Hodad

Why? The Spanish, Italians, French and the English didn't have a unified continent--or even domestic political alignment--when they set out to conquer and colonize new continents. They were certainly successful, and they benefitted massively. Becoming spacefaring species is still pretty impractical, and we certainly have crippling dysfunction in terms of our political environment, but if tomorrow there were ships and lands to conquer we'd be on them greedily dreaming of resource acquisition.

So first you say it's just a theory. Then you acknowledge that it happened, but no one was charged. Next you acknowledge that yes, charges were brought, but the lack of conviction is the government's fault for not charging faster. Your recovery from amnesia is stunning. One can only imagine what you'll remember and be an expert on next. But you should consider that the pace of the investigation is the evidence that it was NOT a "weaponized" justice system. If the justice system were being abused charges would have come quickly, rather than after a thorough investigation. If the justice system had been abused, there would not be guilty pleas and convictions. If you'd like to know what a "weaponized" justice system looks like you'll have to look at what Trump is doing now. Established, experienced prosecutors--his own appointees--are refusing to bring the charges that the orange fascist wants, so he's firing his own people to replace them with unqualified warm bodies who will do whatever he asks, bringing cases with no chance of success.

Not sure whether you're a lazy American or an uninformed-for-good-reason Canadian, but no, that's false. There are some excellent long-format examinations of that history, but for a short version you can learn the history here. “A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum. Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches. Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home.

Oh, so now you remember these events? But not accurately. Trump was, indeed, indicted. Federal and state. August 1, 2023, at the request of Jack Smith and the Justice Department, a federal grand jury indicted Trump on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.[120] The indictment accused Trump of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election, and identified the fake electors scheme as part of the conspiracy.[121] The case was later dismissed after Trump won the 2024 United States presidential election due to the Justice Department's policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents.[122] The only reason he isn't (likely) convicted is because MAGA cultists love Trump more than democracy and decided to put him back in office.

Anything in that twitter-ized, decontextualized lecture snippet that wasn't true? Is your objection that Mamdani grew up knowing more about American history than you? That would leave you objecting to an awful lot of people.

Trump can't legally run again, despite repeatedly toying with the idea of a third term. But legally doesn't really matter, does it? You MAGA cultists didn't blink an eye at the attempted coup, readily excused it, and the American wing put him back in the Oval Office. So there is zero reason to think that you people wouldn't just as readily excuse an illegal third term.

WTF? Have you been living under a rock? A cave somewhere? That's not a theory at all, let alone my theory. It's what happened. Pence aids on the floor during the certification were turning away fraudulent electoral votes. And literally dozens of people were indicted, including Trump. People have been convicted. While others were pardoned or otherwise protected. Jeebus. Turn off Fox and join the real world.

Once again, I'm not referring to the insurrection. I'm referring to the coordinated attempt by Trump and his co-conspirators (both federal and state) to submit and certify fraudulent electoral votes in order to force a constitutional crisis and a contingent election. A literal conspiracy to overthrow democracy that was ONLY thwarted because Mike Pence grew a spine and chose America over Trump in the last moment of his political life. Why do you think Jack Smith was investigating? Did you chime in without even knowing the subject of this thread? I acknowledge your concession, tortured as it was.

That's a bizarre response to discovering that you were factually wrong on 2 of 3 claims. But you've always reveled in your ignorance, so kina on brand.

You are a certified clown. That's not a hypothetical. The Biden's bank records WERE subpoenaed as part of an investigation. That's how the farking investigations work. Jeebus. I guess it's time to decide: were Republicans "Nazis" first, or are investigations for reasonable suspicion acceptable? Dumb

Investigating an attempted coup, you mean. Potato, potato? And it's far from an enemies list. Biden had probably never heard of most of the state level conspirators. And remember that Wray was Trump's hand-picked FBI director. How many people would you find out reasonable to investigate after an attempted coup?

Yeah, we all remember how the Nazis investigated 400 people after an attempted coup. 🙄

Getting old is a biatch. The addled fool now walks like he tells stories.

Inflation cooling? Nope. Inflation ROSE to 3% in September. Stock markets are up, but they are clearly riding the AI bubble. We've done this before. Gas prices down? Noooope. Also up in September. Here's the whole year. You really do live in your own little fantasy bubble, don't you?

Okay, halfwit, you are welcome to agree with Bill Gates as much as you like. You are welcome to anoint him the arbiter of truth on climate change and the decider of who has won or lost the issue. In that case, to which cause are you donating first?🙄

A. Even if true, it would not negate the the invalid syllogism you tried to sell us to open the thread. B. Unlike your first "report" speaking to immigration in totality, the Newsweek link is a second hand reference to a report that is speaking solely of illegal immigration. (There's that logic gap again.) A report series that was widely criticized when the first one dropped during Trump's first term. C. Instead of going for real academic research, you went right back to the same fetid swamp of virulent racism. "FAIR was founded in 1979 by Michigan surgeon and white nationalist John Tanton.[13][14][15] Other co-founders include Otis Graham and former Gulf Oil chief executive officer Sydney Swensrud. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C." ^^Same guys. Same mission. Once is an accident. Twice is telling us a lot about yourself by the company you keep. Again, get a real analysis if you want to explore the issue, rather than propaganda paid for by a mission-driven advocacy group. Hate shouldn't be a business, but in the Trump era that business is booming.

It's great that you trust Bill Gates more than every climate scientist on the planet, but what you're unlikely to understand is that he's re-messaging specifically for people like you. For people who can't grasp nuance. Fools who thinks that anyone has been saying "Aaaaaah, we all gonna die." No, we're not all going to die, but climate change is, as established fact, happening, and it will cause enormous human suffering. That's your straw man. And he's lowering the bar to the lowest common denominator specifically to eliminate your foolish noise from the conversation. Shifting the conversation toward mitigating human suffering is his concession that yes, it's still happening, but since you people can't get your shit together to avoid climate change, we better start trying to help the people whose lives and livelihoods will be destroyed by it.

No, it isn't. That's why you asked this nonsensical question rather than one involving costs vs contributions. "Show me the math where one group that takes benefits (designed for the poor) at a rate of 54% is contributing more than they take." There are tons of academic investigations of the actual question (and they consistently tell the same net-positive story) but if you want one that's right-wing biased, look at the CATO institute. "With some variation and exceptions, the net fiscal impact of immigrants is more positive than it is for native‐born Americans and positive overall for the federal and state/local governments." I'm no fan of CATO, but they are interested in policy investigation rather than just being a propaganda generator for farking white nationalist talking points.

I'm going to set aside your specious arguments and shitty links, because you're not yet grasping the basic logic problem. I explained very clearly how participation rates are vastly different than consumption rates, and more different still than net consumption rates. This should be very obvious with even the tiniest bit of critical thinking, but you get one more remedial example. Participation rate is the breadth of use, not the depth. Imagine you work at a college and run an athletic department dining program. Looking at the data, 50% of male athletes come to the cafeteria at least once a week. 60% of the female athletes. Would it be reasonable to conclude that you are spending more to feed the female athletes than the male athletes? Of course not. That would be stupid in several ways. Participation is not the same as consumption. Yet that's the logical leap you are trying to make from this report--and are trying to double down on. Stop doing it. You just look foolish. Take in the new information and move on.

First, and most obviously, (setting aside quality and motive) this report attempts to show participation rates in any program, not dollar amounts. Nor does it track contributions. So even if you stipulate that it's quality data, you're MILES away from being able to draw any conclusions about giving more or less than they benefit. Not even in the same logical ballpark. Second, while there's a long list of factors that should be considered in your thinking--but are not-- the big things like the state/federal stacking are the most obvious. Undocumented (and most non-citizens) are not even eligible for federal programs, but are eligible for some state programs, depending on the state. So, for example, in a state with a school lunch program a child may be fed (citizen or non-citizen child of citizen or non-citizen parents), and at that point the family counts as participating in welfare programs. The citizen head-of-household family is potentially (likely) eligible for benefits all the way up the federal stack. So that family gets school lunches, SNAP, Medicaid etc. The non-citizen head-of-household family may only be eligible for school lunch, or some other smaller state programs, but not the federal programs. Ceteris paribus, the citizen-led household is receiving MUCH more financial assistance than the non-citizen-led household. Yet they show up equally in a measure of families who benefit from at least one welfare program. And, again, this doesn't even try to account for what these two twin families pay into our systems. BTW, even this report acknowledges that workforce participation is significantly higher in households led by non-citizens. So in addition to not being eligible for federal benefits, the non-citizens are more likely to work. There's more, but that's plenty to illustrate your poor thinking on the subject.

Wow, this is a pretty shoddy report, but the bigger problem is OP trying to draw from it a conclusion that does not logically follow. That, and eschewing the extensive academic literature on the subject in favor of slurping down a cocktail of confirmation bias and virulent racism. "The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration[3][4][5][6][7] think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). It is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations founded by Tanton, along with FAIR and NumbersUSA. CIS has been involved in the creation of Project 2025."

Eh, the White House is now just a visual metaphor for the rest of the country.

Look how much closer the world is to us. The line chart is practically hugging Trump! Those Nigerian princes from the emails must kinda like him though. Grift game recognizes game.

You are lying. That's why you are linking to garbage news and Republican press releases rather than an EO--both of which STILL not say what you claim. You can't point to any such designation because you made it up. There is no authority for a POTUS to designate domestic terrorist organizations, nor have any done so prior to Trump's power grab. More blatant lying. You are profoundly dishonest. It says a LOT more than that and you know it. I'd quote it again, but if you're still lying about it after 4 or 5 quotes it's not ignorance, it's mendacity.

Yes, god exists AND has a very strong opinion on the way we process asylum seekers. Everything happens for a reason!🙄