ADDED: From the YouTube transcript:
Have you made a final decision on what you want to do [about Iran]?
I mean, I certainly can't tell you that, but we do have very big, powerful ships heading in that direction, as you know. I can't tell you anything, but I hope — I hope they negotiate something that's acceptable.
Saudi Arabia's defense minister reportedly said that if the U.S. backs off the strike, that won't be involved in Iran. What's your reaction to that, sir?
Some people think that, some people don't. You could make a negotiated deal that would be satisfactory with no nuclear weapons, and they should do that. But I don't know that they will. But they are talking to us. Seriously talking to us.
The truth today about Minneapolis [transcript garbled to include the phrase "Nazi federal authorities" which I doubt was said].
I let them ask us if they want help. You know, they're always complaining. If you go in, they complain. They complain no matter what. You know, we brought crime to the lowest point in the history of our country — 125 years, 1900.... We have the lowest crime in the history of the country, despite the fact that our country was riddled with a lot of bad people from the Biden open border. But we've taken a lot of them out.... But honestly, the crime-ridden cities are all Democrat-run cities, and if they want help, they have to ask for it. Because if we go in, all they do is complain. But if they want help, they can ask for it, and they're going to need help. Los Angeles, as an example — we went in, we solved it. The chief law enforcement officer in Los Angeles said they couldn't have done it without the federal government. A week later he said they didn't need the federal government. You know, so we don't want that. If they want help, they'll ask. But they have to say please.
On DHS funding, sir, the Democrats have made three demands. They say they want no [roving?] patrols, they want established rules for use of force, and they want masks off.
We'll talk about it. It's not appropriate yet. We have to let a little time go by, but we'll talk about it. But, you know, we want — I got elected for law enforcement, the border, for the economy — things I've done a great job with....
What do you think of the latest release of Epstein documents, and do you think your critics will be satisfied?
Well, they should be, because it looked like this guy [Michael] Wolff — was a writer — was conspiring with Epstein to do harm to me. And I didn't see it myself, but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it's the opposite of what people were hoping, you know, the radical left — that Wolff, who's a third-rate writer, was conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to hurt me politically or otherwise. And that came through loud and clear. So we'll probably sue Wolff for that. And maybe the MSNBC, I guess. I don't know. But we're going to certainly sue....
Plan for Venezuela oil, sir..., What's Venezuela's share of the oil profits going to be?
Well, we haven't discussed that, but we're getting along very well with the leadership of Venezuela. They're doing a really good job. We're going to be selling a lot of oil, and we'll take some and they'll take a lot, and they're going to do very well. They're going to make more money than they've ever made, and it's going to be beneficial for us. We're going to really — I think Venezuela is really going to turn around. You know, I opened up the airspace over Venezuela so that now people from Venezuela — came from Venezuela here — they're going to be able to go back for the first time, go back to Venezuela and stay perhaps, or go back and see their relatives, go for a short period of time.
Sir, do you think China's going to get their money back from all the money they lent to Venezuela?
I don't know. I don't know anything about that. But I'll tell you what: China is welcome to come in and would make a great deal in oil. You know, we welcome China. We've already made a deal. India is coming in and they're going to be buying Venezuelan oil as opposed to buying it from Iran. So we've already made that deal — the concept of the deal. But China's welcome to come in and buy oil.
But on Venezuela, do you think that Machado should be able to return to Venezuela?
I'd love to be able to do something with it and maybe putting the sides together, doing something. I think she's a very fine person. But I think I have to say at the same time the current leadership is doing a very good job.
Did you have any knowledge of the arrest of Don Lemon before having the Kentucky Congress?
No, I don't know anything about the Don Lemon thing, but he's a sleazebag — everyone's known that. He's washed up. Probably from his standpoint, the best thing that could happen to him. He's getting — you know, he had no viewers. He was a failure. He was a failed host. And now he's in the news. I didn't know anything about it.
Sir, what's your response to Sheinbaum's warning that the embargo or the restriction on Cuban oil to Cuba could cause a humanitarian crisis there?
Well, it doesn't have to be a humanitarian crisis. I think they probably would come to us and want to make a deal. So Cuba would be free again. They'll come to us, they'll make a deal. But Cuba really got a problem. You know, they have a problem. I know so many people from Cuba, but we have a lot of people in the United States right now that would love to go back to Cuba, and we'd like to work that out.... I think, you know, we'll be kind. They have a situation that's very bad for Cuba. They have no money. They have no oil. Venezuela — they live off Venezuelan money and oil, and none of that's coming now. And then the president of Mexico, President Sheinbaum, was very good. I said, “Look, we don't want you sending oil there.” And she's not sending any.
Under Washington, D.C., sir. The Washington Post reported that you're considering an arch that's 250 feet high. Can you talk a little bit about that and address critics who say that might be a little bit too large for the space?
We're considering an arch. It's like the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. So for 200 years they've wanted to build an arch. There are 57 cities throughout the world that have them. We're the only major city — Washington, D.C. — that doesn't. The circle prior to the bridge — you know, the Arlington Bridge — has been waiting for hundreds of years to have this done. In fact, there are four eagles that got built, but it was interrupted by a thing called the Civil War, and so it never got built. Then they almost built something in 1902, but it never happened. So we have an unbelievable park that I think will be the most beautiful in the world being built there — going to be built there.
250 feet.
I don't know what the height is. It's just appropriate for the site. We're setting up a committee, and the committee is going to be going over it, but it'll be substantial. I'd like it to be the biggest one of all. We're the biggest, most powerful nation. I'd like it to be the biggest one. It's a very exciting job. Actually, they've been waiting for many years, just like the ballroom. For 150 years they wanted a ballroom. Now we're going to put up the most beautiful ballroom anywhere in the world, as far as I'm concerned. And really, I could have built a much bigger one. I didn't want to do that. And I wanted it to be in keeping — I didn't want it to be taller than the White House, etc. So I wanted it to be in keeping, but it's a really beautiful building done by some of the best architects in the world, the ballroom. Likewise, the arch — I think it's going to be great. We're just setting up a committee now for the arch.
Could the money for the lawsuit that you may settle with yourself go towards paying for that arch?
Well, we hadn't thought of it, but we're probably going to, you know — I mean, it's sort of a strange position because I have a lawsuit like the break-in of Mar-a-Lago, and I sue myself. That somehow will never look good. So what I had — and other people, a lot of outside people — said, “What a great idea, because nobody cares how much it goes to good charities.”...
You've threatened secondary tariffs on countries doing business with Iran. We haven't seen those yet. What are you pulling off on?
Well, we're going to see. Look, we have a lot of things happening right now with Iran. We have a tremendous fleet going in that direction, and they're talking to us. So a lot of things could happen.
And the Canada tariffs, sir, that you talked about — are those coming?
Well, that was on the airplanes.... We don't want China to take over Canada. And if they make the deal that he's looking to make, China will take over Canada. And the first thing they're going to do — end ice hockey.
So speaking of China, sir, there was a military purge in that country a week ago. What do you make of that?
... you're talking about China? Yeah. As far as I'm concerned, there's one boss in China. That's President Xi. That's the president I deal with.
Are there any concerns about stability or —
No, I think President Xi is the boss. I watch it very closely, and he's highly respected in China. He's the boss.
Can I go back to Cuba for one second? Who exactly are you negotiating with on the island, with the government? The representative here you're speaking to — where in Cuba? Who are you speaking with?
We're starting to talk to Cuba. Yeah. We're starting to — they need help on a humanitarian basis. We're starting to talk to Cuba. Don't forget, a lot of people that live in our country are treated very badly by Cuba, and we want them to be — they all voted for me — and we want them to be treated well. We'd like to be able to have them go back home to their country, which they haven't seen — their family, their country — for many, many decades. So we'll work that. I'll be able to work that out.
Do you have any update on what's happening with Greenland negotiation with President Trump stars for those Europeans?
Are you talking about on Greenland? Yes. On Greenland. Yeah. Where we have started a negotiation, and I think it's pretty well agreed to. I mean, they want us to do it. I think it's going to be a good deal for everyone. Very important deal, actually, from a national security point of view. Very, very important deal. I think we're going to make a deal.
Mr. President, back to your post on ICE protests. What did you mean when you said people will suffer an equal or greater consequence?
Well, if they do anything bad to our people, they will have to suffer. I'm sorry. If they start spitting in people's faces, punching our people, punching our soldiers, our patriots — they will get taken care of in at least an equal way. They're not going to do that. You see the way they treat our people, and I said you're allowed — if somebody does that, you can do something back. You're not going to stand there and take it. If somebody spits in your face, that will not be a pleasant thing for the person that spits. Letting people spit in our soldiers' faces as they stand at attention and they're not allowed to do anything — if they throw bricks at a car, at one of our vehicles, a very expensive vehicle — they're going to be met with very, very serious force.
Sir, do you think it's good having lots of cameras on these kinds of incidents between law enforcement and the people?
I think it would help law enforcement, but I'd have to talk to them. I'm going to be talking to them tomorrow. Actually, I think it would help law enforcement. You know, that works both ways, but I think overall I think it's 80% in favor of law enforcement.
Who are you talking to tomorrow on law enforcement?
A lot of people. Wow. I'm speaking to Christie. I'm speaking to John. A lot of people. But we have it in good shape. And you know, Minnesota crime is way down because of what we've done. We've taken out thousands of criminals. What we want in Minnesota — we want them to open their jails and give us their criminals, and we're gone. That's all we want, and they're going to have to do it.
How are you feeling about Secretary Noem's handling of the matters in the last —
She's been great. I mean, we have a closed border. We've taken out thousands and thousands of killers and murderers and everything else — removed them from our country by the tens of thousands — and we have the crime rate that's the lowest in history. You know, I didn't do the crime rate — since they just came out yesterday that we have the lowest crime rate in the history of our country. So how's she doing? I think she's doing well, and she's a good person. She works hard. Tom Homan is a star, you know. He's incredible. I mean, the guy's incredible. He's got an unbelievable piece of stuff, and yet everybody likes him. So he's been great. But he said to me just tonight, he said, “Look, they've got to open up their prisons and give us their criminals and their murderers and their drug lords, and you know, and we'll take care of them.” And that's why crime is down in Minnesota — not because of anything they did. It's because of what we did. Same thing in Chicago. We have crime down in Chicago, and most people don't even know we're there, but we're there doing a good job. We have crime down all over the nation....
Posts
86 comments:
I think this text of his "gaggle" has more words than Slow Joe spoke -- coherently -- in 4 years.
"And you know, Minnesota crime is way down because of what we've done. We've taken out thousands of criminals. What we want in Minnesota — we want them to open their jails and give us their criminals, and we're gone. That's all we want, and they're going to have to do it."
That's the same as rounding up schoolchildren to send to death camps, the exact same thing.
That’s a Wall of Text.
h/t: Phil Spector
“Well, if they do anything bad to our people, they will have to suffer. I'm sorry. If they start spitting in people's faces, punching our people, punching our soldiers, our patriots — they will get taken care of in at least an equal way. They're not going to do that. You see the way they treat our people, and I said you're allowed — if somebody does that, you can do something back. You're not going to stand there and take it. If somebody spits in your face, that will not be a pleasant thing for the person that spits. Letting people spit in our soldiers' faces as they stand at attention and they're not allowed to do anything — if they throw bricks at a car, at one of our vehicles, a very expensive vehicle — they're going to be met with very, very serious force.“
Payback usually works. Usually. Not clear with this lot.
DJT: "Hello everybody. How you doing?"
Press:"Mr. President?"
DJT: "I'm very good. We had a good time at the Alfalfa dinner. We did well. I hope we did well. But it was very good. Tremendous people."
Press: "So what's up, sir? Could you give us an update on where your thinking is right now? Have you made a final decision on what you want to do?"
DJT: "I mean, I certainly can't tell you that, but we do have very big, powerful ships heading in that direction, as you know. I can't tell you anything, but I hope — I hope they negotiate something that's acceptable."
Press: "Saudi Arabia's defense minister reportedly said that if the U.S. backs off the strike, that won't be involved in Iran. What's your..."
You get the idea. Who did this transcript? It's completely stripped of the cadences and attributions that make natural speech understandable. If this were an interview in a broadsheet, the above is how it would be presented. Why not go all the way trying to make Trump look chaotic and take the spaces out from between the words?
For one thing, the question wasn't "Mr President," it was "How are you doing, Mr President."
If this is the WH transcript, I guess they have a plan.
The press obviously dont know what they are talking about
The crown prince is the defense minister as well
"Some people think that, some people don't."
Interesting answer to a question about what might happen should Trump not attack Iran.
The internet tells me a journalist class ticket for Air Force One runs in the neighborhood of $80,000.00.
Now why did tillis decide to spring this now without warning
We know why.
Well, that was hard, especially before even my first sip of coffee. I haven't read Ulysses but I have always imagined it to be something like that
Trump sounds pretty benign here considering what has happened in MN. Hopefully, it signals a reset rather than glossing over what ICE has done in his name.
Peaceful warrior said...
Trump sounds pretty benign here considering what has happened in MN. Hopefully, it signals a reset rather than glossing over what ICE has done in his name.
He has always been the nice guy.
I wonder who is paying you to pretend to be a peaceful leftist scumbag. There is nothing peaceful about the democrat party. You steal from American taxpayers and you give the money to foreign soldiers you imported for your color revolution.
If the seditious traitors that were rioting on behalf of murderers and corruption and illegal soldier thieves aren't arrested they will go to another city and attack people there.
Most importantly Trump better not let the people who financed the insurrection off the hook. Those people need to be tried and executed.
ICE is enforcing the judicial judgments, the domestic terrorists are taking a knee, and the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity are pursuing Life, Liberty, and a [gay] old time. Democrats bray with cacophonious audacity.
... tried and Planned... is an ethical Choice to relieve "burdens" of State, the People, and our [unPlanned] Posterity.
"You get the idea. Who did this transcript? It's completely stripped of the cadences and attributions that make natural speech understandable."
What I had up when you wrote that was the YouTube transcript — a machine-made transcript hat I had run through AI to rid of timestamps and to make a first pass at punctuation. I use those transcripts to get started and they are very helpful. What I have up now has some corrections and spacing with italics to show where the questioners are.
If you deal with a transcript like that, you go back into the video to make sense of the things that seem wrong.
It's raw material that I find extremely helpful. You had a block of text, but if there was anything you wanted to quote, you could have found your material and then spruced it up. Very much easier than listening to the audio and trying to type every word.
Trump says Iran 'seriously talking to us' as military ships head to Middle East ~ Fox News
"President weighs military options while stressing hope for 'acceptable' negotiated deal"
Whatever happened to: "We will start shooting if you start shooting [at the protestors]" ~ Donald Trump
What about the thousands of people killed. Wasn’t this a red line…?
So they're talking about a nuclear deal that was in place a decade ago that Trump unilaterally ripped up.
I find it to be a sort of sweet irony now that he has to face the consequences of ripping up that deal. It’s going to be a reissue of Obama’s deal and Trump will claim it’s the greatest thing ever.
"end ice hockey" haha
"You know, they're always complaining. If you go in, they complain. They complain no matter what."
I just made this point a few minutes ago in a comment on another thread.
This is important to understand. If they always complain and they always call you a Nazi, and they manufacture hysteria out of nothing, what is the point of listening to them?
Gaggles vs giggles. Is that the theme of the day? Next post about goggles?
Sword of damocles over iran perhaps those fireworks this weekend got their attention
Michael wolf has lonv since removed all doubt
There are a whole lot of stupid ill thought out questions
‘Spy Sheikh’ Bought Secret Stake in Trump Company ~ WSJ
"$500 million investment for 49% of World Liberty came months before U.A.E. won access to tightly guarded American AI chips"
"Four days before Donald Trump’s inauguration last year, lieutenants to an Abu Dhabi royal secretly signed a deal with the Trump family to purchase a 49% stake in their fledgling cryptocurrency venture for half a billion dollars, according to company documents and people familiar with the matter. The buyers would pay half up front, steering $187 million to Trump family entities. The deal with World Liberty Financial, which hasn’t previously been reported, was signed by Eric Trump, the president’s son. At least $31 million was also slated to flow to entities affiliated with the family of Steve Witkoff, a World Liberty co-founder who weeks earlier had been named U.S. envoy to the Middle East, the documents said."
To call this the most corrupt administration in American history doesn't really do it justice, because no prior president, Republican or Democrat, would have even conceived of a grift on this scale.
Where are the dementia Don comments today?
Is anyone here the least concerned with how 5-year old Liam Ramos's case was handled? His family came from Ecador and applied for asylum at the border last year. They were complying with the law, e.g., attending hearings, etc. according to media reports. His father had no run-ins with law enforcement. Assuming the law allowed the government to interrupt that process, where is the decency and humanity? Why not give the family notice and time to get their affairs in order, say goodbye to friends, etc., instead of snatching them off the street. Why the intentional cruelty? Please explain.
The federal court in Texas released him. Not only was the government's conduct dispicable, it was illegal. Shame on Trump and everyone who thinks this is okay.
Is anyone here the least concerned with Trump's latest suit against the IRS for 10 billion, given that he will decide what settlement is appropriate? Is that the way a fair and functional government should be operating consistent with the rule of law.
“I think this text of his "gaggle" has more words than Slow Joe spoke -- coherently -- in 4 years”
Maybe as importantly, Trump was engaged. He skirted their gotchas with a smile. Last time we had that sort of interaction between the President and his press corps, it was GW Bush, and he never had nearly that number of balls in the air at one time. And before that? Maybe Reagan. With Dem Presidents, they always had their list of allowable questions beforehand. With Biden, of course, that list was pretty much limited to ice cream flavors. Not like with Trump, where the discussion covered Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, Greenland, left wing violence, crime, as well as his Arch, his ballroom, and giving anything he makes off of his lawsuit for the MAL invasion to charities like the National Cancer Society. A masterful performance, completely off the cuff. And such a stark contrast with the four years under President Dementia.
Is anyone here the least concerned that Trump's name appeared in the Epstein files thousands of times. Is anyone here the least concerned that Secretary of Commerce Lutnick planned to visit the island years after he said he had cut off his relationship with "that disgusting person," and years after Epstein's sex-trafficking conviction in Florida.
jim5301 said...
Is anyone here the least concerned with Trump's latest suit against the IRS for 10 billion, given that he will decide what settlement is appropriate? Is that the way a fair and functional government should be operating consistent with the rule of law.
The IRS and the Democrat party illegally leaked his tax returns.
Everyone involved in that government abuse of power and invasion of privacy should be in jail.
Is anyone here the least concerned? Yes I would have to say me. I'm the least concerned about everything. It's hard work but someone has to remain calm cool and collected.
“Is anyone here the least concerned with Trump's latest suit against the IRS for 10 billion, given that he will decide what settlement is appropriate? Is that the way a fair and functional government should be operating consistent with the rule of law.”
Love the attempted gotchas.
No, I am not worried. As with his lawsuit for invasion of his MAL home, it’s all going to charity. Good charities, where the bulk of the money raised isn’t being skimmed off to fund lavish lifestyles and Dem causes.
jim5301 said...
Is anyone here the least concerned that Trump's name appeared in the Epstein files thousands of times. Is anyone here the least concerned that Secretary of Commerce Lutnick planned to visit the island years after he said he had cut off his relationship with "that disgusting person," and years after Epstein's sex-trafficking conviction in Florida.
Retards are concerned that a bunch of "tips" to the FBI were randomly called in to "implicate" Trump.
Everyone knows there is nothing on Trump in the Epstein files because Biden had them for 4 years and nothing happened. Biden would have put Trump in jail for 1 million years if there was ANYTHING in the Epstein files on Trump.
But retards like you cling to hope.
Booz hamilton which vetted the navy guard shooter snowden and a gaggle of others
Im exhausted mostly at the inanity of the questions
“
Is anyone here the least concerned that Trump's name appeared in the Epstein files thousands of times. Is anyone here the least concerned that Secretary of Commerce Lutnick planned to visit the island years after he said he had cut off his relationship with "that disgusting person," and years after Epstein's sex-trafficking conviction in Florida.”
More lawsuits by Trump. Definitely the one author. Maybe Epstein’s estate too. Trump isn’t saying yet, but did mention it on the plane.
Interesting reporting. The fact that Trump would stand up and speak candidly with reporters is itself a story being underreported. A quick google search reports that President Joe Dementia Biden never held a single press gaggle aboard Air Force 1. And the press was OK with that. The press cannot be hated enough.
jim5301 said...
Is anyone here the least concerned with how 5-year old Liam Ramos's case was handled?
No. We aren't.
Every time you douchebags cherry pick some bullshit case and lie about it it turns out you were lying and it was someone we don't want here.
We don't want your illegal democrat voters here and we don't want them counted in the census anymore. We don't want them on welfare and we don't want them lowering wages.
Bruce Hayden writes: "Last time we had that sort of interaction between the President and his press corps, it was GW Bush, and he never had nearly that number of balls in the air at one time"
Trump serially exceeds the worst forecasts of what he will do.
Remember with Trump it isn't what he's saying or sometimes doing, it's what he doesn't want people paying attention to that is more important…
Is anyone here the least concerned that in a speech to international leaders Trump refers to Somalians as "low-IQ people" Even if true it's disgusting to equate intelligence with character? Does anyone have someone with Down syndrome in their family? (Or as Trump would no doubt say - Mongoloid) Any problem if someone refers to your own son with such a disability as a low-IQ person? Are they bad people? Or very loving with infinitely more character than our President.
The Biden administration enticed millions to come here illegally, essentially putting drug cartels in charge of the southern border. This resulted in hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors being dumped at the border and leaving the majority to be unaccounted for even to this day. This is beyond the murders, rapes and human trafficking that all came directly from his policies. Talk about despicable.
“ Is anyone here the least concerned with how 5-year old Liam Ramos's case was handled? His family came from Ecador and applied for asylum at the border last year. They were complying with the law, e.g., attending hearings, etc. according to media reports.”
No. They were illegal aliens. They are getting sent home. Just because you bring your five year old kid with you, doesn’t absolve you of the crime of crossing the border illegally.
"And the first thing they're going to do — end ice hockey." Chinese just lost their Canada effort.
Kak: really? Trump's WYSIWYG streaming consciousness of BS get some action and actually some success. Unlike 99.99% of all other politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth and get nothing done nothing accomplished that they say they will do while getting everything accomplished that their billionaire supporters require.
I mean if you're not impressed with the fact that the border with Mexico has been absolutely shut down, then it's hard to take you seriously. That was his biggest campaign promise and everybody said it was impossible without bipartisan support in Congress and he made it happen using his executive powers as Commander in Chief.
His administration also made a promise to end the Israeli slaughter in Gaza and that has happened. Nobody thought that could be done. Certainly the Biden administration was powerless to do so.
He started a huge trade War using tariffs just as he promised probably his number two campaign promise. Everybody said that it would fail and cause huge inflation and a giant disruption of the world economy potentially devolving into a deep recession. Instead the US is enjoying lower rates of inflation higher rates of employment and very high rates of growth.
The problem with Democrats is that they are opposed to Trump and his actions just because it is Trump doing it. This results in the Democrats continually acting against their best interest and against the best interest of the American people just to spite Trump.
I would say I'm probably the most concerned about how Democrats are very concerned about the superficial minutiae and politically incorrect and in some cases downright insulting speech that Trump exhibits. Who cares? He is who he is and says all sorts of sideways crap that often sounds like a stand-up comedy routine. Part of that strategy is to keep Democrats occupied with Petty bullshit.
I think the Bible put it very well: straining gnats while letting camels pass. So yeah that is my biggest concern is that Democrats not only have given us Trump they have perpetuated him and giving him even more and more power while at the same time themselves remain weak ineffective without a plan or program to actually accomplish concrete projects necessary to carry the United States into the future.
Its the argument clinic
What argument? I'm right almost all the time and almost everyone else is mostly wrong. There is no argumentation only declarative statements of a functionally correct interpretation of events. Everything else is emotional diarrhea
"Any problem if someone refers to your own son with such a disability as a low-IQ person".
Well, if there were hundreds of thousands of these low IQ people who were defrauding the taxpayer, then no I wouldn't have a problem with it you dummy.
There’s good federal that a party can’t sue himself. 12(b)(6) motion should be granted.
I picture Trump’s inner circle assigning some junior staff to keep an eye when Trump goes live anywhere at any time and alert à la bat signal the moment he goes live. God forbid, Trump makes news and you are last finding out.
Can you imagine Biden going out and doing this?
https://newsletter.amuseonx.com/p/inside-trumps-doj-colin-mcdonald?utm_source=post-email-
Never mind
Quack, quack, honk.
A gaggle garners gay generosity.
The man can talk--and unlike Slow Joe Biden--who couldn't talk, Trump can walk and chew gum at the same time. Now he might not make sense to Kak--and he may offend Jaq--but at least he'll let the press know what he thinks or feels or imagines. And that's a good thing.
Honestly chimps *could do a better job asking questions
*ive dubbed new york times reporters thus
Supposedly
Saudi Arabia bars US from using airspace or bases for potential Iran strike | Fox News https://share.google/p98948CAnMIILbckE
“ Is anyone here the least concerned with how 5-year old Liam Ramos's case was handled? His family came from Ecador and applied for asylum at the border last year. They were complying with the law, e.g., attending hearings, etc. according to media reports.”
Can someone explain why Ecuadorians need asylum?
If you say the cartels, we have those here, too, so that doesn't count.
Ecuadors under sensible management for the first time in 20 years
"Can someone explain why Ecuadorians need asylum?"
They don't *need* it, except in the sense it's the magic word Democrats accept to allow people to come into the country to live off US taxpayers instead of going through normal immigration channels.
Is he asking to remove people in prison prior to their sentence and deporting? Finish sentence first because sad truth of the matter is many bad guys will find a way back. They have lived here, know their way around, have family, friends and connections, and know how to get back in.
jim5301 said...
"Is anyone here the least concerned... "
Yes, I'm concerned that people as easily led off a cliff as you get to vote just like level-headed people who think things through without falling for lazy rage bait.
Bushman @ 10:12, That’s a serious set of accusations and I understand that reality doesn’t set well with most here but almost every part of it falls apart once you separate rhetoric and propaganda from facts.
There is no evidence that the Biden administration “enticed” people to come illegally. Migration surges track push factors—violence, economic collapse, climate disasters, and long-standing instability—many of which predate Biden by years or decades.
Cartels were already deeply embedded in border smuggling operations long before Biden. Claiming Biden “put them in charge” ignores the reality that cartels profit from any restrictive system, including Trump’s—arguably more so when legal pathways are shut down.
On unaccompanied minors: children are not ‘dumped’ and forgotten. They are processed by HHS, released to sponsors (usually family), and followed up. Are there failures? Yes. Are “hundreds of thousands unaccounted for”? No—that claim comes from misrepresented audits and misinformation channelled through the right wing propagandists, not evidence of mass disappearance.
As for murders, rapes, and trafficking “directly from his policies”—violent crime trends do not correlate that way. Crime rose globally during COVID disruptions and has declined in the U.S. since, including in many border communities.
Criticize immigration policy all you want—I do. But turning complex global migration into a morality play where one administration is responsible for cartels, trafficking, and violence isn’t serious analysis by any stretch. It’s scapegoating.
Which brings us to Bruce Hayden at 10:02
”“ Is anyone here the least concerned with how 5-year old Liam Ramos's case was handled? His family came from Ecador and applied for asylum at the border last year. They were complying with the law, e.g., attending hearings, etc. according to media reports.”
“No. They were illegal aliens. They are getting sent home. Just because you bring your five year old kid with you, doesn’t absolve you of the crime of crossing the border illegally.”
This is where these discussions keep going off the rails.
Seeking asylum is not illegal under U.S. law, even if the person crossed the border without authorization. Congress explicitly wrote the law that way.
If a family presents themselves, applies for asylum, attends hearings, and complies with the process—as described here—they are not “illegal aliens sneaking across the border.” They are people in a pending legal process.
You can argue that asylum law should be changed. That’s a fair debate.
But pretending the current law doesn’t exist—and labeling lawful asylum seekers as criminals is rewriting the rules after the fact.
So which is it?
Do you believe asylum law exists but shouldn’t?
Or do you believe it exists but should be ignored?
Or do you believe it doesn’t exist at all?
Or do you think they bypassed the asylum process and snuck across?
Because those are very different arguments—and only one of them is about “the law.” Asylum law seems to be something the Althouse people really feel uncomfortable talking about.
’Trump refers to Somalians as "low-IQ people" Even if true it's disgusting to equate intelligence with character?’
I believe we’ve seen plenty of evidence of their character; not only in Minnesota, but in their home country. What’s your point?
’…once you separate rhetoric and propaganda from facts.’
Ronald linked to an article from Mother Jones the other night, so we know he’s immune to propaganda and only here for rigorous and factual intellectual debate.
Yet Beast, you come up short in finding a factual flaw in my above arguments to the very propaganda I was pointing out.
What is your point?
’There is no evidence that the Biden administration “enticed” people to come illegally.’
Is this one of your factual claims, Ronald?
Congressional testimony from two years ago:
’ In the three years since taking office, the Biden administration has encouraged and facilitated 6.7 million inadmissible aliens to enter and take up residence in the U.S.
The impact of Biden policies can be seen by comparing the current situation with prior presidencies. In FY 2023, there were 3,201,144 encounters between inadmissible aliens and the U.S. government nationwide. In 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, there were 690,433 such encounters. This 460 percent increase in inadmissible alien encounters is a direct and obvious result of Biden policies which deliberately encourage, facilitate and reward illegal immigration.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas recently admitted to his CBP agents that some 85% of current encounters with inadmissible aliens result in the individual being released into the interior. The government’s own data show that of the hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens encountered by Custom and Border Protection on the southwest border each month over 80 percent are being released into the U.S. interior. The policy is not so much “catch and release” as simply “greet and release”.’
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116759/witnesses/HMTG-118-IF02-Wstate-RectorR-20240117.pdf
Yes Beast, that is a factual claim.
If by “enticed” you mean actively encouraged, invited, or induced people to come illegally, there is no evidence of that—no policy, no directive, no program, no statements offering unlawful entry.
If you mean something looser like “conditions changed and more people came,” that’s a different claim, and one that applies to global post-COVID migration, economic collapse and violence abroad, climate shocks, and long-standing asylum law that agin, predates Biden by decades.
But that is not “enticement.”
So the question back to you is straightforward:
What specific action, policy, or statement are you claiming or suggesting constituted enticement?
And what evidence supports it?
Because without that, “enticed” is just rhetoric standing in for “I don’t like the outcome.”
Sorry Beast but that turd at 4:37 doesn’t polish as it isn’t evidence of “enticement.”
That document is testimony, not a finding. It reflects the witness’s interpretation of outcomes, not proof of intent, policy design, or inducement.
A rise in encounters does not prove encouragement. It demonstrates that more people were encountered—often because enforcement and processing resumed after COVID-era restrictions ended.
“Released into the interior” is not a reward or invitation. It reflects long-standing asylum law, court capacity limits, and legal requirements that established long before Biden, including during Republican administrations.
If the claim is that Biden encouraged illegal entry, the evidence would need to show a directive or a policy offering unlawful entry or statements inviting people to violate the law.
This testimony provides none of that. It argues from outcomes to intent—which is rhetoric, not proof.
@ 4:32.
’A rise in encounters does not prove encouragement.’
Not enforcing the law is encouragement. Allowing 6.7 million inadmissible anliens into the country is not ‘encounters’, it’s a documented government fact. You’re gaslighting and it’s dishonest, as is your wont.
*aliens
Wasn't the Biden App enough enticement? CC, JSM
’Wasn't the Biden App enough enticement?’
Of course not!! The only allowable proof is an official document signed by the autopen directing Mayorkas not to follow our immigration laws. The millions of documented illegal entries only prove that Biden followed the law!! Why can’t you understand something so obvious? Gosh… ;)
Beast, you’re trying to collapse law, capacity, and outcomes into a single moral accusation (“encouragement”) because the moment those are separated, the MAGA narrative loses its spine.
That not how law—or encouragement—works.
Failure to achieve perfect enforcement is not encouragement. If it were, every administration for the last 40 years—including Trump’s—would be guilty of “encouraging” illegal immigration, because none of them achieved full deterrence or removal.
“Encounters” is not spin. It is the government’s own statutory reporting term. It includes people expelled, people detained, people released pending proceedings, and people who re-attempt multiple crossings.
Conflating “encounters” with “allowed to stay permanently” is simply incorrect.
As for “inadmissible”: that is a legal classification, not proof of criminal presence.
Many inadmissible entrants are lawfully present while their asylum claims are pending, because Congress wrote the law that way and courts have enforced it that way—under Democratic and Republican administrations alike.
If your claim is that Biden encouraged illegal entry, you still haven’t shown, a policy inviting people to violate the law, nor a directive waiving the law, nor statements urging unlawful entry.
You’ve shown outcomes under legal constraints, finite detention capacity set by Congress, and asylum law written prior to Biden by decades.
That’s not gaslighting.
That’s the difference between intent and result—a distinction the law makes whether it’s convenient or not.
So again, the question stands, do you want to change the law, or are you claiming the law doesn’t exist?
Because those are not the same argument.
The federal court in Texas released him. Not only was the government's conduct dispicable, (sic) it was illegal.
You mean the order the judge signed and dated February 31, 2026?
At some point, normie Democrat voters are going to have to wise up that their party leaders and primary voters are on the side of criminals against their safety. Likewise, Republican voters need to realize many party donors and many pols are working against their prosperity.
Ah, but of course, the Biden app thing.
No. The CBP One app was not “enticement.”
It did not invite people to enter illegally and it did not waive the law and it did not grant status.
CBP One was a queue-management and scheduling tool for people who were already entitled under U.S. law to request asylum. It replaced physical crowding at ports of entry with appointments—nothing more.
There’s some key points in propagandaville that’s being skipped here. Asylum law allowing people to apply at the border, for the upteen time, predates Biden by decades.
The app limited access, it didn’t expand it (finite daily appointments). People using it were screened, fingerprinted, background-checked. And many applicants were still denied and removed.
Calling that “enticement” would mean enforcing asylum law = encouragement, processing claims = reward, and managing chaos = open borders.
That’s just not a serious argument, legally or at a rational neighborhood bar.
If the position is that asylum law itself should be repealed or ignored, say that.
But using an app to administer existing law is not encouragement—it’s administration.
john mosby said...
Wasn't the Biden App enough enticement? CC, JSM
It also got the illegal invaders in contact with democrat operatives who helped them get as much welfare and rent support as possible.
Democrats bought votes from imported soldiers. The illegals are just doing jobs Americans wont do.
At some point, normie Democrat voters are going to have to wise up that their party leaders and primary voters are on the side of criminals against their safety. Likewise, Republican voters need to realize many party donors and many pols are working against their prosperity.
Never were written words on this website more true than this.
Not everyone in government and politics can fairly be called scum. But it is always true, in all times and all places, that the scummiest people in any society are either in government and politics, or are their cronies closely in government's orbit.
I laugh at the earnest good-government types in places like Minnesota and Canada. They are some of the most deluded, naive people on earth, unless they are some more of the type of scum I'm talking about.
The people of Minnesota are on the cusp of finding out that a huge fraction of the taxes extorted from what they earned by the sweat of their brow are pissed away on government scams like the phantom day-care and home health agencies, for the pecuniary benefit of the likes of Ilhan Omar, and the electoral advantage of the party she represents. I suspect that some of those famous "Minnesota Nice" Lutherans who devoutly believed in "peace, order, and good government" will be carrying pitchforks and torches when everything comes out.
Anything that undermines trust and support for government is good for our liberties. I carefully taught my kids to hate government, and miss no reasonable opportunity to hold it up for contempt, resistance, disobedience, defunding, or sabotage.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.