Let it speak for itself

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm not addressing the Republican stance on Ukraine and Israel, but the fact that the House will not pass a bill that provides financial support for Ukraine and Israel speaks for itself.

We’ve already given tremendous financial support to Ukraine. Are you against even looking at whether more financial support is wise, or are you completely democrat, going with what the leadership of your party says to do? And you have admitted that a significant percentage of your party is pro Hamas and anti Israel. Many calling for outright destruction of Israel and Jews. Are you OK with that?

The White House has offered concessions on border security in order to get the above-mentioned bill passed. The "common sense solutions" include providing more legal avenues for immigration, hiring more officials to process asylum requests, and doing more to address the issues that cause immigrants to leave their home countries.

Ear, the executive branch is in charge of protecting the borders of this country. I know you get most, if not all, of your information from the MSM. But even you must know, just based on the complaining in the blue ‘sanctuary’ cities about the ‘immigrants’ they formerly ignored but are now overwhelming their resources, that there is no border security. And they are getting a small fraction of the illegals that have been overwhelming the resources of the border states for years now. Millions of them. The common sense solution would have been keeping what Trump had set up in place and then making their adjustments. But what they did was totally disengage from securing the border, out of TDS. I agree that nothing is being done in Congress. The uniparty wants this situation to continue. But the President, as the head of the Executive branch, has the authority to enforce the existing laws, which they are NOT doing.

You have a distorted view of the Democratic views on abortion. While there may be some extremists who might think what you claim, but that is not the - dare I say "mainstream"? - viewpoint. Bill Clinton coined the phrase "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" and that is what I would say is the Democratic position.

What the democrats say and what they do are always two different things. Bill Clinton is the ultimate example. It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

[flockofseagulls104]

Most of this isn't news. Lake has already said during her Senate run that she'd been offered pretty substantial compensation to refrain from running. The only news here is who was doing the offering. --Bob

No, this isn't news. At least for the MSM. You won't see anything like this there. It used to be called investigative journalism.

As bobby stated correctly, the MSM had months to investigate this, but they had no interest. Why is that? I'm sure all the MSM 'fact check' sites said she lied about it, so they were safe to ignore it. But bobby and trollboy will tell you it's no big deal. They will watch 5 seconds of the linked video and decide it's not worth their time. And then change the subject.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's another thing that speaks for itself.
Ask yourself why you probably won't see this reported on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSLSD and all the other places that show you Biden's every move. Probably because it's more right-wing lunatic garbage, right? Nobody except those people hired by the approved media outlets has any business doing journalism. None of them know anything about what's going on. They just want to fool you. Don't bother. Not worth your time.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's another thing that speaks for itself.
Ask yourself why you probably won't see this reported on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSLSD and all the other places that show you Biden's every move. Probably because it's more right-wing lunatic garbage, right? Nobody except those people hired by the approved media outlets has any business doing journalism. None of them know anything about what's going on. They just want to fool you. Don't bother. Not worth your time.

Wow, with all those Hamas terrorists hiding out in basements somewhere in Arizona or New Mexico, it's a wonder they still have any troops left in Gaza to fight with. You would think that with all the migrants currently interned in various camps along the border, our Border Patrol agents would have picked up at least a handful of these thousands of terrorists.

The way the Republicans in Congress are treating the current border negotiations will tell you what their priorities are. They don't want a deal that even Lindsay Graham says is the best deal they're likely to get because Trump doesn't like it. Trump and his followers don't want a solution to the immigration problem. They want to have a problem they can campaign on.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's another thing that speaks for itself.
Ask yourself why you probably won't see this reported on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSLSD and all the other places that show you Biden's every move. Probably because it's more right-wing lunatic garbage, right? Nobody except those people hired by the approved media outlets has any business doing journalism. None of them know anything about what's going on. They just want to fool you. Don't bother. Not worth your time.

Wow, with all those Hamas terrorists hiding out in basements somewhere in Arizona or New Mexico, it's a wonder they still have any troops left in Gaza to fight with. You would think that with all the migrants currently interned in various camps along the border, our Border Patrol agents would have picked up at least a handful of these thousands of terrorists.

The way the Republicans in Congress are treating the current border negotiations will tell you what their priorities are. They don't want a deal that even Lindsay Graham says is the best deal they're likely to get because Trump doesn't like it. Trump and his followers don't want a solution to the immigration problem. They want to have a problem they can campaign on.

EVEN Lindsay Graham? You are completely insane. What planet are you from? The best deal they're likely to get? And according to Lindsay Graham? When do the dems stop because it's the 'best deal' they're going to get? From who? And who put them in charge? What the 'best deal' means is what the swamp wants. LG is the epitome of a swamp creature. We are not going to settle for what the swamp approves anymore. You are still on the republican-democrat thing. That does not exist. It is Americans - Swamp. Until you get that, you don't get anything, so stop commenting on it.

[earendel]

I'm not addressing the Republican stance on Ukraine and Israel, but the fact that the House will not pass a bill that provides financial support for Ukraine and Israel speaks for itself.

We’ve already given tremendous financial support to Ukraine. Are you against even looking at whether more financial support is wise, or are you completely democrat, going with what the leadership of your party says to do? And you have admitted that a significant percentage of your party is pro Hamas and anti Israel. Many calling for outright destruction of Israel and Jews. Are you OK with that?

The bulk of the money that has been spent is being spent here, so that's good for the economy. Do I think we need to continue to support Ukraine? Yes, I do. And I most assuredly did NOT admit "that a significant percentage" of Democrats are pro-Hamas. I said there are some on the extreme left wing who are, just as there are those on the extreme right wing who are anti-Israel.

The White House has offered concessions on border security in order to get the above-mentioned bill passed. The "common sense solutions" include providing more legal avenues for immigration, hiring more officials to process asylum requests, and doing more to address the issues that cause immigrants to leave their home countries.

Ear, the executive branch is in charge of protecting the borders of this country. I know you get most, if not all, of your information from the MSM. But even you must know, just based on the complaining in the blue ‘sanctuary’ cities about the ‘immigrants’ they formerly ignored but are now overwhelming their resources, that there is no border security. And they are getting a small fraction of the illegals that have been overwhelming the resources of the border states for years now. Millions of them. The common sense solution would have been keeping what Trump had set up in place and then making their adjustments. But what they did was totally disengage from securing the border, out of TDS. I agree that nothing is being done in Congress. The uniparty wants this situation to continue. But the President, as the head of the Executive branch, has the authority to enforce the existing laws, which they are NOT doing.

Yes, more can be done. But as I pointed out, there is a segment of the Republican party in Congress that doesn't want a solution at this time because of the political leverage it provides. The current negotiations have seen Democrats give up the idea of a path to legal citizenship for the so-called "dreamers", and have agreed to limits on the presidential power of "parole". But that deal is not going to happen because of people like Rep. Nehls from Texas, who admitted last month that he wouldn't "do one damned thing to help Joe Biden" - a sentiment shared by others of the Freedom Caucus, it seems. And once Trump came out against it, other Republicans decided they didn't want to risk the wrath of the MAGA movement.

You have a distorted view of the Democratic views on abortion. While there may be some extremists who might think what you claim, but that is not the - dare I say "mainstream"? - viewpoint. Bill Clinton coined the phrase "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" and that is what I would say is the Democratic position.

What the democrats say and what they do are always two different things. Bill Clinton is the ultimate example. It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

So how are the the majority of Democrats saying one thing and doing another? I'm sure there are Republicans who would love to see abortion made completely illegal and punishment meted out to the doctor and/or the woman. Should I consider that to be the mainstream Republican position?

[flockofseagulls104]

The bulk of the money that has been spent is being spent here, so that's good for the economy. Do I think we need to continue to support Ukraine? Yes, I do. And I most assuredly did NOT admit "that a significant percentage" of Democrats are pro-Hamas. I said there are some on the extreme left wing who are, just as there are those on the extreme right wing who are anti-Israel.

You ever hear of the military-industrial complex? Good for the economy? Not very good for the people of Eastern Europe. How is Ukraine using the money we are sending them? Those are legitimate issues that deserve consideration, don’t you think? How about we consider ways to end the war, instead of supporting it. Me, I think that’s a better solution.

Yes, more can be done. But as I pointed out, there is a segment of the Republican party in Congress that doesn't want a solution at this time because of the political leverage it provides. The current negotiations have seen Democrats give up the idea of a path to legal citizenship for the so-called "dreamers", and have agreed to limits on the presidential power of "parole". But that deal is not going to happen because of people like Rep. Nehls from Texas, who admitted last month that he wouldn't "do one damned thing to help Joe Biden" - a sentiment shared by others of the Freedom Caucus, it seems. And once Trump came out against it, other Republicans decided they didn't want to risk the wrath of the MAGA movement.

Is there one democrat/uniparty who is serious about closing the border? If so, I haven’t heard about it. We have had multiple agreements in the past to address working and citizen issues with the condition that the border be secured. The latter part is never done. It was being done in the previous administration. The current administration stopped that ON DAY ONE. You want to talk about the uniparty members who not only won’t do a thing to help Trump, but actively sabotaged him and now are trying to put him in jail, or possibly worse. Give me a break on that, ear.

So how are the the majority of Democrats saying one thing and doing another? I'm sure there are Republicans who would love to see abortion made completely illegal and punishment meted out to the doctor and/or the woman. Should I consider that to be the mainstream Republican position?

What are the dems/uniparty doing to address the fact that there is a responsibility to any life that is created? Their only concern seems to be is to keep abortion easily available. And demonize anyone or any group that offers alternatives. You can consider anything you want to be the mainstream Republican position. But you can also be real and talk to those who have a different opinion than yours and do some research for yourself.

[silverscreenselect]

Is there one democrat/uniparty who is serious about closing the border? If so, I haven’t heard about it. We have had multiple agreements in the past to address working and citizen issues with the condition that the border be secured. The latter part is never done. It was being done in the previous administration. The current administration stopped that ON DAY ONE. You want to talk about the uniparty members who not only won’t do a thing to help Trump, but actively sabotaged him and now are trying to put him in jail, or possibly worse.

Trump's border wall was a joke. He had four years to work on border security and didn't do a thing that was effective. Now, he's trying to sabotage the current negotiations. All we get from him is unfounded fear-mongering about drug dealers and terrorists.

Here's what Trump got done:

President Trump’s top policy priority was supposedly “border security.” But government data show that he failed to improve it. Border Patrol recorded 41 percent more successful illegal entries in fiscal year 2019 than in 2016 and was on pace for 47 percent more through four months of 2020. As he left office in January, reports indicate that the numbers have reached even greater heights.

Government officials and the media typically measure border security by the number of people “apprehended” (or arrested) by Border Patrol. But the main security concern for the agency are those it cannot interdict—who it calls “got‐​aways”. Border Patrol released a horrifying video last year that fantasized about a “got‐​away” evading capture and murdering someone in a dark alley. Yet despite this supposed focus, the government records show that Border Patrol was observing more immigrants sneaking into the country than when President Trump took office. In fiscal year 2016, Border Patrol agents witnessed about 100,000 successful entries. By 2018, the number had risen to nearly 128,000. In 2019, it hit 150,000. Through four months of 2020, it was on pace to hit almost 156,000.

It appears to have worsened since then. In early 2020, officials told the Washington Post that got‐​aways had “soared,” reaching over 1,000 on one day. Nor can the Trump team claim that the increased crossings were only the result of more people crossing overall. In January 2020, 29 percent of 41,000 detected crossers evaded capture. In December 2016, 17 percent of 52,400 made it in.

The Trump border policy had a single‐​minded focus: keep out asylum seekers. Yet the ability to apply for asylum meant that fewer people tried to sneak in. One border crosser in 2018 told the Wall Street Journal that he had turned himself into the first Border Patrol agent he saw and was seeking “the immigration office.” Rather than direct these crossers to legal crossing points, the Trump administration blocked applicants from applying at ports of entry. After first separating families and then attempting ban asylum, Trump started returning asylum seekers to Mexico to await hearings in homeless camps on the other side of the border line. This led to a wave of crimes against immigrants. Some were kidnapped, other raped, and some murdered. When the pandemic hit, the government suspended all hearings for those already returned to Mexico and began expelling all others with no hearing all. It was inevitable that as the opportunity to obtain asylum disappeared or the costs to do so increased (such as through family separation). A greater percentage of people would attempt to sneak around ports of entry.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-border ... ants-sneak

[flockofseagulls104]

Is there one democrat/uniparty who is serious about closing the border? If so, I haven’t heard about it. We have had multiple agreements in the past to address working and citizen issues with the condition that the border be secured. The latter part is never done. It was being done in the previous administration. The current administration stopped that ON DAY ONE. You want to talk about the uniparty members who not only won’t do a thing to help Trump, but actively sabotaged him and now are trying to put him in jail, or possibly worse.

Trump's border wall was a joke. He had four years to work on border security and didn't do a thing that was effective. Now, he's trying to sabotage the current negotiations. All we get from him is unfounded fear-mongering about drug dealers and terrorists.

Here's what Trump got done:

President Trump’s top policy priority was supposedly “border security.” But government data show that he failed to improve it. Border Patrol recorded 41 percent more successful illegal entries in fiscal year 2019 than in 2016 and was on pace for 47 percent more through four months of 2020. As he left office in January, reports indicate that the numbers have reached even greater heights.

Government officials and the media typically measure border security by the number of people “apprehended” (or arrested) by Border Patrol. But the main security concern for the agency are those it cannot interdict—who it calls “got‐​aways”. Border Patrol released a horrifying video last year that fantasized about a “got‐​away” evading capture and murdering someone in a dark alley. Yet despite this supposed focus, the government records show that Border Patrol was observing more immigrants sneaking into the country than when President Trump took office. In fiscal year 2016, Border Patrol agents witnessed about 100,000 successful entries. By 2018, the number had risen to nearly 128,000. In 2019, it hit 150,000. Through four months of 2020, it was on pace to hit almost 156,000.

It appears to have worsened since then. In early 2020, officials told the Washington Post that got‐​aways had “soared,” reaching over 1,000 on one day. Nor can the Trump team claim that the increased crossings were only the result of more people crossing overall. In January 2020, 29 percent of 41,000 detected crossers evaded capture. In December 2016, 17 percent of 52,400 made it in.

The Trump border policy had a single‐​minded focus: keep out asylum seekers. Yet the ability to apply for asylum meant that fewer people tried to sneak in. One border crosser in 2018 told the Wall Street Journal that he had turned himself into the first Border Patrol agent he saw and was seeking “the immigration office.” Rather than direct these crossers to legal crossing points, the Trump administration blocked applicants from applying at ports of entry. After first separating families and then attempting ban asylum, Trump started returning asylum seekers to Mexico to await hearings in homeless camps on the other side of the border line. This led to a wave of crimes against immigrants. Some were kidnapped, other raped, and some murdered. When the pandemic hit, the government suspended all hearings for those already returned to Mexico and began expelling all others with no hearing all. It was inevitable that as the opportunity to obtain asylum disappeared or the costs to do so increased (such as through family separation). A greater percentage of people would attempt to sneak around ports of entry.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-border ... ants-sneak

trollboy, I am talking to ear. Not to you. It is very rude for you to add your unwanted 2 cents on this. But avoiding being rude has never been a priority with you.

[silverscreenselect]

LG is the epitome of a swamp creature. We are not going to settle for what the swamp approves anymore. You are still on the republican-democrat thing. That does not exist. It is Americans - Swamp.

Since it now appears to you that the majority of Americans are actually part of the swamp, I'm curious who you think the remaining "real" Americans are. So far, I know of only two you consider as such, yourself and Trump. Of course, anyone who is now a "real" American risks being banished to the swamp if they dare to raise a voice against Trump. See, for example, Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Lindsay Graham, Nikki Haley, and I'm sure a lot more. The only qualification for being a real American seems to be absolute kowtowing to Trump and his whims.

You know, you really need a new term to use to refer to as Trump. He's not President, and you don't like referring to him as the ex- or former President. How about Der Fuhrer? That has a catchy ring to it.

[silverscreenselect]

trollboy, I am talking to ear. Not to you. It is very rude for you to add your unwanted 2 cents on this. But avoiding being rude has never been a priority with you.

No, you're really puffing your chest to make yourself feel important and talking to yourself about the glories of Trump.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, more can be done. But as I pointed out, there is a segment of the Republican party in Congress that doesn't want a solution at this time because of the political leverage it provides.

Ear, I don't see how you can continue to defend the Biden admin and the uniparty after what has gone down in the past week. Or perhaps it is not reported on your news sources.

The biden administration 'won' a Supreme Court decision to allow them to remove wire barriers that Texas had set up to protect areas between legal ports of entry from illegal entry. Tell me one valid, rational reason for them to object to that other than they WANT illegal entry between legal ports of entry.

25 states, half the country, have publically stated support for Texas, and some have volunteered to send their Guard to assist. It looks like biden has backed down.

Who is it that doesn't want a solution to the border crisis, ear?

[earendel]

You ever hear of the military-industrial complex? Good for the economy? Not very good for the people of Eastern Europe. How is Ukraine using the money we are sending them? Those are legitimate issues that deserve consideration, don’t you think? How about we consider ways to end the war, instead of supporting it. Me, I think that’s a better solution.

What Ukraine is doing with the money is trying to procure the means to defend themselves and eventually regain the territory that Russia has invaded. Is there a solution to ending the war that would allow Ukraine to regain sovereignty over that territory (including Crimea)? Probably not without a lot more bloodshed - Putin isn't going to give anything up, and the more the West dithers over support for Ukraine, the more entrenched his position would be. One thing that I would suggest is using Russian assets seized after the invasion to provide Ukraine with support. There's more money available that way than the U.S. and the West combined has hitherto provided.

Is there one democrat/uniparty who is serious about closing the border? If so, I haven’t heard about it. We have had multiple agreements in the past to address working and citizen issues with the condition that the border be secured. The latter part is never done. It was being done in the previous administration. The current administration stopped that ON DAY ONE. You want to talk about the uniparty members who not only won’t do a thing to help Trump, but actively sabotaged him and now are trying to put him in jail, or possibly worse. Give me a break on that, ear.

OK, How about Joe Biden? He offered to seal the border as part of the compromise with Congressional Republicans. But Trump has denounced any possibility of a compromise - in fact, he's been bragging about it.

What are the dems/uniparty doing to address the fact that there is a responsibility to any life that is created? Their only concern seems to be is to keep abortion easily available. And demonize anyone or any group that offers alternatives. You can consider anything you want to be the mainstream Republican position. But you can also be real and talk to those who have a different opinion than yours and do some research for yourself.

Yes, there's big concern for "any life that is created" but once it's out of the womb, it's a different picture. I don't believe the majority of either Democrats or Republicans want abortion to be illegal on the one hand or freely available on the other. But there has to be a middle ground, for women like the one in Texas, or the one in Kentucky, or the one in Tennessee, or the one in [pick your state].

[earendel]

Yes, more can be done. But as I pointed out, there is a segment of the Republican party in Congress that doesn't want a solution at this time because of the political leverage it provides.

Ear, I don't see how you can continue to defend the Biden admin and the uniparty after what has gone down in the past week. Or perhaps it is not reported on your news sources.

The biden administration 'won' a Supreme Court decision to allow them to remove wire barriers that Texas had set up to protect areas between legal ports of entry from illegal entry. Tell me one valid, rational reason for them to object to that other than they WANT illegal entry between legal ports of entry.

25 states, half the country, have publically stated support for Texas, and some have volunteered to send their Guard to assist. It looks like biden has backed down.

Who is it that doesn't want a solution to the border crisis, ear?

Well, according to my "news feed" Biden offered to seal the border if immigration exceeded a particular number (I believe it was 5000). But as I noted in my previous comment, Trump has blasted it, and bragged about blocking any compromise.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, more can be done. But as I pointed out, there is a segment of the Republican party in Congress that doesn't want a solution at this time because of the political leverage it provides.

Ear, I don't see how you can continue to defend the Biden admin and the uniparty after what has gone down in the past week. Or perhaps it is not reported on your news sources.

The biden administration 'won' a Supreme Court decision to allow them to remove wire barriers that Texas had set up to protect areas between legal ports of entry from illegal entry. Tell me one valid, rational reason for them to object to that other than they WANT illegal entry between legal ports of entry.

25 states, half the country, have publically stated support for Texas, and some have volunteered to send their Guard to assist. It looks like biden has backed down.

Who is it that doesn't want a solution to the border crisis, ear?

Well, according to my "news feed" Biden offered to seal the border if immigration exceeded a particular number (I believe it was 5000). But as I noted in my previous comment, Trump has blasted it, and bragged about blocking any compromise.

Does your news feed offer any detailed examination as to why that 'offer' is being opposed? Other than invoking the 'Trump' epithet? Can you tell me why it is being opposed? That is the true test of whether your news feed is giving you journalism or propaganda.

[flockofseagulls104]

Let it speak for itself.

IMO, the aging hippies who so desire to revive and re-live the social and cultural causes of their youth so that they feel relevant should hook onto this cause, which is actually relevant to what's going on today.

[silverscreenselect]

Let it speak for itself.

IMO, the aging hippies who so desire to revive and re-live the social and cultural causes of their youth so that they feel relevant should hook onto this cause, which is actually relevant to what's going on today.

If he wants to see an example of racism in this country, see what happens if he walks around at night in a white neighborhood and the police spot him.

It's also amazing how the only thing that Trump supporters ever seem to accomplish is getting riled up and angry about some nebulous concept like "socialist bastards" or "the uniparty." That's how you get people storming the Capitol, not how you get any permanent policy changes done.

[flockofseagulls104]

If he wants to see an example of racism in this country, see what happens if he walks around at night in a white neighborhood and the police spot him.

Yes, trollboy, what do you think will happen? Tell us all. Should be interesting.

[silverscreenselect]

If he wants to see an example of racism in this country, see what happens if he walks around at night in a white neighborhood and the police spot him.

Yes, trollboy, what do you think will happen? Tell us all. Should be interesting.

Outrage after video shows black man handcuffed over walking in street

North Carolina police officer charged with felony assault after August beating of black pedestrian

Lawsuit filed by Michigan Black man wrongfully detained during walk

‘Pedestrian’ charge dropped against Black man arrested for walking on icy Texas street

Walking While Black: Jacksonville’s enforcement of pedestrian violations raises concerns that it’s another example of racial profiling

I don't have to tell you, Flock. There's plenty of news organizations who have already told you.

[flockofseagulls104]

If he wants to see an example of racism in this country, see what happens if he walks around at night in a white neighborhood and the police spot him.

Yes, trollboy, what do you think will happen? Tell us all. Should be interesting.

Outrage after video shows black man handcuffed over walking in street

North Carolina police officer charged with felony assault after August beating of black pedestrian

Lawsuit filed by Michigan Black man wrongfully detained during walk

‘Pedestrian’ charge dropped against Black man arrested for walking on icy Texas street

Walking While Black: Jacksonville’s enforcement of pedestrian violations raises concerns that it’s another example of racial profiling

I don't have to tell you, Flock. There's plenty of news organizations who have already told you.

Out in the real world today, I attended a screening of Systematic Deception, a film made by a local producer here in Georgia, which was attended by DeKalb and Fulton County conservatives, after which we had a frank discussion of the film. It is easy to find documentation of isolated, nasty racial incidents from the 'news organizations'. I do not dismiss them, they are awful and should not happen. But I don't know why you choose to live in that world, where all you see and focus on is the negative.
The spirit in that room today is what we should aspire to, and what your 'news organizations' do not choose to ever cover or promote. For some reason, their focus is on highlighting and promoting division and victimhood. And there was agreement and validation of that from the black conservatives in the room, and that they see a growing movement in their communities away from the democrat party. I am affiliated with the republican party only out of necessity, but I am working to help transform that party to bring back black Americans to their real home, which is definitely not the democrat party.

[earendel]

Does your news feed offer any detailed examination as to why that 'offer' is being opposed? Other than invoking the 'Trump' epithet? Can you tell me why it is being opposed? That is the true test of whether your news feed is giving you journalism or propaganda.

Yes, there are several reasons why some are opposing the bill. Some don't want any more funding for Ukraine, for instance. But the biggest reason is "the Trump epithet". He's even bragged that he is the one responsible for the opposition. In a rally in Nevada he said, "Please blame it on me. Please." Senator James Lankford (R-OK) has said that the opposition is based on presidential political issues rather than the actual border crisis. And as a result, he's been censured by the Oklahoma Republican Party. Representative Troy Nehls (R-TX) has said "I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating." Like it or not, the main reason for Republican resistance to the pending bill is political, and Trump is leading the charge.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, why is "my news feed" considered to be "fake news", while yours is the gospel truth? This may be a topic for a different thread.

[kroxquo]

Yes, trollboy, what do you think will happen? Tell us all. Should be interesting.

Outrage after video shows black man handcuffed over walking in street

North Carolina police officer charged with felony assault after August beating of black pedestrian

Lawsuit filed by Michigan Black man wrongfully detained during walk

‘Pedestrian’ charge dropped against Black man arrested for walking on icy Texas street

Walking While Black: Jacksonville’s enforcement of pedestrian violations raises concerns that it’s another example of racial profiling

I don't have to tell you, Flock. There's plenty of news organizations who have already told you.

Out in the real world today, I attended a screening of Systematic Deception, a film made by a local producer here in Georgia, which was attended by DeKalb and Fulton County conservatives, after which we had a frank discussion of the film. It is easy to find documentation of isolated, nasty racial incidents from the 'news organizations'. I do not dismiss them, they are awful and should not happen. But I don't know why you choose to live in that world, where all you see and focus on is the negative.
The spirit in that room today is what we should aspire to, and what your 'news organizations' do not choose to ever cover or promote. For some reason, their focus is on highlighting and promoting division and victimhood. And there was agreement and validation of that from the black conservatives in the room, and that they see a growing movement in their communities away from the democrat party. I am affiliated with the republican party only out of necessity, but I am working to help transform that party to bring back black Americans to their real home, which is definitely not the democrat party.

Also out in the real world, last semester while teaching my civics class in rural North Carolina, the subject of policing came up. I asked my classes how many of them had had "The Talk" - how to behave if stopped by the police. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Black students (high school sophomores and juniors) had, along with some of the Hispanics. Only one of the white students had (that student's father is a sheriff's deputy). I would love to live in a world where racism both individually and systemically, doesn't exist, but we are not there, and until we do, not to shine a light on it is to tacitly condone it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Does your news feed offer any detailed examination as to why that 'offer' is being opposed? Other than invoking the 'Trump' epithet? Can you tell me why it is being opposed? That is the true test of whether your news feed is giving you journalism or propaganda.

Yes, there are several reasons why some are opposing the bill. Some don't want any more funding for Ukraine, for instance. But the biggest reason is "the Trump epithet". He's even bragged that he is the one responsible for the opposition. In a rally in Nevada he said, "Please blame it on me. Please." Senator James Lankford (R-OK) has said that the opposition is based on presidential political issues rather than the actual border crisis. And as a result, he's been censured by the Oklahoma Republican Party. Representative Troy Nehls (R-TX) has said "I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating." Like it or not, the main reason for Republican resistance to the pending bill is political, and Trump is leading the charge.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, why is "my news feed" considered to be "fake news", while yours is the gospel truth? This may be a topic for a different thread.

So you admit that the only reason there is opposition to the bill is because Trump doesn't like it?

The uniparty has always relied on the naivety of the general public. They give attractive names to bills that are the exact opposite of what is actually in the bill. Just one example for you, ear, they sell it as 'We will only let 5000 people in a day'. Sounds reasonable at first glance. You quoted it, so you seem to think that's ok. Do you realize that is almost 2 million a year? Adding a large major city of loosely vetted individuals into the country every year? Not to mention the history of the administration ignoring border laws when they disagree with them? Would you support it if they told you that?

The devil is in the details, and we, the public, never get to examine the details. This bill has a lot of other things in it, including more funding for NGOs, which have been the biggest organizers of illegal immigrant caravans. The opponents say it is another typical backroom deal, filled with gifts and millions of dollars for totally unrelated things. That's what congress and the swamp does. Systematic obfuscation. And the opposition says it codifies the 'invasion', tying the hands of anyone else who might have a better more permanent solution.

So there is a lot not to like. And all you can say is Trump is bad.

And there is no 'news feed' that is gospel truth anymore, ear. But if you rely solely on the MSM, you are only getting one side. I try to hear the propaganda from many different 'news feeds', all with grains of salt, and try to determine for myself which has the most logical and better argument. And the MSM fails the test most of the time, because I have conservative values, and they completely dismiss and censor news and paints conservative news in a negative light. I have to get any news that the swamp disapproves of from 'conservative media' or off-the-grid sources. But I can never be sure that they are reporting the truth, either. I try and verify myself, if I can, and try and determine who is closest to telling the whole truth.

[flockofseagulls104]

Outrage after video shows black man handcuffed over walking in street

North Carolina police officer charged with felony assault after August beating of black pedestrian

Lawsuit filed by Michigan Black man wrongfully detained during walk

‘Pedestrian’ charge dropped against Black man arrested for walking on icy Texas street

Walking While Black: Jacksonville’s enforcement of pedestrian violations raises concerns that it’s another example of racial profiling

I don't have to tell you, Flock. There's plenty of news organizations who have already told you.

Out in the real world today, I attended a screening of Systematic Deception, a film made by a local producer here in Georgia, which was attended by DeKalb and Fulton County conservatives, after which we had a frank discussion of the film. It is easy to find documentation of isolated, nasty racial incidents from the 'news organizations'. I do not dismiss them, they are awful and should not happen. But I don't know why you choose to live in that world, where all you see and focus on is the negative.
The spirit in that room today is what we should aspire to, and what your 'news organizations' do not choose to ever cover or promote. For some reason, their focus is on highlighting and promoting division and victimhood. And there was agreement and validation of that from the black conservatives in the room, and that they see a growing movement in their communities away from the democrat party. I am affiliated with the republican party only out of necessity, but I am working to help transform that party to bring back black Americans to their real home, which is definitely not the democrat party.

Also out in the real world, last semester while teaching my civics class in rural North Carolina, the subject of policing came up. I asked my classes how many of them had had "The Talk" - how to behave if stopped by the police. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Black students (high school sophomores and juniors) had, along with some of the Hispanics. Only one of the white students had (that student's father is a sheriff's deputy). I would love to live in a world where racism both individually and systemically, doesn't exist, but we are not there, and until we do, not to shine a light on it is to tacitly condone it.

With all due respect, krox, schools are not 'the real world'. There is much evidence that the public schools have become indoctrination centers. Sorry, krox, but I don't buy it.

One of the funniest, but possibly truthful, comments in the movie we screened yesterday was that the democrat party relies on groups that they can convince are victims, so they can play the role of champions. But they are gradually losing control over that with the black and hispanic communities. Which is probably the reason they are creating new genders.

[flockofseagulls104]

krox-Also out in the real world, last semester while teaching my civics class in rural North Carolina, the subject of policing came up. I asked my classes how many of them had had "The Talk" - how to behave if stopped by the police. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Black students (high school sophomores and juniors) had, along with some of the Hispanics. Only one of the white students had (that student's father is a sheriff's deputy). I would love to live in a world where racism both individually and systemically, doesn't exist, but we are not there, and until we do, not to shine a light on it is to tacitly condone it.

Come to think of it, krox, you teach civics. Is it a public school? Would you be willing to share your syllabus or lesson plans for the semester? I would be interested in seeing what is being taught in civics classes these days.