Deraliment from "Trump's Response To A Factory Worker Who Called for Epstein Transparency"

[ajax18]

If you want these claims to be taken seriously, you will have to use reliable sources. Breitbart is a sad joke. This is one of the reasons MAGA drones are so clueless.

I wouldn't expect any of you to take me seriously given your partisan bias and TDS. But you don't get to pretend to be nonpartisan anymore either. The American people have a deep distrust of the Mainstream media and for good reason.

Are we to trust the mainstream media at CNN who claimed that Joe Biden was at his best and fit as a fiddle nearly all the way up to the night he collapsed on the debate stage? This was a lie repeatedly told for clearly partisan political reasons, by a media outlet that claimed to be factual and nonpartisan, in an effort to deliberately mislead the voters. The least you could do is tell me what evidence you have that anything written in the Breitbart article is false. Just because the facts that Breitbart reports cut against the left wing narrative doesn't make it misinformation. It's just a source of information you'd rather not have to deal with.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

If you want these claims to be taken seriously, you will have to use reliable sources. Breitbart is a sad joke. This is one of the reasons MAGA drones are so clueless.

I wouldn't expect any of you to take me seriously given your partisan bias and TDS. But you don't get to pretend to be nonpartisan anymore either. The American people have a deep distrust of the Mainstream media and for good reason.

Are we to trust the mainstream media at CNN who claimed that Joe Biden was at his best and fit as a fiddle nearly all the way up to the night he collapsed on the debate stage? This was a lie repeatedly told for clearly partisan political reasons, by a media outlet that claimed to be factual and nonpartisan, in an effort to deliberately mislead the voters. The least you could do is tell me what evidence you have that anything written in the Breitbart article is false. Just because the facts that Breitbart reports cut against the left wing narrative doesn't make it misinformation. It's just a source of information you'd rather not have to deal with.

You’re the living, breathing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. And I got news for ya, buddy. It is you and your stupid damned MAGAt buddies who are totally consumed with TDS. It’s akin to someone covered in sores from the measles pointing at healthy people and claiming they’re afflicted with sickness.

Weird how HoH stopped posting right when you started back up, by the way.

[Jersey Girl]

I wouldn't expect any of you to take me seriously given your partisan bias and TDS. But you don't get to pretend to be nonpartisan anymore either. The American people have a deep distrust of the Mainstream media and for good reason.

Are we to trust the mainstream media at CNN who claimed that Joe Biden was at his best and fit as a fiddle nearly all the way up to the night he collapsed on the debate stage? This was a lie repeatedly told for clearly partisan political reasons, by a media outlet that claimed to be factual and nonpartisan, in an effort to deliberately mislead the voters. The least you could do is tell me what evidence you have that anything written in the Breitbart article is false. Just because the facts that Breitbart reports cut against the left wing narrative doesn't make it misinformation. It's just a source of information you'd rather not have to deal with.

You’re the living, breathing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. And I got news for ya, buddy. It is you and your stupid damned MAGAt buddies who are totally consumed with TDS. It’s akin to someone covered in sores from the measles pointing at healthy people and claiming they’re afflicted with sickness.

Yes.

Weird how HoH stopped posting right when you started back up, by the way.

No.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Gatdernit. There was some shenanigans afoot, Jersey Girl, and we’ll eventually figure it out.

[Jersey Girl]

Gatdernit. There was some shenanigans afoot, Jersey Girl, and we’ll eventually figure it out.

Imma pop off if you don't stop it. It's easy to eliminate suspects. I'd share observations and conclusions but I can't.

[canpakes]

A detailed list of Trump's accomplishments in year 1

Trump’s Tariffs Deliver on Many Fronts

They’ve pretty much ‘delivered’ some inflationary price pressures, and possibly accelerated the number of bankruptcies in the farming community. I’m not seeing much else delivered.

Most-Favored-Nations Deals

Aside from being nicer to Russia, what benefit is happening here?

The “Trump Economic Boom” Is Underway

There doesn’t appear to be much evidence for this. In fact, the number of US factory workers decreased by 70,000 since last April. Inflation remains at or above what it was a year ago. In fairness, our overall trade deficit is down but prices are on the increase.

Securing the Border and Mass Deportations

Which is what prompted my question: mass deportations. We’ve ballooned ICE’s budget but the payoff seems limited so far.

Peace Through Strength: Eight Conflicts or Wars De-Escalated or Settled

This claim is debatable considering that half of these conflicts are still smoldering, we’re engaging in regime change, and now are saber-rattling over Greenland. And how does this benefit American citizens?

One Big Beautiful Bill Act

OK. That’s a bill.

Protecting Youth and Women from Trans Ideology

No one is quite sure what that actually means aside from treating trans folks like they’re subhuman, but I suppose that constantly harping on, say, the ‘less than 10’ trans college athletes in America is what helps MAGA feel good about … something.

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/ ... ports-bans

Instituting the Make America Healthy Again Agenda

Not unless the Administration is forcing folks to eat better. Besides, isn’t having the Government nanny-state your food choices something that used to make conservatives chafe up until January 20, 2025?

How have you and your friends changed your diets since then?

That’s an employer problem, not an ‘immigrant’ problem.

It's a selective enforcement of immigration law problem. Employers should not be allowed to hire illegal immigrants under the table with impunity. Nor should illegal immigrants or even legal immigrants be permitted to steal $19 billion in sham companies while the Democrat controlled government in Minnesota purposely looks the other while continuing to demand federal funding by people who do not agree with such fraud.

I’m with you on fraud, but I’d want to see you (1) not pretend that only foreigners engage in it, and (2) not elect fraudsters into office, like the current fraud-convicted guy, or that other fellow Rick Scott from Florida, who perpetrated a $1.7 Billion Medicare fraud, and was subsequently rewarded by conservatives by being elected to one of Florida’s Senate seats.

As for employers not being allowed to “hire illegal immigrants under the table with impunity”, how about we just make the requirement that they not be allowed to hire anyone under the table? Because, this is still ultimately an employer problem, and not one caused by illegal immigrants, right?

It’s not even a requirement that all employers offer a HC option, until you have 50 or more employees. And wouldn’t some paid maternity leave (also not a requirement) be seen as a ‘family friendly’ policy that will promote more births to repopulate the Homeland ..?

As long as employers have to provide this for illegal immigrants as well and not just legal American citizens who don't skirt tax laws by working under the table.

Again, this sounds like more of an employer problem, but you’re also sounding like you want to subsidize the medical costs of illegal workers. Not sure where you’re going with that.

You’d have to explain why that ‘protects’ Americans.

Because if employers don't have the option to hire illegal immigrants for $5/hr and stick the taxpayer with the bill for the food stamps, Section 8 housing, child daycare, medicaid, etc. then this will result in working class American's earning higher wages and lower taxes. The people who will be hurt by this policy are wealthy employers and aristocrats who more often than not are democrats, a party which now represents the elite rather than working class Americans.

Employer problem, again. And I’m amused that you want to keep claiming that ‘wealthy employers’ are ‘mostly democrats’. I guess that makes Democrats the job creators, now?

Anyhow, there’s not even any guarantee that disappearing all of the immigrants will make anything better for Americans as far as wages or benefits go. Walmart and McDonalds are amongst the top 5 employers in many states yet consistently have a huge percentage of their workforce receiving SNAP and Medicaid benefits. At Walmart, chief executive pay runs 930 times the median compensation of the workforce. What’s going to convince leadership to change that?

As well, my understanding of right-wing messaging is that these invaders aren’t even working in the first place. So why are we booting low-wage immigrants out of the country if they’re working?

Most of them do work. We're booting them out to protect American wages and guard against higher taxes and debt due to the government having to subsidize, healthcare, groceries, housing, and other amenities that a $5/hr wage won't cover. The people who don't work are the democrat constituents who have lived on welfare for the past 7 generations. They don't work because welfare pays better than doing the jobs that only illegal immigrants are willing to do. Clearly a large number of Somali immigrants receive large portions of government money but don't even do the job the Minnesota government pays them to do.

You have to make up your mind if they’re working, or not. This statement above seems to want to say both. Then, check out just how much SNAP is paying families, because it isn’t more than what you’d earn by making $5 an hour as an illegal immigrant.

Past that point, you’re advocating removal of a workforce that is largely unable to take benefits because they would be exposed by the system and deported (especially now, right?) and asking for that workforce to be filled with Americans at minimum-wage pay levels, which will drive those Americans to (… wait for it …) apply for SNAP and Medicaid benefits. Because they can at minimum wage levels. You are, interestingly, advocating for driving up your own taxes.

But I will grant you that significant factions of the America First movement does discriminate against foreigners in favor of US citizens. But that's foreigners of all races and US citizens of all races. The issue is not race but rather national origin.

And where is the line drawn?

Yesterday’s immigrant - who fulfilled their final citizenship requirement today - is an American citizen today. The immigrants who is due to reach that same accomplishment tomorrow is still an immigrant today. So when the folks who claim allegiance to America First draw the arbitrary line in the sand, what is the basis for doing so? What is the functional difference between the two as people?

And, what is the basis for suddenly going back on our word and kicking out folks who’ve nearly completed the process, while loudly broadcasting how White Afrikaners are welcome, for no reason other than a bad propaganda story? Because neither one of those two examples fit within the America First narrative without some unspoken requirements perhaps being in the mix.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

TDS is seeing this:



and then trying to think of a whatabout.

[ajax18]

how about we just make the requirement that they not be allowed to hire anyone under the table? Because, this is still ultimately an employer problem, and not one caused by illegal immigrants, right?

Finally something upon which we can both agree.

As for the line on illegal immigration. It's the simple idea that the American people have a right to democratically establish and enforce immigration law. This is what the left is currently calling the current civil rights issue of our day comparing, as if having a border and enforcing it is equivalent to Jim Crow, segregation, separate water fountains, etc. I reject that view from the left. In fact, it's antidemocratic and shows the left to be the threat to democracy, not the right.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[canpakes]

how about we just make the requirement that they not be allowed to hire anyone under the table? Because, this is still ultimately an employer problem, and not one caused by illegal immigrants, right?

Finally something upon which we can both agree.

Hey, what about the issue of fraud? : D Do we not agree on that because you’ve been prone to politically support folks with a history of egregious fraud?

As for the line on illegal immigration. It's the simple idea that the American people have a right to democratically establish and enforce immigration law.

Sure. But we have no law that says that no immigration at all is allowed, or that no asylum cases can be considered, simply because Donald Trump doesn’t want to offend the MAGA base. At the moment, USCIS has placed a hold on all asylum cases until it ‘completes a comprehensive review’ of the process, which is a way of just killing off the process indefinitely. That’s not the spirit of the law.

https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/d ... alth-risks

It would appear - as mentioned previously - that the only exception to this may be for White Afrikaners, which cannot be rationally explained.

This is what the left is currently calling the current civil rights issue of our day comparing, as if having a border and enforcing it is equivalent to Jim Crow, segregation, separate water fountains, etc.

It’s not too dissimilar if your reason for rejecting people is based on the shade of their skin color, or whether or not Donald Trump thinks that the immigrant is coming from a “shithole country”, as he puts it.

I reject that view from the left. In fact, it's antidemocratic and shows the left to be the threat to democracy, not the right.

Not quite. The application of democracy includes the ability to debate differing viewpoints, and democracy does not generally give licence to discriminate based on weird subjective claims. The nation may have a history of having done so in past years, but the better path to democracy seems to rely in part on rejecting that behavior.