This is a misdirection given the State and local control of federal elections. Their plan last time relied on Pence doing something the VP cannot do because they didn’t have enough stooges installed at the local level to subvert the election. They have spent 4 years actively addressing that.
4 Likes
Please inform Marge that I woke early today and walked my dog in the dark so that I wouldn’t be harassed about eating my dog or returning home by her MAGA ilk.
And I live in a nice area of CA. I can only imagine what others go through.
4 Likes
Unpossible. California has been ruined by communist democrats. It is a hell hole. Like a third world country.
Except for Huntingdon Beach where lots of fine people live.
2 Likes
Even the geese have flown
2 Likes
3 Likes
A taster of his perspective
Tim Walz LOSES HIS MIND during DERANGED interview
Kamala Rally ERUPTS into CHAOS as FURIOUS FANS WALK OUT
The View EXPLODES After REALITY CHECK on Kamala
JD Vance ENDS CNN’s Dana Bash’s Career LIVE
You know, I am not sure he is on the up and up
5 Likes
Limiescouse LOSES HIS MIND in DERANGED reply
10 Likes
I find it amusing how some of you claim it will be immigrants, it has quite clearly been stated that the deportations will be illegal immigrants. And yes, illegal immigrants are the same as the sanitized version called undocumented immigrants. He is not referring to immigrants that have come into the country legally, and stayed legally (people overstaying visa’s are illegal immigrants as well). He is also not referring to migrant workers, who are not illegal immigrants. I guess there is a clip somewhere where he says immigrants? So I guess some of you infer that he means all immigrants rather than the illegal immigrants that he has been referring to since winning the republican nomination.
3 Likes
This is nonsense. It is a fiction someone has to work to maintain in face of the all the evidence to the contrary.
Firstly, yes, they sometimes specifically say illegal immigrant. But as they have no details on what their approach for accomplishing this looks like and no one with any knowledge of the system thinks we have anything like the capability to do it as they describe, it is assumed it would require a blunt force approach to accomplish that would necessarily entrap many people who are not here illegally or even those who are citizens. Trump has on several occasions explicitly acknowledged that he is ok with that and it is just a price we have to pay to get rid of the illegals. And that is consistent with a constant refrain from him of his desire to strip certain Americans of their citizenship and deport them if he considers them subversive and in opposition to him.
Secondly, both he and Vance have been clear that “illegal” is not a rule of law designation but whatever they want to it to mean. It has been pointed out to them over and over again that the people in Springfield they are demonizing are not here illegally and they dont care. They are clear that is a triviality that they will ignore when it comes defining who is “American”.
Finally, and this is not so much a rebuttal to what you have said, but a clarification of the landscape of the issue and why people feel compelled to draw attention to the implications of what they are clearly saying. There is a distinction between the immigration issue at large and the border. Americans who have immigration as one of their primary concern mean “the border” and this is shown by overwhelming support for paths to citizenship and support of Dreamers etc. When they say they want harsher enforcement they mean of the people who just got here, acting under the impression the numbers are at unusually high levels. They do not people who have been here paying taxes for 30 years and to all intents and purposes are part of America already. A lot of the language used in this debate muddies that distinction, but Trump and his cronies do that purposefully. They draw attention to issues with border control to open the door for an extensive immigrant removal program that very few of his people would support.
I acknowledge there is the question of how much of this could he accomplish, but why would you not take such a consistent message seriously? But certainly there is plenty of evidence from his first administration that attempts to do this would not be a stretch. The child separation policy was as inhumane as this policy would be. And with the attempts at the muslim ban he already showed zero respect for legal status. The impact of that was largely diminished by a courts who responded to overwhelming legal pressure from people who rose up in opposition to it. But since then we have had a significant change in the make up of the federal courts with people placed into positions of power based on their likelihood of agreeing with whatever Heritage/Federalist society argument put in front of them. But lets assume its all bullshit and none of it would happen…you still refuse to grapple with the issue of whether even pretending this is serious is disqualifying. What is the supposed positive case for being only a pretend fascist in your public arguments?
2 Likes
Trump and the administration can’t do illegal things in order to fulfill a campaign promise. You mention the perfect acid test which was his intention to ban Muslim’s (from specific countries) from entering the country. The intent was not to ban muslims but to ban muslims from countries that posed national threats (Iran). At the end of the day he could not ban people based on religion, however could based on country alone (on national threat, they can’t just select an arbitrary country). This went through the courts several times before a legal solution could be found. This is one of the reasons I like democracy’s, they have to follow the law, if they don’t like the law they have to change it, and they need to change it through legal means . The administration will not have the power to round up people that are in the country illegally, they will not be able to round up the Haitians as they have protected status.
1 Like
He in fact can. This is not the comment of anyone who has paid any attention to the developments of the last 3 years.
Ignoring some of your misunderstandings of the travel ban - how they tried to implement and who was affected by the various attempts - your response ignores the argument I have already made about the changed make up the court a second Trump administration would have to work with.
3 Likes
So all the Haitians in Springfield are illegal immigrants?
Righto
1 Like
I have already answered that. They are under protected status.
Hopefully he kicks Melania out then. Overstayed her welcome, classic illegal immigrant tactic. Only now she is the former First Lady, and could be again. But definitely an illegal immigrant.
2 Likes
So why are they being target by Trump and Co in the debate about illegal immigrants? Why do they continue referring them as illegal?
3 Likes
What illegal things has he done in order to implement a policy? I’m not talking about things there were illegal and overturned in court (all administrations go though lots of those situations - e.g. the travel ban, cancelling student loans).
But they are eating the cats and dogs, they’re animals. Trumps words.
Protected status does not mean anything to Trump and twist it whatever way you want he means them when he speaks
3 Likes
Musk too
6 Likes