FondrenRoad

As bad as you suck at life, you suck even more at quoting. But since trying to play gotcha with selective quoting is your thing. Today is February 27. Where can I get the JNJ vaccine either today or tomorrow? It isnt on tap for February. It's on tap for March . But I fully expect you to ignore that just like you ignore the NYC specific scenario. So why don't you go ahead and continue trying to suck your own dick. Maybe you'll get it eventually.

Lol. I support a higher minimum wage, a robust welfare system, and I donate my time and money to help our lower socioeconomic groups. I also recognize that these groups aren't competing for jobs with immigrant labor. You would too if you ever spoke to any of them. And are you really comparing Denmark with the USA? Our landmass can support more than a billion people without breaking a sweat. Of course, Denmark can handle some immigration too, but they're racist. The prime minister doesn't even make a resource competition argument. Instead, the openly racist argument "our cohesive force cannot exist" was made.

You're still a dishonest shit stain, I see. You misread what was happening in NYC. There aren't fucking lines. There are appointments. The "reserves" weren't held for a month. They were "reserved" for the same fucking week. "We tried to make it orderly, but fuck the appointments. We are switching to the Anastasis model. First come first served. We get a shipment of vaccines every Tuesday so anyone who wants one just show up at the delivery truck. I know we had you scheduled for a Saturday appointment but we only get vaccines once per week and Anastasis said we couldn't hold them that long. He doesn't give a fuck about logistics but he's the boss." And the whole fucking thing was really a publicity stunt to get a larger vaccine allotment, and it worked. Are you ready to admit you were wrong on it? Quit pretending we were discussing a theoretical scenario rather than a specific one. Then we can get on to discussing the issue generally. If you recalled, I even said your posts had merit generally. Of course, your selective quoting doesn't include that because you are dishonest to your core. But again. Don't try to skip ahead. Admit you were wrong on NYC. On a side note, how do you go through life with zero ethics? Do you ever feel good about yourself or do you just not care? Seriously, you are dishonest on a Trump level.

Conservatives love that welfare though. They gladly pay 31k per inmate per year on average to provide food, shelter, and clothing.

We already sponsor pretty much every red state including yours. What's a few more people? And my old church does exactly that. And I continue to donate to it in spite of the fact that I'm an atheist now. Its sad that mainline churches are dying off in favor of selfish bullshit churches. It is also nice that Republicans like yourself have dropped the compassionate charade. Doesn't it feel good that you don't even have to pretend to care about other people anymore?

Did you not see that Biden wears an expensive watch? And his dogs are dirty. He's terrible.

We already have that. The issue is that desperate people who know they won't be allowed entry aren't gonna go to a port of entry. They are going to enter illegally, wall or no wall. If you want them to go through customs and be registered, you need to make legal entry possible. Hell, you could even charge them 3 or 4 grand to enter if you wanted to. That's about what they pay coyotes now.

Customs is processing, not a wall. The airport "wall" is about flight security and not immigration. We should also process anyone who wants to cross through a land border. If you let everyone cross, you don't need a wall. Most everyone will go through customs. Plus, let's not pretend like desperate immigrants from Asia don't climb that alleged virtual "wall" too. Human trafficking is still a widespread occurrence, and open entry would put a stop to that just like it would desert border crossings. And since these massive trafficking and coyote operations won't exist, it will also be more difficult for criminals to enter who we actually want to exclude. There will be nobody for them to blend in with. And for people who are anti-immigrant based on racism, European immigration would increase substantially. The desperate already come. The non-desperate don't. Plus, Melania shouldn't have had to marry Donald in order to stick around. And she shouldn't have had to be a "model" either.

American immigration has always primarily been the unwashed masses. 90 percent of us white people came from poor people too. My ancestors left squalor in England. But that being said, immigration seems unbalanced toward the unskilled side because we restrict the hell out of educated immigrants. This open door policy would also kill the H1B program. And unlike the unskilled labor immigrants, educated immigrants arent coming illegally if they are denied visas since they have some options in their home countries. It has also prevented people on student visas from staying and working after graduating because work visas can be hard to come by. This may more than offset an increase in unskilled immigrants, who quite frankly, have largely been coming anyway if they want to come. We should already let in any doctor or engineer that wants to come. But we don't even come close to doing that. But we do already let in pretty much anyone who wants to be a dishwasher.

A wall is both an eyesore and ineffective. A virtual line only works if the wait time isn't years. People will come illegally as long as there are employers willing to hire them. If one truly wants to curb illegal immigration then coming down very hard on employers is the only way to do that. You have to take away the reason that people come, and take away the opportunity that exists for them on the other side of whatever barrier you try to put up. You can kind of tell that all the "they're breaking the law!" folks have never known what its like to not have food on the table. I had several months during my childhood where my mom struggled, and we would eat what my sister and I used to call bread sandwiches. But we did have bread. And we had opportunity. Without those things, I would go over, under, or through a wall if I had to. It simply would not matter. Some of yall should take a walk through the border city squatter neighborhoods and see what "waiting in line" actually looks like. In high school, we had a church mission trip where we went to Reynosa and built cinder block houses in one of those neighborhoods. Just a desert patch subdivided into small lots with rope. While we were there, one of the families we were helping had their baby die. The whole place was mostly women, children, and old people. The men crossed to work. To this day, I think we didn't do enough. But it also shows you that the people who say they "come to collect welfare" are also wrong. Crossing the border illegally is pretty much a fit person's game. Non able bodied people simply cannot do it. Also, more people overstay visas than enter illegally. Its more effective to let everyone in that wants to come in, excluding those that fail a criminal background check. That way you can get them on the books, collect taxes from them, and integrate them into society better. But unlike other "libs", I dont believe that everyone should be a citizen. I think everyone should be a LPR, and that citizenship should require a desire to be loyal to this country over the country of their birth. If you are just here to work and make money, then you shouldn't be a citizen.

Fuck that. We should have counter offered with keep Trump and send the plane back.

Yep. The Trump Tower janitor and doorman better watch their cornholes. They are about to get fucked.

Been waiting on that one. So they finally got the penis curve right?

Focusing on immigration is still racially charged. Immigrants, especially newer Latino immigrants, are more socially conservative than white Americans in general. They also lead a bootstraps life. They wouldn't be natural enemies of the GOP if not for the race issue. Same with black people. They are also more socially conservative on average. Both Latinos and blacks are also more likely to be Christian. They both offer pretty much everything the GOP platform wants except for their skin color. So you could get your economic libertarianism with them. And could maybe even get the "Christian nation" going. But you'd have to stop attacking them first. Part of that would be allowing for broader immigration. Clearly, we need people to come and do the work that illegal immigrants come to do so let them do it on the books. In a way, this has worked out for the Dems as it has allowed for us to make civil rights strides for LGBTQ people with allies that would ordinarily be socially conservative but have full knowledge of what it's like to be on the wrong end of a hate crime.

But the FBI isn't gonna let you know that pornhub now has Midget Squirters 3 in the middle of a work presentation.

But it works because Ted shouldn't have made it onto the Senate floor, even as a markdown fuckup.

Liberty is a 2 way street. Why should SD have the same say as CA in deciding whether the 39 million people in CA have to send their sons off to die in a war? Are the sons of SD worth more than the sons of CA? And that's the real problem. The rural states have their check on the urban centers. The urban centers have no check on the rural states. Checks need to work both ways. Eliminating the EC would do that. In 2016, the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency and didn't win the combined popular vote in any of the 3. This is the definition of a tyrannical minority. By eliminating the EC in 2016, you'd have a GOP Senate, and House, and President Clinton. And if that Senate and House executed their constitutional powers dutifully, they would check President Clinton as the Constitution prescribes. And without the EC, the only time you would ever have a Presidency and Senate controlled by the same party is when we are all pretty much on the same page. The normal majority party would need an overwhelming majority to get it done, and the normal minority party would need at least a simple majority to get it done. There would never be minority rule and there should never be minority rule. And this is actually what the founders envisioned. And a lot of this has been made worse by the fact that rural states elect people that don't do anything at all for them. Not a single South Dakota elected Republican gives a shit about South Dakotans. They were elected to punish urban states rather than improve South Dakota. And in Texas, the Ted Cruz out front should have given this away to you. He doesn't give a fuck at all about Texas, but he tries to punish NY every chance he gets. If the supposed rural states actually elected people that gave rural states a chance, maybe it would be a different story. Most urban voters understand the necessity of welfare and are willing to apply it by state as well as by person. But that isn't the country we live in. We live in one where rural states elect people to punish urban states and now we all hate each other because of it. Its entirely unsustainable. There are now many scenarios that could occur that would end the nation fairly quickly because of it. If I was in charge of China, I'd be making hyper aggressive moves in Asia already. We simply don't have the ability to tolerate a draft as a people anymore. And as long as they keep it away from our land and waters, we would descend into civil war before we unified against an external threat. Texas doesn't deserve AOC giving a fuck about y'all, but she does. That's the type of people we elect. You elected Ted Cruz. So who exactly needs to be checked?

I know the European Union is a dirty word for Republicans, but its more or less what they claim to want from a federal government. When we decided to make the federal government the primary tax collecting entity and the only entity capable of conscription, we pretty much did away with the illusion that we are a "united group of states" rather than the United States, and we did this when we all agreed to the Constitution. We further cemented this with the Civil War. We simply aren't a confederacy. There are small fixes that can right the ship. Get rid of the EC for the Presidency and let the Senate check executive power like it is supposed to. If/when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by the same party, that party will have received an overwhelming majority of votes by necessity. There should never be the possibility of minority control for both. That isn't a check. Its minority rule. It should not be possible for unchecked minority rule to exist. Period. And the founders absolutely did not intend for it to be possible. But then they also didn't intend for the executive to equal power all by itself. They expected that someone like McConnell would represent Kentucky as its Senator. Instead he represents the national Republican party. In the founders time, Representatives and Senators actually gave a shit about their states. They allied with each other to get things done, but they didn't completely subjugate themselves to party rule. Another alternative would be to keep the EC and flip the powers of the House and Senate, but that would take a lot more work to do. But if we are going to go the other way and be a confederacy, the federal government needs to get out of the taxation business entirely and have states kick up money on a schedule and as needed. Conscription and military recruiting also needs to be state by state. And states need to be able to have strict residency requirements, or reciprocal deals, to prevent benefit seeking movement. The federal government would only really be concerned with trade and litigation between the states. Instead, we have a party that has been clamoring for states rights for decades, but doesn't want to lower taxes or allow "blue" states to manage their own internal affairs using their own money. So while NY was told to get fucked and that it should have budgeted better when covid hit state and city coffers, we are about to bail TX out who also should have budgeted better. But this is what happens when you have a tyrannical minority bent on punitive action rather than governance. We aren't a group of equal states. If we were, you wouldn't get a say in where tax money from my state goes. Instead, your state is tyrannical, and my state when its able to get power elects people who aren't willing to push back. So you take without giving. And that's a recipe for making enemies not friends between the states.

Just MD. VA took back its part right before the Civil War. But also, you'd need both MD and DC to vote on annexation and that has about as much chance of happening as NY annexing North Jersey. Regional animosity is a real thing. At this point, the only workable path for enfranchisement is for DC to be a separate state. And I don't necessarily like it either, because if we are going to have city states, then NYC and LI should have the right to separate from NY state. But also it isn't "solely for the democratic votes." This is something that DC residents have wanted since its founding. They are American citizens without adequate representation. So rather than cutting things on party lines and giving up because your party doesn't want to actually govern anyone, maybe you should reach out to them and see where you and they can meet in the middle, as Americans. And then work to move your party to a place where it can be competitive for the votes of those American citizens residing in DC. Having read a lot of your posts now, you might want to reexamine the party platforms and see where it is you really stand. Don't vote R just because its R.

Why are the coffers permanent? You might find that Puerto Ricans are quite conservative on average if you knew them. Perhaps they'd get the GOP to drop the racial portion of their platform which would be a good thing. The Southern strategy was built entirely on racism, and its well past time for the GOP to be forced to abandon it for the true middle. At any rate, one side wants more Americans who are currently eligible to vote to actually vote, and also wants to allow American citizens to vote who are currently ineligible to vote. And the other side wants to prevent currently eligible Americans from voting, and also prevent other Americans from gaining the right to vote. These simply aren't the same things. One calls for increased access for all people. The other calls for disenfranchisement. Personally, if we are going to turn into a tyrannical state, and we seem to be headed that direction, I think it would be preferable if the tyrants had to first obtain an actual majority to make that happen. Also as a Republican, how can you justify a DC resident paying any federal tax at all really? Because that would be an alternative solution. US citizens who don't have representation in either the House or the Senate don't have a say in how government money is spent, and should be exempt from federal income tax.

A world like 1984. Or maybe closer to Handmaid's Tale. A lot of the focus of Handmaid's Tale is on religion and patriarchy, and we can certainly see the potential for that in a bad distant future. However, the means by which Gilead took over the USA is already on clear display here. They committed terror attacks against Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS. But they didn't take credit for them. They used false flag arguments and disinformation in order to have constitutional rights suspended, and positioned themselves to fill the power vacuum. And this was all after biding their time and increasing their numbers in the government in military. The GOP is trying its best to follow that playbook to grab power permanently even if their goals may differ once they actually seize power. We are still in the process of a textbook fascist coup.

Brisket speaks his own beliefs. That isn't trolling whether or not you agree with them. Trolls tell you things they don't believe in order to guide you a different way or fuck up the discussion entirely. You can be "out there" as long as you believe it. "Fuck it all" style trolls don't really believe in anything, but try to fuck up discussion entirely. Concern trolls and gaslighters do have beliefs, but rather than admit or opine on them directly, they attempt to disrupt counter arguments by both sidesing 2 incomparable sides, or attempting to misconstrue facts. On political message boards, this pretty much always happens because the gaslighting troll almost always knows that his viewpoint will be seen as bad so he doesn't want to admit to that viewpoint. And since very few people want to openly offer support for neo-Nazis or the actual overthrow of our government, they instead try to scuttle or cloud the opposition to neo-Nazis or the arguments of those who don't support the violent overthrow of our government. Trump offers one easy example. He supported white supremacists in Charlottesville, but even he knows he can't take that position openly. So instead, he uses the "good people on both sides" argument. I suppose we have come a long way in that even people who hate black people or Jews know they can't just go around saying that, but the fact that intent can be so easily masked these days may eventually lead to devastating results. Another example is the Capitol attack. Many Trump supporters, and GOP supporters, wanted the overthrow to work. But since it didn't, and they can't admit to that desire, they use a variety of tactics to soften the intent of the Capitol attackers. They "both sides" them with BLM protesters. They offer false flag theories. They maintain the "just asking questions" troll regarding non-existent election fraud. Now, one can make the argument that this is just a message board or just the internet, so it doesn't matter. However, GOP Senators are using these same exact tactics right now in their attempt to kill the investigation into the Capitol attack. So its all about honesty rather than content. There are left wing groups that support overthrowing the government and they tell you that. Right wing groups that support overthrowing the government tell you a load of bullshit rather than that.

Eh, you do troll sometimes but not always. There's a balance. Your posts on Cruz seemed honest. Fakebusiness is all troll.

I don't know your thoughts on the capitol attack which is why I used the word "may." It is simply a current example of the effective use of trolling tactics. I haven't accused you of anything either. But your defensive posture indicates that you don't want to admit supporting something bad. You even threw a "but Obama" in there. I was against the way Obama did it too. But one wrong from one admin doesn't excuse an even greater wrong from another admin. So quit trying to use it as an excuse and own Trumps policies if you actually support them. And if you don't actually support them, quit excusing them which makes you seem like you do. From your few previous posts, I would have assumed you support what Biden is doing. But your seeming refusal to acknowledge how it varies from Trump policy tells a different story. To me, Biden is doing better than Obama and way better than Trump. Its really, an A, B, or C choice Obama-cages, no family separation Trump-cages, family separation Biden-no cages, no family separation

Wrong. Right. He is concern trolling and that is a wholly dishonest tactic. Actual supporters of open borders can hate on both Biden and Trump. Fakebusiness isn't that though. Given his posting track record, he is likely a supporter of Trump policies who pretends not to be by using well worn trolling tactics like this. The actual discussion should be about humane detention policies versus Trump era inhumane policies, but fakebusiness intentionally led it a different way so he can get the inhumane policies he seems to desire. You see the same tactic used when dishonest people try to make comparisons between the Capitol attack and BLM protests. The fact that you, fattyflattie, may find the Capitol attack similar to a protest that escalated to looting and property damage shows that these tactics are successful elsewhere. However, the events simply aren't similar in intent or results. Same with Biden vs Trump detention policies. But in the cloak room, we don't tolerate that type of dishonest posting style. If you want to endure gaslighting and concern trolling, the daily texan allows it, and texags is built on it entirely. On the other hand, if you are someone who supports family separations just own up to it and you will be more welcome here than someone who engages in discussion dishonestly. But if you know your side is so wrong that you won't admit to a position and instead troll or gaslight, maybe you should think about changing your position. Why support a position that you feel bad supporting when there are alternatives you can feel good about?