The Real timschochet

Many interviewed last night who voted for the Democrat said that immigration was their #1 issue and they didn’t vote for the Republican because they don’t trust Republicans to secure the border after they blew up the recent bill to help Trump.

I’m wrong about Trump; he avoided endorsing her. He didn’t want to be blamed in case she lost.

In order to win the House in 2022 Republicans had to win a lot of districts like this one, traditionally Democrat. If 2022 was an anomaly like you say then Democrats will win the House back (and Biden will likely be re-elected.)

Mayorkis is absolutely competent doing the job that Biden wants him to do. You disagree with what Biden wants. Your solution is to defeat Biden in the election, not to impeach Mayorkis.

Yes but it’s been about 100 years.

The polls had the Democrat up by 2-3 points, within the margin of error. He’s going to win by 13

Most of the Democratic ads were about abortion. Almost all of the Republican ads were about the border.

It wasn’t totally expected. Republicans spent a ton of money. The GOP candidate was totally MAGA. Trump expected her to win.

Both parties really spent a lot of money on this election.

Except that’s not the sort of question that is a truth or lie type of thing. It’s a subjective issue, not a question of fact.

You may think he’s wrong. That’s not exactly an impeachable offense.

Looks like the Democrat is going to win to replace Santos. That might be a message that this whole panic over immigration is not going to be the issue that Republicans hope that it’s going to be. If that is the case, then after Biden’s re-election and the House changes hands there will be some kind of deal reached regarding immigration but it will be much friendlier to what Dems want than the current deal that Trump blew up. In other words, the Republicans really screwed up here and they will regret killing this bill.

No it wasn’t. 1. People say the Clinton impeachment was weak because he lied about sex. But he DID lie under oath. 2. People say the first Trump impeachment was weak because it was about a phone call and they don’t think it rose to the level of impeachment. But he DID attempt to blackmail a foreign leader for political purposes. 3. People say the second Trump impeachment was weak because it was unclear what Trump’s role was in the January 6 riot, and because he was already out of office when he was impeached, But it’s pretty clear that he tried to subvert the political process; we will see how guilty he is. My point: one can reasonably debate the merits of all 3 of these modern impeachments, but none of them were about policy. This current impeachment is about policy. (However, one could argue that the Andrew Johnson impeachment in 1868 was about policy- northern hardliners thought he was too soft on Reconstruction of the South.)

You are getting the benefit. You’re complaining about the price of your IPhone and your car but if they were all made here your prices would be much higher.

Please explain how this hurts us. Would you rather we pay higher prices for the products we consume?

“Something has to be done”. OK what? What are you proposing?

Look while I totally appreciate what you’re saying here I can never buy into this “we can’t afford to spend the money” argument for the simple reason that we’re talking about a tiny amount of the total budget; not spending it will have no impact whatsoever on the total debt or deficit. Our national debt is a huge problem no doubt, but at this point it is so large that we will never be able to solve it by cutting spending, because the American public would never tolerate the amount of drastic cuts we would have to make. Therefore the only solution is to grow the economy. That means more trade, that’s ultimately the only way to do it. We need to oppose the Trumps on one side and the AOCs and Bernie Sanders on the other side and promote policies that will bring us more trade.

No. If we help make those countries better, less will want to leave. But I still want the ones that do. They’re apt to be the toughest, the strongest of will, the most courageous.

Yes. And as much as I love Ronald Reagan and believe him to be the greatest President of my lifetime, I also hold him responsible for changes to the system in California that made it more difficult to care for mentally ill people. My grandmother was mentally ill. All throughout my childhood my mom tried to place her in facilities but she wouldn’t stay. Then she lived like a homeless person and my mom couldn’t find her. It was terrible.

Agreed though it IS also about guns to the extent that, as I wrote yesterday, I would like to keep them out of the hands of mentally ill people. Bur to your point- what as a society can we do better regarding the mentally ill? I have no specific ideas but it seems like whatever we do will involve spending a lot more money than we are now. Is this a worthy taxpayer investment?

Putting aside your attempt at levity, I certainly wouldn’t mind some sort of mental competency test for anyone seeking to purchase a firearm. But I suspect it would probably infringe on the 2nd.

I would prefer it if mentally ill people were not allowed to possess firearms. Is there a way to do this without violating the 2nd Amendment? I want good rational people to have the freedom to own firearms; they don’t bother me.

So history repeats itself: just as in 1938-1941, a handful of Republicans and isolationists are going to keep us from helping to prevent aggression in Eastern Europe. We will regret the results.

Mike Johnson signals he will not allow the foreign aid bill to be voted on: https://www.axios.com/2024/02/13/mike-johnson-senate-national-security

https://abc7.com/amp/lake-arrowhead-store-owner-killed-mag-pi-clothing-laura-ann-carleton/13673754/ I’ve actually been to that store. What the hell is wrong with people? Why can’t they leave gays and trans alone?