:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays. — Benkei

Perhaps you can explain what I'm misinformed about re the family separations and cages.

If I'm understanding you correctly, when Obama separated families and put the kids in cages, he did it for saintly reasons, him being Saint Obama. And when Trump separated families and kept the kids in the very same cages Obama had built for that purpose, he did it for dastardly reasons, because he's Orange Hitler.

That is the only way I can interpret your claim that I am "misinformed" regarding widely known matters of fact. If you didn't know about Obama's cages in 2014 that's understandable, because the story was not widely reported in the MSM. If you claim it's not true today, it's you who are misinformed.

I'm open to your explaining exactly what I am misinformed about regarding this situation.

Love the cavalier attitude to the use of armed force. — Benkei

Not cavalier at all. If you can't see the difference between lobbing a few missiles onto an airport tarmac (if I recall the details correctly, didn't bother to look it up) and starting new wars, as every president of both parties since Ike has done; then I just don't know what to say. You draw an equivalence between the tarmac bombing and Biden's two major proxy wars? Or Clinton's bombing of Serbia, a war Clinton's voters ignored because it was a Dem war. It bothered me, and I was a big Clinton fan and voter at the time. Yet another one of the datapoints in my growing estrangement from the Dems. The antiwar left is strangely silent when they're Democratic wars. The left hated Bush's torture program but they didn't mind that Obama institutionalized it by failing to hold the Bush regime accountable (for understandable political reasons, to be sure).

So Trump bombed a tarmac and killed one Iranian. That's a remarkable lack of bloodshed for an American president of any party. I don't see how you can pretend not to understand that point.

This really underlines my point. Let's pretend it's not a war and then it's ok. No matter that "war" isn't the appropriate legal term any more. No matter that the President can unilaterally decide to put soldiers, e.g. US citizens, into harm's way because "technically" it isn't a war. No matter that it's still armed aggression, which is prohibited under the UN Charter so the President is unilaterally deciding to breach treaties Congress signed up to. It's authoritarian and it was his primary M.O. with respect to international relations. Of course, other US Presidents have done the same thing but presenting Trump as a peace candidate is silly and not borne out by the facts. — Benkei

The tarmac and the terrorist. That's it. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between using massive violence, as most president do; and bluster and the threat of violence to avoid violence, as Trump did.

I think you actually do understand; but just want to pretend you don't to make a partisan point.

Joe Stalin was an authoritarian. — fishfry

You know that Trump on multiple occasions has sucked up to Putin? That he stood on the world stage with him and said he trusted Putin above his own intelligence agencies? That he thinks Kim Jong Un is a really neat guy, even saying once that they were 'in love'? Why is it that the only political leaders he's ever expressed admiration for, if not because they're role models for him? Not that he's got anywhere near the guts or the guile to actually pull it off. Fortunately.

Motives matter. Separating families for the good of the kids is one thing. A zero tolerance policy separating all families to deter would-be immigrants is evil, unprecedented, and was quickly stopped when the public found out what was going on. — RogueAI

You made my point for me. In 2014 when Obama was separating families and putting kids in cages, the MSM did not widely report the story. People were not outraged because they didn't know it was happening. When images of kids in cages covered in foil space blankets "like baked potatoes" started circulating on social media, Obama dialed back the cages and loosened the vetting of families. Even the WaPo was forced to report on the kids Obama was losing to traffickers.

I have already conceded to you that if Trump said what you you say he did, that was not a good look. Trump is a very flawed man, but the only alternative to the wrong turn the Dems have taken the past couple of decades and especially the past eight years. So if he did bad, I'll grant you the point.

But as I mentioned in another post just now, if your point is that Obama put kids in cages it was good because he's Saint Obama; and when Trump put kids in the exact same cages Obama had built for that exact purpose it was bad, because he's Orange Hitler, you are just being partisan.

How do we know Trump wasn't just being Trump, and saying something inartfully that could be twisted by his opponents? Maybe just trying to send a message to prospective immigrants? As the saying goes, Trump 's opponents take him literally but not seriously. And his supporters take him seriously but not literally. Like when he jokingly asked Putin to find Hillary's emails. I thought that was hilarious. The left went hysterical; and for the most part, disingenuously so.

Also, a little off-topic: Like the taco bowl tweet. I thought that was hilarious too. "Trump is a brilliant performance artist and troll." That was my reaction. The left went hysterical over that too. For whatever reason, Trump's personality doesn't trigger. me. I get the guy. He's Queens, the establishment is Manhattan. They look down on him, and he is alternately insulting them and enviously wishing he could belong, which he never will.

When a Dem says, "Oh Trump put kids in cages," I know I'm talking to someone utterly ignorant of the issue. Which includes pretty much everyone on the left.

And yes, Biden's record on the border is awful. — RogueAI

Ok, well I'm glad you see that. But I'm not even talking today about Biden's open borders and the massive humanitarian crisis he's dumped on blue cities like NYC, Chicago, and Denver. I'm talking about the lesson Biden's administration learned about the separations and cages. Those are bad optics; turning kids over to traffickers keeps the issue out of the MSM. That's a moral outrage. I do predict this story will eventually become known. Like Biden's cognitive condition became known. Way too late, and only when it became impossible to keep covering up.

We're not doing people any favors when we make it easy for them to come here illegally and then live in the shadows and be exploited. — RogueAI

We leave them to die of thirst in the desert, and then give them driver's licenses, social welfare programs, and jobs if they make it over alive. A bipartisan moral atrocity that got started with FDR's Bracero program in the 1940s. I'd love to see some sensible immigration reform in my lifetime. I'm not holding my breath.

You really do come up with amazing twaddle. — Mikie

We saw the videos. Unjustly locking people up for three years does not a crime make. It makes an illegitimate DOJ. Shamefully so. Else how explain the leniency to the Floyd rioters who killed 20 people and did two billion dollars in documented, insurance-covered damage, and cheered on by the left? "A riot is the voice of the unheard." Except when the unheard are the deplorables. There's a reason Trump is about to be reelected in the greatest political comeback in American history. Enough people see what's been going on.

Trump says border bill ‘very bad’ for Lankford’s career — Wayfarer

Oh it turns out I DIDN'T miss this story. This was the bogus border bill that would have codified Biden's disastrous border policies, while bringing the Republicans on board so they could no longer criticize Biden over it.

I do remember this completely, did not realize this originated with a Republican, for some reason hadn't registered the name Lankford with it.

So I was with Trump on this. This was the bill that would have allowed in, what was the number, 5000 or something undocumented crossers every day, massively exacerbating the humanitarian crisis at the border and in the blue cities that have to absorb the newcomers, while giving the Dems the ability to blame it all on the Republicans.

I was massively opposed to this bill at the time. It codified the ongoing disaster and made the Republicans complicit.

So that was the Lankford bill. Somehow I missed that detail, but I definitely followed the story of the bill. Very glad the Dems blocked it. Bad bill as I understand it.

I will grant that if I have been misinformed about the details of this bill, I could be wrong. But the high-level bullet point was that 5000 a day would come in, a massive number that was far more than what Jeh Johnson, Obama's Homeland Security secretary, said would lead to humanitarian disaster. So this bill deserved to go down.

Thanks for the update, anyway. I recalled this bill as being a couple of months ago, but it was February. Time flies.

As mentioned, Lankford was then censured by his own party. This for a straight up-and-down Republican who has toed the party line on every single issue. — Wayfarer

I will concede that it is POSSIBLE that I may be misinformed about the badness of this bill. I confess that my media diet is a little skewed to the right these days. I've actually gone back to reading the NYT lately. So it's possible that you are right and I'm wrong on this issue.

But now that you've refreshed my memory about which bill this was, I most definitely remember that I had the impression that it was a bad bill, because it codified a lot of the bad stuff that was already going on, while making it impossible for the GOPs to complain. So AFAIK Trump was right on this issue.

Poor Lankford, though. No good deed goes unpunished, and the GOP are a hopeless and confused lot these days.

And I just don't know how you can say that. He's on the record suggesting, for instance, that the constitution ought to be suspended, that he plans to purge the civil service and stock it with his operatives, and intends to use the Department of Justice against his enemies. — Wayfarer

If only.

It won't happen. You know what I think is going to happen? The massive financial crash that people have been predicting since 2008 is finally going to happen on Trump's watch, and he's going to go down in history as the second coming of Herbert Hoover. Trump is being set up to take the fall for the coming economic crash.

Exact revenge on his enemies, put Pelosi and Cheney and Garland and Wray in prison? I wish. Never going to happen.

Suspend the Constitution? More TDS. Where do you get this stuff?

Again: You confuse suggesting with actually doing. They are not the same. As is typical for the left, you confuse Trump's style of rhetoric with his actions. Watch what the guy does, not what he says. You know the saying: Trump's opponents take him literally but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously but not literally. Liberals overreact to his words and never notice what he actually does.

The last few weeks, there's been a lot of press over Project 2025, which likewise plans to implement plainly authoritarian policies - Trump has been trying to disassociate himself from it, but it is almost entirely composed of ex-Trump aides and staffers, and he's spoken at the Heritage Foundation on a number of occasions. — Wayfarer

Yeah yeah yeah, Project 2025. Another TDS hysteria. You know Trump put out his ACTUAL platform, and it's extremely middle of the road, basically 1990's Clintonian policies. I posted this link recently. Here's Brit right-of-center website Spiked on the subject.

The truth about Trump? He's a moderate

That's Trump's platform. Project 2025 is yet another leftist hysteria. TDS is a genuine psychological disorder. Trump is not going to suspend the Constitution, he's not going to be a dictator. And if he does get a measure of justice for the wrongs that have been done to him and to the J6 political prisoners, I support him in that.

Here's NPR's take on Trump's platform, along with the platform. Why don't you read it and comment on Trump's ACTUAL platform, not the Project 2025 boogyman the liberals are using to distract from their laughable yet incredibly dangerous for the country Biden fiasco.

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/08/nx-s1-5033015/rnc-republican-party-platform-2024

But then, you know, but seem to downplay or rationalise, that Trump sicked his mob on the Capital Building, leading to multiple deaths and hundreds of arrests and jail sentences, one of the darkest days in American history. Why you're OK with that I can't fathom. — Wayfarer

What happened to "A riot is the voice of the unheard" as the Floyd rioters killed 20 people and caused two billion dollars in documented insurance payouts?

Most of the J6'ers were invited in by the Capitol police and wandered around peacefully, and now they're sitting in prison for three years. It's a shameful incident in American history. If there is any justice in this universe of ours there will someday be justice for the wrongly imprisoned J6'ers.

The J6 committee was a fraud on the American people. Why did they destroy their records? Why are thousands of hours of video still under lock and key?

I confess that my media diet is a little skewed to the right these days. — fishfry

And

The J6 committee was a fraud on the American people. — fishfry

The first statement explains the second. And, it’s more than ‘a little’. But there’s no way to make someone see what he or she doesn’t want to see, so let’s leave it for now. (Although how a forensic retelling of an attack on the American people could be a fraud on the American people beggars logic.)

Although as this is the Election thread, not the Trump thread, I’ll add I still don’t believe Biden will be the eventual Democratic nominee. I just wish folks would say that he should ‘pass the baton’. It sounds a lot less hostile than that he should resign or quit. It is really what he must be persuaded to do, and, I believe, will be.

You know that Trump on multiple occasions has sucked up to Putin? — Wayfarer

Ah, Russia Russia Russia, another symptom of TDS. Let us take a brief walk through history.

FDR joined up with brutal dictator Stalin to defeat the Nazis in World War II. I do not recall anyone criticizing FDR fo "sucking up" to Stalin. Well actually some people did. I read once that Herbert Hoover said at the time that the US should stay out of the war and whichever of the Nazis or the Soviets were winning, we should help the other one till they both destroyed each other. So I imagine that at the time, there must have been some voices questioning FDR's alliance with the bloody commie dictator Stalin. But it's not the prevailing view of history. It's regarded as a pragmatic decision to beat the Nazis, in retrospect a very good thing.

After the war Truman and the Dulles brothers got the cold war started, no sucking up to Russia there.

Ike had a summit meeting with Khrushchev in 1959. Why not? They were trying not to blow up the world. They were going to meet again in 1960, but Francis Gary Powers got shot down in his U-2 spy plane and the meeting got cancelled. Was Ike "sucking up" to the Soviets? Or negotiating with his geopolitical opponent with the aim of achieving peace? As a soldier of war, he knew the importance of peace.

JFK famously met with Khrushchev; and towards the end they had back-channel communications to establish peace. In his American University speech on June 10, 1963, JFK called for peaceful coexistence with the Soviets, saying:

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

Five and a half months later he was dead. Killed, some say, by the CIA on behalf of the very warmongers whose profits were threatened by peace. Or if you prefer the Lone Nut theory, the warmongers just got lucky. Somehow they always do.

Would you say JFK was "sucking up" to the Soviets? Or seeking peace, with deep wisdom?

I could go on. A lot of presidents met with their ideological opponents. Nixon went to China, for gosh sake. The arch anti-communist of the Alger Hiss case, the man who built his entire political reputation on fighting the Godless commies. "Only Nixon could go to China." Sucking up, I guess, is that how you would put it?

And so we come to Trump. He's a businessman. He doesn't have mortal enemies. He has competitors. He negotiates with his competitors. You call that sucking up. I call it international diplomacy, the only alternative to nuclear war. Biden comes in, and we're today closer to WWIII than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

When, exactly, did talking to our geopolitical rivals become sucking up in the leftist worldview? The left used to be for peace. Now they regard geopolitical negotiations as sucking up.

That he stood on the world stage with him and said he trusted Putin above his own intelligence agencies? — Wayfarer

Indeed. Not the most politic thing to say in public, but surely true. Reminds me of another story from the JFK days. The JFK assassination and the history and politics of that era are an interest of mine.

When French president Charles de Gaulle survived an assassination attempt by the right wing OSA (see the film The Day of the Jackal), de Gaulle knew that the OSA was closely allied with the CIA. De Gaulle called Kennedy and asked if the US was behind the assassination plot. Kennedy said that he certainly had nothing to do with it; but that he could not vouch for or control his own CIA.

So its hardly news that American presidents can't trust the CIA and don't trust the CIA. The only thing that's new is that Trump said it in public. Probably shouldn't have. You'll note that in the past couple of weeks, Trump has learned to keep his mouth shut. He may be starting to learn how to play the game of politics. If so, that's why the left is frightened. Imagine Trump being Trump, but no longer his own worst enemy.

That he thinks Kim Jong Un is a really neat guy, even saying once that they were 'in love'? — Wayfarer

You just don't like the guy's negotiating style. As someone said, as a New York City builder Trump always thinks he's negotiating with the sheet rock union.

Instead of lobbing missiles and starting a war, Trump went over there and buddied up with the leader of one of our country's "enemies." Are the North Korean people really the enemies of you and I? Or are they merely a tool for the military-industrial complex to keep the bucks flowing? Trump is a man of peace. He's a negotiator. No wonder the establishment hates him.The establishment gorges on the profits of war. Trump is dangerous to them.

The only thing I don't understand is why the left, with whom I marched against the war in Vietnam long ago, has now aligned itself with the defense contractors and the intel agencies in the cause of war.

If I had one wish, it would be for every leftist in the world to snap out of their trance and see how they are being played by the war machine. Hate Russia! Hate Russia! Hate Russia! A horde of mindless TDS-addled zombies.

Peace, man, Peace. Ike was a man of war and he worked for peace. JFK worked for peace, you see where that got him. Nixon worked for peace. Every president works for peace.

And when Trump works for peace? The left hates him for it.

I pray to the deities that be, for the liberals to snap out of their warmongering, deep-state loving trance and recognize that malignancy in our government; and that Trump, for all his flaws and faults, is trying to fight that malignancy.

Why is it that the only political leaders he's ever expressed admiration for, if not because they're role models for him? Not that he's got anywhere near the guts or the guile to actually pull it off. Fortunately. — Wayfarer

Like I say. You just don't like the guy's style. Why don't you look at his results? Only prez in my lifetime not to start any new wars. Look at the dangerous condition of the world with senile Biden and his feckless, incompetent, and neocon-influenced foreign policy team that have us on the brink of nuclear war.

Wake up. Peace is possible. But not by worshipping the neocon deep state that has a stranglehold on the Democratic party.

I could go on. — fishfry

You do.

You do. — Wayfarer

You should read what I wrote. And take it to heart.

And I do thank you for the writing prompts. I've had these thoughts in mind for a long time. You wondered how I could be for Trump. I'm explaining.

But they don’t cut it mate. I’ve said before, I respect your intelligence, I’ve learned things from you about philosophy of math (mainly, how little I know.) I have to say that you’re completely wrong about Trump, he’s malignant, mendacious, and a threat to the American Republic. Until you’re willing to acknowledge that, we have nothing further to discuss about it.

Perhaps you can explain what I'm misinformed about re the family separations and cages. — fishfry

Perhaps you should stick to the part I quoted?

That he thinks Kim Jong Un is a really neat guy, even saying once that they were 'in love'? Why is it that the only political leaders he's ever expressed admiration for, if not because they're role models for him? — Wayfarer

Well, actually, Donald Trump called Kim Jong-Un "little rocket man" in more than one occasion. Why is it that the only political leaders he mocked, if not because he really despises what they stand for?

Biden accidentally calls Zelensky "President Putin" at NATO summit

"Now I want to hand it over to the President of Ukraine, who has as much courage as he has determination, ladies and gentlemen, President Putin,"

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/biden-zelensky-president-putin-nato

Glorious.

The Potemkin presidency

"A riot is the voice of the unheard." Except when the unheard are the deplorables. — fishfry

Except when it’s about racism and some property is damaged. Then it’s screamed about for years. Meanwhile, a few months later a bunch of white people storm the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the electoral college vote, and they were “let in” — and after years of spin, we should deny what we all saw that day and tell ourselves it’s no big deal.

Because if it were the Black Lives Matter crowd, I’m sure we’d be saying the same thing. And I’m sure only one insurrectionist would have been shot.

The hypocrisy is laughable.

You made my point for me. In 2014 when Obama was separating families and putting kids in cages, the MSM did not widely report the story. People were not outraged because they didn't know it was happening. When images of kids in cages covered in foil space blankets "like baked potatoes" started circulating on social media, Obama dialed back the cages and loosened the vetting of families. Even the WaPo was forced to report on the kids Obama was losing to traffickers. — fishfry

Sure, it looked bad, but the two cases are not the same. Obama was not separating every family. The Trump Admin was. Obama was not doing it as a deterrent. The Trump admin was. Those are crucial differences, don't you agree?

The first statement explains the second. And, it’s more than ‘a little’. But there’s no way to make someone see what he or she doesn’t want to see, so let’s leave it for now. (Although how a forensic retelling of an attack on the American people could be a fraud on the American people beggars logic.) — Wayfarer

You have swallowed the psyop. The J6 committee was a total fraud.

Although as this is the Election thread, not the Trump thread, I’ll add I still don’t believe Biden will be the eventual Democratic nominee. I just wish folks would say that he should ‘pass the baton’. It sounds a lot less hostile than that he should resign or quit. It is really what he must be persuaded to do, and, I believe, will be. — Wayfarer

Yes back on topic. The election. I don't see how the Dems have much leverage. Biden is president. Biden is dug in. Biden has 3896 pledged delegates, with only 1,991 needed to win. Biden has Jill and Hunter in his corner; and crack and hooker jokes aside, Hunter is a smart and tough ally.

The Dem civil war is also a race war. All the Dem pols coming out against Joe are whitebreads (except for Obama in the background). Joe has the support of the Congressional Black caucus. AOC and Omar came out for Joe. Tellingly, black NYT columnist Charles Blow just came out with support for Joe. The Strongest Case for Biden Is His Resilience in the Face of the Onslaught. This is noteworthy because the Times editorial board and many of its other (white) opinion writers have called for Joe to "pass the baton" as you say.

Labor is behind Joe. Old people are behind Joe. I read that after the debate, his poll numbers went UP with women. They must have felt sorry for him.

Is the DNC going to screw over all the Biden supporters and primary voters? Dumping Joe is fraught with risk.

Also, Kamala has many negatives. As a former northern Californian I've watched her finger-to-the-wind brand of politics for a couple of decades now. She polls about the same as Biden against Trump. She's been a worthless VP and her approval ratings have been terrible. She is no panacea. And of course nobody else can leapfrog her because of Democratic identity politics.

There are also technical issues. Some states have strict filing rules that limit how long the Dems can wait. The WSJ published a story today saying that Biden can't transfer his campaign account to Kamala until he's formally nominated.

When Nixon was told by the party honchos that he had to resign, he was facing certain impeachment and conviction. What leverage have the Dems got? A strongly worded editorial from George Clooney, who just raised $30M for Biden three weeks ago and publicly claimed Biden was fit as a fiddle when he privately saw Biden's infirmity? Well today Rosie O'Donnell called for Biden to "pass the torch." That oughta do it.

I'm on record saying Joe is the nominee. Biden's press conference was not good enough to quell any doubts, but it wasn't bad enough to make his position any worse. He made some flubs but he also made his foreign policy points. He bought himself more time, and time is of the essence for the anti-Joe Dems. They are stuck. Nobody can make Joe leave but Joe. And he is a stubborn, selfish old guy who, despite his sad recent cognitive decline, was always pretty much like this.

The Dems made their bed and now they have to lie in it.

But they don’t cut it mate. I’ve said before, I respect your intelligence, I’ve learned things from you about philosophy of math (mainly, how little I know.) I have to say that you’re completely wrong about Trump, he’s malignant, mendacious, and a threat to the American Republic. Until you’re willing to acknowledge that, we have nothing further to discuss about it. — Wayfarer

I was influenced by your kind words and I did my best to at least explain and justify my political feelings. Especially since I'm no Republican nor a conservative, but rather a fallen liberal. Still a registered Democrat. One of the seven to ten million Americans who voted for Obama and then Trump. The Democrats have no interest in who we are, which has been a great frustration these last eight years. The left just stopped listening. Just Russia Russia Russia and then J6. Lawfare and propping up Biden, both of which have failed spectacularly. It's the Dems who are a threat to the American republic, and I did not used to feel that way. They talked me into it over the past couple of decades and especially in the past eight years.

I enjoyed our Trump chat, and as I said, I appreciate your writing prompts so that I could express some of my thoughts. For some reason, Trump just doesn't trigger me the way he does others. And I do believe that if the Dems had totally ignored Trump, skipped the lawfare entirely, and held a competitive primary, Newsom or Whitmer would be beating DeSantis today.

Now it's up to the American people, such as they are, and our electoral system, such as it is.

Perhaps you should stick to the part I quoted? — Benkei

I am actually confused about what you wrote. I outlined the basic facts about the sepaations and the cages, and you responded by complaining about my reading habits (and getting it wrong. Breitbart yes, RedState and Townhall no). I fail to see how what I read alters the fact that Trump put kids in the cages Obama built for the same purpose. All the rest is partisan rhetoric. You say that when Obama put kids in cages he was noble, and when Trump put kids in the same cages he was Orange Hitler. I fail to understand your point beyond partisanship.

If am missing your point, feel free to clarify.

Except when it’s about racism and some property is damaged. — Mikie

Racism? Not catching the reference. The Floyd riots? J6? Something else.

Then it’s screamed about for years. Meanwhile, a few months later a bunch of white people storm the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the electoral college vote, and they were “let in” — and after years of spin, we should deny what we all saw that day and tell ourselves it’s no big deal. — Mikie

Maybe you didn't see the videos of them being let in. I did.

Because if it were the Black Lives Matter crowd, I’m sure we’d be saying the same thing. And I’m sure only one insurrectionist would have been shot. — Mikie

Um ... what? The Floyd riots killed 20 people. A black cop shot unarmed Ashli Babbitt. Reverse the races and the left would still be hysterical about it.

The hypocrisy is laughable. — Mikie

On your side, most certainly.

Sure, it looked bad, but the two cases are not the same. Obama was not separating every family. The Trump Admin was. Obama was not doing it as a deterrent. The Trump admin was. Those are crucial differences, don't you agree? — RogueAI

Absolutely. Obama is a saint and a lightbringer. Trump is Orange Hitler. That's the distinction you are making.

I knew about Obama's cages in 2014, so when the left went wild over Trump putting kids in the same cages, I recognized them for the ignorant hysterics that they so often are. Eventually Jeh Johnson, Obama's Homeland Security guy, had to explain to reporters that those cages were had indeed been built by Obama. The left literally did not believe it. Willful denial of reality along with hysteria. Not a good look for the side I'd always considered myself to be part of.

As always with Trump, you conflate his often artless rhetoric with reality. The truth is you don't actually know that his motives were different than Obama's. Only that Obama can do no wrong, and Trump can do no right. And that Trump's words often inflame the left. I think he does it on purpose, like the taco bowl tweet. He's a troll. I watched the cage story develop from 2014 to 2018 and it does not reflect well on the left. Ignorance and hysteria. That's their style.

Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued.
— fishfry

:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays. — Benkei

I have no clue why you started talking about cages. Maybe you have more in common with Biden than you think? :wink:

I have no clue why you started talking about cages. Maybe you have more in common with Biden than you think? — Benkei

Did I get my convos crossed? My bad. No matter. It's all the same, really. Whatever it was, I can let it go.

The truth is you don't actually know that his motives were different than Obama's. — fishfry

https://www.axios.com/2018/06/19/sessions-says-he-hopes-child-separation-policy-will-serve-as-a-deterrent

Our clown is better than their clown!

Isn't it time you folks got off the clown car?

Maybe you didn't see the videos of them being let in. I did. — fishfry

Yeah, maybe watch less Sean Hannity.

The Floyd riots killed 20 people. — fishfry

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests

Ask yourself how the Capitol police would respond to black or brown people. I doubt very much they’d be “letting them in,” to the extent that that even happened (you know, apart from breaking windows and ramming down doors).

But nevermind— just go on pretending it the insurrection was nothing. Years from now I’m sure it’ll be remembered as a tour — in conservative media anyway.

Federal whistleblowers testify against the Biden regime’s complicity in the exploitation and trafficking of migrant children.

What I discovered was horrifying… Make no mistake – children were not going to their parents they were being trafficked with billions of taxpayer dollars by a contractor failing to to vet sponsors and process children safely with government officials complicit in it.

Children were sent to addresses that were abandoned houses or non-existent in some cases

Meanwhile, a few months later a bunch of white people storm the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the electoral college vote, and they were “let in” — Mikie

It is okay when we do it. Get the memo, Mikie-chan.

13July24

(Day 13 of the American Monarchy)

FWIW, my guess is that The Neofascist Criminal Clown will announce he's selected either Kari Lake of Arizona or Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina to be his running mate. :meh:

I imagine Trump’s poll numbers may jump a couple points because of this. If he were smart — which he isn’t — he would be gracious and thank Joe and others who have wished him well and condemned the violence.

But we all know what will really happen. Get ready for conspiracy theories and fundraising, folks.