I was listening to a local radio talk show, and a guy was trashing Trump because of something that Trump's sister said about him. She called him a "psycho," so this caller thinks that's a good reason not to vote for Trump.
It's dumb to trash someone based on what they heard other people say. Do lefties have any legitimate reason to trash Trump? Trump is precisely what is best for the USA right now, and the media is the problem because they know how to manipulate dumb people.
How about the Classified documents?
The Donald claimed there was an "illegal", "unconstitutional" and "un-American"
raid on Mar-A-Lago. Of course it was a court authorized search that returned a >trove of boxes containing highly sensitive state secrets.
I could go on but I think you get the idea?
I was listening to a local radio talk show, and a guy was trashing Trump because of something that Trump's sister said about him. She called him a "psycho," so this caller thinks that's a good reason not to vote for Trump.
It's dumb to trash someone based on what they heard other people say. Do lefties have any legitimate reason to trash Trump? Trump is precisely
what is best for the USA right now, and the media is the problem because they know how to manipulate dumb people.
It's dumb to trash someone based on what they heard other people say. Do lefties have any legitimate reason to trash Trump? Trump is precisely wh best for the USA right now, and the media is the problem because they kn how to manipulate dumb people.
How about the Classified documents?
The Donald claimed there was an "illegal", "unconstitutional" and "un-American" raid on Mar-A-Lago. Of course it was a court authorized search that returned a trove of boxes containing highly sensitive state secrets.
I could go on but I think you get the idea?
<iframe src="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/113168249318761203/embed" class="truthsocial-embed truthsocial-video" style="max-width: 100%; border: 0" width="600"
allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><script src="https://truthsocia
I could go on but I think you get the idea?
No, I'm sorry, but I don't get the idea. What do classified documents have to do with this?
You're doing the same thing that the caller to the radio show did;
accuse somebody of something based on what other people say.
Also, the media has reported that the classified documents case against
Trump has been dismissed (which makes this conversation even more unintelligent.)
I could go on but I think you get the idea?
No, I'm sorry, but I don't get the idea. What do classified documents ha do with this?
You asked why "lefties" would trash talk Trump. That's why "lefties" and others might trash talk Trump.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-
No, I'm sorry, but I don't get the idea. What do classified documents
have to do with this?
You're doing the same thing that the caller to the radio show did;
accuse somebody of something based on what other people say.
Also, the
media has reported that the classified documents case against Trump has been dismissed (which makes this conversation even more unintelligent.)
How about the Classified documents?
The Donald claimed there was an "illegal", "unconstitutional" and "un-American" raid on Mar-A-Lago. Of course it was a court authorized search that returned a trove of boxes containing highly sensitive state secrets.
I could go on but I think you get the idea?Don't embarrass yourself, more than you already have.
and the Russia collusion was debunked,
Russian collution was never debunked and as you know the russians are still interfering.
So what else you got?
The Jan 6 case, and more.
Trump really didn't do anything for America generally. A tax cut for the rich,
yeah he did that and plans to do more of that but nothing for regular folks.
You're doing the same thing that the caller to the radio show did;
accuse somebody of something based on what other people say. Also, the media has reported that the classified documents case against Trump has been dismissed (which makes this conversation even more unintelligent.)
How about the Classified documents?
The Donald claimed there was an "illegal", "unconstitutional" and
"un-American" raid on Mar-A-Lago. Of course it was a court authorized
search that returned a trove of boxes containing highly sensitive state
secrets.
You don't follow "current events" - like at all do you?
Apparently not, these findings were more then two months ago.
Perhaps the anger, and or the determination to "Get Trump" at any cost, for shadows or blurs what should be the commonsense of the importance of time... Speaking to this at this point, w/something that has transpired 2 months ago? you look? like (are) a dam fool.
From NBC NEWS
07/15/2024 10:03 AM
https://tinyurl.com/3fn6dm45
The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents trial in Florida dismissed the case against the former president Monday on the grounds that the appointment of and funding for special counsel Jack Smith were illegal.
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel in Novembe
2022, tasking him with overseeing the federal investigations into Trump's
handling and retention of classified documents after he left office, as well a
his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
Trump's lawyers argued in court papers filed in February that the appointments
clause of the Constitution does not permit the Attorney General to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the proprietorial power of the United States. As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecutorial this action.
I could go on but I think you get the idea?Don't embarrass yourself, more than you already have.
and the Russia collusion was debunked,
Russian collution was never debunked and as you know the russians are still >> interfering.
Russian collusion with the Trump campaign was debunked.
Interesting considering Putin, and now the Iranians, have either endorsed
or attempted to assist the Harris campaign.
So what else you got?
The Jan 6 case, and more.
Trump really didn't do anything for America generally. A tax cut for therich,
yeah he did that and plans to do more of that but nothing for regular folks.
Most of us "regular folks" who have jobs and actually try to be productive did much better during his term, pre-COVID, than we had before or since.
Trump's lawyers argued in court papers filed in February that the appoint
clause of the Constitution does not permit the Attorney General to appoin
without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political
to wield the proprietorial power of the United States. As such, Jack Smit
lacks the authority to prosecutorial this action.
The DOJ has been appointing special counsel for years decades or more. There is nothing wrong that.
Biden had a special counsel for example.From Slate.com
Trump really didn't do anything for America generally. A tax cut for thrich,
yeah he did that and plans to do more of that but nothing for regular fo
and the Russia collusion was debunked,
Russian collution was never debunked and as you know the russians are still
interfering.
Russian collusion with the Trump campaign was debunked.
Not at all. Nothing was proved or trying to be proved.
Interesting considering Putin, and now the Iranians, have either endorsed or attempted to assist the Harris campaign.
Wrong. You believe the russian propaganda.
In what way? I don't know how you are doing, but I know the American economy i
stronger now that when Trump was in office.
I could go on but I think you get the idea?Don't embarrass yourself, more than you already have.
Three Ways That Jack Smith Could Resurrect the Classified Documents Case
I think you need a refresher of the Trump Accomplishments.
Not at all. Nothing was proved or trying to be proved.
It was. Links have been provided. Just because you never accepted that "collusion" was debunked doesn't make it not so.
Wrong. You believe the russian propaganda.
Putin did come out and say he hopes she wins.
The Iranians did hack the Trump campaign servers and tried to share the information with Biden/Harris.
In what way? I don't know how you are doing, but I know the American economy >> is stronger now that when Trump was in office.
Stronger than when he was in office, pre-COVID, no.
stronger now that when Trump was in office.
Stronger than when he was in office, pre-COVID, no.
You asked why "lefties" would trash talk Trump. That's why "lefties" an >> others might trash talk Trump.
But his classfied docs case was dismissed,
Yes. Aileen dismissed it on the doubious grounds Jack Smith was
unlawfully appointed. Jack Smith has appealed that silly ruling and the case will be back up and running once the 11th circuit has dealt with it.
and the Russia collusion was debunked,
Russian collution was never debunked and as you know the russians are still interfering.
So what else you got?
The Jan 6 case, and more.
Trump really didn't do anything for America generally. A tax cut for the rich, yeah he did that and plans to do more of that but nothing for regular folks.
You're doing the same thing that the caller to the radio show did; accuse somebody of something based on what other people say.
Standard tactic of the Ignorant Elitists.
"It's bad enough that so many people believe things without any
evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else's opinion." -- Thomas Sowell
Also, the
media has reported that the classified documents case against Trump h been dismissed (which makes this conversation even more unintelligent
Don't use facts and logic with Alan. He can't handle them and it just triggers him.
I think you need a refresher of the Trump Accomplishments.
He made America hate again. He and JD Vance lie about immigrants eating peoples pets.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Alan Ianson <=-
I think you need a refresher of the Trump Accomplishments.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-
I don't know what Trump did to deserve blame for the January 6
Vandalism. I don't think he's the one who sh!t on Nancy's desk and I
don't think he is the one who broke a window either.
If you feel like Trump did nothing for regular folks, then it probably depends on your definitions of "regular" and "folks."
If you feel like Trump did nothing for regular folks, then it probabl depends on your definitions of "regular" and "folks."
Remember that Alan imagines himself in the Elite category. He thinks
that by supporting the Elitists that he will be welcomed into their
ranks. He doesn't realize that they are playing him.
Wrong. You believe the russian propaganda.
Putin did come out and say he hopes she wins.
Putin is as believable as DJT.
The Iranians did hack the Trump campaign servers and tried to share the information with Biden/Harris.
Biden/Harris had no interest.
In what way? I don't know how you are doing, but I know the American econom
is stronger now that when Trump was in office.
Stronger than when he was in office, pre-COVID, no.
Yes, I am talking pre-covid. Look at the data.
Stronger than when he was in office, pre-COVID, no.
It is much stronger now. Here's a comparison written in March.
https://tinyurl.com/3hbx9cfj
Cost of living is another thing. Monthly bills, rent, groceries, gas and the like.
I think you need a refresher of the Trump Accomplishments.
He made America hate again.
I don't know what Trump did to deserve blame for the January 6 Vandalism. I don't think he's the one who sh!t on Nancy's desk and I don't think he is the one who broke a window either.
Russian collution was never debunked and as you know the russians are
still interfering.
I understand. It depends on your definition of "debunked." Some would argue that it's when 2 bunk beds are separated.
Yes, I am talking pre-covid. Look at the data.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
He made America hate again.
The fault in this logic is believing the divide between Americans started with Trump. It actually started before he even decided to run for
President.
The loser in an election does not normally throw a rally for his now disgruntled supporters in DC on Electoral Vote Day. The fact that he requested that police security be beefed up that day shows that he knew things might get out of hand.
Did he know that they would ignore his requests to be "peaceful" and
cause the level of damage they did? That is unknown but, IMHO, an individual as smart as Trump (and his most ardent supporters) claim he
is should have known better.
He made America hate again.
The fault in this logic is believing the divide between Americans starte with Trump. It actually started before he even decided to run for President.
He's taken it to a whole new level.
The loser in an election does not normally throw a rally for his now disgruntled supporters in DC on Electoral Vote Day. The fact that he requested that police security be beefed up that day shows that he knew things might get out of hand.
Did he know that they would ignore his requests to be "peaceful" and
cause the level of damage they did? That is unknown but, IMHO, an individual as smart as Trump (and his most ardent supporters) claim he
is should have known better.
Yup I kinda knew he would, but I offered an opportunity to post a list of the Biden / Harris accomplishments, and this is not my first time making a request for such a list. I continue to wait.Gregory Deyss wrote to Alan Ianson <=-
I think you need a refresher of the Trump Accomplishments.
It won't make a difference. He'll just ignore them.
Remember that Alan imagines himself in the Elite category. He thinks that by supporting the Elitists that he will be welcomed into their ranks. He doesn't realize that they are playing him.
This applies to most leftists. They never tell us what they gain from electing
Democrats, and because of that, we have every right to draw our own conclusions.
The fault in this logic is believing the divide between Americans started with Trump. It actually started before he even decided to run for President.
He's taken it to a whole new level.
The lies around Hatians eating dogs/cats/pets is just the latest example.
The loser in an election does not normally throw a rally for his now disgruntled supporters in DC on Electoral Vote Day. The fact that he requested that police security be beefed up that day shows that he knew things might get out of hand.
Did he know that they would ignore his requests to be "peaceful" and cause the level of damage they did? That is unknown but, IMHO, an individual as smart as Trump (and his most ardent supporters) claim he is should have known better.
This whole bit drives me bat-crap crazy.
He was still the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. If he wanted beefed u
security, he would have ordered it, and there would have been National Guard a
far as the eye could see.
Playing the "poor little ol' me asked for policeymens" card is bonkers, and I can't for the life of me figure out why he wasn't pummeled over the head with that.
The loser in an election does not normally throw a rally for his now disgruntled supporters in DC on Electoral Vote Day. The fact that he requested that police security be beefed up that day shows that he knew things might get out of hand.
Did he know that they would ignore his requests to be "peaceful" and cause the level of damage they did? That is unknown but, IMHO, an individual as smart as Trump (and his most ardent supporters) claim he is should have known better.
But based on all the info that's been released to the media, I don't think there's any proof that Trump is responsible for what happened.
The loser in an election does not normally throw a rally for his now disgruntled supporters in DC on Electoral Vote Day. The fact that he requested that police security be beefed up that day shows that he knew things might get out of hand.
It's ridiculous for leftists to cling to that event when someone asks them why
they don't like Trump. They can't pin it on him, and they can't honestly say that they were personally affected by it.
He's taken it to a whole new level.
The lies around Hatians eating dogs/cats/pets is just the latest example.
Dale and I had a conversation once, when that Chinese "weather balloon" was transitioning the USA, about whether or not a lie is a lie if it is based on bad info received from others.
We concluded that, in this instance, the person who believes it to be true
is not lying, they are merely misinformed.
At the time Trump brought up pet eating in the debate, there was footage (shared here!) of townspeople complaining about these very things, including a couple who claimed to have witnessed these issues. These claims have since either been debunked or claimed to be "uncomfirmable" by authorities.
No rally in DC = no reason for a big group of disgruntled supporters to
be collected together in DC = no ignoring calls to be "Peaceful" and storming the Capitol.
That math checks.
If he hadn't been dumb enough to hold a rally for his disgruntled supporters, and there had still been a storming of the Capitol, there'd
be no culpability here. The media and D's might try to pin it on him,
but there'd be no logical way for it to stick. As is, he hosted a large gathering, that he still brags about the size of to this day, and chaos was the result.
We concluded that, in this instance, the person who believes it to be true is not lying, they are merely misinformed.
That is true. A person can be misinformded and then spread that disinformation
This story is a lie on the face of it.
Trump is still talking about this at his rallies. He says these people will be
deported when he gets elected.
The Hatian immingants in Springfield are there leagally. Springfield had jobs that needed to be filled so they invited the Hatians there to fill those jobs and they did.
Now schools and businesses in springfield have been closed because of bomb threats.
That doesn't explain the continuing saga that DJT keeps talking about.
No rally in DC = no reason for a big group of disgruntled supporters to be collected together in DC = no ignoring calls to be "Peaceful" and storming the Capitol.
That math checks.
Trump could have handled things differently, and if he had done things differently, it's possible that the riot would have never happened..
But under that logic, nobody should do anything because all the things that people do have consequences.
If he hadn't been dumb enough to hold a rally for his disgruntled supporters, and there had still been a storming of the Capitol, there'd be no culpability here. The media and D's might try to pin it on him, but there'd be no logical way for it to stick. As is, he hosted a large gathering, that he still brags about the size of to this day, and chaos was the result.
A "loser's rally" isn't necessarily a bad idea. I get more annoyed by candidates who walk away quietly.
Trump is still my leader and that won't
change until a capable person takes his place.
A "loser's rally" isn't necessarily a bad idea. I get more annoyed by candidates who walk away quietly.
Getting a bunch of disgruntled people together is most certainly a bad idea and a recipe for disaster. He should have seen trouble coming and, seeing as how he asked for a larger law enforcement presence, apparently he did see the issue with holding such a rally.
Maybe I am just missing it but it seems like, this time, he is pointing out a lot of what is broken but not really giving us any idea about his plans to fix it. "You liked me before" isn't really good enough now
that the many of the issues facing us have changed. I would feel more confident of his capability if he'd start addressing potential solutions to issues more and less time simply pointing them out. I feel this way about the Republicans in general lately.
Going back to "capable," Harris hit me as the incapable type until very recently. I am not sure how they've done it, but they coached her well
to keep a straight face and not resort to cackling during the debate. I was actually surprised at how different she seemed, but the past 4 years still leave me with plenty of questions regarding her capability.
That doesn't explain the continuing saga that DJT keeps talking about.
I have not seen him bring up pet eating in more recent public
engagements, but it could be that my local press is ignoring it. Maybe Aaron, who has recently attended a rally, can confirm. I will take your word for it, though.
If you go to a bank with a friend and your friend decides to rob the bank while you're there, how guilty are you?
I realize that we have a long to-do list for a great leader, but the media has
a lot of people stirred up about the border. Trump has been somewhat clear about how he wants to handle that. He hasn't been clear about how he will "cut
your utility bills in half." I believe what he's saying, but I can't expect certain moderates to just take his word for it the same way I do.
Going back to "capable," Harris hit me as the incapable type until very recently. I am not sure how they've done it, but they coached her well to keep a straight face and not resort to cackling during the debate. I was actually surprised at how different she seemed, but the past 4 years still leave me with plenty of questions regarding her capability.
These are good observations, and I see it this way also. She can act smart suddenly, but what's smart about the past 4 years?
Going back to "capable," Harris hit me as the incapable type until ve recently. I am not sure how they've done it, but they coached her we to keep a straight face and not resort to cackling during the debate. was actually surprised at how different she seemed, but the past 4 ye still leave me with plenty of questions regarding her capability.
These are good observations, and I see it this way also. She can act
smart suddenly, but what's smart about the past 4 years?
If you go to a bank with a friend and your friend decides to rob the ban while you're there, how guilty are you?
Did I drive him there, and did I drive him away afterwards? Was I coerced? Did I have any prior knowledge of his plans or reasons to
suspect what he was up to?
He has been clear about the border. Most other issues, as you have noticed, he has not been so. I don't think you can take a politician's word when it comes to promises like cutting a utility bill in half. They need to give us an idea about how they plan to do it.
I agree about the past four years. I also am very much aware that she
has served up plenty of word salad over those four years. However, some news outlets (FOX News in particular) continue to "point out" more
recent alleged salads where, for the most part, she is making sense *despite* the horrible video editing done by whoever it is trying to
prove she makes no sense.
Now I don't agree with what she is saying but, just as we might tell a "never-Trumper," just because I don't agree with what is said doesn't
make it "word salad" or "crazy talk."
These are good observations, and I see it this way also. She can act smart suddenly, but what's smart about the past 4 years?
This angle confuses me. I can't think of a time since I've been voting where people tried so hard to make believe the VP was the incumbent.
These are good observations, and I see it this way also. She can smart suddenly, but what's smart about the past 4 years?
This angle confuses me. I can't think of a time since I've been votin where people tried so hard to make believe the VP was the incumbent.
Just being part of the administration that did so much harm makes people blame her for it all.
These are good observations, and I see it this way also. She can act smart suddenly, but what's smart about the past 4 years?
This angle confuses me. I can't think of a time since I've been voting where people tried so hard to make believe the VP was the incumbent. These are two very different offices with very different roles.
(This ignores the fact that
the President shouldn't be the one in charge of super-all-policy-and-power- everything in the first place, and I wish we could collectively get this offic
off THAT pedestal...)
I didn't hear anyone talking about Pence or Biden or Cheney or Gore or whomeve
in anywhere near the same realm of imaginary control as they have Harris.
Again, she's not my favorite person for the role, just making an observation o
the political tactic (which seems to have taken quite the solid hold).
That's not what I hear, though. I hear "she should have done all the things already that she's promising to do now."
It's just an odd take.
Q: Does Trump control congress?
A: No.
This angle confuses me. I can't think of a time since I've been voting
where people tried so hard to make believe the VP was the incumbent.
Just being part of the administration that did so much harm makes people blame her for it all.
If Mike Pence was running for president, you wouldn't see liberals forgiving
him for his involvement with Trump.
Q: Does Trump control congress?
A: No.
He has sure excercised a lot of control over Johnson and other MAGA members on certain issues. Don't vote the way I want you to and suffer the consequences of being labeled a RINO and being hounded by my most ardent supporters.
Q: Does Trump control congress?
A: No.
He has sure excercised a lot of control over Johnson and other MAGA members on certain issues. Don't vote the way I want you to and suffer the consequences of being labeled a RINO and being hounded by my most ardent supporters.
Did you see proof of Trump making those demands? I have not.
I'm a MAGA guy, but I don't need Trump to tell me that the border bill was no good. I would have sent an angry letter to my rep had he voted for that bill.
If Mike Pence was running for president, you wouldn't see liberals
forgiving
him for his involvement with Trump.
Mike Pence ran for president in this election cycle.
He never made it to the first primary or caucus.
As such, liberals are excused for not having had time to forgive
him for all his mistakes.
Liberals actually started to like him when he began trashing Trump.
And I know that you guys would like having Pence for president because the world elite is also down with Pence.
Anything but Trump, because Trump refuses bribes.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/23/senate-democrats-i ation-border-bill
It is better than what we have. Funny how the same people who complain about executive orders one minute are the same ones saying "he can
already do that (with an executive order)" the next.
It all started with the fly. Live and on camera, President Obama
showed the world what to do when a fly lands on your arm. Use your
hand on your other arm and swat it. One swat and that fly was dead.
With Pence it was an entirely different matter. We all watched
the debate, when a fly landed on top of Pence's head. The fly was
the star of the show, dancing around for all to see. And what did
Pence do? He just stood there. Staring at the camera. Without a
single thought in his head as to what to do.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/23/senate-democrats-
ation-border-bill
I'm sorry, but even after reading this article, I still don't see any proof that Trump had anything to do with the bill being killed.
"At the behest of Trump.." <- That doesn't mean anything to me. Is there any video evidence? The article doesn't say "Trump was in the room" or "Trump gave
a big thumbs-down to house members."
It is better than what we have. Funny how the same people who complain about executive orders one minute are the same ones saying "he can already do that (with an executive order)" the next.
Yea, all we can expect and hope for is for Trump to get elected so he can protect us from illegal immigrants for 4 more years. The senate doesn't want the mess cleaned up - just look at what's in that bill. That bill was going to
legitimize thousands of illegal crossings per day, which would make things difficult for a president who wants to "deport all illegals."
I'm sorry, but even after reading this article, I still don't see any pr that Trump had anything to do with the bill being killed.
"At the behest of Trump.." <- That doesn't mean anything to me. Is there video evidence? The article doesn't say "Trump was in the room" or "Trum gave
a big thumbs-down to house members."
Him bad mouthing and suggesting the GOP vote against the bill was all
over the news. It is not my fault if you don't watch it.
It didn't legitimize illegal crossings. It allowed for a cap on
crossings at legal border crossings. The bill would have been a lot better than what we have now and didn't do anything to stop Republicans from passing something even more strict once Trump got into office.
Seeing how liberal Democrats voted against it because it was "too strict" tells me it was not a bad bill.
Since February, when the bill was killed, every single illegal that has got into the country is equally on the heads of Trump, Johnson, and all
of their cronnies as is is on the head of Biden. It stopped being the "Biden border crisis" at that point.
That's not what I hear, though. I hear "she should have done all the things already that she's promising to do now."
That's what Trump said about her. I'm just saying that she's guilty by association.
There are answers to certain questions that can be inferred:
Q: Why did Joe let in more than 20 million migrants without visas?
A: Because it will create more house seats that only Democrats can fill.
Q: Is Kamala a Democrat, like Joe?
A: Yes.
Q: Does Trump control congress?
A: No.
Q: If Trump IS controlling congress, what are Democrats doing about it? A: Nothing.
I do remember a lot of non-supporters blaming Cheney for things that happened while Bush was President, and IIRC Gore also tried taking credit for some things that happened while Clinton was President.
Harris has most certainly been trying to take credit for things she
thinks are good, while distancing herself from things she thinks have
not turned out good, that resulted from Biden's Presidency.
(2) we now have his VP (who is the new candidate) showing up at places and events where you would normally expect to be seeing the President.
If you accept credit, even if it is something you didn't really accomplish yourself, you open yourself up for blame, too.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/23/senate-democr ation-border-bill
I'm sorry, but even after reading this article, I still don't see any proof that Trump had anything to do with the bill being killed.
"At the behest of Trump.." <- That doesn't mean anything to me. Is there any video evidence? The article doesn't say "Trump was in the room" or "Trump gave a big thumbs-down to house members."
"At the behest of Trump.." <- That doesn't mean anything to me. Is th any video evidence? The article doesn't say "Trump was in the room" o "Trump gave a big thumbs-down to house members."
Trump, at the time, was very vocal about taking credit for the bill failing. I do recall reading an article then where it named specific people and phone calls made, but my Google-fu is weak today.
Him bad mouthing and suggesting the GOP vote against the bill was all over the news. It is not my fault if you don't watch it.
The news isn't a communications device for the president and congress. I don't
believe that Trump forced his opinion on anybody. And if he did, then there would have to be more to that story, like what violent thing did he threaten t
do to Mike Johnson if the legislation had passed? "You better listen to me boy." lol
It didn't legitimize illegal crossings. It allowed for a cap on crossings at legal border crossings. The bill would have been a lot better than what we have now and didn't do anything to stop Republicans from passing something even more strict once Trump got into office.
The way I remember reading it was "a cap on ILLEGAL border crossings."
Seeing how liberal Democrats voted against it because it was "too strict"
tells me it was not a bad bill.
Not bad for us but bad for them, and that's ultimately bad for us too because we need a few of their votes.
Since February, when the bill was killed, every single illegal that has got into the country is equally on the heads of Trump, Johnson, and all of their cronnies as is is on the head of Biden. It stopped being the "Biden border crisis" at that point.
I just don't see the Trump pressure.
I do remember a lot of non-supporters blaming Cheney for things that happened while Bush was President, and IIRC Gore also tried taking credit
for some things that happened while Clinton was President.
To a far lesser degree, I agree. I think my original statement (or intent, at least) was to say that I've never seen it this pronounced.
Harris has most certainly been trying to take credit for things she thinks are good, while distancing herself from things she thinks have not turned out good, that resulted from Biden's Presidency.
I admittedly have not been paying very close attention to her campaign, so I don't recall what those wins are that she's sharing credit for. (That's also partly because I don't think the administration really had any big wins in the
first place.)
If you accept credit, even if it is something you didn't really accomplish yourself, you open yourself up for blame, too.
Very fair assessment. After this conversation, I'll definitely be paying more attention to things like that.
Q: Does Trump control congress?
A: No.
Interestingly enough, he did have enough pull to get congress to vote down an immigration bill that both sides liked, seemingly because he needed the immigration platform for his campaign. So maybe that's not as true as we'd like.
Q: If Trump IS controlling congress, what are Democrats doing about it? A: Nothing.
On THIS point, I'm in 100% agreement. Democrats have done embarrassingly littl
to solve much of anything in quite a while.
Again, not defending Harris. I'm saying on a lot of this stuff, there's nothin
to defend. The primary role of the VP is not to pass legislation.
Interestingly enough, he did have enough pull to get congress to vote down an immigration bill that both sides liked, seemingly because he needed the immigration platform for his campaign. So maybe that's not as true as we'd like.
Mike tried to make that same argument but I guess I'll have to say this: it's been debunked.
Ex presidents don't control anything. Trump doesn't control
congress. He doesn't have "pull." If ex presidents controlled congress, which they don't, then what would the purpose of having a congress be?
I'm talking about undocumented migrants; people without background
checks. Not "immigrants." I don't know where the numbers come from
either, but they are often reported by the media and they range from 7
to 20 million, while Trump has suggested that Biden may have let in
closer to 40 million undocumented migrants.
Also, this isn't about an "immigrant population," this is about the
number of foreigners who entered the USA without a visa while Biden was president.
I appreciate that but listen to yourself: illegal population? That is ridiculous. Think about it: 1) there hasn't been a census count since years before Biden opened the border 2) even if we did a census count yesterday, how many people are going to report it on paper that they are illegal immigrants? 3) there's no way to accurately measure the number
of illegal immigrants.
This means: Joe wants the border open, he has the same handlers as
Kamala, so therefore Kamala wants the border open too.
Q: Does Trump control congress?
A: No.
Interestingly enough, he did have enough pull to get congress to vote down an immigration bill that both sides liked, seemingly because he needed the immigration platform for his campaign. So maybe that's not true as we'd like.
Mike tried to make that same argument but I guess I'll have to say this: it's been debunked. Ex presidents don't control anything. Trump doesn't control congress. He doesn't have "pull." If ex presidents controlled congress, which they don't, then what would the purpose of having a congress be?
Q: If Trump IS controlling congress, what are Democrats doing ab A: Nothing.
On THIS point, I'm in 100% agreement. Democrats have done embarrassin little to solve much of anything in quite a while.
It's not just Democrats, there are no useful Republicans either. Not in congress at least.
It's hard to remember all that stuff, but it's easier to remember a narrative about Trump killing the bill as a campaign strategy. (Trying
to help you!)
Again, not defending Harris. I'm saying on a lot of this stuff, there's nothing to defend. The primary role of the VP is not to pass legislation.
One place where the VP does have responsibility and that could be used against them is in instances where they cast the Senate tie-breaker
vote. I am not aware of what, if any, bills that VP Harris has voted on.
That begs the question, then: if nobody can provide valid data, how can
we attribute anything to anyone? Either we're back to just making things up (which isn't above anyone, especially lately), or someone, somewhere, is gathering data and extrapolating numbers based on a combination of historical context, statistical processes, and a light dusting of conjecture.
Okay, I'm listening to myself. My self says that there is a valid, rough approximation of the entire population of the country, including people who aren't here legally. My self also says that political statements
that include numbers meant to incite fear and anger are grossly inaccurate.
The latest DHS report that I could quickly pull up lists "unauthorized immigrant population" (which, again, are the people we're both talking about) from 2018 to 2022.
That report also lists an approximate number of 11 million in 2022, with an annual entry estimate of just over 2 million. They do list the methodology for coming to those figures if you're interested.
All that aside, if, by your statement, we can't accurately measure it,
how can anyone blame the current administration for not improving it?
I did address this in another post. At some point I would really like to find the article that quoted someone as receiving a phone call from
Trump where he "asked" the congressman to shoot down the bill.
The core of the issue on my side is that I don't think immigration is a problem in the first place. Not for Obama, nor for Trump, nor for Biden. It's a completely fabricated issue, and I didn't place much importance
on committing the specifics of that to memory.
Here's my direct question to you: if I go to the trouble of locating the article (which I'm quite sure I read), and it says that Trump asked any congressional member directly to kill the bill, will you then concede
that Trump holds some influential control over congress?
My interpretation of your prior statements leads me to think the answer
to that question is "no," which tells me I should spend my time doing something more enjoyable than scouring the internet for an article I really don't care about.
PS: I care less about narratives. Especially the immigration one in the first place.
[...]That begs the question, then: if nobody can provide valid data, how c we attribute anything to anyone? Either we're back to just making thi
historical context, statistical processes, and a light dusting of conjecture.
We can't take anyone's word for it that there are illegals lurking
around, but just look at the clear evidence. For example, police
recently arrested an illegal in my county who was wanted for 29 murders
in Peru. I can't confirm that he really is an illegal immigrant, I can't confirm that he killed anybody in Peru, but the fact that a story about
an illegal immigrant fugitive being found in my county ALMOST serves as proof that we really do have some illegals roaming around, and it ALMOST serves as proof that some of them are foreign fugitives.
I don't trust anyone's statistics or their news reports. I just lean one way or another when I start to see correlations.
What's more important is how to deport them all.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Randall Schad <=-
It's hard to remember all that stuff, but it's easier to remember a narrative about Trump killing the bill as a campaign strategy. (Trying
to help you!)
[...]That begs the question, then: if nobody can provide valid data, we attribute anything to anyone? Either we're back to just makin
historical context, statistical processes, and a light dusting o conjecture.
We can't take anyone's word for it that there are illegals lurking around, but just look at the clear evidence. For example, police recently arrested an illegal in my county who was wanted for 29 murde in Peru. I can't confirm that he really is an illegal immigrant, I ca confirm that he killed anybody in Peru, but the fact that a story abo an illegal immigrant fugitive being found in my county ALMOST serves proof that we really do have some illegals roaming around, and it ALM serves as proof that some of them are foreign fugitives.
I don't trust anyone's statistics or their news reports. I just lean way or another when I start to see correlations.
I can't tell at this point if you're being sardonic or serious, and I'd rather not have to spend energy working that out.
I did address this in another post. At some point I would really like to find the article that quoted someone as receiving a phone call from Trump where he "asked" the congressman to shoot down the bill.
An article can't prove what's being alleged. Unless it has text message death threats from Trump to the house GOP.
An article can't prove what's being alleged. Unless it has text message threats from Trump to the house GOP.
When Trump brags about being responsbile at a rally, that is proof enough for me. Certainly, our rock who is chosen by God wouldn't lie to us!
Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-
Oh! I didn't know it was at a Trump rally. But Trump is allowed to talk
to members of congress. Where is the proof that Trump demanded congress members to vote nay on the bill? Did he threaten them with violence or
did he threaten to ruin their career?
That report also lists an approximate number of 11 million in 2022,
with an annual entry estimate of just over 2 million. They do list
the methodology for coming to those figures if you're interested.
What's more important is how to deport them all.
An article can't prove what's being alleged. Unless it has text message
threats from Trump to the house GOP.
When Trump brags about being responsbile at a rally, that is proof enough
for me. Certainly, our rock who is chosen by God wouldn't lie to us!
Oh! I didn't know it was at a Trump rally. But Trump is allowed to talk to members of congress. Where is the proof that Trump demanded congress members t
vote nay on the bill? Did he threaten them with violence or did he threaten to
ruin their career?
When Trump brags about being responsbile at a rally, that is proof enough
for me. Certainly, our rock who is chosen by God wouldn't lie to u
Oh! I didn't know it was at a Trump rally. But Trump is allowed to talk members of congress. Where is the proof that Trump demanded congress mem t
vote nay on the bill? Did he threaten them with violence or did he threa to
ruin their career?
Trump bragged at a rally that he was the one responsible for killing the bill. I posted links to that the other day.
Still sounds like you are calling Trump a liar.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 80:16:17 |
| Calls: | 295 |
| Files: | 5,633 |
| Messages: | 226,073 |