Biden and the border

The articles didn’t indicate that the witness had internal memos or other documents to support his allegations. Since he is under oath, I assume he has told the truth.

In the Mayorkus impeachment trial, this matter would have been effectively the same allegations, no?

good point noted about the designation being of an arguably lesser risk.

 

OP, where do Trump's lies about Venezuela emptying its jails fall into this discussion?

Also, is Caracas, Venezuela still safer than the United States, as Trump has recently publicly stated multiple times?

Are you considering relocating to Caracas out of safety concerns?

 

Or no risk.

 

Or no risk.

 

If this is the place you’ve reached, then there is no point in you being here. How can one exchange ideas if they have vowed to stop listening? Or as Thomas Paine put it, “I have always strenuously, supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”

 

You’re addressing an argument @AzCatFan didn’t make. He never claimed a terrorist attack from the southern border couldn't happen just because it hasn’t yet. He specifically said the chances are slim. I also prefer to rely on historical data showing that Special Interest Aliens are unlikely to be terrorists, rather than assuming they might be, simply because it’s possible.

I don't think it is fair to use a terrorist method that happened for the first time by legal immigrants as evidence that illegal immigrants via the southern border may be terrorists. In fact, it is a weak argument.

 

That poster along with the far right poster in the covid thread are the 2 most ignorant posters on this site.

 

I hope that this assessment is correct, but unless any one of us is a secret DHS insider, none of us know if there is a low, medium, or high risk. We are at the mercy of the surveillance apparatus that our elected officials put in place and fund. We are all at the mercy of their threat level warnings.

We spend trillions on foreign wars to fight the terrorist problems on their turf. This is lost (IMO) in the boarder [sic ] security discussion.

 

Most things come into focus with logic and knowledge. In average, we detain at minimum 1/3 of illegal border crossers. And depending on time of year, it's estimated 5% to 10% of those attempting the journey get sick or die, and don't make it.

So let's look at the 22 terrorists from 9/11. None entered illegally through Mexico. But if they had tried, statistically, 7 would have been caught and one ends up in the hospital or morgue. Do they pull off 9/11 down 8 men?

Furthermore, who controls the Mexican side of the border? For much, it's the drug cartels. Think they want terrorists in their backyard? No. Terrorists mean US Military response, and possible incursions into Mexico, which would hurt the cartels' business. The cartels are cruel and ruthless, but they are also logical business people. Al Qauda and the cartels talked years ago. The cartels didn't want anything to do with terrorists. The US isn't cartel enemies. We're their customers.

 

I won’t judge or fault anyone for ignorance. My ignorance would likely wouldn’t fit into 100 grand canyons. But I would say that everyone should be willing to listen, because without listening we have no hope of shrinking our ignorance.

 

I certainly agree on everyone's right to an opinion. There are also standards of morality and integrity to uphold.

Here are a few;

- Don't tolerate criminal conspiracies to disenfranchise 10s of millions of voters.
- Don't tolerate repeated and admitted outright lying in the form of racial scapegoating.


Sorry, but when people abandon these simplest forms of decency in our social contract......their rightful opinion should certainly be exposed as the pure hypocrisy that it is. After all, what they support is nothing but abandoning our social compact when it suits them, them claiming it's protections whenever desirable and convenient. Hypocrisy and anti-social behavior at its finest.

 

I think I know what you are saying Jo. Some people appear to have violated social compact to such an extent that they no longer deserve a hearing for their beliefs. Of course, some of them think the same of you. However, if they took the time to understand you better, perhaps they could better understand your posture. One of my favorite reads in the past year was a guest essay in the NYT called Train yourself to always show up. It’s not overtly political, but it does have this passage that has stuck with me:

One of the great casualties of tribalism is curiosity. And when we are no longer curious, when we don’t try to imagine or understand what another person is thinking or feeling or where her pain comes from, our hearts begin to narrow. We become less compassionate and more entrenched in our own worldviews.
​

These are real people, with kids and dogs and aging parents and aching joints and exhausting daily schedules. They are more than just one person they vote for every four years. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote (sorry I guess I’m into quotes today):

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?​

 

Sure they do. But they are, quite obviously, wrong. I am not the one turning a blind eye to a national politician(s) running a campaign based on knowingly telling racist lies. They are. That's a big difference. Same with trying to overturn an election.

Yeah, it's pretty simple; if someone runs a campaign based on fomenting hatred by race-baiting and knowingly telling repeated racist lies.....or trying to overturn an election......then don't vote for them. That's a moral imperative that has been abandoned. You and I can disagree if you think that abandonment deserves understanding moreso than condemnation....after eight years.

But here's the important part, these people need to pick a side; are they on the side of knowingly and repeatedly lying in public, or are they on the side that shows respect, understanding, even adherence to the go**mn truth. They can't just flit between whichever side grants them more privilege or gain as they choose. They are just abusers of the system and decency of others.

​

Yeah, I don't want to do that historical citing of a nation in Europe that gets blown out of proportion, but.....those were people too. And .there's a time where decency trumps personal political expedience.

 

Not exactly on point but I’ve often thought this forum was primarily just a collection of people talking at each other rather than a true exchange of ideas. There was an article in Wired magazine a few months back that I thought was interesting about the science of conversations (maybe it was posted here). There was a quote in there that resonated with me. It essentially said that conversation doesn’t exist but rather we’re engaged in intersecting monologues. How many people are truly listening to process, engage, and further the conversation vs waiting for the other to stop talking so they will have the chance to talk? I know I’ve certainly been guilty of that more than I’d like to admit.

 

One of the more frustrating aspects of this community is the lack of responses to direct questions. Right or wrong, people have something say and intervening commentary be damned. That seems to be supported by your reference.

I've always considered you a thoughtful poster.

 

To be fair, past Republican representatives would have claimed victory on the capitulations from the Ds and passed it. And then there is MAGA. . . The morons who go full Chomsky on all things Ukraine/Russia.

 

Well, Jo, I don’t intend to convince you that voting Republican is the right decision. I certainly don’t intend to so myself, but these nation wide elections pose a significant voting challenge, as there are only two worldviews that each must be accepted wholesale. What is one to do if they are strongly pro-immigrant but also strongly anti-abortion? There’s no great option for this person.

 

It’s definitely part of the point, and I agree that this is probably more common than not. In his great book, How to know a person, David Brooks gives this advice which is easier to say than do: treat attention not like a dial, but instead like an on/off switch. I.e. Give only 100% attention or 0%, and not some middle percentage where you are part listening and part thinking about some issue of your own. Some people seem to be naturally like this, but man it is tough for me. Still, I applaud anyone who even takes this on as an ideal.

 

Its the medium not the message, because that's literally what this is - people writing (not talking) at each other. Its not a conversation at all, because it cant really be. How many threads are just dropping a stylized rant or info dump and saying "look at this!"? If conversation is modeled on exchange, giving and taking has to be viewed equally, not something to be gamed or won. Anyways, I would assume some people have communities where that is more true than here. If this is someone's only outlet for "conversation" god help them. But if you look at the movie recommendation thread, there is actually people enjoying giving as much as taking! I assume that is why we seek those distractions.

 

Good points, and you’ll have to forgive my loose use of the English language with respect to talk/write. I largely agree with what you wrote which is why I prefaced my comment as being not exactly on point.

Your “outlet for conversation” comment has me wondering just how much of the population of the USA their online interactions represents the lion’s share of their adult interaction? Online interactions are probably a dark place to ground your life.