Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

WinstonSmith wrote:

Peach Pit wrote:

The $100 billion that got sent to foreign countries has nothing to do with border security, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. If that wasn't a part of the bill would you have supported the bill?

Where does international law have jurisdiction? Does it have jurisdiction over everywhere in the world except the US border? Actually, there is international law governing space and the moon. So does it govern everywhere in the solar system except the US border?

How would you fix the law? Just turn away anyone who appears at the border even if they apply for asylum?

It was originally a part of the bill you're complaining got voted down.

I wouldn't have supported a stand alone bill that just facilitated gaming the asylum system either.

What jurisdiction does international law have over the US border? Nations have sovereignty.

The Remain in Mexico provision alone would largely fix the mess Biden has created.

I'm all for ending birthright citizenship for illegals. You shouldn't be allowed to break the law and then be rewarded with the full menu of the American welfare state just for crapping out some "Americans" once you're in the country.

The law needs to remove the incentive. If you reward any behavior you will always get more of it.

WinstonSmith wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Gonna throw this out there just to be clear.

The majority, even the vast majority, of the pro-Palestinian protestors on college campuses are LIBERAL. This is really the main point of this post as there seems to be some confusion about this here.

The rest of this are my thoughts on that:

1) This is a tough issue to take on and be 100% on the side of either. I submit that for a rational, thinking person, it is impossible to be 100% on the side of either group here.

2) What HAMAS did was unthinkable and not deserved. We should never forget how this current military conflict started. They killed innocent people. They raped women. They killed children (babies even) in front of their parents. They set people on fire. They kidnapped people.

3) Israel had every right to respond, even a duty to respond. And Israel does get to protect itself. Hamas' stated goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and that's not reasonable in any way, shape, or fashion.

4) The problem of course is that Israel has done what many believe (I would be among those) to be indescriminate bombing and killing. I do not pretend to know exactly what Israel should do, and I do understand how Hamas has positioned bunkers and headquarters, using innocent people as human shields, but there has been far too much killing of innocent people (and, of course, any killing of innocent people is too much, but Israel hasn't seemed to mind this much at all).

5) The position of The United States in general is to help protect soverign nations, and in general I agree with that and agree that we should generally back Israel. However, we do get to say when an ally of ours has gone too far, and I think that Israel, specifically Netanyahu, has gone too far.

6) There needs to be a Palestinian state.

7) Some of the protesting is stupid. Here in Ohio for example, students have been protesting at Ohio State demanding that the university divest from Israel. Well, all fine and good except that there's a state law that says the University can not do that, so really, these protestors should be at the statehouse and not at the University.

8) Right now, most conservatives side with Israel. Why is that? Well, they perceive
Israelis to be less brown than Palestinians. That is the perception, and that is why they currently side with Israel in this conflict. They still don't like Jewish people, but in this case of two groups they hate, they hate Jewish people less...because again, the perception is that they are less brown.

6 1/2 decent points and then you revert back to your true nature with the racist stupidity in point 8.

Only the left judges people exclusively by their skin color. When you accuse others of doing it you're projecting.

I support Israel because it's a democracy that tries to do what's right despite having been under attack for over 100 years now.

I oppose Hamas not because they are virtually identical in appearance to most of Israel.... but because they are terrorist cowards who delight in killing women and children for PR points.

Peach Pit wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

It was originally a part of the bill you're complaining got voted down.

I wouldn't have supported a stand alone bill that just facilitated gaming the asylum system either.

What jurisdiction does international law have over the US border? Nations have sovereignty.

The Remain in Mexico provision alone would largely fix the mess Biden has created.

I'm all for ending birthright citizenship for illegals. You shouldn't be allowed to break the law and then be rewarded with the full menu of the American welfare state just for crapping out some "Americans" once you're in the country.

The law needs to remove the incentive. If you reward any behavior you will always get more of it.

It was part of the bill, but it doesn't have anything to do with border security, it was just a part of the bill. I was trying to see if your issue was just with the foreign funding, or if you didn't like the border policies outlined in the bill, because they're two separate issues.

Can you acknowledge that the bill didn't facilitate gaming the asylum system? Because if a bunch of people tried to cross the border and claim asylum, no one would be allowed to cross the border no matter what.

The US has agreed to follow international law, so by that metric, it has jurisdiction over the US border. You realize international law means that it applies to all nations, right? It doesn't mean that it only applies to Antarctica and oceans. Like you can be a sovereign nation and still commit war crimes, which are against international law. Are you saying the US could commit war crimes and it wouldn't matter because international law has no jurisdiction over the US?

Peach Pit wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

It was originally a part of the bill you're complaining got voted down.

I wouldn't have supported a stand alone bill that just facilitated gaming the asylum system either.

What jurisdiction does international law have over the US border? Nations have sovereignty.

The Remain in Mexico provision alone would largely fix the mess Biden has created.

I'm all for ending birthright citizenship for illegals. You shouldn't be allowed to break the law and then be rewarded with the full menu of the American welfare state just for crapping out some "Americans" once you're in the country.

The law needs to remove the incentive. If you reward any behavior you will always get more of it.

It was part of the bill, but it doesn't have anything to do with border security, it was just a part of the bill. I was trying to see if your issue was just with the foreign funding, or if you didn't like the border policies outlined in the bill, because they're two separate issues.

Can you acknowledge that the bill didn't facilitate gaming the asylum system? Because if a bunch of people tried to cross the border and claim asylum, no one would be allowed to cross the border no matter what.

The US has agreed to follow international law, so by that metric, it has jurisdiction over the US border. You realize international law means that it applies to all nations, right? It doesn't mean that it only applies to Antarctica and oceans. Like you can be a sovereign nation and still commit war crimes, which are against international law. Are you saying the US could commit war crimes and it wouldn't matter because international law has no jurisdiction over the US?

WinstonSmith wrote:

Peach Pit wrote:

It was part of the bill, but it doesn't have anything to do with border security, it was just a part of the bill. I was trying to see if your issue was just with the foreign funding, or if you didn't like the border policies outlined in the bill, because they're two separate issues.

Can you acknowledge that the bill didn't facilitate gaming the asylum system? Because if a bunch of people tried to cross the border and claim asylum, no one would be allowed to cross the border no matter what.

The US has agreed to follow international law, so by that metric, it has jurisdiction over the US border. You realize international law means that it applies to all nations, right? It doesn't mean that it only applies to Antarctica and oceans. Like you can be a sovereign nation and still commit war crimes, which are against international law. Are you saying the US could commit war crimes and it wouldn't matter because international law has no jurisdiction over the US?

One of the only things the bill did to address the actual border was to provide funding for more judges and more agents to speed up the process and reduce the back log.

What do you mean "if a bunch of people tried to cross the border and claim asylum, no one would be allowed to cross the border no matter what."??? That's literally what's happening every day.

What international law specifically applies to the US border? What international law do you think the US could possibly be violating by enforcing it's own sovereignty?

WinstonSmith wrote:

Nnonequals wrote:

No, it REALLY is 4 versus 5. The same points to you and the other Trumpers have told been a MILLION times. Who "discusses" stuff on this thread....and throughout America?

1) Non-Trumpers who are perfectly willing to criticize Biden (even if not in the immature, hyperbolic ways that the Trumpers want).

2) Trumpers who will defend ANYTHING that Trump does. Literally (!!!) anything.

That's not equal, and it's CERTAINLY not a win for the Trumpers. It's sick. And it COULD destroy the country.

No more than 10 people said that about Carter. Ditto Reagan. Ditto Clinton. Ditto Bush Jr. Ditto Washington and Lincoln. Hell, Nixon's list probably only got up to 15 or 20.

Only ONE president has ever inspired that kind of fear for our country. And you go online and defend him to strangers hour after hour, every day. And then get banned. And then come back for more. Again, sick.

After Lincoln, the most divisive president in US history was Barack Obama. The complete polarization of politics is 100% his fault.

Trollminator wrote:

Peach Pit wrote:

It was part of the bill, but it doesn't have anything to do with border security, it was just a part of the bill. I was trying to see if your issue was just with the foreign funding, or if you didn't like the border policies outlined in the bill, because they're two separate issues.

Can you acknowledge that the bill didn't facilitate gaming the asylum system? Because if a bunch of people tried to cross the border and claim asylum, no one would be allowed to cross the border no matter what.

The US has agreed to follow international law, so by that metric, it has jurisdiction over the US border. You realize international law means that it applies to all nations, right? It doesn't mean that it only applies to Antarctica and oceans. Like you can be a sovereign nation and still commit war crimes, which are against international law. Are you saying the US could commit war crimes and it wouldn't matter because international law has no jurisdiction over the US?

Cherish your brain cells, because aDolt will make sure they go to $hit asap with his responses. In this case, I'll give him some credit for the details. He clearly doesn't accept the reality that is just about every single bill over the decades addressing more than one specific issue and with compromises.