Feeling bad about making a mockery of the Constitution and using an imaginary version of it to advance damaging political agendas seems like a good sign. There is hope for you yet. You might even go read the Constitution and gain something from it.
I didn’t pass any judgements or say it made you a bad person, just observed how the Constitution ran counter. In the USA, you’re free to subscribe to alt right beliefs and “alternative facts.” I will continue to defend your right to do so. But that doesn’t mean I prohibit myself from pointing out the inconsistencies.
I’m so sorry now that I even made a response to your post. By doing so, it just open the book for you to discuss your own ideas, of which I certainly disagree with, immensely.
Actually, when I look back, I wasn’t reacting to anything you mentioned. I responded to one of your liberal compatriots.
The original ingratiating idea of democrats along with the POTUS, working out a proposition, for court packing. It’s wrong again, as Biden professed years ago.
The commission is not equivalent to court packing, it’s unknown what they would conclude for reforms, if any. You are correct, the commission is a GOP think tank idea.
Biden seems to only be following his campaign promise to have a commision investigate any possible reforms. People voted for him based on his campaign promises, he won the election with definitive margins in the EC and a huge margin in the popular vote, it shouldn’t be surprising he is now following through on his campaign promises. People elected him because they believed Biden was the more trustworthy option.
The great thing about this quote is I can’t really imagine where this line of thinking is going.
a) Is it that these people will feel beholden to Democrats, so they will vote against their own interest in the fact of superior Republican ideas, because they are in some way incapable of seeing that Republican ideas are better?
b) Is it just a tacit admission Republican ideas are inferior to Democrat ideas, so these people will be voting Democrat because their ideas are better?
c) Is it just that you feel people from Central America are somehow inferior to other groups, so they are not worthy of being able to be American? I mean what about let’s say poor Norwegian people, are they not a problem for some reason?
“The founder and co-chairman of Fox Corp. is Rupert Murdoch, a mogul who was born in Australia and now spends a lot of time in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The co-chairman and CEO is his son, Lachlan Murdoch, who was born in London and now lives in Australia. The person who is often said to be the most powerful day-to-day executive at Fox is Viet Dinh, a Vietnamese refugee born in Ho Chi Minh City who is now the corporation’s chief legal and policy officer. The lead outside director is Jacques Nasser, a former Ford CEO who was born in Lebanon and grew up in Australia. Another Fox director is Anne Dias-Griffin, the founder and chief executive of Aragon Global Holdings, who was born and educated in France.”
"Owens was captured on body camera footage using a skateboard to assault an unnamed Metropolitan Police officer, referred to as “C.B.” outside of the Capitol building, according to prosecutors. The attack caused a concussion and finger injury to the police officer.
Prosecutors have indicated in court records that approximately 81 members of the Capitol Police and 58 members of the Metropolitan Police Department were assaulted during the attack on the Capitol."
So do Trump supporters believe Trump when he says protesters were “hugging and kissing” the police?
Nothing sinister, just the factual observation that the generous welfare state as championed by the Democrats more than the Republicans, people vote their own economic interests, and a welfare state is incompatible with open immigration.
Surely you would agree that the current level of welfare, housing, food stamps, etc, of some $30k per person isn’t something the US taxpayer can afford to pay for 3/4 of a billion people living south of our border? I’m sure the modern monetary theory experts can tell us how the extra $25T/year to pay for all these aspiring illegal aliens can be handled by printing more money and the wondrous benefits said policy would have on our income inequality and racial justice stats? For reference, total US tax revenues run a mere $3T/year or so, and we’re already spending beyond our means on that front as it is.
Of course nearly all these Central American illegal immigrants are quite poor, although the logic would apply equally well to poor Norwegians who, but for Trump’s callous pro-global-warming policies that managed to thwart the next small ice age, were prevented from walking over the ice and show up at our northern border in the same way that Mexican or Central Americans might at our southern one.
Maybe you can explain why advocating for more poor criminals to be allowed citizenship ahead of skilled, legal immigrants is good idea for our society?
A) they do vote Republican when it’s in their interest, just as many poorer minorities abandoned Biden in the last election for Trump, whose pro-labor policies favored legal workers getting ahead over welfare dependency and unchecked illegal immigration and their wage suppression. But since most of these illegal aliens show up with nothing and no job, they’re a natural fit for the non-working, pro-poverty Democratic party.
B) better for the poor, worse for the country. I’m happy to vote all your money to be given to me, and I’m not alone. Better hope you don’t end up on the wrong side of New Democratic Majority, where income taxes will be raised to 75% on names starting with “kama”, unless you also meet the “slept Willie Brown” exemption.
C) well Central America does seem to be an inferior place to live than the US, hard to know the root causes of that, be they cultural, historical, or genetic. But I’d say anyone who follows the legal immigration process is welcome as an American. I would hope, given the demand is so high for American citizenship, that we would exercise some limits and standards to those we allow to join our country.
The other thing that I feel is so often lost on these immigration debates is the middle ground between 30 foot wall and a blanket amnesty. The US had a de facto policy of allowing existing, non-criminal illegal aliens to live and work in the US, just that they couldn’t become citizens (although their kids could). This seems like a lazy approach to a worker visa, where people who could do jobs and meet demands for labor could benefit the agricultural or construction sectors for example, without needing to tie in their presence to eventual citizenship.
Nearly all of these illegal immigration problems go away if you don’t provide benefits to illegal aliens and revoke birthright citizenship. Then people can come and work if they’re welcome, but get nothing out of staying if they can’t in terms of taxpayer support. You’d remove the economic incentive to import poverty without a disincentive to import labor. But then you wouldn’t import likely future democratic voters so who would champion a policy like that?
Justice Breyer, who is NO conservative, has spoken out boldly and loudly in favor of a nine person SCOTUS.
Democrats have viciously turned on Breyer and want him to resign. But Breyer shows no sign of knuckling under to the insane far left kooks. Thing is, if Democrats lose the Senate next year as anticipated, it will become much less likely thereafter for Democrats to confirm a Justice as far to the left as they wish. Democrats need SCOTUS opening(s) before next year’s election.
The figure of asylum is being abused to get into the country people who statistically will be dependent on public monies. The folks coming in through the southern border aren’t running away from political or religious persecution. Nothing to do with ideas.
I live here in Oregon and see the increasing number of undocumented (is that term still acceptable) people competing for services like housing or food assistance with those who aren’t undocumented. Or competing for the limited unskilled jobs available.
IMO, it’s a contradiction that at the same time you clamor for jobs and a better standard of living for national POC you actually encourage more undocumented POC to come in.
You mentioned the poor Norwegian people… My argument has nothing to do with skin color, or hair color. You like to insert “color” into the mix for some reason. But since you mention Norway… In Norway the immense majority of adults have attended and finished the equivalent of high school. By that time, they have marketable skills like speaking a second language fluently, being proficient with algebra/pre-calc, basic physics, … the works. The folks that we’re receiving through the Southern border don’t have this type of skills. In fact, that is the reason they’re unable to find work in their countries of origin. And it’s also the reason they end up depending on public monies once they get their asylum processed in the States.
Black people in America who are not citizens are scarce as hen’s teeth. You would think they would realize the threats to themselves that all these illegals represent and stop voting for the open borders Democrats.
In fairness, more black Americans than ever did vote for Trump, but still an overwhelming majority voted Democrat, clearly against their own self interest. Trump over and over proclaimed he was pro-US citizens. Do black people not realize they fall into that category?
Anyway and regardless, I also favor people here legally and that includes virtually every black person in this country. It hurts seeing many of them subordinated to a bunch of Central American peasants who are not citizens and who should not be here.
America, and that certainly includes black America, FIRST!!
"Trump veered sharply from prepared remarks Saturday night and instead slammed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as a “stone-cold loser” and mocked McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, who was Trump’s transportation secretary.
Trump also said he was “disappointed” in his vice president, Mike Pence, and used a profanity in assessing McConnell, according to multiple people in attendance who were not authorized to publicly discuss what was said in a private session. He said McConnell had not thanked him properly for putting Chao, who was labor secretary under President George W. Bush, in his Cabinet."
Trudeau’s dearth of political courage was just placed on full display in Halifax. Not even Cindy McCain’s support was able to stiffen Trudeau’s limp spine. Trudeau is your quintessential weak liberal loser. And his country is sinking beneath the tide of world events as a result of the virus and numerous other things, as well. Until Trudeau is gone, Canada has no chance:
Lincoln and Trump both viciously mocked. But where Lincoln succeeded, Trump failed
Both Presidents had the right idea. Lincoln wanted Alaska and got it!! Can you imagine the world today had he failed, with Russian missiles only a stone’s throw from Seattle and Portland?
Trump wanted Greenland and sadly failed to obtain it. Now events there have moved against us and the free world, and in favor of the Chinese communists. Candidly I was not aware of this until news came of the election:
The CCP (Chinese communist party) has the world by the short hairs where rare earth elements are concerned, since most are mined in China. And they are vital to modern life. Rare earth elements are used in manufacture of cellular telephones, computer hard drives, electric and hybrid vehicles, and flat-screen monitors and televisions. Also in significant defense applications including electronic displays, guidance systems, lasers, and radar and sonar systems.
Greenland is self governing, the left there is now in control of mining, and you can figure out the rest. We have to hope for the best.
Unlike President Lincoln, Trump failed. He had the right idea, but he lacked the political skill to pull off the purchase. I wish it had been otherwise.