Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Mail-In Voting Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 17:29:04 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 196 Message-ID: References: <68-cndeZBcdJV5n7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:29:05 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="45eba1fe4077fd0dfd24686d40ef07e0"; logging-data="2868164"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3oX0LHx19IH+o+VJiKUVa" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:T6drItgoyaI4mspy3pDsm3DVThI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 10928 On 4/1/24 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 3/31/24 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , FPP >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> On 3/30/24 4:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>> In article , FPP >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/29/24 5:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>>>    shawn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Funny how when we find actual voter fraud it's often the Republicans >>>>>>>>> that are involved. Not that it matters enough for anyone to truly >>>>>>>>> care about since the numbers are in the tens of cases in the last few >>>>>>>>> decades amounting to just a few votes. No major voter fraud has been >>>>>>>>> found to have actually occurred in the USA in our lifetimes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You've got to be kidding. The basic reason Joe Biden threw open the >>>>>>>> southern border and left it that way for three years was nothing but a >>>>>>>> gigantic voter fraud scheme. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Democrats are currently running a long-term voter fraud scheme the >>>>>>>> likes and size of which have no rival in human history. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Georgia Republican official voted illegally...NINE TIMES. >>>>>>> This is a fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe Biden is allowing tens of millions of illegals to flood into the >>>>>> country. This is a fact. >>> >>>> Biden wants to add border agents... >>> >>> ...to process illegals into the country more efficiently. Not to, you >>> know, patrol the border and keep people out. >>> >>>> beef up security... >>> >>> ...which he could do in one morning's work by rescinding his EOs. He >>> doesn't need any Republican help or cooperation. Weird that he won't do >>> that, huh? >>> >>>> beef up the legal system to handle it... >>> >>> ...and by 'handle it', he means more admin staff to help get the >>> illegals into America faster and more efficiently >>>> >>>> And Republicans oppose it. Why? >>> >>> Because it's a shit bill that not only does nothing to secure the border >>> but explicitly allows up to 8000 unvetted illegals into the country >>> every day. >>> >> Nope. It's a Republican Wish List bill. > > It may be a Republican Wish List but it's not anywhere near the wish > list of anyone who wants actual border security. > > Republicans are shit on border security because they love illegal > immigration every bit as much as Democrats do, just for different > reasons. > > So it's no surprise at all that a bill written by two parties that both > want the flow of illegals to continue is a shit bill that does nothing > for border security. > >> You fuckers wrote it > > I had nothing to do with it. > >> yourselves, and it's the strongest immigration bill and border security >> bill in 50 years. > > Which ain't saying much. >> >> Stop lying about it. We all can read it for ourselves. > > Yes, I actually did read it. And it says exactly what I said it does. > > (1) It increases funding for Border Patrol so that they can more > efficiently process illegals into the country, not keep them out. > > (2) It allows the free flow of illegals to continue until illegal > entries exceed 8000 in one week or 5000 in one day, at which point the > president may close the border. Note: "may", not "must", which means Joe > Biden can keep doing what he's been doing all along and just let them > keep coming. > > (3) Despite previous language in the bill implying it to be the case, > the bill doesn't *actually* close the border, even if this fraudulent > and arbitrary 5000-illegal threshold is reached. Per one of the bill's > co-authors, Senator Chris Murphy (D): "The bill contains a requirement > that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when > more than 5000 people cross in a day." So the border never really > closes, the illegals are just funneled through the ports instead of > being allowed to swim across the river and walk into America everywhere. > >> Fox Fucking News blasted Republicans. > > So what? > >> Fox. Fucking. News. is calling you a liar, too. > > So what? Fox lies. You've gleefully pointed that out on many occasions. > Now you want to use them as a reliable source when it helps you get a > win on Usenet. > > Don't think I didn't notice how you suddenly stop calling them Faux News > when you do a 180 and cite them to bolster your position. > >>> "I think these are a couple of issues that put Republicans in peril of >>> looking like literally a do-nothing Congress," Brit Hume told the station > > I think Brit fundamentally underestimates how many people in this > country *want* a do-nothing Congress; how many of us feel Congress is at > its best when it's in recess and how readily we'd agree to pay them all > their full salaries to never show up at all. > >>> The three main negotiators on the Senate bill-- Republican Sen. James >>> Lankford of Oklahoma, Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and >>> Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut-- have all pushed back on >>> criticism of the bill. They emphasize that it would keep more people out >>> instead of allowing more people to come in-- and that migrants would not be >>> able to apply for asylum at all if illegal border crossings reach certain >>> numbers. > > Which contradicts the actual text of the bill they supposedly wrote. > (Which actually was written by their staffers and which they probably > haven't even actually read cover to cover, despite being its "authors".) > >>> Lankford has repeatedly emphasized that the emergency authority "is not >>> designed to let 5,000 people in, it is designed to close the border and >>> turn 5,000 people around". > > Political double-talk. These people out-and-out lie to your face. Just > like the DHS Secretary, the White House spokeshole, and the president > himself have been blatantly lying for the last three years when they've > repeatedly stated without qualification that "the border is secure". > > It's not secure. A 3-year-old can see it's not secure. But the > Gaslighter-in-Chief thinks if they just say it enough times, we'll stop > believing our lyin' eyes and take his dementia-addled word for it. > > Here's a question: If the border is secure-- as Biden and all his people > have been insisting it is for three years-- why are they now saying it's > not secure because Republicans won't pass "the bill"? If they have > haven't been lying their asses off for three years, there should be no > need for this bill, right? > > The bill clearly states that these 'emergency' provisions don't kick in > until there have been 5000 crossings in a 24-hour period. That means > 5000 illegals have already gotten in before the provision is triggered. > > And neither Fox nor any of these politicians bother to address how this > bill would actually *lessen* the already-minimal standards for allowing > illegals into the country. Right now, people applying for asylum need to > show "a significant possibility that they can establish a credible fear > of persecution on the basis of race, national origin, political beliefs, > etc." Not a high standard. It doesn't require them to provide any actual ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========