The murder of Charlie Kirk
Can we all admit that the majority of extremism is coming from the left over the last handful of years?
Apparently they j
No the supreme court rejected it and he looked for a end around
Made up huh
Yeah, I was refering to the kids reference. I don't care about the above
I know what was said in the text messages about the kids and the point isn't "the kids should die"
I asked you yesterday if you could acknowledge the differences between Obama deportations and Trump deportations and never got a response
Never saw the question
To be honest I am not sure How Obama deported as many as he did . I do remember he did build holding facilities that were later used by Trump in his first term . Sadly the left wing media wasn't as vocal on him doing it as Trump is doing it
Lets be clear I am not a fan of how they are doing it now . Though I am also not a fan of sanctuary cities not cooperating in deporting anyone with a criminal record or charges against them
No the supreme court rejected it and he looked for a end around
Made up huh
"an end around"
I think what you mean to say is legal. One proposal was blocked so they did another
Like, the levels of intellectual dishonesty on display to justify your take is beyond reason
Yes when Biden was told he could not forgive student loans and when Obama killed an American citizen without a trial (I supported that one)
Your whataboutism simply doesn't hold water. Sure, both sides are usually guilty of "stuff" and this has certainly been true in my lifetime.
But nothing in my lifetime compares to what is going on now. Not even close. We are precariously close to losing every single ideal this country has thrived on since conception. The constitution is getting trashed. An assault on press, freedom of speech,and our elections. A congress that is subservient to a wannbe dictator, and a Supreme Court that no longer acts as a check and balance.
Your hatred for what you consider the enemy had blinded you so much that you simply cant see the true evil right behind you.
ICE agents are continuing to be paid during the government shut down. DHS is refusing to say where the funding is coming from. Their official budget proposal is all appropriated funding, so there is a 99.9% chance them continuing to get paid is illegal.
I'm sure there are no issues there from the right wingers though.
No the supreme court rejected it and he looked for a end around
Made up huh
It’s a reference to the office. lol
Never saw the question To be honest I am not sure How Obama deported as many as he did . I do remember he did build holding facilities that were later used by Trump in his first term . Sadly the left wing media wasn't as vocal on him doing it as Trump is doing it Lets be clear I am not a fan of how they are doing it now . Though I am also not a fan of sanctuary cities not coop
Obama deported as many as he did for several reasons. One was that he wanted Republican support for his DACA bill. Which they ended up not supporting because of ACA. This is why left wing media supported what he was doing. Obama was letting everyone who was here illegally in the US continue to work as long as they weren't committing crimes. Immigrants who are not citizens basically commit half the crimes as US citizens. And the reason is obvious. They don't want to be deported.
But Obama wasn't going after immigrants the way Trump is. He was only deporting people who were here illegally and had committed crimes. And the immigrants were allowed due process.
What Trump is doing is deporting people without due process. So because he says that somebody committed a crime they are being deported. And not all immigrants can get legal aid. The courts are ruling against Trump every single time with regards to no due process. But only if the immigrant can get legal help. There are a number of organizations that are providing free help but really the vast majority of immigrants in these situations don't get legal help and so can't dispute what is going on and they are deported.
Another thing Trump is doing is making up reasons why crime should be considered. There is the tattoo thing which he is saying makes them part of the Venezuelan cartel. And Trump is also pretending that other countries are invading the US and that is why the crime rate has risen. This is blatantly untrue and courts have and will rule against Trump. But for now in many places there is ICE work that is illegal and people are being deported as a result.
And another thing Trump is doing is pretending that people seeking asylum can be deported without due process and without having committed any crimes.
Obama deported as many as he did for several reasons. One was that he wanted Republican support for his DACA bill. Which they ended up not supporting because of ACA. This is why left wing media supported what he was doing. Obama was letting everyone who was here illegally in the US continue to work as long as they weren't committing crimes. Immigrants who are not citizens
So your saying Obama deported 3 million criminals ? To legally claim asylum do you not need to claim it at a recognized port of entry ?
Obama deported as many as he did for several reasons. One was that he wanted Republican support for his DACA bill. Which they ended up not supporting because of ACA. This is why left wing media supported what he was doing. Obama was letting everyone who was here illegally in the US continue to work as long as they weren't committing crimes. Immigrants who are not citizens
#BlueMaga is a helluva drug.
You think I’m a trumper or something? Of course I’ve been pissed off at the Trump administration removing anyone with competency and replacing them with loyalists. There’s lots of different types of anti-meritocratic behavior. Trump is explicitly operating off of the party-favoritism doctrine developed by Andrew Jackson which states that career (read: competent) bureaucrats int
I don't care what you are cupcake. This was the goal of the people pushing that stuff--to return to the old-timey and super corrupt patronage system. They use "merit" in the spin to provide cover.
So your saying Obama deported 3 million criminals ? To legally claim asylum do you not need to claim it at a recognized port of entry ?
I think your point is right. Obama probably deported a lot of people who snuck into the country or tried to and were not applying for asylum. But it wasn't people who had been living here and working or with a family. It was people who tried to sneak in during his term. So yes he caught people at the border or having just crossed the border illegally. As Trump does.
But the difference is that Trump is going after people who are here looking for asylum and is not giving them their day in court. When they show up for the hearing he takes them away from the federal building. Obama never did stuff like that. Also Trump is treating minor crimes as a problem. Things like driving drunk, or speeding tickets. Then Trump is going after these people some of whom have been living here for decades and/or have families here.
I don't care what you are cupcake. This was the goal of the people pushing that stuff--to return to the old-timey and super corrupt patronage system. They use "merit" in the spin to provide cover.
??? you realize actual minorities sued ivy league schools and won because they were discriminated against due to affirmative action right? Do you support such disgusting tactics as consistently rating a racial group lower in “likability” and “courage” in order to prevent them from gaining admission over other ethnic groups?
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that Harvard imposed a soft quota of "racial balancing" that artificially depressed the number of Asian American applicants it admitted.[29] The plaintiffs maintained that the proportion of Asians Harvard admitted was suspiciously similar year after year despite dramatic increases in the number of Asian American applicants, as well as the size of the Asian American population.[29]
During the lawsuit, the plaintiffs gained access to Harvard's individualized admissions files from 2014 to 2019 and aggregate data from 2000 to 2019.[33] The plaintiffs also interviewed and deposed numerous Harvard officials.[33] From these sources, the plaintiffs alleged that Harvard admissions officers consistently rated Asian American applicants, as a group, lower than others on "positive personality traits" such as likability, courage, and kindness.[34][33] The plaintiffs alleged that Asian Americans scored higher than any other racial or ethnic group on other admissions measures like test scores, grades, and extracurricular activities, but the students' personal ratings significantly hampered their admissions chances.[34] The plaintiffs also claimed that alumni interviewers (who, unlike admissions officers within Harvard, actually met the applicants) gave Asian Americans personal ratings comparable to white applicants'. Harvard's admissions staff testified that they did not believe that different racial groups have better personal qualities than others, but nevertheless, Asian applicants as a racial group received consistently weaker personal scores over the period surveyed, and Harvard's admissions office rated Asian Americans with the worst personal qualities of any racial group. African-Americans, on the other hand, consistently scored the lowest on the academic rating but highest on the personal rating, allegedly displaying more "likability, courage, and kindness" than other racial groups.[35]
Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist testifying on the plaintiffs' behalf, concluded that Asian American applicants as a group performed stronger on measures of academic achievement (which he measured using their SAT and ACT scores) and extracurricular activities[33] but received a statistically significant penalty relative to white applicants in Harvard's "Personal Rating" and "Overall Rating" scores.[33] As a result, the plaintiffs alleged Asian American applicants had the lowest chance of admission of all racial groups, despite scoring highest in all objective measurements.[33] Arcidiacono testified that removing Asian applicants' personal score penalty relative to white applicants would result in a 16% increase in the number of admitted Asian Americans.[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_f...
But right, because people use “merit” for bullshit reasons that means merit doesn’t matter. Good one “cupcake”.
In my lifetime Democrats only win the presidency with moderate candidates and/or when the Republicans have created horrible situations.JFK won in 1960 and that was a very close race against Richard Nixon who had frozen during a TV debate. JFK would have won again if he had lived but LBJ as Vice President got elected in 1964. Richard Nixon who lost to JFK in 1960 won in 1968 a
This is a nice summary, thanks for sharing. My take home here is that Republicans can get away with awful presential candidates (pretty much all of them aside from Regan), but Dems cant.
This is OT, but what do you think it is about the US (compared to the UK that has had 3 women Prime Ministers) that the sex of the candidate is an issue?
Then in 1992 Bill Clinton a moderate Southern Governor beat George HW Bush because Bush's popularity went down and there was a 3rd party candidate who was a conservative in some ways who took like 15% of the vote.
From google;
Details of Ross Perot's poll lead
Peak support: In a Gallup Poll conducted June 4–8, 1992, Perot received 39% support from registered voters, compared to 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton. A similar poll by The Washington Post-ABC News also showed Perot with a lead.
Source of support: Perot's rise was fueled by voter dissatisfaction with both major parties and growing concern over the national budget deficit.
Campaign turbulence: His front-runner status was short-lived. Perot abruptly withdrew from the race in July 1992 before re-entering in October.
-------
A lot of people believe his or his family's life was threatened. There were also rumors of something with his daughter. Idk. Just vaguely remember him.
This is OT, but what do you think it is about the US (compared to the UK that has had 3 women Prime Ministers) that the sex of the candidate is an issue?
Thatcher would be my guess.
I think Hillary would have been fine. Pretty sure most would trade 8 years of her over what we got. Probably the worst thing would be putting the wrong women in there just to put one in.
??? you realize actual minorities sued ivy league schools and won because they were discriminated against due to affirmative action right? Do you support such disgusting tactics as consistently rating a racial group lower in “likability” and “courage” in order to prevent them from gaining admission over other ethnic groups?
Yes, we've covered it here somewhere around ~a thousand times 😀
Still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people running around claiming they want a meritocracy don't want anything that actually resembles it. Did that court case happen to end nepotism admits?
Yes, we've covered it here somewhere around ~a thousand times 😀
Still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people running around claiming they want a meritocracy don't want anything that actually resembles it. Did that court case happen to end nepotism admits?
That’s a completely different claim than what I made and frankly has nothing to do with my point. If anything we should want merit in those cases. Do you see why?
This is a nice summary, thanks for sharing. My take home here is that Republicans can get away with awful presential candidates (pretty much all of them aside from Regan), but Dems cant.
This is OT, but what do you think it is about the US (compared to the UK that has had 3 women Prime Ministers) that the sex of the candidate is an issue?
All 3 women Prime Ministers ran as a Conservative. Both of the US failures were running as Democrats.
I also think that it is about who the women were who were running in the US.
Hillary Clinton was tasked by her President husband to generate a new health care plan that would cover everyone. Instead of working with Congress on the project she came up with a huge master plan on her own that was completely rejected by congress. As a politician herself Hillary won one Senate election in NY state and then worked as Secretary of State for Obama where she was pilloried for what happened in Behngazi and how it was handled. The Republican congress had like 6 different investigations. Then when she was running she called Republicans a "basket of deplorables" at a fundraiser which was taped. So that rallied people to the polls. Against her. And there was the computer email thing that she was accused of that allegedly made country secrets available to the public. It didn't actually do that but the FBI re-opened the case about 12 days before the election (because a close advisor's husband who was under investigation for lewdly emailing a young girl also had thousands of Hillary's emails on his computer).
Kamala Harris was also a one term Senator, in CA. She barely won the Senate election vs a Republican in a State that was massively Democratic at the time. She had been an attorney General so there was that. But as VP she basically didn't do anything that stood out. The negotiations she had with the 3 South American countries to reduce immigration by helping their economies went basically unnoticed until during Trump's campaign she was called the "Border Czar" which was blatantly untrue. She was held accountable for the inflation issues during Covid even though she wasn't in charge of it in any way. Its unclear if Kamala would have won the primary if Biden had stepped down before any votes.
Funny thing is if Gretchen Whitmer (MI Governor) wins the nomination she would likely have a shot to be the first Woman president. I think she would have beaten Trump in 2024.
This is a nice summary, thanks for sharing. My take home here is that Republicans can get away with awful presential candidates (pretty much all of them aside from Regan), but Dems cant.
This is OT, but what do you think it is about the US (compared to the UK that has had 3 women Prime Ministers) that the sex of the candidate is an issue?
Republicans hates a lot of thing .
Free strong woman is one of them .
Eh? The three women PMs in the UK have all been conservative.
All 3 women Prime Ministers ran as a Conservative. Both of the US failures were running as Democrats.I also think that it is about who the women were who were running in the US.Hillary Clinton was tasked by her President husband to generate a new health care plan that would cover everyone. Instead of working with Congress on the project she came up with a huge master plan on
Which begs the question why are no credible Dem women emerging?
(I think there is also make a wider point about lack of credible Dems. I think this is probably a similar issue to the UK in that the ones who rise to the top are inevitably middle-class Ivey league/Oxbridge graduates who jump straight into politics).
i obviously was speaking about the US 😀
