Hanaguma

True, but you have to distinguish between legal residents and illegal immigrants. Nothing wrong with expanding visa programmes to get more workers IMHO, as long as it is regulated and the workers are vetted. But letting thousands of people pour over the border every day is not a solution to America's labour market woes. Think about poor New York City, where it costs upwards of $300 per night to feed and house illegal immigrants in hotels across the city. That adds up to 8-9000 bucks per month per family that are in the system. I am sure that regular Americans who are down on their luck would LOVE to be treated that way.

True, not just salary. But there are millions of able bodied Americans who are choosing not to work for reasons other than health or education. They are just taking time off, getting governemnt benefits, living off parents/partners, etc. It has become all too easy.

The idea of illegal immigrants doing the "stoop labour", as another poster put it, is a myth. They make up less than a third of agricultural workers in the US, and far less in other kinds of labour. There are millions of Americans who are choosing to sit on the sidelines and collect a cheque from Uncle Sugar. They need to be given incentive to get back into the workforce.

Agreed. Good idea, see you over there.

Ah, here we go, the old shibboleth about "jobs that Americans don't want". Do you realize how insulting that is to both Americans and immigrants? Americans are lazy, and immigrants are only good for cleaning toilets. True there is a shortage of skilled trades, but that can be rectified without hiring unqualified and unvetted foreign labour. If paying living wages puts some businesses out of business, then so be it. That is the reality of the economy. Better than the public subsidizing illegal immigrants to do the jobs, just to keep the business owners collective heads above water. Please tell me about these jobs that Americans won't do. Millions of Americans work on farms, in restaurant kitchens, on construction sites, etc. There is NO job that is majority illegal immigrant, and very few that are even half immigrant (both legal and illegal). The problem is providing incentive for the millions of Americans who have left the labour market, and importing an illegal underclass who are vulnerable to exploitation is not the solution.

Haven't seen too much reform from the Boy King. He won two elections while coming in 2nd in the popular vote, so not much incentive to change anything.

Yes, that's right. Their votes don't count towards the Presidency directly. And everyone, including the candidates, knows that going in. It creates a situation where a candidate needs to gain support in the entire country, not just concentrate on population centres.

Of course he has a chance.... IF he is the GOP nominee and if he, as you say, wins the Electoral College. That is the constitutional republic in action. Ditto if Biden wins again (if he is the Democratic nominee). Hyperventilating not necessary.

What possible danger? The precedent is set with the previous election. He can huff and puff but in the end nothing will happen. Have a little more faith in your fellow citizens and the system that the Founding Fathers left you.

Sorry, but no. Time to move on. The peaceful transition of power after the last election is the only evidence needed that hysteria over "the threat" is overblown.

An oversupply of cheap labour leads to downward pressure on wages, especially for poor Americans. Illegal immigrants will work for less. Why pay an American $20 an hour if a Venezualan will take $10? Especially if there are no consequences to hiring the Venezualan.

Really? There are a number of countries in which winning the popular vote (either a majority or plurality) is no guarantee of becoming the government. Canada 2021- the Conservatives got more votes than the Liberals, but the Liberals had a plurality of seats in Parliament and formed a government. Same in 2019.

Yep, that's him. The great threat to democracy /s If there ever were a threat, it ended on Jan 20 2021 when Biden was inaugurated. The rest is all posturing and preening, and massive ego on the part of the losing candidate (Trump).

Interesting that Joe suddenly has an interest in democracy. I guess he has already forgotten the peaceful transfer of power that happened in January 2021. His peaceful inauguration. The "very generous letter" (to quote the President) that Trump left for him in the Oval Office on inauguration day. The same Trump who wished the new administration "great luck and great success". https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/trump-letter-to-biden/index.html There is no threat to democracy. That idle paranoia is just being used as a scare tactic by the left to promote fear and division.

Wow, I thought you were talking about Nikki Haley there for a minute..., well except for 3.

Obvious solution? Keep them in custody until their hearings. Build camps along the border to house them. Immediately deport any who used a human smuggler- the wrist bands are usually a giveaway. AND also go after employers. It doesn't have to be an either/or solution.

As of now, the US has spent $1,000 per household on the Ukraine war. I think most people would rather have that money in their pockets, use it to buy food for their kids, pay the inflated prices to put gas in their cars, etc. NATO doesn't need to be renewed. It lost its purpose once the USSR and Warsaw Pact dissolved. Europe has more than enough money to defend itself without relying on Uncle Sugar.

Only the guy with possibly the most downloaded podcast in America, with 15 million subscribers and 3 BILLION views on Youtube. A hard to pin down guy in standard political terms. Leans libertarian, suppports drug legalization, endorsed Tulsi Gabbard in the 2020 election, a 2nd Amendment guy who also is in favor of universal health care. Also not afraid to talk to anyone on his show, a quality that more journalists should emulate.

It isnt ignorant at all. The money to fight has to come from somewhere, which means the pockets of taxpayers in the US and other countries. Money that could otherwise be spent within those countries to help their own citizens (Maui wildfire rebuilding etc). The war has largely stalemated. The Russians are dug in and will be hard to dislodge without significant manpower help from NATO, which means expanding the war. You willing to trade London or Berlin or Paris for Kiev? Or the Donetsk? I'm not.

Demographics are working against Ukraine. A possible related example would be Finland vs USSR in world war 2. The Finns put up a valiant resistance but in the end needed Germany to help them. Ukraine is the same. They will simply run out of men faster than Russia. Particularly if they want to go on the offensive to recapture their lost territory. For their faults, Russians are very tenacious and stubborn on the defensive, as Ukraine is finding out with this years failed spring campaign. So no, they cannot regain what they had before the war unless NATO jumps in. And turning a regional conflict into a global one is a tragedy that need not happen. The risks are too great. Military aid is useless without troops to use it, troops who are trained to use it properly. No time to train, no time to ship everything they want. Best result will be a stalemate.

Well, you got that part right. It's NOT my problem. Whether or not Russia get the Donbas or a few thousand assorted square kms of territory doesn't register with me. I honestly don't see a scenario where Ukraine comes out unscathed, all territory restored, etc. Making no attempt to bring Russia to the bargaining table is rank stupidity. Can you tell me a realistic ending that doesn't involve NATO ground/air forces getting involved yet gets victory for Ukraine? All that is happening now is prolonging the inevitable. Ukraine can't win without other nations intervening directly, and that is a potential nightmare with huge risks and little potential gain. Or is that OK-widening the war to include NATO directly? Because that's what it's gonna take to shift the Russians.

It must be easy to dismiss those who disagree with you so cavalierly. But believe it or not, it IS possible to both hope Russia loses AND not support further funding this conflict. A little nuance goes a long way.

...and here we go! "b-b-but Trump...." ...has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine. Biden flushing 120 billion dollars plus down the drain while his own cities are in chaos is criminal.

Tug, your very first assumption was wrong and exposes the inherent problem with the whole debate on the Ukraine war. Russia is NOT "the largest enemy on the planet". China is. And spending 125 billion dollars to fight an unwinnable conflict is folly. Do you honestly think that Russia can be evicted from Ukraine without NATO joining in? The numbers just aren't there. You only have to look at the huge fizzle that was this year's "spring offensive" to see that. The best that Ukraine can hope for is to hang on to what they have left. Europe can (and should) protect itself. Let me ask you: do YOU think NATO should join in? Do you think Ukraine can recapture all its lost territory without the aid of soldiers from other nations?

Absolutely. It's about time. Good work Joe. I just wish there were 2 more "zeroes" on the number being deployed.