President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
i know i know, it'd be sooooo much better if it was kopala sending out the gay rights bombers dot meme, but whatta ya gonna do. maybe next time we can get back to that and all will be right with the world
i know i know, it'd be sooooo much better if it was kopala sending out the gay rights bombers dot meme, but whatta ya gonna do. maybe next time we can get back to that and all will be right with the world
You should call her copeala
while i strongly disagree with this policy - these are this is only for student visas so a lot of the critique i've read about it is misguided at best
having said that, this and the sale of blm land are the two biggest blunders imo of the trump electric boogaloo
Well, Iran leaders have threatened to "destroy" Israel and "wipe them off the map" multiple times recently, so I'm wondering how they pose to do this if not with nuclear weapons? If they had a nuke right now what would they do? It always surprises me that oil money can't buy them one way or another.
I'm under no illusion of any nobility of US motives in its war games over the decades. If the intelligence is wrong or corrupt again, then it goes on the list of abominations. But thump was sworn off of such things, one of the few things he said that was straightforward, and very risky to his political standing ... yet he did it. I don't think it's cowboy Bush, "We needs some shyt to bomb and declare victory" type stuff. The plan seems to be about a million fold less extensive than the invasions. Why would that be?
yuge day for scumbag MAGATs. you guys get to kill a bunch more brown people too!
yuge day for scumbag MAGATs. you guys get to kill a bunch more brown people too!
The only people who can get deported without due process are the ones who came in without due process.
The only people who can get deported without due process are the ones who came in without due process.
This is demonstrably false.
The only people who can get deported without due process are the ones who came in without due process.
They’re deporting 4 year old US citizens with cancer.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
So, in one of the cases, it's two U.S. citizen siblings, a 4-year-old and a 7-year-old, who were deported with their undocumented mother to Honduras within 24 hours after being detained.
And that 4-year-old is a boy who has late-stage cancer and he had no medication with him. The undocumented mother of these two children had a removal order for not appearing at a hearing shortly after she came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor years ago. She was not aware of that removal order.
Now, in the other case, the third child is a 2-year-old girl who was referred to in court filings with the initials VML. She was also deported to Honduras with her mother. That 2-year-old is a U.S. citizen and they were deported roughly three days — after being held for three days in detention.
They’re deporting 4 year old US citizens with cancer.
Is it preferable to deport the mother and keep the children in the US?
on reflection, i think you make some good points
but him using that line on mong is still pretty strong evidence that the "no vote is a vote for x" mantra is definitely thrown around way too frequently
Hmmm, including today, I think I've used that "mantra" one time in all my years on 2+2. Perhaps this is a you thingy?
I suspect deporting toddlers that are US citizens is not giving due process, which was the question on the table.
Whether you agree with birthright citizenship, they’re still American citizens.
Ya I agree with that.
Point was if they are deporting the mother, I'm curious if she is given the option to take her children with her, or leave them in cages until due process is sorted. If the latter, I'd venture a guess she chose to take them with her.
They’re deporting 4 year old US citizens with cancer.
we told the Dems to abolish the ICE gestapo. instead they gave it more money and built more prisons.
According to the article it’s disputed by the person’s lawyer. I’m keen to believe the mother because if you had a kid with cancer you would definitely want the kid to stay in the US even if you took the 7 year old.
It’s very likely she had family in the US that could have been given guardianship, as is the case many times when there is an unaccompanied minor that comes to the US undocumented.
Amna Nawaz:
So you have heard the Trump administration say the children were deported with their mothers. That's the mothers' request. You spoke to lawyers for both of those families you just mentioned. Now, what are they saying about the Trump administration's argument?
Laura Barron-Lopez:
I spoke to Sirine Shebaya, who is representing the 2-year-old known as VML. And she's also the executive director of the National Immigration Project.
And I asked Sirine about the comments that Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, made, specifically that he said that the mothers wanted their children to be deported with them. And Sirine refuted that account
SIRINE SHEBAYA, Executive Director, National Immigration Project:
That is willfully misleading. They did not request their children to be deported with them. One of these children is 4 and has cancer and is undergoing treatment. Neither of the moms felt like they had any choice in the matter.
And if it was truly a choice situation, then why forbid them from talking to their family members and attorneys? If this was a transparent situation, where they could make a choice, then there would have been no reason for immigration authorities to specifically prevent them, despite many outreaches, from being able to talk to their family members and their lawyer to actually make that choice.
And it is a form of family separation.
But I would probably agree that if given the choice some people might choose to take their kid with them. It’s being hotly contested that the choice was given, and it seems that if there is a good reason to believe that it happened this fast the kid was not given due process.
This is reetarded. In races where there is a detestable candidate who you'd never vote for vs an unlikeable candidate, not voting or voting 3rd party is a vote for the detestable candidate.
Right-wing Democrats love this weird and flatly untrue "[not voting or voting for anyone other than the D nominee] is voting for Trump" cliche. It's not how... counting... works. A non-vote counts zero. One plus zero is still one.
I like the scenario where every eligible voter voted third party or stayed home ...congrats Donald Trump on 250 million votes!
Honestly, a rational person would opt out of voting for POTUS whatsoever in most cases, in most states, wherever the expenditure of effort in takes to cast that vote is significant.
Although I expect Cuomo to win, I would not be surprised if Zohran outperformed the polls. His supporters have seized on "Don't Rank Cuomo" as a battle cry, and I think that is very smart in a ranked choice election.
I no longer will be surprised if Mamdani wins the Democratic primary for mayor. Mamdani's ground game was far, far superior to Cuomo's. Canvassers for Mamdani visited my apartment at least four times during the six weeks before the election, and that was just during the times when I happened to be home. I never got so much as a flyer for Cuomo.
I no longer will be surprised if Mamdani wins the Democratic primary for mayor. Mamdani's ground game was far, far superior to Cuomo's. Canvassers for Mamdani visited my apartment at least four times during the six weeks before the election, and that was just during the times when I happened to be home. I never got so much as a flyer for Cuomo.
also, he doesn't serially sexually harass people
Right-wing Democrats love this weird and flatly untrue "[not voting or voting for anyone other than the D nominee] is voting for Trump" cliche. It's not how... counting... works. A non-vote counts zero. One plus zero is still one.I like the scenario where every eligible voter voted third party or stayed home ...congrats Donald Trump on 250 million votes!Honestly, a rational
The part you seem to be having difficulty with is that whenever someone says this, they are not saying it's an actual vote for the other side, derp; they're talking about the vote in context of a zero-sum game.
Did that really need to be pointed out?
The part you seem to be having difficulty with is that whenever someone says this, they are not saying it's an actual vote for the other side, derp; they're talking about the vote in context of a zero-sum game.
Did that really need to be pointed out?
I was speaking rhetorically in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument by being equally glib. May have been a bit subtle for you*.
And no, the POTUS election is not a zero-sum game. That would only be the case if the planet were divided into two entities:
1. TRUMP
2. NON-TRUMP
and voting was compulsory
On a super unrelated note, Game Theory sucks, it has a place on this earth, but let's stop obsessing over this dork science brought into prominence by a manic schizophrenic AS HE WAS UNDERGOING MANIC SCHIZOPHRENIA.
*the part where I said congrats POTUS Trump on winning 200 million non-vote votes MAY POSSIBLY have been a clue
Right-wing Democrats love this weird and flatly untrue "[not voting or voting for anyone other than the D nominee] is voting for Trump" cliche. It's not how... counting... works. A non-vote counts zero. One plus zero is still one.I like the scenario where every eligible voter voted third party or stayed home ...congrats Donald Trump on 250 million votes!Honestly, a rational
The smaller the predicted electorate the higher the instrumental value of a vote would be, so it seems like there might just be a fact of the matter of how people would take a situation where this happened.
But looking at it mathematically, assuming you had a preferred outcome you should be even more motivated to say that your inaction caused the action that you prefer to not come about. For instance, if you found out that in an election you intended to vote in that your vote would have been the decisive vote, the consequence of you not voting would have been much greater than the consequence would have been if your vote would not have been the decisive vote. So in that sense just following the math, a nonvote would have been even worse in the ordinary case where your vote would not have made a decisive difference to the outcome.
I was speaking rhetorically in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument by being equally glib. May have been a bit subtle for you*.
Uh huh, sure.
And no, the POTUS election is not a zero-sum game. That would only be the case if the planet were divided into two entities:
1. TRUMP
2. NON-TRUMP
and voting was compulsory
Once again, you're missing key context either because you're dishonest or derping; that being, the person who doesn't vote would have voted for a particular candidate if they went out and voted. You know, shiit that occurs in practical voting applications (e.g., "I'm either going to vote for candidate B or just not vote")
On a super unrelated note, Game Theory sucks, it has a place on this earth, but let's stop obsessing over this dork science brought into prominence by a manic schizophrenic AS HE WAS UNDERGOING MANIC SCHIZOPHRENIA.
Cool, but no one gives a shiit about your hangups. You can call it whatever you'd like. All you need to realize is that when a person voting for candidate B doesn't vote, that makes candidate A one vote closer to winning. Should be obvious since Trump won 2024 because a shitload of Dems did not vote.
But I get it; you and rick are idealists and don't want realists to tell you that you tossed your vote away when you just want to vote for a particular candidate regardless of that person's chance of winning.
