Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

So we have a process where Democrats can circumvent US immigration policy/ the intention of immigration laws and just fly immigrants wherever they want and flood communities? Yeah nice.
PS Are you "friends with school shooters" too.

The process is legal and does not circumvent the law. Every aspect of Biden's immigration policy has been subject to legal action. If this was not legal, it would have been as well. For that matter, it would probably be challenged even though it is legal.

Regardless, the app has nothing to do with the Haitians in Springfield. But I assume that you, like Vance, have no problem with racist stereotypes. Are you also a White supremacist?

The process that Biden used, while quasi legal, completely circumvented accepted immigration laws and policy.. Temporary Protected Status was created to bypass laws and is not how immigration is supposed to work.
Your knee jerk "white supremacist" comment basically shows your ignorance you regularly demonstrate when you lose an argument.

When was TPS created? 1990.

And you probably just 'discovered" it in the last two months. Who was president in 1990? A republican. In the intervening 24 years, a republican has been in the white house for 14 of those years - a majority, and no one complained about it until now. the GOP had plenty of opportunity to eradicate it if it had wanted to, including when Trump was in the white House with a majority House and Senate and yet he did nothing. Why do you think anything would change in the future?

My point was Biden/ Harris has abused it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vibe from Vance was weird guy holding himself tightly in check to present as a calm, polite, rational conservative. Anyone who has not been exposed to the clips of the real Vance might be deceived.

Exactly. We saw the real Vance when he attached the moderators for fact checking and refused to say Trump lost in 2020.

For all his silver tongued lies and smooth talking, that was a pretty big mis-step by Vance!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

So we have a process where Democrats can circumvent US immigration policy/ the intention of immigration laws and just fly immigrants wherever they want and flood communities? Yeah nice.
PS Are you "friends with school shooters" too.

The process is legal and does not circumvent the law. Every aspect of Biden's immigration policy has been subject to legal action. If this was not legal, it would have been as well. For that matter, it would probably be challenged even though it is legal.

Regardless, the app has nothing to do with the Haitians in Springfield. But I assume that you, like Vance, have no problem with racist stereotypes. Are you also a White supremacist?

The process that Biden used, while quasi legal, completely circumvented accepted immigration laws and policy.. Temporary Protected Status was created to bypass laws and is not how immigration is supposed to work.
Your knee jerk "white supremacist" comment basically shows your ignorance you regularly demonstrate when you lose an argument.

When was TPS created? 1990.

And you probably just 'discovered" it in the last two months. Who was president in 1990? A republican. In the intervening 24 years, a republican has been in the white house for 14 of those years - a majority, and no one complained about it until now. the GOP had plenty of opportunity to eradicate it if it had wanted to, including when Trump was in the white House with a majority House and Senate and yet he did nothing. Why do you think anything would change in the future?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

+1

Lots of substance last night. Finally.

Unfortunately, everyone has to admit Walz lost the debate badly. It wasn’t even close.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

+1

Lots of substance last night. Finally.

Unfortunately, everyone has to admit Walz lost the debate badly. It wasn’t even close.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Tim Walz ripped off Vance's mask with this response. My jaw dropped and I immediately knew it would be the most talked about exchange of the night.

"When Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now. Where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it. America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

This was Walz's "at long last, have you no, have you no decency sir?"

Vance just froze and had zero response.

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

So we have a process where Democrats can circumvent US immigration policy/ the intention of immigration laws and just fly immigrants wherever they want and flood communities? Yeah nice.
PS Are you "friends with school shooters" too.

The process is legal and does not circumvent the law. Every aspect of Biden's immigration policy has been subject to legal action. If this was not legal, it would have been as well. For that matter, it would probably be challenged even though it is legal.

Regardless, the app has nothing to do with the Haitians in Springfield. But I assume that you, like Vance, have no problem with racist stereotypes. Are you also a White supremacist?

The process that Biden used, while quasi legal, completely circumvented accepted immigration laws and policy.. Temporary Protected Status was created to bypass laws and is not how immigration is supposed to work.
Your knee jerk "white supremacist" comment basically shows your ignorance you regularly demonstrate when you lose an argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pallative care for an unviable baby, anyone? the GOP fixaation on this is absurd and grotesque.

To be clear: are you, like Walz, saying that it's wrong, to even report the death of a living human infant, not physically connected to its mother?

Do you also support parents withdrawing care from their teenage children who are "unviable" without medical intervention? An infant who is alive is "unviable"?
If not, when does life begin for you?


And you wonder why the right finds you gruesome?

So you'd keep your brain-dead child on machines to keep it "alive" forever because it makes YOU feel better, not whats best for the child? That is gruesome and self serving.

Do you understand what palliative care is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

+1

Lots of substance last night. Finally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Response to who won the debate evenly split, following party lines. Independents broke for Walz, but Vance's unfavorables improved. Does seem like it was a draw.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/politico-snap-poll-division-debate-00182131

Does not surprise me, but interesting about Independents.

I'd be curious to know what specifically they were responding to. If anyone finds any more data, please post.

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Anonymous wrote:Who else thinks trump will have a temper tantrum over vance outshining him?