NYC Hands Out $53 million in Debit Cards To Illegals.

[jaypatriot]

Biden didn't encourage illegals to come here.

He simply went on about our not treating them like non humans, as opposed to his predecessor.

He certainly did not encourage any "surge to the border" on their part.

He spoke in his campaign of the US surging to the border, with Immigration Judges and Lawyers and authorities for handling and processing folks faster whether illegals or especially asylum seekers.

Went through this with Uriah, he had it all wrong.

What do think candidate Biden is telling migrants? Is he lying?
Is this an AI fake? Did you follow his 2020 campaign?
Did you do any research at all to confirm your fact-less bias?



How about this Biden speech?

I see you don't want to believe anything negative about Biden for fear it could damage your confirmation bias toward a candidate Democrats would rather not have this year.

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden promised a stark departure from the immigration policies of the Trump administration.
He pledged a 100-day moratorium on deportations after taking office. He promised to protect sanctuary cities from federal law enforcement agencies. And he harshly criticized the Trump administration’s treatment of undocumented immigrants at the southern border, asserting that America had the capacity to “absorb people” while calling on asylum seekers to “surge” to the border.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/kfile-biden-2-million-migrants-asylum-seekers-immigration-crisis/index.html

 

[Uriah]

In the confines of that argument and SC decision they got it right.

The case made in Colorado by the folks wanting to keep KING MAGAT off the ballot there built in the absolute need for it going all the way up, and fail.

Yes, the Colorado AG is a very dumb creature.

 

[upsideguy]

The Colorado Court doesn't have authority on insurrection. Only congress. You should read the decision.

I think it is you that needs to read the decision. I have. Again, the court merely admonished Colorado from enforcing section 3 of Amendment 14. The enforcement is denying Trump access to the ballot. Its an "if, then" question. If Trump engaged in insurrection, then he should be removed from the ballot. Colorado determined the "if" and the "then". The SCOTUS only tackled the "then" part of this, not the "if" They made no comment on the fact finding part of the Colorado litigation, as they are in no position to do so.

The crux of the opinion of the majority:

"..Under the terms of the opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court, its ruling was automatically stayed pending this Court’s review. See id., at 114a. We granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it TRUMP v. ANDERSON Per Curiam did, we now reverse..."

Colorado had no right to "enforce" section 3, by removing him from the ballot. But, the fact finding aspects of the court remain: The matter was litigated, Trump was represented and found to have participated in insurrection. That simply is a statement of fact.

For future reference, the stronger argument that could have been made against my point is not in the SCOTUS decision, but in the Colorado decision reviewed in the context of the SCOTUS decision. Let's see if you are savvy enough to figure that one out.

 

[Uriah]

I think it is you that needs to read the decision. I have. Again, the court merely admonished Colorado from enforcing section 3 of Amendment 14. The enforcement is denying Trump access to the ballot. Its an "if, then" question. If Trump engaged in insurrection, then he should be removed from the ballot. The SCOTUS tackled the "then" part of this, not the "if" They made no comment on the fact finding part of the Colorado litigation as they are in no position to do so.

The crux of the opinion of the majority:


Colorado had no right to "enforce" section 3, by removing him from the ballot. But, the fact finding aspects of the court remain: The matter was litigated, Trump was represented and found to have participated in insurrection. That simply is a statement of fact.

For future reference, the stronger argument that could have been made against my point is not in the SCOTUS decision, but in the Colorado decision reviewed in the context of the SCOTUS decision. Let's see if you are savvy enough to figure that one out.

Okay. Tell us why Colorado had to put Trump back on the ballot. Go ahead.

 

[upsideguy]

Okay. Tell us why Colorado had to put Trump back on the ballot. Go ahead.

...simply because the SCOTUS said they were not allowed to ENFORCE Amendment 14 paragraph 3. They were not allowed to remove him from the ballot even though the court found him responsible for insurrection.

It was an "if,then" proposition. Trump committed insurrection (the "if"), but the remedy of removing him from the ballot (the "then") was not an remedy available to them according to the SCOTUS, which merely tackled the remedy Colorado imposed based upon its litigated fact finding.

Back to the main point, the Colorado courts, after due process, determined Trump was involved in an insurrection. The SCOTUS merely said that Colorado had no basis to act (remedy) based on that fact. The fact, however, remains, as determined by a court of law: Trump engaged in insurrection.

In fairness to you, the law can be very nuanced, and probably not something you dealt as much in the medical field.

 

[Uriah]

...simply because the SCOTUS said they were not allowed to ENFORCE Amendment 14 paragraph 3. They were not allowed to remove him from the ballot even though the court found him responsible for insurrection.

It was an "if,then" proposition. Trump committed insurrection (the "if"), but the remedy of removing him from the ballot (the "then") was not an remedy available to them according to the SCOTUS, which merely tackled the remedy Colorado imposed based upon its litigated fact finding.

Back to the main point, the Colorado courts, after due process, determined Trump was involved in an insurrection. The SCOTUS merely said that Colorado had no basis to act (remedy) based on that fact. The fact, however, remains, as determined by a court of law: Trump engaged in insurrection.

You still haven't told us WHY Colorado wasn't allowed to remove Trump from the ballot. The Supreme said why, so tell us why.

 

[upsideguy]

You still haven't told us WHY Colorado wasn't allowed to remove Trump from the ballot. The Supreme said why, so tell us why.

I did tell you why.... The SCOTUS denied Colorado the right to omit a person that had committed insurrection from the ballot. Though Trump committed insurrection (as proven in court), Colorado did not have the right to remove him from the ballot. It wasn't their call, according to the SCOTUS decision.

To make this even clearer to you. Here is article from a Colorado political publication. Note the headline, then read it as it affirms my point, which is the Court found Trump engaged in insurrection, a matter that was not disputed by the SCOTUS.

US Supreme Court rules Colorado cannot remove Trump from ballot

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday told Colorado it could not use its election laws and its state courts to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidential pimary ballot, overturning a contrary decision by the state Supreme Court from December.

www.coloradopolitics.com

US Supreme Court rules Colorado cannot remove Trump from ballot​

The Supreme Court did not address the conclusion of Colorado courts that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection as president

 

[LouC]

What do think candidate Biden is telling migrants? <Snipped>

I know exactly what he is telling everyone in that clip in full context, which goes beyond that short clip, and in subsequent interactions, in full context.

When one listens to what candidate Biden is actually saying, in its fulness, and not what some mistaken people think he is saying, one just might figure out that he said something different that what Right Wing folks think and claim he said.

At no point was candidate Biden telling illegal migrants that they should come here and were welcome to cross our border.

Candidate Biden was explaining that those legitimately seeking asylum, according to our Asylum Laws, needed to do so properly, and to have their applications for asylum processed swiftly, and adjudicated in a timely manner, and that they did not deserve to be forced back into holding camps in Mexico for indefinite amounts of time.

 

[LouC]

Yes, the Colorado AG is a very dumb creature.

Arguable. But it is not arguable that the folks bringing the suit are the ones who made the mistake with their original filing. The Colorado AG couldn't alter their filing.

However I must say, that I feel State Election Authorities should have the absolute power to keep names off Primary Election Ballots, for any reason they want, that does not involve invocation of any Federal Statute.

Once they step onto Federal Turf they lose States Rights autonomy.

 

[eohrnberger]

This wasn't the brightest move on NY city's part, the handing out of prepaid debit cards. All they're doing is enabling and creating a magnet for more illegal immigration.

You get more of what you subsidize, as CA has learned with the homeless.
Also learned is that once you do start subsidizing something, the demand becomes a bottomless pit and will never be completely fulfilled.
But leave it to the left to never consider the easily foreseeable and dire consequences of their 'spending other people's money'.

The effort is part of a city pilot program to distribute prepaid credit cards to migrant families housed in hotels despite public outcry. Public outcry. Shouldn't the taxpayers have a say in this matter. Nothing is free, and they're fronting the costs.

I realize the mayor's office says the program is being put in place to cut costs, but when does it end?

When does it end? It never ends, being a bottomless pit of demand and all.

 

[eohrnberger]

34 trillion in debt now proves mine.

Even far more concerning is:

The U.S. national debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days

The nation's debt now stands at nearly $34.4 trillion.

www.cnbc.com

This insanity must end. It cannot continue.

 

[Paradoxical]

Even far more concerning is:

The U.S. national debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days

The nation's debt now stands at nearly $34.4 trillion.

www.cnbc.com

This insanity must end. It cannot continue.

The darling of the libs is a Pulitzer Prize winning economist named Paul Krugman who suggested years ago that we just print a coin for the debt. Naturally only very far leftists win a Pulitzer for being idiots in whatever field they give prizes in passed out line participation trophies to soccer kids.

I imagine Pete Buttigieg will get one for his explanation of why the Baltimore bridge was racist…because it was built flat instead of arched.

 

[jaypatriot]

I know exactly what he is telling everyone in that clip in full context, which goes beyond that short clip, and in subsequent interactions, in full context.

When one listens to what candidate Biden is actually saying, in its fulness, and not what some mistaken people think he is saying, one just might figure out that he said something different that what Right Wing folks think and claim he said.

At no point was candidate Biden telling illegal migrants that they should come here and were welcome to cross our border.

Candidate Biden was explaining that those legitimately seeking asylum, according to our Asylum Laws, needed to do so properly, and to have their applications for asylum processed swiftly, and adjudicated in a timely manner, and that they did not deserve to be forced back into holding camps in Mexico for indefinite amounts of time.

It is admirable how you are covering for a clumsy Biden as he was trying to counter Trump almost four years ago. To be 'not Trump' was a successful strategy four years ago. Now, not so much.
But what choice do you have? You must support a doddering old man with memory problems.
You probably accept what Trump says at face value so you can condemn him, but when Biden actually welcomes migrants to our border you jump in and give his words an entirely new interpretation.
Good job. You have your champion. Even though most do not want him to be president again.

 

[LouC]

It is admirable how you are covering for a clumsy Biden as he was trying to counter Trump almost four years ago. <snipped>

I am doing no such thing.

Flat out, candidate Joe Biden DID NOT do or say what you and others have claimed he did.

I am not covering for Biden, I am simply exposing the facts, as they were.

Why would I need to cover for the TRUTH?

 

[jaypatriot]

I am doing no such thing.

Flat out, candidate Joe Biden DID NOT do or say what you and others have claimed he did.

I am not covering for Biden, I am simply exposing the facts, as they were.

Why would I need to cover for the TRUTH?

Do Biden's actual words bother you because he actually was encouraging migrants seeking asylum to come to the border?
You don't believe what Biden says but you believe what Trump says when it suits you.
And now we have millions more migrants and hundreds of thousands of "gotaways" hiding in our country.

 

[Athanasius68]

so what?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/the-impact-of-ending-7-day-public-library-service/&ved=2ahUKEwiTwMGU8ZmFAxXmElkFHUYdC-IQFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0khEfbEtbyTVFTK-7uyuRi