HawkShack.com

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10 ... ers-denial.


Add to this bizarre unprompted freudian slip LIE statements in the last couple of weeks such as "republican's won't be voting in 22 or 24 unless we get to the bottom of the 2020 election interference which is fully documented" He's made numerous statements to this effect.
This is the star of the republican party he has around an 80% approval among republicans and 67 % in a recent poll want him to run, an obvious psycho, me first damn the party idiot who is more unraveled by the day. he couldn't even resist taking evil hate filled shots at the departed Colin Powell

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/presi ... 1634659945.

McConnel and folks like Bill Cassidy of Louisiana among others are sounding the alarm. Cassidy who is a doctor also suggested all leaders in every branch of government should be tested for cognitive function regularly. This I agree with if it also includes presumptive nominees for Potus. Biden would be gone right now and Trump would too. I cannot understand what happened to so many people, maybe 60 million want 4 more years of this? We better hope the pandemic is under control by the time he takes office should he win. We cant take another 4 years of it.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump won the Republican nomination again.
If he doesn't it also wouldn't surprise me if he ran as an independent just to spite the party and feed his ego.
Either way I think he's running again.

I thought you were going to bring up the new SPAC Trump created to fund a conservative social media platform so they can no longer be blocked by the obviously biased liberal social media. And how it is becoming inevitable that conservatives will build their own social media network like they did their own media network aka Fox and Newsmax because mainstream companies like Google, Facebook, and the like have chosen to let their liberal bias fully show to the point conservatives will have no choice but to construct their own internet apparatus to challenge their control.

It will be interesting. I've been expecting this for a while. We will see how successful it is.

Conservatives cannot allow Facebook, Google, and the like to block their social media presence or they will lose enormous power.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I thought you were going to bring up the new SPAC Trump created to fund a conservative social media platform so they can no longer be blocked by the obviously biased liberal social media. And how it is becoming inevitable that conservatives will build their own social media network like they did their own media network aka Fox and Newsmax because mainstream companies like Google, Facebook, and the like have chosen to let their liberal bias fully show to the point conservatives will have no choice but to construct their own internet apparatus to challenge their control.

It will be interesting. I've been expecting this for a while. We will see how successful it is.

Conservatives cannot allow Facebook, Google, and the like to block their social media presence or they will lose enormous power.

For blocking conservative content, I sure see one heck of a lot of right wing stuff on my Facebook feed. It's being driven by advertising, not political interests. You know the saying, money talks, bullchit walks.

RiverDog wrote:For blocking conservative content, I sure see one heck of a lot of right wing stuff on my Facebook feed. It's being driven by advertising, not political interests. You know the saying, money talks, bullchit walks.

I think that is just a matter of time before the Democrats and their corporate supporters force the right to build their own social media network including internet providers.

It is not up to the government to protect people from their own stupidity. As long as the government keeps thinking their job is to protect people from their own stupidity, then this is going to continue to happen where they force these folks into alternative place or money to move to support their speech.

What are you saying about your people when you try to sell them that Russia or China running social media campaigns to lie to disseminate false information and they trust this information more than they trust their government? You're saying a few things, one, that your people too stupid to figure out truth from fiction, and two, that you are no longer a trustworthy government and people would rather believe something insane than trust what you are telling them. Then you have to ask yourself why that is. Maybe the government education system sucks. And two, the government and their representatives have lied far too often to be trustworthy.

Either way, you have problems that won't be easily solved by the government taking the stance that they need to ban and try to force companies to manipulate and rid themselves of all information they deem false.

It's just a bad path we're on. And I believe it will be inevitable that conservatives will build their own social media voice just like they did their own media voice. It's going to polarize America and the world even more.

RiverDog wrote:For blocking conservative content, I sure see one heck of a lot of right wing stuff on my Facebook feed. It's being driven by advertising, not political interests. You know the saying, money talks, bullchit walks.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think that is just a matter of time before the Democrats and their corporate supporters force the right to build their own social media network including internet providers.

It is not up to the government to protect people from their own stupidity. As long as the government keeps thinking their job is to protect people from their own stupidity, then this is going to continue to happen where they force these folks into alternative place or money to move to support their speech.

What are you saying about your people when you try to sell them that Russia or China running social media campaigns to lie to disseminate false information and they trust this information more than they trust their government? You're saying a few things, one, that your people too stupid to figure out truth from fiction, and two, that you are no longer a trustworthy government and people would rather believe something insane than trust what you are telling them. Then you have to ask yourself why that is. Maybe the government education system sucks. And two, the government and their representatives have lied far too often to be trustworthy.

Either way, you have problems that won't be easily solved by the government taking the stance that they need to ban and try to force companies to manipulate and rid themselves of all information they deem false.

It's just a bad path we're on. And I believe it will be inevitable that conservatives will build their own social media voice just like they did their own media voice. It's going to polarize America and the world even more.

Perhaps sometime in the future. But we're not there yet.

I don't think you can pin all of the blame of our being so polarized on social media, or at least not on their polices and the way they run their platforms. I have Facebook friends that are constantly sharing radical, right wing articles and opinions. I could just as easily unfollow them and their crap wouldn't show up, but I like seeing a variety of viewpoints, even those that are truly insane.

What social media has done is that it has allowed the extreme elements of our society prey on weak minds, and since we are truly a country of morons and stooges, there's a lot of weak minds just waiting for someone to push them to where they want to go.

RiverDog wrote: I don't think you can pin all of the blame of our being so polarized on social media, or at least not on their polices and the way they run their platforms. I have Facebook friends that are constantly sharing radical, right wing articles and opinions. I could just as easily unfollow them and their crap wouldn't show up, but I like seeing a variety of viewpoints, even those that are truly insane.

Some of the division in the parties can be attributed to parliamentary procedures once avoided. A sitting president has the right to appoint federal judges to fill vacancies in the various courts. The senate then reviews the appointments...hold hearings...voice objections...then vote. Some never come to a vote depending on the appointed candidate mainly using parliamentary procedures...never made it out of Judicial Committee...or filibustered by the minority party. This power to filibuster is the main tool in the senate rules to keep the majority party (especially if one party holds both the senate and the presidency) from "ramming appointments through to a vote where simple majority rules apply (51-49 or better...or 50-50 with the Vice President able to break the tie). Normally to change an existing rule in the senate requires a 2/3 majority (67 votes minimum). However a parliamentary option known as the "nuclear option" only requires a simple majority (51 vote minimum) to change an existing rule. In 2013 the Democratic led senate opted to use this tactic.

November 21, 2013: In a 52–48 vote, the Senate ended the use of the filibuster on all executive branch nominees, as well as on most judicial nominees. The filibuster remained in place for Supreme Court nominees and for legislation.[8]
Senate Democrats deployed the “nuclear option,” so named because of its explosive impact on Senate rules and traditions. They voted 52-48 to reinterpret the words “three-fifths” in Rule 22 to mean “simple majority.” As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would later explain, 52 senators made 60 equal 51.


(USA Today)WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pushed through a controversial change to Senate rules Thursday that will make it easier to approve President Obama's nominees but threatens to further divide an already polarized Congress.

Fifty-two Senate Democrats and independents voted to weaken the power of the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition. Three Democrats — Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan — opposed the change.

The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominees, who are still subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, or to legislation.

RiverDog wrote:Perhaps sometime in the future. But we're not there yet.

I don't think you can pin all of the blame of our being so polarized on social media, or at least not on their polices and the way they run their platforms. I have Facebook friends that are constantly sharing radical, right wing articles and opinions. I could just as easily unfollow them and their crap wouldn't show up, but I like seeing a variety of viewpoints, even those that are truly insane.

What social media has done is that it has allowed the extreme elements of our society prey on weak minds, and since we are truly a country of morons and stooges, there's a lot of weak minds just waiting for someone to push them to where they want to go.

I did not pin all of the blame on social media. It's just one of many elements driving all of this.

My basic point is after what happened with Trump getting banned from social media has shown conservatives they need a social media voice that isn't controlled by a group of corporations that will buckle to pressure from their opponents allowing the Democrats to control messaging. If you want to hold power, you can't let your voice be silenced.

Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and similar companies have embraced the Democratic and liberal viewpoint. This is very clear. They have tremendous power to silence people on the internet. Conservatives cannot allow that and hope to maintain power in the nation.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I did not pin all of the blame on social media. It's just one of many elements driving all of this.

My basic point is after what happened with Trump getting banned from social media has shown conservatives they need a social media voice that isn't controlled by a group of corporations that will buckle to pressure from their opponents allowing the Democrats to control messaging. If you want to hold power, you can't let your voice be silenced.

Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and similar companies have embraced the Democratic and liberal viewpoint. This is very clear. They have tremendous power to silence people on the internet. Conservatives cannot allow that and hope to maintain power in the nation.

Serious question: How does Google, Facebook, and Microsoft's embracing of the Dem-lib viewpoint effect their platforms? From my understanding, their algorithms are dependent on the user. If you click on the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication, it's going to come up in your feed.
If you click on the Washington Post or NY Times, it pops up on your feed. They're interested in keeping your attention by clicking as the more 'hits', the more advertising they can sell.

Just to do an experiment, here's the news sources that are currently on my Microsoft newsfeed: Reuters, The Hill, Market Watch, USA Today, Washington Post, Associated Press, LA Times, Fox News, Newsweek, The National Review, Politico, Real Clear Politics, NBC News, Newsweek, CNN, plus multiple local sources and other categories like sports, science, finance, weather, etc that I have personalized. Lots of ads mixed in. IMO that's a pretty wide assortment of both conservative and liberal sources.

Looking through my Facebook feed, I don't see any unsolicited articles. Tons of ads and of course posts from friends of mine, but all of the news content is from pages I follow or friends that have shared an article. Here's the news sources currently on my feed: Washington State Patrol, Benton-Franklin Health District, a shared article from NYC History & Memories, Seahawks Fan Zone, Downtown Walla Walla, Tri Cities Herald, a shared article from NPR,KEPR News (local), Eastern Washington University, Washington Department of Health, Kennewick Police Department. There's not a single news article from a news source that isn't either shared to me by a friend or from a Facebook page that I'm following.

Oh, and here's one that just popped up as I scrolled down on my Facebook news feed: A paid ad from NRSC.org asking me to click to join Donald Trump's social media site.

It's hard for me to see how Microsoft and Facebook are feeding me biased political views,

Fascist insurrectionist like trump don’t deserve a mouthpiece . I heard trumps new platform was hacked in hours . He’s a clown act and the only chance dems have in 22 or 24. We will just have to see what the cult does .

Hawktawk wrote:Fascist insurrectionist like trump don’t deserve a mouthpiece . I heard trumps new platform was hacked in hours . He’s a clown act and the only chance dems have in 22 or 24. We will just have to see what the cult does .

Yea, I had a good chuckle over Trump's new social platform getting hacked. And you're probably right, at least at this stage of the game, about the Dems chances in the midterms in 22 and holding onto the White House in 2024. Trump is the boogey man that they need to keep in the faces of their base to keep them motivated. IMO if the R's were to nominate a moderate, non Trump candidate, they'd win easily. The only reason that Biden won is because Trump f-ed up the pandemic response. RCP currently has Biden's job approval at 42.2, 3 points worse than Trump's just before the election.

But I don't think that's what ASF is talking about. He's saying that the big social media platforms, ie Facebook, Microsoft, Google, et al, are liberally biased and are spreading liberal propaganda.

I see plenty of conservative propaganda including most recently mocking Alec Baldwin with memes over an accident that killed a young mother and wife . I saw so many ads attacking Biden, pumping Trump . I’m no fan of yuckerberg. He’s tearing America apart is what he’s doing but far right fascist organizations have themselves and their carnage to blame for being snubbed by the MSM.

Hawktawk wrote:I see plenty of conservative propaganda including most recently mocking Alec Baldwin with memes over an accident that killed a young mother and wife . I saw so many ads attacking Biden, pumping Trump . I’m no fan of yuckerberg. He’s tearing America apart is what he’s doing but far right fascist organizations have themselves and their carnage to blame for being snubbed by the MSM.

I don't have a problem with the MSM. It was a factor back in the mid 20th century starting with FDR who played them like a fiddle, the first POTUS to have been a journalist himself (for the Harvard Crimson, his college newspaper). But starting in the 80's with the advent of talk radio, which was dominated by conservatives, and later with Fox News, the scales balanced out.

I don't believe that it's social media per se that's the problem. The real culprit is the gullibility of the American people. As a whole, they simply do not have the ability to process information, to screen out the noise, and have the tendency to believe what they want to believe. If someone tells you that the reason why you're stuck in a crummy job trying to make ends meet is because this immigrant from Mexico stole your job, it's only a natural ego defense mechanism that allow you to blame someone else for your problem and protect your precious self image.

Agree with it or not, another fan to the flame could be the settlement payouts for illegal immigrants who were separated. Final amounts have not been decided yet, but it is ranging from several hundred thousand to a couple million dollars depending on the family. This is already becoming very contentious and will continue to be so.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Agree with it or not, another fan to the flame could be the settlement payouts for illegal immigrants who were separated. Final amounts have not been decided yet, but it is ranging from several hundred thousand to a couple million dollars depending on the family. This is already becoming very contentious and will continue to be so.

I hadn’t heard about that . The border is so fascinating , such a political football . Punting desperate brown skinned people’s lives back and forth for votes . There’s more answers than questions on that border if we got our collective heads out of our …..

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Agree with it or not, another fan to the flame could be the settlement payouts for illegal immigrants who were separated. Final amounts have not been decided yet, but it is ranging from several hundred thousand to a couple million dollars depending on the family. This is already becoming very contentious and will continue to be so.

Yey, it's a Mack sighting! Good to see you again!

I hadn't heard of that, either, but it's a legitimate case. That was an utterly insane policy, as cruel and insensitive as I've ever witnessed, comparable to our government seizing the property of and relocating Japanese Americans during WW2, except that one had a legitimate goal and understandable motivation of national security during a war.

Yessir, still alive. Always lurking.

Similar, yet unlike in that those were U.S. Citizens who were dispossessed and incarcerated. The rubber is meeting the road here because you have illegal immigrants possibly receiving a huge payout. That may even turn off some moderates. I just don't think it is going to help this administration's image, though I also think that some lesser settlement is going to end up being the case.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Yessir, still alive. Always lurking.

Similar, yet unlike in that those were U.S. Citizens who were dispossessed and incarcerated. The rubber is meeting the road here because you have illegal immigrants possibly receiving a huge payout. That may even turn off some moderates. I just don't think it is going to help this administration's image, though I also think that some lesser settlement is going to end up being the case.

Agreed about the differences in my analogy.

However, I consider myself a moderate and I have absolutely no problem with an illegal alien getting that payout vs. a citizen so long as they're not convicted felons. Illegal aliens are perhaps the most mischaracterized groups of individuals in our country. The vast majority entered the country legally but have overstayed their visas. They're not the drug running thugs, rape your sister type of people that folks like Trump and Tucker Carlson make them out to be.

I do think Biden is making a mistake by discontinuing Trump's stay in Mexico policy until their applications can be processed. Help the Mexican government maintain a decent retention facility in Mexico if they want, but we should not be allowing immigrants to enter until they've been properly vetted. Our economy needs younger, trainable adults to help address our labor shortage and offset the age demographics. I also disagree with Democratic proposals to de-criminalize illegal border crossings and abolishing ICE.

The gullibility of americans is the gas, but social media is the accelerant in a way that never existed before, and those who manipulate it (not just Trump) know exactly what they’re doing.

I accept that Trump will probably win the republicans nomination, but my hope is it drives even more people to come out and vote him down (despite gerrymandering). I’d be disappointed if they don’t at least adjust some of the requirements to run. Not holding my breath, but it would be disappointing nonetheless.

I-5 wrote:The gullibility of americans is the gas, but social media is the accelerant in a way that never existed before, and those who manipulate it (not just Trump) know exactly what they’re doing.

Absolutely true.

I-5 wrote:I accept that Trump will probably win the republicans nomination, but my hope is it drives even more people to come out and vote him down (despite gerrymandering). I’d be disappointed if they don’t at least adjust some of the requirements to run. Not holding my breath, but it would be disappointing nonetheless.

I'm not so sure that Trump wins the R nomination. I want to see what the political landscape looks like after the midterms.

I'm also not sure what requirements to run it is that you're wanting to adjust. Party requirements? Constitutional requirements?

But these people didn’t over stay their visas. The consternation with this isn’t that they may make payouts to rapists and murderers, it’s that they may make payouts to people that crossed the borders illegally and knowingly. I know that by and large illegal immigrants are not criminals, but I don’t think making some of these families millionaires at the taxpayers’ expense is the way to go. Definitely get them back together, help them get established and provide support to help the transition to a permanent life, but writing a huge check is just irresponsible.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:But these people didn’t over stay their visas. The consternation with this isn’t that they may make payouts to rapists and murderers, it’s that they may make payouts to people that crossed the borders illegally and knowingly. I know that by and large illegal immigrants are not criminals, but I don’t think making some of these families millionaires at the taxpayers’ expense is the way to go. Definitely get them back together, help them get established and provide support to help the transition to a permanent life, but writing a huge check is just irresponsible.

So how many of the separated families were attempting an illegal crossing and were apprehended and how many were doing things by Hoyle and seeking asylum awaiting a hearing because the courts were swamped? It's an honest question. I know that there were a lot of the latter.

But regardless of whether they were attempting to illegally enter the country, it's inexcusable for the government to separate families without the means to reunite them. We as a nation and as tax payers took responsibility for those kids when we separated them and were clearly in the wrong when we couldn't reunite them. As in the case of the Japanese Americans that were relocated in WW2, there must be some sort of remedy or consequences for the pain and suffering our government caused those families.

I could be talked into something like setting up a college or trust fund for the kids vs. huge payouts, but there has to be some sort of penalty levied on the US government for their actions. We can't just say "Oh, well, sorry about that!"

I feel the truth is in the middle . The Trump policy of separating parents and kids for what amounted to a misdemeanor offense was evil. But million? Besides after the cork in the pipeline got pulled and refugees heard the word “ compassion” then in effect Biden’s policy is doing the same thing by hydraulic principle as minors overwhelm the border and almost surely many will never see their families again . Now with images of border patrol on horseback whipping refugees it’s almost more harsh than Trumps policies trying to slow this 30 year high crush . I have my own thought in the border and it’s evolved greatly over the years . The last 20 years of my career I worked with lots of Hispanics including green card holding aliens . I consider many my friends after never meeting one for 40 years of life . As I see fewer and fewer white Americans willing to work and worker shortages of millions I’m willing to employ a Haitian or someone from the northern triangle as long as they want to hold a job and support themselves . We all came here from somewhere .

Hawktawk wrote:I feel the truth is in the middle . The Trump policy of separating parents and kids for what amounted to a misdemeanor offense was evil. But million?

The number is less than half of that:

Dozens of House Republicans are sending a letter to three of President Biden’s Cabinet secretaries regarding reports that their agencies are in talks to give illegal immigrants separated at the border under the previous administration $450,000 each.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murphy ... c-decision

And, of course, their focus is on "illegal" aliens, not saying a word about those that were legally seeking asylum.

But regardless, the government has to pay SOMETHING. They were clearly in the wrong, and in this country, you do something wrong, you pay.

Hawktawk wrote:I have my own thought in the border and it’s evolved greatly over the years . The last 20 years of my career I worked with lots of Hispanics including green card holding aliens . I consider many my friends after never meeting one for 40 years of life . As I see fewer and fewer white Americans willing to work and worker shortages of millions I’m willing to employ a Haitian or someone from the northern triangle as long as they want to hold a job and support themselves . We all came here from somewhere .

I have, too. I've seen people come here with literally nothing but the shirt on their backs, not knowing a word of English yet mastered the language, embarked on successful careers, and raised a family with kids that went to college and got masters and doctorate degrees. Many of them were illegals, ie wet backs. I've drank beer with the men and slept with the women. I'd take a crew of random immigrants over a crew of random native born Americans every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Criminals are the very rare exceptions.

And you're exactly right about their role in helping us address the labor shortage and demographic problems. As long as they're law abiding and willing to work, I see no problem whatsoever in allowing them to come into the country. As a matter of fact, we should be actively recruiting the best and brightest. We have to get over this national bias we have against anyone that doesn't look and/or talk like us.

It wasn't the Trump Policy separating families. It was a policy in place prior to Trump that was enacted for very good reasons. It was brought to light during Trump because of who he is and nearly completely ignored under other presidents because the law was created for good reasons.

The border issues seem greatly exaggerated by the media and anti-immigrant groups. People have been whining about the border since I was young. You can even watch movies from the 80s and probably before about border issues with Mexico and Central/Latin America. These folks wouldn't even come here if businesses were not hiring them and benefitting. So many of these Republican jackasses pretend they give a crap about border issues, but they don't care. Their business supporters love immigrant labor. Let's them keep labor costs lower. The government loves it because it's more taxes in their pocket. The taxes generated by immigrant labor far exceed the amount we spend to support them.

Hawktawk wrote:I hadn’t heard about that . The border is so fascinating , such a political football . Punting desperate brown skinned people’s lives back and forth for votes . There’s more answers than questions on that border if we got our collective heads out of our …..

Why do you view Latin people this way as brown skinned? Why the obsession with skin color? Programming?

Latin people are a big mix. My mother is American 4th generation and Mexican ancestry. In our family there are people with light brown skin, super fair skin as light or lighter than a person of Northern European ancestry, and people with darker brown skin like a Native American. Latin and Central America were colonized by Spain and Portugal. Are still European based societies speaking Spanish which comes from Spain combined with local languages I imagine. The people there greatly vary in skin coloration.

They're not a bunch of brown skinned people being punted around for votes. They are a people with a collection of different cultural values depending on the nation you live in. They are not all poor and waiting for handouts at the border being oppressed by the mean white Americans. This is one of the many reasons I despise The Democrats philosophy and sales pitch. The way they sell people as victims and their racist view of people is terrible selling them as the black and brown victims white America as though these people don't have cultures, values, and history that aren't all the same.

If you hang out with Latin people, try not to view them all as victimized brown people. An Argentinian doesn't think like a Mexican and doesn't enjoy being grouped together when their history and culture is different.

Man, that crap has driven me nuts for years. My grandfather worked his ass off not be viewed as some brown person being punted around for votes. He wanted to respected for his hard work, his loyalty to America having fought in World War 2, and being a part of this country. The entire way white people view minorities is racist as a whole and equally pushed by Democrats who love to sell them as victims for votes. I hate that garbage. My grandfather and family is middle class. My American of Mexican ancestry uncle worked hard for years and is a millionaire in retirement. His skin is as fair as most white people because he has that strongly Spanish Southern European blood.

I know you're not trying to be offensive. But damn, you have been programmed to think a certain way by the upbringing in this country. It drives me pretty crazy that the liberal media sells this BS narrative.

I even know plenty of folk of African descent, actual African and multigenerational American doing quite well. And people from Africa depending not the nation think quite differently about themselves culturally, yet they are kind of thrown into the black pot because of their skin color even though their culture and customs are completely different.

Sorry for the rant, this view of people popularized by the Democrats pisses me off to no end. It's one of the reasons I have worked very hard to never take a handout from the government, never buy into garbage ideas like white people are against me, or any of that trash thinking that limits people and creates this whole self-identity as a victim. Some person insults me, I'll slap them down like a man. I take care of myself and my own. None of this black and brown victim trash lies and Democrat racist victim mentality.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It wasn't the Trump Policy separating families. It was a policy in place prior to Trump that was enacted for very good reasons. It was brought to light during Trump because of who he is and nearly completely ignored under other presidents because the law was created for good reasons.

I never said that it was. Who ever happened to be POTUS is irrelevant. What happened to those people was wrong. It's a moral issue, not a political one.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The border issues seem greatly exaggerated by the media and anti-immigrant groups. People have been whining about the border since I was young. You can even watch movies from the 80s and probably before about border issues with Mexico and Central/Latin America. These folks wouldn't even come here if businesses were not hiring them and benefitting. So many of these Republican jackasses pretend they give a crap about border issues, but they don't care. Their business supporters love immigrant labor. Let's them keep labor costs lower. The government loves it because it's more taxes in their pocket. The taxes generated by immigrant labor far exceed the amount we spend to support them.

Immigration fever has waxed and waned over the years. We actually had a law against Chinese immigrants back in the late part of the 19th century called the Chinese Exclusion Act that targeted a specific race for non admittance, and even after it was repealed, Chinese Americans...American citizens...were denied the right to own property for some time afterwards. Our treatment of immigrants has arguably been worse than our treatment of the American Indian or of African Americans.

And it's just the southern border that is the focus of the anti immigration folks. No one wants to talk about the border with Canada or our ports of entry. Not a single one of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country via our border with Mexico.

Hawktawk wrote:I hadn’t heard about that . The border is so fascinating , such a political football . Punting desperate brown skinned people’s lives back and forth for votes . There’s more answers than questions on that border if we got our collective heads out of our …..

Aseahawkfan wrote:Why do you view Latin people this way as brown skinned? Why the obsession with skin color? Programming?

Latin people are a big mix. My mother is American 4th generation and Mexican ancestry. In our family there are people with light brown skin, super fair skin as light or lighter than a person of Northern European ancestry, and people with darker brown skin like a Native American. Latin and Central America were colonized by Spain and Portugal. Are still European based societies speaking Spanish which comes from Spain combined with local languages I imagine. The people there greatly vary in skin coloration.

They're not a bunch of brown skinned people being punted around for votes. They are a people with a collection of different cultural values depending on the nation you live in. They are not all poor and waiting for handouts at the border being oppressed by the mean white Americans. This is one of the many reasons I despise The Democrats philosophy and sales pitch. The way they sell people as victims and their racist view of people is terrible selling them as the black and brown victims white America as though these people don't have cultures, values, and history that aren't all the same.

If you hang out with Latin people, try not to view them all as victimized brown people. An Argentinian doesn't think like a Mexican and doesn't enjoy being grouped together when their history and culture is different.

Man, that crap has driven me nuts for years. My grandfather worked his ass off not be viewed as some brown person being punted around for votes. He wanted to respected for his hard work, his loyalty to America having fought in World War 2, and being a part of this country. The entire way white people view minorities is racist as a whole and equally pushed by Democrats who love to sell them as victims for votes. I hate that garbage. My grandfather and family is middle class. My American of Mexican ancestry uncle worked hard for years and is a millionaire in retirement. His skin is as fair as most white people because he has that strongly Spanish Southern European blood.

I know you're not trying to be offensive. But damn, you have been programmed to think a certain way by the upbringing in this country. It drives me pretty crazy that the liberal media sells this BS narrative.

I even know plenty of folk of African descent, actual African and multigenerational American doing quite well. And people from Africa depending not the nation think quite differently about themselves culturally, yet they are kind of thrown into the black pot because of their skin color even though their culture and customs are completely different.

Sorry for the rant, this view of people popularized by the Democrats pisses me off to no end. It's one of the reasons I have worked very hard to never take a handout from the government, never buy into garbage ideas like white people are against me, or any of that trash thinking that limits people and creates this whole self-identity as a victim. Some person insults me, I'll slap them down like a man. I take care of myself and my own. None of this black and brown victim trash lies and Democrat racist victim mentality.

You're exactly right, but don't give him chit about it. His impression isn't driven by racism, it's a perfectly natural assumption based on observations. My best friend is a native Peruvian, and he has lighter skin than I have.

And that same knife cuts both ways. I was once was witness to a really interesting conversation. We had an older man, a lift truck driver by the name of Lopez that was a Caucasian and very light skinned. A Mexican-American guy, the prototypical looking Chicano and a supervisor, was teasing him about it, saying "you're white but you have a Mexican name", to which Lopez replied "I'm not Mexican, I'm Spanish. There's a difference." The alcohol enhanced discussion continued, and the Mexican-American guy was really being an A-hole about it and kept taunting Lopez about his white skin and Hispanic name, when finally Lopez had enough and roared: "I'm white because my momma wasn't over here f&cking Indians to make Mexicans out of them!" I was guilty of laughing my guts out.

They didn't entirely do it without cause; there were despicable people that had no problem using minors who were not their children in order to gain legal entry into the country. Those bad apples ruined it for all the ones who really were parents/ legal guardians.

And I'm not endorsing what happened, and I also stated there should be some form of restitution in getting them back together and on their feet, so I'm not sure what you're taking issue with in my statement. Handing over hundreds of thousands to a few million to immigrant families who likely don't know how to handle that much money is irresponsible. And the main point I was making is that amounts that large are just going to further fan the flames. I doesn't matter the reasons or justifications. If they follow through on that, expect backlash.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:They didn't entirely do it without cause; there were despicable people that had no problem using minors who were not their children in order to gain legal entry into the country. Those bad apples ruined it for all the ones who really were parents/ legal guardians.

And I'm not endorsing what happened, and I also stated there should be some form of restitution in getting them back together and on their feet, so I'm not sure what you're taking issue with in my statement. Handing over hundreds of thousands to a few million to immigrant families who likely don't know how to handle that much money is irresponsible. And the main point I was making is that amounts that large are just going to further fan the flames. I doesn't matter the reasons or justifications. If they follow through on that, expect backlash.

The issue I have with your statement is defining what 'huge' is. IMO $450k is not 'huge' in that it's not going to set them up for life as it sounded like you were implying. The median price for a home in California is $554K. In today's day and age, $450 grand that's subject to taxes isn't all that much. Federal tax alone will take that amount down to $292.5K. How much do you think it would take to get a family of 4 "back on their feet"?

For a country that 30 years ago awarded $2.7M to a person for spilling a cup of coffee on their lap, $450K in punitive damages for getting your kids taken away from you is peanuts.

I agree that the media is going to use a large payment like that to "fan the flames", but what else do you suggest? IMO a free Happy Meal at McDonald's is going to fuel the deep hatred that many Americans feel towards anyone that doesn't look and talk like they do.

River, the proposal is $450,000 per person. A family of four would get $1.8 million. You, I, and the vast majority of Americans would be fortunate to make that much in a lifetime. You can help them without handing them, yes, a huge sum of money. If it is just peanuts, then please, Fed, cut all of us that amount.

There’s no reason to not help them and get them on their feet. Support them and help them gain skills to make their own way. And you picked the median home value of one of the highest cost of living states. Surely there must be areas that are cheaper not to mention other states with much lower costs of living that also have job opportunities (in this current economic climate, jobs are everywhere). There has to be other options. Just handing out money and leaving uneducated people to their own devices is a bad idea.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:River, the proposal is $450,000 per person. A family of four would get $1.8 million. You, I, and the vast majority of Americans would be fortunate to make that much in a lifetime. You can help them without handing them, yes, a huge sum of money. If it is just peanuts, then please, Fed, cut all of us that amount.

A family of 4 would get $1.8M? Where did you see that? Here's what I saw being reported on Fox News, and knowing them as the premier conservative news outlet, they're likely reporting the worst case scenario:

The Journal stated the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services are "considering payments that could amount to close to $1 million a family," though final payment amounts could change as some "families would likely get smaller payouts, depending on their circumstances."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murphy ... c-decision

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:There’s no reason to not help them and get them on their feet. Support them and help them gain skills to make their own way. And you picked the median home value of one of the highest cost of living states. Surely there must be areas that are cheaper not to mention other states with much lower costs of living that also have job opportunities (in this current economic climate, jobs are everywhere). There has to be other options. Just handing out money and leaving uneducated people to their own devices is a bad idea.

California is the largest state in the nation and likely the home to the most immigrants, so it's not cherry picking to list that state's median home value as an example of how far $450K will go. They're not going to be able to move to West Virginia and find jobs that match their skills. FYI the average median price for a home in the United States is $375k.

I wasn't advocating that they actually cut cash checks for $475K. I was illustrating how that kind of money isn't like hitting the lottery and never having to work for the rest of your life. I suggested that they look at giving at least a portion in the form of some sort of college fund or something else with some strings attached to prevent the types of abuse you're concerned about.

Point is that the government is clearly in the wrong and that some sort of adjudication that acknowledges their transgression while adequately compensates the victims is necessary if we hold ourselves to be a fair and just society. If this were a corporation instead of the government, people would be calling for jailing the CEO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -families/

I have seen statements of proposed $450,000 per person in the family; family of four, which is probably common, would garner $1.8 million. I don’t necessarily think this is set in stone, and I have said as much.

And I’m confused how unskilled people can’t be used elsewhere other than California. A lot of immigrants work in service jobs and construction. These are all over. I seriously doubt many if any have any kind of formal education or training. They could be useful in many different places. We certainly don’t have to go to the other end of the spectrum like West Virginia to find a reasonable place for them to live and work that is cheaper than California.

As I said in my first post, I really think those numbers will be settled downward. And since your not saying hand them money, they how many more times do I need to say I am for supporting them and setting them up to be in their own? That’s also holding the government accountable.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/29/why-biden-administration-would-pay-much-450000-separated-immigrant-families/

I have seen statements of proposed $450,000 per person in the family; family of four, which is probably common, would garner $1.8 million. I don’t necessarily think this is set in stone, and I have said as much.

And I’m confused how unskilled people can’t be used elsewhere other than California. A lot of immigrants work in service jobs and construction. These are all over. I seriously doubt many if any have any kind of formal education or training. They could be useful in many different places. We certainly don’t have to go to the other end of the spectrum like West Virginia to find a reasonable place for them to live and work that is cheaper than California.

As I said in my first post, I really think those numbers will be settled downward. And since your not saying hand them money, they how many more times do I need to say I am for supporting them and setting them up to be in their own? That’s also holding the government accountable.

I can't access the Washington Post as I've exceeded their free articles, but I believe you. It seems as there's some confusion on just how much money is being considered as Fox News isn't going to be printing the lowball amount.

I don't know what the job market is like in West Virginia. My point was that we don't want to plop them down into a place where they can't find work that matches their skills. It's quite possible that they could be better off in CA than WV despite the differences in the cost of living.

Perhaps we're not as far apart as I may have assumed. I don't particularly care for any of these outrageously insane court awards as in the spilt coffee and I'm against things like reparations for slavery. But in this case, where a family was separated not knowing of they'd ever see their parents/kids again, a liberal settlement seems in order. In a perfect world, as part of compensating them for the government's mistakes, I would like to see them directed into things like truck driving or trade schools, professions where we have a dire need for workers. Then maybe they can go to WV and help our economy rather than having to live in CA so they can pick oranges.

If "Adam Ruins Everything" is correct, supposedly, the plaintiff tried to get a reasonable settlement out of McDonald's mainly to cover her medical bills; they laughed it off so she lawyered up and they took it to the next level.

That aside, yes, we're probably a little closer on this than our exchange to this point has suggested. I was born in 1984, so I haven't been as aware of the border issue as you and some of the other posters. It seems to me the issue needs to addressed all-in or all-out. Either make it incredibly difficult to get in (all-out) or have the resources prepared to accept, process, settle, and educate/train them to be productive here (all-in). This in between just looks bungled and unproductive. I'd rather see restitution in the form of all-in than settlement payments.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:If "Adam Ruins Everything" is correct, supposedly, the plaintiff tried to get a reasonable settlement out of McDonald's mainly to cover her medical bills; they laughed it off so she lawyered up and they took it to the next level.

That aside, yes, we're probably a little closer on this than our exchange to this point has suggested. I was born in 1984, so I haven't been as aware of the border issue as you and some of the other posters. It seems to me the issue needs to addressed all-in or all-out. Either make it incredibly difficult to get in (all-out) or have the resources prepared to accept, process, settle, and educate/train them to be productive here (all-in). This in between just looks bungled and unproductive. I'd rather see restitution in the form of all-in than settlement payments.

I'm an immigration advocate and view it as a means of getting our demographics back in balance. For decades, the worker to retiree ratio has been in steady decline and is putting stress on our socialized systems like Medicare and Social Security as well as pension systems and other retirement programs. Since immigrants tend to be younger than the average native born worker, a robust immigration system would be a logical means to address this imbalance. In addition, due largely to this demographic imbalance, we're entering an acute labor shortage, especially in blue collar and entry level positions that are easiest for an immigrant to occupy.

Outside of his many personality flaws, that was my biggest problem with Trump, that he demonized all immigrants and fueled the flames of prejudice and misconceptions amongst those of us that suffer from a paranoia of anyone that doesn't look and talk like they do. I don't support Trump's border wall as it does little to address the security issue and is viewed by many as a symbol of our racism. I would much rather spend that money enhancing our ports of entry and vetting process to keep out known criminals while expediting those that possess the ability to work/learn and make a positive contribution to our economy. I do not agree with my liberal friends that want to de-criminalize illegal border crossings, abolish ICE, admit 'chain' immigrants or admit them simply because they have family members are already here, agree with a stay in Mexico policy while applications are processed, agree with more surveillance of the southern border by electronic sensors and remote devices such as drones.

I do agree with a liberal financial settlement with the families that were subjected to being separated, at least those that were attempting to enter legally, and would not object to a 6 digit amount somewhere between $100-300K per family. I do not think it makes a difference whether or not they are/were citizens and feel my original analogy to the resettlement of Japanese Americans in WW2 is a fair example. There are some transgressions that extend beyond a personal's citizenship status, and separating a family and not being able to re-unite them is one of those crimes. They deserve more than just a "sorry about that" as an apology from our government.

My comment about "desperate brown skin people is a statement of fact for the most part as every hispanic or central american I know has a dark completion of some degree. But Its intended as a shot at the racist policies of many americans towards southern immigrants. They are rapist, murderers remember" bringing drugs and crime". I've found those I know to be of the highest moral character, god fearing family oriented people. Northern Triangle illegals were just fine building new bedminster for 8 bucks an hour and working in Trumps hotels but by god when your pres and you still have some working for you time to cut ties and deny.

Its a comment about the hypocrisy and racism of the people who punt the lives of these southern immigrants back and forth to play on the racist fears of americans. They are not like us. Keep them out as we whine about not having enough employees all over this nation.Beam me up. This should be easy.

I'm also not sure what requirements to run it is that you're wanting to adjust.

For one, disclosing their private finances - not necessarily publicly, but at least to gov't officials including members of both parties - so that we know if they are under any kind of pressure that could affect their behaviour and consequently compromise the country. Conflicts of interest, outside influence...

Two, I never would have dreamed that a mental evaluation would be necessary because what democracy would ever elect a malignant narcissist for example? I believe we did just that in 2016 - however it's probably more a sad commentary on the voting public than Trump himself, but I would be terrified if we ever let someone of either party take the highest office without knowing.

#2 will probably never happen, but #1 should have already been a requirement from the beginning.

I'm also not sure what requirements to run it is that you're wanting to adjust.

I-5 wrote:For one, disclosing their private finances - not necessarily publicly, but at least to gov't officials including members of both parties - so that we know if they are under any kind of pressure that could affect their behaviour and consequently compromise the country. Conflicts of interest, outside influence...

I agree with you that they should be required to disclose their tax returns and other financial information, but it would have to be a rule that their party instituted as a requirement for their nomination. The Constitution has clearly spelled out the requirements for POTUS and they do not include such things. Same goes for convicted felons. A candidate could be convicted of murder and it wouldn't prevent them from running for POTUS.

I-5 wrote:Two, I never would have dreamed that a mental evaluation would be necessary because what democracy would ever elect a malignant narcissist for example? I believe we did just that in 2016 - however it's probably more a sad commentary on the voting public than Trump himself, but I would be terrified if we ever let someone of either party take the highest office without knowing.

#2 will probably never happen, but #1 should have already been a requirement from the beginning.

I completely disagree with #2. A mental evaluation is way too subjective. It's not like mental illness can be detected by an X-ray or blood test. The only way I could be talked into something like that is if they were required to take some sort of objective competency test. Personally, I think that all voters, not to mention all candidates, ought to have to take some type of competency test similar to those we give to naturalized citizens, but even that would be very subjective as it could be argued that some people just don't test well.

Neither of them will ever happen as it would require a Constitutional amendment.

The Constitution has clearly spelled out the requirements for POTUS and they do not include such things. Same goes for convicted felons. A candidate could be convicted of murder and it wouldn't prevent them from running for POTUS.

And THAT is a problem.

The only way I could be talked into something like that is if they were required to take some sort of objective competency test.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. As for voters, we already know a large percentage of people would not pass. But the leader of the free world should have a somewhat higher bar.