The Race For 2024

[Elixir]

I have a problem with illegal aliens committing murder (or other crimes) in the USA.

But you have no problem with thousands of “your people” following a lie, making ILLEGAL entry to the nation’s Capitol, injuring 140 law enforcement officers and KILLING a few of them in pursuit of an ILLEGAL overthrow of a free and fair election.
Go figure. Is there a rational explanation for this, or are we to simply accept that hypocrisy is a mainstream “value” of the Trumpsucking right wing?

Funny (not funny) how Swiz runs away from hard questions.
I went to school near enough to Santa Monica for two years, and I understand that the polite thing to do is pretend you didn't hear the question.
Life's good in Santa Monica! Why fuck it up by bringing up ugly facts unnecessarily?
I thought it was smarmy then.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Funny (not funny) how Swiz runs away from hard questions.

Well there goes that irony meter.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump Rants in Dead of Night About Debating Biden — Rolls Out Stunning New Self-Nickname

Trump ranted in a late-night post, bashing Biden's Dem challenger, rolling out a stunning new self-nickname, and professing a desire to debate the president

www.mediaite.com

Something wrong with the web page so I couldn't quote it.

 

[TomC]

There seems to be an intense debate over whether illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants or whatever the current term is are law breakers or not. Whatever your opinion of the law itself, they are by definition law breakers.

I've never heard about that intense debate.

If you have ever driven a car 35 in a 30 zone, you're a lawbreaker by definition. I once cut my grass after 9pm, there's laws about that.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

Even if you don't like a law, even you think the law in question is an absurdity, if someone breaks that law they are by definition law breakers.

Sometimes it is bad to break a law, sometimes it is good to break a law, but in either case it is breaking a law.

Wow! Stunning revelations!

There seems to be an intense debate over whether illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants or whatever the current term is are law breakers or not. Whatever your opinion of the law itself, they are by definition law breakers.

I'm familiar with the debate, which currently focuses on the Venezuelan immigrant accused of murder. The thing is, though, that he was in the US quite legally. His immigrant status is irrelevant except in the sense that anti-immigrant fearmongering is part of the Republican strategy for winning the general election. Nobody disputes that he is a law breaker, just that his presence in the US had anything to do with breaking the law. He wasn't an "illegal" in the normal pejorative sense of the word.

 

[Toni]

Ooft;

A new ad from Trump world questions whether Joe Biden, 81, will make it through a second term if he wins in November amid rising questions over the president's age and fitness for office. Clips of Biden tripping on stairs and freezing during public appearances are peppered in the 30-second ad, which aired Thursday morning during a commercial break for MSNBC's Morning Joe – of one of Biden's favorite shows.
The president's flubs and freezes have been on the rise and only highlighted more as the 2024 general election approaches in November. On Tuesday, Biden sparked more health concerns when he froze for 15 seconds during a press conference after saying: 'I have a lot of questions. I better not start the questions. I'll get in trouble.' 'We can all see Joe Biden's weakness,' the narrator for the MAGA Inc. ad notes after a 10-second clip of Biden's freezing during a separate press conference on February 16. 'If Biden wins, can he even survive til 2029?' the voice questions, adding: 'The real question is – can we?'

Daily Mail

When will the Dems bring this farce to an end?

If Trump were not the GOP nominee, I seriously doubt whether Biden would have run a second term. But he is and we have two elderly men running to have the most stressful job in the world.

One is in better shape, physically and intellectually than the other.

The other is mentally incapable of serving the term he seeks as demonstrated during his previous term. His physical health is extremely poor. He cannot string two coherent sentences together, with a teleprompter in front of his face. He is facing 91 indictments. Numerous legal and financial judgements against him—and attempted to overthrow the results of the last election and encouraged an angry mob to assassinate the sitting VP which is criminal even if it was Mike Pence. I do not care how many affairs he’s had or how much he has to pay women to have sex with him, I do care very much that he has openly encouraged outside interference from foreign powers known to be hostile to the USA. That alone is enough to make him unfit for any political office.

Biden is old but he gets things done.

 

[TomC]

Ya know what would be great?
Biden and Trump become "incapacitated".

Newsom and DeSantis become the choices.
I'd really like that to happen.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Ya know what would be great?
Biden and Trump become "incapacitated".

Newsom and DeSantis become the choices.
I'd really like that to happen.
Tom

Not me.

 

[TomC]

Ya know what would be great?
Biden and Trump become "incapacitated".

Newsom and DeSantis become the choices.
I'd really like that to happen.
Tom

Not me.

Prolly because I am smarter than you.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

There seems to be an intense debate over whether illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants or whatever the current term is are law breakers or not. Whatever your opinion of the law itself, they are by definition law breakers.

I've never heard about that intense debate.

If you have ever driven a car 35 in a 30 zone, you're a lawbreaker by definition. I once cut my grass after 9pm, there's laws about that.
Tom

There's a lot more grey area with undocumented citizens, who are often following as best they can the fractured, sometimes straight up contradictory path by which refugees, minors, trafficking victims and other involuntary migrants are supposed to follow in pursuing citizenship. Sometimes they are directly following the advice of lawyers, police, or other seeming authority figures. Whereas someone who waters their lawn on the wrong days knows they are breaking the law and intends to break the law.

 

[Patooka]

Is Laken Riley's death less tragic than George Floyd's death?

I wouldn't say less tragic, but I would say Floyd's death was worse. I don't expect a true libertarian who believes in small government to understand, but when elements of The State get involved with the death of a citizen, and when elements of The State try to cover it up, that is obviously worse than another murder, purely on context alone.

You understand context, right?

Right?

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I will say Laken Riley's death is quite obviously less tragic, because at no point did The State attempt to not prosecute or downplay the murder.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is Laken Riley's death less tragic than George Floyd's death?

I wouldn't say less tragic, but I would say Floyd's death was worse. I don't expect a true libertarian who believes in small government to understand, but when elements of The State get involved with the death of a citizen, and when elements of The State try to cover it up, that is obviously worse than another murder, purely on context alone.

You understand context, right?

Right?

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I will say Laken Riley's death is quite obviously less tragic, because at no point did The State attempt to not prosecute or downplay the murder.

How about the death of Duncan Lemp? link

 

[Patooka]

Is Laken Riley's death less tragic than George Floyd's death?

I wouldn't say less tragic, but I would say Floyd's death was worse. I don't expect a true libertarian who believes in small government to understand, but when elements of The State get involved with the death of a citizen, and when elements of The State try to cover it up, that is obviously worse than another murder, purely on context alone.

You understand context, right?

Right?

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I will say Laken Riley's death is quite obviously less tragic, because at no point did The State attempt to not prosecute or downplay the murder.

How about the death of Duncan Lemp? link

No idea, never heard about it. What's the point you're trying to make?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I guessed you hadn't heard about it, which is why I provided a link.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is Laken Riley's death less tragic than George Floyd's death?

I wouldn't say less tragic, but I would say Floyd's death was worse. I don't expect a true libertarian who believes in small government to understand, but when elements of The State get involved with the death of a citizen, and when elements of The State try to cover it up, that is obviously worse than another murder, purely on context alone.

You understand context, right?

Right?

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I will say Laken Riley's death is quite obviously less tragic, because at no point did The State attempt to not prosecute or downplay the murder.

How about the death of Duncan Lemp? link

Can we assume that this means you concede Patooka’s point?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Funny (not funny) how Swiz runs away from hard questions.

Well there goes that irony meter.

Wait... people shouldn't reference irony meters, in which their response actually causes them to explode. It just isn't safe.

 

[Patooka]

I guessed you hadn't heard about it, which is why I provided a link.

I've read the link, which was an incredibly biased blog post ending in an ad for the blogger's new book. I'm confused as to what your point is trying to be. Are you going to ask me my thoughts on every single killing that has occurred in the US and provide suspect context with each and every one of them? If so, I'm not really interested and I suspect the heat death of the universe will happen before we're through.

So what exactly is your point? What's the common link *you* perceive to be between Riley, Floyd and Lemp?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guessed you hadn't heard about it, which is why I provided a link.

I've read the link, which was an incredibly biased blog post ending in an ad for the blogger's new book. I'm confused as to what your point is trying to be. Are you going to ask me my thoughts on every single killing that has occurred in the US and provide suspect context with each and every one of them? If so, I'm not really interested and I suspect the heat death of the universe will happen before we're through.

So what exactly is your point? What's the common link *you* perceive to be between Riley, Floyd and Lemp?

His point is... well... maybe he'll say it for himself. *not holding my breath*

 

[bilby]

There seems to be an intense debate over whether illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants or whatever the current term is are law breakers or not.

Yeah, there seems to be; But what there actually is is a deliberate conflation of breaking immigration and/or border crossing laws, with breaking laws against violent and/or property crime.

When a MAGA loon says "This illegal is a law breaker", they are seeking to imply (without evidence) that regular citizens should fear anyone who has unlawfully entered the country.

The actual crime statistics show that a rational and informed American should have a greater fear of people who did not enter the country illegally - because US citizens and lawful residents commit violent and property crime against other US citizens and lawful residents at higher rates than do undocumented persons.

Knowing "This person is a law breaker" is not sufficient to know whether or not that person is likely to victimise you (or anyone else) in a violent crime, or a property crime. It's less sensible and reasonable to fear undocumented immigrants as it would be to fear jaywalkers.

It remains impossible to divide people into "bad" and "good" categories, or "untrustworthy" and "trustworty" for that matter - no matter how attractive such a binary division might be to Trump's army of simpletons.

Reality is complex and nuanced. "Law breaker" simply isn't a helpful characteristic when attempting to determine who is a danger to you, your familiy, your froends, or your property. It's far too broad to be useful. It includes almost everybody. I doubt that there are many adults anywhere in the world who have never broken any law.

But there are plenty of politicians who know that they can get elected if they sow enough fear.

 

[Politesse]

The actual crime statistics show that a rational and informed American should have a greater fear of people who did not enter the country illegally - because US citizens and lawful residents commit violent and property crime against other US citizens and lawful residents at higher rates than do undocumented persons.

This line of reasoning will have no impact on your average American conservative, as they hate and fear the people who commit those crimes as well (who they imagine to all be marxist, "homeless" inner city blacks or welfare queens) and want to see them all indefinitely detained in the prison system. The immigrants are just the problem they have the legal right to expel, not the only problem they desire authoritarian final solutions to.

Army of Simpletons would be a good name for a congressional rock band.