The Real timschochet

1. The taxpayer. 2. Yes. Unless resources are redirected, it will be a strain on the schools that have to deal with this particularly in border states. 3. They should be. That’s why we need to overhaul the entire system. As I wrote these people pay in far more than they take out. But it’s not evenly distributed which creates problem and strain. You need to accept three facts about this: 1. Undocumented immigrants aren’t going anywhere. They’re not going to be deported. They’re not going to leave voluntarily. They’re here to stay. 2. More are coming. Many many more. No wall or added security will stop them. You can slow it down but not stop it. 3. Economically they are a net benefit to our society, even if it’s not evenly distributed. If you accept the above 3 facts, then we can have a reasonable discussion about what to do next. If you refuse to accept them we can’t. It’s that simple.

So there’s still no motivation right? And no evidence that he did this because he hated Trump in particular or bought into the argument that Trump was a threat to democracy?

Yep. It’s his show. It makes him look terrible but whatever.

We don’t give them that much money. They pay in far more than we give them (Social Security being one of the best examples.) I believe in giving undocumented immigrants basic access to healthcare in order to avoid public health issues like tuberculosis. I believe in giving all children access to public education if only to have them occupied during the day and not running around causing mischief and worse. And I believe in a basic safety net of food and shelter for anyone in this society who can’t afford it. You may regard these as “liberal” positions but that would say more about you than me.

Good job! Now all you have to do is convince Trump that’s what he meant.

In this election especially, liberals and I have the same goals. And in many ways I am extremely liberal. But not really economically.

It’s almost always true. And when there is a conspiracy (like Watergate for instance) it’s almost always discovered very quickly and it’s usually very stupid. But most people, particularly religious people but I would include many non- religious people as well, refuse to accept the awful truth: that most things that happen in life, both good and bad, happen through blind luck and chaos. This indisputable fact makes people uncomfortable.

Sure they won’t. You guys are great. Love this for you.

Oh OK.

Oh I kind of hope he doesn’t too. Because that would almost guarantee a Kamala victory. But I also hope he does because she will wipe the floor with him. Harris in the meantime vowed today that she will show up at the debate on September 10 whether Trump does or not.

Trump again indicates he might not debate: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/07/29/harris-trump-debate-abc-fox.html He says he “probably will” but could make an argument for not doing it because “everybody knows everything already.” Some alpha. Not a good look.

I don’t regard myself as a full liberal because I still believe, deep down, that economics work better when the government is not involved. Capitalism is most efficient when it’s unfettered and leads to greater prosperity. That’s not a very liberal position. On the other hand I’m very socially liberal.

If I wasn’t busy…

I could do it.

This is a fine question which I must admit I have never considered. It’s a champagne problem.

See I’m opposite from you (no surprise). I had no problem with Barrett or Kagan in terms of qualifications. I did have a problem with Barrett in terms of timing, because when Obama nominated Garland, McConnell refused to hold hearings arguing that we needed to wait until the election. But with Barrett he rushed it through. I found that to be disingenuous.

This, however, is ridiculous.

Thank you for offering some honest opinions. I actually agree with you on a lot of this. You can be a thoughtful guy when you’re not going off about how terrible Jews are. Really too bad that you feel that way because you’re probably a pretty decent dude in other aspects of your life.

I dunno. Fair question. Also how long should the terms be? I don’t know that either. I’m in favor of a limitation of some sort. The rest is up for discussion. 10 years per term? That’s off the top of my head. Then the President could renominate the Justice or nominate somebody else. If we did that we wouldn’t need a maximum number of terms- so long as a Justice was successfully renominated he could go on indefinitely until he died. Again I’m just spouting ideas here, haven’t really considered it.

I suspect you’re both. Just wrong about this issue and its moral implications. I think that most people concerned about undocumented immigrants fall into that category. Not Trump and the extreme MAGA types though.

I don’t understand why term limits would require an amendment if, after FDR, Congress was able to limit Presidential terms to 2 by enacting a law. Whats the difference? Serious question.

Lol I didn’t need to send it.

And again it doesn’t matter. The left’s solutions could be a total failure (I don’t think so but whatever), a complete disaster and it would still be preferable to the attempted forced deportation of 15 million people. That will never happen but I believe Trump will TRY to make it happen, which will be catastrophic for this country- for our economy, prosperity, violence, inflation, moral standing, worldwide reputation, etc. NOTHING good will come of the attempt. Which is why no matter how much you might disagree with Democrats on this issue you have to support them (assuming you’re a thoughtful, decent person. The Republicans have left us no alternative.)

My comment was about what Trump proposes to do if he wins. There is no action, ever, by an undocumented immigrant that would make Trump’s plan palatable. There is nothing about this subject that would ever make Trump’s election acceptable. And you can insult me all day long that will never change.

I usually don’t. I donated to Ted Cruz in 2016 (hoping he might stop Trump). I may donate to Kamala.