• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Team Trump's fears that Taylor Swift (and her 279 million followers) could keep Biden in power

Re: Biden announcing the border crisis is entirely Trump and MAGA's faul, I'd be interested in your source. If he is referring to the past and present, that is one thing, but since Trump has interfered and MAGA has allowed his interference, going forward, they own the border crisis.
The border crisis is directly linked to the way in which Biden enforces immigration laws, or more accurately, the way he chooses not to. It has little to nothing to do with not having enough immigration laws.

The president's job, as the executive, is to execute the laws. The same immigration laws we have now existed under Trump. Yet, Trump enforced them in a way that de-incentivized illegal immigration. In Biden's first two years as president alone there were over one million more illegal crossings than in all four of Trump's years as president. https://www.newsweek.com/border-crossings-3-times-higher-under-biden-trump-1744641

Comprehensive immigration reform is needed, but it is no substitute for enforcement. You can have all the laws you want, but if you don't enforce them, they may as well not exist.
 
Re: Biden announcing the border crisis is entirely Trump and MAGA's faul, I'd be interested in your source. If he is referring to the past and present, that is one thing, but since Trump has interfered and MAGA has allowed his interference, going forward, they own the border crisis.

Seriously, do you not listen to any news broadcast but MSM?
A recording of it, by the president, was on many major channels today. He was not quoted as saying this. It was his voice saying it.

GEEZ!

I believe you are asking to find out to whom I listen. I contribute to Public Radio, listen, and also listen to FOX. Station KWMU in St. louis has received many contributions from me. UMSL is my Alma Mater. Those who care to be informed of the truth, listen to both sides. Neither can be trusted 100%.
So please knock it off.
For the record, Here it is.
 
Last edited:
Governing is a messy business. Compromise is not just a necessity, it is crucial, but these days, compromise has been abandoned. It is a sad state of affairs.
There should be no compromise when it comes to the security of our country's borders. Either we fully secure them, or they are not secure. This bill does not secure the borders, and that is why it is being rejected.

Compromise as a general principle is great, and yes, it allowed the Constitution to be written and ratified, as well as many other milestones throughout our history. But that does not mean compromise is always the answer.

For example, if a "bi-partisan" group of lawmakers, but mostly Republicans, introduced a bill legalizing fully automatic weapons ownership in return for them having to be registered with the federal government, so it's a "compromise" on gun reform, would that make it acceptable to most Democrats? Of course not. And when they rejected it, would it be fair to retort with "hey, governing is a messy business, and compromise is necessary and crucial?" No, because not all compromise is good. Or when the Dems rejected it, for the GOP to say to the American people "Hey look folks, it appears the Dems are against gun reform. Blame them for any mass shootings in the future. It's on them." What a joke.

This bill asks us to accept a certain level of illegal immigration, which would be an average of 5,000 aliens on average over a period of seven days crossing illegally from contiguous countries only (Mexico and Canada, no others), and then and only then would the "border emergency authority" be activated, which is a fancy way of saying aliens could be removed to their country of origin, unless of course they meet any of several categorical exceptions.

Basically, this bill seeks to codify the lax Biden enforcement policies into law without increasing border security. The more of it you read, the more of a joke it appears to be. Even if it passed Congress, it is hard to imagine how it would do anything to stem the current unprecedented flow of illegal immigration. It is more likely, IMHO, to actually make it worse.

That is why it is clear to me that the only reason the bill was introduced was as a pathetic, transparent, political tactic from the Dems to get the GOP, and Trump, to appear to be against improving the border situation. That is laughable at best given the history of the whole thing. I really don't think most Americans are stupid enough to buy that snake oil. The Dems own the border crisis, they are losing on that issue, they know it, and they are desperate.
 
Last edited:
There should be no compromise when it comes to the security of our country's borders. Either we fully secure them, or they are not secure. This bill does not secure the borders, and that is why it is being rejected.

Compromise as a general principle is great, and yes, it allowed the Constitution to be written and ratified, as well as many other milestones throughout our history. But that does not mean compromise is always the answer.

For example, if a "bi-partisan" group of lawmakers, but mostly Republicans, introduced a bill legalizing fully automatic weapons ownership in return for them having to be registered with the federal government, so it's a "compromise" on gun reform, would that make it acceptable to most Democrats? Of course not. And when they rejected it, would it be fair to retort with "hey, governing is a messy business, and compromise is necessary and crucial?" No, because not all compromise is good. Or when the Dems rejected it, for the GOP to say to the American people "Hey look folks, it appears the Dems are against gun reform. Blame them for any mass shootings in the future. It's on them." What a joke.

This bill asks us to accept a certain level of illegal immigration, which would be an average of 5,000 aliens on average over a period of seven days crossing illegally from contiguous countries only (Mexico and Canada, no others), and then and only then would the "border emergency authority" be activated, which is a fancy way of saying aliens could be removed to their country of origin, unless of course they meet any of several categorical exceptions.

Basically, this bill seeks to codify the lax Biden enforcement policies into law without increasing border security. The more of it you read, the more of a joke it appears to be. Even if it passed Congress, it is hard to imagine how it would do anything to stem the current unprecedented flow of illegal immigration. It is more likely, IMHO, to actually make it worse.

That is why it is clear to me that the only reason the bill was introduced was as a pathetic, transparent, political tactic from the Dems to get the GOP, and Trump, to appear to be against improving the border situation. That is laughable at best given the history of the whole thing. I really don't think most Americans are stupid enough to buy that snake oil. The Dems own the border crisis, they are losing on that
The Dems are desperate and clueless, so they blame Donald Trump.
America ain't buying it. And Taylor Swift does not have enough credible influence to change the public view.
 
The Dems are desperate and clueless, so they blame Donald Trump.
America ain't buying it. And Taylor Swift does not have enough credible influence to change the public view.

She has enough influence on the younger crowd though. That's what's scary.
 
I've read that voters under 30 are voting more than past generations did at that age? Don't underestimate them.
I am not.
I would suggest, you don't count on them either.



I would also add that the Baby Boomers are all retiring, and they see their retirement plans shorted by Bidenomics. They will be well motivated to go and vote. I doubt Joe can count on them for support.
 
I am not.
I would suggest, you don't count on them either.



I would also add that the Baby Boomers are all retiring, and they see their retirement plans shorted by Bidenomics. They will be well motivated to go and vote. I doubt Joe can count on them for support.

I hope that more people get out and vote. I'm tired of Democrats ruining the country.
 
Guess what folks???Taylor Swift endorses TRUMP!!!

Soes this mean Trump has it in the bag?
Hardly.
Like I said it doesn't matter that much.

Trump has to overcome a weaponized federal government and any Liberal Court in the land that will accept any indictment against him.
 
Top