All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Malvolio]

The issues at the border don't begin there, not even close. It's all about problems neither Democrats or Republicans can deal with, much less fix, that being the unimaginable poverty and rampant drug war violence that forces desperate people to flee north because, in most cases, their lives LITERALLY depend on it. At least Democrats are trying to fix the border situation while Republicans do nothing except kill bipartisan legislation because they're hopelessly beholden to an obese, orange skinned sociopath who doesn't want solutions, only chaos which benefits him. Oh, sure, inhumane Republicans can kick out immigrants 24/7, but, guess what? That doesn't work! Those poor unfortunates just turn right around and try again, and keep on trying since they have no other options. We should demand that South American governments step up and deal with the poverty and violence that forces frightened people to pack up and leave. THAT'S the real solution!

Or, or, hear me out, we could lean on the corporations that hire undocumented immigrants for below minimum wage. But that won't happen since so many of those corporations make campaign contributions to the people in government who would do the leaning.

[aja_christopher]

A lot of stuff that people hang on the President (now, or any time in the past) is really in control of Congress. The immigration quagmire is one of them.

This also goes for protesters complaining about "Biden" sending aid to Israel. Even if he didn't support Israel, Congress is who decides on sending aid.

The entire premise of his argument is false regardless -- immigration and border issues have already been discussed extensively by all involved.

The accusation that the issue is being "dodged" is clear deflection from the original topic of bigotry and prejudice within the Republican party and how it underlies organizations such as the Parents Rights Movement.

The current episode of deflection only makes this even more clear.

[Tuck]

The entire premise of his argument is false regardless -- immigration and border issues have already been discussed extensively by all involved.

The same can't be said for Republican prejudice and bigotry and the current episode of deflection only makes this even more clear.

The accusation that the issue is being "dodged" is clear deflection from the original topic of bigotry and prejudice within the Republican party and how it underlies organizations such as the Parents Rights Movement.

I'm confused. I was responding to hyped78.

This all sounds like your ongoing grudge with Mets.

[Gray Lensman]

Or, or, hear me out, we could lean on the corporations that hire undocumented immigrants for below minimum wage. But that won't happen since so many of those corporations make campaign contributions to the people in government who would do the leaning.

They could also do the same thing with Medicaid fraud. Most state fraud units, even if they got back every penny the charged individuals with, wouldn't even begin to start paying for the department budget. Most fraud isn't from individuals, but from over billing and fraudulent billing at the business end.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

In some good news, the strike is considered muted and Iran is downplaying it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/w...l-strikes.html

To be honest, this surprises me. Well, if it means the end of this tit for tat nonsense between Iran and Israel, then I'm all for it.

[hyped78]

Or, or, hear me out, we could lean on the corporations that hire undocumented immigrants for below minimum wage. But that won't happen since so many of those corporations make campaign contributions to the people in government who would do the leaning.

Very true!!!! What does the US law say on hiring undocumented migrants, if companies are caught doing that?

I'm confused. I was responding to hyped78.

This all sounds like your ongoing grudge with Mets.

You and I are having a civilized discussion and aja_christopher is just cranky/bad attitude, never mind. I don't care about his grudges or his intent to center discussion on topic A and disregarding topic B, that's not how forums work

[Kevinroc]

To be honest, this surprises me. Well, if it means the end of this tit for tat nonsense between Iran and Israel, then I'm all for it.

I imagine Netanyahu still wants to bait the US into a war with Iran.

[aja_christopher]

I'm confused. I was responding to hyped78.

This all sounds like your ongoing grudge with Mets.

Nope — just commenting on hyped accusations of “dodging” topics that have already been repeatedly discussed.

[hyped78]

To be honest, this surprises me. Well, if it means the end of this tit for tat nonsense between Iran and Israel, then I'm all for it.

The rhetoric from both sides seems quite tamed, so hopefully this is the end of it (for now, at least).

The same can't be said about Hezbollah in Israel's northern border.

[hyped78]

Nope — just commenting on hyped accusations of “dodging” topics that have already been repeatedly discussed.

You haven't discussed that topic with me, nor do I even know what your opinion is on the border. I asked you a question in good faith. You didn't reply. You didn't point me to past posts of yours on that topic. And you did that while saying that I'm "lying", that I'm "deflecting" (deflecting from what?! haha) and just with a terrible overall attitude. Simple. I'm not 'accusing' of anything, I'm stating a fact.

[hyped78]

I imagine Netanyahu still wants to bait the US into a war with Iran.

Right now that's a mistake for everyone. But the longer term question is if we're OK with Iran developing nuclear weapons and, if not, what should be done to stop that

[aja_christopher]

You haven't discussed that topic with me. I asked you a question. You didn't reply. You didn't point me to past posts of yours on that topic. Simple.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm stating a fact.

Researching past discussions is your responsibility — this has already been made clear to you as well.

If the argument is in good faith then that won’t be an issue.

[hyped78]

Researching past discussions is your responsibility — this has already been made clear to you as well.

It's not my "responsibility" (and how would I even know where to start, there are 314 pages of posts on this thread alone, not to mention previous version threads). It's my choice - and obviously at this point I choose not to. I asked in good faith and politely, you didn't want to type even a single line about it and just went on a bizarre rant making weird accusations, so that's that. You have terrible attitude.

EDIT: You've added "If the argument is in good faith then that won’t be an issue." - if you would've pointed me to page XX or to date YY, I would've gone back to read, obviously, but without any clue this is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, also because the search function on this forum isn't great

[aja_christopher]

It's not my "responsibility" (and how would I even know where to start, there are 314 pages of posts on this thread alone, not to mention previous version threads). It's my choice - and obviously at this point I choose not to.

Thus the notation of selective ignorance.

[hyped78]

Thus the notation of selective ignorance.

After all of your temper tantrums and horrible attitude today, honestly if being selectively ignorant means I don't get to know your opinion (if you even have one), then sign me up/ it's for the best!