Hanaguma

Cool, now we are getting somewhere. Could you explain what you mean by a "living minimum wage"? Kind of important if we want to move forward. Otherwise, it is just another meaningless platitude. I don't blame immigrants for anything at all. My wife was/is an immigrant to my country. Took almost a year to get the paperwork done, fees etc. Immigrants are great. However...... illegal immigrants are not. Immigration policy needs to take into account the present and future needs of the country. The days of the happy brown people picking lettuce in California are almost over. Today's illegal immigrants are the Hispanic kids in New York, who beat up cops and SHOOT at them when they are busted robbing a store. ETA: still waiting to hear your comprehensive list of jobs that "Americans won't do".

You don't learn about history by hiding it or destroying it. How was Penn's statue praising atrocities exactly? He was, like many historical figures, a complicated and flawed person. Looking at the past through 21st century social justice glasses is childish and ridiculous. A statue of Teddy Roosevelt was removed from the Museum of Natural History in New York, for God's sake.

Not this tired old shibboleth again. There is no such thing as work Americans dont want to do. There IS work that Americans won't do for the wages that an illegal immigrant would accept. The majority of farm labour and food processing jobs are still held by Americans and legal residents. More than 90% of hospitality workers are the same. 80% in construction, as well as housekeeping/maid jobs. So what are the jobs that Americans aren't doing again? https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-millions-undocumented-immigrants-essential-americas-recovery-new-report-shows/

This would be the smart play for the Democrats. I think Newsome would probably win against Trump. Harris? Dont think so. They might have Joe stumble along until the Democratic National Convention in August. Then, instead of accepting the nomination, he would simply step aside for Harris. It would be far too late for another candidate to be selected or any kind of contest. So Kamala gets coronated and the SJW side of the party is assuaged.

Not to mention that Harris was picked purely on the basis of her genitalia and her melanin. Biden paying a favour back to James Clyburn.

No argument there, not a fan of either member. But I'm not sure why you are mentioning them as they are not in the same category as a sitting vice President. Both parties have their share of whackjobs. And Michelle won't run. Is she the only possible option other than Harris if Biden steps aside? I gave you a list of 5 successful governors who could easily step up to the plate. You counter with a first lady with zero political experience. If that is the best hope for the Democrats, they better start heavy prayer sessions for Joe's health.

Misogyny? Where would you pull that from? I don't like her because she is shallow, fake, incompetent, and in way over her head. For the GOP, I would prefer Governors Noem or DeSantis or Reynolds or even former governor Christie. Haley would not be too bad, although I am not a fan of her neo-con roots. My question was: who else could the Democrats realistically nominate other than Harris, if something were to happen to Biden? Or do you think she would be just jim dandy as the Democratic candidate?

So, basically, we can encapsulate the report as follows: they both screwed the pooch. Trump out of hubris and arrogance, Biden out of senility and age. Can I be a Special Prosecutor now?

To an extent, you are right. Both are somewhat stuck with the nominees that are now available. Difference being that the GOP has a deep bench to turn to, if Trump either gets imprisoned or incapacitated. Any number of viable alternatives who are capable of leading. The Democrats? Let's say that the same happens to Biden, either his age finally catches up or he steps down. Who do they have other than the execrable Kamala Harris? She would be an unmitigated disaster as a nominee and also, God forbid, as President. Some are speculating that Biden is holding on until after he (possibly) wins the election, then can step down early in his term. Again, a disaster for the United States and something that voters really need to consider.

Probably true. Plus the Democrats are trapped. If they whack Biden as the nominee, they pretty much have to choose VP Harris to replace him. And that is NOT a winning prospect in November. She is one of the few politicians whose favorability rating is even lower than Biden. If the DO try to choose someone else, it had better not be a white man, or the SJW wing of the party will scream bloody murder. So, who does that leave?

Trump appointed, but working for Merrick Garland, Biden appointed. Do you think Garland (who is no dummy) would appoint a special prosecutor who would blade his boss?

I dont think the vast majority of the Jan 6 rioters had the intellectual horsepower to attempt anything so complicated. They were just venting their frustration at losing and got caught up in the moment. Hence their lack of preparation, guns, etc. They had exactly zero chance of doing anything other than being a nuisance. The street protests actually WERE an attempt to disrupt government, albeit at the local level. Police were targeted, municipal property destroyed, etc. IMHO far more serious and dangerous than January 6, given the scale and destruction that happened. But that is a topic for another day.

Teacher teacher! I know this one! The "street protests" went on for months and resulted in dozens of deaths, hundreds of businesses burned, widespread looting, property damage in the billions, and carnage. The Jan 6 riot was over in hours with no loss of life other than an unarmed woman shot by a cop. And regrettable but minimal damage to the Capitol. Can I have a cookie now?

Yes we get it, "b-b-but Trump...." Fuel for another topic perhaps. Let's try to stay on this one rather than resurrecting mummies from the past.

And the media as usual are making the GOP reaction the story, rather than the story itself. You can check for yourself the usual headlines about "Republicans seize" or "Republicans pounce".... . You might think that the GOP spends a lot of its time sieiing and pouncing. Here they are seizing; https://www.axios.com/2024/02/08/trump-haley-biden-special-counsel-report and pouncing!

Taking that as given, then why don't the Democrats seal the victory by selecting a non elderly, non compromised person for their nominee? The only reason I can see is VP Harris. She would never voluntarily step aside for another candidate, and the party would be loathe to reject her based on her melanin and genitalia. Otherwise, another non-Biden candidate would have a very good chance of beating Trump handily. But the Democrats are saddled to Biden and stuck for the moment.

I never said he was lying. He forgets, he forgets what he has forgotten, and he mixes up rather important details of events. He doesn't just stutter- he mimbles, rambles, loses his train of thought repeatedly. And it is getting worse and worse as his Presidency continues. Hell, even check 2020 Biden with today and there is a remarkable decline.

I have no issue with stuttering. Only with it being used as a way for criticism of Biden to be waved off. His problem isn't his stutter- it never was in the past, never mentioned AFAIK. Stuttering doesn't make a man forget names, and faces, and dates.

Come on, are you REALLY going to dredge up that old dodge? There was no mention of poor Joe and his stutter when we was Senator, or Vice President. Yet when he aged and began to slow down mentally it suddenly became front and centre. As if to give him a shield from legitimate criticism- "how DARE you attack a man with a handicap!" All you need to do is listen to him speak 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today. The difference is remarkable, and frankly scary. Joe was never too sharp, but at least he was moderately articulate. He had more choices of voice than angry curmudgeon. There has been a decline, and it is becoming harder and harder to hide.

Indeed. Which begs the question as to why the President has not done either of these things, if only to calm the public's entirely reasonable fears and also to stick a knife into that line of attack by the GOP.

I was waiting for it! "b-b-but Trump!!"

True. Seek it at the nearest US consulate or embassy. Seek it in the first safe country you can escape to. This was the basis of the "Remain in Mexico" policy, which Biden cancelled. Free hotel rooms, credit cards, meals, plane/bus tickets are NOT a right. Asylum seekers should be housed in administrative detention until their cases can be heard, and not allowed to roam the country without any form of vetting or security check.

Really... the bill would let 5000 per day cross the border illegally. It did nothing to address the human smugglers. Nothing to attempt to keep the 'migrants' in supervised detention until their cases were heard. And nothing to punish those who employ them.

"Pure democracy" was never the goal of the United States. You need to study a bit of history. Equality is great amongst legal residents and citizens, not for those who crash the border. And you are right about one thing. The US is a strong country. Too strong to be much bothered or hurt by a "two-bit Carnival Barker". If you think immigration reform is pressing, then there is no need (other than political expediency) to bung it together in an omnibus bill with so many other disparate parts. Let each part of the bill stand or fall on its own merits. Surely nothing could be more purely democratic than that...

Yes, it is a thing. A thing accomplished by applying for permission at a US embassy or consulate. As many peoples' forefathers did. A thing NOT accomplished by making the conscious decision to pay human smugglers thousands of dollars, taking pains to avoid manned border crossings, destroying one's own documents, and then expecting to be welcomed with food, rooms in hotels, and credit cards.