Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:17:50 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Mail-In Voting Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <68-cndeZBcdJV5n7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 196 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 02:17:50 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 10530 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c25500c9f06026$33202$111488$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 10932 On 4/1/2024 9:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > On Apr 1, 2024 at 2:29:04 PM PDT, "FPP" wrote: > >> 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 >>> evidence of their claims. Just say the magic words and make a claim, >>> which they've been coached to say and which they've rehearsed, and then >>> get into the country. But this border bill would lower that standard >>> even further, if that's possible, from a "significant" possibility of >>> persecution to merely a "reasonable" possibility of persecution. And >>> reasonable is just another way of saying 'plausible'. In other words, >>> it's a bar that anyone from anywhere can clear. There's no way that >>> anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned away if that's the standard. >>> >>> This provision is designed to hamstring the immigration judges who have >>> been denying 95%+ of these fraudulent immigration claims and force them >>> to grant almost every one of them. >>> >>>>> After meeting with Republicans in the Capitol Monday evening, Lankford told ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========