Ok, so you stalked my comment history so I stalked yours.
What about the Trump administration is "intelligent"? Trump lies about everything. Pointing out other politicians lie isn't a good comeback. Trump lacks all understanding of how tariffs work, he said he was going to "repeal and replace" Obamacare on "day 1" in 2016, only to say he has "concepts of a plan" in 2024, whatever the fuck that means. He rarely has "ideas", he just bitches about stuff and handwaves away everything when pressed for any details.
"Lawful order"? I don't know that that means. I would say that writing a lot of executive orders that go directly against the constitution is literally the opposite of "lawful order", but you're free to disagree.
Deporting all these violent illegals has been outstanding in my opinion. He's actually enforcing existing immigration laws.
By way of threats of tariffs, He's gotten Columbia, Mexico and Canada to enact policies in the interests of America.
America gets constantly screwed by other nations because we've allowed great trade imbalances and weak borders. Other nations have been happy to step back and let the US fund the UN, NATO, etc. Historically, we have the lowest tariffs and accept the most illegal immigrants in the world. Trump's changing that and I'm here for it.
Btw, I'm all for legal immigration. I'm one myself. My family escaped a communist country and has experienced life under a leader much more authoritarian that what the Left conjures up about the other side.
Deporting violent immigrants is fine. Biden enforced immigration laws too, and when there was a bipartisan immigration reform bill Trump asked the conservatives to block it.
Trying to revoke birthright citizenship is not “enforcing existing law”.
The concessions from Mexico and Canada were already planned from last administration. Moreover, now there are retaliatory tariffs coming from them.
How does a trade imbalance imply that we are “screwed”? Trump repeats that constantly but it doesn’t seem implied to me.
The stuff about NATO is a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
This is my biggest issue with Trump and his supporters, they treat everything as this incredibly reductive, black and white, “simple” issue.
No he did not. Biden's first acts were to repeal Trump's stringent immigration orders. After 3 and half years with another election looming and seeing the disaster that caused, all of the sudden, his administration wasn't so hot on open borders anymore. If he enforced immigration laws, we wouldn't have so many people who have illegally entered the country.
> Trying to revoke birthright citizenship is not “enforcing existing law”.
And I never claimed that. But I support an amendment towards that end.
> The concessions from Mexico and Canada were already planned from last administration.
Nope, the 10,000 troops Mexico just agreed to is on top of whatever other things they "promised" to do. And tariffs are off the table for now.
> Moreover, now there are retaliatory tariffs coming from them.
Nope, no tariffs have been enacted on either side at the moment.
> How does a trade imbalance imply that we are “screwed”?
We also have historically the lowest tariff rates in the world. Gee, I wonder if that's related. And then when we raise them to level the playing field, everyone bitches and whines.
> The stuff about NATO is a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
> This is my biggest issue with Trump and his supporters, they treat everything as this incredibly reductive, black and white, “simple” issue.
Pretty hand wavy there.
My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense, e.g. allowing biological men to destroy women in sports, not being willing to define what a woman is, getting mad at Trump for enforcing immigration laws (i.e. not letting people enter the country illegally and kicking out those who do)
I dunno, sure doesn't look like Biden let up on enforcement to me [1]. More likely is that Trump destablised the west and caused a net increase in illegal migration attempts. Since Congress refused to pass comprehensive immigration reform (to please Daddy, of course) they didn't have the tools or money needed to keep up.
> My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense, e.g. allowing biological men to destroy women in sports, not being willing to define what a woman is
I find this one so funny. Most liberals agree with you on this, but none of us will get on board with turning to fascism because an incredibly small portion of the population needs a civil rights issue addressed. That means we are forced to deal with the radical leftists who you are so angry about, because at least they aren't trying to overthrow the government. It would get settled much faster, and much more to your satisfaction, if a third of the country wasn't determined to act in bad faith and pretend those people don't exist. That's just as bizarre as the people who pretend that biological women and trans women are the same.
> More likely is that Trump destablised the west and caused a net increase in illegal migration attempts.
nope, border encounters have dropped significantly after Trump took office.
To your last points, I won't address because you throw up unsubstantiated accusations that has become the Leftist party line. There's no discussion to be had here.
> nope, border encounters have dropped significantly after Trump took office.
Ok propaganda. CBP doesn't have numbers for January posted, so you have no idea what is actually happening.
> To your last points, I won't address because you throw up unsubstantiated accusations that has become the Leftist party line. There's no discussion to be had here.
Oh please, by all means, substantiate your last point. Ya'll are going to get exposed the next four years for being such feckless dorks.
> Ok propaganda. CBP doesn't have numbers for January posted, so you have no idea what is actually happening.
wrong. From the border chief:
"In the past seven days, U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended 4,577 individuals attempting to enter the country illegally, a significant 55% decrease from the previous week’s 10,281 apprehensions. This trend indicates that our enhanced border security measures produce results. With more boots on the ground, we’re making a substantial impact to the security of our borders."
> Ok propaganda. CBP doesn't have numbers for January posted, so you have no idea what is actually happening.
the above is what you claimed and are undeniably wrong about.
You can't admit error because you don't operate in truth, just emotions. When confronted with truth, you twist it to fit your narrative as you're doing here.
And the quality of the words (or lack thereof) that you choose to use e.g. feckless, dork, anti-social losers, weird, loathe reflects on you and your character and state of mind more than anything else. Here they are categorized as ad hominem attacks and are not looked upon highly because the kind of people who use them lack substantial arguments and thus resort to these low effort personal attacks.
You've spent the entire thread making unsubstantiated claims about trans people based on right wing propaganda. Practicing ad hominem attacks downthread is all you are good for, why would I waste actual effort on you?
> I went to the CBP website and you went to twitter
I went to Google and the twitter post from the official account of the CBP chief came up in search results. You claimed that reports from January from CBP weren't posted so I "have no idea what is actually happening.". You are wrong. Based on numbers from the CBP chief himself, I do have an idea of what is happening.
You also posited "More likely is that Trump destablised the west and caused a net increase in illegal migration attempts." when actually, based on the CBP numbers, the opposite has happened under Trump's leadership.
> You've spent the entire thread making unsubstantiated claims about trans people based on right wing propaganda
If you you actually go through this thread again, you'll see I mostly discussed tariffs and immigration. Out of this entire thread, I've written one phrase about the transgender issue:
> "allowing biological men to destroy women in sports, not being willing to define what a woman is"
And both of those claims have been well documented. They are facts, not propaganda. E.g. high school volleyball play Payton McNabb who sustained life long head injuries when a trans gender player spiked a ball in her face. E.g. at Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing she was asked if she could define what a woman is and her reply was "I can't --".
Again, you are not operating in truth.
> ad hominem attacks downthread is all you are good for, why would I waste actual effort on you?
You are part of the "smug left"[0]. It's no wonder Joe Klein says this about the Democratic party ""The intellectual corrosion is comprehensive; it is only matched by the self-righteous arrogance.". I'm not sure about the first part, I avoid calling people stupid, but the latter point about the arrogance of the left is spot on.
I don't really want to comment on most of this post, but I want to address your final point:
> You are part of the "smug left"[0]. It's no wonder Joe Klein says this about the Democratic party ""The intellectual corrosion is comprehensive; it is only matched by the self-righteous arrogance.". I'm not sure about the first part, I avoid calling people stupid, but the latter point about the arrogance of the left is spot on.
Where the fuck did conservatives get the idea that they can say whatever they want and people will always be nice to them? The "smug left" stuff comes from the fact conservatives will hitch their wagon to so much stuff that is, in so far that this can be objective, very stupid.
For example, when I was a teenager, Conservatives were really trying to push for Creationism being pushed in schools. Creationism has no scientific basis, it has no business in a science classroom, it's based on an extremely stupid set of books, and yet this is the hill Conservatives wanted to die on.
Sometimes I decide to push back, even politely, but frankly it's exhausting. Creationists are just wrong, how many times should I be expected to have the same polite argument when they clearly have very little desire to actually learn anything?
This might come off as "smug", that's fine. I'm ok with being considered "smug". If you're really making your political decisions based on how polite some people are to you, then that's a lot more telling of you than me.
I appreciate your willingness to engage. I've lost the willpower to believe I can do anything to lift the veil. They are too scared...imagine the sheer panic of your belief system being challenged, when you've already got an insecure and victim mindset that MAGA has exploited.
I almost want to just hold their hands as they tremble through widening their overton window.
Don't try and lift the veil. Point out the veil is stupid looking and people who wear it are dorks. We don't need MAGA people to agree with me, we need the apathetic non-voters of this country to see them for the weird, anti-social losers that they are, and loathe them for it.
> No he did not. Biden's first acts were to repeal Trump's stringent immigration orders. After 3 and half years with another election looming and seeing the disaster that caused, all of the sudden, his administration wasn't so hot on open borders anymore. If he enforced immigration laws, we wouldn't have so many people who have illegally entered the country.
Again, a bipartisan immigration reform was on its way to pass through congress until Trump told all the conservatives to kill it.
> And I never claimed that. But I support an amendment towards that end.
So you agree that an executive order ending birthright citizenship is bad?
> We also have historically the lowest tariff rates in the world. Gee, I wonder if that's related.
You still haven't demonstrated how having a trade imbalance implies that we're "being screwed". Trump keeps asserting that, but that doesn't seem obvious to me.
> Pretty hand wavy there.
Sure, I was writing this on my phone and I didn't have time to go into the details of the intricacies of NATO. You're free to look into the details of NATO yourself (you haven't), and if you do you'll likely understand why saying that the US is being screwed by paying more for NATO doesn't make sense.
> My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense,
That's because "common sense" doesn't actually mean anything. What do you think that "common sense" means? Your "gut feeling"?
"Common sense" is a phrase used by pseudo-intellectuals who want to reduce everything into pithy one-liners and ignore the fact that the world is actually pretty complicated, and your "common sense" is often wrong. It's not exclusive to conservatives, but it does seem to be a phrase that's extremely popular with them.
I reject the notion that immigration, NATO, biological gender, and pretty much any federal policy can be easily explained with "common sense". But what do I know, I'm just a liberal who doesn't have any I guess.
> Nope, the 10,000 troops Mexico just agreed to is on top of whatever other things they "promised" to do. And tariffs are off the table for now.
You're right, I looked it up, though what I should point out is that Biden was able to get Mexico to send troops without starting a trade war. It's not clear to me that this required the threat of a trade war.
> Again, a bipartisan immigration reform was on its way to pass through congress until Trump told all the conservatives to kill it.
That bill had concessions that loosened asylum restrictions and border closure measures. Why would would Republicans who want a secure border pass that when they could wait for Trump to become president and get everything they want in terms of a strong, secure border and tough laws against illegal immigrants?
Besides, even if it did pass, Biden has shown he is unwilling to enforce laws on illegal immigration.
> So you agree that an executive order ending birthright citizenship is bad?
If it turns out to be unconstitutional, then it's illegal and yes, therefor "bad". That's up to the courts to decide. Either way, I absolutely support legally repealing birthright citizenship.
> You still haven't demonstrated how having a trade imbalance implies that we're "being screwed"
Ok, looks like you're right on this, a trade imbalance is not necessarily bad for the US. It is bad for specific domestic industries that are affected by it though. I'd argue to a certain extant a nation has an obligation to protect its businesses in the context of international trade.
Here are some examples of common sense
- Don't let biological men (humans with XY chromosome and a penis) into women's restrooms and locker rooms
- Don't let biological men compete in women's sports because it's unfair and dangerous
- Don't let violent thugs enter our country and if they do, kick them out.
The trade imbalance, like GDP, is a very crude economic measure. Do a search for “iPhone China trade imbalance” for more details. TL;DR is every iPhone is added to the trade deficit with China. However, China (Foxconn) just puts them together. The actual components come from all over the world. Then Apple sells them for 3x plus all the iCloud services. Samsung (Korea) makes more than Foxconn per iPhone.
> Besides, even if it did pass, Biden has shown he is unwilling to enforce laws on illegal immigration.
Again, the Biden administration deported a comparable number of people per year as Trump did first term. You keep repeating this, and sources have been provided to you, so it's bordering on dishonesty at this point.
> If it turns out to be unconstitutional, then it's illegal and yes, therefor "bad". That's up to the courts to decide. Either way, I absolutely support legally repealing birthright citizenship.
You didn't answer my question. The 14th Amendment really doesn't leave much wiggle room on this, and it's certainly not enough wiggle room to overrule it with an executive order.
Even if you think birthright citizenship is bad, wouldn't you agree that it's a terrible precedent to have a the president be able to arbitrarily be able to decide which Constitutional amendments need to be followed? Wouldn't you be against Biden writing an executive order repealing the second amendment?
I don't really see how birthright citizenship is bad, you haven't demonstrated this, all you've done is fear-monger about immigrants.
> I'd argue to a certain extant a nation has an obligation to protect its businesses in the context of international trade.
Sure, but the tariffs that Trump is threatening would be potentially helping some local businesses at the expense of others. It's not a clear cut net-win. If we impose tariffs on Canada, China, Mexico, or the EU, they are likely to give us retaliatory tariffs and that might affect businesses that depend on imports from those countries.
At least that's what nearly every economist says. Maybe they don't have common sense.
> Here are some examples of common sense - Don't let biological men (humans with XY chromosome and a penis) into women's restrooms and locker rooms - Don't let biological men compete in women's sports because it's unfair and dangerous
Well I'm glad you have it figured it out. I think people relying on "common sense", a term that doesn't mean anything for reasons already described, is really, really stupid. I also think that fear-mongering about trans people is pretty telling.
> Don't let violent thugs enter our country and if they do, kick them out.
No one wants violent criminals in here. Biden did deport violent immigrants. No one here wants violent people in the country. You can keep bringing this up as if I didn't already agree that we should deport violent criminals, indicating that you either a) didn't actually read my responses, b) ignored my response, or c) are just lying. I'm inclined to pick C at this point.
What about the Trump administration is "intelligent"? Trump lies about everything. Pointing out other politicians lie isn't a good comeback. Trump lacks all understanding of how tariffs work, he said he was going to "repeal and replace" Obamacare on "day 1" in 2016, only to say he has "concepts of a plan" in 2024, whatever the fuck that means. He rarely has "ideas", he just bitches about stuff and handwaves away everything when pressed for any details.
"Lawful order"? I don't know that that means. I would say that writing a lot of executive orders that go directly against the constitution is literally the opposite of "lawful order", but you're free to disagree.