They got the memo...

[Tigermike 3,657]

 

[AuCivilEng1 11,809]

Being in charge of immigration and being responsible for stopping illegal border crossings are two entirely different sets of responsibilities. What do people think, she was in charge of where to place border patrol agents on the border 😂

Man, I hope this is just a conservative media and voter thing. I’d hate to think that conservative politicians think that the responsibilities of running the country are so simple and on the nose. 

Guess Mayor Pete is designing and selling all the EV’s and choosing pile locations for bridges as well.

Edited July 26 by AuCivilEng1

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

42 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Being in charge of immigration and being responsible for stopping illegal border crossings are two entirely different sets of responsibilities. What do people think, she was in charge of where to place border patrol agents on the border 😂

Man, I hope this is just a conservative media and voter thing. I’d hate to think that conservative politicians think that the responsibilities of running the country are so simple and on the nose. 

Guess Mayor Pete is designing and selling all the EV’s and choosing pile locations for bridges as well.

What is her stance on illegal immigration?  Does it mirror Biden’s?  Is she not a partner in the mess we have right now?  Come on.

Mayor Pete has mentioned several times roads are racist, so I would guess he does choose location for bridges.

I hope she picks him for her VP.

[AuCivilEng1 11,809]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What is her stance on illegal immigration?  Does it mirror Biden’s?  Is she not a partner in the mess we have right now?  Come on.

Mayor Pete has mentioned several times roads are racist, so I would guess he does choose location for bridges.

I hope she picks him for her VP.

Her stance as far as I can tell is the same as Biden’s. Illegal border crossings is an issue that needs to be addressed in a realistic and humane way. I don’t understand how you guys are supporting a person who killed a border bill written by Langford and bi*ching about how serious the border is. Sounds like you don’t want the border security souped up. 
 

Couple of facts I think that everyone should remember.

- Deporting 15 million people is not a practical or realistic tactic. That’s why it’s never been done. It would be costly, contentious, and it would destroy the economy. 
 

-Encounters at the border are something that would need to be addressed far before the actual encounter. There are reasons that these people are fleeing. That needs to be addressed. 
 

CATO Institute research has pointed out.

99% of fentanyl smuggling was funded by US citizens.

US citizens are accountable for 86.3% of smuggling convictions. That’s 10% higher than illegal immigrants.

0.02% of people arrested for illegal crossings possessed fentanyl.

Over 90% of fentanyl seizure were at ports of entry, NOT illegal immigration routes.

https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-citizens-not-asylum-seekers

[wdefromtx 3,494]

Never mind the fact that CNN, MSNBC, and others called her the Border Czar after he assigned her immigration. 

[auburnatl1 6,020]

25 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Never mind the fact that CNN, MSNBC, and others called her the Border Czar after he assigned her immigration. 

In her defense she couldn’t issue EOs (though it’s doubtful she would have). Regardless, the border will be an albatross not just because of the mess itself but also seemingly for her lack of interest.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I don’t understand how you guys are supporting a person who killed a border bill written by Langford and bi*ching about how serious the border is.

It’s pretty simple; that bill would have allowed somewhere between 4 and 5 thousand immigrants in per day and would have handcuffed any incoming administration.  It was the ole *well its better than what we have today* argument.  That should not be the baseline.  It did have some strong language in it, but that is just the bait and switch that is the reason some laws are passed.

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Deporting 15 million people is not a practical or realistic tactic.

More realistic than an AR-15 buy back, but I digress.

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

It would be costly, contentious, and it would destroy the economy. 

I’m not sure about this, but it is your opinion.

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Encounters at the border are something that would need to be addressed far before the actual encounter. There are reasons that these people are fleeing. That needs to be addressed. 

Wasn’t this supposed to be addressed by the Border Czar?  Does she ever finish what she has been tasked?

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

CATO Institute research has pointed out.

99% of fentanyl smuggling was funded by US citizens.

US citizens are accountable for 86.3% of smuggling convictions. That’s 10% higher than illegal immigrants.

0.02% of people arrested for illegal crossings possessed fentanyl.

Over 90% of fentanyl seizure were at ports of entry, NOT illegal immigration routes.

All can be deterred by securing the border.  These are not being handled by this administration.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

12 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

In her defense she couldn’t issue EOs (though it’s doubtful she would have). Regardless, the border will be an albatross not just because of the mess itself but also seemingly for her lack of interest.

No one expected her to issue EO’s, her job was to advise Biden of what was the root cause of illegal immigration.  Have you seen any report she completed to advise Biden what the root cause is?  I did hear her say something about climate change was one of the issues.

She is not a serious person.

[auburnatl1 6,020]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No one expected her to issue EO’s, her job was to advise Biden of what was the root cause of illegal immigration.  Have you seen any report she completed to advise Biden what the root cause is?  I did hear her say something about climate change was one of the issues.

She is not a serious person.

She’s definitely more liberal than my liking.  However, again, for me and many others, the issue is Trump is the alternative.  As has been said 2000 times, had the gop gone with virtually anyone but Trump - this election would already be over.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

24 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

She’s definitely more liberal than my liking.  However, again, for me and many others, the issue is Trump is the alternative.  As has been said 2000 times, had the gop gone with virtually anyone but Trump - this election would already be over.

Do you find it interesting that the Dems, virtually, could have gone with a wide variety of choices and chose the most radical to run against Trump?  They could have chosen Andy Beshear from Kentucky and the election would have been over.  Has the Democratic Party swung so far left that moderates don’t stand a chance?

[wdefromtx 3,494]

56 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

In her defense she couldn’t issue EOs (though it’s doubtful she would have). Regardless, the border will be an albatross not just because of the mess itself but also seemingly for her lack of interest.

A czar is supposed to advise the leaders. 

She owns the mess. But, for me at the moment it is the stupidity of the left media trying to say this is some right-wing label when in fact they call her the exact same thing.

It is a blatant attempt to cover for her, and gaslight people.

[auburnatl1 6,020]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you find it interesting that the Dems, virtually, could have gone with a wide variety of choices and chose the most radical to run against Trump?  They could have chosen Andy Beshear from Kentucky and the election would have been over.  Has the Democratic Party swung so far left that moderates don’t stand a chance?

I think the Dems were in the world of bad options. Harris was a known polling problem but had they gone with anyone else:

1) the gop would have hammered them even harder that they circumvented the primary process. At least she’s part of ticket

2) all other options had poor national awareness

3) poor donor momentum

4) it’d be reversing Bidens endorsement 

 Net, net dems strategically screwed themselves 4 years ago by nominating a known aging out candidate and vp who had already gotten smoked early in the primaries. They only won because of Trump.

Imo whichever party loses in 24 is virtually guaranteed the win in 28 because either option will fatigue the electorate.
 

 

[auburnatl1 6,020]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

A czar is supposed to advise the leaders. 

She owns the mess. But, for me at the moment it is the stupidity of the left media trying to say this is some right-wing label when in fact they call her the exact same thing.

It is a blatant attempt to cover for her, and gaslight people.

It isn’t just the left being the left - for a lot a people (including the media) Trump causes a negative reaction beyond ideology. It isn’t just bias, it’s almost primal. Candidly, I share that problem.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Net, net dems strategically screwed themselves 4 years ago by nominating a known aging out candidate and vp who had already gotten smoked early in the primaries. They only won because of Trump.

Sooooo true and people will still vote for this madness because of Trump.  What a world we live in.

[auburnatl1 6,020]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Sooooo true and people will still vote for this madness because of Trump.  What a world we live in.

The irony is many people at a pure logical policy level would prefer  the gop to Harris. However, the 1/6 stuff, yapping about civil war, 2025 theocracy stuff, trumps baggage - and ultimately the sheer feeling of unhinged anger and divisive chaos simply overwhelms policy.  

Again, had it been anyone but Trump.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The irony is many people at a pure logical policy level would prefer  the gop to Harris. However, the 1/6 stuff, yapping about civil war, 2025 theocracy stuff, trumps baggage - and ultimately the sheer feeling of unhinged anger and divisive chaos simply overwhelms policy.  

Again, had it been anyone but Trump.

You are good at those Democrat talking points.

[auburnatl1 6,020]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

You are good at those Democrat talking points.

Theyre actually mine. And in the city suburbs - they will also be for many others. Liz Cheney wasn’t a one off.

[Gowebb11 9,801]

58 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

whichever party loses in 24 is virtually guaranteed the win in 28 because either option will fatigue the electorate.
 

Very true. I’m beyond fatigued on US politics and culture. It’s not healthy to invest much time following either too closely. Too much hate, division, and misinformation. I have to continually remind myself that the overall quality of my life doesn’t change based on who is in the White House.  

[AU9377 5,922]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you find it interesting that the Dems, virtually, could have gone with a wide variety of choices and chose the most radical to run against Trump?  They could have chosen Andy Beshear from Kentucky and the election would have been over.  Has the Democratic Party swung so far left that moderates don’t stand a chance?

You all pretended to be outraged that they went with someone that was presumed to be on the ticket in the first place.  Imagine the faux rage if it had been a governor.

[AU9377 5,922]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

A czar is supposed to advise the leaders. 

She owns the mess. But, for me at the moment it is the stupidity of the left media trying to say this is some right-wing label when in fact they call her the exact same thing.

It is a blatant attempt to cover for her, and gaslight people.

I never watch MSNBC and I am not someone who uses Facebook or Youtube to discuss political views.  I do watch CNN if there is some big news story that I want current information or a live feed to view and sometimes the NBC/ABC nightly news. I read Politico and am very much an Independent.  I never heard her called a border czar until I happened to see a few minutes of Hannity at a friend's house.

[aubaseball 2,788]

23 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I never watch MSNBC and I am not someone who uses Facebook or Youtube to discuss political views.  I do watch CNN if there is some big news story that I want current information or a live feed to view and sometimes the NBC/ABC nightly news. I read Politico and am very much an Independent.  I never heard her called a border czar until I happened to see a few minutes of Hannity at a friend's house.

Most of you guys on here are a trip.   You get hung up on a particular word, in this case “czar”, and act like it helps her.   She did absolutely nothing to help fix, provide solutions or anything else for that matter related to the border.  The four years of this administration is been a complete failure on the border.    Costing us tax payers billions of dollars to house, feed, school and provide healthcare for illegals in this country.   You can’t even admit that it’s been a complete joke since the day he sat down at that desk and reversed every executive order Trump had.   

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

37 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You all pretended to be outraged that they went with someone that was presumed to be on the ticket in the first place.  Imagine the faux rage if it had been a governor.

Not the point.  A lot on the left criticize Republicans for who they picked as their candidate saying Republicans had a wide open field and settled on him.  Same goes for Dems.  You mentioned earlier that the incumbent is usually not challenged, but now that the incumbent has stepped down, presumably because he would have lost, they had a wide opened field and chose the most unpopular VP in modern history.

[autigeremt 7,131]

I don’t think Kamala is the most radical choice, here. There’s a lot worse in the bullpen. Just my opinion. 

[Tigermike 3,657]

5 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Never mind the fact that CNN, MSNBC, and others called her the Border Czar after he assigned her immigration. 

Axios was one of the first.

[homersapien 12,172]

6 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Never mind the fact that CNN, MSNBC, and others called her the Border Czar after he assigned her immigration. 

Exactly.  Biden never called her that. The title was a media creation. In fact, her role was more diplomatic than executive:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/

The facts about Kamala Harris' role on immigration in the Biden administration

"Mr. Biden tasked Harris with leading the administration's diplomatic campaign to address the "root causes" of migration from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, including poverty, corruption and violence."

 

Edited July 26 by homersapien