The Real timschochet

Thank you for answering. As you would no doubt suspect, I fundamentally and strongly disagree with your position here (at least the “deport them all” part.) I find it unreasonable and unworkable. But I appreciate the clarification. The polling indicates that attitudes are changing about this and that the public really doesn’t want what you are proposing, despite the fact that that they appeared to want it last November. I hope that’s true, we will see.

We know. And as I wrote. It’s ugly and stupid. Brahma too.

Your personal attacks mean nothing to me. Why persist? It just makes you look worse.

Your insistence on attacking Walz and liberalism in this thread, around this topic, is just stupid and tasteless. I’m not surprised you don’t see that, but most people reading this do.

The most impressive aspect of the protests, for me, was how many of them took place in deep red states: Idaho, South Carolina, etc. I really do think something is happening here. The polls suggest the public at large has really changed their minds about Trump and MAGA. We will know next election time; until then it’s all speculation. But the signs are there.

But he hasn’t been awful in this thread. You have. You and @Hardcore troubadour and a few others. You’ve pinned these murders on liberals, tried to blame Tim Walz, attacked other posters. Everything you’ve written here has been stupid and ugly and wrong.

I really didn’t care.

He can be nice, he can be smart in other areas. But I don’t need to learn any of that to know that holding Walz responsible for the murder of these poor people in any fashion is moronic. If Albert Einstein had said this it would still be moronic.

Yeah I understood you right the first time. It’s a horrible comparison. Iran can’t match Israel in bombing or drones. But we followed up bombing Iraq with an invasion which toppled Saddam Hussein. Israel can’t do that, nor can they completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, so I’m not quite sure what they’re going to achieve here. Which is why your comparison was so asinine.

Usually when I have 3 I’m all in. But I’m a lousy gambler.

1. It’s irrelevant to Tom Homan because he wants them all deported anyway, violent or not. 2. it’s irrelevant to me because I believe I can look at an individual situation and say “yeah that’s a bad guy; he deserves to go” with a certain amount of ease, But by asking it you avoid the central point which is: whatever your definition of violent criminal, or serious criminal, or bad person, or whatever term you wish to use, we should all be able to agree on one thing: the vast majority of undocumented immigrants do not fit that description. What then is to become of them? Tom Homan wants them rounded up and sent away. @Strike seems to agree with this (at least he doesn’t disagree). What do you think should happen to them? Please answer, as I tried my best to answer you.

I guess because I don’t understand why you would have such an unreasonable, inhumane attitude. I honestly don’t. Earlier you accused me of calling you racist but I didn’t. I don’t believe you are and therefore I find your position on this unjustifiable. Racists can have this position and I get that. But you don’t have that excuse.

Then deport them. And let the rest find a way to stay. Does anyone oppose this idea?

Fair enough. Let’s simplify this. I don’t really want to get bogged down into a discussion of what is or what is not a “serious crime.” To paraphrase a late Supreme Court justice, I know it when ai see it. I don’t believe undocumented immigrants who are not guilty of serious crimes should be deported. That does not make us a country without borders. I am not in favor of that. I am, however, in favor of much more open immigration, but that is besides the point of what to do with the millions of undocumented people already here. Most of them are not serious criminals. Therefore I believe most of them should stay.

Wow, I never heard of this dude before and hopefully I never will again. Damn what a moron.

I’m sorry but what you wrote betrays a complete ignorance of history. Almost none of the immigrants who came here at the turn of the 20th century, from Eastern and central Europe, Italy, China, Japan, etc. settled in “the woods”; they huddled in the big cities: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. These were Emma Lazarus’ “huddled masses”. Their presence created overcrowding, ghettoes, crime, and they were complained about then as much as our immigrants are now, if not more so. Public education was mandatory by then. There are plenty of books about this. You needn’t stay ignorant.

I think you’re being a little facetious here. In the past I have encountered many in the MAGA movement who refuse to make any distinctions at all. There are several people here who have argued that if a person breaks the law coming here they are a criminal, and they don’t distinguish between violent rapists and some guy looking for work at Home Depot. Tom Homan seems to believe this. I do not.

My remark about racism wasn’t a comment, it was a question. Let’s put aside your use of the word “criminal”. You and I agree that actual criminals shouldn’t be here. But undocumented people who haven’t committed violent felonies, who work in our agriculture and service industries and restaurants and car washes: do you regard these as criminals as well? If you do, fine, we’ll just disagree and there’s nothing more to be said. But if you don’t regard them as criminals then what is to be gained by their being deported?

And if it WAS true that would be even worse. I don’t want hard working people to self deport. Why would anyone want this, unless you are yourself a racist? If these people leave our prices go up and we become poorer as a nation. There would be no good result here.

It’s not winning because none of it is true. The Center for Immigration Studies is a white nationalist group, like its parent, FAIR. These are racists with the goal of eliminating all non-European immigration to this country. Everything they put out is either an absolute lie or otherwise misleading. In this case it’s likely both.

1. No, but allowing nonviolent undocumented workers to stay here brings more money into social services than goes out. I keep trying to point this out and have provided numerous studies to show this is true. 2. I actually agree with you about his green restrictions. Nonetheless we’re going to have to find alternatives to oil and coal. I’ve heard Newsom talk about this; he is open to nuclear energy investment, which is more than most Democratic or current Republican politicians. 3. Importing or producing oil has no effect on the price which is controlled by the global marketplace. This is true of almost all global commodities and it’s why Trump’s “America First” ideas are so silly. 4. Your third paragraph is right. A lot of those proposals won’t go through. But let’s look at what will: he’s for lower tarrifs and free trade. Just based on that alone, if Newsom becomes President YOU will be more prosperous, with more spending power. Your life will improve. 5. He doesn’t threaten democracy. Quite the opposite. He stands up for it as he did last weekend. Do you really want people arrested without due process? You want hard working people dragged away and imprisoned because they don’t have proper papers? It’s unAmerican. Most people don’t want this. Look I get that some of my ideas are extreme and I’m not asking you to agree. But Newsom would overall be a centrist, a return to sanity and level headed governance. I’m not going to like everything he does but at this point it’s all hands on deck. We need another Reagan. Newsom’s the closest. Someone else might emerge and I’ll be for that if it happens. But I’ll also be content with this.

I am uh…not too fond of this comparison. In any event: my support for Newsom or any other candidate is not based on my personal advantage.

The issues you’re concerned about will have nothing to do with his presidency should he run and get elected. Mainly he will be pre-occupied with undoing the damage Trump has done both domestically and internationally. Putting all else aide, on the four key issues of trade, immigration, energy and globalism (foreign policy and anti-isolationism) he will be a tremendous improvement.

To a certain extent I agree with this. Protests mean little unless they translate into electoral results. On the other hand, a general rule is that large protests against an administration often DO result in a wave election next time around. That happened in 2010; the Tea Party protests led to Obama having to face a Republican majority that blocked his legislation. Which is why I made the comparison.

I could go for this. Many times I’ve noticed that you and I get into the weeds of issues we are able to find some common ground. It’s only when we are discussing the broader strokes that we sharply disagree. Perhaps this indicates where most people in this country are at underneath the rhetoric, I’d like to think so anyhow.