EPTOn June 11 2025 08:43 LightSpectra wrote:
Your teachers always returned your tests face down, huh?
Show nested quote +
Trump did have a border crisis in his first term, he solved it. Biden had an long rolling disaster almost immediately from inauguration day until Trump won.
Your teachers always returned your tests face down, huh?
The numbers don't lie, you are free to focus on the wall if you want though, that's your obsession not mine.
On June 11 2025 08:54 WombaT wrote:
What did Trump in and around folks storming the Capitol?
He has zero credibility in this specific domain. Or to reiterate my clarification, he should not.
It’s not a myopic focus on the wall either. Trump said he’d build it, that it would solve the issue, or at least mitigate the issue considerably, and Mexico would pay for it.
It’s his claim(s) not mine, pointing out that that hasn’t exactly actually happened isn’t myopic focus, it’s basic observation.
Show nested quote +
On June 11 2025 08:40 Introvert wrote:
What would *not* be escalation? Just let them continue to harass and impede law enforcement while the Governor does nothing? I am suspicious that literally any action at all will be labeled "escalation". I would say protestors attacking people and stuff are those who "escalated" tensions.
Trump learned from 2020 when state and local officials were too cowardly to protect people and property. Here, he's defending federal employees doing their jobs. Everyone politically relevant in governing California is a clown and that's part of how they make it to their offices. The Governor, both senators, the majority of the House delegation, statewide elected officers, all of them are contemptable and all scared by the same thing. No, as a resident I give precisely zero credence to what they say. They are cowards stuck in a bind who meekly go on social media asking people not to riot because "it gives Trump what he wants." Not because it's bad mind you, but because it's a bad look.
Did you not see the chart oBlade posted yesterday I think it was? Trump did have a border crisis in his first term, he solved it. Biden had an long rolling disaster almost immediately from inauguration day until Trump won. Your myopic focus on the wall is a attempt to ignore every other relevant measure. It's ok, Biden's policy on the border sucked. He lost, he's not president anymore, you don't have to pretend otherwise anymore, there's nothing to be gained.
On June 11 2025 08:02 micronesia wrote:
Isn't it both? The escalation accusation and the lawbreaking in LA aren't mutually exclusive.
On June 11 2025 07:46 Introvert wrote:
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies.
On June 10 2025 19:09 Jankisa wrote:
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
On June 10 2025 13:31 Introvert wrote:
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
On June 10 2025 11:07 WombaT wrote:
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
On June 10 2025 10:08 Introvert wrote:
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
On June 09 2025 22:59 Jankisa wrote:
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
On June 09 2025 22:10 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
[quote]
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies.
Isn't it both? The escalation accusation and the lawbreaking in LA aren't mutually exclusive.
What would *not* be escalation? Just let them continue to harass and impede law enforcement while the Governor does nothing? I am suspicious that literally any action at all will be labeled "escalation". I would say protestors attacking people and stuff are those who "escalated" tensions.
On June 11 2025 08:16 WombaT wrote:
Do you need the National Guard out, never mind US Marines? From memory from summat I read earlier, it’s the first time since 1965 that the Guard have been deployed without a Governor consenting to it.
I don’t particularly like Newsom, and I can see him wanting to make political hay here. I can also see the obvious motivation for the LAPD chief to claim his boys and girls can handle it, given if they can’t it reflects rather badly on his stewardship.
But if seemingly everyone politically relevant in governing California is saying roughly the same thing, that I’ve countered my instinct is that it’s an unnecessary deployment, especially in the manner it has and that comes from an earnest place. Earnest may still be mistaken mind, so there is that.
Trump tbf yeah more trustworthy on the border. Less so on pesky things like adherence to due process, but I’d agree there.
He has zero credibility on this particular issue whatsoever, or, to correct myself he shouldn’t.
On June 11 2025 07:46 Introvert wrote:
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it
I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild.
On June 10 2025 19:09 Jankisa wrote:
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
On June 10 2025 13:31 Introvert wrote:
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
On June 10 2025 11:07 WombaT wrote:
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
On June 10 2025 10:08 Introvert wrote:
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
On June 09 2025 22:59 Jankisa wrote:
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
On June 09 2025 22:10 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
[quote]
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
That seems pretty fucked up.
The "escalatory" excuse is just the last lame thing Democrats like Gavin Newsom came up with to avoid blaming the people responsible and instead blame their political enemies. And calling out the National Guard is to prevent violence and stop that which had already started. We have a heckler's veto for street action now?
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I live in California, and I didn't vote for either of them so I didn't for this or against it
I am against letting the left and the violent activists use intimidation to prevent the carrying out of lawful activity or securing America's sovereignty. I would think people obsessed with January 6th, 2021 would get this. It's just so obviously absurd that I have to agree to let people burn cars, throw rocks at cops, and loot businesses or else *I'm* the one escalating. That's wild. Do you need the National Guard out, never mind US Marines? From memory from summat I read earlier, it’s the first time since 1965 that the Guard have been deployed without a Governor consenting to it.
I don’t particularly like Newsom, and I can see him wanting to make political hay here. I can also see the obvious motivation for the LAPD chief to claim his boys and girls can handle it, given if they can’t it reflects rather badly on his stewardship.
But if seemingly everyone politically relevant in governing California is saying roughly the same thing, that I’ve countered my instinct is that it’s an unnecessary deployment, especially in the manner it has and that comes from an earnest place. Earnest may still be mistaken mind, so there is that.
Trump tbf yeah more trustworthy on the border. Less so on pesky things like adherence to due process, but I’d agree there.
He has zero credibility on this particular issue whatsoever, or, to correct myself he shouldn’t.
Trump learned from 2020 when state and local officials were too cowardly to protect people and property. Here, he's defending federal employees doing their jobs. Everyone politically relevant in governing California is a clown and that's part of how they make it to their offices. The Governor, both senators, the majority of the House delegation, statewide elected officers, all of them are contemptable and all scared by the same thing. No, as a resident I give precisely zero credence to what they say. They are cowards stuck in a bind who meekly go on social media asking people not to riot because "it gives Trump what he wants." Not because it's bad mind you, but because it's a bad look.
On June 11 2025 08:25 LightSpectra wrote:
LMAO, President McDumbfuck had a whole-ass four years to secure the border, two of which with total Republican control over all three branches of government. And what did he do? Where's the wall Mexico paid for? It wasn't 24 hours from Biden's inauguration that you idiots were already blaming him for the border.
On June 11 2025 07:46 Introvert wrote:
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying about the border bill. It wasn't serious, its "fixes" were bad, and there was little trust in Biden to do what was needed. Trump is certainly more trustworthy when it comes to securing the border, yes. It's hard to argue otherwise.
LMAO, President McDumbfuck had a whole-ass four years to secure the border, two of which with total Republican control over all three branches of government. And what did he do? Where's the wall Mexico paid for? It wasn't 24 hours from Biden's inauguration that you idiots were already blaming him for the border.
Did you not see the chart oBlade posted yesterday I think it was? Trump did have a border crisis in his first term, he solved it. Biden had an long rolling disaster almost immediately from inauguration day until Trump won. Your myopic focus on the wall is a attempt to ignore every other relevant measure. It's ok, Biden's policy on the border sucked. He lost, he's not president anymore, you don't have to pretend otherwise anymore, there's nothing to be gained.
What did Trump in and around folks storming the Capitol?
He has zero credibility in this specific domain. Or to reiterate my clarification, he should not.
It’s not a myopic focus on the wall either. Trump said he’d build it, that it would solve the issue, or at least mitigate the issue considerably, and Mexico would pay for it.
It’s his claim(s) not mine, pointing out that that hasn’t exactly actually happened isn’t myopic focus, it’s basic observation.
It is myopic, I was talking about border security in general and the response is "Well did he finish the wall??!!" It's being deliberately dense. Clearly by the criteria I'm apparently supposed to care about if Trump had Biden level border encounters but the wall was up I would have to consider him a success. It's dumb and it's deflection.
When it comes to keeping non-citizens from entering the country illegally Trump has non-zero credibility. To say otherwise would be just dumb.
