Illegals signed off to go to Martha's Vineyard, fyi.

Sacrilegious and treasonous, you sound like you needed serious help

No such thing.

Nope. There's only historical Jesus.

Interesting you will never see a lefty use an image of Mohammed...

That’s almost witty.

Assuming, of course, that you already knew all images of Muhammad are forbidden to use so none really exist.

Cheers if you knew that already!

So images that don't exist, can be banned... WOW...

We don't really have any images of Jesus either.

The closest thing is the image on the shroud...

Except it's not an image of Jesus

Well, you only quote the old testament... so...

Okay but it's not an image of Jesus

It's not an image of anyone.

Keep lapping up the media's lies... Unless you can source this? I mean, an objective source that doesn't use lying catch phrases like "according to sources" or "sources say", or "according to reports" or "reportedly". Ya know...

https://nypost.com/2022/09/17/migrants-say-they-are-grateful-to-florida-gov-desantis-for-sending-them-to-marthas-vineyard/

Of course, I would be too.

But that doesn't excuse his cruelty.

That doesn't make it okay.

And, yes, I am glad that you agree that Desantis is a kidnapper.

He violated federal human trafficking laws.

Oh I don’t agree at all. If you are against human ttafiickimg how about doing something about the carry rod who are being enriched by democratic policies. Your outrage is false and misdirected that’s not hard to do for a leftist, but still impressive in its obviousness.

I also don’t agree that it’s ok to flood the border because immigration requests take too long to process.

yes, those deaths are a terrible thing. Now, imagine if we had a system that allowed people to immigrate here quickly and easily. Imagine if we had a system that didn't gate people into taking terrible risks that put their lives in danger.

Take a moment and imagine it.

Then after that moment, remember that their deaths doesn't excuse the cruelty of what DeSantis did.

Imagine if we had a system of controlled immigration. We can’t allow the world to emigrate here all at once and Willy Billy without vetting. It doesn’t say hive us your gangsters, criminals and dope friends on the Statue,

So . . . flooding the nation with unvetted illegals IS the modern definition of a 'law-abiding' Dem Party president? Cool!

No, taking in refugees has always been the defining factor of America.

Vetting at this point is a made up farce of security.

You want to vet women and children who may not have any records at all? Not to mention you don’t trust the intelligence bureaus anyway so why bother vetting them in the first place if they’re all biased against Trump?

Legality is not defined, illegality is. Unless the people are criminals with a history of crime; they’re not illegal. Crossing the border was a misdemeanor and not enough to get you deported.

The only reason now it’s a problem is due to the amount of people crossing, not that they are legal or illegal.

The vetting process without the asylum clause which is pretty much instant, takes months or years. These people are starving, dying; women and children. And you’re worried about paperwork and proper procedure meanwhile DeSantis ignored paperwork and proper procedure to displace people in the United States.

Yeah, that’ll totally own the libs.

What a joke.

They are NOT refugees. Leftist redefining Illegal Aliens as refugees . . . does not refugees make . . . and nor make the invaders LEGAL.

Out of curiosity, what does make a refugee, in your mind?

Fleeing a murderous regime for one. Ummmm . . . you COULD look it up. But then again you are trying to justify your party swimming in law breaking . . . and thus you now go into my permanent block file. Buh-bye!

I don’t belong to any party as I am an independent voter. I’m a former registered Republican but have only voted for one Republican governor and nobody else for going on six years because of the radicalization of the GOP.

And I am not alone.

So if anyone is trying to justify their partisanship…

Anyway, I was interested in YOUR definition because that is precisely what these people from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Venezuela are doing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45951782

So, I’m curious why you think these people are not refugees?

It seems only you and other uninformed Americans who bleat radical media talking points seem to think their not refugees.

Please, explain it to me.

"Another difference would be that when Biden flies immigrants (similar to Obama, Bush, and Trump), it is for court appearances and to join their relatives/sponsors.... "

You are a special kind of gullible, aren't you? What is the current statistic on criminals, aka illegal aliens, actually showing up for their court dates? It is abysmally low, but then again, what would we expect from criminals? As for enabling them to join their relatives, who are likely also here illegally, how does compounding their crime make this acceptable? And as for sponsors, none of this would be necessary if they had legitimate sponsors and were following the actual immigration process.

"Ronald flew them to try and pwn the libs."

If ever libs needed to be pwned, it is today's libs- dangerous, traitorous, and really REALLY stoopid. However, desperate times require desperate measures. If the Democrat open borders policies of the last 20 years has not already pushed this country over the edge, it is certainly much closer now.

It's hilarious how liberals try to defend this stuff, as if it will never touch them, and eventually destroy their standard of living to the level of the countries these criminals are fleeing from.

What I still don't understand is this- why don't y'all just move to a 3rd world country vs turning America into one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

"What I still don't understand is this- why don't y'all just move to a 3rd world country vs turning America into one?"

Just like why don't people like you move to a theocracy since you're trying to turn this country into one?

Ok then so let's say they ARE illegals.

What is the difference between the cartel paying drivers $$$ to ship illegals in America from Texas across state lines deeper into America (so that they don't get caught up right there near the border)..... and Ronald McSantis paying half a million dollars to ship illegals from Texas deep into America to sanctuary cities?

Is it not aiding and abetting because Ronald's motivation for doing it was to pwn the libs?

I mean I'm not a judge or anything but I'd tend to think transporting illegals is transporting illegals......... regardless of WHY they were doing it.

I don't know a whole lot about laws for shooting deer but I'd assume it depends where, if they are in season, and how big/old the deer are.... But in any case these seem to have different outcomes. One a family basically gets rid of the dead deer (by eating it). The other they might just leave it there...which might be illegal idk.

Arson vs protected burn also has 2 completely different outcomes if done successfully.

On the other hand......

"Moving illegal aliens so they aren’t close to the border so they won’t get caught" VS "moving them to a sanctuary city" does not.

Both of these^ actions have the same outcome in the end.. Basically both scenarios if done successfully result in illegals protected from getting "caught", jailed, deported.

To wit:

https://tinyurl.com/2qap4k2n

Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely Voters Say Non-Border Illegal Alien Sanctuaries Should Have to Take in Illegal Aliens

"This seems to imply that they are not already doing so."

When you cloister yourself in a liberal bubble, you never get to see the hue and cry of the Democrat leaders complaining and panicking over illegals being shipped directly to them. I might refer you to one of my own creations to help you understand- see attached.

Liberals are experts at charity, so long as they get to use someone else's money to be charitable with. Liberals believe that their paying of taxes dismisses them from any personal responsibility to help their neighbor out, which is why Conservative, specifically Conservative Christians, give to charitable causes by a wide margin- liberals aren't even close.

But, vote for idiots who will raise taxes to (allegedly) help the poor, and woohoo! I will hardly feel the financial pain. How's it going at the gas pump and the grocery store, btw? Though I do not mean to imply that you are either old enough to drive, nor responsible enough to be able to shop for yourself- forgive me if it seemed I assumed too much! 6u6j30.jpg (click to show)

"Sanctuary city" as I understand it means undocumented immigrants won't be deported and won't be thrown in jail (unless they commit crimes beyond coming here of course)...... which as far as I know, hasn't happened. Seems to me that mayor is looking for a possible solution a problem republicans are helping to create.

"Liberals..... charity".. circle back to the other conversation... . Ironic that it was only a few years ago someone here swore up and down the Clinton Foundation was imminently about to be shut down by the feds!!.... And what happened? The Trump foundation got shut down. Oops. Lol

Gas pumps and grocery stores are fine btw.. I still go to Costco somewhat often and I like to frequent this local mom and pop type place for gas... they usually have decent prices compared to other places. Sure I've noticed a substantial increase in both prices but I've been noticing increases in groceries for years. Dollar stores have been hiding inflation via smaller containers and less quantity of items in a pack for years.

Jerome Powell/ the FED should've probably began risen rates long before now but hey.... what you gonna do...... Oh. right.. you're gonna cry about it and ask Democrats to pull you up by your bootstraps because BrandonManBadDdD1!
REEEEE

"Liberals believe that their paying of taxes dismisses them from any personal responsibility to help their neighbor out, which is why Conservative, specifically Conservative Christians, give to charitable causes by a wide margin- liberals aren't even close"

Conservative Christians do it because they're told to by their cult leaders, that's why they do it

"How's it going at the gas pump and the grocery store, btw?"

Just fine

"Though I do not mean to imply that you are either old enough to drive, nor responsible enough to be able to shop for yourself- forgive me if it seemed I assumed too much!"

More "Christian love" from someone who isn't even a Christian (that would be you)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEVCthcH1oE

"What is the current statistic on how many legal residents or legit sponsors are joined with them when they're flown to Martha's Vineyard?"

Given that such sponsors do not exist, I will understand your question to be rhetorical.

"What's hilarious is watching people on the right trying to defend Ronald McSantis sending "criminals" to sanctuary cities deep in America where they will be protected."

It's more hilarious that it's working precisely as intended. As for them being "protected", that worked out really well in Martha's Vineyard- they lasted less than two days.

As for receiving your daily personal insult- it wasn't from me. I asked you a question- being inquisitive is hardly an insult.

So, based on your description, your original point of this being bad for the illegals was either a) ignorant of the facts, or b) disingenuous. I am guessing it was a combination of both.

As for facing a lawsuit- what IS it with you liberals thinking that having a lawsuit brought against a person means anything, ESPECIALLY when it comes from a Democrat?

As Rush Limbaugh was fond of reminding us, the liberal mentality is basically this- It's not the truthfulness of the claims made against a Conservative that matters, but rather, the seriousness of the claims- the worse, the better. That it is an obvious lie matters not- it MUST be true because Conservative are THE DEBIL!! Kind of like Hitler's ideal of telling a lie so monstrous and often enough that people, make that gullible people, will believe it.

Russia Russia RUSSIA! for 4 years straight, with libs like yourself attempting to rub our noses in it the whole time, only for it to finally be proved to be a Democrat hoax. January 6th was nearly the end of our ***Republic***, but not a single building was burned to the ground, unlike the liberal protests over Saint George the High.

As for my question being an insult- the insult is in the eye of the beholder, and your view on reality is decidedly skewed. I know this because you are still a liberal- 'nuff said.

My original point was to clarify the difference between what Ronald did and what Biden etc have been doing. That was what the OP asked. That is what my original comment was about.

If you want to talk about "bad" vs "good" now regarding what happened ok....

It is bad that Ron tricked 48 people in Texas into going to Martha's vineyard where literally nothing awaited them except confusion for his own political lulz.

It seems bad that he paid a company $600,000+ to fly them from Texas to Massachusetts because 1. $12,500 per person seems kinda steep for a one-way ticket 2. It is my understanding that the taxpayer money he spent was supposed to be allocated for migrant relocation...in/out of Florida.

It seems bad that the company he paid $600,000 to... was also paid an additional $950,000... and this company also happens to be donors to the GOP.

It's good that the 48 people didn't get deported or jailed.

It's good that a church took them in.

It's good that the Massachusetts Governor set them up in a place where they have resources to become productive members of society instead of essentially homeless people in front of Martha's Vineyard.

So ya bad/good isn't exactly black/white. There can be some good and some bad.

"what IS it with you liberals... lawsuit... means anything.."

Nope. Both sides do that when it suits them. Both sides also claim "innocent until proven guilty" when it suits them.

"The liberal mentality...not the truthfulness of the claims made that matters, but rather, the seriousness of the claims- the worse, the better.... Conservative are THE DEBIL!!... like Hitler... "

Nope... Once again, both sides.

As far as "Russia Russia Russia", they definitely interfered in the 2016 election... and trump did say "Russia if you're listening".... (And they were.).. and multiple people around trump went to jail for lying to the Feds regarding that.. but as far as legit "collusion" about the election between him and putin.. idk.

Jan 6th was a bunch of Trumpies pissed off because they thought Biden stole the election.... based largely on lies donald had perpetuated (and I'm pretty sure still does? ) so they went to the capitol and made a ridiculous, misguided attempt to "Stop the Steal" as an absolute last ditch effort. Some of them had weapons. The Trump campaign dumped millions of dollars into it. Many policemen were hurt but it basically went nowhere.

Eye of the beholder.. Lol no. An insult phrased as a question is still an insult. It being a question (especially a tag question) doesn't negate that.

No, the 70+ figure I was talking about (referred to as the "Biden midnight flights" by people crying about it on the right) were flights to Florida.... which seems like it would be a pretty weird place to "expel people from the country". (Assuming they're not dumping them in the water.). And most of those flights were from Health and Human Services which helps migrant children connect with sponsors. By federal law our government cannot hold unaccompanied minors in border facilities for more than 72 hours (unlike legal adults who they can hold much longer) so it would make sense that the majority of these flights would be children getting released to sponsors.

But it does look like there have been a bunch of people (outside of the often cited 70+ flights to Florida) who got expelled via lateral flights / under title 42 and who may have been unaware they were getting deported to a different locations in Mexico or possibly even in other countries. My understanding of them being sent to different locations includes 3 reasons: 1. At least one of the states in Mexico quit allowing us to expell back families with kids, so we had to send them back in other areas around that Mexican state 2. If they had been trying to come here to escape specific violent people, deporting them right back to the same exact location they came could be a problem. 3. Other locations might be able to process and deport them more quickly.

Also it seemed like they were saying the flight itself may have been part of of what led them to believe they could stay in America as opposed to blatant lies about benefits they would allegedly receive.

In any case, they still weren't being used as pawns in a political stunt for some kind of political "win" for Biden. They were simply getting deported by the authorities who handle that.

As far as my alleged deflection, I was just demonstrating that you are incorrect. Laws clearly can and HAVE been applied to government employees despite not explicitly stating that they apply to government employees. If you want to just call that a deflection and not really have any counter argument to it, I am ok with that.

Ok. I will remember your argument here the next time any democrat in our government is accused or investigated for anything.

I responded to both of your comments in one response. You seem to have skipped the whole first part in your response.

Responding to 2 comments in 1 instead of both separately is just easier. If you want to actually respond to what I wrote, cool. If you don't want to that's cool too.

And I refer you to mine.
:)

Ok but in any case, the deer example involves different actions. Sure, both involve killing a deer... initially... but then you're either doing the action of leaving it there or eating it.

A controlled burn and lighting something on fire also involve different actions. You have to get tools which will keep the controlled burn safe. Water hoses perhaps. Clearing any surrounding area(s) of debris to prevent the fire from spreading. Assembling a team of people to help you monitor the situation and whatever else is needed. Maybe permits. Whereas with arson you are ONLY lighting something on fire.

But back the subject at hand- illegal immigrants being transported to a sanctuary city ...... Either way, they're "criminals" being transported to somewhere safe. You seem to be just saying one is legal the other isn't.

Doing it in broad daylight or at midnight makes no difference.. having it live streamed on Facebook out in the open/live on tv or trying to keep it a secret makes zero difference, legally. If you have a truck full of illegals with a sign on the side saying "I'm driving a truck full of illegals and I'm not trying to hide it" and the cops pull you over in Oklahoma, you are probably going to jail.

And as far as threats of violence, in this scenario that would basically be like holding someone against their will / kidnapping... which would be a different situation than what I was initially talking about.

Ok so you now seem to be trying to move the goal posts.

Before you were trying to claim that the WHY was what made one illegal and the other legal.

Now you seem to be trying to claim that it is actually the WHO that makes one illegal and the other legal.

In any case, no... People within the government are not above the law. (...well theoretically anyway.)

"I love how she asks for proof from others, but never provides it when she is asked for it."

When was I asked to provide proof of something?

"In fact, she just failed to provide any less than an hour ago when I asked for it."

Link?

Let me know when you start proving me wrong

Also the WHY could actually be similar between the cartel and people in government... Both of them could be getting paid.

For example the company who Ronald chose to transport the 48 immigrants from Texas to Massachusetts with is a GOP donor. And Ronald paid that company roughly $600,000 of tax payer's $$$ to transport these 48 people there. I bet the cartel would do it for that price.

$$ could play a role though. Theoretically it's still possible that $$ could be WHY immigrants would be moved by either side.

In any case based on that screenshot I posted, it looks to me like the "WHO" nor the "WHY" is relevant if it is a willful act.

How is that a deflection??
I used your exact logic.

And no... see when I said "let's say they are illegals", that doesn't mean they actually ARE. It was hypothetical.

My understanding is that if you're here awaiting asylum or are in the process of being joined with a legal sponsor, you aren't an illegal.

So unless something comes up proving that these people were not actually in the process of getting asylum, nor joining a sponsor and were actually illegals...... neither Biden nor Ronald McSantis will get charged with transporting illegals.

To circle back to my original comment, they were looking at "human trafficking" (not necessarily of illegal immigrants) for Ronald because he duped them into it... in an attempt to give himself a political "win".....which is considerably different than the 70+ Biden flights which were done to get them to court hearings and to join with their sponsors.

Lastly, theoretically if what President Joe Biden did was a crime and he got arrested for it, then Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Trump would also get arrested because they did the same sh*t. This has been standard policy for quite a while.

"Nowhere in that document does it say that the government can’t transport illegals."

Nowhere in the § 22–1307 Crowding, obstructing, or incommoding document does it say people in the government can't crowd, obstruct, or incommode... And yet Congressman Jamaal Bowman got arrested for it in January.

FYI, my comments have ironically been disabled in the Conservative stream. I only call it ironic due to your name. I don’t recall the full offending comment. I believe it had something to do with some conservatives being partisan. Not that I was insulting any particular one.

Still, I’ll happily reply in two days.

Hmm.... No. No, I don't think so.

uscode.house.gov

§1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(1)(A) ANY PERSON........

I don't see anything in there about people in the government being exempt. If you have a source saying otherwise, I'd be open to checking it out.

Oh, you must be referring to you asking me where you mentioned the KKK, and I answered your question

You mentioned the "demoKKKrats" and said they want open borders. You don't remember posting that comment earlier today?

So I'll ask you directly. Are you telling me you didn't post a comment where mentioned "demoKKKrats"? Is that your claim?

I can't find the meme you left that comment on. So I'll ask again. Are you denying that you said that?

I've already told you exactly which comment I was referring to. At this point you're just lying.

You mentioned it in a comment on the conservative stream, and I got a timer so I couldn't reply directly to that comment