• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trial starts for Arizona border rancher charged with killing migrant on his property

All part of Biden's Great Replacement Plan, haven't you heard?
Ask any Rightie, they got the goods on Biden. ;)
Read the entire post and be informed.
 
If you are fleeing oppression, you should come, and we will surge to the border to help process you. NO WHERE did Biden invite illegals to surge the border.
You really are having a hard time, aren't you, with words and sentence structure?
Your post just admitted he did.
 
He didn't say that either but at this point I have to believe that you are just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. I mean NO ONE can be THIS clueless as to be unable to understand what is being said in a simple sentence.
Biden said "Come".
 
And he says

He stumbled over his words. He also said "If you're fleeing oppression, you should come".

So our government is fleeing oppression? Maybe you ought to try again.
He Said "we are a nation that has said if you are oppressed come".

Which is true. It's what our laws require.
 
He Said "we are a nation that has said if you are oppressed come".

Which is true. It's what our laws require.
Agree. So Biden wasn't telling our government to surge the border.
 
March 22, 2024



Gee, I wonder where Kelly got the idea to call a migrant an animal? Hard to imagine WHERE he would have picked up that kind of language. Anyone here have any idea where Kelly might have picked up that idea?

View attachment 67500327
Maybe because there had been incident after incident after incident and he finally snapped?
 
Anyone ever thought that if the government would do the job it's supposed to do at the border these things would not be happening.
It is doing its job, both arresting and returning illegals and allowing people to apply for asylum.
 
It is doing its job, both arresting and returning illegals and allowing people to apply for asylum.
Meanwhile millions run free in the country.
 
Meanwhile millions run free in the country.
Huh? If the US is following legal and treaty obligations, it is dealing with the problem.
 
Yes, they clearly do. And it was mostly Red States that embraced what he did. They clearly show that new work requirement waivers undermined Trump's pledge not to cut Medicaid. While the Trump's administration continued to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which expanded Medicaid in the states that chose to participate:

- The Trump Admin pushed new guidance and rules upon States, thereby forcing many to have to ask for federal assistance, most of which never came. It effectively cut people off from Medicaid as they scrambled to pay (or not pay) medical bills on their own.

- The Trump Admin gave States unprecedented authority to require people in poverty to pay premiums for their health coverage; and approved a Wisconsin proposal to let it take coverage away from people with incomes below the poverty line if they could not pay monthly premiums. I mean, they are below the poverty line for a reason, yeah? No health coverage for you!

- In the meantime, the Trump Admin capped federal funding and shifted financial risk to the States, with federal funding cuts most likely to occur when states can least absorb them — "such as during recessions, public health emergencies, and other times when states face both high demand for coverage and strain on other parts of their budgets." That would pressure states to use new and existing authorities to cut coverage.

- And with all of this, the Trump Admin encouraged States to make it harder for some participants to even enroll or remain enrolled.
I really hate being put in a position of defending the utterly disgraceful piece of shit former POTUS, but facts are facts, and literally nothing you claim Traitor Trump attempted to do with Medicaid actually happened.

Read your own reference. Aside from a single, vague assertion in the first paragraph claiming that “restrictions it (Trump administration) has put in place administratively have already cost many thousands of people their health coverage”, over and over, throughout the article published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a 501(c)(3) organization not affiliated with the U.S. government, “if, “might”, “may”, “could”, and “would” are used extensively to describe possible results if Traitor Trump’s attempts to “chip away” at Medicaid had been successful.

None, not one reference to actual, objective, measurable damage to the Medicaid program is cited.

And if Traitor Trump had been successful at “chipping away” at the Medicaid program, explain how the budget continued to increase year over year during his term.
IMG_7768.jpeg
I don't see where anything needs a recovery.
Put your critical thinking cap on.
It's all right there. Were you looking for a piece of legislation that stated "Cut Medicaid Bill?!"
No, I’m looking for actual, objective, verifiable data that supports your numerous claims.

So far, you haven’t produced any.
That's not how they have been doing it.
I know. Your knowledge/understanding is what’s in question.
 
I really hate being put in a position of defending the utterly disgraceful piece of shit

I feel the same way whenever people jump to call Hitler a pedophile. As if there is not enough truth to bring up without exaggerating or pushing falsehoods.

Your knowledge/understanding is what’s in question.

I guess so. No point going on.
 
I feel the same way whenever people jump to call Hitler a pedophile. As if there is not enough truth to bring up without exaggerating or pushing falsehoods.
Yep. There are far more than enough truths about Hitler to justify condemning/despising him. No reason to exaggerate or lie.

Doing so, repeatedly, only causes others to question the persons credibility.
 
Seems to be only a few things that are relevant in the trial. Did the rancher kill the person, and was there some immediate threat.

If the answer is yes to the first and no to the second then the guy should go to jail for murder.
 
Seems to be only a few things that are relevant in the trial. Did the rancher kill the person, and was there some immediate threat.

If the answer is yes to the first and no to the second then the guy should go to jail for murder.
Yes and no, and I agree.
 
It was a mistrial with one juror wanting to convict and the other jurors wanting to acquit. Link
 
Back
Top Bottom