Re: Mail-In Voting

On 4/2/24 12:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 1, 2024 at 7:17:50 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

On 4/1/2024 9:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Apr 1, 2024 at 2:29:04 PM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
 

  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
    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
    reporters that people understand it once he explains it, "but it's been
    said wrong so many times that people immediately just go back to, 'this
    lets 5,000 people in a day', which is just factually wrong

        No, those of who have actually read the text know you're lying, Jimmy.
   

  No, dumbfuck.  Not at all.  Your buddy, Trump killed the bill that Biden
  needs to secure the border.

    Biden already has what he needs to secure the border: he holds the office of
  president of the United States.

>
To my knowledge, there's never been a POTUS more vociferously intent on
"securing the border" than Donnie.  Why didn't *he* have "all he needs"?

 Donnie and his big business cronies don't want a secure border any more than
the Dems do. Trump did a few good things but he could have done much, much
more.
 

And there's more evidence of that 4 year coma you were in.  Funny, but you didn't rag on Trump for not doing what you instantly ragged on Biden for not doing.
One would almost think you had a double standard, there...
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0
Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0