Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[brabus]

2 hours ago, raimius said:

We need votes about single topics.

Absolutely! Throw in term limits, age limits, and a transition back to the federalized system we should be, and we’ll be on a relatively smooth path to another few hundred years of being the greatest nation on earth.  But no, that won’t happen, because power greed is a real thing.

[uhhello]

 

[Lawman]

Absolutely! Throw in term limits, age limits, and a transition back to the federalized system we should be, and we’ll be on a relatively smooth path to another few hundred years of being the greatest nation on earth.  But no, that won’t happen, because power greed is a real thing.

I mean we (a general electorate) bring a ton of this on ourselves in the media generation as Congressional popularity has become more important than actual performance in the chambers.

Go to YouTube and look around at how many videos of a grandstanding congressman/senator in some committee or public hearing, it’s what we reward them on. Then compare the loudest most obnoxious but seemingly popular idiots (because media loves it too) and then compare what legislation they’ve actually advanced…

We are going backwards but the collective whole doesn’t notice because they’d rather watch clips of _____ owning _____ at some worthless hearing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

14 hours ago, Lawman said:

And in the last ten days you read that bill in its entirety when exactly?

Again when the head of the organization that is critical of the current admin but is tasked with actually solving the issues on the border says “yes we want this by consensus.” That means a lot more than Trump screaming “this bill is bad” which he did 5 days before normal people could read it, and a bunch of reps in the house lining up to say “we don’t support this.” We know they didn’t do anything to actually make any improvement to the border except bitch about Biden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your argument is "you have to read the entire bill in its legislative text form before you are allowed to have an opinion on it" then there is a follow-on issue with your claim that the Republican senators in favor of it should be some sort of endorsement. I assure you, they did not read the bill in its entirety.

 

Unfortunately the conflict in Ukraine is not exempted from the process of politics. You ask why Israel gets a pass on their funding, that's because both sides believe in funding them. That's it. Ukraine does not share the same support, so it must go through a more negotiated process.

 

I would love to live in the world where political brinksmanship wasn't the standard on every issue everyday. But we are nearing the end of this saeculum, and that's just how it works. In 20 to 30 years, if we are both still around, we can marvel at the newfound efficiency that follows great global conflicts, and the cycle will repeat once more.

[SocialD]

Maybe more shenanigans..."imminent national security threat."

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

Maybe more shenanigans..."imminent national security threat."

[Lawman]

If your argument is "you have to read the entire bill in its legislative text form before you are allowed to have an opinion on it" then there is a follow-on issue with your claim that the Republican senators in favor of it should be some sort of endorsement. I assure you, they did not read the bill in its entirety.
 
Unfortunately the conflict in Ukraine is not exempted from the process of politics. You ask why Israel gets a pass on their funding, that's because both sides believe in funding them. That's it. Ukraine does not share the same support, so it must go through a more negotiated process.
 
I would love to live in the world where political brinksmanship wasn't the standard on every issue everyday. But we are nearing the end of this saeculum, and that's just how it works. In 20 to 30 years, if we are both still around, we can marvel at the newfound efficiency that follows great global conflicts, and the cycle will repeat once more.

No I’m making a comment about him saying he can find the truth in the issues for himself like it’s not days you can count on one hand since the public could actually read this bill.

Everybody speaking on it authoritatively was doing so with second hand information, the difference being a whole lot of critics lined up to get behind Trump’s avalanche of criticism when that guy currently has as much access to things like security briefings or the goings on in Congressional committees as Taylor Swift has. But he gets on X to bitch about stuff in a bill that would threaten his reelection campaign and wow suddenly it’s a bad bill.

I’m pragmatic about reality which some seem to not want to acknowledge. If this is truly the crises that demands all action than any forward progress is needed, that’s exactly what the Border Patrol union leaders were saying when they came out and supported this bill. But when you have people like Troy Nehls saying any deal is effectively dead because it’s more critical to hurt Biden than secure any action on the border, yeah it’s clear we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. The wing of the Republican Party saying no to any assistance from democrats and demanding their bills be considered are ignoring the fact they can’t do this without democrats, and their vocal public defections actually weaken the Republican position in bargaining for a better deal. They’re posturing to make deals like they control either the chambers with some sweeping margin, they don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

any deal that ALLOWS 5,000 illegals PER DAY is a no starter.

saying no to that is perfectly acceptable. biden created the border crisis. not the republicans.

but enough thread derail back to the russians.

Edited February 14, 2024 by BashiChuni

[brabus]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

I mean we (a general electorate) bring a ton of this on ourselves

100%. The people could stop this bullshit pretty quickly, but they won’t, because TikTok, Obama Phones, etc. 

[Lawman]

any deal that ALLOWS 5,000 illegals PER DAY is a no starter.
saying no to that is perfectly acceptable. biden created the border crisis. not the republicans.
but enough thread derail back to the russians.

Except it doesn’t (or rather didn’t) allow that at all, as stated by the Border Patrol reps when they issued their support for the bill.

But hey thanks for representing the low information parrots to dumb talking points and obstructionism that I was talking about. It’s good to know you’re useful for something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

100%. The people could stop this bullshit pretty quickly, but they won’t, because TikTok, Obama Phones, etc. 

The algorithm rewards the lizard brain.

You kind find videos from Forbes of “so and so owns ____.”

The irony of having Congress hold a public hearing to grandstand blasting the heads of the very media methods they use to spread populist reelection sound bites should not be lost on anybody. Absolutely nothing of impact changed from that meeting and all it did was set up reelection video fodder for a bunch of asshats who aren’t doing their real job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Except it doesn’t (or rather didn’t) allow that at all, as stated by the Border Patrol reps when they issued their support for the bill.

But hey thanks for representing the low information parrots to dumb talking points and obstructionism that I was talking about. It’s good to know you’re useful for something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

edited for personal attack 😄

Edited February 15, 2024 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

“Here’s what the people pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., in a Feb. 4 X post.

 

i suppose you're calling steve scalise a "low information parrot" then. you really are a piece of work.

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Except it doesn’t (or rather didn’t) allow that at all, as stated by the Border Patrol reps when they issued their support for the bill.

But hey thanks for representing the low information parrots to dumb talking points and obstructionism that I was talking about. It’s good to know you’re useful for something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lawman]

“Here’s what the people pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., in a Feb. 4 X post.
 
i suppose you're calling steve scalise a "low information parrot" then. you really are a piece of work.
 

Oh wow a congressman said it on twitter. In like a whole sentence? Omg it must be true… except no it isn’t.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000-people-to-illegally-enter-the-us-daily/

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/no-senate-border-bill-would-not-have-allowed-5000-migrants-per-day-verify/65-ad109cd1-6671-4d0c-8239-b5e4b4d4d951


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[1:1:1]

58 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Oh wow a congressman said it on twitter. In like a whole sentence? Omg it must be true… except no it isn’t.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000-people-to-illegally-enter-the-us-daily/

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/no-senate-border-bill-would-not-have-allowed-5000-migrants-per-day-verify/65-ad109cd1-6671-4d0c-8239-b5e4b4d4d951


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Semantics.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Oh wow a congressman said it on twitter. In like a whole sentence? Omg it must be true… except no it isn’t.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000-people-to-illegally-enter-the-us-daily/

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/no-senate-border-bill-would-not-have-allowed-5000-migrants-per-day-verify/65-ad109cd1-6671-4d0c-8239-b5e4b4d4d951


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

how's this smart guy.... ZERO illegal immigration. period. no wait in US for your court date. wall.

there should be NO compromise on the border. none. it's a fucking border...don't cross it illegally. bring back "remain in mexico"

i DGAF how you call it...."encounters"..."illegals"...the number of 5,000 PER FUCKING DAY is unacceptable.

Edited February 15, 2024 by BashiChuni

[Lawman]

how's this smart guy.... ZERO illegal immigration. period. no wait in US for your court date. wall.
there should be NO compromise on the border. none. it's a ing border...don't cross it illegally. bring back "remain in mexico"
i DGAF how you call it...."encounters"..."illegals"...the number of 5,000 PER ING DAY is unacceptable.

You’re not getting a wall or a minefield or whatever other jingoistic fantasy you think will ever achieve your “No Compromise” solution. That border is an 800 billion dollar trade corridor remember?

This won’t be voted on simply because the people actually tasked with doing something about this crisis arent nearly as concerned with making real impact to it as they are pounding their chest and campaign off it. With a larger majority margin of control and the actual presidency the wall couldn’t happen. You are vastly confused at how bargaining positions actually work when Republicans can afford exactly 2 defections voting as a party to achieve even a simple majority much less get anything done.

And meanwhile instead of actually changing things like catch and release in codified law which an executive can’t ignore or empowering asylum requests to be literally ignored once triggered by the 5k number you’re mischaracterizing, or putting a F load more agents and facilities to deal with the problem, you’ll get the continued status quo and solve nothing. So much winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bfargin]

56 minutes ago, Lawman said:

This won’t be voted on simply because the people actually tasked with doing something about this crisis arent nearly as concerned with making real impact to it as they are pounding their chest and campaign off it.

Gang load the oxygen regulator, you’re suffering hypoxia.

The people “tasked with doing something” is the current administration who’s ignored the law and opened the “door” and told every douchenozzle in the world to “come on in”.

[Lawman]

Gang load the oxygen regulator, you’re suffering hypoxia.
The people “tasked with doing something” is the current administration who’s ignored the law and opened the “door” and told every douchenozzle in the world to “come on in”.

It’s like you slept through 8th grade civics.

There are two chambers of government tasked with forming laws to guide the left and right limits of government to include the office of the executive. Those chambers are now not doing anything until Feb 28 about this crises while you of scream about Biden.

Guess it’s not really a problem that needs fixing if you’re ok with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Semantics.

No it’s a flatly transparent lie about what actually happens on the border.

The people screaming no to this law and saying “5k a day is unacceptable” are acting like after it’s passed the border patrol walks up on a group of 500 illegals crossing they check a tracker and go “well we’re only at 3450… It’s ok folks you’re free to go. Dallas is that way.”

That’s not what happens, nor is it what would happen under this law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

You’re not wrong, but semantics are still at play. Up to 4999 rolling daily average and CBP keeps the border open. Only at 5000 average do they have the power to shut down the border (which is described as an “emergency” action and intended to be temp in nature). Or they could just shut down the border right now and leave it shut until we fix this disaster of epic proportions. We’re in a massive emergency situation, but the bill doesn’t support that fact until the daily average getting through is 5k+. In summary, this bill’s supporters are tacitly OK with 4999 daily average.

[Clark Griswold]

Broken record here but until you arrest the employers and prosecute them you would have to 10 x the border security (both north and south)  and interior enforcement to move the needle 

Turn off the electromagnetic pull of illegal employment and benefits then you can address this, it’ll never completely go away but it will get to a tolerable level 

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Broken record here but until you arrest the employers and prosecute them you would have to 10 x the border security (both north and south)  and interior enforcement to move the needle 

Turn off the electromagnetic pull of illegal employment and benefits then you can address this, it’ll never completely go away but it will get to a tolerable level 

🎯

 

This is how you know the "elites" don't want the problem fixed. You could shut down illegal immigration in less than a year, to include the self-deportation of millions of illegals, without building anything. No additional agents, no increased court resources, nothing. Just redirect 5% of immigration agents to random workplace inspections across the country. Fine the employer $10,000 per illegal, per day of employment. After your third separate violation to go to jail.

 

And as a bonus, the countries that actually need working age men working towards an improved society get them back. Seriously do we ever expect the countries of Central and South America to advance to stability if we keep poaching their most motivated workers?

Edited February 15, 2024 by Lord Ratner

[Lawman]

You’re not wrong, but semantics are still at play. Up to 4999 rolling daily average and CBP keeps the border open. Only at 5000 average do they have the power to shut down the border (which is described as an “emergency” action and intended to be temp in nature). Or they could just shut down the border right now and leave it shut until we fix this disaster of epic proportions. We’re in a massive emergency situation, but the bill doesn’t support that fact until the daily average getting through is 5k+. In summary, this bill’s supporters are tacitly OK with 4999 daily average.

The border doesn’t open/shut to illegals, that action is already done with apprehension-identification-detention-deportation. And the problem being ignored by the people screaming about “5k illegals!” Is that because that process is undermanned and under equipped logistically it has led to “catch and release.” That’s exactly why the Border Patrol Agents union was supporting this bill. They’d rather apply pressure to a bleeding wound that stand around waiting for the perfect bill which will never pass in Congress.

The 5k triggers a stop in our processing if political refugees even applying for asylum. That doesn’t just close the border to illegal crossings, it closes it to people who have legitimate reason for requesting asylum as well. That’s not us telling some military aged male Chinese guy to get F’d it’s telling some family from Myanmar or one of our Afghan translators that smuggled themselves out sorry our services are closed for the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

8 minutes ago, Lawman said:

The 5k triggers a stop in our processing if political refugees even applying for asylum

False. You are in love with semantical arguments. The no shit text uses the terms “alien” and “encounter.” It literally says the border is not shut down until the 7 day average of “alien encounters” surpasses 5k. Alien is everyone - the terrorist, the Chinese spy, the trafficked kid, the drug runner, the AFG refugee, etc. There is no delineation between who that alien is in the text. So I guess if it helps your brain work better - replace “illegal” with “alien” in all the quotes your railing against and they are 100% accurate sentiments. Word smithing gymnastics doesn’t change the basis of the argument.