heybruce

1. Immigrants can't vote unless they spend many years becoming legal citizens. 2. Non-citizens voting is very rare. A much bigger problem is senior snow birds who use dual residencies to vote two times, as was seen in The Villages in Florida. https://www.fox13news.com/news/villages-residents-arrested-for-casting-multiple-votes-in-2020-election-police-say However they are assumed to have voted Republican; apparently in Florida that makes it ok. 3. Do you really think Trump or any other elected Republican will actually charge and prosecute 'respectable' business-people who hire illegal immigrants? https://www.newsweek.com/trump-undocumented-immigrants-tower-demolish-724845 https://time.com/5039109/donald-trump-undocumented-polish-trump-tower-bonwit-teller/ https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/trump-organization-undocumented-workers

But, but, but...Celebrity! In Trump world that means he must be smart. Unless he disagrees with Trump.

Speeches or incoherent rants?

The issue is Republicans intentionally sabotaging needed measures to address the border problems.

You ask the question then answer it. Nice trolling. My question to Frank83628 was "And your 'goto' sites are.......? " Why don't you answer that as well. I've told you my goto sites, why won't you tell everyone yours?

And your 'goto' sites are.......?

"the likes of cnn are a joke, but i doubt you bother to look any further than what you're told by them." It's kind of comical that CNN is such a boogeyman for some people. The kind of people who assume that everyone who doesn't agree with them must get all their information from CNN. I don't watch CNN. I don't watch news on television, I read. I can cover lots more ground that way and quickly identify and reject sources that are big on opinions and short on facts. After achieving a certain degree of background information and skepticism it's also easy to identify and factor in bias. You should try it. Regarding search engines; if none of them are telling you stuff you want to believe, maybe what you believe just doesn't reflect the real world.

A lot of nonsensical questions and deflections. Defense treaties are not commercial transactions. Every time Trump threatens to pull out of a treaty unless the other country pays more he's making it clear that America is available to the highest bidder. You don't deter a nuclear war that way. You negotiate disagreements behind closed doors, not on stage. Of course Trump doesn't want to do anything if it doesn't put him on stage. Lorrie is a common term. You need to get out more. Do you agree that more people and equipment at the border would decrease illegal entries and smuggling? "Of that, $700 million would go toward hiring of Custom and Border Protection officer and Border Patrol agent hiring, $500 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement staffing, upwards of $4 billion for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to onboard more than 4,300 new asylum officers and $56 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to staff up to train all of those new employees." "Our ports of entry have been understaffed for years and by adding more officers, CBP would be better equipped to stop shipments of fentanyl and reduce the need for temporary duty assignments to the southwest border ports,” https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2024/02/hiring-and-pay-reforms-accompany-staffing-surges-bipartisan-border-deal/393918/ Regarding your questions: 1. How do you think Trump plans to end the Ukraine war? By politely asking Putin to pack up his things and leave Ukraine, or by denying Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself so it must make major concessions to Putin? I think it's the latter, and that would definitely be a success for Putin. Remember you posted regarding Putin attacking Europe: "I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue." Do I really have to connect the dots for you? 2. Addressed in the second paragraph of this reply. 3. Yes, but increased spending now will not result in significant increases in military capabilities for years. The US needs to remain a steadfast member of the alliances with no question that it will live up to all mutual defense provisions. 4. Because they had less faith in America's willingness to live up to its obligations. 5. Addressed in the second paragraph of this reply. 6. Because it violated terms of international agreements regarding asylum seekers and it could no longer be justified after pandemic restrictions were lifted. 7. Ukraine getting all of its territory back and reparations for the war. 8. I'm sure sections 102 and 103 had something to do with it. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2/summary 9. Because combining many bills together has become standard practice in Congress. 10. I think that would take far too long. 11. Congress provided the defensive weapons. Trump held them up. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785349739/why-the-trump-decision-to-delay-aid-to-ukraine-is-under-scrutiny Now it's my turn: 1. Do you think Trump would make it explicitly clear that America's "nuclear deterrent umbrella" covers all of NATO and our east Asia allies? 2. If Putin launches a land war in Europe to reclaim the Baltic states and parts of Poland, will Trump fulfill America's NATO obligations and pull out all stops to push them back? 3. If your answer to 1 and 2 is "Yes", do you think all our NATO and Asian allies would agree? 4. If NATO and Asian allies don't trust Trump, do you think they will seek their own nuclear weapons? Do you understand that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing? 5. If China launched a pre-emptive strike against Asian countries developing nuclear weapons, what do you think Trump would do? In order for deterrence to work, the US must be seen as a reliable ally. Trump doesn't inspire confidence on that measure, and that's very dangerous.

Ah, is google not giving the wingnut conspiracy theory sources you believe the attention you think they deserve?

He didn't think he got the resources he needed because various officials didn't like the appearance of too much security. Who's fault was that? Who was POTUS and in charge of the intelligence services who didn't share enough information with him? If you want to spin a conspiracy out of the interview, the logical one is that Trump wanted minimal security so his mob would have an opportunity to disrupt the certification, or perhaps do more. Then after sending his mob towards the White House Trump monitored events on television for hours before, when it was clear that the mob wouldn't prevent certification or overthrow the government, called them off. Is that what you're suggesting happened?

Yeah, Fox did that a lot during the Obama years. They wanted to help McConnell as much as possible after he stated ‘my number one priority is making sure president Obama’s a one-term president.’

Storming the Capitol is not patriotic. Fondling a flag with a dopey smirk on your face is not patriotic.

That was a waste of time. Steven Sud thought he didn't get the resources or intelligence he needed. I've never known a commander who thought otherwise, including me (way back when). Nothing about a deep state conspiracy.

You are correct. No link supporting the Pelosi claim has been provided by you or anyone else.

Multiple sources were provided disproving your claim about Pelosi, and in defense of the claim you post a link to a tweet by a partisan politician. The bizarre thing is that the tweet doesn't prove anything. For those who didn't read the tweet (I didn't initially), here it is in its entirety: "What you won’t hear from Pelosi’s sham committee: Why was the Capitol left so vulnerable that day? Why wasn't the National Guard here? Why didn’t we have a better security posture? What changes are needed to make sure it never happens again?" If you don't see the disparity in evidence, you are the one who is confused.

People were arrested. As of Jan 6, 2021 that information was available. I seriously doubt that the rioters knew about the number or arrests or the conviction rate, so blaming BLM for their decision to commit crimes is ludricous. Or were you just trying to divert with a false analogy? Rather than just assuming BLM protesters got away with something, why don't you do a little of your own research and prove or disprove your assumption? For now all we can be sure of is that thousands of people were arrested as part of the BLM protests. It's possible they had a lower conviction rate because they didn't post evidence of there crimes on social media. But they certainly didn't "get away with it".

I did. Nothing supports your post "She had to make sure her daughter who was on standby, cameras ready to roll, had footage to provide for the propaganda campaign to “get trump”. "

If they thought the BLM protesters got away with it, they are truly stupid. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/22/fact-check-thousands-black-lives-matter-protesters-arrested-2020/6816074001/

Source?

Did her followers storm the Supreme Court? No? Perhaps her followers are smarter than Trump's.

I assume that's sarcasm. Right? You must be aware that Trump watched his supporters rampage through the Capitol for over three hours, ignoring all pleas to do something, then called them patriots, repeated the stolen election lie, and then asked them to go home. You do know that, right?

A post that could only come from a troll or someone who has actively sought to remain ignorant, and succeeded.

MAD still exists, but will it apply to Europe and east Asia if Trump becomes President? What would Trump do if his buddy Putin decided to take the Baltic States and capture a land corridor to Kalingrad, taking a generous amount of Poland in the process? I seriously doubt that he'd use nuclear weapons. I also doubt that he would commit much in the way of US conventional forces to the fight. European leaders, along with those of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and other countries also have their doubts. If Trump is elected I assume a lot of US allies will start looking into acquiring nuclear weapons. Of course in Asia this might trigger a preemptive strike from China and/or North Korea, which Trump will not respond to militarily. Trump will make the world a far more dangerous place.

I was going to respond "That is dumb even by your standards.", then I thought....well... maybe not.

Yes or no to what? You posted "Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?" I explained why Russia doesn't need to make a big move; the salami slice approach is working. Can you not see that my response makes your question irrelevant? But if you must have an answer, I don't know and neither do you. The assumption that China and Iran would not be involved is questionable, and Putin has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment, possibly the result of poor information. Trump has thrown nuclear deterrence into doubt by running his mouth without a filter. You know, the quality Trump supporters stupidly think is a good thing. "One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/ "In December 2019, then-U.S. President Donald Trump was asked whether he thought it was worth it to have “all those” U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. “It could be debated. I could go either way,” Trump answered." l https://www.voanews.com/a/as-trump-looms-south-koreans-mull-their-own-nukes/6848246.html If you don't understand why having US troops on the ground in South Korea and Europe is America's most important symbol of commitment to defending those countries then you need to go back to school. I don't see the nation blundering into crisis under Biden, but I see Republicans trying to make that happen. By shooting down the Border bill endorsed by the Border Patrol Union Republicans are making the border situation and fentanyl crisis worse. "Yet only about 20% of lorries and less than 5% of cars are x-rayed as they enter America. The administration wants to increase that and send more agents to the border to curb both drug-trafficking and illegal immigration. (The two problems are quite distinct, Mr Mayorkas points out: the vast majority of drugs are intercepted at regular border crossings, not carried into America by undocumented migrants.) But last month Republicans in Congress killed a bipartisan bill that would have beefed up policing of the border, at the behest of Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president." https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/29/americas-ten-year-old-fentanyl-epidemic-is-still-getting-worse Biden's plan to end the war in Ukraine is to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself. I agree with that plan and want him to do more of it with fewer restrictions. Trump's plan is to deny Ukraine these weapons, giving Putin another salami slice so he can then proceed to the next one. You yourself posted "I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue." Trump seems to want to give Putin that success. Are there any other questions? Be specific, don't troll and claim I didn't answer some unstated question.