The Next President is...

[Sua Sponte]

On 4/28/2025 at 9:10 PM, Lawman said:

No please, try and oversell this.

How many times did Biden or Obama deploy guard and active duty troops to the border? How many more times than that did state governors deploy troops to shore up the problem of migration during those administrations?

We have the border mission, you know what it’s doing? Providing Grey Eagles to law enforcement who are trying to do something about cartel drug smuggling. God forbid we use our training hours to do that instead of bore holes in the sky and stare at the dirt in a restricted area.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I posted a link to an EO and a quote from the EO. I didn't know that would trigger you. 

[Banzai]

The projection, defensiveness, and grasping for straws is simultaneously hilarious and sad. Not to mention how the standard “defense” is literally whataboutism. It’s also funny how the whole group is desperately in search of “good” pieces of news to upvote and cling to, even when they aren’t good at all lmao (because let’s be honest, you guys are struggling - egg prices, really?).

It’s gotten to the point where there’s no use in feeling annoyed or upset at the obvious disconnect from reality - you just feel bad for the bros who have found themselves trapped in a cult.

There’s so many examples of this in action. Like in the last week how the cult - who was rightfully upset at Bidens mental downfall (this was bad and should be criticized) - is incapable of addressing similar behaviors in their own party. These include obvious false statements (the fact that the admin openly proclaims that egg prices are “down 93%”, that gas is less than $2 a gallon, and that groceries are “cheaper”), obvious classified leak double standards, or statements like the admin quadrupling down that Abrego Garcia’s knuckles LITERALLY say “MS 13,” not “interpreted.” 

If you’ve ever seen Beyond the Curve, it’s that. The earth must remain flat, because they can’t say it’s not without severe social repercussions.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I challenge those of you that can to reassess some of your core assumptions and to think more critically about not just if things are true but why they are said? Why is the AG pushing a narrative that fentanyl policies literally saved a third of the population from death? Maybe it’s just a misinterpretation? Hmm.

Edited April 30 by Banzai

[lloyd christmas]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Words

Your moral superiority cup runneth over today.  

bravo 

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

Your moral superiority cup runneth over today.  

bravo 

Also no one here is defending any of the shit that he's crying about. Which gets to the real point, he's just upset that we don't care as much about those things as he does.

 

Combining the arguments of 30 different people, and then layering on conservative news media as though that somehow represents the views of anyone here, then combining all of that into one hyper-conservative Boogeyman, and naming it "you guys." 

 

And then getting upset that no one is willing to take up the mantle of the fictional debate opponent he's created. 

 

Like, what am I supposed to say about Pam Bondi's obviously stupid tweet? Politicians have been overstating their accomplishments for as long as I've been alive plus a few thousand years. 

 

Yawn.

[brickhistory]

Many wins chalked up, but for now, today, this is my favorite:

[Biff_T]

5 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Many wins chalked up, but for now, today, this is my favorite:

Negative Dibs

Visual friendly, Tally tagert, right side open fire.

[TreeA10]

Dodged a couple massive bullets regarding those two.

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Combining the arguments of 30 different people, and then layering on conservative news media as though that somehow represents the views of anyone here, then combining all of that into one hyper-conservative Boogeyman, and naming it "you guys." 

Well said.

Banzai your post is boring and your thoughts shallow.  Is there a specific thing you want to talk about or is this general purpose amalgam condemnation?

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Well said.

Banzai your post is boring and your thoughts shallow.  Is there a specific thing you want to talk about or is this general purpose amalgam condemnation?

Like you'd address it in a realistic way if he did.

[17D_guy]

On 4/21/2025 at 5:46 PM, brickhistory said:

I ask this seriously, no snark or point scoring intended:  were you aware, and if so, were you cool with Obama ordering the Hellfiring of an American citizen and his 16 year old son, even though the guy was a terrorist?  He had no due process other than a Situation Room briefing that said, "he's a bad guy."  

I'm not sorry the guy's dead, but I said then, and do now, that it was wrong.

As to your "equal branch" point, I almost agree.  Supreme Court = POTUS = full Congress vote.

I don't agree that a district court should be able to impose a nationwide anything regardless of what political party occupies the other branches.  So I hope the Supreme Court finally ends that practice once and for all.  Will be better for all.

As to a mass invasion and due process, that's a thing.  I don't have a complete answer.  But if Biden can arbitrarily let them in, why can't Trump boot them out?  Biden granted "paroles" and "temporary refugee" status to hundreds of thousands of Haitians, et al.  Why can't Trump remove that grant?

No, I hated Obama's use of drones and splattering citizens. Impeachable.

Opens the door to anyone getting called a terrorist and being disappeared...kinda like the rhetoric we're starting to hear now.

"Mass invasion" is interesting wording. We have a refugee process that should be followed and funded to operate. A Venezuela refugee fleeing a communist dictator warms my Reagan-era heart.

Non-violent illegals here wanna cut my grass, build houses and make baller tacos? I'm down, let's fund the process to make them not-illegal.

Violent ones, here and coming here? GTFO.

 

 

[17D_guy]

On 4/21/2025 at 5:05 PM, blueingreen said:

I don't know the right answer, but how do you think we should approach this situation? The previous administration ignored all rules and norms in order to import millions of foreigners who should never have been here in the first place. Giving each illegal alien the time + resources required for a deportation hearing is quite literally impossible when we're dealing with a phenomenon of this magnitude. Where / what is our recourse? If the Supreme Court says we can't deport these people without going through a process which is logistically impossible, where does that leave us? A constitutional crisis?

There's only one office forcing this to be a constitutional crisis.

The Rs have 2 of 3 levers of govt. They could fund a fast track courts to go through these quick(er). but as we saw the the R border bill in 2024, it's better to scream about it in the news than actually solve the problem.

[tac airlifter]

3 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Like you'd address it in a realistic way if he did.

 I replied to him with a specific opinion on a specific subject one page back & got no response, so your accusation is invalidated. Instead he (or she!) is creating composite narratives with which to argue; a bad faith tactic and one for which there is no need since real people with opinions are right here.

This is a fun page with lots of cool folks holding diverse perspectives yet shared experiences.  It's priceless really.  However trolls are sand in the gears and must be purged. Not saying this dude is one (you certainly aren't) but I am saying this conversational practice is a red flag, hence my sharper than normal rebuke.

 

[blueingreen]

5 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Non-violent illegals here wanna cut my grass, build houses and make baller tacos? I'm down, let's fund the process to make them not-illegal.

You're almost doing the meme! I would prefer the United States not be flooded with third world immigrants, regardless of their legal status or propensity for crime. The illegal ones certainly shouldn't be rewarded with a fast-track to permanent residency or citizenship. They should be removed swiftly. The more people from those regions come to my country, the more my country will resemble the places those immigrants are fleeing from. Naturally, I don't want that.

4 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

There's only one office forcing this to be a constitutional crisis.

The Rs have 2 of 3 levers of govt. They could fund a fast track courts to go through these quick(er). but as we saw the the R border bill in 2024, it's better to scream about it in the news than actually solve the problem.

Presenting the bipartisan border bill proposed in 2024 as a meaningful solution to the illegal immigration crisis immediately discredits you as either uninformed or bad-faith, I don't know which. Did you read the language of the bill itself or just the headlines at the time? It would have permitted thousands of daily border crossings without any enforcement mechanism, given immigration jurisdiction to partisan courts, and more.

We do have a Republican president and legislature, though. You're right about that. And the fact that they aren't working together to pump out legislation to solidify and implement the political will of the American electorate is part of the reason that I would never in a thousand years call myself a Republican or conservative.

[brabus]

19 hours ago, Banzai said:

It’s gotten to the point where there’s no use in feeling annoyed or upset at the obvious disconnect from reality - you just feel bad for the bros who have found themselves trapped in a cult.

[brabus]

9 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

The Rs have 2 of 3 levers of govt. They could fund a fast track courts to go through these quick(er). but as we saw the the R border bill in 2024, it's better to scream about it in the news than actually solve the problem.

Valid, and it also describes 99% of the gov, regardless of political affiliation. The whole lot of congress is mostly rhetoric and nil action. It’s all about elections and not about getting shit done, whether R, D, or I. 

[Lord Ratner]

10 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Like you'd address it in a realistic way if he did.

Define "realistic way." It's a fairly ironic thing for you to say considering that in two posts you make this suggestion: 

 

9 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

They could fund a fast track courts to go through these quick(er).

Exactly which system do you exist under? Are you suggesting that the legislature create a new form of the judiciary that is not subject to appeal or review? Would this fast track system exist without a path to the supreme Court? Exactly what is a "fast track court" and how much funding do they require? Do the Republicans get to pick the judges for these courts? Would the illegal immigrants still have the right to taxpayer-funded legal counsel? Are we going to fund "fast track attorneys" to handle this process? There certainly aren't enough public defenders to handle 20 million immigration cases "quick(er)", so would these fast-track attorneys be required only two weeks of law school instead of the full 3 to 4 years?

 

Personally, I love the idea of an immigration court with no right to appeal and Trump-selected judges that will run through ~ 5,000 cases per day. Unfortunately, even then it would take 11 years with no holidays or weekends to process the 20 million illegal immigrants floating around our country. 

 

Now, who's not addressing things in a realistic way again?

 

There is, flat out, no realistic way to provide millions and millions of illegal immigrants the due process that we would consider constitutional for an American citizen. That is an inescapable reality. The progressives are making this argument because they know the only solution under this context is amnesty, because we will bankrupt ourselves before we are able to process that many people through our current legal system.

 

As I said before, I am 100% in support of due process for any illegal immigrant that we are attempting to put into prison. But sending you back to the country you came from is not punishment. It is simply a response, and a rational one. And if you as an illegal alien parent decide to take your American citizen child (anchor baby) with you, that is not equivalent to deporting an American citizen. That is a mother choosing to stay with her child.

 

There is a very real debate around the criminal illegal aliens that we sent to a Salvadorian prison. Unless they were Salvadorian in the first place, in which case, I don't care what El Salvador does with them once we sent them back. That tactic needs Supreme Court review.

 

You just don't like the answers you're getting. That doesn't equal dodging the question. 

Edited May 1 by Lord Ratner

[ClearedHot]

On 4/10/2025 at 12:43 PM, Banzai said:

And after today?

I rarely play short ball in the market and that strategy has worked out ok for me.  As of today the DOW is only down 1.5% over the past six months.  I was very fortunate to have a bunch of cash sitting on the sideline from a recent business deal.  Using a professional I bought several blue chips on the dips (including NVDIA at $96, IBM at $227 and Microsoft at $360), and am now WAY up for 2025.  YMMV

I love the laugh comment from Day Man...must have been shorting.

[Banzai]

11 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I rarely play short ball in the market and that strategy has worked out ok for me.  As of today the DOW is only down 1.5% over the past six months.  I was very fortunate to have a bunch of cash sitting on the sideline from a recent business deal.  Using a professional I bought several blue chips on the dips (including NVDIA at $96, IBM at $227 and Microsoft at $360), and am now WAY up for 2025.  YMMV

I love the laugh comment from Day Man...must have been shorting.

Nice!

[StoleIt]

Edit:

Edited May 5 by StoleIt

[arg]

6 hours ago, StoleIt said:

[Day Man]

just in: foreign movies are a national security threat 🙃

[brabus]

Hollywood is absolute trash. Trump is fucking this one up - please by all means Hollywood scum, go elsewhere, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Hollywood is absolute trash. Trump is fucking this one up - please by all means Hollywood scum, go elsewhere, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Trump is a media guy from a previous generation. Hollywood is a glamorous memory full of him on the red carpet and fucking a bunch of wannabe starlets. It's classic Trump, taking something good and pushing it to an extreme that is going to end up sabotaging the entire movement.

[M2]

AI is making Hollywood, and especially "actors," irrelevant...

[GrndPndr]

https://notthebee.com/article/the-supreme-court-allows-trumps-trans-ban-to-take-effect-immediately

This may well be really hard on the Navy.