You need to make a distinction between legal & illegal immigration. The wall is meant to keep out illegals (or at least sold that way) and it resonates with legal immigrants.

Legal immigrants are more in favor of reducing illegal immigration than the general public and they join the majority of Americans think legal immigration is good. I think its a matter of fairness.

There is a backlog of citizenship applications. There is a backlog of green card applications. Employment based green card is like 5 years. Another 5 years or so to become a citizen. So take care of everyone that is queued in line first (and everyone that starts queuing up in those 10 years).


I'd add that just because someone is anti-illegal immigration doesn't mean they support the poor treatment of illegals like long term separation of parents-kids.

See above. Also, need to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

If we are speaking about illegal immigration, plenty of countries want to kick out illegals. Note the US and Mexico rankings. I guess we can blame all of this on racism (except for nordic Sweden of course).



I am looking forward to Biden's immigration policies, I really hope it's holistic reform (e.g. DACA, work programs, encouraging highly educated etc.) and he gives it top attention for first 100 days. But wouldn't surprise me if he preferred to spend his political capital & goodwill on other programs (just like Obama in his first 2 years).

Like figuring out how to undo all the pardon confetti thats about to get thrown about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was wanting to make a video like this but now I don't have to because it's already made!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=267632234667502

The local news just had a story about stores boarding up their windows over concerns of what might happen after the election. And a local company that specializes in boarding up windows said they were slammed.

What the hell is wrong with our country?

Too many left and right wing radicals.

I live in suburbia, deep in a subdivision so not personally worried (although I should get a refresher on GA "Castle Law"!).

I don't remember reading about boarding up or rioting concerns in Atlanta. So probably a regional thing?

In fact, there's a running joke among my Latino and Hispanic friends that the second one makes $50k a year, they turn into Trump supporters.

Jerry Falwell Jr. is suing Liberty University after his forced resignation over sex scandal


If the jeans didn't fit, you must acquit.

He's also suing the Lincoln Project and I think his pool boy for their combined efforts in defaming him.

I'm sure he's got a job waiting for him at the new Trump Church which will surely be formed in a few months.

Here's a video of McConnell trying to troll Hillary Clinton today. What is their obsession with someone who holds no elected office and they beat in 2016? It's so creepy.

These people are fuckin' deranged.

https://twitter.com/drdesrochers/sta...777850368?s=20

Walmart is doing the same.

FWIW, I've been to Walmart & Academy Sports and there is definitely a shortage of ammo.

Couldn't find 9mm or .223 calibers, just mostly shotgun shells, 22 and other exotic calibers.

On the one hand, this is truly repugnant, but I also think the more open Trump is about overriding the voters, the less likely SCOTUS will make those decisions.

If Sleepy Joe Biden is actually elected President, the 4 Justices (plus1) that helped make such a ridiculous win possible would be relegated to sitting on not only a heavily PACKED COURT, but probably a REVOLVING COURT as well. At least the many new Justices will be Radical Left!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 30, 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/polit...ida/index.html

I guess this means we did in fact have a national COVID strategy.

Sadly, we won't be rid of this asshole any time soon.

‘There Are No Boundaries’: Experts Imagine Trump’s Post-Presidential Life if He Loses - POLITICO

No. I would expect Trump to run again in 2024 unless he is charged and convicted of something. His ego is not going to let him leave the stage.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Trump may continue to campaign after Election Day if results are not finalized: report | TheHill

Bwahaha!

The Trumps learning that they can send out emails and hold rallies to “earn” money is why I’m worried we are going to have him and his children around for the next 20 years. Wait til they hear about megachurches.

I have so many right winger friends who are now beginning to trickle out that they support Trump staying in office no matter then results that it truly is frightening what lengths they'll go to to ignore constitutional norms and American Democratic expectations for their demagogue.

Somehow all the while hanging onto Christian idealogues as well.

Unbelievable really.

Reminds me of the movie Us at the end. They'll never put the Red away.

It just goes to show you were we are as a society now. You see it in simple things through out your daily life. Trump has made it okay to 46% of the country to be an asshole, to not give a shit about anyone who disagrees with you or gets in your way. They were already this way and now the POTUS said it is ok.

So, now these jokers want to ignore our most important laws.

To qoute myself from the other thread: Trumpism is not going away. Even with a landslide loss here, the GOP is going to be completely controlled by Trump and his people for many years to come.

I don't know why we should still be surprised. His supporters have looked the other way, made excuses, or downright cheered his flaunting of our laws and norms. Countless violations of the Hatch Act, Emoluments clause, using EO to try and craft policy, etc...The problem is they dont care that he breaks the laws because they dont think they should apply to him.

Happy National Day of Remembrance for Americans killed by Illegal Aliens, 2020! Yes the White House sent out a press release for it

I guess this has been a thing for 11 years...but I'm guessing this is the first time the White House has acknowledged it.

Is that really the name of it?

I look forward to Happy Day of Remembrance for Americans killed by Donald, I mean COVID Day!

Ugh. This presidency has lasted for 1,000 pages now.

Yeah, that can just go ahead and go away. Get rid of that nonsense (I was speaking about the Remembrance Day and not the Trump Presidency, but that, too)

SI

This is the origin of it btw:

The Remembrance Project – A voice for victims killed by illegal aliens

The Remembrance Project | Southern Poverty Law Center

Important to notice that these ideas of the Admin almost always come down to him embracing some organisation or other reading about them on Twitter or seeing a representative or sth on FOX. Then keeps it in his pocket till he needs them (notice the project website still has it as a petition and for first Sunday in Nov)

That's it, really. Free rein to be assholes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2020-election/


Just get pleasure in fucking up other peoples' apple carts.

I always thought this quote from a supporter was revealing:

“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” Minton told Mazzei. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

A Trump voter hurt by the shutdown’s incredibly revealing quote - Vox

Yep, I remember that one too.

Sadly the left is not immune to conspiracy theories, USA Today and others had to do a story that no there was no body double for Melania Trump on the campaign trail :(

I'm standing in Target wondering what the overlap is between Trump supporters and people wearing their mask under their nose.

Fascists never change.

The Atlantic with an article a while ago that hit on it: The Cruelty Is the Point - The Atlantic

SI

#istandwithfrance

Dangerous times ahead for Macron and France. I wish he had a more reliable partner in the US.

Support your freedom of speech/expression stance but also support Muslim countries being outraged and boycotting French stuff. Tough situation for sure.

I feel like I've posted something like this before??

If Biden wins he should declare them an anarchist campaign.

Twitter


"Russian media outlet" is also quite neutrally put, this is essentially Putins foreign propaganda outlet

He's not Trump's fault. He didn't pay the bus company and they didn't show. That's on the bus company.

Great response but I'd give the round to the video & tweet being more galvanizing.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/31/polit...ers/index.html

I know Fauci has been under attack but I don't get his public dissent now which essentially let's Trump add fuel to the fire for his base.

He should just keep quiet until after the elections. If asked, just say "no comment for now but am looking forward to sharing my thoughts later". If and after a Biden win, say anything he wants.

Maybe it just came down to he couldn't live with himself if he didn't speak up before the election.

Guess The Hatch Act should only apply to people supporting trump...

I mean, trump has been talking all kinds of shit about Fauci (personally, professionally, and his knowledge and experience) for weeks, but sure, Fauci is the one playing politics with the Covid.

Lets also not forget the Trump campaign used Faucis words out of context in a political ad without his permission.

There are lives at stake and Trump is having his attack dog 'scientist' spouting nonsense, lies about both the nature of the pandemic and the response to it. Fauci is an infectious disease specialist seeing that as a big fucking problem. If you don't get how one (the President and his 'advisors' misleading the public and undermining Public Health response) begets the other (Fauci 'dissenting') you have to stop and think again.

And btw: The biggest problem is not Scientists or other Experts thinking lockdowns are terrible and hurt people (they do !) or disagreeing on issues. It is backing that believe with bullshit, lies and omissions.

If i see one more Scientist or Expert or Doctor from a relevant field (say Economics, Pediatricians, Psychologists etc) wade into the discussion with their 'facts' on topics they know little about i am going to vomit. They should make the case about, say, psychlogical and economic impact, not on wether or not the CDC counte deaths correctly, the virus is petering out or if masks are good or not.

Why the fuck is a Neuroradiologist in charge of being the sole arbitrator of what's important or good (or not) during a Public Health emergency caused by a virus ?

I can see the don't add fuel to the fire argument for primarily political operators, but it shouldn't apply to medical professionals. Their job is to call it as they see it, not worry about how it will impact Trump's base.

Trump supporters showed up to William Barr's house to protest the fact that he hasn't locked up Joe Biden yet.

We're nearly guaranteed to see serious violence if Trump loses and Trump is going to stoke that violence as much as he can. It's going to be interesting to see how the rest of the GOP in Washington handles it.

evoke the greatest excuse of all

whataboutism

We've already seen serious violence, and we've seen a potential kidnapping of government official.

My only hope is God takes Trump on election day when he has a meltdown that he's going to lose, finds out he cannot steal the election and the incoming bills for his debt come to roost.

I do think that if he does lose, he'll destroy everything in the next three months. He'll then go on a rally circuit to create disruption and foment insurrection. Then he'll have to be taken down by the gub'ment.

Based on what? I think they'll whine and complain a lot, which is pretty much par for the course. You'll have isolated incidents, probably some protests but this strikes me as just like all the predictions that Trump was going to start a nuclear war.


What serious violence? People make plots against government officials all the time. A lot of the time it barely makes the news. At the end of Obama's term as just one example. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ooting-n577701. Reagan was shot, there's been incidents at the White House or similar for every president of my lifetime so far as I know.

Just this weekend we had Trump supporters try to run a Presidential campaign bus off the road after stalking them across the country. When was the last time a campaign shut down multiple events out of fear of escalating violence from the other side?

The most partisan AG I can remember is being protested by his president's supporters for not being partisan enough.

Hundreds of Trump supporters shut down traffic in New Jersey.

That's just this weekend and Trump and his family are cheering it on. Do you think it's going to get better after an election loss that Trump said is only possible if the Dems cheat and that 80% of Replicans believe he's going to win?

Our own government says right wing domestic terror is the biggest threat to our country and I don't think that's going to go away once they see an illegitimate president that's going to cancel Christmas, turn us into a communist country, and ban Christianity take over.

You can drive fear and partisanship as much as the GOP has been going for the past decade plus and have people just shrug when the things they fear start to become reality in their mind.

Edit: also see the election thread where KSyrup posted about Trump planning to claim victory on Tuesday night.

They attempted to stop the bus, which was a terrible and wrong action. I hope they are arrested and prosecuted for it. It was not violence. You can't have escalating violence until you have actual violence acts to begin with. The reporting I've seen mentions only one event being canceled (in Austin).


A protest is not violence.


Also not violence. We're now into 'protest, but not that way' territory here.


No. Irresponsible people do irresponsible things regularly after elections. I expect the modern pattern of that escalation to continue. I don't think we're going to have any violence that will even be noticeable as compared to the background, typical levels of violence in the country. There's no indication at all of that happening.


Yet another in the nope-this isn't violence category.


You mean like say, the fear of a second Trump term regularly exemplified on this board (and elsewhere to greater degrees?) I'm full-on against fearmongering but there's lots of blame to go around on that front.

He came out and took photos with the fascists.

Attorney General Bill Barr Meets With Radical Right-Wing Activist Dave Daubenmire | Right Wing Watch

I'd argue with you further but I just can't dumb it down to your level of ignorance.

It's interesting (sad) to me that we have video with license plates clearly visible and yet no arrests have been made currently. The FBI is "investigating" (FBI investigating 'Trump Train' swarming of Biden bus in Texas)

SI

Events were canceled in Austin and Pflugerville.

And I'd say ramming another vehicle on a highway is violence. YMMV



No but they can be precursors to violence. My general point is the amount of anger his supporters are showing heading into an election they expect to win, a president and his family continually praising violence, along with the fear that's been stoked for over a decade is a recipe for violence.


This is bothsidesism at its best. One side spends over a decade telling its supportors the Mexicans are coming to rape our daughters, the Dems want to take away your religion, the Muslims are taking over our government, and the Dems want to turn us into a communist state, but fearmongering a Trump 2nd term is equally bad.

On the contrary, I wouldn't say - and didn't say - both sides are equally bad, but your statement here is a transparently gross distortion of what one side has actually said. As long as we are dealing in hyperbolic exaggerations, it's not possible to come to a rational and realistic assessment.

One can be against something that both sides do extensively while not at the same time saying they both do it in the same exact ways to the same exact degrees. That isn't bothsidesism; it's a refusal to engage in distortionism regardless of how popular it is to do so.

I think there is a fair chance there will be sporadic violence if Trump loses but agree that it won't be as bad as many here think. I also think there is a fair chance there will be sporadic violence if Biden loses.

It comes down to Trump losing by how much. Worse case is another "hanging chad" situation. But looks like Biden is going to be a clear cut winner so violence will be sporadic. If Trump sneaks by or wins by a fair amount (surprise, surprise) another series of peaceful-like BLM protests and unpeaceful-like BLM (e.g. Portland etc.) protests will likely happen.

Any violence will be cast aside as a mentally disturbed individual and whatever ties look like they are tied to anything trump related will be quickly severed, and whoever the individual is will be left to hang on their own. Of course, that still won't stop them.

People who do act in this way are essentially ISIS martyrs, willing to take the fall for what they believe in, and they are sure that they will be 'protected' in the end.

Trump on Pennsylvania ballots being counted if they arrive up to three days after Election Day: "We're going to go in the night of. As soon as that election's over, we’re going in with our lawyers."

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) November 1, 2020

God let this be a blowout. Please

Whether it works or not, it's another seal removed from doors keeping us separated from tyranny.

The President just applauded supporters who rammed a car and tried to drive a bus off the road. He is a fascist who has advocated for violence numerous times and had his supporters respond.

Driving a car off the road is violence, and the president applauding it is fascist. There is no equivocation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I don't think any of those words mean what you think they mean.

I really don't see how you can watch the video of what those people did to the bus and think it is anything other than violence. If I waive a gun in your face but don't shoot you it is still a violent action.

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. As in, driving a car of the road which injured someone in the car.
Fascism :a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, such as using violence try to silence an opponent.
I am pretty comfortable in my knowledge in understanding those words. I seriously doubt your ability.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

but is that the webster's dictionary definition or is it the urban dictionary one?

Literally being on a bus that's being driven off the road would easily be a top 3 most terrifying life moment for most of us. but, hey, both sides are evil and that's not violent.

Where is Edward!

Reading up on Hasidic jews to better understand why they are prejudiced against.

+1000000

I would have figured a guy like you would already have plenty of sources on that.

Naw man, we're all just hysterical idiots and Brian Swartz is the intellectual who can truly see the evil in both sides

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Trump & the Coronavirus: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube

starting about 17.15 is the quintessential Trump Moment. Presumably a doctor tells him about PTSD in colleagues seeing a lot more death in a shorter time than even they are used to --> "yeah, lot of dead. And BTW,while we are at it, will you pass these pens around, okay ?"

You got this man coming into the presidents office gathering his courage to bring up to the president (who he knows is not exactly keen on hearing about "the bad stuff") the suffering of his colleagues and ... He's fucking giving him a pen for his troubles to remind him of the awesome day he got to meet the president.

In somewhat of a surprise, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which hasn't endorsed a republican candidate for President since 1972, just endorsed Trump.

"Mr. Biden is too old for the job, and fragile. There is a very real chance he will not make it through the term. Mr. Trump is also too old but seemingly robust. But in Mike Pence, Mr. Trump has a vice president ready to take over, if need be. He is a safe pair of hands. Sen. Kamala Harris gives no evidence of being ready to be president.

This newspaper has not supported a Republican for president since 1972. But we believe Mr. Trump, for all his faults, is the better choice this year. We respect and understand those who feel otherwise. We wish that we could be more enthusiastic and we hope the president can become more dignified and statesmanlike. Each American must make up his or her own mind and do what he or she thinks is best for the community and the republic. Vote your conscience. And, whatever happens, believe in the country."

The Man And The Record

No it isn't. It's still a criminal action, but it's not violent. Violence involves harm, not just intimidation. This is why we have laws not just for vehicular manslaughter and the like, but also ones for reckless driving, endangerment, etc; because there's a difference. If the other vehicles had rammed into the bus, as opposed to attempting to force it off the road, that would have been a violent act.



See above distinction between endangerment and violent acts, a distinction enshrined in our legal system for a very long time. All the reporting I've seen says nobody in the bus was injured. On fascism, a leader approving of violence is an element of fascism. There are many other elements of fascism as well. Embodying one element is the not the same as embodying all of them, and there are many forms of government which endorse violence and intimidation to achieve their desired ends. Ergo there is no such thing as a single act which can properly be described as fascist. And then we could also add equivocation, which I haven't seen anybody in the conversation do; that's using ambiguous language to conceal the truth of a situation. I think everyone here has been forthright about what they think.


I've been driven off the road before. I wouldn't rank it this high, but it definitely was scary and not fun and it's not on my list of things to do again. Again, it's a horrible thing to do but not violent. Many actions are terrifying but don't involve violence.


There's almost nobody on this board I consider an idiot. Why is it that we can't simply disagree without resorting to this kind of aburdist exagerration (to put it charitably)? What I see is a general pattern of emotional overreactions to excessively demonize people who I also detest, but don't wish to exaggerate the flaws of - they have plenty of legit ammunition given out freely without making it worse than it really is.

Not surprising?

Dola - also fired a long-time political cartoonist who was critical of Trump (and replaced him with one who was conservative) and pulled a Black reporter from covering George Floyd.

The Pittsburgh Gazette are owned by the Block family who are strong trump supporters.

Aggravated assault is 100% a violent crime (which pointing a loaded gun at someone is) by any legal and technical definition.

The FBI considers it as such, for example.

FBI — Aggravated Assault

" Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. "

So does the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31

(Aggravated assault is a violent crime)

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31#terms_def

(Description of aggravated assault)

In state and federal statutes that use "violent crime" as a category for some qualification (like prior violent crimes enhancing a sentence of a subsequent crime), aggravated assault it always a violent crime. I've personally described it as a violent crime in many criminal sentencing briefs.

There's usually two ways to commit assault - it's either an attempted battery, or a intentional threat of violence which actually creates well-founded fear. Both are violent crimes, all day.

Thanks molson. I stand corrected on that point, although it's still quite strange because it doesn't actually fit the commonly used definition of violence.

I can’t believe Tuesday is only 4,000 days away

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) November 1, 2020

SI

Seriously

"Driving people off the road is not violence" is the new "waterboarding is not torture".

I would say waterboarding is definitely torture, and not even among the milder forms of such. So no.

It is to me, The Blade used to be known as a pretty liberal paper. Though I can't say I've read it recently.

Did you not read what he posted

“In 2018, the editorial tone of the paper shifted from liberal to conservative after the editorial pages of the paper were consolidated with the The Blade of Toledo, Ohio. After the consolidation, Keith Burris, the pro-Trump editorial page editor of The Blade, directed the editorial pages of both papers.”

we cut out the parts that don't advance our choice of narrative

we're going with "liberal bastion finally sees the light" try to keep up

perhaps different Blade papers in various cities?

Meanwhile Blade had this to say:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b1526077.html

I just came here to make the Snipes or vampire reference but I see the job was already done.

SI

Why can't you admit trying to run someone off the road is violent? What ridiculous firewall exists within you that refuses that comparison?

Exactly. This is one of the most ludicrous attempts to parse something I've ever seen on this board, and there have been a LOT of attempts to parse words on this board.

Once you plant your flag, it's unbelievably hard to unplant it. This is not a new thing, it's a well documented (though poorly understood) psychological phenomenon, and it happens to all of us.

You may wish to consider my post two and a half hours prior to this one, in which I said this:


There are a number of things society doesn't consider violent which also involve threats of force not actual force itself. This leaves in a position where I don't understand what violence actually means in modern society, since we certainly aren't following the definition of the word. Nonetheless, I was clearly wrong; this situation must be considered an act of violence in light of molson's excellent points. The underlying point about how much violence is likely to occur post-election still stands.

More fundamentally even, people can simply have differences of perspective and opinion, including those that seem ridiculous to you, me, or the neighborhoood muse. None of these necessarily mean that someone is trying to play semantic games or aren't expressing themselves in good faith or are implying others are idiots. It just means they see a situation differently, and only that.

Perhaps, but from a poster who seems to demand absolute intellectual rigor from all, it seems an odd hill to die on. Even if he did try to take it back in a very weak manner.