Who is supporting the immigrant caravan?

[Farfromgeneva]

I'm not as smart as all of you folks on this forum. I have come to this determination. Is the problem the foul up at the southern border? Is the problem that Joe Biden can't find it in his compassionate heart to pick up the tab for all of these new "asylum seekers" The easy solution is to let the states pick up the tab. Then in true fashion as in chit rolling downhill the tab transfers to cities and counties. The last stop on the chit rolling train is John and Betty taxpayer. Poor John and Betty are still trying to regroup to understand why their 100 dollar grocery bill is now 150 dollars a week.

Congress appropriates the money, not the POTUS. They haven't done so...expect to see that be part of the negotiation on border funding that both sides in Congress appear to want to address. This is likely to be attached to Ukraine funding and they'll get it across.

One of the things that Biden did do that was requested by people like Adams in NY, but slowly, was to shorten the time span before some asylum seekers could begin working legally...earning income gets them off the state dole and self-sufficient.

Bologna, Biden signed an EO canceling student loan debt. That was not money appropriated by Congress. Are you now growing more selective about what positions you misrepresent? If Joe Biden wanted money for these asylum seeking folks he could do so with the stroke of his pen on an EO. Why hasn't he done so is a fact that has plumb evaded you. His peeps are screaming for federal tax payer money. This is after all a problem that Joe dumped right in their laps.

Do you really need to have this explained to you???

You don't understand the difference between cancelling a debt and shelling out new money that's not been appropriated?

Or are you just trolling?

BTW, Joe's action on debt was reversed by SCOTUS...I think wrongly but there was a reasonable argument about why he didn't have that authority.

If I ever need an education I know I will never it get from a person like you. When you have nothing intelligent to say you resort back to your sorry ass pathetic trolling playbook. Time for you to go for a bike ride old sod. FYI old sod the SCOTUS reversed it because it was unconstitutional. That doesn't stop Biden or any POTUS from issuing an EO trying to bypass Congress when it comes to spending money. Remember when trump wanted to do so to build his wall??
Sadly you and Joe seem to be suffering from early onset dementia or in your case CRS. FTR do you remember how many times I have already informed you I don't pay attention to any media sources outside of my local news and sometimes NBC morning news? I do like Al Roker and his weather reports. The most conservative info I pay attention to is OS, YA and Tech when he posts on here. For some strange reason the other conservative voices on this forum have disappeared for very obvious reasons. I wonder why that is?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JIuYQ_4TcXg

[Farfromgeneva]

I'm not as smart as all of you folks on this forum. I have come to this determination. Is the problem the foul up at the southern border? Is the problem that Joe Biden can't find it in his compassionate heart to pick up the tab for all of these new "asylum seekers" The easy solution is to let the states pick up the tab. Then in true fashion as in chit rolling downhill the tab transfers to cities and counties. The last stop on the chit rolling train is John and Betty taxpayer. Poor John and Betty are still trying to regroup to understand why their 100 dollar grocery bill is now 150 dollars a week.

Congress appropriates the money, not the POTUS. They haven't done so...expect to see that be part of the negotiation on border funding that both sides in Congress appear to want to address. This is likely to be attached to Ukraine funding and they'll get it across.

One of the things that Biden did do that was requested by people like Adams in NY, but slowly, was to shorten the time span before some asylum seekers could begin working legally...earning income gets them off the state dole and self-sufficient.

Bologna, Biden signed an EO canceling student loan debt. That was not money appropriated by Congress. Are you now growing more selective about what positions you misrepresent? If Joe Biden wanted money for these asylum seeking folks he could do so with the stroke of his pen on an EO. Why hasn't he done so is a fact that has plumb evaded you. His peeps are screaming for federal tax payer money. This is after all a problem that Joe dumped right in their laps.

Do you really need to have this explained to you???

You don't understand the difference between cancelling a debt and shelling out new money that's not been appropriated?

Or are you just trolling?

BTW, Joe's action on debt was reversed by SCOTUS...I think wrongly but there was a reasonable argument about why he didn't have that authority.

If I ever need an education I know I will never it get from a person like you. When you have nothing intelligent to say you resort back to your sorry ass pathetic trolling playbook. Time for you to go for a bike ride old sod. FYI old sod the SCOTUS reversed it because it was unconstitutional. That doesn't stop Biden or any POTUS from issuing an EO trying to bypass Congress when it comes to spending money. Remember when trump wanted to do so to build his wall??
Sadly you and Joe seem to be suffering from early onset dementia or in your case CRS. FTR do you remember how many times I have already informed you I don't pay attention to any media sources outside of my local news and sometimes NBC morning news. I do like Al Roker and his weather reports.

You obviously don't have a clue and don't want to learn.
Congress has to authorize funding, though Presidents can decide whether to release what is authorized or not.
When that authorization is stated broadly enough by Congress as available in a contingency, the Executive can purpose those funds within that authorization but they can't just raid funds to do something quite different.

But Presidents can't just decide on their own, whether by EO or any other way, to spend money not authorized by Congress.

Sometimes they try to do so, but it's generally blocked legally when they do.

If you cancel an warning asset but still have the liability you’ve effectively spent funds that weren’t authorized or allocated.

It’s just semantics. Like when Bernanke BSd folks about operation Twist not being an increase in the balance sheet but that’s in fact wrong because if you don’t let fixed income assets (w govt credit risk) roll down the curve and pay off hut rather reinvest you’re extending the duration of the balance sheet and therefore increasing its size over time.

All these games with language but the essence of these things and their impact are what matters.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not as smart as all of you folks on this forum. I have come to this determination. Is the problem the foul up at the southern border? Is the problem that Joe Biden can't find it in his compassionate heart to pick up the tab for all of these new "asylum seekers" The easy solution is to let the states pick up the tab. Then in true fashion as in chit rolling downhill the tab transfers to cities and counties. The last stop on the chit rolling train is John and Betty taxpayer. Poor John and Betty are still trying to regroup to understand why their 100 dollar grocery bill is now 150 dollars a week.

Congress appropriates the money, not the POTUS. They haven't done so...expect to see that be part of the negotiation on border funding that both sides in Congress appear to want to address. This is likely to be attached to Ukraine funding and they'll get it across.

One of the things that Biden did do that was requested by people like Adams in NY, but slowly, was to shorten the time span before some asylum seekers could begin working legally...earning income gets them off the state dole and self-sufficient.

Bologna, Biden signed an EO canceling student loan debt. That was not money appropriated by Congress. Are you now growing more selective about what positions you misrepresent? If Joe Biden wanted money for these asylum seeking folks he could do so with the stroke of his pen on an EO. Why hasn't he done so is a fact that has plumb evaded you. His peeps are screaming for federal tax payer money. This is after all a problem that Joe dumped right in their laps.

Do you really need to have this explained to you???

You don't understand the difference between cancelling a debt and shelling out new money that's not been appropriated?

Or are you just trolling?

BTW, Joe's action on debt was reversed by SCOTUS...I think wrongly but there was a reasonable argument about why he didn't have that authority.

Well…we know he can’t articulate it, but I could make the case they are effectively the same, distinction without a difference, and he did cancel a portion successfully after the SCOTUS decision (which I am of course fine with, this was never the right move for Biden to make anyways).

So yes he’s trolling because he can’t make the case successfully. But he did trip across something that’s actually true at the core. Like a blind squirrel eventually finding that elusive nut (then hug it all winter like one is turning coal intro diamonds)

I could make the case as to the 'distinction without a difference' as well, but a POTUS definitely can't spend dollars not appropriated. SCOTUS says can't dissolve debts either...in any case, cradle's claim that it would be easy for Joe to just send money not appropriated is flat wrong.

[Farfromgeneva]

I'm not as smart as all of you folks on this forum. I have come to this determination. Is the problem the foul up at the southern border? Is the problem that Joe Biden can't find it in his compassionate heart to pick up the tab for all of these new "asylum seekers" The easy solution is to let the states pick up the tab. Then in true fashion as in chit rolling downhill the tab transfers to cities and counties. The last stop on the chit rolling train is John and Betty taxpayer. Poor John and Betty are still trying to regroup to understand why their 100 dollar grocery bill is now 150 dollars a week.

Congress appropriates the money, not the POTUS. They haven't done so...expect to see that be part of the negotiation on border funding that both sides in Congress appear to want to address. This is likely to be attached to Ukraine funding and they'll get it across.

One of the things that Biden did do that was requested by people like Adams in NY, but slowly, was to shorten the time span before some asylum seekers could begin working legally...earning income gets them off the state dole and self-sufficient.

Bologna, Biden signed an EO canceling student loan debt. That was not money appropriated by Congress. Are you now growing more selective about what positions you misrepresent? If Joe Biden wanted money for these asylum seeking folks he could do so with the stroke of his pen on an EO. Why hasn't he done so is a fact that has plumb evaded you. His peeps are screaming for federal tax payer money. This is after all a problem that Joe dumped right in their laps.

Do you really need to have this explained to you???

You don't understand the difference between cancelling a debt and shelling out new money that's not been appropriated?

Or are you just trolling?

BTW, Joe's action on debt was reversed by SCOTUS...I think wrongly but there was a reasonable argument about why he didn't have that authority.

Well…we know he can’t articulate it, but I could make the case they are effectively the same, distinction without a difference, and he did cancel a portion successfully after the SCOTUS decision (which I am of course fine with, this was never the right move for Biden to make anyways).

So yes he’s trolling because he can’t make the case successfully. But he did trip across something that’s actually true at the core. Like a blind squirrel eventually finding that elusive nut (then hug it all winter like one is turning coal intro diamonds)

I could make the case as to the 'distinction without a difference' as well, but a POTUS definitely can't spend dollars not appropriated. SCOTUS says can't dissolve debts either...in any case, cradle's claim that it would be easy for Joe to just send money not appropriated is flat wrong.

Well yes on cradle but we’re having an educated adult conversation here. You keep banging that head against these walls, better than me, I’ve given up hope free will will change the direction for some.

But I don’t like EOs because of this semantics game. Cancelling debt sounds cool but it’s actually writing off an asset, a loan receivable, which was funded by borrowing (money is fungible but the marginal buyer of US debt for 30yrs has been China, then OPEC nations). It’s a giveaway and it’s being done by one singular person without any discussion of tradeoff a or cost benefit analysis or, most importantly cost controls and accountability in higher ed which even the Economist has pointed out numerous times in the last 5-10yrs has grossly outpaced inflation specifically because we shifted from state and federal funding to student/customer borrowing to pay for it with subsidized money. This created numerous layers, frictions and rent seeking opportunities and no oversight or controls. NelNet/SallieMae is better off being servicer rather than balance sheet anyways so they don’t mind the DOE change in 2010. Just doing something, writing it off, and doing it again without changing anything just creates insolvency over time.

But they refuse to explain it for what it is ever honestly.

[cradleandshoot]

I'm not as smart as all of you folks on this forum. I have come to this determination. Is the problem the foul up at the southern border? Is the problem that Joe Biden can't find it in his compassionate heart to pick up the tab for all of these new "asylum seekers" The easy solution is to let the states pick up the tab. Then in true fashion as in chit rolling downhill the tab transfers to cities and counties. The last stop on the chit rolling train is John and Betty taxpayer. Poor John and Betty are still trying to regroup to understand why their 100 dollar grocery bill is now 150 dollars a week.

Congress appropriates the money, not the POTUS. They haven't done so...expect to see that be part of the negotiation on border funding that both sides in Congress appear to want to address. This is likely to be attached to Ukraine funding and they'll get it across.

One of the things that Biden did do that was requested by people like Adams in NY, but slowly, was to shorten the time span before some asylum seekers could begin working legally...earning income gets them off the state dole and self-sufficient.

Bologna, Biden signed an EO canceling student loan debt. That was not money appropriated by Congress. Are you now growing more selective about what positions you misrepresent? If Joe Biden wanted money for these asylum seeking folks he could do so with the stroke of his pen on an EO. Why hasn't he done so is a fact that has plumb evaded you. His peeps are screaming for federal tax payer money. This is after all a problem that Joe dumped right in their laps.

Do you really need to have this explained to you???

You don't understand the difference between cancelling a debt and shelling out new money that's not been appropriated?

Or are you just trolling?

BTW, Joe's action on debt was reversed by SCOTUS...I think wrongly but there was a reasonable argument about why he didn't have that authority.

Well…we know he can’t articulate it, but I could make the case they are effectively the same, distinction without a difference, and he did cancel a portion successfully after the SCOTUS decision (which I am of course fine with, this was never the right move for Biden to make anyways).

So yes he’s trolling because he can’t make the case successfully. But he did trip across something that’s actually true at the core. Like a blind squirrel eventually finding that elusive nut (then hug it all winter like one is turning coal intro diamonds)

I could make the case as to the 'distinction without a difference' as well, but a POTUS definitely can't spend dollars not appropriated. SCOTUS says can't dissolve debts either...in any case, cradle's claim that it would be easy for Joe to just send money not appropriated is flat wrong.

I never said he could legally spend it. I said he could sign an EO TRYING to spend the money. Any POTUS can sign an EO authorizing pretty much anything they want. That is the kind of stuff that keeps the SCOTUS very busy. It would be fair to ask why any POTUS would sign an EO they clearly were advised may be unconstitutional. If you can pull it off why not give it whirl?

[cradleandshoot]

I'm not as smart as all of you folks on this forum. I have come to this determination. Is the problem the foul up at the southern border? Is the problem that Joe Biden can't find it in his compassionate heart to pick up the tab for all of these new "asylum seekers" The easy solution is to let the states pick up the tab. Then in true fashion as in chit rolling downhill the tab transfers to cities and counties. The last stop on the chit rolling train is John and Betty taxpayer. Poor John and Betty are still trying to regroup to understand why their 100 dollar grocery bill is now 150 dollars a week.

Congress appropriates the money, not the POTUS. They haven't done so...expect to see that be part of the negotiation on border funding that both sides in Congress appear to want to address. This is likely to be attached to Ukraine funding and they'll get it across.

One of the things that Biden did do that was requested by people like Adams in NY, but slowly, was to shorten the time span before some asylum seekers could begin working legally...earning income gets them off the state dole and self-sufficient.

Bologna, Biden signed an EO canceling student loan debt. That was not money appropriated by Congress. Are you now growing more selective about what positions you misrepresent? If Joe Biden wanted money for these asylum seeking folks he could do so with the stroke of his pen on an EO. Why hasn't he done so is a fact that has plumb evaded you. His peeps are screaming for federal tax payer money. This is after all a problem that Joe dumped right in their laps.

Do you really need to have this explained to you???

You don't understand the difference between cancelling a debt and shelling out new money that's not been appropriated?

Or are you just trolling?

BTW, Joe's action on debt was reversed by SCOTUS...I think wrongly but there was a reasonable argument about why he didn't have that authority.

Well…we know he can’t articulate it, but I could make the case they are effectively the same, distinction without a difference, and he did cancel a portion successfully after the SCOTUS decision (which I am of course fine with, this was never the right move for Biden to make anyways).

So yes he’s trolling because he can’t make the case successfully. But he did trip across something that’s actually true at the core. Like a blind squirrel eventually finding that elusive nut (then hug it all winter like one is turning coal intro diamonds)

I could make the case as to the 'distinction without a difference' as well, but a POTUS definitely can't spend dollars not appropriated. SCOTUS says can't dissolve debts either...in any case, cradle's claim that it would be easy for Joe to just send money not appropriated is flat wrong.

Well yes on cradle but we’re having an educated adult conversation here. You keep banging that head against these walls, better than me, I’ve given up hope free will will change the direction for some.

You should be an expert on free will and poor decisions.

[Farfromgeneva]

I'm not as smart as all of you folks on this forum. I have come to this determination. Is the problem the foul up at the southern border? Is the problem that Joe Biden can't find it in his compassionate heart to pick up the tab for all of these new "asylum seekers" The easy solution is to let the states pick up the tab. Then in true fashion as in chit rolling downhill the tab transfers to cities and counties. The last stop on the chit rolling train is John and Betty taxpayer. Poor John and Betty are still trying to regroup to understand why their 100 dollar grocery bill is now 150 dollars a week.

Congress appropriates the money, not the POTUS. They haven't done so...expect to see that be part of the negotiation on border funding that both sides in Congress appear to want to address. This is likely to be attached to Ukraine funding and they'll get it across.

One of the things that Biden did do that was requested by people like Adams in NY, but slowly, was to shorten the time span before some asylum seekers could begin working legally...earning income gets them off the state dole and self-sufficient.

Bologna, Biden signed an EO canceling student loan debt. That was not money appropriated by Congress. Are you now growing more selective about what positions you misrepresent? If Joe Biden wanted money for these asylum seeking folks he could do so with the stroke of his pen on an EO. Why hasn't he done so is a fact that has plumb evaded you. His peeps are screaming for federal tax payer money. This is after all a problem that Joe dumped right in their laps.

Do you really need to have this explained to you???

You don't understand the difference between cancelling a debt and shelling out new money that's not been appropriated?

Or are you just trolling?

BTW, Joe's action on debt was reversed by SCOTUS...I think wrongly but there was a reasonable argument about why he didn't have that authority.

Well…we know he can’t articulate it, but I could make the case they are effectively the same, distinction without a difference, and he did cancel a portion successfully after the SCOTUS decision (which I am of course fine with, this was never the right move for Biden to make anyways).

So yes he’s trolling because he can’t make the case successfully. But he did trip across something that’s actually true at the core. Like a blind squirrel eventually finding that elusive nut (then hug it all winter like one is turning coal intro diamonds)

I could make the case as to the 'distinction without a difference' as well, but a POTUS definitely can't spend dollars not appropriated. SCOTUS says can't dissolve debts either...in any case, cradle's claim that it would be easy for Joe to just send money not appropriated is flat wrong.

Well yes on cradle but we’re having an educated adult conversation here. You keep banging that head against these walls, better than me, I’ve given up hope free will will change the direction for some.

You should be an expert on free will and poor decisions.

Ans changing orgs so I’m not a miserable idiot in my 60s…

Learning from trial and error makes people better. Doing nothing and blaming everyone else for ones own crappy situation makes people worse. You chose your path and act like inertia won’t allow you off it.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not as smart as all of you folks on this forum. I have come to this determination. Is the problem the foul up at the southern border? Is the problem that Joe Biden can't find it in his compassionate heart to pick up the tab for all of these new "asylum seekers" The easy solution is to let the states pick up the tab. Then in true fashion as in chit rolling downhill the tab transfers to cities and counties. The last stop on the chit rolling train is John and Betty taxpayer. Poor John and Betty are still trying to regroup to understand why their 100 dollar grocery bill is now 150 dollars a week.

Congress appropriates the money, not the POTUS. They haven't done so...expect to see that be part of the negotiation on border funding that both sides in Congress appear to want to address. This is likely to be attached to Ukraine funding and they'll get it across.

One of the things that Biden did do that was requested by people like Adams in NY, but slowly, was to shorten the time span before some asylum seekers could begin working legally...earning income gets them off the state dole and self-sufficient.

Bologna, Biden signed an EO canceling student loan debt. That was not money appropriated by Congress. Are you now growing more selective about what positions you misrepresent? If Joe Biden wanted money for these asylum seeking folks he could do so with the stroke of his pen on an EO. Why hasn't he done so is a fact that has plumb evaded you. His peeps are screaming for federal tax payer money. This is after all a problem that Joe dumped right in their laps.

Do you really need to have this explained to you???

You don't understand the difference between cancelling a debt and shelling out new money that's not been appropriated?

Or are you just trolling?

BTW, Joe's action on debt was reversed by SCOTUS...I think wrongly but there was a reasonable argument about why he didn't have that authority.

Well…we know he can’t articulate it, but I could make the case they are effectively the same, distinction without a difference, and he did cancel a portion successfully after the SCOTUS decision (which I am of course fine with, this was never the right move for Biden to make anyways).

So yes he’s trolling because he can’t make the case successfully. But he did trip across something that’s actually true at the core. Like a blind squirrel eventually finding that elusive nut (then hug it all winter like one is turning coal intro diamonds)

I could make the case as to the 'distinction without a difference' as well, but a POTUS definitely can't spend dollars not appropriated. SCOTUS says can't dissolve debts either...in any case, cradle's claim that it would be easy for Joe to just send money not appropriated is flat wrong.

I never said he could legally spend it. I said he could sign an EO TRYING to spend the money. Any POTUS can sign an EO authorizing pretty much anything they want. That is the kind of stuff that keeps the SCOTUS very busy. It would be fair to ask why any POTUS would sign an EO they clearly were advised may be unconstitutional. If you can pull it off why not give it whirl?

So...just a fruitless performance.

I think it's one thing to test the limits of executive authority (constitutionality) and quite another to just throw BS at the wall to make supporters think you are "trying".

I'm "ok" up to a point on testing, but when one knows the answer without a doubt, I'm opposed to wasting resources and time on 'performance'.

[cradleandshoot]

So Joe is going to start building trumps wall? You can't make this stuff up. There are a lot of Dems out there whose heads just exploded. The spin machine on this forum just kicked into overdrive.

[youthathletics]

So Joe is going to start building trumps wall? You can't make this stuff up. There are a lot of Dems out there whose heads just exploded. The spin machine on this forum just kicked into overdrive.

typical democrat strategy, create a problem then offer the solution.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/may ... texas/amp/

[MDlaxfan76]

So Joe is going to start building trumps wall? You can't make this stuff up. There are a lot of Dems out there whose heads just exploded. The spin machine on this forum just kicked into overdrive.

typical democrat strategy, create a problem then offer the solution.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/may ... texas/amp/

20 miles?

No heads exploding.

[runrussellrun]

IS it true?


Biden IS building a wall....in Texas ?

carry on.......TAATS

[MDlaxfan76]

It appears to be accurate that 20 miles of barriers will be constructed. They also need technology additions, personnel additions.

Not a big beautiful wall along the entirety of the border, with a golden door in the middle, all paid by Mexico...

I think we can expect the bulk of the Dems, certainly the Biden Admin, to place a much bigger priority on border security than they have...as well as argue for much greater funding for processing asylum seekers faster and other reforms. It think there's a legislative deal to be made, appropriations to be made, after the House comes to its senses...maybe I should say IF rather than when.

At a minimum, we'll see some 'gestures' like this. Not remotely enough, but if the House doesn't get resolved and is a total mess, that's probably all we'll see.

That said, we might see Biden take Manchin's idea about declaring a national emergency at the border. Hard to predict.

[cradleandshoot]

So Joe is going to start building trumps wall? You can't make this stuff up. There are a lot of Dems out there whose heads just exploded. The spin machine on this forum just kicked into overdrive.

typical democrat strategy, create a problem then offer the solution.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/may ... texas/amp/

20 miles?

No heads exploding.

But Joe proclaimed he would never build one foot of a wall. Correct me if I'm wrong but 20 miles is a tad bit more than 1 foot. There are a whole lotta liberal heads exploding MD. Grab yourself a cup of coffee and watch the news. No heads exploding my ass....

[cradleandshoot]

It appears to be accurate that 20 miles of barriers will be constructed. They also need technology additions, personnel additions.

Not a big beautiful wall along the entirety of the border, with a golden door in the middle, all paid by Mexico...

I think we can expect the bulk of the Dems, certainly the Biden Admin, to place a much bigger priority on border security than they have...as well as argue for much greater funding for processing asylum seekers faster and other reforms. It think there's a legislative deal to be made, appropriations to be made, after the House comes to its senses...maybe I should say IF rather than when.

At a minimum, we'll see some 'gestures' like this. Not remotely enough, but if the House doesn't get resolved and is a total mess, that's probably all we'll see.

That said, we might see Biden take Manchin's idea about declaring a national emergency at the border. Hard to predict.

You will never admit when you and your liberal Democrat friends are wrong. Time for a bike ride to clear out the cobwebs

[runrussellrun]

It appears to be accurate that 20 miles of barriers will be constructed. They also need technology additions, personnel additions.

Not a big beautiful wall along the entirety of the border, with a golden door in the middle, all paid by Mexico...

I think we can expect the bulk of the Dems, certainly the Biden Admin, to place a much bigger priority on border security than they have...as well as argue for much greater funding for processing asylum seekers faster and other reforms. It think there's a legislative deal to be made, appropriations to be made, after the House comes to its senses...maybe I should say IF rather than when.

At a minimum, we'll see some 'gestures' like this. Not remotely enough, but if the House doesn't get resolved and is a total mess, that's probably all we'll see.

That said, we might see Biden take Manchin's idea about declaring a national emergency at the border. Hard to predict.

Not sure what your post, IS about ?

Suddenly, border security IS a bigger priority ?

what a bunch of hypocrites.

[MDlaxfan76]

Remember, I'm not one of cradles' "FLP's"...I'm a Republican, still, albeit in a very lonely wing of the party.

Want to call Dems "hypocrites"? Get in line.
Say TAATS all you want, but it's not remotely comparable with MAGA fascism.

"(immigrants) are poisoning the blood of our country"...DJT channeling Adolph Hitler.

cradle, I don't recall Biden promising to never build a foot of wall, but he may well have done so...if so, he's obviously changed his mind, but let's not blow out of proportion what 20 miles means.

Back to me...I've been arguing for comprehensive, serious immigration reform for decades...including on these forums when we actually discuss the issues seriously.

Unlike some on here, I actually believe in the value of politics in a democracy, the push and pull of policies in response to the American public, winning elections, etc. In my more conservative bones, I want these discussions to look for real solutions not just feel good (or feel angry) populist play performances. In my more progressive heart, I want our country as reflected in our policies to live up to our best ideals in an open, free, multicultural constitutional democracy. I don't expect perfection, but I want us to seek better...

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump- ... ur-country

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump ... ial-begins

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... n-promises

[Farfromgeneva]

It appears to be accurate that 20 miles of barriers will be constructed. They also need technology additions, personnel additions.

Not a big beautiful wall along the entirety of the border, with a golden door in the middle, all paid by Mexico...

I think we can expect the bulk of the Dems, certainly the Biden Admin, to place a much bigger priority on border security than they have...as well as argue for much greater funding for processing asylum seekers faster and other reforms. It think there's a legislative deal to be made, appropriations to be made, after the House comes to its senses...maybe I should say IF rather than when.

At a minimum, we'll see some 'gestures' like this. Not remotely enough, but if the House doesn't get resolved and is a total mess, that's probably all we'll see.

That said, we might see Biden take Manchin's idea about declaring a national emergency at the border. Hard to predict.

Not being talked about but odds are tax receipts at all levels will decline next few years. Some trade offs have to be made.

[cradleandshoot]

Remember, I'm not one of cradles' "FLP's"...I'm a Republican, still, albeit in a very lonely wing of the party.

Want to call Dems "hypocrites"? Get in line.
Say TAATS all you want, but it's not remotely comparable with MAGA fascism.

"(immigrants) are poisoning the blood of our country"...DJT channeling Adolph Hitler.

cradle, I don't recall Biden promising to never build a foot of wall, but he may well have done so...if so, he's obviously changed his mind, but let's not blow out of proportion what 20 miles means.

Back to me...I've been arguing for comprehensive, serious immigration reform for decades...including on these forums when we actually discuss the issues seriously.

Unlike some on here, I actually believe in the value of politics in a democracy, the push and pull of policies in response to the American public, winning elections, etc. In my more conservative bones, I want these discussions to look for real solutions not just feel good (or feel angry) populist play performances. In my more progressive heart, I want our country as reflected in our policies to live up to our best ideals in an open, free, multicultural constitutional democracy. I don't expect perfection, but I want us to seek better...

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump- ... ur-country

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump ... ial-begins

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... n-promises

No your not a republican. If you had any integrity you would stop lying to everyone on this forum and quit the Republican party. You talk an act on this forum that your extreme FLP liberal ideology is your vision for what the Republican party should be. You got one thing dead wrong your political perspective is not shared by 99.98 % of your own party .The funny thing is your political perspective is also shared by 99.98 % of the Democrat Party. Those are the people you suck up to buttercup on this forum every single day. So tell us again why you will NEVER be invited to be the key note speaker at the RNC? I guess you blue blood Rockefeller rich ass liberal Republicans don't enjoy much popularity in your own party. That doesn't stop all of you from playing with yourselves...

[MDlaxfan76]

Romney, Cheney, Flake, Hogan; lots of others...a mix of Republicans in my lonely wing of the GOP. Pro-immigration, strong national defense, leadership in the world, Reagan would have been in this wing. Certainly H.W. and for that matter W as well clearly is. McCain was (though he pandered a bit on border issues). Powell. A whole bunch of former Trump appointees.

I do tend to be more progressive on social policies involving civil liberties and social justice than most of those (Hogan is close; Powell), my affinity was more for Jack Kemp and Mac Mathias sorts back in Reagan era and earlier. Republicans who engaged with policies to help those in need. Nixon was corrupt, but created the EPA, opened China...Eisenhower led the biggest infrastructure spend in our history and supported the social safety net programs that the prior two Dem Presidents had championed.

Manchin is closer to my views on most topics than most Dems, though I'm more progressive than he is on climate change issues...his political reality demands more affinity to carbon production, albeit he's not a climate denier like most of MAGA. But I think he's generally right that we need to transition thoughtfully. And he's right on Ukraine and foreign policy in general. Pragmatic.

Manchin thinks Biden has been pushed by the progressive wing of the party too far left, but let's remember than no other President in modern history has passed so much bi-partisan legislation in two years than has Joe. That doesn't just happen. But he's far from perfect (remember I'm not expecting perfect).

So scream and rant all you want cradle, but you're not going to be able to pigeon hole me as an FLP...but you're certainly correct that I'm not a MAGA Republican and MAGA is dominating GOP politics right now.

But hey, I'm simply not in favor of populist authoritarianism, based in fear, anger, resentment and outright lies. Not a buyer.