Biden is Bankrupting America, Creating Chaos & Making Americans Less Safe

Biden isn’t doing anything. Those pulling the strings behind the teleprompter are. Who are they? Pelosi? Obama? Xi?

Psaki?

Don’t forget George Soros

Yeah and biden says there is no crisis at the border. Also authorizes kids border camps to open at pre covid capacity.

Unless those "challenges" are like the ones on Ninja Warrior, I don't wanna hear about it.

It would be nice to get on Ninja Warior

On target...upvoted.

Boy imagine it the southern border was a Target box store.. you’d be really pissed then!

That got you a follower.

Good meme as always vBackman.

You are too kind. Thank you, TheBigPig.

Yes, adding in these three groups with the illegals...

Not all of BLM were looters

Most were

93% were peaceful

So flipping cars is peaceful?

the peaceful ones didnt flip cars stupid

You the stupid one

says the one who doesn't have any hard proof of the things he says

Says the one who is salty and racist

why are you describing yourself

I’m not salty or racist dummy

the tuff thing is watch the Beijing cult try to come in here and defend this

You put your neck out there. Ballsy. I appreciate it.

Not really? The amount of conservatives in politics is overwhelming.

Did you support Donald Trumps idea to build the wall

i did

Why

i built a wall myself!!!(and if you tell me to suck a dick,i will honestly gladly do)

No. Nor did I support Obamacare.

I don’t think we should be electing Presidents based on publicity stunts that are a burden to taxpayers.

Alright I respect that

I immediately realized that this politics channel is actually very conservative, a first for me. I figured this place was like everywhere else.
It's not.

Well with recent events, more conservatives have come, less Liberals and they don't talk as much anymore

Probably because they got tired of repeating themselves.

I don't see why preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country, and incentivising legal entrance instead, is a partisan issue. The left clearly doesn't have a problem with military-grade security protecting national interests; just look at D.C and its security since Jan. 6. If protecting the nerve center of the country from dissident elements looking to undermine it is OK (and it absolutely is), then why is it such a bad thing to seal the border except at points of entry? Are we allowed to defend the capitol, but no the nation and people that the capitol serves?

Not one of the moderate-to-raging left wingers here has yet answered that question satisfactorily.

IGK, it should not be partisan politics. We should all care about our country and our citizens. Our country is currently under siege by the Socialist/Marxist/Communist Democrat Party.

And what is your solution to the Socialist/Marxist/Communist Democrat Party?

In a perfect world, Americans would unite and support the fact that the election was stolen. Sane people who love our country would not vote for China Joe Biden (a forgetful puppet suffering from dementia) whose policies will annihilate America. We had a fraudulent election and good Americans should care enough to allow full exposure to the facts proving that it did indeed happen. We should be on the same team for truth but Dems do not entertain truth and in fact, do everything in their power to remove it from the internet with full support of the malevolent media. Outside of a reversal of the election, if we do not stop the insertion of these criminal radicals into our government, America will cease to exist.

are you calling him old

Biden is old

trumps only 4 years younger

And yet Trump isnt losing his marbles

neither is biden

Who said I was roasting

He is, you lying dog faced pony soldier

Yeah he is. Dont listen to ErikChairez here. He’s just a libtard

damn you suck at roasting

no,hoe

“In a perfect world, Americans would unite and support the fact that the election was stolen.”

It wasn’t. It almost was by Trump and Republicans but a few Republicans with clear heads in the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, Congress, and the Vice Presidency persevered and preserved our constitution.

So, there was unity. You just missed it.

“Sane people who love our country would not vote for China Joe Biden (a forgetful puppet suffering from dementia) whose policies will annihilate America.”

Yet there was not a sane option for either viable party. Trump had the chance to dismantle the reasons why only Democrats and Republicans presidents are viable. Super packs and the electoral college. He didn’t do anything so... our choice were two demented puppets. One had their shot at the Presidency, the other hadn’t had one yet despite his many years in office and serving as a Vice President twice.

“We had a fraudulent election and good Americans should care enough to allow full exposure to the facts proving that it did indeed happen.”

Yes, if there is evidence it should be presented.

“We should be on the same team for truth but Dems do not entertain truth and in fact, do everything in their power to remove it from the internet with full support of the malevolent media.”

You’re exaggerating the pull Democrats have simply because a single candidate lost. Everyone is political and not everyone strictly leans left or right in their individual biases. I assume you’re talking of the strict censorship of misinformation that has continued to dilute our politics for some time. These businesses that run these media platforms have been scrutinized time and time again with calls to end fake news and are ironically doing just that by keeping out information that has been unverified (or worse) off their platforms. They are only protecting their interests, and rightly so.

And again, Republicans stood up to that narrative that the election was stollen. I assure the likes of McConnell, Pence, Barr, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Thomas would’ve leaped at the smallest bit of evidence to give Trump a second term if they could. But there wasn’t any so they didn’t.

“Outside of a reversal of the election, if we do not stop the insertion of these criminal radicals into our government, America will cease to exist.”

It is not a crime to be a socialist, a marxist, a communist, or a Democrat. You cannot lock people up for political differences.

"It is not a crime to be a socialist, marxist, communist or Democrat. You cannot lock people up for political differences"

Not democrat, but the rest yes. Lets say a communist is a regular person, but political. He has a small group of supporters who want him in to spread their agenda. With lies, he gets popular. He runs for govener and he wins. Of course, he didn't say he was communist. With that in mind he gets popular so he runs for "president". Again, he doesn't say he is a communist knowing how that would end. He wins and communist dictatorship comes about

This is how dictators like Castro and Hitler came

No, communism isn’t illegal in America. Nor is socialism and Marxism.

It isn’t even illegal to be a fascist.

The illegal activities associated with being these things are not directly linked to the legality of what one identifies but the activities that explicitly breaks the law.

It isn’t illegal to be a Nazi.

https://www.americannaziparty.com/

Is this website illegal? Is the American Nazi Party designated a terrorist group? No, they’re not. In America, because we have freedom of speech, dubious ideologies are allowed to exist. We arrest people based on actions, not ideologies.

Welcome to America.

America was hell when trump was president he told his supporters to not wear masks, he didn't pay his taxes, he lied constantly, and he said that California could burn does that sound like a guy that cares about people ?

did the masks help or the lockdowns

A lot more than Biden.
Masks were never necessary, as warned by the Surgeon General and even the WHO. They have little to no effect in anything more than preventing the yearly sniffles.
I don't know what makes you believe he didn't pay his taxes, i'd love if you could provide some solid evidence on that front.
He didn't lie... that's as simple as it gets. He wasn't a liar like you want to pretend (or even actually think) he is.
As a final note, the fact that Trump pinned the California wildfires on the Californian populace does not in any part undermine his compassion. He simply stated that what was happening in California was a problem caused by California, and for the most part, should be handled by California instead of diverting the nation's firefighters there. If he were to make the converse choice, other fires threatening people's lives wouldbe ignored. That, my friend, is a recipe for disaster.

So, in fact, it was not hell.
It was anything but.

Here is proof from Ohio which is a republican state https://health.clevelandclinic.org/new-study-highlights-new-evidence-that-masks-prevent-coronavirus-spread/

That’s what DeWine says, and Ohios logic is horrible, and I am in Ohio right now

Thank you!

Np

if the masks didn't help then we wouldn't wear them

...
bruh
that is the weakest defense I've heard for just about anything. We do lots of unnecessary things. For instance, video games are by no means necessary. We use them anyway.
The forced usage of masks is bred by misinformation provided to influential figures.

you gotta check your facts bruh do you even wear a mask

how about you check yours, bud.

masks arent one of them give me solid proof that we don't need them

For one, give me solid proof you do need one. You're backing away from that question. And my evidence? The damn WHO advises against their prolonged usage. No seal is created by a mask, meaning particles can still easily make it to your mouth, as evidenced by the fogging of glasses. A respirator may work, but save those for people who actually need them. As in, people who don't have a 1% chance of death.

well @ErickChairez (idk if pinging works here), UCSF is a markedly liberal college. Show me a single study from, say, a foreign country- England or Austrailia, for example- that yields the same result.

Not to mention, i'm going to take the World Health Organization over a college any day.

first off, you don't have any evidence that's why you ain't giving it to me, second, here's your evidence https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

They sorta help

Because the amount of security conservatives are demanding is not cost effective or realistic... nor would I describe it as conservative.

I'm not asking what conservatives want with regards to specific security. I'm asking what differentiates, in principle, the security of the nation's nerve center and the nation itself. They are equally important and the left seems interested in protecting only the former.

You are so right, IGK.

It just got better. ;)

I’ll rephrase.

Because everyone against what these conservatives are demanding is not cost effective or realistic... nor would I describe it as conservative.

We are not at war with Mexico nor any country in South America. So, there is no need to “defend” the border at least not in the capacity that is often being exposited by the right. You could argue that this is an invasion but there is no precedent for a slow moving invasion. And in that regard, conservative hands are tied because they often prefer to look to past solutions. Unfortunately, the closest solution has always been internment camps which have never been historically praised in hindsight.

Which is why liberals so strictly oppose them.

i agree

Here's the problem with what you just said: You seem to think conservatives have a problem with Mexicans and their government. By and large that is hilariously untrue. We have no problem with Mexico and any Central or South American country. They are valuable trade partners and millions of their citizens have immigrated here, bringing along many aspects of their culture and enriching our own. That's the beauty of immigration.

What we have an issue with is ILLEGAL immigration (I'm not yelling at you with the caps, I just don't have italics for emphasis). You don't just get to come here and 'cut in line' past everyone who is making the sacrifice the right way. My Filipina aunts spent at years and thousands of dollars achieving what many liberals just want to hand out to anyone who can cross the Rio Grande. That isn't fair, it isn't right, and it denies legal immigrants the respect for their dedication that they deserve.

When we say we want to seal the border, it should be obvious that we don't want to include legal ports of entry in that process. This country has always been, and always will be, a nation of immigrants and the only ones who want to change that are the extremely rare, outspoken extreme nationalists who tarnish the image of conservatives everywhere. You want a solution? Here's a solution:

- Congress passes a resolution for a study, interim or multiyear, to examine what the top motivators are for entering the country illegally and what deters people from applying the right and legal way.

- The results are presented to Congress and legislation is drafted. This legislation will require two bills. One will be an overhaul of the legal immigration system to clear the blockers that discourage legal application. From the experience my aunts endured, I can safely say that removing the extreme costs associated with becoming a citizen would work wonders in this regard. Any cost incurred by the state will be more than made back with the new tax revenue that the new LEGAL citizens will generate over their lifetimes. The second bill would be border control legislation and a spending package. Utilize advanced technology, reinforce the Border Patrol or deploy National Guard patrols, I don't care how it's done. We need to intercept coyotes and other human traffickers who sneak aliens past our borders. Anyone who is seeking asylum obviously needs to be accepted and processed normally, but we cannot allow illegals to insult the sacrifice of legal applicants.

[Continued]: I guarantee that if these two measures passed and were implemented we'd see illegal immigration stymied and legal immigration swell to match. It would reduce tension in the country, generate more revenue for the state, reduce the burden on law enforcement (and remove or alleviate the presence of law enforcement branches like ICE in the lives of Hispanic communities), and actually help build a country of people who came here the right way and don't have to live in fear of deportation, because they made the commitments necessary to get their own fair shot at the American Dream.

Except I didn’t specifically say conservatives have a problem with Mexico and their government. Nor do I think that at all.

I just said we’re not at war with Mexico and South America.

What conservatives do have a problem with is refugees fleeing from war torn countries in the south. They think these people are bringing the very thing they’re fleeing from. Communist rule. Ironically, these people could be allies but Republicans would rather they go through extreme vetting that could take years if not decades and they just don’t have that time. They need it now! And they know the score of our current political environment in regards to immigration. So you’re right, there is lack of incentive for legal entry.

You mentioned cost might be a financial block to discourage legal citizenship but do you really think that the current Republicans would really support allowing a reduction to that or anything like like that? From what I’ve understand they’ve proposed adding more blockers in recent years!

Not every port CAN be sealed! Even Republicans watered down the elaborate wall that Trump wanted because it was just not practical! It shouldn’t have ever had any real funding put in it in that project in the first place because it was only funneled back into the pockets of legislators through businesses. It was a complete and utter waste of time in my opinion. Resources better spent on drone technology and actually manning the border. This I do support!

Democrats and Republicans have drafted both of the kind of bills that you’ve described with Democrats largely in support of what you’re saying and only a few Republicans at time scrambling to find any relevant amount of support within their own party. That’s pretty much where we’ve been for decades!

"We are not at war with Mexico nor any country in South America. So, there is no need to “defend” the border at least not in the capacity that is often being exposited by the right."

I know you acknowledge that it was not your intent, but saying something like that demands, by way of logical inference, that your underlying meaning be that the right is at war with Mexico and South America.

That small point of semantic contention aside, I think we're on the same page then that the real problem is a lack of incentive to enter legally? I'm a very moderate conservative, so I think it's safe to say that my views would be echoed by a large majority of conservatives across America...what the folks in Washington do with their time is honestly a mystery, but you are not wrong in noting that Republicans have historically failed to really commit to such bills. I blame the copious amounts of big corporate cash flowing (the Green Potomac, if you will), rather than a reflection of what most conservatives think regarding immigration policy. That is a projection though and not a main point in my argument.

"Not ever port CAN be sealed!" Not a single port should be sealed. We need them to vet and process legal immigrants. I just want to funnel folks into those centers by guaranteeing that everyone crossing illegally is deported post haste (unless, as I noted, they are valid asylum seekers).

In the end, without factoring D.C politics into the equation, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is conservative and against immigration...technically they'd be downright hypocritical, since there is an extremely high chance that their ancestors came here looking for work and fleeing shattered home cultures themselves at some point. This has been my experience at least. I just wanted to clear up with you that opposing illegal immigration with a stern hand is not in any way to be construed as opposing legal immigration. That conversation though must be paired with an earnest discussion as to how we should fix our legal entry system. It's like the abortion discussion (which I'm not trying to open here, but am merely using as an example): Too many folks who are Pro-Life do not give any thought as to how we should fix our broken adoption system should abortion be banned. This kind of tunnel-vision single-issue thinking is both useless and divisive. No effective policy can be crafted, and only acrimony can result.

This devolved into a small ramble, does it make sense?

I think a lot of the problems I have with the right are that their solutions are impractical. And we can discuss the left's impracticality all the live long day but it seems to me, that the left frequently bait and switches it's more extreme members while the right... appeals to their own extreme members.

Lets start with abortion. I know you said, "I'm not trying to open here, but am merely using as an example," but I think your example completely misses the point. The problem with abortion is that it's not broken. There are people who want to make it completely illegal and that's just not practical. Not at all. THAT is the problem. It doesn't matter about which issue is fixed first. Much like adoption isn't the problem for abortion, illegal immigration is not the problem for migrant caravans. The problem is their country is f**ked and they have no where to go!

And do you think the people on the left REALLY want them here? NO! They don't. Otherwise, they'll be forced to do the very thing Trump did. And that won't make them look good come election year. Even in the mid-terms.

Still, an open borders policy isn't a terrible idea in regards to people fleeing a war torn country that, and I say this again, IS NOT AT WAR WITH US!... The last time we hurdled people into internment camps or whatever bullshit the left wants to call them, WE. WERE. AT. WAR!!!!

And true, we are still technically at war. Just not with Mexico or South America, at least not in the capacity that we're concerned with countries in Asia. Still, we want to control where these people go and how they're assimilated because our government prioritizes our citizen's security. And rightly so! But they are doing it at the expense of the due processes of these immigrants. Legal or illegal, refugees or not; they're still entitled to that.

And we can argue about incentivizing these people to legally apply for citizenship, but they don't got time for that shit. We do.

Like I said, I'm not getting into abortion itself. It was food for thought for you, though clearly you didn't like what I cooked, so to speak.

There is no need to insist that countries are not at war with us. NOBODY sensible thinks that, and least of all me. Spare me the please and yourself the energy of writing that down repeatedly. Migrants cannot be construed in any way shape or form as an organized invasion by a nation. That's just BS from the far right.

What I don't get is why you seem to agree that this is a problem and yet simultaneously condone allowing them in on humanitarian grounds. Look, I fully understand their plight, but letting them in devalues the effort made by legal immigrants and completely bypasses the basic tenant of our society that you have to pay into it (putting in the effort to become a legal citizen and abide by its rules, paying taxes, etc) in order to benefit. Nobody says we need to throw them into internment camps, but letting them run amok isn't exactly helping out legal citizens just trying to live their lives.

And yes, the countries they are fleeing are completely broken. If they think they have a better shot up here then they absolutely deserve one. But they need to EARN it and WAIT (I'm not yelling, I don't have italics for emphasis) so that the people who showed up BEFORE them and ARE waiting and working to legally enter aren't invalidated.

You propose allowing them in and (hopefully) processing them as we are able. I contend that it is unfair to our citizens who already live here to do so. Unclog the ports of entry, seal out the human traffickers, and fix the legal entry system. You deny it, but removing the red tape would take so much pressure off the illegal crisis. They enter illegally because they don't have the thousands of dollars and years of time it takes to do it legitimately. Removing the monetary cost is easy. We're a wealthy enough country to absorb those expenses ourselves. Solving the time bottleneck is more difficult, but if we determine the maximum number of immigrants our economy can handle annually and then expand our immigration resources to process that many I imagine we'd have the majority of our problems solved. As for the rest, I'm prepared to tell them that outside of asylum and emergency care needs then we simply cannot allow them in the country until they can be processed by our now (in the scenario) very-efficient system. It's tough, but fair.