't vague at all. Now she was tasked with working with Central and South American countries to try to combat the root causes that lead people to try to enter the US.
See? That's something specific. "The border" isn't.
"She was in the room for the decision to abandon Bagram AFB. GENIUS move, no?"
She was ... in the room? Well, shit, so were dozens of other of other people.
Wait, you know that Bagram is in Afghanistan, right? It's impossible to leave a country and take an a
Air force base with you. You understand that, right?
Or are you saying that you think getting out of Afghanistan was a bad idea?
"She has STILL made no moves to reinstate any of the Trump EO’s that had the border under control that her admin cancelled."
Uh, Mike? You know she isn't President, right? And that the border wasn't "under control" under Trump?
"Nor has she done anything to enact these policies she swears (really, pinky promise and everything!) she will do when she is in the White House."
You mean the policies that the Vice President has always had the power to implement? Oh, wait. That's the President. Which, apparently unknown-to-you fact, isn't Kamala Harris.
"For four more years."
Nope, not a simple mistake. SMH.
How much decision-making do you think biden has been doing? You've seen this guy speak, right?
Yeah, just saw him speak in DC at the UN.
I remember that. It was the same week Trump, campaigning in Georgia, said he was in Louisiana ... twice.
Is Trump not making his own decisions either? Or is this an "ignore the age-related mental decline of this guy who's running for President because this time it's our guy" thing.
Joe Biden isn't as mentally sharp as he used to be because he's really old. That's why he shouldn't have been running for President, nothing more.
My stepfather had dementia for the last three years of his life. If you've ever seen it, you know what it is and how devastating it is. Joe Biden doesn't have dementia.
Biden is saving his energy for the Battle Box. His exact quote was, “Gamwkei sjsnw swiwnfndksns ahsn wwnc.”
OK, I disagree with your premise, but that was funny.
Parody. Not sure why you support the conservative Harris. She donated to Act Blue after all.
Visiting kamalaharris.com then clicking Donate takes one to where?
You should try it. You should choose regular donations, just to make sure.
I like 1A so I’ll pass.
I'm fond of 2A, so I'll pass.
And yet you support Trump. Seems counterintuitive, what with him wanting to criminalize flag burning and criticism of the judicial and executive branches.
So you support the 1A, but with an asterisk? Well, you do you.
Do you REALLY want to look at Kamala's past comments? Or Walz' totalitarian tendencies on display in MN?
Where did I support Trump? I have yet to vote for him.
"Do you REALLY want to look at Kamala’s past comments?"
Compared to Trump's? Absolutely. We only have two viable choices and Trump is unabashedly, overtly, and proudly authoritarian. If you've never heard it, you've never listened to Trump speak.
"Where did I support Trump? I have yet to vote for him."
Excellent. Do America a favor and keep that streak going.
"Compared to Trump’s? Absolutely. We only have two viable choices and Trump is unabashedly, overtly, and proudly authoritarian. If you’ve never heard it, you’ve never listened to Trump speak."
Never heard Trump that he'd go into your home to make sure you were storing your guns "Safely".
Kamala said that.
Trump did not support reparations.
Kamala does.
Trump does not want to legalize illegal entry into the country.
Kamala does.
Trump did not advocate tranny surgery for criminals.
Kamala did.
Trump did not advocate taxing unrealized capital gains.
Kamala does.
Let's unpack your "authoritarian" scorecard:
Let's start with the acknowledgement that you only want to talk about Kamala's perceived (by you) authoritarian behaviors. True?
"Never heard Trump that he’d go into your home to make sure you were storing your guns “Safely”."
I definitely understand the impetus, since most gun owners seem to forget the responsibilities of gun ownership. However, you are correct. That is definitely on the authoritarian side of the equation.
"Trump did not support reparations."
Reparations aren't an authoritarian abuse of power. Certainly not the way almost every advocate for them talks about it, as a thing the legislature should do. Working through the political process is the opposite of authoritarian.
Reparations are misguided and a terrible idea, bit not authoritarian by any stretch.
"Trump does not want to legalize illegal entry into the country."
Leaving aside the impossibility of illegally acting in a legal manner, Harris never said anything of the sort and even if we go way out on your imaginary limb, implementing an immigration policy that is subject to the checks and balances of the American Constitution isn't authoritarian. It's just a policy disagreement.
"Trump did not advocate tranny surgery for criminals."
Again, a terrible policy but not authoritarian. I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word means.
"Trump did not advocate taxing unrealized capital gains."
I'd lean your way on this as well. In addition to being a terrible idea, it would be an unjustified and illegal taking by the government.
So out of your five issues, only two would actually be authoritarian acts. Well, authoritarian-adjacent at least.
Now look at Trump's statements about being a dictator, but just for one day. We all know that's what dictators all want to do, but there's always just one more thing that needs to be put right. They always say they'll give up power ... tomorrow.
Look at his 1st Amendment restrictions (even ones that have been adjudicated through to the Supreme Court) like banning flag burning and criticism of two of the three branches.
Look at his statements about the 4th Amendment, including his advocacy for police to be allowed to give whoever they want one "very bad day", which he also claims would stop crime immediately. Apparently he doesn't remember the police excesses of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that caused crime to disappear ... oh.
Look at his desire to broaden libel to make criticism (mostly of him) civilly punishable. So no criticizing rich people or corporations or any other organization with lawyers on staff. Not if you want to keep your house.
Look at his statements about the 14th Amendment and equal protection. Or his statements about ...
Look, you know he loves force and, as President, he has in the past and has promised in the future to wield that power with purpose (especially to get revenge). You have to know that he will use the power of government in illegal and unjustified ways to force his opponents to suffer. For a lot of his supporters, this "muscular" conservatism is a feature not a bug.
But the thing about a dictator is he eventually turns on everyone. The thing that makes America great is our history of fighting back against authoritarianism. Turning our back on that doesn't make us great again, it makes us betrayers of the ideals that make our nation the best on the planet.
If you hate authoritarianism, you should hate (and fear) Trump.
"Reparations aren’t an authoritarian abuse of power."
Stealing money from people who did not commit the crime to give to people who were not victimized by the crime IS NOT authoritarian?
Interesting theory there.
Even better, Harris would receive reparations even though her family owned slaves.
"Harris never said anything of the sort"
That was a verbatim response to a specific question. Man, you're bad at this.
"Now look at Trump’s statements about being a dictator, but just for one day. We all know that’s what dictators all want to do, but there’s always just one more thing that needs to be put right. They always say they’ll give up power … tomorrow."
Is Trump in the WH right now?
No?
You mean he gave up power when his term ended?
Stunned, I am truly stunned.
"Look at his 1st Amendment restrictions (even ones that have been adjudicated through to the Supreme Court) like banning flag burning and criticism of two of the three branches."
Missed Biden-Harris coercing social media to silence critics? It was a bit of a story.
See, she ALREADY has violated the First Amendment. Her doing so again would just be tradition for her.
"Look at his desire to broaden libel to make criticism (mostly of him) civilly punishable. So no criticizing rich people or corporations or any other organization with lawyers on staff. Not if you want to keep your house."
CIVIL punishments for libel are authoritarian? Sure, if you say so. Seems like a laughable assertion here.
"Look, you know he loves force and, as President, he has in the past and has promised in the future to wield that power with purpose (especially to get revenge). You have to know that he will use the power of government in illegal and unjustified ways to force his opponents to suffer. For a lot of his supporters, this “muscular” conservatism is a feature not a bug."
Are you aware he WAS President and did not do so? You can shove your "he loves to use force" and shove it up the same ass your head is firmly embedded in.
Are you really a sock for SQRSLY or something? I've not seen somebody so inept at making a point since him.
"Stealing money from people who did not commit the crime to give to people who were not victimized by the crime IS NOT authoritarian?"
No, that wasn't a dishonest and inaccurate description of how reparations would work at all. Not at all.
That said, I agree that reparations are something that should never happen.
"That was a verbatim response to a specific question."
OK, I'll bite. Could you provide a link for that quote? Because it sounds more like a paleocon alteration of an actual quote.
"You mean he gave up power when his term ended?"
I just reread my post and it could be construed as me saying we wouldn't leave office. I didn't mean it that way.
I pointed out he said he would be a dictator, but only on Day One. I am skeptical that he would stop being a dictator after Day One, not that he would refuse to leave office.
"Missed Biden-Harris coercing social media to silence critics?"
You missed Trump-Pence doing the same thing?
FWIW, I don't consider a request that could and often was (without consequences) rejected to be authoritarian. It's the "you can't refuse" part that makes it authoritarian, not the "request" part.
"See, she ALREADY has violated the First Amendment."
Harris did? You think that requests made by government agencies (not the White House) are actions of ... the Vice President? How badly did you fail civics?
"CIVIL punishments for libel are authoritarian?"
An executive action that would strip First Amendment protections from citizens who say mean things about President Trump? Yeah, that is exactly what authoritarianism looks like.
"Are you aware he WAS President and did not do so?"
Sure he didn't. None of his Executive Orders smelled anything like authoritarianism? Please.
And last time he didn't have a reason to pursue revenge with the power of the government. This time, he's promised it.
"I’ve not seen somebody so inept at making a point since him."
Well, one of us thinks Kamala Harris is President. And, of course, there's your completely rational arguments about Harris' lack of qualifications (which you can't seem to identify) for various jobs she's held.
Sure, I'm the one who sucks at this.
When she votes for Trump or espouses conservative beliefs, then she would be a conservative. Why do you keep spewing this gaslighting idiocy? No one ever said that donating to ActBlue made one a conservative, except you.
Dipshit, you spent an entire thread implying this.
It was a hilarious thread.
Being able to laugh at yourself is mentally healthy. Congratulations.
When you are having a conversation with the voices in your head, you don’t need to post them. Thanks.
Nonsense. I spent an entire thread pointing out that one shooter was reported by peers and teachers to be a conservative and the other was a Trump voter, which makes them conservatives by ideology. Feeling betrayed by Trump doesn't change their beliefs, it just changes their support for that one man.
You're the ones who claim that donating to ActBlue is somehow more relevant than espousing conservative ideology and voting for Trump, which is crazy.
Both shooters were, provably, people with conservative beliefs and (for the second) voting records. That carries much more weight than a total of $155 in donations, unless you refuse to believe what you don't want yo believe. You know, like you and the other paleocons here.
Were the bernie supporters who voted for trump in ’16 conservatives?
provably
You’ve yet to prove this, btw. In this thread or the other.
I linked to articles and quotes. You all said, to paraphrase, "they both donated snacks to ActBlue, so their beliefs don't matter".
When people are described by other people as "definitely conservative", that means that they have, in someone else's presence, espoused conservative beliefs.
I continue to believe that what people espouse on political issues or who they choose to vote for determines their ideological position.
You think a tiny protest donation against a guy that both assasssins wanted to kill is the only thing that indicates their political ideology, nothing else. That's weird.
“I linked to articles and quotes.”
**cough, cough bullshit cough, cough**
I’ll post some again, since you (intetionally?) missed them in the original thread. It’s shocking, shocking I tell you, that you were wrong … again.
“Max Smith, who took an American history course with Crooks, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that his former classmate “definitely was conservative”.
“The majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side.””
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gw58wv4e9o
Oh, and he was a registered Republican.
For the second shooter (copy and take out the space, since it only allows me to post one link per post)
The quote thay most know by now is: “While you were my choice in 2106 [sic], I and the world hoped that president Trump would be different and better than the candidate, but we all were greatly disappointment and it seems you are getting worse and devolving,” Routh wrote in July 2020. “I will be glad when you gone.”
https://www.independent. co. uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ryan-wesley-routh-twitter-x-posts-b2613498.html
So *cough, cough, look who’s wrong again, cough, cough*
You definitely struggle to distinguish between what you want to be true and what is actually true.
I guess Jeff has been labeled a nobody by one of his peers.
You did. I forgave you for such an idiotic statement, but I'm not going to forget that you made it.
Fine. You win. Congrats sarc, someone dumber than you trolls here.
Would you expect anything less from MSDNC?
Of course MSDNC is saying that. What else were they gonna say?
Jeff, mod, and others will be by shortly.
Sarc will, of course, try the “board sidez” approach while white knighting Jeff and Shrike.
He'll be back on the pretending to support Chase talking points. Never discussing Chases ideas, just that he is gay.
Wait. What?!?! Chase Oliver is gay?
As ive been told repeatedly by jeffsarc.
I doubt without jeffsarc telling us Chase Oliver was gay, we’d never know otherwise. By the way, did you know Chase Oliver is gay?
It's the only reason nazi's/meangirls/usualsuspects like yourself refuse to vote for him.
According to Jeffsarc his gayness is the only valid reason to oppose him and not the fact he's a child-castrating quadruple-boosted communist.
You’ve been told many times that he opposes surgery on minors and has far from a communist as one can get. You know this.
But you’ll be repeating those lies tomorrow, especially the one about surgery on minors, because lying is all you do. Well, when you’re not crying and attacking people for what you feel are lies about Trump.
You’ve been told many times that he opposes surgery on minors
Yes. By you, but that's not what he was saying before the campaign.
Brave, brave sarcasmic, slaying nazi's day in, day out on this board.
He has said that decisions on non-surgical treatments should be made by parents and doctors, instead of government bureaucrats like you would prefer. And I’ve seen people quote that and immediately lie and claim he just said he supports surgery on minors. But I’ve never seen him say what you claim.
You’re just lying, twisting and misconstruing as always. And damn you are proud of it. Never met someone who was so proud to be a shameless liar.
Sarc still doesn't know what chemical castration drugs do.
Sarc is a fucking retard.
"Sarc still doesn’t know what chemical castration drugs do"
Sarc knows exactly what chemical castration drugs do. He's doing a little something commonly known as "lying".
Sarc: He has said that decisions on non-surgical treatments should be made by parents and doctors, instead of government bureaucrats like you would prefer.
He does say that he wants to keep the government out of medical decisions when it comes to non-surgical "treatments." But he supports government stepping in and banning surgical options. This is all in regards to minors and even young children, I should add, so there's no confusion that we're talking about adults.
My problem is why he holds the standard of getting the government out of what he views as medical decisions for a family and doctors--when it's non-surgical--but is in favor of getting the government involved in medical decisions for a family and doctors, when it is surgical. He has never given a satisfactory answer to that--that I've heard, at least.
On the Just Asking Questions podcast, Liz even asked him that directly and he obfuscated.
Chase Oliver is gay?
Wouldn't you be happy to win the nomination?
That should come as a huge shock to his wife and Pastor.
Having a wife and pastor should come as a huge shock to Chase.
Where does Manti Te’o fit in?
"It's telling that I’m not seeing any narrative today about Walz winning"
Probably because he didn't. Contrast that with Donald Trump instantly claiming that the ass-kicking he received from Harris was actually a victory.
Are you practicing your stand up routine?
Because you are terrible at it.
Nelson, as the expert, can you enlighten us - is Walz conservative?
No. Being a gun owner doesn’t make him a conservative. Although there’s a chance only one ticket has 100% gun owners on it.
Hmm. Applying the paleocon “one gesture overpowers a history of philosophical beliefs and electoral choices” theory, maybe Harris/Walz are the conservative candidates.
What does being a gun owner make him?
A gun owner.
But there are conservatives who believe that being a gun owner and a liberal is an impossibility. Hence the "she isn't a real gun owner" or "she doesn't actually own a gun" claims by some on the right.
Makes him a fudd. Pump shotgun, revolver, or a lever 30-30.
Motherfucker won’t have a defense platform firearm.
You make my point for me.
Remember Jim Zumbo?
I'll buy the Dem ticket is 100% gun owners when Kamala can show the gun she allegedly owns.
When even Oprah is like "I did not know that" when she said she's a gun owner, it indicates she kept that nugget very well hidden. Making her the only Dem to ever do that.
Kamala purchased the firearm with money she earned while working at McDonalds.
Wait, you don't accept anything said by those you oppose, but accept anything said by those you support even when it's demonstrably untrue?
Yeah, that tracks.
Given that literally nobody ever knew she was a gun owner until she suddenly claimed she was --- yeah, she needs a bit of proof of her claim.
Should I bookmark this and quote it to you whenever you say things and don't provide any evidence? Like, perhaps, that Harris was unqualified for jobs she held?
Checked MSN this morning and saw very little about the debate in their top stories section.
Told me all I needed to know.
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1841461619399762090
MSNBC is struggling after the JD Vance vs. Tim Walz debate.
Nicole Wallace: Shame on JD Vance for ‘mansplaining’ to the moderators.
Rachel Maddow: Tim Walz won the debate and he only had one bad moment.
Joe Scarborough: Tim Walz would be a great neighbor.
Jen Psaki: Tim Walz is one of the best communicators in the entire Democratic party.
Yup. This is what I meant above when I said "Wishful thinking, completely unconnected to reality".
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1841489714177581381
Just a few days ago Jen Psaki said Doug Emhoff is reshaping the perception of masculinity.
Turns out he assaulted his ex, cheated on his wife, got his nanny pregnant, and said the nanny claimed he caused her to miscarry.
Is this the masculinity
@jrpsaki
was referring to?
Hurrican’t
SC helicopter pilot threatened with arrest after airlifting Helene survivors out of flood ravaged areas.
https://youtu.be/si9kPy7IffU
Christ, what an asshole.
There are other similar stories from the region without officious dickheads interfering.
Oh I'm sure, most Americans come together and work to help each other in time of crisis. Hell the rest of the rescue team out there at the lake seemed to understand what a giant asshole their (hopefully former) boss is.
Seems like a phenomenal opportunity for a couple of guys to go with their officious dickhead supervisor to inspect some potentially hazardous terrain, have things go south, and do everything they could to try and save him before ultimately failing.
In this area, those that can and want to help are welcomed. A year ago was third on the scene of a motorcycle accident with the bike on top of the guy in the middle of an intersection. I flagged for 20 minutes until the second police officer arrived. Third vehicle flagged was a nurse, who I conscripted to help. Gave her one of the FAKs in the vehicle. I wasn’t threatened with arrest but thanked for keeping vehicles off the victim, off those helping, and for moving traffic so that the police, fire, and ambulance had an uncongested path to the scene.
"You will respect my authority!"
Dick.
Standard case of government not wanting competition since it shows we don't need as much government as they want us to have
The goverment literally wants all of those people to die
The two terrorists, Muhammad Chalaf Sahar Rajab and Hassan Muhammad Hassan Tamimi...
I wish I could figure out some commonality among these two.
Well, they're both dead, so there's that.
Both Brian Stelter fans?
Leave potato alone. CNN made him announce the new rebranded CNN+. Only reason they hired him most likely.
Moved
They shot the fuckin' dog.
Now Jizzbollah is gonna have John Wick on their ass. Bad move.
Must have been cops.
You may be right. People these days are bizarrely emotionally affected by the killing of dogs relative to the killing of human beings.
There was far more outrage nationally about Michael Vick running the dogfighting ring than there was over Ray Rice beating his girlfriend in that elevator. Don't get me wrong, both are fucked up, and there certainly was outrage over Ray Rice. But Vick received far more disapprobation.
Let's be honest. People suck and dogs are awesome. It's not unreasonable to assume that the chances of a dead dog being a good dog are much, much better than the chances of a dead person being a good person.
Not everyone can be Tom Petty.
Hassan as a first and second middle name? Their parents didn't have much imagination.
That's not unheard of. The guy who ran against our puppet Ghani in Afghanistan is named Abdullah Abdullah.
dont forget the inimitable Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Sirhan Sirhan comes to mind as well, with same first and last name. Makes it easier to teach a kid to write his name I suppose.
I'm sure the, uh, Rajab and Tamimi family names go back 5,000 yrs. or more in the specific region. They probably could've named their Palestinian relative that the Jews stole the land from.
Islam is a religion of peace. And Brutus is an honorable man.
The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
When I was a kid, maybe 12 years old or so, my Dad bought an 8-track tape of a Flip Wilson album and played it in the car on long trips so many times I still remember most of it.
One bit, “Herman’s Berry” ends with the punch line
“We come to seize her berry, not to praise it!”
It was Flip Wilson, it was funny just the way he said it. I thought maybe there was some sex joke that I didn't get, being a 12-year old.
Later, in HS, we read Julias Ceaser, and suddenly the whole bit got funnier. I may have even laughed aloud on the flashback when the teacher started reading Marc Antony’s monologue.
Iran and Israel last exchanged strikes in April, in what most observers considered a symbolic show of force...
The most effective shows of force.
He seemed to turn away from his philosophy-bro podcast-appearance personality, which is frequently snarky and callous, and toward a much more palatable and compassionate persona.
PANDERER.
The funny thing is that Ms Wolfe, for her merits, doesn't actually know what his podcast-appearance personality actually is. When you actually take the time to listen to Vance speak in the many, many, many places he speaks, he is articulate, kind, and generally compassionate.
There is a reason Reason has to repeat the same few 3 and 6 year old, out-of-context quotes from Vance in order to "source" their "Vance is an authoritarian radical" narrative: because if you actually sit down and listen to him, he is nothing near that.
Vance is human, and he periodically jumps the curb and goes on rants, but among all the political figures out there- especially on the Right- he is probably the most rhetorically gifted and disciplined. And of course, that is why the Left hates him. They want to brand him as an obnoxious firebrand in the ilk of Trump precisely because they don't want the public to listen to him.
The reason everyone is freaking out about the debate today is the same reason they freaked out about Kamala's performance vs Trump and Biden's performance in his debate: The left's narrative falls apart the second people actually see the REAL FOOTAGE instead of the heavily curated spin that the media bubble attempts to induce.
Good summary.
^^
I am actually starting to wonder if the Mandela effect is working against Trump as well.
While I have seen him say some unsavory things, what I've personally witnessed isn't all that out of line with other bombastic public personalities, including politicians. And some of what I've heard secondhand has turned out to be misrepresented when I went back to check the context or entire quote. So it's possible Trump isn't nearly as bad as The Narrative has made him out to be.
"So it’s possible Trump isn’t nearly as bad as The Narrative has made him out to be."
I find it hard that anyone COULD be that bad. Literally Hitler seems like a misguided fellow compared to the narrative surrounding Trump.
According to JD Vance? The pre-rebranding Vance, of course.
Broad swaths of the internet—or maybe just the portion of the internet I occupy?—found him hot.
ffs
Chicks, amirite?
It works the other way too. Look at the enormous support Tulsi gets, and I don't just mean her bra.
THAT'S DIFFERENT.
I support Tulsi only for her views and leadership qualities...and I only used to get Playboy to read the articles.
lol
Should we remind people that Walz referred to him as "weird" and Democrats tried to claim he fucked a couch?
I can forgive. I cannot forget.
Obviously you can't do either. But you're a paleocon in the sunset age of Trumpist conservatism. You don't have access to anything but anger and denial.
It's not your fault, you were just born 150 years too late.
Ah, yes, Nelson once again asserts his belief in the Manifest Destiny of the communist utopia.
Libertarian utopia, thank you very much. The arc of history bends towards justice, after all. Is individual freedom and fiscal restraint too much to ask for?
You're Libertarian like Kamala Harris is a white man.
Sure, believing in individual liberty and fiscal responsibility is ... what? It sure isn't liberal or conservative.
The arc of history bends towards justice, after all.
History doesn’t have an arc, nor does it “bend towards justice.” MLK was a man, not a god.
Is individual freedom and fiscal restraint too much to ask for?
You side thinks "individual freedom" means "freedom to sexualize children." It's nothing more than a glittering generality, as is "fiscal restraint."
Theodore Parker probably said it first, but Martin Luther King said it most famously.
It doesn't really matter who said it. The idea is that immoral things will eventually be overcome by those who work towards change.
"You side thinks"
I'm not on a "side" because both major parties in America are deeply flawed with a lot terrible policies and compromised people. Picking one party over another is sheer idiocy.
What you have to do is look at your ideals, look at the two candidates, and decide which is more dangerous to the country.
Right now, the GOP's candidate is the most dangerous candidate in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon. His supply-side economic beliefs (aka a tax break for Trump) are awful, his belief in tariffs will give billions of dollars to the government (paid for with higher prices for consumers), his simplistic fantasies about making people safer by (among other things) allowing police to be as brutal as they were in the 70s and 80s are nonsense, his wall will cost billions and accomplish nothing (because ladders are a thing), his spending plans will explode the deficit ... and on and on and on.
It's not like Harris is great (and Biden was far, far worse), but in a choice between bad and catastrophic, bad wins.
"“individual freedom” means “freedom to sexualize children.”"
No, I'm not connected to the Catholic Church in any way. And there isn't an organization outside of NAMBLA that thinks the "freedom to sexualize children" is a freedom or a desirable thing. But you know this.
"It’s nothing more than a glittering generality, as is “fiscal restraint.”"
I've made detailed posts about the ways we could balance the budget, including specific ideas about reducing the cost of entitlement (the largest nondiscretionary cost in the budget), increasing revenue by eliminating tax loopholes, and supporting a flat tax.
But sure, repeated detailed posts about ways to balance the budget are "glittering generalities".
You sound angry.
No, just saddened that conservatism has been hijacked by paleocons. Hopefully we will get a more Reagan-like ideology once the present fever has passed.
No, just saddened that conservatism has been hijacked by paleocons. Hopefully we will get a more Reagan-like ideology once the present fever has passed.
There is no such thing as “conservatism” as your side sees it. There’s revolutionary, which is your side, and counter-revolutionary, which is ours. A “Reagan-like ideology” sounds nice in theory, and has been a disaster in practice, since to your side it just means "let the left do what they want and open the borders to mass immigration."
Not only is there such a thing as "conservatism", there are a number of different flavors and styles. Trumpism is just one, rather sickening, type of conservatism. Reagan was more focused on fiscal and business issues, plus pushing back forcefully against Communism. These are excellent priorities.
The idea that Reagan "let the left do what they want" is ridiculous. He was a dedicated conservative.
Do you think Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America was a secret anti-conservative plot, too?
"But you’re a paleocon in the sunset age of Trumpist conservatism."
No, you're a neocon in the sunset age of Bush "conservatism".
LOL! Bush was awful as President, although it appears he is a better human than his Presidency indicated. A lesser Jimmy Carter, but conservative.
LOL! Bush was awful as President, although it appears he is a better human than his Presidency indicated.
What are you talking about, he represents the "go along to get along" type of "conservatism" that you support.
The conservative positions I support surround balanced budgets, pro-small business and pro-capitalist policies, and entitlement reform. He was an evangelical warmonger. There was pretty much nothing about President Bush that I liked.
But now that he isn't compromised by politics any more, it appears he is a decent human being.
"Obviously you can’t do either."
In addition to not knowing who donates to Act Blue, Nelson ALSO does not understand the difference between forgiving and forgetting.
The list grows.
I forgive you for your numerous inaccuracies and illogical comments. I just will not forget you made them.
You know, like a wife who FORGIVES her husband for father a child with her own child's nanny. But she won't ever FORGET it.
Yeah, identifying political ideology through what the person says to others is such a bad way to determine beliefs.
Donating paper clips to an anti-Trump group is a much more rational way to do it. Especially for two people who felt so angry and betrayed by Trump that they tried to kill him.
Don't change, Mike. You are perfect the way you are.
Yup, the Left referring to Trump as an existential threat to the country could not POSSIBLY lead to some nutbars trying to kill people.
That is silly talk, of course.
Had to be a policy dispute.
Waltz found him hot too.
That is one severely closeted man.
...and looking at his wife, cannot fault him.
his 4th & 5th grade school pics anyway ...
The beard is doing some work for him. Look up what he looks like clean shaven.
No swath of the internet found tampon Timmy hot. Or lukewarm.
Just a lying commie.
The key thing that Vance accomplished was demonstrating that you can behave on a national stage in a manner that restores pre-Trump standards of political conduct while persisting in Trumpish political heterodoxies...
Politically deadly combo.
It is. The 2028 Republican primary between Vance and DeSantis will either be a popcorn-eating show or a pity-inducing beatdown of DeSantis, depending on whether or not Ron can find a palatable personality in the next four years.
Maybe if western North Carolina was staunchly blue...or illegal aliens...
----------------
President Biden told reporters there was nothing more that he could do for the people of Western North Carolina.
Reporter: "Do you have any words to the victims of the hurricane?"
Biden: "We've given everything that we have."
Reporter "Are there any more resources the federal government could be giving them?"
Biden: "No."
Joe is out of money.
Is it too late to put a stop on that check he wrote to Zelensky?
Or Joe doesn't want to do anything that he can't skim 10% off the top.
That will teach them for not being arms manufacturers or the Ukraine.
There is a meme floating around showing that North Carolina changed its flag to mimic that of Ukraine so it would be more attractive to Biden for funding.
Remember when Rand Paul went asking for flood relief and they ridiculed him for even asking? You paid into disaster relief schemes time after time for higher-risk coastal communities and, despite your own protests, the one time your state in a low-risk bin actually has a disaster you have the audacity to hypocritically come asking for some money after all the complaining (and giving) you did?
Again I say, we've fooled ourselves into the illusion that not shooting each other in duels or punching each other in the face for such vile deceptions means we're civilized.
Guess Slow Joe's leaving his supporters in Asheville hanging on hope that their red-voting neighbors and Tesla Man Bad will help them out.
...interrupting JD Vance as he was rebutting a misleading D talking point from Margaret Brennan, who a) isn't supposed to debate the candidates and b) shut off his mic rather than allow his true statements
it is with a heavy heart that i must announce that the moderators were at it again.
Nobody saw it coming.
"as he was rebutting a misleading D talking point"
Yeah, damn that reality. It keeps saying Vance is full of shit when, in fact, he's a paragon of truth and honesty. Remember the Hatians eating cats? Unassailably honest, that Vance.
Remember Waltz lying about his military service? His time in China? His own abortion bil?
Hell, Remember Nelson telling us the Assassins were Conservatives?
His take was White Mike retard level.
As long as the Haitians aren't eating the wild turduckens swimming in the HO2, Nelson and Mike Laursen don't care.
Yeah, determining the political beliefs of someone based on their espoused beliefs and voting record is so dumb. $15 donations to an anti-Trump group is so much more convincing than silly things like ideology.
Yeah, JD Vance won the debate. He was much more prepared and polished for it. Walz started off very slow, looking very nervous, and never really went much further than repeating talking points. The one good point for Walz was that he did push Vance a little bit on the whole "stolen election" crap and Vance refused to denounce it. But then again Vance changed the subject and Walz let him. Walz is just a dumber version of Kamalama.
So you’re saying that Kamala is like Pluggo and Walz is like you?
Oooo sick burn!
Why don't you stick to pimping for Putin and Orban. Isn't it your turn in the barrel?
Poor Jeff.
Evil, lying Jeff.
Still mad you couldn’t have MAPedo camp next to the children’s camp?
Poor Ped..er..Jeffy.
You gaslighting marxist cunts still refuse to explain the 2am ballot dumps that were 95%+ for Biden in multiple districts and well outside any other data point. But please, continue lying you DNC shill.
The graph of the 2020 late night ballots look like the ones that suddenly came in during the recent election in Venezuela.
Maduro even copied their media playbook word for word after it happened. That's what made the whole thing so hilarious.
That was the second cleanest election ever.
DNC is suing GA for requiring a recounted of the total number of received votes before they start counting the votes. It is amazing how obvious they are. Jeff even was against the total number of votes recieved when I posted the story.
Here you go. Info about the so-called "2am ballot dumps".
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-vote-spikes-in-wisconsin-michigan-and-pennsylvania-do-not-prove-ele-idUSKBN27Q304/
Summary: the "ballot dumps" were not all at the same time, and they occurred when the absentee ballot returns of large urban areas were reported. These large urban areas tilt heavily to Team Blue. It was not fraud. It is what happens when an entire urban left-wing county reports their votes all at once.
Jesus, man. It has been proved over and over that there was nothing unusually aberrant about the 2020 election. Your guy lost. Build a bridge and get over it.
...more than anything it was a proving ground for Vance, who showed that he has a lot of potential (for better or worse) as the heir to Trumpism.
Opportunistic Trumpism. But what did the debate show us about Walz?
He is a self admitted knucklehead?
Inconvenient video for the jeffsarcs and open border acolytes. Agency tracks down children smuggled across the border and interviews them. Told of what they were forced to do from labor to being a drug mule. Crossing back and forth as false family units multiple times. The stuff people already know but from the mouths of those involved.
https://x.com/realmuckraker/status/1838955113718722583
Do you know what would really cut down on human trafficking?
Making it easier for peaceful migrants to come and go across the border.
That way, there is no need for deception and illegal trafficking to come here, and the border patrol can focus on the real problem, the non-peaceful migrants who don't want to be caught.
Or a nice wall.
Yeah, a multibillion dollar wall in a world full of ladders. That should really do the trick. Especially with the vast majority of drugs and illegal immigrants coming through at ports of entry.
Can we please stop throwing money away for politically advantageous, but ineffective, actions? Please?
Especially with the vast majority of drugs and illegal immigrants coming through at ports of entry.
Nice lie. The vast majority which is intercepted are caught in places where there's actually border enforcement... Who could've possibly guessed?
Ah, the "there's no evidence for my position, but I'll refuse to accept anything else" approach. Vapid, but depressingly common from your flavor of paleocon.
Do you know what would cut down on muggings? Giving the muggers what they want without question.
Do you know what would cut down on rapes...
Being a real rape victim is probably every bit as awful as it sounds. To then have your claims doubted because so many women wake up to a drunken regret and claim to also be rape victims is just rubbing salt in the wounds, but at least it's understandable. Mattress girl and others like that are infinitely worse, since they lie just to score political points.
If they say they are sorry it isn’t rape. Ask Jeff.
What if they just ejaculate on a person?
Oooo hilarious! I never said "it's not rape if they say they are sorry", that is you lying again. Why don't you tell us how much you are committed to fair standards of justice for all people, including migrants accused of crimes. You seem terribly insistent that Trump, and Jan. 6 convicts, are the victims of a grave miscarriage of justice, yet you don't seem to give a shit about anyone else suffering in this way. Why is that? Why is it okay to throw the book at migrants, but to give the benefit of the doubt to Jan. 6 rioters?
Let me know when Border Patrol starts shooting border jumpers in the face.
Meanwhile, the vast, vast majority of J6 folks seemed to be guilty of little more than trespassing. Book them on that, let them pay the fine and move on.
"Book them on that, let them pay the fine and move on."
And not even force them to write fealty statements? Where is the fun in that?
"Meanwhile, the vast, vast majority of J6 folks seemed to be guilty of little more than trespassing. Book them on that, let them pay the fine and move on."
In a perfect world they would have shot a lot more violent rioters in the face as they smashed their way into the Capitol. Alas, they chose restraint.
This is how we know there's not a libertarian cell in your body. Democrat jackboot thug.
"This is how we know there’s not a libertarian cell in your body"
What, you think defending the Capitol against a violent mob isn't libertarian? Why, because the violent mob was full of conservatives?
Opposing a violent mob isn't anti-libertarian.
In a perfect world, Ron DeSantis would take your pederast boos at Disney out to the wall and put a bullet through their skulls. Alas, he chose restraint.
So in your mind grabbing random, innocent people off the street and executing them is the exact same as defending the Capitol against a violent mob?
Considering the source, that tracks.
Be because the illegals were the ones doing the rape thing.
Chemjeff sure is in a rage today.
He’s probably pissy his 55-gallon drums of Ben & Jerry’s are delayed by the port strike.
Also not rape if they only jack off onto the victim while she is being raped by others.
Except rape is a violation of the victim's rights. Crossing a border without government permission does not violate anyone's rights per se.
Making it easier for peaceful migrants to come and go across the border.
Or border enforcement.
But tell us more about these American illegals sneaking into Mexico.
It is the same dynamic as the drug war. If you want to cut down on the violence and illegal activity associated with the drug trade, you can either (a) hire more cops and throw more people in cages, which will just escalate the violence and the illegal activity, or (b) legalize drugs, thereby taking away the underground black market associated with the drug trade and hence the violence.
Your choice.
Nice binary offering, but how about building a wall? A big beautiful wall. Would that work?
Well, probably not, what with tampon Timmys huge investments in 30 foot ladder infrastructure and all.
Making it easier for peaceful migrants to come and go across the border.
Sounds like they have a pretty easy time of it currently.
Some even get free flights!
And then when they get here, they get free healthcare, free cell phones, housing, food, transportation all on the American taxpayers! What a deal for them, and with zero negatives for the US.
There's a big fucking difference between wanting to live in America and wanting to be an American. The former is simply exploitative of the taxpayers and citizens, bringing that little bit of your shithole countries with you so you don't feel too homesick, or god forbid, learn to speak English.
"This is a nation — not a polyglot boarding house.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.
"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.
Damn, you’re retarded, Jeff. You know what else would work on those who commit human trafficking? Arresting the traffickers themselves, giving them hefty jail sentences and fines (yes, both), and maybe even the death penalty, as severe as that might seem. Human trafficking needs to be discouraged, dissuaded, and destroyed at every point and turn. And yes, asshole, that includes people like the mayor of Springfield, Ohio.
"Damn, you’re retarded, Jeff."
He's more dishonest than retarded. He will say absolutely anything to defend Democratic party narratives.
"what would really cut down on human trafficking?"
Shooting human traffickers in the face? I bet that would work on at least some of them.
Walz suggested [in a House hearing in 2014] that he was in the then-British colony of Hong Kong in May 1989, but he appears to have been in Nebraska.
Well, he remembers he stood in front of a row of tanks somewhere.
Was he sitting on the tail end of the first tank looking back at his comrades?
Driving, Mr. Dukakis.
Well, he remembers he stood in front of a row of tanks
somewhereof beer.Tragically he suffered a head injury when he was arrested for marching in Alabama with Nelson Mandela. Hasn't been the same since.
Thought he was busy inventing the internet with Al Gore.
"The moderators appeared to be pretty staunchly biased in favor of Walz"
Did anyone expect the moderators to follow their own rules? You really can't hate the media enough.
Why are the homes scarce? There is not a fixed supply of homes. We can build enough homes!
Someone hasn't priced OSB lately.
It's not that expensive. The whole package sure is, though. Concrete, windows, doors, labor, insurance, hvac, electrical, and plumbing are still extremely expensive.
The NIMBY homeowners who don't want higher supply because it will lower housing prices certainly don't help. Which is why liberals support subsidies and rent control, because it doesn't touch the value of the house they own.
The rhetorical gymnastics necessary to ignore supply/demand and basic capitalist solutions would be fascinating to watch if it weren't so devastating to low- and middle-income families.
We did find out last night however that JD Vance doesn't really like the law as it is written when it comes to immigration, because he refuses to acknowledge that the migrants from Haiti in Springfield are here LEGALLY. To the Vance's out there, the ONLY legal way to come to this country is via the green card process. I am sure that is what Vance & co. WANT the law to say, but that is not what the law actually says.
It’s “legal” if you call it legal.
Or if the law says it is.
"the migrants from Haiti in Springfield are here LEGALLY."
The subject was illegals in general, but look at Kkkemjeff try and add a condition himself, Springfield, and then call Vance the liar.
Vance specifically referenced the migrants in Springfield, fifty-center.
Explain how this was about Springfield: "You've got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes,"
He also has no criticism of the federal funds paying for their rents and housing even if legal.
That was about the biggest "you aren't making the point you think you are" moment I've seen in a debate in a while.
Illegal immigrants aren't a large enough group to drive up prices in most places, but the lack of supply is a huge inflationary force everywhere.
If he could have focused on the actual problem instead of trying to inject illegal immigration into everything it would have been encouraging. Alas.
Illegal immigrants aren’t a large enough group to drive up prices in most places, but the lack of supply is a huge inflationary force everywhere.
They are when you drop 15K of them in a town of 50K in two years.
Three years, dropping them into a city that used to have twice as many residents and has enough housing for a lot more.
When new people come to a dying town, there is usually plenty of housing to go around. Like in this case.
Of course, I'm sure the landlords and homeowners hated to recover some of the loss in property value that living in a dying town caused. I know that would have made me so, so, so mad!
Tell us, chemfat, when you increase the supply of people who increase the demand on housing, and housing prices increase, does that mean that not allowing those people in would have reduced the demand on housing?
He did reference Springfield. But I don't see anything in his words here that justify your assertions, except for the observation that at least some of the alien residents in Springfield are under TPS was not conveyed. OTOH, once he said "millions" it's clear he no longer talking just about Springfield but about the larger issue of millions of illegal aliens.
JDV: Look, Margaret, first of all, the gross majority of what we need to do at the southern border is just empowering law enforcement to do their job. I've been to the southern border more than our Border czar, Kamala Harris has been. And it's actually heartbreaking because the Border Patrol Agents, they just want to be empowered to do their job. Of course, additional resources would help. But most of this is about the President and the Vice President empowering our law enforcement to say, "If you try to come across the border illegally, you've got to stay in Mexico, you've got to go back through proper channels." Now, Governor Walz brought up the community of Springfield, and he's very worried about the things that I've said in Springfield. Look, in Springfield, Ohio and in communities all across this country, you've got schools that are overwhelmed, you've got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes. The people that I'm most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris's open border. It is a disgrace, Tim. And I actually think, I agree with you. I think you want to solve this problem, but I don't think that Kamala Harris does.
Ask Jeff to show where the BPOne app is empowered by law and not executive fiat.
Where does the law *explicitly* permit the government to establish a website? Maybe the entire .gov domain is illegal!
Idiot.
Mussolini and Hitler became dictators legally. The 1933 Enabling Act made every diktat from Hitler legal legislation.
I do not think that word works the way you say you want it to work, although it does work the way you want it to work.
Yeah, sure. Technically correct. Does seem like a lot of abuse and misapplication of the asylum program, though. Are they all going to leave if their asylum applications are rejected?
Current deportation rate for denied applications is under 10%
I absolutely agree that there is a lot of abuse of the asylum system. That is because the legal immigration system is so fucked up. If legal immigration were easier, then there would be less of a need to try to abuse the asylum system.
I'm all for that as well. Here's a question, though. Do you think there is a limit to what the US as a whole should accept for immigration rates? In principle I've always been for more open immigration. But I also don't think it's unreasonable for people to object to levels of immigration that cause significant social and economic disruption. If I were in charge, I would get rid of asylum completely except for very specific cases where people are in harms way because of the US government (e.g. people who worked with the military in Afghanistan) and open immigration more for people who actually have a job lined up or the means to support themselves.
There's absolutely no need to import poverty. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are unskilled, many are illiterate (in their native languages even) and un/undereducated, and a not insignificant portion are criminals no one (except Jeff) wants to be here.
If we didn't have a welfare state, I'd be okay with a more open-borders approach. If you emigrate to America and can't support yourself, you'd self deport back to your home country, or a country that is a welfare state. The masses that came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were not given out handouts from taxpayer funds. What most people don't realize is that many, perhaps more than half, of those who came over during the Ellis Island days eventually returned to their home countries because they couldn't make it in America where they had much less of the support system of family and friends they had in their home countries.
So would I. So would many people here. But Jeff demands that we accept them all while we have a welfare state...sure he sometimes mewls about getting rid of the welfare state, but opening the borders has to be first. For me and I suspect many other here, getting rid of the welfare state first, then we're fine with opening the borders.
getting rid of the welfare state first, then we’re fine with opening the borders.
I view this as a bad faith request for a few reasons:
1. It is highly unlikely that the welfare state will be going away any time in our lifetimes, so asking for freer migration "when the welfare state goes away" might as well be asking for freer migration "when pigs fly".
2. The cost to the welfare state incurred by migrants is TINY compared to all of the other outrageous costs that the government incurs, including the cost of the welfare state to CITIZENS. Meanwhile, the cost of the entire immigration/border control apparatus, both in terms of dollars AND in terms of all of our liberties, is LARGE. Why do we have to prove to the state that we are legal residents in order to get a job? Why does the state arrogate unto itself a 50-mile buffer zone at the border in which it is free to violate our liberties when on the hunt for the illegulz? Why do migrants have to suffer the indignity of being thrown in a cage for the 'crime' of seeking better economic opportunities for themselves and their families? How many people die from human traffickers profiting in the smuggling of migrants to the border because the War on Migration, just like the War on Drugs, enriches the criminal element?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_San_Antonio_migrant_deaths
3. The primary mission of the government ought to be to protect and preserve our liberties. What you are arguing, is that the government should continue to actively restrict our liberty of free association, because it continues to restrict our liberties in terms of taxation to fund the welfare state. Why does one violation of liberty by the state justify another violation of our liberties? In what other issue would this even be a reasonable argument? Are we libertarians now going to argue "let's keep drugs illegal while the welfare state exists, otherwise those druggies are just going to loaf around on welfare"? No, that argument shouldn't fly in that context and it shouldn't fly in this context either.
I don't think it's so much the spending as the perverse incentives it creates.
So there are NO, ZERO illegals in Springfield? Maybe Vance was talking about them?
Even if they suddenly transformed from legal to illegal immigrants, they still wouldn't be eating pets.
The levels of lying Vance achieved and the layers of lies in that short assertion is pretty impressive, in an "honesty is for suckers" way.
We’ve been over this, Jeff. Things have gotten out of control, and now the pendulum is swinging the other way. Best for you to make peace with that. These things happen.
How many is too many, Jeff? Just give us a number.
"J.D. Vance won last night's debate"
Awwwwwwwww did Walz fail to make the case for the Koch / Reason open borders agenda like Boehm hoped he would? 🙁
You'd think the first thing they'd drill into his mind in debate prep was to stress that Bidenomics is working because the borders are loose and billionaires are getting *much* richer.
More than 38 container vessels were already backed up at U.S. ports by Tuesday, compared with just three on Sunday before the [longshoremen] strike...
They do better union-quality work when they're not on the job!
So when do we get to see a giant inflatable rat outside every port on the east coast?
For $50B -- chump change, really -- we could give them each $1M to retire in 5 years while we spend some multiple of that to fully automate all the ports.
DID SKYNET WRITE THIS TWEET???
5 years from now you won’t be able to retire on $1 million.
Or now depending on where you're willing/not willing to move.
The real question is: "We who?" Why should "we" give those whiny shits anything but a quick trip in a container bound for China?
What of it?
AFL has a thread on how Biden Harris has turned FEMA into a welfare giveaway for illegals.
https://x.com/America1stLegal/status/1840862874203197691
America First Legal
@America1stLegal
·
Sep 30
/2 The Shelter and Services Program is designed to exclusively provide shelter and services to illegal aliens.
Over $1 BILLION in taxpayer dollars have been allocated between FY2023 and FY2024.
America First Legal
@America1stLegal
·
Sep 30
/4 Moreover, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program has been reshaped to provide funding to “families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security” – aka illegal aliens.
This is a SEPARATE program.
$685 MILLION has been allocated to fund illegal aliens.
It’s for financing food trucks. Those 22” rims aren’t cheap.
/2 The Shelter and Services Program is designed to exclusively provide shelter and services to illegal aliens.
Over $1 BILLION in taxpayer dollars have been allocated between FY2023 and FY2024.
Yes that's right, and it is entirely your team's fault, Jesse.
Here is the full description of one of the SSP grant programs:
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_gpd-fy-2024-ssp-competitive-nofo_amended.pdf
From this document, p. 6:
To summarize: The DHS holding facilities for the illegal immigrants are full, so the government is instead paying non-governmental organizations, via this competitive grant process, to take care of them on the government's behalf. This is what happens when you insist on rounding them all up. They have to go somewhere, and they have to be taken care of in some way. You can't let them starve to death or die of treatable medical conditions. So the government pays for it while the migrants are in the government's custody.
This is the result of your policy preferences, Jesse. The so-called "open borders crowd" around here would prefer that the government NOT pay for these facilities, because the migrants wouldn't be rounded up in the first place - the peaceful ones would be free to come and go, and only the very few who failed a background check or had some terrible disease would be detained.
This government spending is entirely on your team, pal. Who knew mass deportation cost money!
"noncitizen migrants"
Idiot.
Believe it or not, not every noncitizen migrant is an 'illegal alien'.
Redundant.
EVERY migrant is a noncitizen or they wouldn't be called migrants.
The goal of SSP is the safe, orderly, and humane release of noncitizen migrants from DHS short-term holding facilities. The objectives are to… temporarily provide shelter, food, transportation, acute medical care, personal hygiene supplies, and labor necessary to provide these services.
To summarize: The DHS holding facilities for the illegal immigrants are full
Gosh, and how did that happen?
How did they wind up in DHS detention facilities? Because your team insisted that people who cross the border without government permission should be locked up in a cage. That’s how.
And if they are going to be locked up in a government cage, they will require government resources to make sure they are treated humanely. That is the "welfare for illegals" that you all are complaining about now.
What would you prefer - round them all up, throw them in a cage, and then let them starve?
How did they wind up in DHS detention facilities? Because your team insisted that people who cross the border without government permission should be locked up in a cage. That’s how.
No, our team insisted they be sent back across the border. Your team didn't want that, since you don't think borders are an actual thing, so you get the holding pens instead.
Suppose the Border Patrol apprehends migrants who are dehydrated, starving, or sick. What should the Border Patrol do - send them back in that same state?
Again, my preference is that the Border Patrol not have to provide any assistance to peaceful migrants at all, because they are free to come and go as they please. So they are never in the custody of the government in the first place. It's your team which insists that they be placed in the custody of the government, and unless you want them to starve and die while in custody, they are going to require government resources to be taken care of.
Suppose the Border Patrol apprehends migrants who are dehydrated, starving, or sick. What should the Border Patrol do – send them back in that same state?
Yes. The US doesn’t owe them a thing, your assertions to the contrary. It’s called a border for a reason, and fuck your leftist appeal to emotion about stupid shit like “compassion.”
Again, my preference is that the Border Patrol not have to provide any assistance to peaceful migrants at all, because they are free to come and go as they please.
Yes, we know you don’t believe in borders at all. That’s the marxism asserting itself.
It’s your team which insists that they be placed in the custody of the government
No, fat boy, my team doesn't want them allowed in at all. No custody required if you send them back immediately. It's your team that enables custody to happen because you're stupid enough to believe the US can take in the entire world's population with no negative results whatsoever.
Yes. The US doesn’t owe them a thing
Yeah they do, it is a basic standard of care. When they are in government custody, they have a duty to care for them while they are in custody, because they are unable to care for themselves at that point.
Yes, we know you don’t believe in borders at all.
Oh I do believe in borders, I just don't think borders are a legitimate excuse to start violating people's rights.
Yeah they do, it is a basic standard of care.
No they don't, they aren't citizens.
When they are in government custody, they have a duty to care for them while they are in custody, because they are unable to care for themselves at that point.
So don't let them in, and you don't have to worry about custody. Tell us, why does this "duty to care" extend to providing them with free housing and government bennies long after they aren't in custody anymore?
Oh I do believe in borders, I just don’t think borders are a legitimate excuse to start violating people’s rights.
Not allowing people to enter a country isn't violating their rights.
No they don’t, they aren’t citizens.
They are human beings. If the state imprisons someone, so that the prisoner is unable to take care of him/herself, then the state has a minimal duty of care to make sure that prisoner doesn't starve. It is the same with incarcerated prisoners.
Good luck trying to convince the general public that it's okay if the government permits migrants to starve and die while in their custody.
Not allowing people to enter a country isn’t violating their rights.
It violates the rights of citizens to freely associate with individuals of their choosing on their own property.
So don’t let them in
No one is "letting" them in. They try to come in, and they are apprehended. Do you actually think it is possible to build a border enforcement system that is so robust, nobody can cross the border without permission? At all ports of entry, even airports?
So, uh, Jeffy, if customs tells you that you cannot cross the US-Canada border because you failed to present a valid passport, passport card, or enhanced driver’s license, is that violating your rights?
“No one is “letting” them in. They try to come in, and they are apprehended.”
How stupid do you think people are? Apprehension doesn’t mean a plane flight or bus ride to anywhere in the US you want to go, and then a paycheck and free living expenses while Bidenistas like yourself tell them where to go vote this fall.
Jeff gives away the game here. He thinks it is a right to have others give you food, shelter, money, etc.
"They are human beings"
So was Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan.
I hope your not calling these poor innocent miGrANtS Hitler, Jeffy.
“Jeff gives away the game here. He thinks it is a right to have others give you food, shelter, money, etc.”
Jeff has said many times here that he is not a libertarian, so zero surprises.
The Austrian painter and his merry band of einsatzgruppen were migrants into France, the Netherlands, Poland, and the Soviet Union. And look how that turned out. We should see if Jeff has a newsletter to which we can subscribe.
“They are human beings”
So was Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan.
So migrants are Nazis and communists now? You are just beclowning yourself.
He thinks it is a right to have others give you food, shelter, money, etc.
If the migrants are IN GOVERNMENT CUSTODY, then yes. Just like the government has a duty to feed incarcerated prisoners. Because they are UNABLE to take care of themselves.
If you don't like it, then just let the migrants be free to cross the border as they wish, don't make the Border Patrol detain them, and therefore no obligation by the government to feed them. Easy peasy!
Jeff has said many times here that he is not a libertarian
lol more of your gaslighting bullshit. I do consider myself a libertarian, but not the Mises Caucus type.
They are human beings.
That doesn't mean they're owed anything. This is just an appeal to emotion.
It violates the rights of citizens to freely associate with individuals of their choosing on their own property.
Yes, you've already made it clear that you're one of those Sovereign Citizen retards who don't believe in borders. Meanwhile, in the real world, actual nations enforce who can enter and who can't, irrespective of your glittering generalities.
No one is “letting” them in.
Biden and Mayorkas have been doing so for the last 3.5 years.
"So migrants are Nazis and communists now?"
Actually this is what I said, kkkemjeff radical prevaricator:
"“They are human beings”
So was Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan.
I hope your not calling these poor innocent miGrANtS Hitler, Jeffy."
So were you calling the migrants Hitler, Lying Jeffy? Or am I using the same shit sophistry that you do?
"lol more of your gaslighting bullshit. I do consider myself a libertarian, but not the Mises Caucus type."
I have a link my home PC where you say otherwise. I can hardly wait to post it tonight.
That doesn’t mean they’re owed anything.
So you don't believe in the concept of human rights at all?
The government refusing to feed incarcerated prisoners, that's okay with you?
So you don’t believe in the concept of human rights at all?
Not the way you’re framing it, no. You obligate American citizens with responsibilities they don’t have.
The government refusing to feed incarcerated prisoners, that’s okay with you?
If this was a country with balls, at least 1/3 of the people in prisons would have been deleted already.
Did you buy enough stock in straw, Jeffy?
He may have plenty of straws from Wendys value meals.
THOSE ARE KILLING THE PLANET!!!
"How did they wind up in DHS detention facilities?"
Noooo... That's not what I asking, is it Lying Jeffy. How did they get into the US illegally?
Did a certain someone decide to stop enforcing the border?
They crossed the border and were apprehended by the Border Patrol. Just as your team demanded. That is what "enforcing the border" means, you jackass.
Again, if the border wasn't being enforced, the DHS cages would be empty. They're not.
They crossed the border and were apprehended by the Border Patrol. Just as your team demanded. That is what “enforcing the border” means, you jackass.
Why is "apprehension" the only option for border enforcement?
I would love to hear your idea of a border enforcement system that is so secure, nobody is ever apprehended at any port of entry, not even at airports.
Imagine a big beautiful wall that hadn’t been stopped by countless lawsuits from Democrats who were being paid by evil globalist billionaires.
Then migrants would just scale the wall or tunnel under the wall. Or try to get here by boat or plane instead.
And, in the meantime, you would be making the human traffickers EVEN RICHER because they could charge a higher premium for smuggling people across the border because it would be more expensive to do so.
If you all REALLY don’t want more migrants to come here, the only surefire way to make that happen is to convince them not to try to come here in the first place.
Then migrants would just scale the wall or tunnel under the wall. Or try to get here by boat or plane instead.
Yes, yes, people will break laws, so there's no point in ever enforcing those laws.
Is that why your team gets so aggravated by broken windows policing, because it shows that enforcement mitigates crime, and then tries to degrade those policies by arguing that it doesn't stop 100% of all crime?
What’s the deal with “migrant”?
Even a year ago, even leftists were still fine with saying “immigrant” but now that seems to be uncool, saying it signals you as a nazi, I guess. Jeff has fully embraced it; I would bet if you go back to his posts from years ago, he would be saying "immigrant" all the time.
Even with "broken windows policing", there are still broken windows.
You are complaining that there are migrants apprehended AT ALL, that the government has to spend money on while they are being detained. If you don't want the government to spend ANY money on migrants being detained, then that logically means that there are NO apprehensions at all. What kind of border security system do you imagine that is so robust, that nobody is ever caught crossing a port of entry illegally, even ports of entry like airports?
“Then migrants would just scale the wall or tunnel under the wall. Or try to get here by boat or plane instead.”
Lol. Scale or tunnel or fly. Would that lead to 2.6 million people a year digging a tunnel?
You’re not even trying.
“And, in the meantime, you would be making the human traffickers EVEN RICHER because they could charge a higher premium for smuggling people across the border because it would be more expensive to do so.”
So? If it's an expensive pain-in-the-ass that might lead more people to take the legal route.
“the only surefire way to make that happen is to convince them not to try to come here in the first place.”
With free food, housing and medical and $2k a month in pocket money, right?
Even with “broken windows policing”, there are still broken windows.
LOL, talk about proving my point:
Is that why your team gets so aggravated by broken windows policing, because it shows that enforcement mitigates crime, and then tries to degrade those policies by arguing that it doesn’t stop 100% of all crime?
If you don’t want the government to spend ANY money on migrants being detained, then that logically means that there are NO apprehensions at all.
False dilemma. Not allowing them to enter in the first place is also a policy.
LOL, talk about proving my point:
YOU are the one complaining about ANY money being spent on expenses associated with detaining migrants. The only way for there to be ZERO money spent on detaining migrants, is if there are no migrants to detain. It's pretty simple logic.
Not allowing them to enter in the first place is also a policy.
How do you plan on doing this? That is what I've continually asked you but you refuse to answer. Probably because you know as well as I do that it is impossible to stop migration completely. EVEN NORTH KOREA has the occasional person who successfully escapes. So what you have in mind would have to be something that is even more strict than even the most militarized border in the world. What is that?
YOU are the one complaining about ANY money being spent on expenses associated with detaining migrants. The only way for there to be ZERO money spent on detaining migrants, is if there are no migrants to detain. It’s pretty simple logic.
YOU are the one saying EVERY migrant needs to be let in. The only way for there to be ZERO money spent on migrants, is if migrants aren't allowed to be let in. It's pretty simple logic.
How do you plan on doing this? How do you plan on doing this? That is what I’ve continually asked you but you refuse to answer. Probably because you know as well as I do that it is impossible to stop migration completely.
Another false dilemma. You claim that since immigration can't be stopped 100%, so migration shouldn't be prevented at all. By your logic, laws against murder shouldn't be in place, because it's impossible to stop murder completely.
This is why you open borders, "foreigners first, citizens last" freaks should never be allowed a voice in functional society.
I would love to hear your idea of a border enforcement system that is so secure, nobody is ever apprehended at any port of entry, not even at airports.
Is that why your team gets so aggravated by anything that will actually strengthen border enforcement and limit immigration?
They crossed the border
This part wasn't the problem, right? Cutting down Texas's fence and opening portions of Trump's wall. The real problem was being aPprEheNdeD after.
Of course having buses waiting to pick them up at the border, and take them to wherever they want, and then register them for a free house, free food, free clothes and free healthcare sounds like the clown world version of being aPprEheNdeD to me.
I guess if migrants are apprehended, they should just be thrown in a pit and left to starve, right?
Like it or not, migrants are LEGALLY ENTITLED to apply for asylum. And, again according to the law, asylum applicants can't just be thrown in a cage and left to rot. What do you think ought to happen to asylum applicants?
Tell them, "you don't deserve to enter here just because you traveled thousands of miles across multiple countries to do so." Allowing them to game the system is Soros-level subversion.
So you think the government should break the law and not permit migrants to apply for asylum?
Do you think the kkkemjeff should be allowed to twist the truth and conflate border jumpers with refugees?
So you think the government should break the law and not permit migrants to apply for asylum?
Not when they've crossed thousands of miles and multiple countries, no. Unless you want to argue that all of Latin America is a violent shithole that no one should inhabit, which is the logical implication of your "let anyone who wants to enter the country come in" open borders policy.
Not when they’ve crossed thousands of miles and multiple countries, no.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
Again, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, the "safe third country" rule only applies to nations with which the US has a "bilateral or multilateral agreement". And the only nation with which the US has such an agreement, is Canada.
So you want the government to break the law and refuse to permit them to apply for asylum based on an illegal reading of the law.
So much for "enforcing the law". You want the government to BREAK the law in order to achieve your agenda.
conflate border jumpers with refugees
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
Again, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, a "border jumper" is just as much entitled to apply for asylum as any other migrant.
Do you want the government to break the law and deny "border jumpers" the opportunity to apply for asylum?
I don’t give a fuck what the LAW says. Fuck the law. No country is under any obligation to take in everyone who wants to come here.
Do you want the government to break the law and deny “border jumpers” the opportunity to apply for asylum?
I want anyone you want to be let in, like child molesters, to not be let in.
"Like it or not, migrants are LEGALLY ENTITLED to apply for asylum"
No. That's refugees. Illegals aren't entitled to anything except a boot out the door.
Now, tell us all about the Mexican refugee crisis.
Yes. You are simply wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
That is a link to the actual law, not what you think the law is in your head.
To quote:
(2)Exceptions
(A)Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) b>in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.
Say Jeffy, is Mexico a place in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection?
Just as I said, the provision is for refugees. Did you think nobody would know better?
pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement
Where is the "bilateral or multilateral agreement" that covers Mexico with respect to the safe third country issue? It doesn't exist. That is what the LAW says.
Now, maybe you think that what constitutes a 'safe third country' for legal purposes should be "hey let's take a poll of the Reason comment forum and ask them", but that isn't how the law is written.
Do you want to follow the law, or not?
I don't know if you are correct about the 3rd safe country provision or not. But haven't you and sarc repeatedly claimed that if a law is unjust or immoral, you are free to violate it? You've justified the slew of migrants (whether illegal aliens, refugees, asylum seekers, etc.) crossing the border because our legal immigration system is too restrictive.
Well, let's apply that standard to the safe 3rd country aspect you constantly bring up. It's unjust for the US to have to just take it and shut up. I don't give a fuck if the US and Mexico, or Guatemala, or Venezuala, or any other country, have an bilateral agreement designating the other country as a safe country to deport them to. If we have no agreement with Mexico, et al, designating another country as a safe 3rd country, it would be unjust for Americans to have to absorb the 3rd world because open borders bureaucrats who have the same beliefs as you ensured we didn't have that agreement.
If you crossed over part of South America, all of Central America, and all of Mexico to come here illegally, you should be returned immediately to your home country, whether that home country wants it or not. If you are claiming asylum because the political leaders of your home country are persecuting you, but you crossed through a number of other countries on the way to the US, you should be returned to one of those countries, bilateral agreement or not.
Also, let's say we do change the law and we don't need a bilateral agreement with Columbia, for example, to send "asylum seekers" from Venezuela who crossed through Columbia back to Columbia. Would you suddenly be okay with it? Or would you still be against it? I suspect the latter would be true, showing that all your talk about the law requiring a bilateral agreement to send them back to a third safe country is obfuscation. You want them to be able to come in, and the law is not the real reason you oppose sending them back to a neutral country they crossed through.
I don’t know if you are correct about the 3rd safe country provision or not.
Well I gave you the literal text of the law. I don't know what else I would have to do to demonstrate it to you.
But haven’t you and sarc repeatedly claimed that if a law is unjust or immoral, you are free to violate it?
Sure. But if you are going to argue that it is moral to violate this law, you would first have to agree on the existence of this law in the first place! And that is what I have been trying to get across to the morons around here. They won't even accept that the law states what it actually states.
It’s unjust for the US to have to just take it and shut up.
I profoundly disagree. It is unjust for the government to continually and repeatedly violate all of our liberties, namely the liberty of free association. The government's first and foremost duty should be to protect our liberties, and in constructing this monstrosity of an immigration and border security program, they have instead used it as a tool to violate our rights.
because open borders bureaucrats who have the same beliefs as you ensured we didn’t have that agreement.
I would be willing to bet that the reason why there are no other third safe country agreements, is not because of "open borders bureaucrats", but because of the foreign governments themselves. If Mexico were to sign such an agreement, then THEY would be responsible for all of the migrants coming to THEIR southern border and they don't want that. For them, signing the agreement is all downside and no upside.
Also, let’s say we do change the law and we don’t need a bilateral agreement with Columbia, for example, to send “asylum seekers” from Venezuela who crossed through Columbia back to Columbia. Would you suddenly be okay with it?
Well, no. It was never my argument that I support the free migration of people because the law as currently written permits it. I support the free migration of people because it is an inherent part of our liberties which are a birthright for all human beings. As you say, when the law disagrees with what's right, it is permissible to violate the law.
In this discussion, I am trying to point out what the law *actually says*.
And they're encouraged to commit fraud by making a false claim in doing so by NGOs funded by Democrats and the federal government.
Jeff is lying. The facilities aren't even full. Mayorkas just admitted it.
From p. 5 of the document cited above:
Congress, which appropriated the money, determined that the facilities are overcrowded or “full”. Maybe Mayorkas should consult with Congress about whether the DHS facilities are really "full" or not.
Maybe Mayorkas should consult with Congress
Oh wow!
"They have to go somewhere, and they have to be taken care of in some way. You can’t let them starve to death or die of treatable medical conditions. So the government pays for it while the migrants are in the government’s custody.
Take them to the border and say "start walking" in whichever language is appropriate.
Again, what if, when the government apprehends the migrants, the migrants are already in a dehydrated or malnourished state. Then what? Tell them to "start walking" knowing that they will almost certainly die?
Here's some gatorade and a sandwich, you can eat & drink & rest while I drive you back to the border, but then you're gonna start walking.
Also, they've managed to walk 500 or 1000 miles to get across the border here, but NOW all of a sudden every single one of them is malnourished, dehydrated and on death's doorstep? Nah.
“They have to go somewhere”
Yes, they should go or be sent somewhere that isn’t the US.
“and they have to be taken care of in some way”
Not by us.
As shown by the irrational hatred heaped on me by the paleocons here, I am not their kind. But illegal immigrants don’t belong here. Period.
I support a lot of reforms, from locating asylum courts outside the US, to hiring more judges, to expanding seasonal worker visas (and creating a system that credits legal exit after a visa expires in the green card process), and more.
But funding illegal-specific facilities and organizations is not something we should ever accept.
If someone breaks into your house, telling them to leave and refusing to ask them to share your dinner isn’t unreasonable. Falsely conflating them with invited dinner guests is dishonest and indefensible.
It isn’t an invasion, but it shouldn’t be a screw-the-ones-who-followed-the-rules regime, either. The system is broken and, regardless of the empathy that decent people feel towards those fleeing their homeland, that empathy can’t redirect funds from those who play by the rules to those that don’t.
All immigrants aren’t illegal immigrants (which the hard right wants you to believe), but illegal immigrants aren’t the same as legal immigrants (which the hard left wants you to believe).
The legal status of an immigrant matters. A lot.
Oh, and by the way.
The folks at AFL are smart enough to know all this. They know that this "welfare for illegals" is unavoidable government spending as a result of their, and your, policy preferences of rounding them all up. And yet they continue to stoke the outrage of OMG GUBMINT SPENDING ON DA ILLEGULZ in order to scapegoat them and drive your anger against them.
They are manipulating you and playing on your fear with their deception. And you let them because you are a stupid moron.
is unavoidable government spending as a result of their, and your, policy preferences of rounding them all up.
Totally not because of opening the borders. Got it.
This kind of sophistry wouldn't trick a baby, Lying Jeffy.
That these migrants have been caught, and thrown into cages, and have exceeded the capacity of those cages, demonstrates that the borders are NOT "open".
Genuine "open borders" would mean that those DHS cages would be virtually EMPTY because the peaceful migrants would be traveling to and fro without consequence. Do you even understand that?
Genuine “open borders” would mean that those DHS cages would be virtually EMPTY because the peaceful migrants would be traveling to and fro without consequence. Do you even understand that?
So 15K "migrants" being dumped in a hinterland town of 50K people means the border is restricted?
I can't even understand how he can justify welfare spending without exposing himself as an open borders Democrat. Interviews with illegals have then admitting to coming due to what Jeff demands and defends they get in the form of welfare. That is why Jeff was against reducing illegal immigration in the first place.
He is a socialist. His open border demands are the same as what is listed at Marxist.org. he defends welfare usage taken from taxpayers and given to others for his preferred class of people.
Jeff is just a terrible person.
It is YOUR TEAM which is mischaracterizing this spending as "welfare" in order to scapegoat the migrants, which is in reality an inevitable consequence of YOUR POLICY PREFERENCES.
Again, once the Border Patrol apprehends a migrant, what do you want them to do? Let them starve? Let them die of dehydration? They have to be taken care of in some way if the Border Patrol is going to treat them with some minimal dignity. Guess what - that care COSTS MONEY. Falsely labeling it as "welfare" doesn't change the reality of the situation.
MY PREFERENCE is that the Border Patrol doesn't spend a dime on peaceful migrants, because they are free to come and go as they please. YOUR TEAM is the one insisting that this "welfare" be spent on the illegal immigrants.
It is YOUR TEAM which is mischaracterizing this spending as “welfare”
So government spending on people to give them free housing, food, and jobs isn't welfare if they aren't citizens?
This spending is as much "welfare" as government spending on prisoners in prison is "welfare".
Remind me again where prisoners are given a house outside, and $2k a month, and allowed to go wherever the fuck they want in the community.
And again, this type of sophistry wouldn't trick a baby. I hope you're not getting fifty-cents for it.
I see. So at this point you are just complaining about the amount of “welfare” spent on them, and not the principle of the matter. Fine. If we are going to go down this route of your team throwing peaceful migrants in cages, and peaceful migrants abusing the asylum system because your team refuses to make the normal immigration processes easier, then I don’t think the government should be spending a LOT of money on them either. The government ought to ensure a minimal standard of care for migrants who are in their custody, and if they are applying for asylum and therefore legally unable to work for a period of time, because of the asylum process rules, then the government should provide some means for the migrants to support themselves. Or – my preference – just let the migrants work legally, so the government doesn’t have to support them. Sound good to you?
This spending is as much “welfare” as government spending on prisoners in prison is “welfare”.
False analogy. You think they deserve free housing and government bennies just because they crossed the Rio Grande and whined about being oppressed. That has nothing to do with prisons.
You think they deserve free housing and government bennies just because they crossed the Rio Grande and whined about being oppressed.
Well, under the current rules, if a migrant applies for asylum, then that migrant is legally unable to work for a period of time. So for that period of time, government pays for the asylum applicant's living expenses. I would be in favor of asylum applicants having the legal ability to work from the very beginning, so that they don't need government assistance because they are prevented from working legally. Sound good to you?
"I see. So at this point you are just complaining about the amount of “welfare” spent on them, and not the principle of the matter."
Noooooo... I'm complaining about the amount of taxes wasted on them, AND the fact that they entered illegally.
"if they are applying for asylum and therefore legally unable to work for a period of time",/i>
... then they should go back to Mexico and wait because there is nothing there that necessitates waiting for aSyLuM in the USA.
Not even voting in the November election.
Well, under the current rules, if a migrant applies for asylum, then that migrant is legally unable to work for a period of time. So for that period of time, government pays for the asylum applicant’s living expenses. I would be in favor of asylum applicants having the legal ability to work from the very beginning, so that they don’t need government assistance because they are prevented from working legally. Sound good to you?
Nope. Nothing you propose should be implemented, because you're an open borders retard.
Nothing you propose should be implemented
Right, so this is just another form of the ad hominem fallacy – you argue against me not because of the content of my claims but because I’m the one making them. Maybe you should grow up and learn a little bit of intellectual honesty.
Right, so this is just another form of the ad hominem fallacy – you argue against me not because of the content of my claims but because I’m the one making them. Maybe you should grow up and learn a little bit of intellectual honesty.
You want child molesters to be able to claim refugee status. You're in no position to be claiming the high ground on anything here, you fat pederast.
Jeff loves his supposed ownership of language to try to win an argument. He, like all sea lions, demand everyone assume his definitions and baselines for an argument. It is an utterly dishonest demand. But Jeff is an utterly dishonest person.
This is a common technique taught in post modernist schools to force opponents to give up facts to which they disagree. An argumentative trick taught to non intelligent people to put parameters around an argument most conducive to their side.
Jeff loves his supposed ownership of language to try to win an argument.
No, that's your team. Chris Rufo even bragged about it.
Your team redefines "CRT" to mean "anything about race that we don't like".
Your team calculates "welfare" in the broadest and most misleading way in order to generate misleading narratives about how many immigrants are using welfare.
Your team is fully in the post-modernist camp at this point.
Your team redefines “CRT” to mean “anything about race that we don’t like”.
Your team definese CRT to mean "all white people are evil."
Your team calculates “welfare” in the broadest and most misleading way in order to generate misleading narratives about how many immigrants are using welfare.
Your team tries to claim that foreigners entering the country getting free government bennies isn't welfare. There's nothing "misleading" about that.
Your team redefines “CRT” to mean “anything about race that we don’t like”.
No. We define it as Nazi race theory with the villain swapped.
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic field focused on the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, social and political laws, and media. CRT also considers racism to be systemic in various laws and rules, not based only on individuals' prejudices.[1][2] ...
CRT is also used in sociology to explain social, political, and legal structures and power distribution as through a "lens" focusing on the concept of race"
I mean fuck, dude.
Somewhere north of 80% of all asylum claims are rejected, and many immigrants when questioned by reporters, etc. say their reason for coming to the US is to get a job. Economic opportunity is not a basis for asylum, many come from countries with no recognized need for refugee status.
When they claim asylum, they are perjuring themselves making fraudulent claims.
No surprise "Jerking off isn't rape" guy is in favor of fraud.
And the state department just last week admitted to funding NGOs that taught illegals how to lie to answers on asylum asks.
Somewhere north of 80% of all asylum claims are rejected, and many immigrants when questioned by reporters, etc. say their reason for coming to the US is to get a job.
You're right! This is because the 'usual' immigration system is such a shitshow. Here is a thought: let's make it easier for migrants to come here legally WITHOUT abusing the asylum system. Sound good?
So you're OK with the illegal aliens breaking the law (committing fraud by purposefully lying on their asylum application)?
I am okay with asylum applicants receiving their due process according to the law. All migrants are entitled to apply for asylum. If they commit fraud in that application, then they ought to be punished for that fraud, again according to fair standards of due process. But, we won't know if any fraud has been committed unless their application has received the due process that it is entitled to.
Apples and oranges. The Haitian migrants in Springfield are here legally because of the Temporary Protected Status program. Which has been the law for about 40 years now. They are here LEGALLY according to the immigration law that ACTUALLY EXISTS, not the fake one that is in your head.
So 15K “migrants” being dumped in a hinterland town of 50K people means the border is restricted?
Again you are comparing apples and oranges. These aren't random migrants caught crossing the border. Even still, they are known to the authorities and they were granted TPS status. Once again, totally open borders would mean that the government has no idea who is where because everyone can come and go as they please.
Again you are comparing apples and oranges. These aren’t random migrants caught crossing the border. Even still, they are known to the authorities and they were granted TPS status. Once again, totally open borders would mean that the government has no idea who is where because everyone can come and go as they please.
So you're claiming that an additional 15K residents in a town of 50K has had no negative repurcussions whatsoever?
Of course not.
But fuck 'em anyway, because MUH PRESHUS REFOOGEEEES, right?
They got that “temporary protected status” AFTER crossing into the US illegally, retard. Learn about how the system is used and abused instead of trying to find the answer at the bottom of that 55-gallon drum of Cracker Jackass mix.
Is it your assertion that each and every Haitian in Springfield Ohio is a TPS refugee? That there are no illegals?
Why is immediately deporting people who cross the border illegally not an option?
Suppose the Border Patrol picks up some migrants on a Friday evening. They still have to be tended to in the meantime. They may be dehydrated, starving, or sick. And if Mexico is not their home country, then they have to be deported to wherever they are supposed to go, and that can take time. And - like it or not - they are legally entitled to apply for asylum if they want. And - we are talking about the government here, nothing is ever "immediately".
"They may be dehydrated, starving, or sick."
So give them a sandwich and two liters of Gatorade and pass them back to the famine riddled hellhole that you pretend Mexico is.
Don't fly them up to Ohio and give them a house and 2K a month, and ask them to vote (D).
I'm just curious as to why Jeff thinks the US caused them to be dehydrated, starving, or sick and it wasn't by their own choices.
He demands compensation at US taxpayer expense foe the choices those individuals made.
The US government (very likely) did not cause the migrants to be dehydrated or sick. But once the government apprehends them and places them in their custody, the government assumes a minimal duty of care so that they don't die while in custody. Because the migrants can no longer take care of themselves while they are sitting in a cage.
Do you think the government should let incarcerated prisoners starve? No. Same deal here.
So give them a sandwich and two liters of Gatorade
Who buys the sandwich and Gatorade? The government. The money that goes to buying the sandwiches and the Gatorade is what is being discussed here, that you all falsely label as "welfare".
And once again, this government spending is entirely a result of your team's policy preferences. My preference is that the Border Patrol doesn't spend any money on peaceful migrants because they would be free to cross the border at will.
“Who buys the sandwich and Gatorade? The government.”
Jeepers, kreamjeff radical socialist, I think any libertarian on the planet would pick $5 in government spending just once, over supplying free housing, food, healthcare, and a $2K per month in mad money for 2.6 million illegals.
“that you all falsely label as “welfare”
What would kkkemjeff linguistical contortionist call it, then?
You’re not even trying anymore are you? Just phoning it in.
Is it "welfare" if the government feeds incarcerated prisoners?
How about when the government makes it illegal for asylum seekers to work for a period of time. The government is the one PREVENTING the asylum seekers from legally supporting themselves. Maybe instead, the government should not make it illegal for these migrants to work, that way they can support themselves and they wouldn't need government assistance. Sound good?
"Is it “welfare” if the government feeds incarcerated prisoners?"
Does the government have the option of sending the prisoners back home, you fantastically dishonest fuck? Do the prisoners get let out of jail with free everything and $2k/mo. pocket money?
The fact that you even thought that this was a halfway plausible analogy tells me that Media Matters definitely isn't getting their money's worth.
The TPM ATM. He’ll push whatever for two quarters.
As usual you are deflecting.
As I have pointed out, you have already agreed that in principle government spending on migrants is fine, we are just now haggling over the amount. Somewhere between "a sandwich and Gatorade" and "free health care and $2k in walking around money".
If the government gives the migrants, while the migrants are in government custody, a sandwich and Gatorade, before being sent back over the border, are you going to call that spending "welfare"? If that's "welfare" then it is no different IN PRINCIPLE than the government feeding incarcerated prisoners who are in their custody.
$0 to them from government. End all forms of government welfare. The folks that want to visit for work will be vetted to ensure they aren’t one of those rapists, murderers, MS13 members, or traffickers like the ones that Biden-Harris allowed to walz across the border.
So not even a sandwich and a Gatorade?
Government has neither a sammich nor a Gatorade. You’ll be free to provide that if you’d like, as you are free to do so now, but you’d probably just consume them.
If I know that the sandwiches and Gatorade are being given to people as they're being deported, I'll donate some cash. I dpn't think there'd be too much trouble raising money for that.
They know that this “welfare for illegals” is unavoidable government spending as a result of their, and your, policy preferences of rounding them all up.
No, it's an inevitable result of allowing them to mass migrate here in the first place.
The money would never have been spent if they hadn't come here.
Cause and effect is hard to understand sometimes.
They aren't being rounded up you lying leftist shit. They are being given free housing. Appearance rates are still low.
Everything you say is a lie to defend a failing dream and defend billions of dollars of welfare taken from others.
You're a fucking thief. You're a liar. You're a leftist.
They aren’t being rounded up
Then how did they get to the DHS detention centers? They just wandered in? Of course they are being rounded up at the border. That is YOUR policy preference, not mine. The money spent to take care of them after they are apprehended is on YOUR TEAM.
lolwut? money spent on the border has been nobody's call but KH since she ascended to the Tiebreaker Throne
>>Of course they are being rounded up at the border.
most of the planet knows these as ports of entry.
If you go into a store and start taking shit from the store without paying, are you being rounded up when detained?
This is my fucking problem with ypu Jeff. Nobody is forcing these people to try and illegally immigrate. They made the choice to do so. But you demand compensation for them. Ironically you want to force all American taxpayers to fund your dreams. Fuck off.
Go start a fucking charity if you want. Stop demanding others do what you refuse to do.
Nobody is forcing these people to try and illegally immigrate.
You are right in that nobody is forcing these people to migrate. It is YOUR TEAM which chooses to label this migration as “illegal” and requiring a police presence involving apprehensions, detentions, and throwing them in cages. ONCE YOU DO THAT, the government assumes a minimal duty of care over them, just like with incarcerated prisoners in prison. And this duty of care costs money.
Ironically you want to force all American taxpayers to fund your dreams.
No, I would prefer that the government does not spend any money on peaceful migrants crossing the border, because they should be free to come and go as they please. On the contrary, YOU want to force ME to pay for throwing peaceful migrants in cages, and I object to that strenuously.
You have no one to blame but yourselves for this government spending that you are railing against.
>>peaceful migrants
I truly hope you earn for this nonsense. if you do this for free ...
He earns. That's why he can afford to have no shame. Unless you're an angry drunk like Sarckles, you have to be getting paid to humiliate yourself daily like this.
According to US Customs and Border Protection, in 2020, there were 646,822 encounters with undocumented border crossers nationwide. In 2022 it ballooned to 2,766,582; up till August, there have already been 2,860,127 in 2023.
But the numbers are just part of the story. Most of the undocumented border crossers are what Border Patrol agents call “give ups”— asylum seekers from all over the world who want to be detained so they can be processed and released, and likely receive aid from non-governmental agencies.
“It demoralizes us knowing that we’re supposed to be patrolling the border. We’re supposed to be out there trying to protect the American people and we can’t do that because we’re not performing patrol duties,” Judd agreed. “We’re not out there actively doing law enforcement duties — we’re doing administrative duties. We’re not protecting the American people.”
Scott said that many agents, instead of patrolling the border looking for drug smugglers or possible terrorists, now mostly do what they call “processing” — booking “give ups” and releasing them with a court date, which can be up to three years from their arrest and detainment.
According to a Congressional report released by House Republicans Monday, “Because of the unprecedented border crisis, some Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have been forced to abandon arrests and removals of aliens, including criminal aliens, to process the illegal aliens who have arrived at the southwest border.”
Trained by Non-governmental agencies (NGOs) or by the cartels, thousands of the “catch and release” asylum seekers — most of the migrants who turn themselves in to Border Patrol — know what to say and do in order to get detained and released without a fuss, Scott said.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/border-patrol-sources-reveal-heavy-toll-on-agents/
Scott said that many agents, instead of patrolling the border looking for drug smugglers or possible terrorists, now mostly do what they call “processing” — booking “give ups” and releasing them with a court date, which can be up to three years from their arrest and detainment.
That is the type of problem that I have been complaining about for a long time. The border patrol have no time nor resources to go after the "bad guys" because they are spending all of their time throwing peaceful migrants into cages, migrants who only want to come here to seek economic opportunity.
If you make it easier for peaceful migrants to come here and work legally, they would not have to abuse the asylum system, and the Border Patrol can focus their efforts on the truly 'bad hombres'." Sound good?
Fuck you. You intentionally bypassed the gist of the comment, which was an answer to your “How did the detention centers get filled if BP is not out there apprehending people?” BP doesn’t have to apprehend anyone, people turn themselves in.
And no. Dismantle the welfare system, and then let's open the border to most anyone who can pass the "You're not a career criminal or violent sex offender..." background checks.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were trying to answer that question.
But the root of the argument really doesn't change that much. So migrants are "giving themselves up" requesting asylum. Why are they doing that? For most of them, it is because they are exploiting a LEGAL loophole in the asylum system. Why are they doing that? Because trying to legally come here using the "normal" immigration system of applying for a green card, etc., is completely out of their reach. If you make it easier for migrants to come here and work legally, then they wouldn't be exploiting the asylum system, they would be doing what they have claimed to want to do all along: seek economic opportunity for themselves and their family.
Or, we can do it your way, and the government can continue to escalate the War on Migration. Spend more money building walls and hiring guards, take away more of our liberties while hunting for illegulz, making it even more profitable for human traffickers to smuggle people into the country. At some point, however, the cost of all that enforcement is going to be larger than the amount of money you might save on the welfare state. Then what?
And you would continue to suborn fraud in the meantime, while demanding that we follow the law. Got it.
"Because trying to legally come here using the “normal” immigration system of applying for a green card, etc., is completely out of their reach."
This is not a valid argument. There will ALWAYS be more people who want to come here than there are slots available. America is awesome and most places are worse.
That doesn't justify putting resources towards the ones that cut the line or abuse the system. That money, if it should be used at all, should be used to support those who follow the rules, not those who break them.
"If you make it easier for migrants to come here and work legally, then they wouldn’t be exploiting the asylum system"
Yes, they would. If you have a goal and there are two ways to accomplish it, you will take the one that gets you to your goal fastest has no negative repercussions rather than the slower, less-certain path.
That's not unique to immigrants, it's basic human nature. There has to be an incentive to follow the rules to achieve a goal or people won't.
"If you make it easier for peaceful migrants to come here and work legally, they would not have to abuse the asylum system, and the Border Patrol can focus their efforts on the truly ‘bad hombres’.” Sound good?"
No. You're falsely conflating two things that aren't the same. There are people who want to work on the US and there are people fleeing their own countries. There is some crossover of the two groups, but acting like all of them are here for the same, virtuous reason is dishonest.
And I am one who advocates strongly for a large expansion of seasonal work visas (especially for agricultural labor). You are trying to pretend that all illegal immigrants are here for work. They aren't.
…were shot dead by members of a Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality security patrol unit and citizens using personal firearms,
The situation is fucking terrible, but it’s good to see citizens righteously gunning down zealots.
Story in the Atlantic on how even at "prestigious" schools, kids don't know how to read a full book and struggle, often never reading a full book in high school.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=true-anthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
The schools are preparing the kids to be subscribers of The Scatlantic.
Then why is the Atlantic troubled by this trend?
It's not as if students who give up on books are going to turn to traditional magazines as their alternative.
Democrats have no shame in blatantly lying.
REPORTER: "And so Iran, we've all seen obviously what happened today, and we also have an active plot to assassinate one of the candidates in the U.S. election, which could be seen as a direct attempt at election interference. Is there any talk of consequences for Iran in terms of limiting their revenue, going after their oil exports."
KJP: "Look, you heard (National Security Advisor) Jake (Sullivan) speak to this on what... there will be consequences, you heard Jake say this, this is an ongoing situation, that's the reason he had to get back to his desk, to make sure that he continues to monitor what's happening, occurring, having conversations with his counterparts as well, in Israel. But this administration has not lifted a single sanction on Iran, we cannot forget that. Rather, we continue to increase pressure, that's what we have seen. Our extensive sanctions on Iran remain in place and we will certainly continue to enforce them, and you heard from the national security advisor, you heard what he said."
REPORTER: So, Iran's oil exports have reached a record level now. One report (is) showing 3.2 million barrels per day, according to OPEC. That's about $90 billion a year. So when do we cut off that revenue?
KJP: We have not lifted any, a single sanction. If anything, as I said moments ago, we increased pressure. That's what we have been doing."
Everything KJP said is false.
Baghdad Bob was at least entertaining.
no. tanks.
KJP has the advantage of indoor performances.
every day I hope John Kirby's conscience breaks one way or the other and he ends up behind her in a clown suit and one-man-band getup or something, finally giving up the ghost
So did Tokyo Rose.
A good thread detailing how both candidates get housing so very wrong:
It would appear to do so by going on about how much more wrong they could possibly be.
Why are the homes scarce? There is not a fixed supply of homes. We can build enough homes!
We can't build houses at the rate people immigrate. We can't even clear land at the rate people immigrate. We can't even complete the paperwork to get them on leases at the rate people immigrate. We can't even complete the paperwork to identify them, verify their income, and charge them rent. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS YOU FUCKING MORON.
I hear we're so good at the New Air America the People don't even know we're flying in thousands of new residents all night every night
"We can’t build houses at the rate people immigrate."
Of course we can. New housing outstrips immigration (legal or otherwise). Every year. By multiples.
My takeaway from the debate was not how well Vance did, but how much better he looked than his running mate. If the republicans had chosen Vance, Halley, DeSantis as the Presidential candidate they would have a strong chance of winning. Trump is a loser. The more that becomes obvious the more he will show just how unfit he is. Why can Vance articulate policies while Trump is a rambling senile fool?
Parody.
Parody.
Parody.
So Liz, when Biden/Harris drop 10s of thousands of illegals on a location do replacement housing units spring up instantly? No, supply is depressed for years costing the locals more.
When BlackRock buys up millions of homes do replacements spring up instantly? No,they're off the market and may never be replaced depressing supply for new prospective homeowners and increasing cost.
Sorry if economics in the real world hurts your feelings and doesn't align with the theory because of human nature and policy deformations.
when Biden/Harris drop 10s of thousands of illegals on a location do replacement housing units spring up instantly?
You mean, of course, when migrants migrate to a particular location over the course of several years, in search of economic opportunity, what are the regulatory barriers that prevent the local housing market to meet the demand with increased supply in a more responsive manner?
So it all just happened organically with no help or intervention from the federal government? I don't really know I supposed, but it seems implausible. After the first few thousand went there, I can't imagine there was a lot more economic opportunity waiting for the rest in a small city like that.
Why are an additional 15-20K people needed in a town that has about 400 job openings?
Food trucks. Just ask Fiona.
Immigrant replacement theory.
becausefuckyouthat'swhy.
"Why are an additional 15-20K people needed in a town that has about 400 job openings?"
Now you're going to make him have to ask his boss.
Do you think he loses fifty cents for each request for direction?
They aren't migrants. The term is immigrant or asylum seaker; illegal or legal. They aren't Mexicans coming up for the harvest, only to return at the end of the season.
What were the regulatory barriers that prevented additional pizza parlors springing up in Martha's Vineyard to feed the migrants there for more than 48 hours?
People tend to ignore how companies like Blackrock and other REITs got their start, largely through the zero interest/QE policies giving them unlimited capital in the wake of the crash. So they got to buy shittons of houses at a bargain with super low rates while regular people couldn't get a loan because of how onerous Dodd-Frank was.
Huge effect of government largesse to the investment banks and restrictons on regular people and we're reaping the rewards over a decade later.
"Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps said the hourlong assault was retribution for the recent assassinations of the heads of Iranian proxy groups, Hezbollah and Hamas," reports The New York Times. "Mohammad Bagheri, Iran's top military officer, said the missiles had been aimed at three military bases and the headquarters of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service." (Indeed, video footage shows explosions near Mossad, showing that the strikes got close to their targets.)
This is the bullshit lie that JewFree likes to spew too.
Here is a map of the estimated intercept points for the rockets.
https://x.com/IDF/status/1841159354914898024
Luckily most were intercepted again. 1 death is apparently a Palestinian.
He'll be here late, he spent all yesterday fapping.
That is probably a map of air raid sirens in Israel. More accurately, you don’t have a fucking clue what that map is. And no surprise – the limit of anything you will bother to look up is some twitter account.
The IDF has not had their general press conference yet (or not put it on their website) – but they have issued a statement regarding a Iranian attack on Tel Nof airbase. Which is not even on your bogus map as a concentration of anything – but apparently the IDF found it important enough to mention. Interestingly, in that statement they also mention ‘proper civilian behavior’ which probably means ‘quickly follow all air raid sirens and go to the nearby shelter’.
And the BBC has done a forensics video analyzing strikes on Nevatim Airbase, Tel Nof Airbase, and an area of Tel Aviv that is in fact at/near Mossad HQ. I’m sure they are just waiting to process the 5000 other ‘locations’ ‘identified’ on your ‘map’.
IOW – as is always the case, you are a fount of diversion and bullshit.
Oh - and the Palestinian who was killed by debris from a missile/intercept was killed near Jericho - right on the trajectory line towards its probable intended target - Tel Nof Airbase.
JewFree thinks that if at least one military base is shown to be a target it means there were no other targets. This is amazing.
Fuck you and all your ‘we believe everything a government (as long as they are killing brown people) tells us’ ilk
There isn't even a legend on the map you link to indicating what those 'targets' are.
Lol. Now JFree is embarrassed by how easily the stupidity of his comment was pointed out.
Further that map is transparently a combo of propaganda and instructions to civilians re sirens/shelters – not a map with actual targets or ‘estimated intercept points’ (which is solely YOUR invention as to what that map is).
The only words on the map – every time it’s used on that twitter account – is something like Iran/Houthis/Hezbolla/Hamas are targeting civilians. With a slew of dots on the map (always far more than the number of rockets) which indicate which areas the air raid sirens have gone off. That map has NOTHING to do with intercepts. It is the same map every time. It is their Duck and Cover map. There also to reinforce – our enemies ALWAYS target only civilians. Therefore, by definition, terrorists and/or Nazis.
You are such a fool.
M4e is a parody account.
7 people were murdered in this attack a few minutes south of where I sit in Tel Aviv. One of them was Inbar Segev, a 33 year old Pilates Instructor. Inbar and her dog were shot; a good samaritan grabbed her 9-month-old baby from his carrier unharmed and took him to safety.
J(ew)Free and Misconstrueman must be rock hard after yesterday.
Don't forget sarc, he's gone full misek lately as well.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Jeffy followed suit. Shrike is too much of a Bushpig neocon to follow Misek’s lead.
Besides, Pluggo has black people and Christians to hate and doesn't have time to fit the Jews into his busy schedule.
"The key thing that Vance accomplished was demonstrating that you can behave on a national stage in a manner that restores pre-Trump standards of political conduct while persisting in Trumpish political heterodoxies," opined writer Wesley Yang.
Like Obama? Who was snarky and demeaning? What about the awful moderators once again?
Also true
Huh. Actual global-level comparative advantage rests on the microcosm(s) that everyone on any/all sides feels like they’re getting a fair shake in their own market or region? Otherwise, it’s rather concretely just elites exploiting slaves of somewhere else? Who knew?
M. Nolan Gray
@mnolangray
·
Follow
"You've got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes," argues @JDVance. Why are the homes scarce? There is not a fixed supply of homes. We can build enough homes! Show more
But this is a true statement. Funded by government. You found this out through testimony of that Ohio town you continue to call a lie. A town of 60k can't take in 20k new residents in 2 years and have houses. Low income housed citizens were kicked out for migrants whose higher rent was paid with Federal dollars.
kamala is talking about 3M new homes over 4 years when she helped let in 7M admitted new immigrants. Do the math. It isn't fucking complicated.
The other issue is housing regulatory policy, such as done by your favorite person Polis making houses about 15% more expensive.
Markets dont disappear because you're an open borders acolyte. You can't just ignore inconvenient facts.
Unburdened by what has been… nothing bad has ever happened or will ever happen when we build a bunch of houses for people of whom we have no documented ability to afford them.
A town of 60k can’t take in 20k new residents in 2 years and have houses. Low income housed citizens were kicked out for migrants whose higher rent was paid with Federal dollars.
This isn't just happening in Springfield, either. It's happening in places like Massachusetts, and one of the features of the Venezuelan dumpoff in Denver was them getting placed in cheap shelters with Biden-provided housing bennies, which forced other low-income residents out of the apartments and hotels.
Keep in mind, Gray's the classic type of marxist academic cockroach who thinks the ideal community is Peachtrees from Megacity One.
When he says, "we can build homes," what he means is, "we can build giant Megablocks in our Calhoun rat communities with no loss of quality of life whatsoever."
Marxists have done far too well infiltrating libertarian groups based on the idea of open borders. CATO is one glaring example. They don't even hide it in their biography what they really are. There is a reason marxist.org is so open with their open borders stances.
Keep in mind, Gray’s the classic type of marxist academic cockroach who thinks the ideal community is Peachtrees from Megacity One.
When making 28 Days Later, Danny Boyle actually wanted to save the 'Frank' character that gets infected with the zombie virus. He realized, however, that it had already been established that a single drop of blood could infect people in seconds and to avoid curing everyone and destroying the story he would have to come up with some unbelievable means of bleaching out every inch of someone's veins and purifying their blood. So he gave up on the idea of saving Frank.
Gray is, clearly, not even that level of intelligence or grounding. We *could* fix and pace immigration to new home construction, but the idea of no borders, "If they come, people will build it." is too stupid even for a feel-good Kevin Costner baseball movie plot.
"We can just build more houses" sounds like "You can just build your own internet" or "Just start your own xxx business." There are legal/regulatory realities in place that make building housing difficult, and the housing market can't "just respond to market forces" with these still in place. Bringing in a bunch of people isn't going to force city councils, the EPA, whomever to just throw up their hands and say, "Fine, build all you want!"
There's still an idea of a practical limit to immigration, legal/illegal/whatever. Should we just bring all of South and Central America here? The whole world? Obviously not all of those people want to move here, but where IS the line? (From a practical perspective, the company I work for was going to go on this big hiring run to build up for a bunch of programs coming on line, and then realized this area doesn't have the sewage capacity for more bathroom use. HAHAHAHA!)
We can't let a little thing like reality get in the way of the Right Side of History. The communist utopia is on the move, and any resistance to it is just fascist oppression.
more than anything it was a proving ground for Vance, who showed that he has a lot of potential (for better or worse) as the heir to Trumpism.
Now, imagine for a moment that it wasn’t someone or an ideology you fucktards have been impugning for the last 8 yrs. Imagine if someone like Gary Johnson or even… Justin Amash… were the heir to Trumpism.
Instead, you fucksticks had to advocate for the mutilation of children, buttsex supremacy, and equivocate on government funding of viral research and mandatory vaccinations and compromise every principle and alienate every rational human on the planet like ghoulish, animated, state-oriented, vacuous, human libertarian-skinsuit husks.
Right. You'd be all in for Gary Johnson and Justin Amash except the Reason editorial staff were soft on gays so you just had to go with Vance.
Sure.
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or just retarded?
Yes.
Mike has always been retarded.
Been reading these comments for a few months now, I feel like I need to start making a list of who's retarded and who's not
https://reason.com/profile/muted-users/
For one second there I was like "Damn, we have the exact same set of muted users!"
Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
Honest Economics
KARtikeya
LIBtranslator
Mother's Lament (the fake one, I've forgotten who this was before the switch but probably KillAllRednecks)
Nelson
Rob Misek
SQRLSY
lynn
mtrueman
pok
Why can't sarc do this?
Mute most of his friends in here?
Publish his list. And thanks for the reminder about "honest economics" - I'd forgotten about that nitwit.
Half of them are Sarc and the other half Pluggo.
Edit: Oh wait, duh, that links to my muted users. Not yours.
Cytotoxic
Andy Freedman
Ali Akbar Alexander
Flush that fetus!
dbruce
KARen
Mike Laursen
Mother's Lament (fake one)
Echospinner
ObviouslyNotSpam
Palin's Buttplug
sarcasmic (fake one)
Rob Misek
SQRLSY
Tony
4U-OTO.com
LaQweepha Born of They
TheReEncogitationer (5-30? Meh! A day in the life for the Eternally Vigilant!)
Rittenhouse-Is-A-Hero_Floyd-Is-A-Forgotten-Junkie
Lowell Polera
Dee is a dumb bird. Caw caw.
Israelis have got to be retarded to venture out without being armed.
Believe it or not, until recently you couldn't have a gun in Israel. They're rethinking that since the 10/7/23 Hamas attacks:
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/06/1216088371/guns-israel-hamas-gaza
"...Walz suggested [in a House hearing in 2014] that he was in the then-British colony of Hong Kong in May 1989, but he appears to have been in Nebraska..."
He caught it from leakin' Joe
But are we sure that Hong Kong isn’t in Nebraska? Might be a deepfake misinformation plot.
"Walz seemed to insinuate that he was in Hong Kong during the day of the massacre." Tiananmen Square is in Beijing, not Hong Kong.
(D)etails!
Little known fact. Walz was indeed in Hong Kong where he had a summer job as a lifeguard. Tragically one day his uncle crashed his small plane into Hong Kong harbor where he was set upon by Chinese cannibals. Authorities intervened and the elder Walz was medivaced to Beijing. Young Tim hopped aboard for the ride. While there he wandered into Tiananmen Square. But when he realized that there were no tampon dispensers in the public men's room, he beat a hasty retreat. Years have gone by but one thing hasn't changed. Tim Walz resolve to insure that tampons are available to all regardless of race, religion or gender.
You wouldn't believe the number of famous people who belong.
It actually is kinda creepy how Tim's "real life + embellishments" vaguely imitates these sketches.
>>"I carry a personal weapon because I'm a reservist," said Kreitman. "I was sitting, having a drink, when suddenly I heard gunshots. I ran toward them and shot the terrorist."
fuck yeah. don't be a terrorist.
"He seemed to turn away from his philosophy-bro podcast-appearance personality, which is frequently snarky and callous, and toward a much more palatable and compassionate persona."
Well obviously a podcast is not a debate and maybe you should consider listening to the whole thing rather than just regurgitating a cherry picked quote that popped up on Mastodon. Maybe instead of rushing to the defense of childless cat ladies, consider the underlying point. Seems like since Liz has become a mom she is increasingly pro family. Good on her. I am too. And so is Vance. He's a smart articulate guy who can hold his own in any forum. You can argue about policy positions but whether he's playing philosophy bro or VP debater he's as least worthy of some respect.
>>seemed to turn away from his philosophy-bro podcast-appearance personality, which is frequently snarky and callous
I mean ... you're toeing the line of "hello Kettle, it's Pot. You're black!" but I'm feeling friendly this morning lol
>>There are not quite 50K longshoremen on strike. For $50B -- chump change, really -- we could give them each $1M to retire in 5 years while we spend some multiple of that to fully automate all the ports. I bet they'd take it, then we could just move on.
in. pass the fucking hat now.
Why should they settle for a measly million in 5 years when they earn that much in a couple years?
(and the boss grifter earns that in less than a year)
everyone loves the Loan Falcon nobody has to pay back or work for and if we can rid ourselves of the entire scheme within five years I'm happy to donate. fuck those guys. take the money and run, assholes.
who is Margaret Brennan?
was Fred a stage dog or Jerry Reed's IRL?
Walz was eating at the Hong Kong Chinese restaurant in MN during Tiananmen I’m sure he meant to clarify.
But was the cha siu any good?
Vance will be a very strong candidate for 2028, especially if Harris wins.
There will be no 2028 if Harris "wins", and if Trump manages to blow past the margin of fraud neither he nor Vance will live to the inauguration.
A Harris presidency would suck for sure, but I don’t think it will be the end of democracy. I doubt she will have enough votes in Congress to do much, and she is so incompetent and unlikeable that we will probably have a GOP supermajority in 2026.
Harris will have nothing to do with it, they'll let her do some photo ops and that's it, and all they’ll need for congress are a few Bush/Chamber of Commerce Republicans to cross the floor.
[squints] Unable to tell if "And if they kill him, you're assuming we can't have things back on track in time for 2028." is a "We can just build houses for all the immigrants!" proposition or not.
Alabama may need a new governor by then...
>J.D. Vance won last night's debate,
C'mon Wolfe! You're going to get fired if you keep writing stuff like this.
Yeah, Liz needs to be more like her colleague Mangu-Ward, who is one of the NYT commentators. I guess she doesn’t want to be invited to any more NYC cocktail parties.
Lizard'll be the Belle of the Bible-Bawling at Ku-Klux Klanbakes in Alabammy! Her article on Panzerfausts to blast holes for Army of God vigilantes to burst into women's clinics has been translated into Ugandan, North German, Vatican City Italian and every Mohammedan dialect there is.
This is interesting.'
Doug Emhoff has been credibly accused (hat tip: Reason) of forcibly slapping an ex-girlfriend in Cannes in 2012 for flirting with another man.
Several friends of the woman said she told them about the violence at the time.
"Re-defining masculinity", huh?
Psaki obviously dying for someone to call her sexy & slap her around.
Crazy redheads are good for one thing only. OK, several things in the subset of that one thing.
been kept by one for 28 years and going lol
If only he’d just slapped her unforcibly.
Slap force science is junk science.
There is not a fixed supply of homes. We can build enough homes!
Except that building anything in America has become a ridiculously convoluted, cumbersome, and ultimately unprofitable effort.
Kill the EPA. Kill the Zoning agencies. Kill all the bureaucracy. And get your boot off the supply chain’s neck.
each $1M to retire in 5 years while we spend some multiple of that to fully automate all the ports. I bet they’d take it, then we could just move on.
Think of the automation as a long-term investment in something more valuable than whiny entitled longshoremen who are eagerly ready to cripple the American economy over a temper tantrum.
Also, go take a look at how much their union boss (and his kids) make.
ATF's grotesque Ku-Klux Satan-scolding is soooo Tennessee in 1925!
Shooting Terrorists in Flip-Flops
Nice job on the eats shoots and leaves/a man shot an elephant in his pajamas' headline, Liz.
Shooting terrorists in flip-flops. Releasing their mortal soles.
Very Dickensian.
"You've got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes," argues
@JDVance
. Why are the homes scarce? There is not a fixed supply of homes. We can build enough homes!
It's like we're living in a leaking submarine with bulkhead doors that keep the other compartments from filling with water-- and when someone suggests we close some bulkhead doors to keep the rest of the boat from flooding, "libertarians" keep telling us, "No, no, don't close the bulkhead door, let's first fix the leak"
And honestly, it's not even "let's fix the leak" it's more like, "let's form a committee to lobby the Democrats to fix the leak that they created.
Ackshully we have actual Christian National Socialist Nazis in control of two parties (God's Own Party and the Jesus Caucus LP) eager to literally enslave and kill pregnant women PLUS enforce every Hitler plank written in 1920 AND ban every single alternative to gin, glue and cigarettes--to hell with having banks or an economy. Then there is the other looter socialist gang whose most dangerous superstition is Climate Sharknado Warmunism and to hell with having electricity. Either gang makes Chase Oliver look like George Washington.
hitler was a keynesian socialist antisemite vegetarian everyone knows he’d be crip here.
So Jesus Caucus Lizard Wolfe (#FREE ROBERT DEAR), the girl-bullying brainwashee, is qualified to call the debate for the Cat-eating hillbilly MAGAt. Izzis why we aren't having Reason Panhandling campaigns anymore?
Sqrlsy, your dad just posted it again.
I understand both of them it's a little freaky.
Do a lot of terrorists wear flip-flops? And shouldn't we shoot them no matter what they are wearing?
Or dial their beeper.
And shouldn’t we shoot them no matter what they are wearing?
Evidently wearing a baby carrier with a 9 mo. old in it is no preoccupation to them so, yeah, dip all the rounds in pork fat and keep firing until you've erased any trace of their very existence from history.
"I never supported a national ban."-- Vance, on abortion, during debate
"I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally." -- Vance, 2022
See Doonesbury
both can be true.