Printable View
...or head over heels in love ? But watching the actual speech instead of the AI sloppified, edited for sound bites summaries should be eye opening...it won't be, but it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Indeed, I should start using /s, but it feels like putting a "ba dum tish" drum sting at the end of a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Sounds like sheer projection to me.
I wasn't sure. I'm not familiar enough with jpbro to know what he meant. And unfortunately there are people who talk like that. Glad it was a joke.Quote:
Not sure but I think you might have missed the sarcasm.
I try to avoid spending time listening to habitual liars speak. I wouldn't believe anything they said, so why listen. I can see how some may do it for a laugh but I can't do that with Trump because of all the harm he has and is doing. Add to that he is a babbling fool. To be honest, hearing him speak makes me angry (at him and our country for electing him). So, it's best to avoid listening to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jpbro
Yeah, no. I just had lunch, and I don't feel like catch and release today.Quote:
Originally Posted by jpbro
I think the answer to that is that you don't really appreciate the full gravity of the situation until you see it. (That's the thing with gravity - it can really get you down).Quote:
I try to avoid spending time listening to habitual liars speak. I wouldn't believe anything they said, so why listen.
Once you see it you realise that we just got probably closer to WW3 than we have since the fall of he Berlin Wall for no more reason than a senile old fart who clearly doesn't even know whare the countries he's talking about invading are because of a perceived a slight... and Somalis. He doesn't know the difference between Greenland and Iceland. He doesn't know the history of NATO. He doesn't know the difference between Fentanyl and Cocaine. But he's willing to take the world to the brink of war because of a brain fart.
I think that's an understandable position to have reached, though.Quote:
So, it's best to avoid listening to him.
I have to say, the anger he's created in the UK by saying that NATO troops "stayed a bit back" in Iraq and Afghanistan is palpable. I imagine it's the same in other NATO countries, particularly Denmark who had the highest casualty rate of any participating nation. Even his usual apologists on the right are phoning in to chat shows, furious with him.
It's safe to say, he's got very few friends left. Seems appropriate for draft dodging pedo though.
Perhaps outside the US that's true, but not here. Every news media outlet here has a large number of stories about Trump every day. Everything he does is published in one form or another. I choose to read the news. AP, NPR, NYT, Google ... are all full of articles about what Trump has said or done. But I can stay aware by reading without having the visceral reaction I get when I hear him speak. I've know how dangerous he is for many years.Quote:
I think the answer to that is that you don't really appreciate the full gravity of the situation until you see it. (That's the thing with gravity - it can really get you down).
This is NYT so it may be paywalled. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-timeline.html
It gives a detailed description and timeline. Supported by images.
Here is the article with no images.
It certainly contradicts ICE account of a man approaching them brandishing a gun, that was there to massacre agents. It appears that while apprehending him they noticed he had a gun on him and they panicked (hopefully it wasn't intentional), shot him 10 times even though the gun had already been removed.Quote:
48 seconds before shooting
Videos show a small group of civilians standing in the middle of a street where a person has recently been detained on the ground; the civilians are speaking to federal agents. Mr. Pretti appears to be filming the scene, and he walks closer to the federal agents while holding his phone.
25 seconds before
Leading up to this moment, one agent shoved two people away from a D.H.S. vehicle and into the street. Mr. Pretti attempted to put himself between the D.H.S. agent and the two civilians, and the agent pushed one of them to the ground. The video shows the same agent squirting pepper spray in the direction of Mr. Pretti’s face. (This agent will later fire shots at Mr. Pretti.)
Mr. Pretti is holding his phone in one hand, and he holds his other hand up to protect against the spray.
17 seconds before
Several agents grab at Mr. Pretti, who is still holding his phone. Additional agents approach and attempt to pin Mr. Pretti to the ground.
11 seconds before
Mr. Pretti is surrounded by a group of seven agents, some of whom have wrestled him to the ground. One of the agents, who wears a gray coat, begins to approach the fray with empty hands and grabs at Mr. Pretti, while the other agents hold him down on his knees. At the same time, another agent strikes Mr. Pretti repeatedly with a pepper spray canister.
1 second before
The agent in the gray coat appears to pull a gun from near Mr. Pretti’s right hip. He then begins to move away from the skirmish with the recovered weapon.
At the same time, another agent unholsters his firearm and points it at Mr. Pretti’s back.
First shot fired
The agent in the gray coat removes the weapon, which matches the profile of a gun D.H.S. says belonged to Mr. Pretti, from the scene. Then, while Mr. Pretti is on his knees and restrained, the agent standing directly above him appears to fire one shot at Mr. Pretti at close range. He immediately fires three additional shots.
Additional shots fired
Several agents have moved away from Mr. Pretti, who has collapsed. Another agent — the same one who shoved the civilians into the street and pepper-sprayed Mr. Pretti — unholsters his gun and fires at Mr. Pretti. The first agent also fires additional shots. Together, they fire six more shots at Mr. Pretti while he lies motionless on the ground.
At least 10 shots appear to have been fired within five seconds. By the moment of the 10th shot, the agent who had moved away with the recovered weapon has crossed the street.
The whole approach of sending thousands of heavily armed ICE agents into a city like goon squad is idiotic and proven disastrous. The lying from ICE/DHS has reached a point of complete mistrust. At least for me. Then again, I haven't had much trust in them from the beginning.
I'd take issue with this bit:-
"1 second before
The agent in the gray coat appears to pull a gun from near Mr. Pretti’s right hip. He then begins to move away from the skirmish with the recovered weapon.
At the same time, another agent unholsters his firearm and points it at Mr. Pretti’s back.
First shot fired"
The footage shows that the agent in the grey coat who recovered gun from the victim had done so and turned away before the first shot was fired. There was a delay of between 1 and 2 seconds between these two events. Not just that but the shooting officer was looking directly at the gun as it was removed. He was 100% aware that Pretti had already been disarmed.
In the last shooting I was willing to allow that it could be manslaughter. Not this time. This one is murder.
And Pam Bondi has demanded that Minnesota gives her access to their electoral roles before they'll remove ICE agents.
You are not going to have meaningful midterms if Team Trump can help it. I personally doubt you'll be having them at all.
Pam Bondi and basically all the other lackies Trump has appointed have adopted his philosophy. Do what ever you want until the courts force you to stop. Also, his use of blatant lies. I know politicians and other government officials aren't known as the being honest. But Trump has taken it to a new level and so have his appointees.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
As far as the midterms. I don't see a way for Trump to stop them. He will cause chaos but he doesn't have the support needed to shut down the midterms.
I'm not sure he can stop them entirely but he'll try. He'll call the insurrection act. Hell, he'll even start an international war as a predicate for not having them if that's what it takes.Quote:
I don't see a way for Trump to stop them.
More likely he'll simply claim that certain states are criminal, send in the troops and seize the voting machines/ballots etc.
I guarantee you're going to see a spate of liberals who get removed from the electoral role without notification or explanation.
I'm not saying it hasn't been done before. Administrations pushing the boundaries of the constitution isn't new. What's different is the scale. My memory might not be as good as 20yrs ago but I don't remember the tremendous volume of courts having to dictate and overturn the actions of the administrations. I'm not talking about a small difference either.Quote:
As you can see, I'm not on board the Trump train, but one of my criticisms of those generally against him is basically line of reasoning.
I get that it's easy to have a short memory, but not too long ago Obama personally wrote DAPA into law until the courts stopped it.
Even less time ago, Biden ordered OSHA to either require vaccines or do weekly testing for workers at companies with x number of employees (I want to say 50, but it might have been 100) until the courts stopped it. He also tried to cancel up to $20k per borrower in student loan debt until it was struck down.
Trump is doing the same thing as previous administrations, just in the opposite direction. It's part of the reason I criticize Trump supporters because 9 times out of 10 they were complaining about Biden and Obama ruling by executive fiat.
In short, presidents are doing the same stuff they've done for nearly a century at this point. The difference is that pretenses have been dropped.
To be fair, I kept it simple. I asked Google
Also, I'd add. I would criticize any administration if I thought they were violating the law/civil rights/constitution. Though, I am far from an expert on those subjects. The current administration blatant disregard for these things is at a level I've never seen before. I know there was some significant violations of those things during WWII but I wasn't around then. Plus we're not involved in a world war. Though Trump frames many of his actions as national emergencies. I wasn't aware we had so many national emergencies going on. :)Quote:
have lawsuits against government actions increased
Yes, lawsuits against U.S. federal government actions have increased significantly, particularly regarding executive orders and federal regulations. In early 2025, legal challenges against the Trump administration’s actions were filed at double the pace of his first term. As of Jan. 2026, there are over 250 active lawsuits targeting administration policies, ranging from education to environmental rules.
Maybe that's why I'm a fairly happy person. Ignorance is bliss.
Yep. Every time I see that clip of Bovino saying "who brings a loaded gun to a protest" I want to scream "Karl Rittenhouse, you ass-hat! And he used it to kill people!"Quote:
Kash Patel's argument is basically asserting that the second amendment is conditional depending on... well I guess depending on his subjectivity?
Don't get me wrong, I think your gun control laws are insanely lax and I kinda agree that taking a gun to a protest is a dumb idea but the hypocrisy makes me want to scream. And while I may think it was a dumb thing to do, I don't find it in any way sinister when your whole culture is set up to normalise carrying arms.
Personally I think that makes Rittenhouse worse. He went with the expressed intention of using his gun, at least to intimidate if not to kill. He was literally "brandishing" it which is what Pretti has been falsely accused of doing. And ultimately, Rittenhouse did use his gun whereas Pretti did not.
Yeah, that. 100% agreed.Quote:
republicans only care when its somebody "on their own side".
For me these have been equivalent in principle but not in scale. The right has been FAR worse, I'm afraid. Anyone who was celebrating Kirk's death is a hateful idiot but it was all tiktok kids and the like. I didn't see any political leaders do it and they universally came out and condemned it. On the other hand, when Paul Pelosi got his head bashed in with a hammer, Trump - the literal leader of the GOP - and his son were joking about it on social media. It's like we've reached a point where we excuse the Trump family's behaviour because we expect them to be despicable.Quote:
Think about how bad this country has gotten where you literally have people celebrating Charlie Kirks assassination and on the other side of the coin you have many celebrating (or at least bootlicking) ICE murdering a civilian.
I've never watched the video. I probably wont, I don't want to see someone die. I've been like that ever since I saw a news video of a reporter somewhere in central America laying face down in the street and someone from the military walk over and shoot him. It disturbed me. That was probably over 40yrs ago and I avoided those type of videos since then.Quote:
I watched the Pretti video last night and it is disgusting. I do not see how Republicans can defend this other than their own cowardice to speak any ill towards the Trump administration.
I did force myself to follow what happened from still images and a written timeline of events. And your right, it is disgusting. There was 100% no reason for his death. The ICE agents escalated the situation and then shot and killed an unarmed man.
As for the Republicans being cowards, I'd say that has been on display for a long time.
Trump need to honor himself hasn't slowed down.
Waiting for other people to honor you isn't his style. I don't know what drives his need for this but it does seem one of his major traits. Maybe obsession would be a better description.Quote:
The Trump administration has sought to pressure Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, to help name New York’s Penn Station and Washington Dulles International Airport after President Trump in exchange for releasing billions of dollars he has frozen for a rail tunnel under the Hudson River.
Crazy world. lol
You would think he wouldn't need his name to be added to anything, it is in the Epstein file enough without adding it to other buildings...Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Plus, if it is added to the station will it need to be shut down for two years due to "renovations"?
Because all the planes and trains would boycott it?Quote:
Plus, if it is added to the station will it need to be shut down for two years due to "renovations"?
I have to say, I'm surprised at the backlash he got to his (it was definitely his) post that showed the Obama's as Monkeys. Gratified, but surprised. It doesn't seem any worse than half the other obviously racist stuff he's been posting for the last half decade so why did this finally trigger Republicans to speak up?
I suspect this was possibly more blatantly racist, it makes it hard for any kind of plausible deniability. Then again it is strange to get virtually any criticism of his increasingly deplorable actions from republicans, so the fact at least some stood up and condemned him for it is a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Your syphilitic royals, senile nobles, corrupt civil servants, right down to your thieving ratcatchers can all be found in great numbers within those files. And then there is the fact that the guy himself was a tentacle of the UK intelligence machinery from the get-go.
Perhaps this explains the infatuation with Epstein in the UK. He was one of you.
I'm sure you see the tomorrow when you return to heating with peat and cooking over dung fires. I suppose it helps a little to have someone to lash out at as you fall back into the the feudal barbarism of your past.
Trump is in them 38,000+ times. He is absolutely a child rapist.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
You may have noticed that the people from the UK are being dealt with, not as strongly as we would like but Andrew has lost his royal title, Mandelson has lost some of his privileges and is potentially under investigation. Are you seeing many UK citizens supporting and defending these people?
You are perfectly willing to support a man who bragged about sexual assault, who bragged about walking into the dressing room of children (on purpose) at an event at Mar-A-Lago. Your utter devotion to a fraudster, rapist, and a paedophile is just weird and disturbing.
Yet again when someone dares to criticise your beloved Trump you resort to name calling and pathetic stereotypes (ratcatchers, feudal barbarism, heat with peat etc)
Just what would Trump need to do before you would condemn him? Genuine question because adultery, fraud, rape, racism, and almost certainly paedophilia don't seem to bother you - so what actually would be the final straw?
This isn't something I have personally seen, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening, just that it is something I am unaware of.Quote:
Completely unrelated to your point, but I have a question and it may just be my ignorance on the subject.
There are videos making the rounds on X showing UK citizens being harassed and sometimes jailed for heated statements on the internet.
Libertarians from the US post them to point out that there is no such free speech laws in other parts of the world, including western countries. My understanding is that when you make a statement like that in the UK that you must preface it with “it is my opinion that…” and whatever else.
Is that not really the case or at least the impression that I get over exaggerated?
Edit - I actually thought that Wales was much stricter than some of the other countries like Britain proper. I’m trying to remember who I heard that from, I want to say it was Dominic Frisby. He’s a regular guest on the Tom Woods show for a right-wing UK perspective.
There have certainly been cases were these supposed "heated statements" were out and out incitement to violence, from people who had previous history of making similar incitements (and actually had previous convictions for assault etc.). So I do feel context is important in some of these cases.
In the UK we don't have a specific law for "free speech" we do have laws governing the right to "Freedom of Expression" which are very similar, these are actually from the ECHR so these laws absolutely apply to countries other than just the UK. The law states that these rights are not absolute, and may be subject to restrictions and penalties under law.
Hate speech is covered by a few different laws in the UK, "Public Order Act", "Religious Hatred Act", and "Communications Act" - these are all designed to criminalise threatening, abusive, and inciting racial hatred etc.
I suspect this is effectively similar to how USA's free speech laws don't allow speech such as obscenity, fraud, incitement to illegal actions, slander, libel, racism etc.
I would think thatwould carry about as much legal weight as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTrMBI5fvfA if it ever came to trial :DQuote:
My understanding is that when you make a statement like that in the UK that you must preface it with “it is my opinion that…” and whatever else.
Wales is pretty much identical to the rest of the UK for laws, I am certainly not aware of anything different between Wales and England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Dil, you do love to sling insults about people and whole cultures. You got a very colorful way of doing it. If I ever start hating life, you'd be a good hang.
Unfortunately, saying other people are terrible doesn't absolve Trump of being a blatant racist.
Free Speech or Freedom of Expression is a myth. There's always limits. And that's a good thing.
Who has the best version of free speech? I guess that would depend on what you feel should be allowed.
He certainly loves to deflect, which is more what I think was happening here. WhatAboutisms are stock in trade when Trump's actions are beyond defence. But that's cults for you. It's easier than accepting your leader is a paedophile when you built his entire personality up in your mind as being that guy who was going to uncover all the paedophilia.Quote:
Dil, you do love to sling insults about people and whole cultures.
As PD said, these statements generally met the standard for incitement of a crime so were themselves criminal. You can probably find some exceptions where police were overly zealous but they are exceptions and not the rule.Quote:
There are videos making the rounds on X showing UK citizens being harassed and sometimes jailed for heated statements on the internet.
Our position on free speech is somewhat more censorious than yours but I would argue that it's the US that's exceptional in it's lack of restrictions rather than the UK for those it has. Most other countries restrict speech somewhat more than you and, I would say, for good reasons. Of course, there's always a tension between allowing people to express their opinions and preventing people from damaging society by spreading hate. E.g. Is it desirable to allow someone to use e.g. the N word in the name of free speech even though we know this will cause genuine hurt to a large number of people and is likely the first step on the path to further degradation and possible violence? Is Germany justified in banning the Swastika and Holocaust Denial, particularly given the history? I don't think there's "right" answers to those questions and the choice you make will be indicative of where you place value in your society. Personally, I prefer our system but I wouldn't say yours is "wrong". It's a value judgement. To me both fall within the bounds of "reasonable".
Glad to see ICE are arresting the worst of the worst:-
Attachment 195707-
Glad you didn't feel insulted. :)Quote:
He certainly loves to deflect, which is more what I think was happening here.
That type of gaslighting by ICE is just one of many disasters they are creating. A five year old being detained doesn't seem unreasonable to me, it depends on the reason. If the childes family has entered the country illegally then if they are detained for deportation then it makes sense their child would go with them. I don't know the story behind why this child was being detained.Quote:
Glad to see ICE are arresting the worst of the worst:-
Our immigration system has been broken for a long time. I think SH gave a simple an accurate description. Dems don't want to deport anyone and Reps want to deport everyone. Hopefully ICE will drop the idiotic approach they've been using.
Yeah, I realize it's an oversimplification of a complex problem.Quote:
That's not entirely true, or at least it wasn't.
Which unfortunately is the current state of our politics. The first thing that sticks out to me is, If they were illegal immigrants, then why weren't they just deported instead of being sent to another city? Or were they allowed into the country while their legal status was being determined? I really don't know the status of those being shipped around. But if they were caught after illegally entering the country then being sent back to their country is something that happens on a daily basis.Quote:
The US was just shy of a super majority of voters who supported mass deportation just before Trump was elected according to CBS News / YouGov (link). There were a number of reasons driving this, the primary being that the Biden administration allowed in a historic amount of illegal immigrants and probably second to that would be the politically winning strategy that Republican governors had of shipping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities (not so much the action itself, but the reaction by said cities).
It feels like it's not about actually finding solutions to our immigration problem, it's more about using the problem as a political tool. Not surprising but disappointing.
Martha's Vineyard kicking out immigrants is a bit too on point. I think they'd probably kick ME out, too.
Yeah, I've noticed the major improvement at the border. I believe what the Biden administration did was basically let anyone in that requested asylum. Supposably until their claims could be evaluated. Which was a total disaster. (I could be wrong about this).Quote:
I will give Trump credit where credit's due and that's at stopping illegal border crossings, those numbers are waaaaaay down, but all he did was effectively enforce the laws we already have
Luckily he will reverse course after enough by bipartisan push back. Ukraine and Tariffs come to mind.Quote:
His M.O. is to double and triple down all the while gas lighting or deflecting his critics.
I was struck by his relentless effort.Quote:
It was phenomenal to watch when he was running against Hilary and Biden (the second time)
Technically correct. That about the most generous thing I can say. :)Quote:
but he's not running for anything now. He's governing.
Glad to here that climate change is a hoax. That would have been news if climate change was true.
We might not be moving quickly over here, but at least we are seemingly doing something... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...or-sandringham
His name is Liam Ramos. His father entered the US legally, albeit as an asylum seeker, and followed all the correct protocols. Ice arrested Liam and used him as bait to get to his father. Both he and his father have since been released following a judicial order.Quote:
If the childes family has entered the country illegally then if they are detained for deportation then it makes sense their child would go with them. I don't know the story behind why this child was being detained.
They're not illegal immigrants if they're claiming asylum even if they're method of entry isn't legally endorsed.Quote:
The first thing that sticks out to me is, If they were illegal immigrants, then why weren't they just deported instead of being sent to another city? Or were they allowed into the country while their legal status was being determined?
That can seem counter intuitive but does make sense if you think it through. If we take an "old school" analogy of running into a church and calling for asylum from the priest, you wouldn't get to the church doors, knock politely and wait for the priest to let you in when there are a dozen burly knights chasing you with swords; you run though the door and then sort out the details. Modern day national asylum works on the same principle. There's an acknowledgement that legally endorsed routes likely don't exist, particularly given that people fleeing persecution are highly likely to be lacking official documents. So the way this is supposed to work is they get in, then have status established and only become illegal if their asylum claim is refused and they fail to leave.
Of course, this approach does leave open the possibility that people abuse the asylum system to enter a country and stay when they're not in danger and become de facto citizens while the validity of their claim is determined. But here it's worth examining the statistics on the proportion of claims are upheld and how many are refused. I don't know what that looks like for the USA but in the UK it's historically hovered around 75% upheld though did drop to just over 50% last year. So there are some people claiming who shouldn't but it's a minority and the rhetoric from those who want to portray asylum seekers as illegal doesn't really stand up. Further, entering a country without permission is a civil, not a criminal offence so they're certainly not criminals.
Even then the number of Asylum seekers, upheld or refused, is dwarfed by the number of illegal immigrant who enter via a legally endorsed mechanism (e.g. a visa) and then overstay that mechanism. And that number is, in turn, dwarfed by the number of legal migrants. It simply isn't the scale of problem it's often portrayed as.
It's a shame they've arrested him for misconduct around corruption rather than sexual offences but I imagine that's because they didn't feel the evidence of latter was concrete enough to merit an arrest. The corruption is much clearer. Hopefully, if he did engage in sexual offences (and I believe he did) they'll use this time to investigate and bring charges for that too. If that just get's swept under the carpet it's be a legal travesty.Quote:
We might not be moving quickly over here, but at least we are seemingly doing something...
This was basically my point. I was questioning if they were truly illegal immigrants. Still, it is a strange situation. They come in the US illegally but are not illegal immigrants. I believe the situation that dday was talking about was at a time when the Biden administration was allowing just about everyone who just came to the border and asked for asylum into the US until their statis was determined. They weren't entering illegally. (again, I could be wrong)Quote:
They're not illegal immigrants if they're claiming asylum even if they're method of entry isn't legally endorsed.
I think the abuse during the Biden administration was obvious or at least that approach was unsustainable. Being the knee jerk reaction creature that we are,Quote:
Of course, this approach does leave open the possibility that people abuse the asylum system to enter a country and stay when they're not in danger and become de facto citizens while the validity of their claim is determined. But here it's worth examining the statistics on the proportion of claims are upheld and how many are refused. I don't know what that looks like for the USA but in the UK it's historically hovered around 75% upheld though did drop to just over 50% last year. So there are some people claiming who shouldn't but it's a minority and the rhetoric from those who want to portray asylum seekers as illegal doesn't really stand up. Further, entering a country without permission is a civil, not a criminal offence so they're certainly not criminals.
Quote:
Historically, approval rates for U.S. asylum claims have fluctuated significantly, generally ranging between 30% and 50% in recent decades. While grant rates exceeded 50% in late 2023, they have dropped sharply to below 20% in immigration courts by August 2025.
Could be. I honestly can't speak to that. Usually the asylum process doesn't initiate unless someone is actually in the country or there is a legally endorsed route from outside the country (in the UK our recent program to allow Ukrainians in was like this, we did a similar one for Afghanis after the withdrawal from there). People can't claim from outside the country unless they're doing so under a similar program. The impression I'd got when hearing the complaints was that they were about people who'd made it in and weren't being immediately sent back - it's hard to tell from this side of the pond, though, as the news is second hand and the rhetoric is often a bit less than honest.Quote:
Biden administration was allowing just about everyone who just came to the border and asked for asylum into the US until their statis was determined. They weren't entering illegally. (again, I could be wrong)
I was a Biden supporter but didn't support his immigration policies. There was the pandemic and crises in central American countries but the perception that Biden's policies was making it easy to get into the US (which was sort of true) made the volume of immigrants coming to the border explode.Quote:
The Biden administration was absolutely atrocious on immigration. The number of border crossing and people coming in illegally sky rocked under the Biden administration. His supporters will say it is because of the pandemic and crises in those countries, but I don't buy it. Trump literally captured and imprisoned Maduro, one of the biggest upheavals a country could have, and yet asylum seekers from Venezuela are still at a historical low.
I can't get the reasoning that Venezuelans would want to flee the country because Maduro was removed.
I agree. I think that's what lost the democrats the election. Well that plus the perceived bad economy. Then again, people usually are unhappy with the economy. :)Quote:
So, the complaint isn't necessarily the people who made it in and weren't immediately being sent back, it was the sheer number of people who completely bypassed typical the immigration process.
Did the numbers explode, or was that the politics talking? Have they really dropped, or is that politics talking. Here's a link showing up to 2020. When you look at that graph, what would "explode" even mean? How could it explode more than it had? That line has been steeply upwards since the 70s, with the only difference being whether the slope was steeply upwards or very steeply upwards.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/prog...tion-over-time
While looking for more granular data, I just found roughly the same numbers over and over, though with some evidence of a decline that began perhaps in 2023. I don't believe 2025 data is included in any dataset I looked at, though I'm not certain about that.
I'm not sure that distinction really matters all that much to people who are concerned about this. I have never heard anybody complaining about immigrants and differentiating them by how they entered. Differentiating them by how they look, yes, but not by means of entry.
It holds a distinction to me. I have no issue with people that legally immigrate into country. Whether that number is to high or low could be an issue but one I would have with the government, not the immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
But I'm not sure ddays claim about the chart is correct. In the notes at the bottom it say,
Quote:
The term "immigrants" (also known as the foreign born) refers to people residing in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. This population includes naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), certain legal nonimmigrants (e.g., persons on student or work visas), those admitted under refugee or asylee status, and persons illegally residing in the United States.
Surely you misspoke there? Otherwise this would be just about the most insane statement made in recent history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Nobody has been pursuing legal immigrants. I have no idea what "their look" is meant to suggest unless it is yet another vacuous accusation of racism.
Of course illegal immigrants are immigrants. Just those who immigrated illegally. What exactly is so hard to comprehend there? They broke the law to enter.
I realize the Western US has a tradition of slavery-not-in-name. American Indian slaves were common, and even after the railroads were complete Chinese sex slavery went on out there for decades. Later it became attractive to enslave others in the same way as agricultural, construction, and domestic labor.
Scratch a leftist, watch the real "white privilege" be exposed. It is all about ensuring an underclass they can lord over to unfairly compete against honest moral folks.
There have been repeated statements and actions by this administration that make it clear that they want ALL immigrants to stop...except for white people. Trump explicitly made exceptions for some groups of them and asked for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
It isn't vacuous. The supreme court has ruled that ICE can stop people for their "appearance", which means that they can explicitly target people based on ethnicity and there is no particular doubt that they are doing so. That is explicitly racist because people are being treated much more harshly based on their racial appearance.Quote:
Nobody has been pursuing legal immigrants. I have no idea what "their look" is meant to suggest unless it is yet another vacuous accusation of racism.
Those who claim asylum are not illegal immigrants. They have a right to a hearing. They may or may not get that, but that right has been greatly curtailed.Quote:
Of course illegal immigrants are immigrants. Just those who immigrated illegally. What exactly is so hard to comprehend there? They broke the law to enter.
That's true. So what do you propose to do about it? We have a need for a certain workforce that is willing to accept poor pay for jobs that very few US citizens would be willing to do. So what's the solution? Raise wages to the point that people WILL do the jobs, but the end product is no longer competitive and the business goes away? What's the other option?Quote:
I realize the Western US has a tradition of slavery-not-in-name. American Indian slaves were common, and even after the railroads were complete Chinese sex slavery went on out there for decades. Later it became attractive to enslave others in the same way as agricultural, construction, and domestic labor.
As I said, what's your solution? In some cases, raising wages would make sense. Things like roofing is tough work, but putting on a new roof isn't cheap. Make it a bit more expensive and that would be reasonable. How about the agriculture work? Lots of it is very seasonal. Migratory labor is the only rational way to deal with that, since the work moves with the season. You need a large number of people for a small part of the year (different parts for different crops). Raising wages won't be enough to cover that because we don't live that way. What's your solution?Quote:
Scratch a leftist, watch the real "white privilege" be exposed. It is all about ensuring an underclass they can lord over to unfairly compete against honest moral folks.
Living in the Ca central valley I've seen this change significantly over the years. Being a poor family we use to work in the fields when I was a kid. I even got over 60 stitches in my hand one time when I was picking Apricots. But yes, the large major was migrants that traveled from one crop to another. Due to automation that number has been substantially reduced. Our area has been hard hit by that and other changes. I recently saw an article that our city has lost over 20k agricultural job in the last 20yrs.Quote:
How about the agriculture work? Lots of it is very seasonal. Migratory labor is the only rational way to deal with that, since the work moves with the season. You need a large number of people for a small part of the year (different parts for different crops).
It's nonsense to blame the left for the reason we have people working for unfair wages. You think only the left owns all the farms, factories, hotels or employs domestic workers. Also, who are these "honest moral folks" that are kept from these jobs because of these dishonest unmoral migrants. That sounds like something a true believer in white privilege would say.Quote:
Scratch a leftist, watch the real "white privilege" be exposed. It is all about ensuring an underclass they can lord over to unfairly compete against honest moral folks.
In hard right Idaho, there is a bill to push for using e-verify for employment. Lots of legislators voted against it, many of them being ag interests or representing same. They recognize that it is their industry that will get slammed by that. They are not even close to being leftists.
I hadn't seen that note. There are groups in there that I wouldn't count as immigrants, such as those on student or work visas, though I'm not sure how big that group would be. Some of those would then stay, such as the current first lady, while others might return home. But how many? I wouldn't count them because they haven't really made it clear whether they are visitors or immigrants. I wouldn't consider a visitor to be an immigrant. By that measure, I immigrated into various countries...I just didn't stay, nor did I have any intention to stay.
I would prefer that those who get advanced degrees in the US be encouraged to become legal immigrants, but I wouldn't count them as immigrants until they made their intentions clear through their actions.
It's definitely a puzzling confounding caveat to the graph.
It's a good thing Trump's not going to start any new wars...
It's incredible how quickly Iran rebuilt their nuclear capabilities. Just a year ago Trump destroyed it. :rolleyes:
I have to admit, I'm confused on Trumps motive for attacking Iran. I don't see how this benefits him. Other than maybe being a distraction.
I think it is entirely a distraction, after all starting a war that could kill thousands is a small price to pay to protect himself and his fellow paedophiles from justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
You're thinking about it too much. He doesn't, so you shouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
He thinks, just not pass the immediate. But it's always what he see as a benefit to him. A strategy that has gotten what he wants. I just don't see how this is to his benefit.
Though I doubt he'll every reach what he wants.
My hunch is that it's mostly about not wanting to lose face. (Along with a large slice of "Gimme that oil"). I thought the same of Venezuela.
Trump et al have one diplomatic play: intimidation. The problem with intimidation is that, if it doesn't work and you don't follow through, you're left looking stupid and weak. He sailed two thirds of the American Fleet into the region as a flex. He wanted to show off just what a manly man he was and how great he'd made America already... Hoo Rah! He expected Iran to give him a bunch of stuff... any stuff... that he could parade as trophies and puff his chest. Trouble was, in both Iran and Venezuela, they didn't play ball. At the very least, they couldn't discern what they were actually supposed to give him that would satisfy his ego. So he's left with a choice of backing off and looking weak or doubling down and to hell with the consequences. In Trump world there is no greater sin than appearing weak so he made the choice he made.
Witkoff actually articulated it.
This is what happens when the greatest nation in the world is led by massively insecure narcissist with the mental age of a toddler.
Looks like US troops haha now been killed in action, for a war that never went through Congress for approval.
From someone outside the USA I really don't understand why nobody seems to want to enforce your own nation's laws on Trump. What on earth would he need to do before his fanatical supporters would consider him unfit to lead? We know cheating, fraud, rape, sexual assault, boasting about sexual assault, boasting about walking into the dressing room of children knowing they were undressed, probably paedophilia, illegal tariffs on US citizens, and now illegally starting wars in Iran.
Sounds reasonable. Though there really wasn't a lot of concern about Iran here. There's been nuclear talks with Iran in the news for decades. But Trump does crave attention so now he has it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
It might be best if we don't understand the why behind his actions. It would be scary to know you think like him. :)
Your wrong if you believe "nobody seems to want to enforce your own nation's laws". Many people are fighting hard to do just that. But even Trump has the right to do process. Convicting a sitting president of breaking the law is difficult at best. But now with the Supreme Court giving him close to anonymity for anything as long as it's framed as protecting the national interest, it's about impossible. Remember Trump controls the DOJ. Plus, you a have a Rep run House and Senate. Politicians are not heroes, even with Trumps declining approval ratings he still has enough hard core supporters they have to tread lightly if they want to get reelected. It's not a pretty thing to see but it's politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp
Now you have many saying the attack on Iran was illegal and you have the White House and DOJ saying it was legal. This all happened last year when he attacked Iran. There was lots of accusations but in the end nothing happened. So did Trump declare war on Iran or is this just a military interaction???
Depends who you ask.
I think Trump has discovered the magic sauce when it comes to Presidential criminality and corruption. Namely that, while the creation of laws is vested in the legislature and the interpretation of laws is vested in the judiciary, the enforcement of them is vested in the executive. This means he can do whatever he wants until one of the other branches tells him to stop... and then he can ignore them and carry on doing it anyway. The other branches can yell till they're blue in the face but it ultimately falls to Trump to stop Trump.Quote:
Your wrong if you believe "nobody seems to want to enforce your own nation's laws". Many people are fighting hard to do just that. But even Trump has the right to do process. Convicting a sitting president of breaking the law is difficult at best. But now with the Supreme Court giving him close to anonymity for anything as long as it's framed as protecting the national interest, it's about impossible. Remember Trump controls the DOJ. Plus, you a have a Rep run House and Senate. Politicians are not heroes, even with Trumps declining approval ratings he still has enough hard core supporters they have to tread lightly if they want to get reelected. It's not a pretty thing to see but it's politics.
Now you have many saying the attack on Iran was illegal and you have the White House and DOJ saying it was legal. This all happened last year when he attacked Iran. There was lots of accusations but in the end nothing happened. So did Trump declare war on Iran or is this just a military interaction???
Depends who you ask.
My GUESS is it has nothing to do with Epstein, there will no serious repercussions from the files, that ship sailed long ago. Rather, Netanyahu realized Trump is so self absorbed and morally bankrupt he could manipulate him into helping him achieve his goals.Quote:
In my mind, going to war with Iran has to be: A) a gift for Netanyahu -or- B) a distraction against Epstein -or- C) Trump wanting to "legacy build" -or- D) all of the above.
Purely a guess.
His criminality and corruption has been going on his entire adult life. Now that he has control of the DOJ, a cowardly Republican congress and a friendly Supreme Court he's has very little restraining him.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Could be worse. We could all follow the lead of the UK:
https://youtu.be/9_o5I_3DG08?si=2AOh033zeb5xF3nR
My guess would be that he's desperately trying to do something to boost his ratings prior to the midterms. Seems like people are mostly confused about this, though, so I think he misfired if that was his goal.