Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
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: <uuf8v0$2ngu4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <68-cndeZBcdJV5n7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <uu3vv9$3kt4j$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-02C92E.10572328032024@news.giganews.com>
 <uu6j76$b577$14@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-C94F52.11271729032024@news.giganews.com>
 <hd5e0jhgvifuqb437hutgp0vl04revgaos@4ax.com>
 <atropos-6BCDD3.13024929032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
 <mjbe0jdc0o8dq1qknqr5k0153b0rbkgai4@4ax.com>
 <atropos-77E27C.14434629032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
 <uu9fbs$13o15$6@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-2A77C7.14002330032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
 <zk9ON.177705$zF_1.96476@fx18.iad> <uubohs$1qc9d$6@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-6B8533.12584331032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
 <uueg28$2hiti$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-EAC0A6.12495701042024@news.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: <atropos-EAC0A6.12495701042024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 10928

On 4/1/24 3:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uueg28$2hiti$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/31/24 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <uubohs$1qc9d$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 3/30/24 4:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <uu9fbs$13o15$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/29/24 5:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <mjbe0jdc0o8dq1qknqr5k0153b0rbkgai4@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>      shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> 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 ==========