Law Ron DeSantis sends two planes full of illegals to Martha's Vineyard upsetting rich Democrats

Now go ahead, tell me how 660,000 "gotaways" which would make them the 26th largest city in America, is indication of a "secure border".

Ok, so what was the apprehension rate of this administration vs Trump or Obama?
 
This was a confusing day for everyone. The rich democrats kept telling Jesus to mow the yard and even though they paid him, he just stood there smiling.

and Juan said old white women kept handing him money and pointing at their bushes
 
This has been one of the best threads of the year. I was over on reddit and the leftards are seething mad. Talking about MV residents are more like Jesus than conservatives. Its been incredibly entertaining.
 
It was an honest question, not hyperbole, and the actual answer wasn't surprising. I doubted that the Obamas, Clintons, Oprah, Spike Lee, or other Democrat supporting millionaires could muster that much compassion. The illegals got shipped out of the vineyard in a hurry; nobody felt compelled to open their palatial estates to them.

You felt the need to avoid the obvious answer of "Nobody took any of them into their 4,500+ square foot homes or spent from their millions to feed or comfort these people.". You deflect with BS of blue states, yada, yada. Why?

If you'd like to discuss how very few people on either side want illegals within the country or within their community make a thread about it. Until then, this thread is about illegals shipped to Martha's Vineyard where rich Dems like those I mentioned live and the eventual response to the illegals which was to get them the hell out of the Vineyard.
.... but.... you definitely didn't read the articles you posted - that much is clear
 
So I said that the point of policy should be to reduce the importance of intergenerational transfers and reduce poverty in general. That will disproportionately help people with less wealth to transfer and higher poverty without a specific focus on different groups. What is your preferred solution or one that would reflect genuine political will or intent to address the issue?

I believe in integration (not to be confused with assimilation). Communities need to be brought together so that we can support one another. The entire point of having a nation, or any social organization at all, is so that we can support one another. This is especially important for disenfranchised and underserved people and groups. Institutions like education and medicine, as well as housing initiatives and transportation, need to be built with integration as a conscious and intentional design goal.

When we see a bus that has crashed on the side of the road, and people are bleeding and broken and dying, we don't throw cash out the window at them and tell ourselves that it's better to let the community of bus passengers take care of themselves; we stop the car and get out to help. I don't know why we expect that communities that have been decimated by slavery or brutal colonialism and attempted genocides to be set up to go it alone with some economic support.

I also believe that groups that have been historically disadvantaged need special attention. Not because poverty and trauma and every imaginable hardship doesn't visit itself on white people or other more privileged groups. But disadvantaged people from these groups are already integrated into a larger web of support systems. That special attention might take a number of different forms, but I think trauma is the elephant in the room. We need to work hard on getting public servants (police, teachers, medical personal, et cetera) trauma informed to better serve communities with high incidences of trauma, and we need to poor some resources into helping people process their trauma, one person at a time, so that we can stop the intergenerational trauma cycle.

These sorts of things mean really getting into the mix of things, and they really do take a lot of political will, which is different from intent. All parties intend for people to have better lives, I think. But does any party have the will to suggest that happens in the backyards of its supporters and doners? There's not been a lot of that on display, I don't think.
 
As you say, in a capitalist system... or any economic system, really... there will be people who create wealth for themselves and others and people who need to depend on others.

By and large, the people who create the wealth also depend on the 'others'.

Jeff Bezos is certainly not operating a billion dollar business by driving Amazon delivery trucks himself.
 
By and large, the people who create the wealth also depend on the 'others'.

Jeff Bezos is certainly not operating a billion dollar business by driving Amazon delivery trucks himself.

Yeah, I don't love that phrasing, but when we talk about people with below,-poverty-level personal market income, the biggest groups are kids, the disabled, and the elderly. That's like 75% of Americans in pre--transfer poverty, with a big chunk of the rest people who personally have more than poverty-level income but whose household includes people in those categories. Poverty in the developed world is mostly about people who don't and aren't expected to work.
 
I believe in integration (not to be confused with assimilation). Communities need to be brought together so that we can support one another. The entire point of having a nation, or any social organization at all, is so that we can support one another. This is especially important for disenfranchised and underserved people and groups. Institutions like education and medicine, as well as housing initiatives and transportation, need to be built with integration as a conscious and intentional design goal.

When we see a bus that has crashed on the side of the road, and people are bleeding and broken and dying, we don't throw cash out the window at them and tell ourselves that it's better to let the community of bus passengers take care of themselves; we stop the car and get out to help. I don't know why we expect that communities that have been decimated by slavery or brutal colonialism and attempted genocides to be set up to go it alone with some economic support.

I also believe that groups that have been historically disadvantaged need special attention. Not because poverty and trauma and every imaginable hardship doesn't visit itself on white people or other more privileged groups. But disadvantaged people from these groups are already integrated into a larger web of support systems. That special attention might take a number of different forms, but I think trauma is the elephant in the room. We need to work hard on getting public servants (police, teachers, medical personal, et cetera) trauma informed to better serve communities with high incidences of trauma, and we need to poor some resources into helping people process their trauma, one person at a time, so that we can stop the intergenerational trauma cycle.

These sorts of things mean really getting into the mix of things, and they really do take a lot of political will, which is different from intent. All parties intend for people to have better lives, I think. But does any party have the will to suggest that happens in the backyards of its supporters and doners? There's not been a lot of that on display, I don't think.

Interesting point about trauma. With regard to the rest, I somewhat disagree, but also would add that it's not so much about political will from any individual party as the fact that a strong majority of the country explicitly rejects such an approach. You don't make changes by losing elections. That is, even if you think a race-focused approach is best (which I don't agree with on the merits), it's so politically toxic that it can't happen in a democratic nation.
 
Ok, so what was the apprehension rate of this administration vs Trump or Obama?

"But what about!!!"

If you want to know, perhaps you can Google it, I was just kindly correcting your misinformation.

You claimed the border is secure and I just showed you that the yearly "got away" total is equal to the population size of the 26th largest city in America. This does not include the ones who are caught, or apply for asylum.

I'm waiting for you to admit you were wrong.
 
This has been an interesting issue to follow over the past few years. I’m an opinionated guy, but with this, I just read the opinions from both sides. I have no idea how I feel about it.
 
In fairness deficit spending is not inherently bad, its actually good in some cases. In general you want deficit spending when the economy starts to contract like it did in the wake of the COVID lockdowns, you're basically using government spending to pick up the slack. Trump adding to the deficit in his last year when COVID lockdowns were in place was not a bad thing, that's what he should've done.

The issue was that he added to the deficit to fund tax cuts for the rich in his first year as POTUS. That was not good policy.
Good nuanced point. Republicans have actually admitted that they're all talk and no action when it comes to the deficit. It's just a talking point used against Democrats. When they're in office, they have worse records on it than Democrats do.

https://prospect.org/power/republicans-proved-deficits-matter/
 
Did you see the post that you're responding to? How are there consistently apprehensions (a lot of them!) at the border if the border is open?

I love how you ignore the 660,000 "got aways" - which is more than the population of the 26th largest city in America.

But nope, the border definitely isn't open, says the biggest liar partisan hack on Sherdog.

For someone who talks about honesty in every single post, you sure do lie and obsfucate a lot.

Only a dishonest partisan hack (read:you) would think a border that allows almost 700,000 people to escape capture per year is "secure“.

Don't ever try lecturing another person on these forums about honesty or dishonesty, you hack.
 
Back
Top