Post New

If Mike Pence has the courage to do the right thing!

And in other news:
As conservatives balk, U.S. Border Patrol union endorses Senate immigration deal.
The National Border Patrol Council, said the bill will,
"Drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

But of course...Trump...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immi...

"Drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

----------------------

Clarity please.

"Drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will , for the next three years, allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

bighairymike: "Drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will , for the next three years, allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

This is such a remarkable, stunningly stupid position, akin to your boss telling you she's going to raise your salary by 75% for the next year, but 50% a year later, and only 25% a year after that, each raise from your current salary, but that in year four you may go back to earning the same as you're earning right now... and your take away is: "Wait, what? Four years from now I'll only be making my current salary? That's completely unacceptable!"

Also, you keep neglecting to mention that in those years, the border bill will have added over 1,300 additional U.S. Border Patrol agents, 1,600 new asylum officers and 375 new judge teams and because of those additions, the sunset provision may be entirely meaningless.

albaby1 is right: you've been offered the deal of a lifetime, a Waygu steak, and you're complaining that the portion is too small.

bighairymike: "Drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will , for the next three years, allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension."

Hey Mike...

"The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan." ― Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz

albaby1 is right: you've been offered the deal of a lifetime, a Waygu steak, and you're complaining that the portion is too small.

-------------------

Not really. What I am most upset over is the opportunity missed. A one-time, take it or leave it offer, was an insufficient effort in my opinion. I wanted to see some real debate over the various provisions leading to acceptance of an improved result.

Johnson killing it prematurely was a huge mistake, whether or not instructed by Trump, it was rejecting an opportunity. He should have taken up the bill in the house, offered some amendments, send it back to senate, keep the dialogue going, and be optimistic about actually making a deal.

Hey Mike...

"The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan." ― Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz

------------------

Hey Bansky ...

Your side apparently has no understanding of the issue if you think taking out the sunset would attain the republican dream of perfection. Think of it more as attaining a minimum threshold of acceptability.

And again I am less concerned over that specific tidbit that I am over refusing to engage in negotiations about it at all.

A one-time, take it or leave it offer, was an insufficient effort in my opinion.

I've seen this mentioned a few times now. I think I missed something. What makes you say this was a "one-time, take it or leave it offer"? The provisions negotiated by the "gang" had only just been released, so not even members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate had really any chance to weigh in - nor enough GOP Senators to get to 60. Much less anyone in the House. Typically - or even super-fast bills - aren't take it or leave it at that stage, particularly before they've been whipped to get enough votes to pass.

So why the belief that this was "take it or leave it" already?

>>A one-time, take it or leave it offer, was an insufficient effort in my opinion.<<

I've seen this mentioned a few times now. I think I missed something. What makes you say this was a "one-time, take it or leave it offer"? The provisions negotiated by the "gang" had only just been released, so not even members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate had really any chance to weigh in - nor enough GOP Senators to get to 60.

================

When Johnson said DOA, the Senate just gave up so that is why I call t one time.


Describing it as "take it or leave it" is premature since a bona fide offer was never placed on the table to take or leave or amend.

If I have a home for sale for $500K, you make an offer of $400,000 and I say that offer is DOA.

At that point, if you walk away with plans to buy that nice place in Ukraine instead, your offer of $400K was a one-time offer. If you really really wanted to make a deal, you might raise your offer to $459K or at least agree to discuss some repairs or other concessions that may make a deal possible. Gleefully breaking off any dialogue at all makes it appear you really only wanted that place in the Ukraine in the first place.

When Johnson said DOA, the Senate just gave up so that is why I call t one time.

Ah. I think that's a mistaken interpretation. Johnson said the bill was DOA before the terms were released publicly. That's a pretty clear indication that Johnson's position wasn't merely that the specific bill was unacceptable, but that any bill would be unacceptable and wouldn't move forward in the House. He didn't say that there were terms that were unacceptable, or concepts that would have to be modified before House approval could be granted. He put the kibosh on the whole process.

That's why McConnell "just gave up" - so that Lankford and other GOP Senators wouldn't be twisting in the wind taking political shots to negotiate changes to a proposal that would never get approved, no matter what it said. Between Johnson and Trump's later comments, it was immediately apparent that no bill would get put on the House floor. So that pretty much ended the process.

I share your lament for the loss of opportunity, but the Lankford/Sinema proposal was not take it or leave it. McConnell made the call (correctly IMHO) that Johnson wouldn't/couldn't get any bill passed in the House.

I wanted to see some real debate over the various provisions leading to acceptance of an improved result.

The Repubs want Death Traps at the Border, absolutely zero illegal crossings, and no compromises.

The Dems want Humane Treatment of Humans, accept the reality that there will be some refugees, and compromises if needed.

Everyone wants a secure border with effective processes to deal with crossings. The positions are known and have been well established for many years. (In 2011, Obama joked about Repubs wanting alligator moats at the border.)

What we have now: inhumane treatment of some migrants, record level of border crossings, and no compromises.

Compromise is needed, but that word has conflicting meanings:
"An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions."
"Accept standards that are lower than is desirable."

Maybe one of these words is better:
accommodation
accord
adjustment
arrangement
bargain
concession
deal
pact
settlement
understanding

Deal: an arrangement for mutual advantage.

The U.S. needs Congress to reach a deal to improve Southern Border Security.

Not really. What I am most upset over is the opportunity missed. A one-time, take it or leave it offer, was an insufficient effort in my opinion. I wanted to see some real debate over the various provisions leading to acceptance of an improved result.

Johnson killing it prematurely was a huge mistake, whether or not instructed by Trump, it was rejecting an opportunity. He should have taken up the bill in the house, offered some amendments, send it back to senate, keep the dialogue going, and be optimistic about actually making a deal.

You mean TRUMP killing it prematurely. My thinking has evolved, but it seems that if a committee was receptive, the development of the bill would have happened in the committee. Instead the development of the bill happened in receptive people outside the committee. So any claim that it should've gone that rout ignore that, in general, solving the problem of the border isn't received well by many in the Republican party. That's from what I've gleaned and filling in gaps with logical inferences.

So we didn't have debate early due to that. We all know that Trump killed it before it got out. Johnson went along with Trump. Introducing a bill this way is one way of doing it - then you get some discussion - but every lawmaker criticizing it is helping out Trump, just distracting from his action of killing the bill. The distractions to aid Trump include characterizing at as a one time take-it-or-leave-it bill, because that isn't so. Trump killed it so he'd have an easy issue to run on.

The distractions to aid Trump include characterizing at as a one time take-it-or-leave-it bill, because that isn't so.

And yet, this is what every one of you has said in this thread: it was a one-time deal.

Me:The distractions to aid Trump include characterizing at as a one time take-it-or-leave-it bill, because that isn't so.

Dope: And yet, this is what every one of you has said in this thread: it was a one-time deal.

The mischaracterization is take-it-or-leave-it, not one-time deal. Your response here is just misleading.

Claiming other people are misleading is your schtick. You’re even doing it while moving the goalposts.

Loads of you have said “the GOP will never get this deal again”.
Let’s also note you backing away from the voting thing. Do tell us how many more illegals you find.

Again, the mischaracterization is take-it-or-leave-it, and yes, you won't see as good a deal as that one for a decade.

You have yet to show an illegal voted. Now it seems to me that with the quantity that the Republicans imagine illegals vote in, you should be able to find hundreds if not thousands of illegals that have been convicted for voting in fraudulent elections.

Can you show me 10 illegals convicted of voting fraudulently in the 2020 election, since that's where the mother lode should be?

You have yet to show an illegal voted. Evidently she did.

You can deny the “all or nothing” but that’s what you folks have said. Good luck!

Oh, by the way, it’s your action item to find more illegal voters, not mine. Let us know what you find.

Oh, by the way, it’s your action item to find more illegal voters, not mine. Let us know what you find.

That's absurd. I think you're confused. Adios.

Nope. It’s your turn to go fetch some rocks. Let us know how many you find.

Loads of you have said “the GOP will never get this deal again”.

Yep. That doesn't mean that the specifics of the deal that might have been achievable at this time weren't negotiable. It just means that the GOP will never have as good of bargaining position to extract concessions on border and immigration issues as they do right now. They had the unique combination of: i) an absolutely time-critical, must-pass (for the Administration) effort on foreign policy that they had successfully linked to immigration; and ii) an acute political crisis caused by an unplanned/unbudgeted surge of people causing havoc in Democratic cities. That's not going to happen again any time soon. Rather than seize that opportunity, the GOP let it slip away.

Let’s also note you backing away from the voting thing. Do tell us how many more illegals you find.

You've mentioned this a few times. But I can't find anything from officials or police or anyone that says that the shooter wasn't here legally, or talking about their citizenship/immigration status at all. Do you have any evidence that she was? As noted upthread, it's a bit inconsistent with some of the other reporting, which suggests (although also without sourcing) that the guns were purchased legally.

Russell's Teapot. It is on the person claiming it exists to prove it, not the person claiming it doesn't to disprove it.

Voter fraud has been shown to be negligible. If you think otherwise, prove it.

Voter fraud has been shown to be negligible. If you think otherwise, prove it.

The liberal claim is that illegals don't vote. You yourself have been shown proof that they can in fact vote in federal elections in Arizona. I've yet to see you ack that fact.

As for him, I'm not fetching any more rocks for that poster. The game goes like this:

Fetch me a rock.

Okay - how about this one?

No, not that one. Fetch me another rock.

Okay - how about that one?

No, not that one. Fetch me another rock.

Lapsody (I think) already addressed this. No need for me to recapitulate.

Also, I believe I linked the page that gave details about voter registration in AZ, so that is an "ack". They have also done extensive audits (especially after 2020), and found no significant voter fraud or ineligible voters voting. The people hired by the Trumpies couldn't even find anything (and, in fact, said Biden won by a larger margin than originally reported). Onesy-twosy, at most.

So you still have no teapot.

So you still have no teapot.

I've claimed none. What I've done is point out the holes.

Dope1: You yourself have been shown proof that they can in fact vote in federal elections in Arizona.

For the slow learners, no you cannot; it's illegal and you'll be prosecuted. And IT LITERALLY NEVER HAPPENS.

Anyone voting as a "federal-only" voter must legally swear they are a U.S. citizen and mark the ballot confirming they are a U.S. citizen. Any non-citizen voting as a "federal only" voter is subject to prosecution.

Since 2010, the Attorney General’s Office has not prosecuted or convicted any non-citizen for illegal voting. There are two pending prosecutions for non-citizens who have either registered or voted in Arizona, according to a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, but the details of those cases aren’t public.

To repeat for the slow learners: in almost two decades, the Attorney General’s Office in Arizona has not prosecuted or convicted a single non-citizen for illegal voting.

Not one.

Zero.

https://azmirror.com/2023/12/19/arizonas-federal-o...

As for him, I'm not fetching any more rocks for that poster. The game goes like this:

Fetch me a rock.

Okay - how about this one?

No, not that one. Fetch me another rock.

Okay - how about that one?

No, not that one. Fetch me another rock. - Dope

----------------------

LOL. Also there is, "No, that is not a certified rock, fetch me another."

If you think otherwise, prove it.

They can't prove it because there is no voter fraud to speak of. So they lie.

I know how to plug those holes.

Government issues ID cards. Government helps those who don't have easy access to documentation to get valid documents. All verified citizens are automatically registered to vote, rolls updated annually for deaths and new eligible voters (e.g. high school grads, naturalized citizens).

It's not that hard. But a lot of people want to skip the first two sentences and go right to "show ID or no vote". Which is where the resistance arises. MrFungi taught those who read his posts a lot about the difficulty many people have getting proper documents.

Or "no, that is not a rock...that is a beer can".

So, if we were to do like Australia does and REQUIRE citizens to vote, guess which party would be adamantly opposed? Of course, the GOP. They don't really like the idea of everyone voting.

I've claimed none. What I've done is point out the holes.

A few points:

1) Again, I can't find any indication that the Osteen church shooter is here illegally. Can you point me to any? Given that she purchased a firearm and has had multiple arrests and convictions over the last twenty years, it a little unlikely that she would be here illegally. It's possible, of course - but having that many convictions makes it less likely that she was undocumented.

2) Second, I think you misunderstand the Arizona regulations. They are an effort to be stricter in trying to ensure that non-citizens don't vote. The reason they have different provisions for federal and state races is because the federal "motor voter" act prohibits states from asking for proof of citizenship for registration, so Arizona got clever and just imposed the requirement to prove citizenship for the state races to get around the federal law. But that doesn't allow non-citizens to vote, and it's still illegal to do so.

3) Finally, I think you are mischaracterizing what folks on this board (and generally) say about illegals and voter fraud. What we have said - repeatedly - is that while it is always possible that a tiny number of people might commit fraud in a single election (as witnessed by the hapless Trump voters that have been caught doing so, to the derision of liberals here), it is impossible that enough fraud takes place to matter in a federal election. There have been lots and lots and lots of people who have tried to find that fraud, using the same techniques your Twitter poster did: almost all voting records are public record, and you can always look up who registered and who voted. If large numbers of illegal aliens were registering to vote, there would be a paper trail - again, just like the one for Genesse Moreno. What always ends up happening is when someone looks through these records and claims there was widespread voter fraud, they're always found to be mistaken - usually because they're analyzing massive datasets without controlling for the fact that there will always be numerous duplicate names, birthdays, and assorted typos. Or they make the mistake that I think has been made with the Osteen church shooter - assuming she was illegal because someone on the 'web might have jumped to that conclusion, even though it doesn't seem to be factually the case.

LOL. Also there is, "No, that is not a certified rock, fetch me another."

'Certified rock?'

That's a clever euphemism for 'misinformation from a well-documented untrustworthy site.'

But hey, if all you got is a 'box of rocks,' then all ya got is a box of rocks, and rocks only prove you got more rocks; not proof.

The liberal claim is that illegals don't vote

And we've asked you to prove we say that, and you haven't. So I'm forced to conclude that you can't support that it is a general saying by liberals. I haven't seen us say that. I would say that it's illegal for illegals to vote, and if it occurs it's tiny and not outcome determinative. It's likely to be a straw man on your part.

"Claiming other people are misleading is your schtick. You’re even doing it while moving the goalposts."

Absolutely hilarious that Dope thinks his failures at comprehending what other people say is their fault......

Dope: As for him, I'm not fetching any more rocks for that poster. The game goes like this:

Your problem is you cannot support your statements or straw men, so when asked for proof you have none.
You might come back with something not on point or not credible, like your Moreno attempt. But the real reason is there is no proof.
If there is no proof just give up, realize you can't support it, and move on.

1pg: I know how to plug those holes.

Government issues ID cards. Government helps those who don't have easy access to documentation to get valid documents. All verified citizens are automatically registered to vote, rolls updated annually for deaths and new eligible voters (e.g. high school grads, naturalized citizens).

But the government can craft the requirements to make it deliberately difficult for some potential voters to have the required documents to register - say out of state students who moved there to attend school.

That's why the first two sentences. They imply a chronology. First, get everyone IDs. Second, make them present the IDs to register. Or, better still, automatically register everyone that is issued a citizen ID.

And we've asked you to prove we say that, and you haven't.
I've shown you one. I've also shown you the mechanism by which it can be done in Arizona.

I'm forced to conclude that short of video + DNA evidence of somebody fraudulently voting + a sworn affidavit, you won't believe ANYTHING.

Dope1: I've shown you one. I've also shown you the mechanism by which it can be done in Arizona.

I'm forced to conclude that short of video + DNA evidence of somebody fraudulently voting + a sworn affidavit, you won't believe ANYTHING.

And I'm forced to conclude you either cannot read, cannot comprehend what you've read, or you just ignore any facts that prove you wrong.

Earlier this afternoon, in this thread, I gave you a statement from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office confirming that it has not prosecuted or convicted any non-citizen for illegal voting.

What you keep saying "can be done in Arizona," in fact, has not been done in Arizona for more than a decade.

For the third time:

Anyone voting as a "federal-only" voter must legally swear they are a U.S. citizen and mark the ballot confirming they are a U.S. citizen. Any non-citizen voting as a "federal only" voter is subject to prosecution.

Since 2010, the Attorney General’s Office has not prosecuted or convicted any non-citizen for illegal voting. There are two pending prosecutions for non-citizens who have either registered or voted in Arizona, according to a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, but the details of those cases aren’t public.

For fourteen years now, no non-citizens have ever been indicted or prosecuted for registering or voting in Arizona.

NONE.

https://azmirror.com/2023/12/19/arizonas-federal-o...

Your problem is you cannot support your statements or straw men, so when asked for proof you have none

You don't really bother to read what anyone else posts and then engage in what you think are sly games to move goal posts and/or change subjects.

1pg: That's why the first two sentences. They imply a chronology. First, get everyone IDs. Second, make them present the IDs to register. Or, better still, automatically register everyone that is issued a citizen ID.

So the government crafts the requirements to not accept out of state IDs, even though many states require a birth certificate for IDS and issue non-documented immigrants different IDs.

I've shown you one. I've also shown you the mechanism by which it can be done in Arizona.

That's not what he asked you. He asked you for any proof that liberals say that illegals never vote - that this is a position that liberals actually take. As opposed to the position that Lapsody and I have said, which is that "it's illegal for illegals to vote, and if it occurs it's tiny and not outcome determinative."

Nor does Arizona provide any mechanism "by which it can be done," because every state is prohibited from asking for proof of citizenship for voter registration - by federal statute. Arizona's just the only state that's tried to get around that by creating a separate, "state-only" tranche of voter registrations and demanding proof of citizenship for that tranche. I honestly don't know why you keep hammering on Arizona, since Arizona has (arguably) the most restrictive registration regulations - I can only assume that some conservative pundit latched onto the two-tranche framework and didn't understand what it actually did, and this has become some kind of talking point. Which is deeply ironic, because the AZ is a regulation that immigration hawks ought to be promoting as a model, but instead it's regarded with deep suspicion.

And as I've mentioned several times in this thread, the "one" that you think you've shown us doesn't appear to be an illegal alien. There's no indication that I can find anywhere that this woman was illegal. I ask again - do you know of any reason to think that she is here illegally?

Dope's claimThe liberal claim is that illegals don't vote

Dope's assertion: I've shown you one.

If you are talking about Moreno, just from looking at your cite from X, it has contradictions within it that have been covered. Even Albaby thinks it is more likely than not that Moreno was legal from the contradictory facts found. So it's pending, until we actually know the truth.

Dope's 2d assertion: I've also shown you the mechanism by which it can be done in Arizona.

But it wasn't done was it? That actually supports the contention that illegals don't vote. I think CO phrased it as it's illegal for an illegal to vote -which is true. But being illegal to vote is different from saying they don't vote. What he has said, is that - where you are saying it can be done in AZ, the government has looked, and there are 2 pending cases where the facts aren't leaked, so we don't know.

So we don't have anything which shows us to a certainty that one illegal alien voted illegally. We have a big ? on Moreno, and 2 unknown cases pending cases in AZ. But you'd think, if it was happening frequently, and in large amounts, that we'd be able to point to many convictions, and many pending cases, which would be convincing.

Dope:
You don't really bother to read what anyone else posts and then engage in what you think are sly games to move goal posts and/or change subjects.

Dope, you make many accusations that aren't true and these just add to the pile. There is no sense trying to refute them with you because nothing ever penetrates the Dope Zone.

Albaby1
That's not what he asked you. He asked you for any proof that liberals say that illegals never vote - that this is a position that liberals actually take. As opposed to the position that Lapsody and I have said, which is that "it's illegal for illegals to vote, and if it occurs it's tiny and not outcome determinative."

Yes. It gets tedious responding to the barrage. I noted I somehow was responding to two different threads too and gave up figuring out what happened. It looks like Arizona was and is trying to limit students from voting, as one article I read stated their are two more restrictive bills being considered.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.