The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[metis]

How do you know that the potential 1.8M are not nefarious or criminals in their country or origin? The number should be zero.

They have an overall lower crime rate than the American populace as a whole. Maybe we'll kick you out and let one of them in.

 

[fantome profane]

My problem is making a law that states we won't do anything if 1.8M potential people cross the border. So yeah, I think that is worse.

That is not what the law said. It said that something must be done at a certain point, nothing in the bill prevents action before that point. And the bill would have provided resources to do something.

But again, what are you comparing it to? You think it is worse than what? What do you think is happening currently?

Increasing non detention alternatives only increases the possibility of never seeing them again.

Again, what do you think is happening currently? What do you think is happening when the detention areas are filled beyond capacity?

There are ways of ensuring that they will show up and ways of ensuring they can be found if they don't. This bill would have provided resources to do that. It would have improved the situation both from a perspective of national security and from a point humane treatment (I realize you might not care about that).

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That isn't what it says. Why are you misrepresenting the bill?

Show me why I am wrong. Why couldn't that level of people come across the border in a year without anything being done to stop it.

 

[We Never Know]

I didn't say that.

Was my reply to you?
Did you not read the italicized quote in " "

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

They have an overall lower crime rate than the American populace as a whole. Maybe we'll kick you out and let one of them in.

So you agree some of the illegal migrants have committed crimes. Why should these people be allowed to stay?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Was my reply to you?
Did you not read the italicized quote in " "

So what do you want me to cite?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That is not what the law said. It said that something must be done at a certain point, nothing in the bill prevents action before that point. And the bill would have provided resources to do something.

You say this. Have you read the bill?

But again, what are you comparing it to? You think it is worse than what? What do you think is happening currently?

I have answered this already. If you don't like the answer then ok.

and from a point humane treatment (I realize you might not care about that).

Ok, have a nice day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Show me why I am wrong.

Why you've decided to repeat lies about this is something you'll have to reflect on for yourself.

Why couldn't that level of people come across the border in a year without anything being done to stop it.

On the off chance that you're sincerely mistaken...

The bill doesn't say that CBP would do nothing until those limits are reached. Those are the thresholds where emergency measures are put in place and the border is shut down completely and everyone gets turned away, even legal migrants. The only exception would be for unaccompanied minors.

How it actually works:

- under 4,000/day average daily crossings for a week: normal operations.
- 4,000-4,999/day average: CBP has discretionary authority to implement emergency measures.
- 5,000/day average or 8,500 on any one day: emergency measures are mandatory.

Maybe try educating yourself a bit before getting duped next time.

 

[Laniakea]

So, if we don't want to see democracy overthrown, everyone should allow the guy who tried to overthrow democracy .... run for President again?
Wha?

Only the opposing party's people use the "overthrow democracy" talking point--in order to overthrow democracy by making sure their top opponent can't be voted into office.
But don't worry. The Dems who claim to love democracy so much could always refuse to certify the election results next Jan. 6th when Trump wins.
Hooray democrappy!

 

[Laniakea]

I know it was crafted by a Republican, that the Republicans used to like it, that it contains pretty much everything the Republicans want and have been complaining about, and that they rejected it because Trump said so.

The Republicans wanted 5,000 illegals to cross the border each day?
Can you show me which Republicans said they wanted that?

 

[metis]

So you agree some of the illegal migrants have committed crimes. Why should these people be allowed to stay?

Why should you be allowed to stay?

The reality is that there is a humanitarian crisis that, imo, needs to be addressed with both thinking and compassion. Do we just turn our backs on people suffering?

OTOH, we need a sane and orderly set of solutions, but Trump and the Trumpettes don't want that as we've seen.

 

[Laniakea]

If you think trying traitors is expensive, you should see how much it costs to let them get away with it.

We've been paying the price of having biden in office for 3 years now. So we know the cost.

 

[Laniakea]

The law is traitors are ineligible.
The law that Reps and Cons love to harp about, states rights, is individual states get to decide.
Rights for me but not for thee, even if it's for me to align with tyranny amd treason to support a man who fancies himself an autocrat and glorifies them and speaks very highly of them.
Yes, I'm bitter the highest court in the land has said it's ok for a traitor, a man who just a few years ago spread.lies and disinformation to erode democracy amd call into question the legitimacy of an election, and when that failed he worked up his supporters into a riot in hopes they could change the outcome of the election.
If anything Trump should have a date set for his appearance at the gallows.

Get back to me when Trump is ever convicted of being a traitor, or insurrectionist.

 

[metis]

The Dems who claim to love democracy so much could always refuse to certify the election results next Jan. 6th when Trump wins.

Trump and his minions are the only ones who have tried that.

 

[Laniakea]

Trump and his minions are the only ones who have tried that.

It's not Jan. 6, 2025 yet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The border deal has issues:

1. It would allow up to 1.8M border crossings before any restrictions are implemented. It says that we would need 5000 crossings daily for a week or 8500 in one day to implement restrictions. So by my math 4999*7*52 = 1.8M crossings before anything would be done. This is codifying illegal immigration at historic levels. That is not border security.

2. It would increase the alternatives to detention something in opposition to more security.

3. Why is there $60.5B to Ukraine, $10B to Gaza and $14.1B to Israel in a border deal? So if you agree with the border provisions you are forced to agree with the aid packages so when you vote no because of that you are called out as not serious on the border. That is untrue.

That's what negotiations are for. And guess what? Neither side usually gets 100% of exactly what they want. Again, that's how compromise is supposed to work.

The Republicans got the vast majority of what they want - the bill was crafted by one of their own. They're simply obstructing, which seems to be all they do now when a Democrat is in office.

So there are reasons why some republicans reject it. It is because it doesn't secure the border and gives aid to other nations that should be in another bill.

See above.

Are these justifiable reasons or are we just don't really care about the border? Republicans have been trying to get the border secured since Biden came to office and removed Trump's protections. Remember Biden said for 3 years the border was secure when it was not then he said we all know the border has been an issue for years, now he blames the republicans. He is a liar.

Never said that.

No, you just want him take executive actions, when there's a perfectly good bill that could be negotiated and passed if the Republicans in Congress cared enough to do their jobs.

See above.

See above.

Doesn't address my points.

 

[metis]

It's not Jan. 6, 2025 yet.

Let me know if and when that happens, eh. If they were malicious and dishonest enough to try, then they'd be as morally repugnant as Trump & Co.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only the opposing party's people use the "overthrow democracy" talking point--in order to overthrow democracy by making sure their top opponent can't be voted into office.

But don't worry. The Dems who claim to love democracy so much could always refuse to certify the election results next Jan. 6th when Trump wins.
Hooray democrappy!

Please let me know when the day comes when you can address the point being made without trying to divert to something else.

Trump and his co-conspirators have been indicted and will be going on trial sometime in the future - as in, the group that actually tried to violently overthrow democracy on January 6th. You can't spin that into being the Democrats fault.

 

[Laniakea]

They're already considering it: How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t

 

[fantome profane]

It's not Jan. 6, 2025 yet.

Do you think the maga minions will try it again?

I can't think of any reason they wouldn't.