Bitch-fest about politics (formerly graduation thread)

[95coug]

And that’s the joke of it all; Republicans don’t give a flying f*** about debt unless the Dems are calling the shots otherwise they’re running it up like there’s no tomorrow.

Well, you just summed up modern politics. Nobody cares about the negatives as long as their party is behind them. But anything the other party does should be considered criminal. Any plan/idea/proposal that the other side brings forward is dumb, dishonest, and an attack on freedom….but when one of their cronies presents the same thing, it’s genius.

The only things I want to see in a candidate are moderation, the ability to listen and act rationally. I don’t expect to ever actually see that from a major party candidate.

 

[CougEd]

They haven’t shut campus down with the sniveling idiots protesting?

They’d be better served bitching about things that will actually affect their lives than matters thousands of miles across the sea - inflation, border control, mountainous debt, housing affordability.

But virtue signaling is cool I guess.

I agree ...dont understand why the republicans blew up a border deal written by a conservative senator from Oklahoma.

And the debt ... i dont remember the concern when Trump created a shortfall and then handed out PPP money like a pez dispenser . I guess there is a different accounting method when rich people get money to buy more stuff .

 

[Observer11]

I agree ...dont understand why the republicans blew up a border deal written by a conservative senator from Oklahoma.

And the debt ... i dont remember the concern when Trump created a shortfall and then handed out PPP money like a pez dispenser . I guess there is a different accounting method when rich people get money to buy more stuff .

Two reasons:

Mitch McConnell as usual f’ing around

And there was no reason to tie border security with other spending.

But politicians are politicians and they don’t have the nads to vote on a single issue.

Why didn’t either party present a stand alone spending bill on the border?

(Hint: both parties are massive bitches to the military industrial complex)

 

[CougEd]

Two reasons:

Mitch McConnell as usual f’ing around

And there was no reason to tie border security with other spending.

But politicians are politicians and they don’t have the nads to vote on a single issue.

Why didn’t either party present a stand alone spending bill on the border?

(Hint: both parties are massive bitches to the military industrial complex)

Thats not what happened . And you know it

 

[Observer11]

Thats not what happened . And you know it

Go ahead and frame it how you see it then without being a partisan hack

Both parties didn’t get a sh*t about border security for their own agendas.

 

[CougEd]

Go ahead and frame it how you see it then without being a partisan hack

Both parties didn’t get a sh*t about border security for their own agendas.

Don't care what the agenda's are. Do you? I thought you wanted border security. But apparently you want border security only if motives are "pure". I don't care how the dems got there. Do you?

The deal was scrubbed because agent orange wanted it to be something to run on. And Forrest Trump is the defacto speaker of the house.

 

[Observer11]

Don't care what the agenda's are. Do you? I thought you wanted border security. But apparently you want border security only if motives are "pure". I don't care how the dems got there. Do you?

The deal was scrubbed because agent orange wanted it to be something to run on. And Forrest Trump is the defacto speaker of the house.

The expectation should always be for the elected officials motives to be pure.

 

[CougEd]

The expectation should always be for the elected officials motives to be pure.

So to summarize in a math equation as you presented it....border security> Gaza protests. ..next equation----reason for border security bill>border security. So really...border security really isn't that big of a priority. I appreciation the honesty.

 

[M-I-Coug]

My kid made it!
Btw... family coming in to town checked out hotels in the area. As a for instance.. motel 6 in Lewiston 600 bucks a night. I can see making your money while you can but good Lord.
They're all staying in Spokane and driving the hour and a half.

Congratulations! That is very cool.

 

[WillieThePimp]

Two reasons:

Mitch McConnell as usual f’ing around

And there was no reason to tie border security with other spending.

But politicians are politicians and they don’t have the nads to vote on a single issue.

Why didn’t either party present a stand alone spending bill on the border?

(Hint: both parties are massive bitches to the military industrial complex)

No. The border deal died because Trump didn’t want Biden to be able to claim a win. Clearly Trump holds more sway over the Republican congress than does Yertle the Turtle.

 

[Stretch 74]

Don't care what the agenda's are. Do you? I thought you wanted border security. But apparently you want border security only if motives are "pure". I don't care how the dems got there. Do you?

The deal was scrubbed because agent orange wanted it to be something to run on. And Forrest Trump is the defacto speaker of the house.

Republicans DID want border security, and have been bitching about Brandon's open border policies since day 1 of his pathetic administration. Republicans cared enough about it to send a single issue bill on border security to Chuckie Schumer about a full year ago, yet he refused to even bring it to the floor for a debate. So please tell us again which side it was that didn't want to address border security?

But putting aside that, the supposedly bipartisan bill was a piece of shit. Any bill that allows 5,000 illegals per day into the country before the president has to take action to "close the border" is truly a piece of shit.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Republicans DID want border security, and have been bitching about Brandon's open border policies since day 1 of his pathetic administration. Republicans cared enough about it to send a single issue bill on border security to Chuckie Schumer about a full year ago, yet he refused to even bring it to the floor for a debate. So please tell us again which side it was that didn't want to address border security?

But putting aside that, the supposedly bipartisan bill was a piece of shit. Any bill that allows 5,000 illegals per day into the country before the president has to take action to "close the border" is truly a piece of shit.

Actually Stretch I believe that you are incorrect about the bill and the "5,000". See factcheck.org link below. And read the goddam thing. This site has pretty good analyses.

The problem is 100% about politics, on both sides, but more so on the Trump side. You Trumpers all know it, just f-ing admit it. And read the fact check over his 32 lies in the recent Time magazine interview. Also below.

Unraveling Misinformation About Bipartisan Immigration Bill - FactCheck.org

Even before a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the text of a foreign aid and immigration overhaul bill on Feb. 4, it faced significant opposition from former President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders. We'll explain what was in the legislation and the facts on two popular talking...

www.factcheck.org

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/04/politics/fact-check-trump-time-magazine/index.html

I bet you could get 10 people off the street (in Pullman, as they would tend to be more intelligent), and sit them down in a room. Present a detailed, non-partisan factual analysis of ALL of the border issues. Facts and figures, not name-calling and lies and exaggerations. Maps and pictures of these crossings and fences (or lack thereof). Options, costs and benefits. I bet you could cobble together a sensible proposal supported by all 10.

That could have happened, in Congress, in the Reagan/Tip O'Neill era. Not now and probably not ever again. The screaming MAGA/Trumpers, the POS Taylor Greene's and Gosar's (let's not forget the Squad on the other side) in the House. the Ted Cruz's and Josh Hawley's and I guess we throw in Shumer - I can't really come up with POS Dem's in the Senate. Maybe our own Senators from Washington. Nothing but insults, lies, exaggerations and personal attacks. Statements and generalizations with ZERO basis in fact.

Hmm - kinda sounds like this board......

 

[longtimecoug]

No. The border deal died because Trump didn’t want Biden to be able to claim a win. Clearly Trump holds more sway over the Republican congress than does Yertle the Turtle.

the border bill died because trump ordered it

 

[Flatlandcoug]

the border bill died because trump ordered it

It's truly tragic that there is almost no bipartisanship in congress anymore. It's all about making the other party look bad and not allowing the "other side" to get a win. Regular Americans who don't make a D or an R an integral part of their identity should be furious with both parties but the Republicans in particular.

I have friends that are diehard conservatives who insist that compromise is failure and they'd rather see the country burn to the ground than allow a libtard to get their way at all. The most amazing part of it all is the willful ignorance of the GOP today.

It's been almost two years now, but Kansas conservatives pushed out a "Value them both" initiative that would have eliminated the section of the Kansas Constitution that protected the right to an abortion. The idiots were so deluded by their own propaganda that they specifically stated that abortions would not be allowed in cases of rape, incest or even to safe the life of the mother. Where I'm going with this is when I talked to one of my conservative co-workers about the bill, they were astonished when I told them that I couldn't support it with the section not protecting a mother included. They didn't even know what the f#cking proposition was trying to do. They just saw "Pro-life" and stuck a bumper sticker on their car. By the way, the proposition was crushed as everyday Kansans showed that the fringe extremists in the GOP don't represent the state.

Of course, the greater irony is that the GOP wants you to "Value them both" until that little f#cker is outside the womb and then it changes to, "Get a job, you worthless loser".

EDIT: the liberals have plenty of issues on their side of the aisle too. I'm just more amazed by the complete and total capitulation of the GOP to the MAGA movement and right wing radicalism.

 

[dgibbons]

Lol. That’s a lot of animosity coming from you over what I have no clue. What did I do? Run into you at the John in Martin and start laughing?

You're superficial. Regurgitating talking points is all you can do.

 

[dgibbons]

Sure , just like last time and Bushs before him and Saint Ronny..

Like I said, significant assumption. Posers usually reveal themselves pretty quickly. If they're willing to call the question on the speaker, maybe they have some backbone.

 

[WillieThePimp]

You're superficial. Regurgitating talking points is all you can do.

Being called shallow, by a lawyer, no less, whose ace in the hole is ad hominems. I’ll take that with a smile 7 days a week.

 

[CougEd]

Republicans DID want border security, and have been bitching about Brandon's open border policies since day 1 of his pathetic administration. Republicans cared enough about it to send a single issue bill on border security to Chuckie Schumer about a full year ago, yet he refused to even bring it to the floor for a debate. So please tell us again which side it was that didn't want to address border security?

But putting aside that, the supposedly bipartisan bill was a piece of shit. Any bill that allows 5,000 illegals per day into the country before the president has to take action to "close the border" is truly a piece of shit.

Well James Lankford said it was a great bill and Trump scuttled it . So it tells me it was Trump and the Republican party didnt make it happen .

 

[dgibbons]

Being called shallow, by a lawyer, no less, whose ace in the hole is ad hominems. I’ll take that with a smile 7 days a week.

You're a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[mikalalas]

Well James Lankford said it was a great bill and Trump scuttled it . So it tells me it was Trump and the Republican party didnt make it happen .

Just becausecJames Lankford said it was supposedly a good bill doesn't automatically make it so.

IF IF the bill did allow 5000 illegals a day before requiring President to close the border, then the Repubs were RIGHT to shut it down.

One of congresses problems is that they attach multiple PROBLEMATIC bills to a popular hot topic necessary issue single bill, and then damned if they do sign, do it, and if they don't sign, do it, they get vilified by "See they don't really care about Border Control like they said they do"

Part of that is NOT being transparent, not explaining, etc, to the people that the reason they didn't sign it was the 5000 illegals a day thing, etc.

Also it's the Republicans fault for not immediately doing a counter bill. They can say "But we already sent a bill, and Schumer squashed it", but that's no excuse to stop, and they should keep trying by sending counter bills, and should explain what's really going on to the people.

And since they have stopped, and since they not explaining to the people effectively, then they Republicans are to blame, just like the Democrats are to blame.

Like I said in my other post, they Republicans are mostly Spineless, have no backbone, are not effective, etc.

But the other problem, is that even if the Republicans were to do it right, be effective, the lamestream Democrat media, which is about 75% to 87% of the media, would just SPIN DOCTOR it to something else, just like they the lamestream DEMOCRAT media SPIN DOCTORED "AND SOME OF THEM ARE GOOD PEOPLE", (meaning that the some of the people illegally crossing the border are good people, and some are drug traffickers, terrorist, human traffickers, etc, bad people, etc), , into "See he is racist because he said "And some of them are good people" ".

 

[CougEd]

Just becausecJames Lankford said it was supposedly a good bill doesn't automatically make it so.

IF IF the bill did allow 5000 illegals a day before requiring President to close the border, then the Repubs were RIGHT to shut it down.

One of congresses problems is that they attach multiple PROBLEMATIC bills to a popular hot topic necessary issue single bill, and then damned if they do sign, do it, and if they don't sign, do it, they get vilified by "See they don't really care about Border Control like they said they do"

Part of that is NOT being transparent, not explaining, etc, to the people that the reason they didn't sign it was the 5000 illegals a day thing, etc.

Also it's the Republicans fault for not immediately doing a counter bill. They can say "But we already sent a bill, and Schumer squashed it", but that's no excuse to stop, and they should keep trying by sending counter bills, and should explain what's really going on to the people.

And since they have stopped, and since they not explaining to the people effectively, then they Republicans are to blame, just like the Democrats are to blame.

Like I said in my other post, they Republicans are mostly Spineless, have no backbone, are not effective, etc.

But the other problem, is that even if the Republicans were to do it right, be effective, the lamestream Democrat media, which is about 75% to 87% of the media, would just SPIN DOCTOR it to something else, just like they the lamestream DEMOCRAT media SPIN DOCTORED "AND SOME OF THEM ARE GOOD PEOPLE", (meaning that the some of the people illegally crossing the border are good people, and some are drug traffickers, terrorist, human traffickers, etc, bad people, etc), , into "See he is racist because he said "And some of them are good people" ".

Easy answer for you Mik...It would have passed the Senate, and the house if it was allowed to be presented. If you are looking for the perfect bill, you aren't going to get it. Hell, Trump promised a wall and another country was going to pay for it. The republicants had all three branches and Forrest Trump couldnt get a wall built or border deal.

 

[Stretch 74]

Well James Lankford said it was a great bill and Trump scuttled it . So it tells me it was Trump and the Republican party didnt make it happen .

Oh, well if James Lankford said it then it must be true and all of us that disagree with that opinion must just be ignorant Neanderthals, right? As for me, I reserve for myself the right to disagree with the opinion of anyone I want to, especially someone on the US Congress.

I see that Mik has already posted some good points relative to your post, but I will go ahead with more.

Here is the key point-you completely ignored the fact that Chuck Schumer (undoubtedly at the bidding of Biden) sat on a bill that was passed in the House and sent to the Senate almost a year prior that would have specifically addressed the border security problems. In other words, Chuck and Joe and others felt it was politically beneficial to NOT address the absolute flood of illegal aliens that was pouring over the border. So you pretend that either that didn't happen or that you just don't care about it, while at the same time trying to castigate Trump for expressing his opinion that the bill was bad and that he would get better legislation passed when he was re-elected in November. Hypocrisy much?

 

[Stretch 74]

Actually Stretch I believe that you are incorrect about the bill and the "5,000". See factcheck.org link below. And read the goddam thing. This site has pretty good analyses.

The problem is 100% about politics, on both sides, but more so on the Trump side. You Trumpers all know it, just f-ing admit it. And read the fact check over his 32 lies in the recent Time magazine interview. Also below.

Unraveling Misinformation About Bipartisan Immigration Bill - FactCheck.org

Even before a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the text of a foreign aid and immigration overhaul bill on Feb. 4, it faced significant opposition from former President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders. We'll explain what was in the legislation and the facts on two popular talking...

www.factcheck.org

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/04/politics/fact-check-trump-time-magazine/index.html

I bet you could get 10 people off the street (in Pullman, as they would tend to be more intelligent), and sit them down in a room. Present a detailed, non-partisan factual analysis of ALL of the border issues. Facts and figures, not name-calling and lies and exaggerations. Maps and pictures of these crossings and fences (or lack thereof). Options, costs and benefits. I bet you could cobble together a sensible proposal supported by all 10.

That could have happened, in Congress, in the Reagan/Tip O'Neill era. Not now and probably not ever again. The screaming MAGA/Trumpers, the POS Taylor Greene's and Gosar's (let's not forget the Squad on the other side) in the House. the Ted Cruz's and Josh Hawley's and I guess we throw in Shumer - I can't really come up with POS Dem's in the Senate. Maybe our own Senators from Washington. Nothing but insults, lies, exaggerations and personal attacks. Statements and generalizations with ZERO basis in fact.

Hmm - kinda sounds like this board......

Is it 5,000 or is it 4,000? Not really clear to me that I am wrong on that.

As to your comment about the intelligence of the 10 people off the street in Pullman being more intelligent, I think that is highly debatable. I am assuming that you figure there would be several WSU students and/or faculty in that sample. So how intelligent do you think all those folks are when they go to college and accumulate a pile of debt to end with a degree that doesn't help them get a job that enables them to pay the debt off? Also, I will remind you of a famous quote from William F. Buckley that I will paraphrase instead of looking up exact wording "I would rather be governed by the first 400 (correct #?) people in the Boston phone book than by the faculty at MIT (or maybe it was Harvard?".

Keep in mind that factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (a political advocacy group), and it leans left. The APPC is at the UPenn Communication school, which leans left. UPenn is an Ivy League school at they ALL lean left. Is it possible that their analysis just might lean left a bit? I think it is so.

Even CNN refers to the 5,000 encounters as the trigger point.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/li...d-02-07-24/h_3263c78238d0d2de96a203fad7fd9e94

So here is a question from cynical old me- When Biden already refuses to enforce the existing laws (and took many actions to remove regulations and instructions that Trump put in place), why in the world would you expect Biden to enforce any new laws that restricted access to the US by millions of illegal aliens?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Oh, well if James Lankford said it then it must be true and all of us that disagree with that opinion must just be ignorant Neanderthals, right? As for me, I reserve for myself the right to disagree with the opinion of anyone I want to, especially someone on the US Congress.

I see that Mik has already posted some good points relative to your post, but I will go ahead with more.

Here is the key point-you completely ignored the fact that Chuck Schumer (undoubtedly at the bidding of Biden) sat on a bill that was passed in the House and sent to the Senate almost a year prior that would have specifically addressed the border security problems. In other words, Chuck and Joe and others felt it was politically beneficial to NOT address the absolute flood of illegal aliens that was pouring over the border. So you pretend that either that didn't happen or that you just don't care about it, while at the same time trying to castigate Trump for expressing his opinion that the bill was bad and that he would get better legislation passed when he was re-elected in November. Hypocrisy much?

The final paragraph is why everyday Americans have a right to be pissed at Democrats. The Republican Party should be ashamed that they have thrown away border security because of politics but Democrats should be more ashamed for allowing the border debacle to drag out until they started to worry about the election. There are no heroes in this story.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Is it 5,000 or is it 4,000? Not really clear to me that I am wrong on that.

As to your comment about the intelligence of the 10 people off the street in Pullman being more intelligent, I think that is highly debatable. I am assuming that you figure there would be several WSU students and/or faculty in that sample. So how intelligent do you think all those folks are when they go to college and accumulate a pile of debt to end with a degree that doesn't help them get a job that enables them to pay the debt off? Also, I will remind you of a famous quote from William F. Buckley that I will paraphrase instead of looking up exact wording "I would rather be governed by the first 400 (correct #?) people in the Boston phone book than by the faculty at MIT (or maybe it was Harvard?".

Keep in mind that factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (a political advocacy group), and it leans left. The APPC is at the UPenn Communication school, which leans left. UPenn is an Ivy League school at they ALL lean left. Is it possible that their analysis just might lean left a bit? I think it is so.

Even CNN refers to the 5,000 encounters as the trigger point.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/li...d-02-07-24/h_3263c78238d0d2de96a203fad7fd9e94

So here is a question from cynical old me- When Biden already refuses to enforce the existing laws (and took many actions to remove regulations and instructions that Trump put in place), why in the world would you expect Biden to enforce any new laws that restricted access to the US by millions of illegal aliens?

Did you read the CNN article that you linked? at 4,000, the new restrictions can be implemented. At 5,000, they have to be (by the DHS, not Joe Biden personally). And as the CNN article illustrates, the 4,000/5,000 piece was MORE restrictive to immigrants than what is currently there (which I think is more like nothing?). So how can you Trumpers turn something that is MORE restrictive to border crossing numbers into something bad? Because none of you read (most probably can't) anything resembling facts and rally to whatever the lie of the day is.

 

[Stretch 74]

Did you read the CNN article that you linked? at 4,000, the new restrictions can be implemented. At 5,000, they have to be (by the DHS, not Joe Biden personally). And as the CNN article illustrates, the 4,000/5,000 piece was MORE restrictive to immigrants than what is currently there (which I think is more like nothing?). So how can you Trumpers turn something that is MORE restrictive to border crossing numbers into something bad? Because none of you read (most probably can't) anything resembling facts and rally to whatever the lie of the day is.

Have you been taking lessons from CougEd? Keep ignoring the key point of my post and simply respond with related or even unrelated questions? So let's try again:

1. If it is now so important for that bill to pass, why wasn't it important for the HB 2 to be taken up by the Senate a year ago? Why did Schumer bury it?

2. When Biden has been ignoring current laws to allow unrestricted numbers of illegals to come into our country for the past 3 years, what makes you think that he would start following any law that would put a crimp in the Democrat long term plan to massively expand the Latino voting block that they consider to be a Democrat dedicated base, along with the Blacks?

Now a quick addressing of the border issues. The correct number of allowable illegal border crossings is 0 (zero). Anyone and everyone crossing the border illegally must be returned to Mexico immediately, since that is where they came from. We have no obligation as a country (just as it is with all other countries) to accept those that enter our country illegally.

 

[95coug]

Now a quick addressing of the border issues. The correct number of allowable illegal border crossings is 0 (zero). Anyone and everyone crossing the border illegally must be returned to Mexico immediately, since that is where they came from. We have no obligation as a country (just as it is with all other countries) to accept those that enter our country illegally.

I don’t disagree, but opening/closing the border and enforcing arbitrary numbers isn’t the answer. The entire system needs a revamp. People who want to come to the US should not have to wait years to enter. Students can get in-processed in weeks.
Immigrants are - for the most part - looking for a new and better situation. They are - for the most part - willing to work for it. We should be able to identify their skills, experience, and education and match them with economic needs.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Have you been taking lessons from CougEd? Keep ignoring the key point of my post and simply respond with related or even unrelated questions? So let's try again:

1. If it is now so important for that bill to pass, why wasn't it important for the HB 2 to be taken up by the Senate a year ago? Why did Schumer bury it?

2. When Biden has been ignoring current laws to allow unrestricted numbers of illegals to come into our country for the past 3 years, what makes you think that he would start following any law that would put a crimp in the Democrat long term plan to massively expand the Latino voting block that they consider to be a Democrat dedicated base, along with the Blacks?

Now a quick addressing of the border issues. The correct number of allowable illegal border crossings is 0 (zero). Anyone and everyone crossing the border illegally must be returned to Mexico immediately, since that is where they came from. We have no obligation as a country (just as it is with all other countries) to accept those that enter our country illegally.

I have been responding to the second part of your original post (below). Which was inaccurate as F-, as I illustrated with facts. I don't give a F about your BS about "Brandon" and "Chuckie" and what they did or didn't do 1 or 3 years ago. I care about the here and the now. But I will go back and find the truth behind your Trumpian rants and insults. But not right now......

Stretch posted:
But putting aside that, the supposedly bipartisan bill was a piece of shit. Any bill that allows 5,000 illegals per day into the country before the president has to take action to "close the border" is truly a piece of shit.

 

[WillieThePimp]

I have been responding to the second part of your original post (below). Which was inaccurate as F-, as I illustrated with facts. I don't give a F about your BS about "Brandon" and "Chuckie" and what they did or didn't do 1 or 3 years ago. I care about the here and the now. But I will go back and find the truth behind your Trumpian rants and insults. But not right now......

Stretch posted:
But putting aside that, the supposedly bipartisan bill was a piece of shit. Any bill that allows 5,000 illegals per day into the country before the president has to take action to "close the border" is truly a piece of shit.

When Stretch gets going his posts are not that different from Miks. All over the place and like a water cannon. Go easy on him, hes got issues. Lots of them:

Border Derangement Syndrome
Brandon Derangement Syndrome
MSM Derangement Syndrome
Hunter Derangement Syndrome
Nancy Derangement Syndrome
Chuckie Derangement Syndrome
Hilary Derangement Syndrome
Barry Derangement Syndrome
Kamala Derangement Syndrome

Just to name a few..

To put things into context he’s the guy ranting about the MSM while posting links to something called “Red State” some other rightwing site that requires a subscription and he watches a lot of FOX which pimps streams of nonsense, as we know.

More recently and sadly he has ranted about how Joe Biden needs to be criminally prosecuted for taking bribes which we now know was nonsense fed by Russian Intelligence linked Alexander Smirnov who fed BS to conservative media like FOX who then pimped it ad nauseum.. even more alarming is how conservative lawmakers jumped on that and pimped it too. Honestly, on some level I kind of feel bad for Stretch.

 

[mikalalas]

Oh, well if James Lankford said it then it must be true and all of us that disagree with that opinion must just be ignorant Neanderthals, right? As for me, I reserve for myself the right to disagree with the opinion of anyone I want to, especially someone on the US Congress.

I see that Mik has already posted some good points relative to your post, but I will go ahead with more.

Here is the key point-you completely ignored the fact that Chuck Schumer (undoubtedly at the bidding of Biden) sat on a bill that was passed in the House and sent to the Senate almost a year prior that would have specifically addressed the border security problems. In other words, Chuck and Joe and others felt it was politically beneficial to NOT address the absolute flood of illegal aliens that was pouring over the border. So you pretend that either that didn't happen or that you just don't care about it, while at the same time trying to castigate Trump for expressing his opinion that the bill was bad and that he would get better legislation passed when he was re-elected in November. Hypocrisy much?

Let's leave Trump out of your points. Trump should not be president and should be locked up.

And lets not sidetrack your valid points with a discussion on about Trump.

Taking Trump out of the conversation, what your saying about the Republicans is right, on, about the border security issue.

 

[mikalalas]

Easy answer for you Mik...It would have passed the Senate, and the house if it was allowed to be presented. If you are looking for the perfect bill, you aren't going to get it. Hell, Trump promised a wall and another country was going to pay for it. The republicants had all three branches and Forrest Trump couldnt get a wall built or border deal.

Valid point about Trump, Republicans controlling all 3 branches of govt and not getting a border deal done.

Part of that is on Democrats FILIBUSTERING, via a opposition, minority party filibuster process, of shutting down the majority, and doing that in a inappropriate way(There are appropriate times to Filibuster, shut down the majority, to stop them from doing something bad, etc(like when Democrat Joe Manchin joined Republicans in either Filibustering, stopping democrats from passing all their tax increase, increased spending, about 100 trillion whatever it was free college for everyone, etc, GREEN NEW DEAL).

Part of that is on the Republicans because they are ineffective, spineless, have no backbone, quit too easily, not very persuasive, not good at compromise, not good sellers, not good at negotiating, deal making, not good at getting the best deal possible, etc.

 

[mikalalas]

Did you read the CNN article that you linked? at 4,000, the new restrictions can be implemented. At 5,000, they have to be (by the DHS, not Joe Biden personally). And as the CNN article illustrates, the 4,000/5,000 piece was MORE restrictive to immigrants than what is currently there (which I think is more like nothing?). So how can you Trumpers turn something that is MORE restrictive to border crossing numbers into something bad? Because none of you read (most probably can't) anything resembling facts and rally to whatever the lie of the day is.

Now your NITPICKING. There is not much difference between 4000 or 5000. And even 4000 Illegals, illegally crossing the border each day, etc, is WAY TOO MANY, and if the bill has it that 4000 can illegally cross border each day, before the President has to either close the border, an or do something right, effective, etc, to control the border, stop 4000 from illegally crossing the border each day, then that border deal is a bad border deal.

Now if the border bill deal said something like 300 illegally crossing a day, and then would be required to close, control the border, or just control the border period, no matter how many illegally crossing, that would be good, acceptable, etc.

 

[mikalalas]

Did you read the CNN article that you linked? at 4,000, the new restrictions can be implemented. At 5,000, they have to be (by the DHS, not Joe Biden personally). And as the CNN article illustrates, the 4,000/5,000 piece was MORE restrictive to immigrants than what is currently there (which I think is more like nothing?). So how can you Trumpers turn something that is MORE restrictive to border crossing numbers into something bad? Because none of you read (most probably can't) anything resembling facts and rally to whatever the lie of the day is.

Allowing 4000 illegal crossings a day, and 40k every 10 days, and 400k every 100 days, and about 1.2 mil illegal crossings per year, and about 10 mil illegal crossings per decade, is NOT very restrictive, and NOT good, NOT acceptable, is bad, etc.

 

[mikalalas]

Have you been taking lessons from CougEd? Keep ignoring the key point of my post and simply respond with related or even unrelated questions? So let's try again:

1. If it is now so important for that bill to pass, why wasn't it important for the HB 2 to be taken up by the Senate a year ago? Why did Schumer bury it?

2. When Biden has been ignoring current laws to allow unrestricted numbers of illegals to come into our country for the past 3 years, what makes you think that he would start following any law that would put a crimp in the Democrat long term plan to massively expand the Latino voting block that they consider to be a Democrat dedicated base, along with the Blacks?

Now a quick addressing of the border issues. The correct number of allowable illegal border crossings is 0 (zero). Anyone and everyone crossing the border illegally must be returned to Mexico immediately, since that is where they came from. We have no obligation as a country (just as it is with all other countries) to accept those that enter our country illegally.

While I agree with some to most of what your saying, I don't think the number should be absolute zero no matter what, because I have worked beside both illegal, legal Hispanic immigrants in the bean crops of Othello, 10 hour days, 130 degree heat, and most to almost all of them were awesome, good people, that were there to escape from Mexico, etc, have a better life, send money back to family in Mexico, were HARD, SMART, EFFECTIVE, etc, workers, etc.

I don't think they should cross illegally, and I don't think they should be allowed to cross illegally. But if a few of them do cross illegally, then there should be a pathway process to citizenship, an or they should be temporarily sent back, back to end of the line, and allowed to try to enter legally(called touchback semi deportation), and it should be easier for them to come here legally(they shouldn't have to wait 20 years just to be able to come here legally)

That's what George Bush Junior advocated, in order to control the border. And it's the right way to control the border. Control the border, stop illegal immigration, etc, but be compassionate about it, don't imprison illegal immigrants, unless they break laws, etc, don't mass deport them, handle it on case by case basis, consider mitigating circumstances, reasons, have a pathway process to citizenship, to staying for those who either deserve it, earn it, etc, and make it easier to come here, etc.

My awesome half hispanic brother in law's mother, family legally immigrated here, but it wasn't easy, and it took them many years, and they understand why some would come here illegally.

 

[CougEd]

Oh, well if James Lankford said it then it must be true and all of us that disagree with that opinion must just be ignorant Neanderthals, right? As for me, I reserve for myself the right to disagree with the opinion of anyone I want to, especially someone on the US Congress.

I see that Mik has already posted some good points relative to your post, but I will go ahead with more.

Here is the key point-you completely ignored the fact that Chuck Schumer (undoubtedly at the bidding of Biden) sat on a bill that was passed in the House and sent to the Senate almost a year prior that would have specifically addressed the border security problems. In other words, Chuck and Joe and others felt it was politically beneficial to NOT address the absolute flood of illegal aliens that was pouring over the border. So you pretend that either that didn't happen or that you just don't care about it, while at the same time trying to castigate Trump for expressing his opinion that the bill was bad and that he would get better legislation passed when he was re-elected in November. Hypocrisy much?

Well...if the dems win the house how do you think they will get a "better bill"? And if they maintain the senate, which not sure how where they will pick up the couple of seats they will lose in Ohio and WVa., but if the dems pick up an unexpected seat the senate is at another standstill.

And why can't congress pass this bill and porn diddling Donnie when he is elected puts another bill on the table or goes rogue and kicks out a bunch of "brown foreigners" out of the country.

And yes Schumer probably felt that way two years ago, but life isn't static. You can't think of two reasons why the dems changed their position?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Now your NITPICKING. There is not much difference between 4000 or 5000. And even 4000 Illegals, illegally crossing the border each day, etc, is WAY TOO MANY, and if the bill has it that 4000 can illegally cross border each day, before the President has to either close the border, an or do something right, effective, etc, to control the border, stop 4000 from illegally crossing the border each day, then that border deal is a bad border deal.

Now if the border bill deal said something like 300 illegally crossing a day, and then would be required to close, control the border, or just control the border period, no matter how many illegally crossing, that would be good, acceptable, etc.

How is directly quoting the failed Senate bill nitpicking? You realize the 4-5,000 limits are way more restrictive than what we have currently, right? And the President (per the bill, try to read) has no involvement in enforcing those levels.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/border-surge-record-amounts/index.html

Edit - another interesting and FACT-FILLED article about the border crisis. Debunks the usual assortment of Republican lies.

Breaking Down the Immigration Figures - FactCheck.org

Encounters on the southern border of those trying to enter the U.S. without authorization have gone up significantly under President Joe Biden. Government statistics show that in the initial processing of millions of encounters, 2.5 million people have been released into the U.S. and 2.8 million...

www.factcheck.org

Another fact-check from Snopes (don't know which way they lean), but it more or less concurs with the factcheck.org figures.

7.2M Migrants Have Illegally Crossed US Border Under Biden, Exceeding the Populations of 36 States?

The immigration statistics were shared on X and originated in an article that was published by Fox News.

www.snopes.com

I find the "getaway" numbers intriguing. These are the ones jumping the fence and swimming (wading) the river. The true illegals. A relatively small number. The vast majority of "illegals" are lining up and crossing into the arms of the authorities. Why let them get that far? Good question. Shoot them down I guess. It would help if Mexico enforced their own southern borders and kept all these Central Americans out.

Finally - the % of border crossers returned appear by all measures to be about the same between Trump and Biden's administrations. Probably the same people manning the border stations for the last 8 years. Doing their jobs. We have a shitload more of them, and more unaccompanied children, and more non-mexicans that are more difficult to return home.

Lots of issues - that need bi-partisan solutions. The failed bill was an attempt to improve things. I'll believe moderates like Murkowski, who supported it, way before anyone else on either side.

 

[702coug]

I hate Macklemore but his message in that new track is 100% spot on. Respect.

 

[mikalalas]

How is directly quoting the failed Senate bill nitpicking? You realize the 4-5,000 limits are way more restrictive than what we have currently, right? And the President (per the bill, try to read) has no involvement in enforcing those levels.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/border-surge-record-amounts/index.html

It doesn't matter that it would be better then today, as even 4000 is WAY TO MANY.

That would be like saying "Well at least LITERALLY eating literally, exact, poop, shit, is ok, because at least it's better SHIT, not as bad".

Or that's like instead of ocean flooding, we'll replace that with the biggest river on the planet massively flooding, because it's not as bad, and it's better.

Or that's like a person with either a big wound to heart, or cut in half bleeding to death, but fix that by cutting off the leg in middle of thigh, and still having them bleed to death.

What you do is try to stop, enforce the border, so that only between zero to bout 400 ILEGALLY cross border before the president, or govt, has to close, control the border, etc, as that's TRULY BETTER.

Then you reform the immigration system and make it so that don't have to wait for 30 years to legally come here, and instead make it easier to come here legally.

Then you create a path to either staying or visa or citizenship for those illegals that deserve it, earn it.

And you don't do massive deportation all at same time, and instead only do more individual, case by case deportations.

And when you deport them, they can wait in line, and come here legally.

And you make exigent, mitigating circumstances exceptions, such as, for refugees, those looking for asylum, on a case by case basis, using certain guidelines, best judgement, etc.

That was the RIGHT, CORRECT, George Bush Junior way.

And that way is a lot BETTER then the 4000 is ok number.

4000 ILLEGALS CROSSING BORDER a day IS NOT OK, AND IS EXTREMELY BAD.

 

[95coug]

How is directly quoting the failed Senate bill nitpicking? You realize the 4-5,000 limits are way more restrictive than what we have currently, right? And the President (per the bill, try to read) has no involvement in enforcing those levels.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/border-surge-record-amounts/index.html

Edit - another interesting and FACT-FILLED article about the border crisis. Debunks the usual assortment of Republican lies.

Breaking Down the Immigration Figures - FactCheck.org

Encounters on the southern border of those trying to enter the U.S. without authorization have gone up significantly under President Joe Biden. Government statistics show that in the initial processing of millions of encounters, 2.5 million people have been released into the U.S. and 2.8 million...

www.factcheck.org

Another fact-check from Snopes (don't know which way they lean), but it more or less concurs with the factcheck.org figures.

7.2M Migrants Have Illegally Crossed US Border Under Biden, Exceeding the Populations of 36 States?

The immigration statistics were shared on X and originated in an article that was published by Fox News.

www.snopes.com

I find the "getaway" numbers intriguing. These are the ones jumping the fence and swimming (wading) the river. The true illegals. A relatively small number. The vast majority of "illegals" are lining up and crossing into the arms of the authorities. Why let them get that far? Good question. Shoot them down I guess. It would help if Mexico enforced their own southern borders and kept all these Central Americans out.

Finally - the % of border crossers returned appear by all measures to be about the same between Trump and Biden's administrations. Probably the same people manning the border stations for the last 8 years. Doing their jobs. We have a shitload more of them, and more unaccompanied children, and more non-mexicans that are more difficult to return home.

Lots of issues - that need bi-partisan solutions. The failed bill was an attempt to improve things. I'll believe moderates like Murkowski, who supported it, way before anyone else on either side.

We should go to war with Mexico. After we beat them, we install a government and start pouring money into building their infrastructure. After a few years and several billion dollars, it'll be so much nicer down there that nobody will want to come to the US. The Central American migrants will just stay in Mexico and never make it to our border.

Not sure who we'll use then to harvest our crops and build our houses though.

 

[Observer11]

We should go to war with Mexico. After we beat them, we install a government and start pouring money into building their infrastructure. After a few years and several billion dollars, it'll be so much nicer down there that nobody will want to come to the US. The Central American migrants will just stay in Mexico and never make it to our border.

Not sure who we'll use then to harvest our crops and build our houses though.

You’re probably not too far off from the actual solution.

The cartels’ influence is starting to permeate American society. El Salvador took on the criminal element and turned itself around in just a few years.