Trump just won the election

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Which ones were "obviously photoshopped" @JohnsonJones?

Here's the video source (not just picture, but video) for these two from an Australian news source, plus 3 other bits of creepy behaviors around various kids:  https://youtu.be/hh0PBr6ZUN0?si=DkThrf1hcaSxHk2x&t=13

 

 

Here's it as part of a Miluakee Journal Sentinal video - 0:45 seconds in.  It's unsourced, but again, is accompanied with plenty of other similar behaviors:  https://www.jsonline.com/videos/news/politics/2019/04/02/analysis-joe-biden-have-adjust-his-behavior/3346684002/

 

This is Eva Longoria, and this pic was snapped in 2014 at the Campaign for National Democrats. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-eva-longoria-urge-nevada-democrats-to-vote-if-we-vote-we-win-if-we-dont-we-lose

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/joe-biden-and-eva-longoria-campaign-for-nevada-democrats

 

The message: 

"Those of you who have ever thought harshly of men using an unequal power dynamic in their favor, I want to hear what you think about the seeming endless slew of public photographs of Biden doing it publicly.  [...] When the lefties and progressives began shouting #MeToo, and lecturing on consent, and yelling constantly about men in position of power, and the impact on unequal power dynamics, I was actually overall happy to have things discussed in the public forum.  Even if 90% of the yelling was pointed at Trump.

Then Biden ran, and it all seemed to just dry up and go away.   Kind of like how feminists got real quiet about politics when Bill Clinton was running."

And I posted some, hardly all, only a few of the many, many, many images of Biden getting publicly handsy with women and girls, some who look pretty dang uncomfortable with his behavior.

I get that it's an uncomfortable subject, but sometimes the best reaction is to acknowledge and internalize the truth.  Rather than assume you know how to spot a photoshopped image and accuse me of posting some.

 

It looks like I'll talk about the links in reverse order.

So, the one with Eva Longoria showed him there with here, but I did not see any pictures of him with his head buried in her hair.  IT LOOKS photoshopped because it looks like someone basically did a cut and paste job.  That's why it looks so odd.  It's like one picture overlapping the other.  I didn't find this photo among the ones in the links you posted and none show him even close to doing that from what I saw.  It's possible though, especially in light of the other links you posted.

The second link with Joe Biden that appears to have him sniffing a woman's hair was with the Milwaukee journal.  It wanted to disable my ad blocker so I had to switch to another browser to see it.  The video isn't actually a video of that situation and appeared to be a hit  piece done by a Republican Political Scientist?  Without context or even more about it, it's hard to really say where or what it's from.  I didn't think that was one of the pictures that was obviously photo shopped though, so not sure if that matters

The first link was also a hit piece on him.  It did show the videos but with no context of what was going on.  It does bring an interesting thought to mind though.

Now that I've SEEN the videos...I wonder about what some members think of others in their wards.  I've seen this interaction with some of the older members of the wards with youth (note, I've have never done this as doing such things makes me uncomfortable.  I had one young man that constantly tried to get hugs from me when I was Bishop and I finally had to talk to his parents to try to help me avoid that type of situation).  I don't quite understand it myself, but I have seen it in the wards and stakes I've been in with some older people and their interactions with others.  Maybe it's a generational thing?

Anyways, be well and thanks for the illumination of the sources of the pictures!

Perhaps what I feel is obviously photo shopped isn't so...it's always good to be corrected with sources! (like you provided!).

 

 

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, the debate last night simply showed that there was a politician even more clumsy and inept than Kamala.

This makes sense since the reason Biden picked Kamala was to show the world that he had more competency than someone.  It was also a safety net so that the VP would have no hope of being able to 25th Biden.

Kamala had to do the same.  And boy, oh, boy! 

When even MSNBC anchors are saying that Walz was blown out of the water... (a-hem) I mean, slightly outmatched, at some point, we have to beg them to stop the massacre.  I thought Walz was going to break down and cry at some point.

When I consider that the entire nation has been "wussified" I'm really looking for a leader.  I'd rather have a tyrant who only cares about himself (and not interested in gaining favors from any other power-seekers) than a weak person who can't make any decisions of importance.  

The other end of the stick would be a leader who doesn't do anything at all and tells all their law-enforcement agencies to do the same.  I might like that -- if done right.  Let the states handle things and just let the feds take a year off.

I admit I didn't see the debate between the two Vice Presidential candidates last night.  News has not been that forthcoming on what happened with it, and not many specifics have come out.

They mostly seem to indicate it was evenly matched and both were more respectful of each other than what was seen in the Presidential debate. 

What did you see in regards to Walz and what blew him out of the water?

Were there talking points or was it a reaction or several reactions?

I am very much not in the know here.

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

it's always good to be corrected with sources!

Agreed, and I should have provided them with my original post.  

Last year and this, it's getting pretty hard to tell the difference between a good source and a bad/spun/context-missing/fake/ai-generated source.  And the problem is only getting worse. 

The other day, I had a live youtube event in my feed where Elon Musk was running a new promotion for SpaceX.  It showed him live, walking around on stage, speaking in his voice.  The promotion was to make a new program go viral, and to incentivize viewers, they could fork over some cryptocurrency and Elon would return double the amount handed over.  Just scan the link or whatever.  

Of course, it wasn't Elon, it was an AI video deepfake trying to get people to send crypto.  It was a scam.  But I watched Elon walk around the stage for a full 5 minutes before I was able to make that conclusion.

It's scary out there.  Know your trusted news sources.  Verify links to ensure you're not being fooled by something pretending to be a trusted news source.

 

[Phoenix_person]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I admit I didn't see the debate between the two Vice Presidential candidates last night.  News has not been that forthcoming on what happened with it, and not many specifics have come out.

They mostly seem to indicate it was evenly matched and both were more respectful of each other than what was seen in the Presidential debate. 

What did you see in regards to Walz and what blew him out of the water?

Were there talking points or was it a reaction or several reactions?

I am very much not in the know here.

My impression was that it was a very milquetoast debate. Vance is getting memed into oblivion on the left for his "I thought the rules were you guys weren't going to fact check" fit. Tim looked nervous and uncomfortable, but mostly said all the right things. Both candidates were very polite and courteous with each other. They even stayed on stage and chatted with their wives after. I think it's a huge reach to say that either candidate was blown out of the water.

The biggest takeaway, the one that left-leaning outlets have spent the last 24 hours blasting their bullhorn over, is that JD Vance was given a chance to say clearly and unequivocally that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and he didn't. Swing voters aren't going to like that, and the media is making sure they hear it as frequently as possible.

Edited October 3, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Both candidates were very polite and courteous with each other

I enjoyed the debate for that reason. It reminded me of old school, pre-Trump debates. Sure they disagree on a ton, but they acted like adults. 

[LDSGator]

28 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Swing voters aren't going to like that

Yes, both of them aren’t going to like that. There are no swing voters left. 

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

My impression was that it was a very milquetoast debate.

Yeah, you're right.  A Democrat candidate admitting that he's so stupid that he couldn't really tell if he was in the middle of a historic tragedy or not is pretty common.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Vance is getting memed into oblivion on the left for his "I thought the rules were you guys weren't going to fact check" fit.

It's a defensive reaction, because Vance called out the moderators hard, on something they were mischaracterizing so hard it was just ludicrous.   And he did it well.

Walz: "That vilified a large number of people who were here legally in the community of Springfield. The Republican governor said, “It’s not true. Don’t do it.” There’s consequences for this. There’s consequences. We could come together. Senator Lankford did it."

Vance: "The people that I’m most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris’s open border. It is a disgrace, Tim. And I actually think, I agree with you. I think you want to solve this problem, but I don’t think that Kamala Harris does."

Moderator Brennan: "Thank you, Governor. And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status."

Vance, demanding to be heard and talking over the moderators who were trying to move to another topic: "Margaret, the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on.

So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open-border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for 10 years."

Brennan: "Thank you Senator..."

Vance: "That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway."

Brennan: "We have so much to get to. Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process."

WALZ: "Those laws have been in the book since 1990."

BRENNAN: "Thank you, gentlemen. We want to have—"

VANCE: The CBP One app has not been on the books since 1990. It’s something that Kamala Harris created, Margaret.

BRENNAN: Gentlemen, the audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut. We have so much we want to get to. Thank you for explaining the legal process. Norah?

 

 

And folks want to just ignore that exchange with witty memes about Vance crying about being fact checked.   

Biased spinning nasty horrible moderators pretending to be fair, but taking sides with Walz and all but calling Vance a liar because the Haitians, who came illegally, filled out a form on an app and therefore are now "legal".   Vance called 'em on it.  And I'm calling every Vance meme sharer on it also.  

lol Brennan.   "I'm a lawbreaker, but I filled out a form on an app, so now I'm following a legal process, and therefore anyone calling me illegal is wrong and bad!"

lol lack of seriousness on the left about illegal immigration. 

Yeah, nothing to see here.  Just look at the meme and move on.

Edited October 3, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

lol Brennan.   "I'm a lawbreaker, but I filled out a form on an app, so now I'm following a legal process, and therefore anyone calling me illegal is wrong and bad!"

lol lack of seriousness on the left about illegal immigration. 

What this really means is that the executive branch has unilaterally chosen to do something completely different than what the law actually says.

So, if those responsible for enforcing the law choose to do something completely different (which is not approved by appropriate legislation) and not enforce the law, does that make the process legal?

If not, can that really be considered "legal immigration"?

[Phoenix_person]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's a defensive reaction, because Vance called out the moderators hard, on something they were mischaracterizing so hard it was just ludicrous.   And he did it well.

Everything I've read about the CBP App (which was launched under Trump, btw) paints it as an administrative tool to help asylum seekers schedule appointments, upload documents, and communicate easily with CBP. The app itself does not come with any kind of inherent privilege, kind of like how I can't get an oxy prescription just because I have an app from my health care provider. Everyone has to be vetted, and it's entirely likely that some app users will have their asylum requests denied and be sent back to their countries of origin. If anything, the app will streamline their request-to-denial pipeline.

And yes, it also means that some people who entered the country illegally will get to stay legally. If they pass the vetting process, I have no problem letting them stay. A lot of the terrors that these asylum seekers are fleeing can be directly traced back to first world economic and political intervention in their home countries. How much coffee is consumed in the US? How many coffee beans are grown here? How many bananas? Mangos? Not only are these non-native foods sold in the US, they're easily available year-round, along with all the native ones. Have you ever bought fresh apples in March? Do you think they were grown here? Most Americans have no idea how much we've exploited our southern neighbors for the sake of the convenience capitalism has trained us to expect. The least we can do is welcome the victims of our greed to share in its exploits.

Edited October 4, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Phoenix_person]

Here's the real contrast from where I sit. Minnesota also has a relatively high population of non-white immigrants, in our case from Somalia and Sudan. They're part of our community. Most state and municipal government communications are easily available in Somali and Arabic in addition to English and Spanish. My son's third grade teacher was a Somali immigrant. When I was hospitalized two years ago, I had nurses and physical therapists from Sudan and Somalia. Wonderful people, all of them. They're valuable members of our community, and we treat them as such. We don't accuse them of eating our pets. We don't spread misinformation about them. If JD had made accusations about our Somali citizens on that stage, I have no doubt that Tim would have fiercely defended them. And yes, xenophobic misinformation should always be fact-checked, regardless of pre-determined rules. 

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Everything I've read about the CBP App (which was launched under Trump, btw) paints it as an administrative tool to help asylum seekers schedule appointments, upload documents, and communicate easily with CBP. The app itself does not come with any kind of inherent privilege, kind of like how I can't get an oxy prescription just because I have an app from my health care provider.

Excellent!   Thank you for joining the growing numbers of people who are calling out moderator Brennan for her absolute flat out lie, presented as a fact check against the Republican VP nominee.

Again: 

20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Moderator Brennan: "Thank you, Governor. And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status."

Shame on Brennan for using the mantle of the righteous fact checker to try to score a point against a VP candidate on a national stage.    

Now, with growing numbers of folks from all political persuasions looking into the details of the app, and thinking, possibly for the first time, about how US immigration should be run, perhaps the nation can have a decent discussion about the hows and whys and processes.    

 

Quote

Everyone has to be vetted, and it's entirely likely that some app users will have their asylum requests denied and be sent back to their countries of origin. If anything, the app will streamline their request-to-denial pipeline.

And yes, it also means that some people who entered the country illegally will get to stay legally. If they pass the vetting process, I have no problem letting them stay.

It is so nice hearing someone from the left talking about swiftly vetting and deporting people who shouldn't be here.   If you want to influence folks on my side of the political spectrum, lead with stuff like that.  Just be careful you don't lose your progressive card to an angry mob of open border activists.  (I'm only half  joking here.)

But since we both seem ok with the notion that asylum requests should occasionally be denied, I wonder if we might agree such a process might be best carried out before an illegal border crossing happens?

 

Quote

A lot of the terrors that these asylum seekers are fleeing can be directly traced back to first world economic and political intervention in their home countries. How much coffee is consumed in the US? How many coffee beans are grown here? How many bananas? Mangos? Not only are these non-native foods sold in the US, they're easily available year-round, along with all the native ones. Have you ever bought fresh apples in March? Do you think they were grown here? Most Americans have no idea how much we've exploited our southern neighbors for the sake of the convenience capitalism has trained us to expect. The least we can do is welcome the victims of our greed to share in its exploits.

I've never seen anyone win or lose a debate over the boons and problems of economic development in poorer nations, and the benefits and problems of a capitalist system that brings that development.   It's nice to see where folks of your persuasion get your ideas.  

But I take your "the least we can do is welcome the victims of our greed", and raise you the letter from Patrick J. Lechleitner, Deputy Director of ICE:

Quote

As of July 21, 2024, there were 662,566 noncitizens with criminal histories on ICE’s national docket, which includes those detained by ICE, and on the agency’s non-detained docket. Of those, 435,719 are convicted criminals, and 226,847 have pending criminal charges.

Tell you what - I'll make you a deal @Phoenix_person.  You go to your various social circles of progressive community meeting folks, and speak out against over half a million illegal immigrants in our country with criminal histories.  I'll go to my various social circles and urge all my right wing Christian buddies to have love and empathy for the plight of people who are willing to break immigration law to come to the US in hopes of a better life.  Maybe, if your people and my people can budge an inch or two in their entrenched positions, we might finally be willing to take meaningful bipartisan action.  Instead of just more of 60 years status quo using immigration as a club to beat each other and win votes. 

What do you say?

[LDSGator]

26 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Tell you what - I'll make you a deal @Phoenix_person.  You go to your various social circles of progressive community meeting folks, and speak out against over half a million illegal immigrants in our country with criminal histories.  I'll go to my various social circles and urge all my right wing Christian buddies to have love and empathy for the plight of people who are willing to break immigration law to come to the US in hopes of a better life.  Maybe, if your people and my people can budge an inch or two in their entrenched positions, we might finally be willing to take meaningful bipartisan action.  Instead of just more of 60 years status quo using immigration as a club to beat each other and win votes. 

What do you say?

That’s already happening down here. Aside from DeSantis, many republicans view illegal immigrants as Pompeia-they know if they talk bad about them they’ll lose the heavy hispanic counties. 

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Excellent!   Thank you for joining the growing numbers of people who are calling out moderator Brennan for her absolute flat out lie, presented as a fact check against the Republican VP nominee.

I don't know the legal status of Springfield, Ohio's Haitian immigrant population. If I'm being completely honest, I don't really care. I spent most of my adult life in a city that has has a number of migrant workers larger than the population of Minnesota's third largest city, where I currently call my home. I knew several such workers in my time working in food service. I never knew their legal status. I just knew they were good people and hard workers.

I was addressing the absurdity of Vance's claim that the CBP app is giving instant legal status to illegal immigrants. It is not. Villifying and demonizing foreign populations is never a good political strategy. Since you seem so bothered by it, though, I did some more digging. It looks like Springfield's Haitian population is the result of a program that was started in 1990. Obama extended TPS eligibility to Haitian immigrants in 2010 after a historic earthquake devastated their country. TPS applications have been being proceesed and approved for Haitian immigrants under the last three presidents, including Trump. So it seems that they do, in fact, have legal status, though it's worth noting that the T in TPS stands for temporary. So yes, I was technically wrong. Migrants can, in fact, use an app to gain temporary legal status. This process belonging to the Biden/Harris administration is a gross mischaracterization, however.

I stand by my assessment that Tim Walz would never throw his African constituents under the bus the way Vance did his Haitian constituents. And it seems that Ohio's Republican governor feels the same way. https://www.wlwt.com/article/gov-dewine-pens-new-york-times-op-ed-defending-springfield/62299508

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Again: 

Shame on Brennan for using the mantle of the righteous fact checker to try to score a point against a VP candidate on a national stage.    

As I said, I believe that misinformation grounded in racism and xenophobia should always be fact-checked. If Walz had betrayed the trust and faith of his constituents and started telling lies about Somalian immigrants on a national stage, I'd expect someone to correct him as well. The GOP lies about Springfield on both debate stages have directly resulted in increased danger to Haitian migrants and has turned the town into a partisan battlefield. You think that should be enabled by debate moderators? 

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Now, with growing numbers of folks from all political persuasions looking into the details of the app, and thinking, possibly for the first time, about how US immigration should be run, perhaps the nation can have a decent discussion about the hows and whys and processes.    

I agree. I also believe that our current asylum processes shouldn't be delegitimatized by misinformation and fear-mongering. We can build a better system without demonizing the people who are here because of the one put in place by the first President Bush. You can criticize the CBP app without vilifying people whose only crime is trying to make a better life for themselves.

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It is so nice hearing someone from the left talking about swiftly vetting and deporting people who shouldn't be here. If you want to influence folks on my side of the political spectrum, lead with stuff like that.  

I think you and I may have different definitions of who "shouldn't be here", but yes. I believe that non-citizens who commit felonies should be deported. Where we disagree is that crossing the border should be considered their felony offense. Coffee and bananas. And earthquakes. If you believe us to be a Christian nation, then surely that means we're a compassionate one, no?

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

But since we both seem ok with the notion that asylum requests should occasionally be denied, I wonder if we might agree such a process might be best carried out before an illegal border crossing happens?

Ideally, yes. But that's not always in line with the reality of the humanitarian crises that bring people to our border by the thousands. And again, how many of these humanitarian crises were the domino effect of our own reckless capitalist intervention in those regions? 

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've never seen anyone win or lose a debate over the boons and problems of economic development in poorer nations, and the benefits and problems of a capitalist system that brings that development.   It's nice to see where folks of your persuasion get your ideas.  

I can't speak for others on "my side", but historical context has always been important to me. Trying to understand the "why" behind immigration issues helps view it though a more compassionate lens. And you're right, those conversations aren't going to move the needle much in electoral politics, but they're very important conversations to have (especially if you're the guy that occasionally trades weed for sambusas because the city's only Somalian restaurant closed during COVID).

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

But I take your "the least we can do is welcome the victims of our greed", and raise you the letter from Patrick J. Lechleitner, Deputy Director of ICE:

Bear in mind, a letter from ICE about the dangers of immigrants will go over with many on the left as well as a letter from Himmler about the dangers of the Jewish population in WWII Germany. To be clear, I don't view ICE in such an extreme light. But there are concerns that have been brought to light by NPR, the ACLU, and other human rights and immigration watchdog groups. A lot of people want undocumented immigrant criminals out of the country, but how closely are we looking at what that process looks like when there are unprecedented numbers of migrants and refugees coming in? Is it a process that anyone who professes to love their fellow man can be proud of? 

Again, to be clear, I'm all for booting non-citizen felons. But it should be done in a way that reflects our values as a nation as closely as possible. Our current system is swiss cheese in some places and a meat grinder in others. I don't believe that either of those should be models for US immigration and naturalization policy. But if I have to choose a less-than-ideal scenario as a starting place for reform, I choose the one that is flawed because of an abundance compassion, not an abundance of xenophobia. 

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Tell you what - I'll make you a deal @Phoenix_person.  You go to your various social circles of progressive community meeting folks, and speak out against over half a million illegal immigrants in our country with criminal histories.  

Why? I'm statistically far more likely to be the victim of a crime committed by a US citizen. Why stoke fear about minority criminal populations? What purpose does that serve? Crime is usually the offspring of desperation and poverty. I think we can fight a lot more crime by focusing on those things than we will be singling out the criminals amongst us who don't have social security numbers.

Edited October 4, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm statistically far more likely to be the victim of a crime committed by a US citizen.

Exactly. 

 

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Crime is usually the offspring of desperation and poverty

For property crime, sure. But I’d add anger to the mix for other crimes. I’m sure they exist but you don’t see a lot of laid back, happy people plotting to kill their neighbors or starting gunfights after road rage incidents. Poverty and desperation have little to do with sexual assault as well. 

Edited October 4, 2024 by LDSGator

[Ironhold]

@Phoenix_person

What often gets overlooked in conversations about the border and migration is the sizes of some of the towns involved. 

For example:

Del Rio, Texas - 34, 673 versus Ciudad Acuna - 225,000

Eagle Pass, Texas - 28,130 versus Piedras Negras - 245,155

Et cetera

A number of border cities are far smaller than the Mexican cities that they're across the border from, and so they just don't have the resources to house all of the people who are using the large Mexican cities as their point of departure, let alone process these people through in a reasonable amount of time. 

It's not a lack of compassion but a lack of resources that is causing a lot of people at all levels to cry out over the number of people trying to come in. 

And given how overwhelmed these systems are and how little resources there are, a lot of people who shouldn't get in, like drug dealers and fugitives, are getting in, either by getting through the overwhelmed facilities or making their way through the large, unguarded swaths of open terrain. 

It's an incredibly complicated matter, and far too many folks on both sides are failing to appreciate various nuances and contributing factors. 

[Carborendum]

So, the news I'm reading doesn't look good for Kamala.  It's still close.  But the trending of the polls is not good.  And the interviews we've seen on both sides indicates that she's not really gaining any grass roots.

Further, the billionaire donors to Kamala's campaign are wondering if their money is actually going to buy anything if she loses.  A large minority of said donors may be pulling funding of her campaign soon.

Things could turn around.  But after the performance and all going on with FEMA, I'm not sure what it would take to turn things around for her.

Still... even if Trump wins, I worry that there will be riots in the streets.  

• People have been motivated to assassination because of the rhetoric. (No, I'm not directly blaming politicians.  But they aren't completely blameless.)  And many on social media are decrying the fact that they guy missed rather than saying "we have no place for violence in the democratic process."
• BLM riots were part-and-parcel of the liberal political scheme that plagued Trump's presidency.
• They still think that Jan 6th was much worse than it was.  And what's fit for the goose...

So, yeah.  I worry. 

I definitely hope I'm wrong about that.

[mikbone]

Too close to call.

Within the next month there will be a couple big blunders.  Whoever avoids the blunders will probably win.

I have no faith in either campaign.

[NeuroTypical]

Getting back to this thread:

On 10/4/2024 at 1:27 PM, Phoenix_person said:

The GOP lies about Springfield on both debate stages have directly resulted in increased danger to Haitian migrants and has turned the town into a partisan battlefield. You think that should be enabled by debate moderators? 

I'm not in favor of lies, no matter who they're from.  That said, far too many characterizations of events, far too much outraged blathering, far too many differences of opinion and policy are characterized as "lies".   

As far as "resulted in increased danger", I'm rarely a fan of such talk.  I mean, I'm against increased danger.  I'm opposed to people hearing speech and choosing violence.  No matter who ends up doing the violence or on what side they're on.  That said, speech, claims, arguments in the public square are the bedrock of our democracy.  The 4th branch of government exists in all of us to a greater extent than ever before.  But no, arguing we need to suppress speech we don't like, because some nutjob may go ballistic, isn't an impressive argument.  I'm not in favor of illegal immigrants getting beat up.  Or Trump supporters trying to have a rally.  So very, very, very much violence done by the left against people trying to exercise speech in 2020-2021.  It's not to be tolerated no matter who is committing it.

But no, the solution to speech we don't like, is more of our own speech.  It's not to silence people saying things we don't want them to say.  It's certainly NOT drawing analogies between ICE letters and Nazi Germany for pete's sake.  

 

On 10/4/2024 at 1:27 PM, Phoenix_person said:

I think you and I may have different definitions of who "shouldn't be here", but yes. I believe that non-citizens who commit felonies should be deported. Where we disagree is that crossing the border should be considered their felony offense.

On 10/4/2024 at 1:27 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Again, to be clear, I'm all for booting non-citizen felons.

On 10/4/2024 at 1:27 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Crime is usually the offspring of desperation and poverty.

 

Just to make sure the ICE data gets the attention it deserves: 

Quote

The following numbers include both convicted criminals and those with pending charges for the specific offense. In all categories, the former exceeded the latter:  

• Homicide: 14,944
• Sexual Assault: 20,061
• Assault: 105,146
• Burglary/Larceny/Robbery: 60,268
• Traffic Offenses: 126,343
• Weapon Offenses: 16,820
• Kidnapping: 3,372
• Commercialized Sexual Offenses: 3,971

 

Now, I'm with you on the link between desperation/poverty and lesser crimes like burglary/larceny/robbery.  Even maybe a portion of the assaults, and some of the weapon offenses, many of the traffic offenses.   

But an "oh, he's just poor and desperate" defense doesn't work for me when we're talking homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and sex trafficking.  Does it work for you?

Further, if you're gonna cross a border, any border, legally or illegally, you need to be on your best dang behavior and not break the laws.   If you do, if you drive without a license, if you start a fight, if you decide to carry a gun, if you beat up or rape or kill someone, if you pimp out some of your fellow migrants - even if the reason is "I'm poor and desperate", then the folks who already live there should boot you back across the border.   This isn't even a US specific thing.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard stories about drunk college kids in Tiajuana ending up in a mexican prison or forcibly deported back to the US.

I mean, at it's heart @Phoenix_person, we LDS folks think a lot about the line between mercy and justice.  Scripture tells us mercy can't rob justice when God is involved.  We don't know quite how that's accomplished, we're told Christ pays the price, but the guilty still has to have certain attitudes.  And yes, here on earth, the humans all suck to one degree or another trying to find the good balance between mercy and justice. 

I'm glad to hear you're in favor of deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of sex trafficking or murder or such things.  We can talk about driving without a license or even getting in a fight.

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm glad to hear you're in favor of deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of sex trafficking or murder or such things.  We can talk about driving without a license or even getting in a fight.

Well said. 

[NeuroTypical]

No matter who wins, I promise to be crotchety and cantankerous and mad, because of this: 

 

Neither side is doing anything besides talk about that.  Both sides will make the problem worse.  Nobody's calling anyone out on it, because both sides are equally as guilty.

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

No matter who wins, I promise to be crotchety and cantankerous and mad, because of this: 

 

Neither side is doing anything besides talk about that.  Both sides will make the problem worse.  Nobody's calling anyone out on it, because both sides are equally as guilty.

By this chart, it looks like Reagan did well for the first term, but poorly for the second.

Clinton was awesome (considering this one criterion)

Both Bushes were fairly flat.

Obama sucked worst than COVID.  That's pretty bad.  But he eventually flattened out.

Trump was not bad until COVID.

Biden is unremarkable regardless of the fact that we've crossed the threshold of no return.

 

[Carborendum]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

Too close to call.

Within the next month there will be a couple big blunders.  Whoever avoids the blunders will probably win.

Democrats grow anxious as Election Day nears | CNN Politics

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Clinton was awesome (considering this one criterion)

It's my understanding that awesome drop off in the '90's was due to the fall of the USSR.  Basically, Reagan won the cold war, and the world went from 2 competing global superpowers trying to outspend each other, to just 1 global superpower.  

Edited October 9, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's my understanding that awesome drop off in the '90's was due to the fall of the USSR.  Basically, Reagan won the cold war, and the world went from 2 competing global superpowers trying to outspend each other, to just 1 global superpower.  

He won the cold war without firing a single shot. True in 1988, true now.