Trump 2024?

[Phoenix_person]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

To be fair, I didn't say either of them were particularly competent on immigration policy. I honestly don't believe that either of them has an airtight plan to secure the border, but they've both shown that they're willing to make tough decisions to strengthen the border and reduce the number of asylum seekers coming in. Biden attempted to push tougher border policy through Congress earlier this year. He had enough Dem votes in both chambers, IIRC, but was spurned by Republicans who didn't want to give him a big immigration win at the start of an election year.

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't think Trump and Biden are terribly different on this, though Trump has the benefit of being in the party that is overall more supportive of tighter border security. Biden, OTOH, has seen some recent slips in his approval among Dems over the issue.

If we listen to the political rhetoric of the two presidential candidates, the unaware and uninformed would easily come to your conclusion.  Considering the historical policies of both political parties’ illegal immigration has been a problem for many decades.  Both parties claim that our immigration laws are “broken” and need reform.  But no one has clearly stated what is broken and exactly what needs to be changed to reform what is wrong.  Trump, as a political and DC outsider is actually the first president that I am aware of that has made an effort to enforce immigration laws and prevent them from being broken - thus a wall.  Biden on the other hand has done the exact opposite – in that he has prevented immigration laws from being enforced.  I speculate that this is because he has sold (for wealth) out to the drug cartels and other foreign interests held mostly by enemies to our country.   I do believe it is an act of treason for elements in our government to refuse to enforce our immigration laws.

However, I am also of the mind that we are seeing a fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophesy concerning our society and government that was founded on principles of divine covenant to serve G-d.  I am concerned that many of our freedoms that I enjoyed since my youth will be lost to future generations and that only those that respect the restoration of the priesthood in these last-days will find divine protection according to prophesy.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Both parties claim that our immigration laws are “broken” and need reform.  But no one has clearly stated what is broken and exactly what needs to be changed to reform what is wrong

Good points. Agree totally here. 

[NeuroTypical]

Neither side wants to admit that a porous border has served American interests with cheap migrant labor since the end of the Mexican war.

Dems prefer more migrants, because the poorer you are, the more you get plugged into social services, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.  Folks who think “migrants can’t vote“, go ahead and Google around to hear what people are saying and writing articles about on the topic.

 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Neither side wants to admit that a porous border has served American interests with cheap migrant labor since the end of the Mexican war.

Dems prefer more migrants, because the poorer you are, the more you get plugged into social services, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.  Folks who think “migrants can’t vote“, go ahead and Google around to hear what people are saying and writing articles about on the topic.

 

Don't you mean 9/11 instead of the Mexican war?

There is another problem with illegals.  Lots of foreigners enter the USA legally through various visas and never renew, leave or notify anyone when the visas expire.  According to a person I know well, that works in the medical business – that the vast majority of foreign individuals seeking medical attention that never pay (leaving it to those that pay to make up the difference) are foreign individuals with expired visas.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Don't you mean 9/11 instead of the Mexican war?

Nope, I mean the Mexican/American war that ended in 1848, when we decided what was going to be the US, and what was going to be Mexico.   The discussion at the peace talks included "who's gonna fill up all that empty space in the US?".  And from what I can tell, both sides acknowledged there'd be a bunch of south-of-the-new-border folks heading north, and they'd just work for the Americans. 

I've been paying attention since Reagan in the '80's, and the discussion hasn't really changed much.  The sides change based on who is in power, but it's still the same basic problem.

Edited June 10 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nope, I mean the Mexican/American war that ended in 1848, when we decided what was going to be the US, and what was going to be Mexico.   The discussion at the peace talks included "who's gonna fill up all that empty space in the US?".  And from what I can tell, both sides acknowledged there'd be a bunch of south-of-the-new-border folks heading north, and they'd just work for the Americans. 

I've been paying attention since Reagan in the '80's, and the discussion hasn't really changed much.  The sides change based on who is in power, but it's still the same basic problem.

I was being sarcastic and attempting to point out why borders are important for a country.  I would also contend that we have all policies and laws needed to open our borders for legal immigration (temporary or permanent) to fulfill all needs of any industry or enterprise.   What I believe is broken with our border and immigration situation is more about not following the law or avoiding the law than enforcing the laws and working within the laws.  This is why I am greatly concerned with a conclusive immigration policy – I want to know exactly what that would entail and why it cannot work the way things are currently defined by the law.

Let me give a kind of example of how laws get screw up.  A while back I read about two guys that got seriously injured while together, they each held a side of the mower in order to use the lawnmower to trim some hedges – and one slipped and lost their grip.  Obviously, if the lawnmower had a deficiency that caused harm to the users – the company should be responsible.  But a company should never be accountable for idiots that abuse the intent of things.   But the lawsuit ruled in favor of the idiots because the manufacturer did not specifically communicate that their lawnmower should not be used in that manner.

If anyone desires to bring laborers into our country – they are responsible for those workers and if they require medical attention those that employ such workers should be required to provide insurance.  They are responsible for the duration of the visa.  In my mind there is no reason to hold lower and middle-class taxpayers responsible for non-citizens’ health care (and other) needs.  There is an element in our country to hide and keep secrets from citizens – especially taxpaying citizens concerning what is intended when laws are changed.

As a side note – I believe it would be beneficial for youth in this country to enter (at entry levels) of labor in such a manner to allow children to learn to work without abusing them – otherwise they will grow up thinking that it is abusive to have to work.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Neither side wants to admit that a porous border has served American interests with cheap migrant labor since the end of the Mexican war.

Dems prefer more migrants, because the poorer you are, the more you get plugged into social services, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.  

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nope, I mean the Mexican/American war that ended in 1848,

So, Americans knew that the era of slavery was going away.  So, they wanted a way to maintain "defacto slavery" (for lack of a better term) without making people feel like they were slavers.

[Carborendum]

Biden Admin Secretly Tells Border Patrol To Release Migrants Into U.S. Despite Biden’s Executive Order

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Neither Biden nor Trump will save our country. Both are clouded with pride. The only way to save the Republic is for the States to implement Article Five of the Constitution. By doing this we, the states, can push amendments into the constitution without the congress, president and supreme court would have a say on it. We need at least the following:

1. Term Limits on Congress and SCOTUS. You get ONE term in the House, Senate and President. SCOTUS should be limited to 10 years, with a rotation of two of them every two years. All current house, senate and president finish out their current terms. The two most senior SCOTUS are removed in when the next election happens and the new President nominates their replacements. Also, the two senior justices become the Chief justice during the last two years of their time, one after the next by seniority.  

2. All Federal offices should be closed and representatives remain in their home districts. They perform their meetings and votes remotely from their home office. Once a year they go to the Washington D.C. for the State of the Union Address. We eliminate Parties all together. Washington warned of the dangers of political parties. We make that direction a permanent part of the Constitution.

3. Income Tax is eliminated and all federal spending is cut by 2/3 with the focus being allocated for national defense. The Federal lands and properties are returned to the states. The Federal Government is limited, by law to it's constitutional roles. Nothing else. No more Board of Education, Interior, agriculture, commerce, labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, EPA, MUN, CEA, SBA. etc. The only cabinet positions are to be those that deal with the Constitutional roles of the federal government.

There are more, but I think you get the idea. The Feds need to be neutered to the point where the States have their rights protected by the Constitution.

[Vort]

37 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Neither Biden nor Trump will save our country.

True enough. But one will take the longer route to ruin.

[mordorbund]

On 6/14/2024 at 2:22 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Term Limits on Congress and SCOTUS. You get ONE term in the House, Senate and President. SCOTUS should be limited to 10 years, with a rotation of two of them every two years. All current house, senate and president finish out their current terms. The two most senior SCOTUS are removed in when the next election happens and the new President nominates their replacements. Also, the two senior justices become the Chief justice during the last two years of their time, one after the next by seniority.

With term limits in Congress, how do you prevent the invisible swamp from taking over? 

With respect to single-term offices, I saw some Board meetings of brand new HOA’s and a lot of deference was shown to the unelected Property Management representative because that person had experience with the Robert Bruce’s Rules of Order. This speaks to my concern that there will be an invisible layer of government running things who are beholden to generous donors instead of voters. And I imagine if a board member was familiar enough with the rules to use them to his advantage then fellow board members would distrust his motives over the PM’s. After all, newbie was elected with his own agenda and doesn’t have the long track record of PM who has served the Board with the trust of previous administrations.

Why term limits for the SC? Would they get chosen based on the latest political issue rather than a long(er) track record? They’re supposed to keep out of the democratic process, would this pull them closer to it?

[mordorbund]

On 6/14/2024 at 2:22 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

We eliminate Parties all together. Washington warned of the dangers of political parties. We make that direction a permanent part of the Constitution.

How? If you dissolved all parties today, you would still have PACs. Wouldn’t these be the new parties? Currently they are similar to Madison’s “factions”. What prevents them from allying with each other to get their legislation passed? What’s different between this alliance and a Party?

What defines a Party that can be instantiated into law without leaving a large window for Parties-by-another-name, or so loose that it endangers clubs, companies, or other associations?

[Traveler]

The only reason to have term limits is because one believes that elected officials cannot be trusted.  If elected officials cannot be trusted, we do not have a republic.    Rather than term limits I would rather have the ability to recall (impeach) any elected official by electorate petition and recall vote.   Recalled officials lose all benefits – not just for their office in which they are recalled but for all accrued government benefits (with the one exception of veteran benefits).  Also, regardless of how many local and federal offices and associated benefits – no government official should ever have benefits that exceed veteran benefits.

I also believe that there should be a limit on voter registration.  In a mobile society such as ours – voter re-registering should be required any time one changes their living location (including homeless).  Re-registering requires the cancellation of all existing registrations.   Voter registration is permanently cancelled at death.  Government Id is required for voter registration along with one previous living location and a signed document that one is not currently registered to vote.  Violations of voting registering laws ought to be a felony and the permanent loss of voting privileges.  Time based voting re-registering should be easy and could be piggybacked with driver license (or official government Id) used for voter renewal

I also believe that any attempt to take (murder) any elected (or appointed officials in their line of duty – like judges, ambassadors, police, FBI or other such officials) should be a capital crime that, at a minimum requires, the death penalty (whether the attempt is foreign or domestic).

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The only reason to have term limits is because one believes that elected officials cannot be trusted.

D&C 121:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

D&C 121:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Exactly and those that exercise unrighteousness dominion should be immediately removed from office rather than letting them complete their term.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

On 6/15/2024 at 2:25 PM, mordorbund said:

They’re supposed to keep out of the democratic process, would this pull them closer to it?

Absolutely. And if all three branches of government are left to the whim of regular elections, then Jefferson's vision finally gets fulfilled (in spirit). SC term limits would have to come with a congressional vetting process that's nearly impervious to partisanship. That's simply not possible, especially in today's political landscape. And if we set the term limits to 19 years, then Jefferson's model might literally come to pass. The entire Constitution could be at the whim of the electorate. 

Edited June 17 by Phoenix_person

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 6/15/2024 at 1:25 PM, mordorbund said:

With term limits in Congress, how do you prevent the invisible swamp from taking over? 

They would probably need to be fired immediately, via amendment.

[Phoenix_person]

7 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

They would probably need to be fired immediately, via amendment.

Who does the firing? What would this amendment entail? Is the process protected from corruption and partisanship? How do we determine who "the swamp" is? Are we just making blanket judgements or are they innocent until proven guilty? These questions are the reason why we have a swamp. Saddam Hussein's regime didn't gave a swamp, because he had chemical weapons and torture chambers. See what I'm getting at? Identifying and rooting out the swamp monsters in both parties is important, but there's no way to quickly get rid of all of them en masse without McCarthy-esque levels of tyranny. I would hope that conservatives don't want a tyrannical government.

Also, Constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass, by design. And it never sees the light of day without help from the swamp.

Edited June 17 by Phoenix_person

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

19 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Who does the firing? What would this amendment entail? Is the process protected from corruption and partisanship? How do we determine who "the swamp" is? Are we just making blanket judgements or are they innocent until proven guilty? These questions are the reason why we have a swamp. Saddam Hussein's regime didn't gave a swamp, because he had chemical weapons and torture chambers. See what I'm getting at? Identifying and rooting out the swamp monsters in both parties is important, but there's no way to quickly get rid of all of them en masse without McCarthy-esque levels of tyranny. I would hope that conservatives don't want a tyrannical government.

Also, Constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass, by design. And it never sees the light of day without help from the swamp.

No idea. I just know it the government needs a serious clearing out if we are to survive as a nation.

[LDSGator]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/06/26/rough-night-for-trump-endorsed-candidates-3-trump-backed-gop-picks-lost-primaries/
 

both Trump and the “sqaud” suffered a bit. 

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/06/26/rough-night-for-trump-endorsed-candidates-3-trump-backed-gop-picks-lost-primaries/

"In Colorado, former conservative talk show host Jeff Crank overwhelmingly defeated Trump-backed state GOP party chair Dave Williams"

Heh.  The only thing I knew about Crank or Williams: I listened to an AM radio debate on my way to work, and I literally could not tell them apart.  Couldn't tell when one stopped talking and the other started, couldn't identify any difference in their policies or claims or accusations.    I'm glad to see Williams go down, because all the Colorado republican bigwigs have been embarrassing failures for over a decade. 

Odd the article says nothing about Lauren Boebert.  She's Trump endorsed and won quite handily.  Whether she's making international news for trying to pack concealed into congress, loudly booing Biden during his speeches, or having videos of her vaping and making out in a movie theater going viral, Colorado sure seems to love her.  

 

It's nice to see the first squad member to get dumped.  It's hard to run a party that both complains about genocide and supports it at the same time, so kudos to the democrat voters in NY that gave Jamaal Bowman the boot. Dude is still full of October 7 denialism.  Dude was a 9/11 Bin Laden denier.  

College protest chant: “We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground. Go Hamas, we love you. We support your rockets too”

Jamal Tweets: 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 06:13 PM by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

having videos of her vaping and making out in a movie theater going viral, Colorado sure seems to love her.

If you told me in 2000 after the Clinton years that republicans would rally around a guy who sleeps with porn stars and a woman who went to third base (I’m keeping this as PG as possible. Much more so than what she did) in a public theatre, I would have had you placed under a 24 hour mental health hold. 

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Colorado sure seems to love her.

It’s more clan/tribal loyalty than love.