Post New

According to Trump. He had a rough interview with an association of black journalists. He thinks she played the race card a few years ago and identified as 'black', but before that she identified as "Indian".

https://apnews.com/article/trump-black-journalists...

One of the Dem's weapons is Trump's own words. He can't keep his mouth shut, and he's a raving bigot. A combination that results in lots of soundbytes.

One of the Dem's weapons is Trump's own words. He can't keep his mouth shut, and he's a raving bigot. A combination that results in lots of soundbytes.

I haven't watched or listened to the interview, but MSNBC was up in arms over how outrageous Trump's statements were. Can't wait to see what ABC/CBS/NBC/PBS have to say about this tonight. FOX et. al. will explain it away as usual I'm sure.

Trump is going back to his old playbook.... birtherism sucked in a substantial chunk of idiots so he's reviving the 'question he identity' schtick. That let's them dredge up the Pocohantas slurs and Kenyan/Muslim slurs. It made them feel good before and it'll do it again.

You can be damn sure Trumps and his good christian advisors scoured Harris' record for dirt, so he knew she attended Howard, a black university. But Trump knows he cannot talk about black universities lest he gets bitchslapped with Trump University, He cannot dump on her aggressive prosecutor rep lest he get btchslapped with his felony status. He can't go after her affair with WIllie Brown or he'll get bitchslapped with his string of infidelities. That leaves her racial identity, her laugh, and her name.

That leaves her racial identity, her laugh, and her name. - sano

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

You forgot it also leaves her policies and beliefs. Here are some of the ideas she has expressed

35% cap gains tax
Financial Transaction Tax
Increase the Estate Tax
Medicare for All
Abolish Private Health Insurance
Tax-payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants
Guaranteed Income Programs
Student Debt Bailouts
Free Community College
Reparations
Green New Deal
Ban on Oil and Gas Fracking
Prosecute Oil Companies for Climate Damage

You forgot it also leaves her policies and beliefs.

Which Trump never really talked about. He was too busy being ... I was going to say racist and misogynist, but that's not really true. He hates everyone who doesn't worship him. And lord knows those journalists weren't worshipping him. Perhaps misanthrope is a better term.

Here are some of the ideas she has expressed

Not a bad list at all. Couple of them are going a bit far and a couple more are simply not going to happen. I could get behind at least 10 of those. And six of them are what I'd call possible in her first term. Not likely, not all of them, but possible to get 2 or 3 passed.

--Peter

He thinks she played the race card a few years ago and identified as 'black', but before that she identified as "Indian".


The fact remains Harris is the daughter of immigrants; her father is from Jamaica, and her mother from India.

Harris and JD Vance’ wife have a lot in common..

JD Vance’s wife Usha Chilukuri is the daughter of Indian immigrant parents.

Harris and JD Vance’ wife have a lot in common..

JD Vance’s wife Usha Chilukuri is the daughter of Indian immigrant parents.

You said what!!!

So, if my parents are born in the US and another person's parents are born in the US, then we have a lot in common!!!

Where were your parents born? Do you have a lot in common with other people whose parents are born in the same place!

I suggest you re-read what you wrote and consider why you think what you do.

Aussi

LOL. Not knowing Harris is black is like not knowing Trump is a moron.

I suggest you re-read what you wrote and consider why you think what you do.

Aussi

What part of....

“Harris is the daughter of immigrants; her father is from Jamaica, and her mother from India.
JD Vance’s wife Usha Chilukuri is the daughter of Indian immigrant parents.”

don’t you understand?

The fact remains Harris and Usha Chilukuri have parent(s) from India.

Harris’ father is from Jamaica and her mother is from India.

The fact remains Harris is the daughter of immigrants; her father is from Jamaica, and her mother from India.

Harris and JD Vance’ wife have a lot in common..

JD Vance’s wife Usha Chilukuri is the daughter of Indian immigrant parents.

Correct. Not really relevant to the racial attacks launched by the convict.

Also, some elements of MAGA-land (note: not all) are objecting to the choice of Vance for VP because his wife isn't white, and they have mixed children. Some nonsense about "not protecting white interests if elected".

LurkerMom


Your question says it all.

don’t you understand?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Aussi

You forgot it also leaves her policies and beliefs. Here are some of the ideas she has expressed...

Many items in this cut-and-paste list of Harris's "policies and beliefs," make good sense and would move the US a bit more in line with what citizens of advanced countries all over the world already enjoy. They would also constitute net investments, and not merely short-term expenses, in the well-being of our country and its people.

Others of them are half-truths at best, e.g., "Abolish Private Health Insurance; Tax-payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants." See, e.g., https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2024/08/02/fact-c....

Meanwhile, most of DJT's policies and beliefs are not merely disagreeable but reprehensible and un-American--as are his actions, which speak louder than even his words. Donald Trump is a convicted pussy-grabbing sexual abuser, a convicted business fraudster, a serial scammer with a record of fleecing everyday Americans (the shut-down Trump University), stiffing construction workers, and misusing a charitable foundation for personal financial gain (the shut-down Trump Foundation). He slanders disabled veterans, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and Gold Star parents. He undercut a strong immigration reform bill that his own party largely crafted, because he wanted to prolong rather than mitigate the problem while he campaigned.

Most importantly, Trump sat and watched the violence of Jan. 6 unfold on TV for hours and did absolutely nothing to stop it, despite the entreaties of leaders of his party, his VP, and family members. He was patently derelict in his duty to protect the Constitution. He has no conception of truth, honor, loyalty, or integrity. None.

He did and would cut taxes and raise spending to benefit himself and his cronies in the short run even if it would bankrupt the country in the long run, just as he's bankrupted pretty much everything he's laid his hands on. He cares not one whit about you, his family, or anyone other than himself. His goals are to (1) stay out of prison and (2) make as much money as he can from (mis)using the power of the Presidency. That's all he cares about.

Dear Mike and other Trump supporters, he's scamming you. That's all he's done his entire life. Half of his former Cabinet, including business leaders, military leaders, and lifelong conservatives want nothing to do with him. You have an opportunity this November to get on the right side of history and do the right thing for the future of America. I hope you will.

Dear Mike and other Trump supporters, he's scamming you. That's all he's done his entire life. Half of his former Cabinet, including business leaders, military leaders, and lifelong conservatives want nothing to do with him. You have an opportunity this November to get on the right side of history and do the right thing for the future of America. I hope you will.

History doesn’t have a side.
You’re going to have to do better than this and actually debate issues.

This reality has been pointed out to the righties on the board over and over again. And they never address these issues. They just fall back on lying about the left. Nothing gets through!

Ergo...it sure seems to be a cult. It is extreme and unreasoning partisanship.

Meanwhile, most of DJT's policies and beliefs are not merely disagreeable but reprehensible and un-American--as are his actions, which speak louder than even his words. Donald Trump is a convicted pussy-grabbing sexual abuser, a convicted business fraudster, a serial scammer with a record of fleecing everyday Americans (the shut-down Trump University), stiffing construction workers, and misusing a charitable foundation for personal financial gain (the shut-down Trump Foundation). He slanders disabled veterans, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and Gold Star parents. He undercut a strong immigration reform bill that his own party largely crafted, because he wanted to prolong rather than mitigate the problem while he campaigned.

Most importantly, Trump sat and watched the violence of Jan. 6 unfold on TV for hours and did absolutely nothing to stop it, despite the entreaties of leaders of his party, his VP, and family members. He was patently derelict in his duty to protect the Constitution. He has no conception of truth, honor, loyalty, or integrity. None.

He did and would cut taxes and raise spending to benefit himself and his cronies in the short run even if it would bankrupt the country in the long run, just as he's bankrupted pretty much everything he's laid his hands on. He cares not one whit about you, his family, or anyone other than himself. His goals are to (1) stay out of prison and (2) make as much money as he can from (mis)using the power of the Presidency. That's all he cares about.

Donald Trump is a convicted pussy-grabbing sexual abuser, a convicted business fraudster, a serial scammer...

Errata: "an adjudicated pussy-grabbing sexual abuser..."

Dear Mike and other Trump supporters, he's scamming you. - MisterFungi

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

The chance at border security and actually ejecting the felon immigrants who are already here busily preying on US citizens is more than enough for me to support Trump.

We don't need to repeat the debate on the election year conversion of Biden into a Border Hawk only to have his deeply held convictions thwarted by Trump.

History doesn’t have a side.
You’re going to have to do better than this and actually debate issues - Dope

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

Speaking of debate, Kamala does great reading from a prompter at her rallies, and delivering the standard zingers. But in press conferences and debates where she has to speak off the cuff, it is not so pretty. She has a long and well documented history of word salad.

She shared her insights at the welcoming event for the prisoners being returned to the USA. THIS is what happens when you let Kamala Harris go off script:

“This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy”

Debate? Bring it!

“This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy”

What!!! No mention of sharks with frickin’ lasers on their head and being electrocuted by a battery operated Tesla boat? Wow, easy pickings for Dementia Don.

The chance at border security and actually ejecting the felon immigrants who are already here busily preying on US citizens is more than enough for me to support Trump.


Exactly. The democrats are so awful on every issue and are toxic policy-wise. More than enough reason to vote Trump.

Debate? Bring it!

The goobs have a short memory. Tulsi Gabbard eviscerated her campaign the last time Harris debated anybody.

Debate? Bring it!

Yeah. Too bad he's ducked it.

Also:

THIS is what happens when you let Kamala Harris go off script: “This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy”

Makes perfectly good sense to me. You would seriously put this in competition with DJT's masterpieces of word salad? Wow.

Too bad he's ducked it.

He did not. Why is Harris afraid of Fox?

BHM:"ejecting the felon immigrants who are already here busily preying on US citizens is more than enough for me to support Trump."

So what did you have in mind as 'support' for felon Trump?? Deportation to Russia?

The right wing hypocrisy wrt to the felon Trump with his record of adjudicated rape, financial felonies, and numerous frauds is astounding.

"Why is Harris afraid of Fox? "

Nonsense.

Harris's campaign knows Fox is a blatantly dishonest disreputable lying political entertainment company.

Harris' campaign is not afraid of Fox. They simply won't dignify a cheap hustling pig like Trump in a mud wrestling arena.

The chance at border security and actually ejecting the felon immigrants who are already here busily preying on US citizens is more than enough for me to support Trump.

This would be more convincing if Trump had not sabotaged the bipartisan border bill. He cares about personal glory more than American lives.

He did not. Why is Harris afraid of Fox?

Why is Donnie afraid of ABC? He already agreed to a debate there. Agreed to terms. Agreed to hosts. Agreed to venue. All of a sudden it has to be moved to Fox?

In pre-trial discovery Fox revealed itself to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

The private messages of Fox News Channel hosts that were revealed as part of a filing in Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit against Fox “expose Fox News as a propaganda network,” ….

The leaked emails and texts were revealed Thursday in a court filing by Dominion as part of its billion-dollar defamation suit against Fox News. The messages reveal that inside the network, Fox News hosts, journalists, producers and executives didn’t believe the false claims of election “interference” and voter fraud being made by former President Donald Trump and his allies—even as some of those very same people supported Trump and his claims of a “rigged” election on-air. Those on-air claims are the basis of Dominion’s lawsuit demanding damages from Fox.

The messages “show in excruciating detail” that the highest-ranking executives at Fox News—chairman and CEO of Fox News parent company News Corporation Rupert Murdoch, Fox News chief executive officer Suzanne Scott, as top prime time hosts Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham—“privately knew these election fraud claims from the Trump team were nonsense,” Darcy said Friday morning on CNN This Morning. “They allowed these lies to take hold on the network’s air.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/02/1...

(Forbes leans Right, editorially, so make of it what you will.)

Fox paid Dominion over $750,000,000 to stop the trial before it began, and before more “discovery” could take place. Luckily, SmartMatic, another voting machine company, still has a lawsuit in progress which has not been adjudicated yet, so perhaps we will get to read even more.

Meanwhile, if the already agreed to ABC debate is out, I would appreciate Donnie telling us why. And I wold also be OK with Kamala releasing a statement saying “I will debate Trump any time any place on any network that hasn’t had to pay $750 million to someone for knowingly lying about them.”

This would be more convincing if Trump had not sabotaged the bipartisan border bill. He cares about personal glory more than American lives.

We covered that bill. It was trash, and did zero to secure the border despite what lefties tried to post here.

Trump went on CNN.
This attack is limp.

So why won’t Harris answer *any* questions?

If you’re going to go the “so and so has no balls” route then your candidate has to actually demonstrate some grit.

She hasn’t.

Try again. Without stepping on a rake this time.

We covered that bill. It was trash, and did zero to secure the border despite what lefties tried to post here.

Interesting, given that it was mostly done with Republican support, spearheaded by Republicans and praised by Right Wing media until Donnie decided to kill it, because he needed an issue more than America needed a solution.

Weird.

Senior Senate Republicans are furious that Donald Trump may have killed an emerging bipartisan deal over the southern border, depriving them of a key legislative achievement on a pressing national priority and offering a preview of what’s to come with Trump as their likely presidential nominee.

In recent weeks, Trump has been lobbying Republicans both in private conversations and in public statements on social media to oppose the border compromise being delicately hashed out in the Senate, according to GOP sources familiar with the conversations – in part because he wants to campaign on the issue this November and doesn’t want President Joe Biden to score a victory in an area where he is politically vulnerable.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged in a private meeting on Wednesday that Trump’s animosity toward the yet-to-be-released border deal puts Republicans in a serious bind as they try to move forward on the already complex issue. For weeks, Republicans have been warning that Trump’s opposition could blow up the bipartisan proposal, but the admission from McConnell was particularly striking, given he has been a chief advocate for a border-Ukraine package.

Liberals are upset ---they so wanted to spend billions to keep Mexicans out.

It's cute when Democrat Xenophobes fail and get mad.

Don't worry if Harris wins you can keep some Mexicans out. AND prosecute others.

Glory days....in a Liberal's Heart Glory Days.....

Interesting, given that it was mostly done with Republican support, spearheaded by Republicans and praised by Right Wing media until Donnie decided to kill it, because he needed an issue more than America needed a solution.


And it was endorsed by the Border Patrol.

So it was not the bill that was trash, rather your assessment of it is trash.

Man, you Trumpers cling stubbornly to every Trump lie, no matter the facts.

Liberals are upset ---they so wanted to spend billions to keep Mexicans out.

Since you sound like you’re not an American, you may have missed some of the subtleties of the situation.

Liberals agreed to what the party of Trump wanted on the border, because in exchange they got more funding for the war in Ukraine. This is an example of the concept called compromise.

Republicans used to engage in compromise, but that is now a dirty word in the Party of Trump.

Anyway, the word on the street was that Trump asked his servants to kill it so he could run on border issues. But I personally suspect Trump’s handler in Moscow asked him to intervene to stop money from going to Ukraine, for obvious reasons.

Given the buddy/buddy relationship Don claims to have with Vlad, killing the bill would be a win for both of them.

—Peter

"We covered that bill. It was trash, and did zero to secure the border despite what lefties tried to post here."

How was it worse that the current status quo?

You always avoid that question.

Obviously the bill wasn't perfect. It isn't my ideal, nor yours. It doesn't address DACA, etc. However it undoubtably gave the President better tools to address the floods of refugees than exist right now. That is inarguable by simple logic.

So how was that bill worse than the current status quo?

I know you won't answer because you are incapable of answering. For one, there is no easy answer. By basic logic the bill is better than current status quo. For two, you won't answer because your political masters won't answer. It is clear from your postings that you have very little understanding of how immigration works. Albaby regularly ran circles around you (and you literally learned nothing from it). You just regurgitate what your political masters tell you. It doesn't matter how many people point out that the Border Patrol union wanted the bill. Numerous Republican Senators wanted the bill. Trump needed a campaign issue and put his candidacy ahead of the country and you are following along with him.

Just answer the question. How was that bill worse than the current status quo?

"We covered that bill. It was trash, and did zero to secure the border despite what lefties tried to post here."

Is that why the Border Patrol union endorsed it?

Trump said to kill the bill because he WANTED border troubles so he could run on it as a campaign issue. He had no interest in really solving the problem.

And YOU fell right in line.

It would have certainly improved the problem greatly...but no...

CULT!

How was it worse that the current status quo? - Umm

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

Because Biden would not enforce it but it would present an obstacle to Trump.

Because Biden would not enforce it …

Ah, you know the future.

Would you mind sharing tomorrow’s winning Mega Million numbers? 😁

Would you mind sharing tomorrow’s winning Mega Million numbers? 😁 - AW

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

Sure, I will let you know on Wednesday.

I need some reliable history before making a prediction. In the case of the lottery, we need another day to find out the track record.

In Biden's case, his actual track record is already <imagine me grimacing> available. 😁 back atcha

Because Biden would not enforce it but it would present an obstacle to Trump.

Ahh, I see. Biden would not spend the money to hire the admin staff needed to man the admin hearings on whether the asylees qualified for asylum even though he asked for and pushed for this legislation. Biden would not hire the extra border guards, etc., even though he's mandated too by Congress and would literally sink his chances of the next Presidency. *AND* he would do that because Mike is going to use his "feelings" about what Biden would do because he's got nothing else. Nothing. Mike offers his feelings.

Because Biden would not enforce it but it would present an obstacle to Trump.

how about posting something factual instead of stuff pulled out Trump's fundament

How was it worse that the current status quo?
-----------------
Because Biden would not enforce it."

Your opinion is simply not credible. eom.

Biden's case, his actual track record is already <imagine me grimacing> available.

Biden does not have a track record on a bill that did not pass.

Next.

Interesting, given that it was mostly done with Republican support, spearheaded by Republicans and praised by Right Wing media

No it wasn't.
Sheesh. My memory is beyond excellent on this topic, so stop the lying gaslighting. Mike Johnson took one look at the Senate bill and declared it dead on a Friday, a full 3 days before Trump ever said anything.

The bill was trash.
You people on this board tried to claim how awesome it was, but the board righties showed you what was really in it. Then it died.

In Biden's case, his actual track record is already <imagine me grimacing> available

And his actual track record shows that when Title 42 was reinstated, he administered Title 42 with a corresponding reduction in asylees. Just the opposite of your "feelings".

My memory is beyond excellent on this topic, so stop the lying gaslighting.

Apparently it isn't. The convict condemned the bill (on the 27th of Jan) before the text of the bill was released. Johnson said it was a "non-starter" (before seeing the text) on Jan 31. He then tweeted "DOA" on the 4th of February, same day the text was released.

It's easy enough the check the dates. Required less than 5 minutes.

And you still didn't answer the question of "how is this worse than the status quo?". As the other poster predicted you wouldn't. Simply saying "it's trash" is insufficient because it doesn't answer the "how" part. Of course, you aren't obligated to answer anything. But then it just looks like you're dodging.

My memory is beyond excellent on this topic, so stop the lying gaslighting. Mike Johnson took one look at the Senate bill and declared it dead on a Friday, a full 3 days before Trump ever said anything.

Your memory isn't all that great. Johnson did indeed declare the bill DOA on a Friday, but Trump had been working to kill the bill for weeks before that:

Last week, Trump made his position clear on social media when he wrote, “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions & Millions of people.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4429211-romney...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senato...

But lets not only rely on actual news sources. Here's the best source of all - the Shrewdm.com thread that started on Thursday morning before Johnson's Friday announcment, entitled Trump Tells GOP: No Border Deal! (tongue-in-check - there's a link to the news story with all the Trump tweets in the OP):

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=791575529

"Because Biden would not enforce it but it would present an obstacle to Trump."

Your Biden comment is quite lol given all that Biden has done (get your news from real sources and not nutter sources). But that is besides the point, how would it present an obstacle to Trump?

I know you don't really know what was in the bill, so you won't give a real answer, so I will try to teach the pig to sing......

Right now there are no tools a president can use when the border gets overwhelmed with legal refugees seeking asylum. Legally we have to give them all due process. This means crude efforts at filtering out the ones with legitimate pleas to make versus one's that don't. Unfortunately that all takes time and can be appealed meaning people seeking asylum can be in the U.S. for months before their case is resolved.

The bill included triggers that would shut down the border whenever thresholds were met. This would help blunt the wave whenever the border was overwhelmed. As no one could seek asylum at that point. It also made it easier for the border patrol to pre-screen seekers which would possibly prevent cases from even going to court. It also included money for more resources to process asylum claims which means the process would be shortened and people eventually deemed here illegally could be removed faster.

It would be like a president only has a hammer and a regular screwdriver and has to rebuild a whole car. Congress passes a law that gives the president a whole toolbox filled with dozens of tools. You somehow think this is going to somehow be an obstacle for Trump. You somehow think having more and better tools makes it harder for Trump to defend the border. That is dumb and illogical.

Your ignorance is being taken advantage of. Please do better. Become better educated.

Apparently it isn't.

No, you're wrong. We covered this:

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=222641254&wholeThre...

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=-2&previousPostID=1...

That Saturday was 1/13.
The bill was a bad one, as we discussed here. Here's the kicker: Border state democrats in the House would have voted against it also.

Stop questioning me on this topic.

It's easy enough the check the dates. Required less than 5 minutes. Yes, and you should have started by searching my posts and actually reading them.

And you still didn't answer the question of "how is this worse than the status quo?". As the other poster predicted you wouldn't. Simply saying "it's trash" is insufficient because it doesn't answer the "how" part. Of course, you aren't obligated to answer anything. But then it just looks like you're dodging.

1. I've been asked this fifty times and answered it already. Remember all those threads where libs tried to claim it would lock the border up, only to have it shown to them that the bill actually locked in hundred of thousand of illegals a year, effectively extending the open border policy?

Yeah. Good times.

2. No, I'm not obligated to answer to the latest fact-free drive by shooting on this board. Not now or ever.

3. In all the years we've interacted, have I ever given 2 craps about what people think of me? I'm here to exchange ideas, not win a popularity contest.

Your memory isn't all that great.

See the other post.

And by the way, nice try at the sleight of hand tactics by attempting to use Trump's generalized comments against a specific bill.

>>Because Biden would not enforce it but it would present an obstacle to Trump.<<

how about posting something factual instead of stuff pulled out Trump's fundament - ges

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

Biden has a perfect record for ignoring the border (except to sue states trying to protect their citizens) for three plus years until an election rolled around and much to his surprise, voters really cared about actually securing the border.

The spin that Biden and Mayorkas told us for three years that the border IS secure was not working and so this compromise was offered. Deep down there has been no change to Biden's baseline open border principles so it easy to predict he would not use the bill to secure the border. If anything he would use the funding in the bill to increase intake capacity and provide services to the immigrants and still do nothing to reduce the arrival rate.

Because Biden would not enforce it....

I think this reflects a very optimistic (or naive) view of politicians and political pressures.

I can understand believing that Biden's personal ideology on immigration might lead him towards declining to enforce restrictive measures - maybe. He's a Democrat, and the Democratic party has generally been less inclined to restrictionism of late. Though Biden has always come from the labor/centrist wing of the party, which has generally been less in favor of immigration than other parts of the coalition.

But politicians and parties are never pure. They always respond to political pressures. They'll do things that violate their platform, and which enrage parts of their coalition, if they need to do so in order to win elections.

For example, one would never have pegged California Democrats as being willing to take strict measures to roust the homeless, which are anathema to the "bleeding heart" liberal faction of the party. Yet here we are, with Gavin Newsom and London Breed ripping out encampments and threatening to put homeless folks in jail if they refuse to go to shelters. Clearly that's not what you would expect the archetypical California Democrat to do....but when electoral pressures start to ramp up, needs must.

For a recent example on the GOP side, consider Trump's evisceration of the party platform on cutting back entitlement programs, or candidates' walking back of their maximalist positions on abortion (national ban, rape and incest, 6 weeks vs. later). The "pure" conservative would be against these steps towards the left, but everyone realizes you need to win elections.

Biden had already capitulated on immigration, because it was killing his re-election campaign and weighing down the entire party. The border was a top issue and major pain point for him and Democrats, and they wanted the pain to go away. They were basically begging for these additional powers so that something could be done to mitigate the problem. Democrats were being blasted by the immigration wing of their base....and they didn't care, told them to pound sand, because they needed to fix it.

So it's rather ridiculous to assume that Biden wouldn't use the powers in the bill. They'd already taken the political hit for it. They'd already disappointed/betrayed/infuriated the part of their base that pushes back on immigration controls as inhumane. Having done that, it's kind of crazy to think that they wouldn't cash in so that they could reap the political benefits of what they had paid the cost for.

The spin that Biden and Mayorkas told us for three years that the border IS secure was not working and so this compromise was offered. Deep down there has been no change to Biden's baseline open border principles so it easy to predict he would not use the bill to secure the border. If anything he would use the funding in the bill to increase intake capacity and provide services to the immigrants and still do nothing to reduce the arrival rate.

This. Every leftie poster here has been gaslit so many times they're now out there doing the same thing, even formerly level-headed and reliable ones. It's sad to see.

It's also like Biden's cabinet wasn't running around saying "The border is closed, the border is secure" for years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu4CIeyntV4

Biden had already capitulated on immigration, because it was killing his re-election campaign and weighing down the entire party. The border was a top issue and major pain point for him and Democrats, and they wanted the pain to go away. They were basically begging for these additional powers so that something could be done to mitigate the problem. Democrats were being blasted by the immigration wing of their base....and they didn't care, told them to pound sand, because they needed to fix it.

Sigh.
They needed to look like they were fixing it.

And by the way, nice try at the sleight of hand tactics by attempting to use Trump's generalized comments against a specific bill.

It's not sleight of hand. Trump was working to kill the specific bill being considered in the Senate. He had been calling House members and Senators for weeks before it publicly died the weekend of the 27th. He wasn't a passive bystander, staying out of the discussion until he saw the specifics of the measure that came out of the process - he was trying to kill the negotiations from nearly the outset, as the GOP Senators outlined in their comments. Johnson didn't take the lead in deciding whether to kill the Senate bill - and there's no reason why he would have, given Trump's role in the party.

They needed to look like they were fixing it.

No, they needed to look like things were getting better.

It's the same dynamic as California and the homeless. Democrats there don't need to look like they're fixing the homeless problem in order to solve their political problems - they need to clear encampments.

Democrats didn't need to look like they were fixing the border. They needed to get the numbers down. Which is why they threw away all their usual demands in immigration negotiations (like DREAMERS) in order to get some legislation that could get the numbers down. It's ridiculous to think that having paid the political price from an infuriated base to get those tools to get the numbers down, they wouldn't use them - and continue into the next few election cycles with the numbers super high.

LOL Are we still on this?

To reiterate, this isn't about what was in the bill.

Immigration is Trump’s signature issue, dating back to his first presidential campaign news conference on June 16, 2015. Build A wall...Blah, blah...
It's literally all he has...

Trump was the first president in 28 years to lose re-election.
He lost the popular vote twice.
He lost more U.S. jobs than any president in history.
He cannot lose his signature issue also.
What would he run on? His history of failed businesses? His Rapes? Felonies? Lies? Draft-dodging? Stealing from children with cancer? Americans dead because of Jan. 6TH?
Stealing Top Secret Documents? Adding $8 TRILLION to the national debt?

For the last time...(maybe some of these MAGA's are thick)...

Sen. Mitt Romney said it best...
"The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump, and the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that
he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Joe Biden for it is really appalling."

Trump was working to kill the specific bill being considered in the Senate. He had been calling House members and Senators for weeks before it publicly died the weekend of the 27th. He wasn't a passive bystander, staying out of the discussion until he saw the specifics of the measure that came out of the process - he was trying to kill the negotiations from nearly the outset, as the GOP Senators outlined in their comments. Johnson didn't take the lead in deciding whether to kill the Senate bill - and there's no reason why he would have, given Trump's role in the party.

Trump has been saying for years "No deal without the wall". The Oklahoma guy and the democrats were swearing up and down (backed up by this board) that this bill was The Best Deal Republicans Would Ever Ever Get And Sign It Now without releasing anything.

Johnson looked at the bill on a Friday, told his caucus it was a pile of shit over the weekend, and that was that. Trump didn't weigh in until later, around Monday. By then the bill was DOA.

It's merely a semantics game to pretend otherwise.

BTW
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/04/nx-s1-4991917/biden...
President Joe Biden on Tuesday issued an executive order to temporarily suspend the processing of most asylum claims at the southern U.S. border when the seven-day average of unauthorized crossings exceeds 2,500.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2024/06/04/fact-sheet-pre...
Today, the Biden-Harris Administration took decisive new action to strengthen border security, announcing a series of measures that restrict asylum eligibility, and significantly increase the consequences for those who enter without authorization across the southern border. These extraordinary steps, which will be in effect during times when high levels of encounters exceed our ability to deliver timely consequences, will make noncitizens who enter across the southern border ineligible for asylum with certain exceptions, raise the standard that is used to screen for certain protection claims, and speed up our ability to quickly remove those who do not qualify for protection.

No rational observer of the southern border believes a word of this; it's merely boilerplate.

Double BTW. I've noticed an increased level of snark lately. If that's how you want things to be that's a choice you can make.

It's ridiculous to think that having paid the political price from an infuriated base to get those tools to get the numbers down, they wouldn't use them - and continue into the next few election cycles with the numbers super high.

LOL. What political price?
Are these infuriated base people suddenly going to vote for Trump in the fall? Yeah...not happening.

Johnson looked at the bill on a Friday, told his caucus it was a pile of shit over the weekend, and that was that. Trump didn't weigh in until later, around Monday.

Again, that's just false. Trump had been weighing in against the bill for weeks before then.

Do you genuinely believe that the nature of political power within the Republican party is that Johnson would have made this decision on behalf of the party, and not Trump? That Johnson killed the bill without first checking with Trump, that he didn't know Trump's position on the bill before making that call, that he would risk killing the bill without knowing in advance that Trump had already communicated directly to the Senators (and I have no doubt Johnson himself) his position on the bill?

Just crazy to think that. Trump had been working against this specific bill for weeks. He "weighed in" long before Monday. It's false to say he didn't "weigh in" until then.

LOL. What political price?
Are these infuriated base people suddenly going to vote for Trump in the fall? Yeah...not happening.

Some might. Some might have voted for Trump, even though he's worse on the issue than Biden from their eyes ("Hi, Uncommitted voters in MI who want to cut off their nose to spite their face!"). Still others would vote for a third party like Cornel West. And among the rest, there weren't any that would have started voting for Trump in the fall if Biden had used the powers in the bill, either - once the bill had passed, Biden would have had a free hand to gain votes from independents and centrists having already lost all of the progressive votes he was going to lose. In what world would he pass that up?

It's the same reason why Obama was "Deporter-in-chief" to his base during his administration. He was just better than Biden in recognizing earlier that it was an electoral liability to be perceived as out of center on immigration, and that the smart play was to keep the numbers manageable. Biden was slow to learn that lesson, but he had clearly learned it by early 2024.

>>Biden's case, his actual track record is already <imagine me grimacing> available. <<

Biden does not have a track record on a bill that did not pass.

Next. - sano

--------

You guys are masters at steering a question away from the uncomfortable answer the actual question demands.

You know damn well the track record being evaluated is his first three years during which Bidens primary accomplishment was to unwind everything Trump did and then lets the migrants roll in denying there any problem at all. That is the actual record. Rather than defend those three years of neglect, you state the obvious that there is no record for a bill that was not passed. Hard to disagree with you on that.

Now, about Biden's first three years? Just look at the chart that saved Trump's life to see the spike. ( giving you a new reason to dispute there is any proble at all). OK, skip the chart and talk to any number of big city mayors cutting services to real citizens to provide services to a growing population of illegal immigrants. Yes, I used the word.

You know damn well the track record being evaluated is his first three years during which Bidens primary accomplishment was to unwind everything Trump did and then lets the migrants roll in denying there any problem at all.

Huh. Let's check that.

In 2020, the last year of Trump's Presidency, expulsions under Title 42 (which was the main mechanism of "everything Trump did") totaled 400K. (Remember, the FY runs Oct to Sept).

In 2021, the first year of Biden's Presidency, expulsions under Title 42 totaled 600K.

In 2022, total expulsions under Title 42 were 1,054K.

Sure doesn't seem like he spent the first three years unwinding everything Trump did. It actually looks like he kept in place the main element of Trump's border policy, which were the Covid-based Title 42 expulsions.
Indeed, Title 42 expulsions were continuing on that million-per-year pace until April of 2023. At which point the end of the Covid epidemic, as well as some SCOTUS decisions, made it completely untenable to argue that those expulsions were based on Covid protections any further.

Weird. It doesn't look like Biden "unwound" Trump's policies during his first three years in office. You could certainly argue that he didn't respond to the massive increase in numbers of people trying to get here, but not that he stopped using the tools we had in place.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement...
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement...
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement...
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement...

I agree with you. It wasn't just about appearances, they had to use those tools to have an effect to have any chance of improving their political situation. However, it is unfair not to note the Ukrainian aid bit. With that off the table, there likely wouldn't have been a much tougher fight with more of their base. As it stands, I doubt that bill could pass today because Ukrainian aid is already a done-deal.

Sen. Mitt Romney said it best...
"The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump, and the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that
he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Joe Biden for it is really appalling."

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

Solve??? That Romney thinks that bill would have solved the problem means that 1) he doesn't understand the problem and 2) provides another squishy example of why Mitt has fallen into disfavor with conservatives.

Again, that's just false.

I'm talking about this specific bill.

Do you genuinely believe that the nature of political power within the Republican party is that Johnson would have made this decision on behalf of the party, and not Trump?

I think Johnson is perfectly capable of looking at a bill on its own merits and saying, "Yup, this sucks, my caucus won't go for it and likely a bunch of border state democrats won't either, so I'll go ahead and declare it DOA" all on his own as was the case here.

This notion of "Trump controls the Republican party and makes all the decisions for them" is a made-up trope. That bill stank and Johnson rightly said so.

Some might. Some might have voted for Trump

There's a 0.00000% chance and progressive immigration activist ever votes for Trump. That's an empty threat if there ever was one.

It's the same reason why Obama was "Deporter-in-chief" to his base during his administration.

Obama was no such thing. His DHS fudged the numbers to make it look like he was doing something so as to avoid any popular backlash. Any performative complaints from the proggie base were just that - performative.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deporta...

WASHINGTON — Immigration activists have sharply criticized President Obama for a rising volume of deportations, labeling him the “deporter in chief” and staging large protests that have harmed his standing with some Latinos, a key group of voters for Democrats.
But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.
Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

Even the LA Times called BS on it.

You know damn well the track record being evaluated is his first three years during which Bidens primary accomplishment was to unwind everything Trump did and then lets the migrants roll in denying there any problem at all. That is the actual record. Rather than defend those three years of neglect, you state the obvious that there is no record for a bill that was not passed. Hard to disagree with you on that.


They own this, but being the debate weenies they are, they won't own up to it.

I'm talking about this specific bill.

Yeah. Trump was trying to kill that specific bill for weeks. Not just the idea of a border bill - the specific bill that was being negotiated between Republicans and Democrats. He was communicating directly with Senators to get them to stop negotiating, as well as having his proxies and allies send the same message through every channel.

I think Johnson is perfectly capable of looking at a bill on its own merits and saying, "Yup, this sucks, my caucus won't go for it and likely a bunch of border state democrats won't either, so I'll go ahead and declare it DOA" all on his own as was the case here.

It's exceptionally unlikely that he would do the second part. Of course he can look at a bill and figure out whether his caucus will support it or not. But no Speaker is going to get out in front of a major bill like that without first figuring out where Trump is at on the bill.

By the time Johnson made his public statements, Trump had already decided he wanted the bill killed - and let everyone know that. Johnson would not have made those statements about the bill if Trump had wanted it passed - given his tentative elevation to Speaker at that time, he would not have gotten into a direct fight with Trump over policy.

There's a 0.00000% chance and progressive immigration activist ever votes for Trump. That's an empty threat if there ever was one.

And yet you continually argue that Biden (and now Harris) might lose votes if they take the wrong policy on Israel and Palestine. To the point where you've arguing that Harris risks losing votes just for picking the wrong VP.

No, there's always some activists who manage to argue themselves into believing that there's "no difference" between the two "corporate" nominees of the two parties. Palestinian activists decide Biden is "Genocide Joe" for complicity on Gaza...and immigration activists decide that Biden is "Deporter Joe" for agreeing to the most stringent immigration bill in two generations. They both decide there's no difference between Trump and Biden on that issue, so they decide to "send a message."

Obama was no such thing. His DHS fudged the numbers to make it look like he was doing something so as to avoid any popular backlash.

No, they didn't. Obama vastly increased the numbers of deportations at the border. The exact same thing that conservatives are screaming about right now - deporting people at the border, not letting them into the country, not letting them wait for hearings. He did do a ton of stuff that immigration activists hated, because he knew he had to keep the numbers under control. The fact that he wasn't going after the specific subset of people who'd been here for years and years doesn't mean he wasn't deporting a ton of people - any more than the fact that Trump didn't try to deport DACA folks doesn't mean that he wasn't deporting people either.

It's exceptionally unlikely that he would do the second part.

We can agree to disagree. That border bill was horrid. I knew it, every House Republican knew it. Only the media and those wanting to make a fast deal or maybe make Biden look better were trying to convince themselves otherwise.

And yet you continually argue that Biden (and now Harris) might lose votes if they take the wrong policy on Israel and Palestine. To the point where you've arguing that Harris risks losing votes just for picking the wrong VP.

You misunderstand. Harris picking a pro-Israeli IDF veteran VP might cause some folks in Dearborn or Hamtramck to stay home. They're not voting for Trump. Why would they? He's even more pro-Israel than Shapiro is.

No, they didn't. Obama vastly increased the numbers of deportations at the border.

Obama gamed the system to make himself look tough on deportations; in reality he was no such thing.

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/how-obama-administ...

Removal numbers have traditionally consisted of legal immigrants who have committed crimes, those who overstay visas, or illegal aliens caught inside the country.The immigration statistics yearbook states that removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal.An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.In the past, removal numbers did not include “returns,” who are Mexican nationals caught illegally crossing the border by the Border Patrol and returned.According to the yearbook, returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal.Most of the voluntary returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.The Obama administration has started counting certain “returns” as “removals” in order to artificially inflate the numbers and create a “record level” of deportations.

Politifact and other spin sites tried to sugar coat this, but that's what they do. They cited "experts" who claimed Nothing To See Here then rated every claim False.


But in reality, Obama played a shell game.

https://cis.org/Report/Deportation-Numbers-Unwrapp...
In 2012, the year the Obama administration claimed to break enforcement records, more than one-half of removals attributed to ICE were the result of Border Patrol arrests that would never have been counted as a removal in prior years. In 2008, under the Bush administration, only one-third of removals were from Border Patrol arrests.
Total deportations in 2011, the latest year for which complete numbers are available, numbered 715,495 – the lowest level since 1973. The highest number of deportations on record was in 2000, under the Clinton administration, when 1,864,343 aliens were deported.

...
He did do a ton of stuff that immigration activists hated, because he knew he had to keep the numbers under control.

Barack Obama was a savvy operator and knew the media would report things that made him look good with normies. Under the surface it was all nonsense.

That border bill was horrid. I knew it, every House Republican knew it.

Huh. I guess these House Republicans didn’t get the memo.

GOP senators seethe as Trump blows up delicate immigration compromise
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senato...

'Immoral': Some Republicans rebuke efforts to kill immigration deal to help Trump
The fight over an emerging border and foreign aid bill grew tense Thursday as the GOP split over whether to sink the deal to boost Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-...

Fox News Anchor Reminds GOP Senator That Trump Killed His Border Deal
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-sen-acknowledges...

Haley condemns Trump for efforts to kill border bill; Trump vows to fight bill ‘all the way’
Trump’s comments drew condemnation from his main opponent in the Republican presidential primary, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the last thing he needs to do is tell them to wait to pass a border deal until the election.”

“My message to Republicans is: Do not leave D.C. until you finish the job. We have waited for so long for Congress to do something about the border,” Haley said, later adding: “We can't wait one more day” for a border bill.

Other Republicans have decired efforts to kill the immigration bill, including Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, who called efforts to kill the bill "appalling," and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who called it "immoral" to not address the border.
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/01/29/t...

You misunderstand. Harris picking a pro-Israeli IDF veteran VP might cause some folks in Dearborn or Hamtramck to stay home. They're not voting for Trump. Why would they? He's even more pro-Israel than Shapiro is.

Some have claimed they're going to - that there's no difference between Biden and Trump on Israel ("Genocide Joe" and all that), so it doesn't matter which one is President next term. So switching to Trump costs them nothing, but sends a powerful message. They think. I personally think they're foolish for thinking that, but that's what they think.

But staying home (or voting for West or Stein or Kennedy) is still damaging. Biden backing the border bill would have lost him the immigrant advocate vote in the same way - even if they didn't switch to Trump, they also might have stayed home or voted third party. So if you lose the advocate vote simply by passing the bill, it makes zero sense to not try to pick up the centrist votes by exercising the powers and getting the numbers down.

I said
every House Republican knew it.

You jumped into The Hooptie with your Mac-10 and posted
GOP senators - miss

Your second link is full of Mitt Romney and more senators - miss

Fox News Anchor Reminds GOP Senator - miss

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis - miss

So none of the bullets you fired during your drive-by managed to land anywhere near the target.

LOL, Goofster.
But you did it knowing that morons here would still high-five you for it, because Dumb Gonna Dumb.

Some have claimed they're going to - that there's no difference between Biden and Trump on Israel ("Genocide Joe" and all that), so it doesn't matter which one is President next term. So switching to Trump costs them nothing, but sends a powerful message.

They're not switching to Trump.

Trump had been working against this specific bill for weeks. He "weighed in" long before Monday. It's false to say he didn't "weigh in" until then.

He (Romney) was complaining about that (the soon-to-be convict's rhetoric against the bill) on or before Jan 25th, based on the date of this byline. I didn't need to go further back since this already blows up Dope's timeline.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senato...

Johnson didn't say it was a "non-starter" until the 31st (at least that's the earliest reference I can find), and the text of the bill wasn't actually available outside the bipartisan committee drafting it until Feb 4th. So neither the convict nor Johnson knew what was in it before the 4th.

The bill failed in the Senate on Feb 7th. Note that some Dems opposed it (as you say, the base didn't like it), and almost all of the Reps (mostly because of Johnson had said it wouldn't come to the floor, so the Rep senators didn't want to be on record supporting it).

Dope's memory is distorted. Which all us humans do**. That's why archival news stories are so useful. You can check the timeline based on when news articles were published. Like I did this morning for this discussion.

I missed the bit about the convict campaigning for months against it. Didn't know that. But the news article dates clearly show Johnson's refusal comes after the convict's comments by a few days (at least). So you pwned him. :-)




**Saw a fascinating program about it on NOVA recently.

Johnson didn't say it was a "non-starter" until the 31st
No. It was earlier than that.
I've posted the link 3 times.

every House Republican knew it.

Apparently you’re having trouble with the word “every”. That’s why I put it in bold, so you would be sure to see it, but I guess you don’t understand it .

Mitt Romney - miss

Mitt Romney is a Republican.

North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis - miss

Thom Tillis is a Republican.

and more

Cramer from North Dakota is a Republican.

But hey, if you want to give them up and make them Democrats it’s OK with me. Heck, I didn’t include Sinema or Manchin, who were also aghast, and they’re barely Democrats either.

Yeah, you're wrong about point 1. That's not what the bill would have done. It gave POTUS the power to shut it down (whether or not that would pass muster in the courts is another matter). And no one knew any of the details because it was still in the bipartisan committee behind closed doors. Anything prior to Feb 4th was just speculation.

Also, I'm not on Xitter or whatever platform the convict is using, so it took a bit more searching. But I found a posting from the convict that is the same date that Johnson said he was not supportive (though he said it in such a way that he could have gone back on it later and not seemed inconsistent). Perhaps someone with access to that platform can look at the convict's posting history for older postings. That can be used to augment the actual timeline.

It seems very clear that Johnson was responding to the convict's wishes, even stating that such a bill could only pass with a Republican POTUS in the White House (so it wasn't the merit of the bill, but who was going to be occupying the Oval Office).

The more I search, the worse it appears for Johnson and the convict. They had no idea what was in the bill, but were going to kill it anyway (at least two weeks before the text was available).

Albaby pwned you. Which is why a bit of humility is helpful sometimes. He is a font of political information.

Technically, Sinema is an independent. Though she was voted-in as a Dem, she left the party 2 years ago.

I agreed with BHM (several months ago) when he said it was a shame it didn't make it to the floor for a debate. Let it be aired-out, and exposed for all to see. Then it passes or it doesn't. Instead of one guy saying he wouldn't even put it up for debate before he even knew what was in it.

Obama was no such thing. His DHS fudged the numbers to make it look like he was doing something so as to avoid any popular backlash.

I see you take your cue from Trump and just make shit up. You don't even pretend to try to offer factual arguments.

Obama was no such thing. His DHS fudged the numbers to make it look like he was doing something so as to avoid any popular backlash.

Your rants are getting more and more ridiculous and unhinged.

Apparently you’re having trouble with the word “every”. That’s why I put it in bold, so you would be sure to see it, but I guess you don’t understand it

I said every House Republican. <--- Here, it's in bold for you.

You understand we have two chambers in Congress, right? One called "The Senate" and another called "The House of Representatives" or "The House" for short?

Maybe not.

But then again...your real purpose isn't to actually be correct, it's to engage in the dogpile. Have fun!

It gave POTUS the power to shut it down ( Only after locking in massive levels of illegals.

Anything prior to Feb 4th was just speculation. No. I've posted the links multiple times. It was known in January that the bill was a non-starter in the House.

Albaby pwned you.

Nope. You're not reading what people show you anymore. I think we're done.

Because Biden would not enforce it but it would present an obstacle to Trump.

That is quite a clever argument. Not true, but hats off for thinking on your feet.

Forget that you don't know what Biden would have done. Let's concur, nothing.

Do you think the Border Patrol, full of Trump's fans; and Republican senators, Trump's female dogs; wanted to present an obstacle to their Messiah? That makes no sense.

Hard to disagree with you on that.

Goood enough.

Everything else in that post was equivocation.

Next.

Goood enough.

Everything else in that post was equivocation.

Next. - sano

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

Providing yet another example of my earlier assertion, which was:

"You guys are masters at steering a question away from the uncomfortable answer the actual question demands.

She is.

For sure.

Providing yet another example of my earlier assertion, which was:

"You guys are masters at steering a question away from the uncomfortable answer the actual question demands.

Questions demand answers? You are in a cult.

Solve??? That Romney thinks that bill would have solved the problem means that 1) he doesn't understand the problem and 2) provides another squishy example of why Mitt has fallen into disfavor with conservatives.

I think you know dammed well what he means.

Solve??? That Romney thinks that bill would have solved the problem means that 1) he doesn't understand the problem and 2) provides another squishy example of why Mitt has fallen into disfavor with conservatives.


No. Mitt hasn't fallen into disfavor with conservatives, he's fallen into disfavor with the pscyho MAGA party that has very little to do with the traditional Republican Party. Mitt is on the right sight of history.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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