Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Prozac said:

At the same time, I’d rather be confronted with these issues vs. radicals storming the Capitol. YMMV. 

Forgive me...but really?  You'd rather the thousands of fentanyl deaths, cartel human trafficking, displacement of human lives by the 10's of thousands...not to mention the collapsing economy and rising inflation that's felt by the poor FAR more than the rich.  You'd prefer that over an event that happened almost 2 years ago, most of the violators being peaceful...and still being in jail now...with only one fatality of questionable circumstances...that's where your conscience draws a line?  So what are your thoughts on other large crowds doing damage in public?  Such as Portland?  The CHAZ?  George Floyd Square...with the following found on a .69 second google search:

Is George Floyd Square still occupied?
 
By August 14, 2022, seven people had been killed by gun violence at the square since Floyd's murder, and one person had died there as the result of a drug overdose.
 
Those events, by the principle that Jan 6th is abhorrent to you...these should be exponentially worse, right?  But you're more worried about Jan 6th?  Am I hearing you correctly?
Edited by FourFans130
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

It's true that you appear to agree...that's the problem.  But you're watering the severity of the problem down.  If I accept your stance as 'agreement', I by default water down my own stance.  I'm speaking for ONLY ME.  Not "we".  Not "us".  Me.  Myself.  Specifically and exclusively. 

I see your statements as a bait to get me to water down my own opinions about the severity of our problems by acquiescing in order to find common ground and call it compromise.  That's not how using morals and principles to find a compromise works.  FIRST we need to agree on the problem, then we compromise on the solution.  You're agreement compromises on the severity of the problem at it's core. 

Just as a doctor would be doing a patient a disservice to say "it's only cancer, don't worry about it" I refuse to accept "the administration could do more to secure our borders" as a correct identification of the problem.  We can compromise on the solutions to the problem ONLY after both sides of the argument agree on what the problem is.  In this case, one side is literally saying there is no problem, while in reality fentanyl is killing Americans, children are being trafficked, and lives are being destroyed.

If you're wondering "so what do you want me to do about it?"  To you personally I ask: Please, during the next election, do not vote for these people again.  Current DNC politicians who accept and endorse extremist liberalism are clearly and directly responsible for virtually all of this.  I don't think I've ever taken a party side, and I don't ever intend to, but it could not be more clear who is responsible for the absolute mess our country is in.

I think you’re just looking to argue. I don’t disagree that illegal immigration, human trafficking, and proliferation of horrible drugs are bad. I’d like to see more done to stop these problems. Full stop. Unfortunately, most people want easy answers. Building a wall and deporting everyone in the country illegally certainly sounds like an easy answer. Unfortunately, those “easy” solutions don’t address the complexity of the problem and are a complete waste of money and time meant to appeal to voters who don’t have a firm grasp of the issues. We can go round and round as to why, but the truth just isn’t as simple as Democrats don’t want a secure border and Republicans do. Neither party has addressed these issues in any semblance of a workable manner. 
 

Let’s address your last paragraph: You chide Democratic voters because you perceived them to be on the opposite side of what is a hot button issue for you. Your wish is for those who vote for Democrats to change their allegiance. That must be a nice thought for you, but it’s a pipe dream and it ain’t happening. Sorry. See, there are hot button issues for Democrats too and just as you can’t understand why someone would seemingly ignore the border issue and cast a ballot for a D, there are an equal number of voters who could never see themselves voting for a candidate that, say, supports wild conspiracy theories. There are plenty of extremists on both sides of most of these issues. Let’s focus on how we can get control of the parties back from the nut jobs vs yelling at one another for making voting decisions that are always a compromise based on what’s important to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Forgive me...but really?  You'd rather the thousands of fentanyl deaths, cartel human trafficking, displacement of human lives by the 10's of thousands...not to mention the collapsing economy and rising inflation that's felt by the poor FAR more than the rich.  You'd prefer that over an event that happened almost 2 years ago, most of the violators being peaceful...and still being in jail now...with only one fatality of questionable circumstances...that's where your conscience draws a line?  So what are your thoughts on other large crowds doing damage in public?  Such as Portland?  The CHAZ?  George Floyd Square...with the following found on a .69 second google search:

Is George Floyd Square still occupied?
 
By August 14, 2022, seven people had been killed by gun violence at the square since Floyd's murder, and one person had died there as the result of a drug overdose.
 
Those events, by the principle that Jan 6th is abhorrent to you...these should be exponentially worse, right?  But you're more worried about Jan 6th?  Am I hearing you correctly?

Absolutely, yes. Violence is bad. An attack on our seat of power BY a sitting president? Objectively worse.  I’m not opposed to voting for Republicans. I have many times in the past. But as long as the party insists on pushing the full MAGA agenda, I’m out & so is a whole bunch of this country. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

Absolutely, yes. Violence is bad. An attack on our seat of power BY a sitting president? Objectively worse.  I’m not opposed to voting for Republicans. I have many times in the past. But as long as the party insists on pushing the full MAGA agenda, I’m out & so is a whole bunch of this country. 

I'll agree there.  Do you realize that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are not MAGA agenda republicans? Meanwhile, the majority of democrats are not extreme liberals.  It's not melodramatic binary good vs evil...but the media wants us to think it is, because that keeps us watching the media.  You're honestly sounding like CNN.  In fact, the only place I've ever seen a "full MAGA" republican is in the media.  Not saying they aren't real, just haven't encountered one myself yet.  Most conservatives that I've met would rather Trump just go away.  Unfortunately, the media won't let that happen.

I'll agree that a sitting president making an attack on our seat of power would be objectively worse.  Seeing he didn't clearly do that (unless you have pictures of him holding a gun and attacking congressmen), if it were clearly and objectively true, then he'd be in jail already.  Best I can tell, he said some ill-thought out words to a crowd that may, or may not, have been stirred up by a few instigators within it to do some illegal things.  Seriously, his whole presidency was ill thought out words, you think he all of a sudden dropped that to make a strategic mind-control event on Jan 6?  That conclusion is irrational and illogical.

Our government was never at risk of being over thrown.  Pence was never going to overrule the or not-certify the results...those are his own words.  All this trial crap is only to serve one purpose: theater...for whatever purpose the current administration seems to think it's worth.  It's theater, and bad theater at that. 

If it were an investigation based on honest unbiased truth-finding, we would have seen the same investigation, FBI raids, and such happen with H Clinton...because she effectively did the same exact thing Trump is accused of...plus perjury.  But it's not.  It's biased politics using tax-payer money to try smear a competitor and get re-elected.

I'll invite you to put the Never Trump hate away and kindly rejoin the objective and fact based discussion.

Edited by FourFans130
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

I think you’re just looking to argue. I don’t disagree that illegal immigration, human trafficking, and proliferation of horrible drugs are bad. I’d like to see more done to stop these problems. Full stop. Unfortunately, most people want easy answers. Building a wall and deporting everyone in the country illegally certainly sounds like an easy answer. Unfortunately, those “easy” solutions don’t address the complexity of the problem and are a complete waste of money and time meant to appeal to voters who don’t have a firm grasp of the issues. We can go round and round as to why, but the truth just isn’t as simple as Democrats don’t want a secure border and Republicans do. Neither party has addressed these issues in any semblance of a workable manner. 
 

Let’s address your last paragraph: You chide Democratic voters because you perceived them to be on the opposite side of what is a hot button issue for you. Your wish is for those who vote for Democrats to change their allegiance. That must be a nice thought for you, but it’s a pipe dream and it ain’t happening. Sorry. See, there are hot button issues for Democrats too and just as you can’t understand why someone would seemingly ignore the border issue and cast a ballot for a D, there are an equal number of voters who could never see themselves voting for a candidate that, say, supports wild conspiracy theories. There are plenty of extremists on both sides of most of these issues. Let’s focus on how we can get control of the parties back from the nut jobs vs yelling at one another for making voting decisions that are always a compromise based on what’s important to them. 

You sweep away entire issues and seem ok with that.  I'm not.  Details and nuance are incredibly important.  CBP agents are quoted time and again, that even with a partial wall, they were beginning to get a grip on illegal immigration because the wall creates choke points that the limited manpower of the CBP can then effectively manage.  As it is, the incomplete wall made things worse by creating a road network (used for it's construction) that the cartels are now exploiting.  Had the wall been completed, that wouldn't have been a problem.  But you appear to be arguing that because the problem is complex and nuanced, we shouldn't take any steps toward a solution until we have the exact solution?...I'm guessing?  More to the that specific topic...building a wall and tossing out illegals is EXACTLY what other countries do, and it works, really really well.  Go look up Hungary's program if you're curious.  Why shouldn't we start with a proven solution, implement, analyze the results and improve it?

Now...to reading comprehension of your own:

"Current DNC politicians who accept and endorse extremist liberalism" does not equal "Democrats"  In fact I strongly wish democrat voters to remain democrat unless they are personally persuaded by facts...that's what politics is, btw: the are of convincing argument with the intent intellectual persuasion or agreement.  We need healthy debate between opposite sides...which is exactly what's NOT happening because our country voted in: "DNC politicians who accept and endorse extremist liberalism" who insist that if you're not with them unquestioningly, then you're the enemy.

FFS put down the stereotype glasses, stop looking for a way to be offended because you feel stereotyped by someone whom you stereotyped, and start coming up with objective, fact-based solutions.

Edited by FourFans130
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FourFans130 said:

You sweep away entire issues and seem ok with that.  I'm not.  Details and nuance are incredibly important.  CBP agents are quoted time and again, that even with a partial wall, they were beginning to get a grip on illegal immigration because the wall creates choke points that the limited manpower of the CBP can then effectively manage.  As it is, the incomplete wall made things worse by creating a road network (used for it's construction) that the cartels are now exploiting.  Had the wall been completed, that wouldn't have been a problem.  But you appear to be arguing that because the problem is complex and nuanced, we shouldn't take any steps toward a solution until we have the exact solution?...I'm guessing?  More to the that specific topic...building a wall and tossing out illegals is EXACTLY what other countries do, and it works, really really well.  Go look up Hungary's program if you're curious.  Why shouldn't we start with a proven solution, implement, analyze the results and improve it?

Now...to reading comprehension of your own:

"Current DNC politicians who accept and endorse extremist liberalism" does not equal "Democrats"  In fact I strongly wish democrat voters to remain democrat unless they are personally persuaded by facts...that's what politics is, btw: the are of convincing argument with the intent intellectual persuasion or agreement.  We need healthy debate between opposite sides...which is exactly what's NOT happening because our country voted in: "DNC politicians who accept and endorse extremist liberalism" who insist that if you're not with them unquestioningly, then you're the enemy.

FFS put down the stereotype glasses, stop looking for a way to be offended because you feel stereotyped by someone whom you stereotyped, and start coming up with objective, fact-based solutions.

I appreciate the fact you’re willing to engage here, but hear me out ‘cause I don’t feel like I’ve made myself abundantly clear yet. I (a guy who has voted predominantly Democrat for the last decade or so) absolutely support border security. You seem to think one party cares more than the other about this issue. I don’t believe that’s the case. Republicans have offered simplistic, feel good solutions that have no hope of working. You’re obviously at least partially aware of this fact as you correctly identified the fact that the wall created a readymade road network in what was once one of, if not the most formidable natural barrier to exist between countries. You then attempt to use Hungary as a successful immigration example. Our country has a far more successful and complex economy and deporting everyone here illegally would break it overnight. Republican strategists understand this, hence the reason they keep offering solutions that fire the base up but do nothing to address the real issue. Don’t take my criticism of one side as defense of the other. While immigration and border security have been major issues for decades, I’ve yet to see a workable solution emerge from either side & this is far from the only issue where this kind of impasse exists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I appreciate the fact you’re willing to engage here, but hear me out ‘cause I don’t feel like I’ve made myself abundantly clear yet. I (a guy who has voted predominantly Democrat for the last decade or so) absolutely support border security. You seem to think one party cares more than the other about this issue. I don’t believe that’s the case. Republicans have offered simplistic, feel good solutions that have no hope of working. You’re obviously at least partially aware of this fact as you correctly identified the fact that the wall created a readymade road network in what was once one of, if not the most formidable natural barrier to exist between countries. You then attempt to use Hungary as a successful immigration example. Our country has a far more successful and complex economy and deporting everyone here illegally would break it overnight. Republican strategists understand this, hence the reason they keep offering solutions that fire the base up but do nothing to address the real issue. Don’t take my criticism of one side as defense of the other. While immigration and border security have been major issues for decades, I’ve yet to see a workable solution emerge from either side & this is far from the only issue where this kind of impasse exists. 

I think it's pretty obvious that the border needs to be secured as much as possible before any internal pathways to citizenship or what have you is attempted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, uhhello said:

I think it's pretty obvious that the border needs to be secured as much as possible before any internal pathways to citizenship or what have you is attempted.  

Disagree. I think the only way is for both at once, that way both sides get a “win”. Dems get the “pathway” & Republicans get border security. 

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-desantis-sends-two-planes-illegal-immigrants-marthas-vineyard

 

This is how the Civil War 2 starts.  The red states air dropping illegals into blue states.   I actually think this is funny as shit.   I hope they keep doing it.   Make the non believers actual see what it's like on the border.  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Disagree. I think the only way is for both at once, that way both sides get a “win”. Dems get the “pathway” & Republicans get border security. 

Disagree.  If you don't secure the border, prior to passing "amnesty", it's going to get overrun more than it already is.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I appreciate the fact you’re willing to engage here.... I’ve yet to see a workable solution emerge from either side & this is far from the only issue where this kind of impasse exists. 

As a registered independent who's voted both red and blue, I think like you.  We'll disagree on a lot, but we agree that the political answer is somewhere in the middle. 

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I think the only way is for both at once, that way both sides get a “win”. Dems get the “pathway” & Republicans get border security. 

Sadly, I agree. This is the only kind of answer that will actually get implemented.  We can dream all day, but in the end my opinions should not be your law, just as your opinions should not be my law.  What I call murder, someone else calls women's rights...but the truth is that we're broken, fallen people who A: need a savior and B: will not make it if we chose to die on every hill between your opinion and mine.  Don't get me wrong, I've chosen several hills as mine.  My sword will be notch and my shield dented by the end of this war, but if I chose to fight bravely and die quickly on Every, Single, Hill, I'm useless in my cause.

If only we had a background...call it a history...where we all agreed on some basic moral truths...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, uhhello said:

Disagree.  If you don't secure the border, prior to passing "amnesty", it's going to get overrun more than it already is.  

how people don't see this is mind blowing.

if you provide a pathway for illegal citizens to become citizens without a secure border...more will come. it's common sense.

the democratic party understands this actually. they just don't say the quiet part out loud. those illegal citizens become votes.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Prozac said:

Keep sighing. How many kids does the average American couple have? Enough to replace all those “Boomers” (I’m most definitely NOT one btw)? I’ll save you the the trouble of googling: NO. If we want to continue to have a viable economy, we need immigrants. Lots of ‘em. Perhaps you prefer we take the lazy, ones instead of young, hardworking people? Or perhaps you just can’t see past your own generation’s potential success and prefer to leave the hard issues like demographics to your kids and grandkids? And before anyone else gets all up in a huff about who gets to come here, go back and read my original response to CH. I am NOT advocating for unabated illegal immigration or open borders. 

I don’t know of a single acquaintance I have, that’s a republican, that is against legal immigration of those deserving (key word - deserving, immigration is a privilege, not a right). When the VPOTUS, who was placed in charge of cleaning up the border mess that her besties created, openly admits the border is fine when thousands of illegal immigrants are pouring into our border with drugs, illegal prostitution and creating and open pathway for unabated terrorism entering our country, we have a big problem. 
 

Let’s see if the tone changes as Abbott and DeSantis continue to bus migrants to democratic strongholds.  I don’t think the Obamas will be too happy about a bunch of migrants taking a squat in their beloved Martha’s Vineyard. Let’s see how “tolerant” the elites on the left are. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Prozac said:

Keep sighing. How many kids does the average American couple have? Enough to replace all those “Boomers” (I’m most definitely NOT one btw)? I’ll save you the the trouble of googling: NO. If we want to continue to have a viable economy, we need immigrants. Lots of ‘em. Perhaps you prefer we take the lazy, ones instead of young, hardworking people? Or perhaps you just can’t see past your own generation’s potential success and prefer to leave the hard issues like demographics to your kids and grandkids? And before anyone else gets all up in a huff about who gets to come here, go back and read my original response to CH. I am NOT advocating for unabated illegal immigration or open borders. 

I'm all for legal immigration. I'm not for a border so porous that everyone who wants into the US knows they should go to Mexico and cross from there. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

how people don't see this is mind blowing.

if you provide a pathway for illegal citizens to become citizens without a secure border...more will come. it's common sense.

the democratic party understands this actually. they just don't say the quiet part out loud. those illegal citizens become votes.

I wonder if they'll start securing the border when they realize how pro-life and anti-trans the Hispanic community tends to be 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I wonder if they'll start securing the border when they realize how pro-life and anti-trans the Hispanic community tends to be 

They are too arrogant to realize this and just assume everyone agrees with them.  It's mind boggling.  Don't tell them though.  Let karma do it's thing.  How many die hard Roman Catholics do you know that approve of abortion?   It's comical.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Prozac said:

Disagree. I think the only way is for both at once, that way both sides get a “win”. Dems get the “pathway” & Republicans get border security. 

When securing the border/stopping illegal immigration is considered a political “win” then that means the other side (progressives) doesn’t want it.  Hence why we don’t have a secure border.

But this isn’t shocking when the left calls those others (who want to secure the border/deport illegal aliens) racists, fascists, whatever-phobic…

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big problem is we don't head off the problem before it's a problem. We've done at least 2 rounds of amnesty since I've been old enough to remember them. So here we go again, wait until we have millions of illegals here again, and then deal out another amnesty which only makes more people realize if they can illegally gain entry, the US will eventually let them stay.

 

Another issue is the whole anchor baby thing ... thats not constitutional and wasn't what was intended.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2022 at 7:51 PM, Prozac said:

 At the same time, I’d rather be confronted with these issues vs. radicals storming the Capitol. YMMV. 

I certainly agree Jan 6th was a horrible day for America, but Democrats stood by (and in some cases cheered), as Left Wing radicals burned American cities and stormed U.S. buildings.

22 hours ago, Prozac said:

Absolutely, yes. Violence is bad. An attack on our seat of power BY a sitting president? Objectively worse. 

Just because you repeat the narrative that doesn't make it true.  If you want to talk about him challenging the election please be equally damning in going after democrats who did the same thing - Clinton Won't Rule Out Questioning 2016 Election, But Says No Clear Means To Do So

1003512387_ScreenShot2022-09-15at7_19_07AM.thumb.png.a30ddc2abe95e8223a3913adf308f7bf.png

1233790773_ScreenShot2022-09-15at7_17_22AM.thumb.png.bfe62b84ebfb06e47bab09bd90fc9050.png

Sadly I sense some TDS, this is not about Trump...I don't like him and I want him to go away, but the radical left under crazy Uncle Joe has been empowered to do a LOT of damage to this country.

You can try to over complicate the immigration argument but it is a simple fact, with effort on the border and things like the remain in Mexico policy FAR fewer were crossing our borders illegally...many were deterred from even trying. 

Are there several factors that need to be adjudicated, of course, but this wide open bullshit is bringing havoc.  I am usually a rule of law kind of guy so sorry this path to citizen ship for 11 million that came here ILLEGALLY is complete bullshit.  I favor a path for the dreamers, they were kids and had no choice in the matter, this country is all they've ever know but the adults that BROKE THE LAW, hell no, get OUT!  Granting them citizenship is a giant FU to the MILLIONS of people standing in line trying to come here LEGALLY.  We are a country of law...why is that so difficult? 

Do we need legal immigration, absolutely...we need workers (skilled and unskilled), and as you point out the demographics of the boomer generation points to serious issues if we don't make adjustments.  That being said and acknowledged lets do it legally, with background checks and a secure border that at least slows the most wanted terrorists and tons of illegal drugs that are flowing across the border and into our country.  I believe the last number I saw said we allow about one million folks each year to LEGALLY emigrate the U.S., if that number needs to be increased, let look at it and do what makes sense for our country. 

It is ironic that the liberal mayors of these so called sanctuary cities are screaming for help with Texas sending them illegals.  These nitwits get a small taste of what they have done to Arizona and Texas and they cry like little bitches.  NYC cried uncle after 2,000 arrived over a month when Texas is seeing 7,000-8000 EACH DAY!  The ultimate buffoon is Lori Lightfoot who then put them on a bus out of her so called sanctuary city. 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why has fact-checking disappeared under Biden? | The Hill

Quote

Overall, since taking over for Jen Psaki on May 13, Jean-Pierre has not been fact-checked at all by Factcheck.org, the Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post or CNN. 

But of course, the Biden administration never lies. The border is secure, inflation is under control, food prices aren't rising, and Afghanistan was the greatest airlift in history. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...