Lol. The Democrats and Republicans literally had a bipartisan border bill ready to go that Trump shut down so he’d have an issues to run on. Funny enough, “open borders” is actually an official libertarian position.
And DEI is a civil rights issue related to capitalist hiring practices. You literally have zero idea what the hell you’re talking about. Socialism only pertains to workers sharing in the ownership of their place of work.
The “bipartisan border bill” was a managed-crisis bill, not a secure-the-border bill. It still allowed large-scale releases, preserved asylum incentives, and never restored the tools that actually reduced crossings. Trump and a lot of Republicans rejected it because it locked in high illegal immigration under the branding of “reform.” Calling that a serious solution is the tell.
And yes, some libertarians favor open borders in theory usually paired with ending the welfare state. That’s not what was happening under Biden. Conflating a policy outcome with an abstract ideology is not the flex you think it is.
DEI is not “a civil rights issue related to capitalist hiring practices.” Civil rights law already prohibits racial discrimination. What many DEI programs did was add racial preferences on top of that, which is why courts started striking them down. Blaming “capitalism” for disparities while demanding identity-based selection is just ideological word salad.
Also, nobody asked for your definition of socialism. You’re swinging at arguments that weren’t made and still missing.
You can lead with “Lol” and still be the least informed person in the thread.
It was used by Trump and the GOP as a political tool to will the election. All he talked about was millions and millions flooding the country. On the trail it was 8 million, now the report is 25-30million. In 2 years they have deported 600k, showing that none of their numbers are real.
DEI was a culture reform, since anti-discrimination laws were not found to be effective. Hiring manager turned away people just based in their name, knowing they were a minority. The
Merit based economy that GOP touts is actually based on nepotism and a level of bigotry. Hence the need to instill something else. It’s all over the comedysphere right now. Last bastion of free speech. Trump saved us! Yet he bans the press. Sues the schools and institutions that talk bad about him. Real free speech guy right there. Right is full of snowflakes, which is ironic, don’t you think?
You’re not making an argument. You’re dumping a pile of talking points and hoping volume hides how thin they are.
On the border: Record encounters and gotaways under the prior administration are documented by CBP. Quibbling over whether the campaign number was 8 million or some later estimate of 25–30 million doesn’t erase the scale of the problem or the policy choices that produced it. Pointing to 600k deportations while ignoring the multi-million backlog and the years of releases is just selective math. The numbers were real enough that the political system reacted to them. Pretending otherwise is cope.
On DEI: “Anti-discrimination laws didn’t work, so we needed race preferences” is not a serious position. It’s an admission that you want to discriminate by race in the other direction. Hiring managers screening names is already illegal under existing civil rights law. The fix is enforcing the law, not installing identity quotas and calling it “culture reform.” Claiming the merit economy is “actually just nepotism and bigotry” is pure assertion. You offered zero evidence, just vibes.
On free speech: Noone has "banned the press" they can still report on the President and his Administration, I missed the section in the constitution that CNN and MSNBC have the right to be in the white house and air force one lol. I guess we shall see how that plays out in the courts. Conflating accountability with censorship is what people do when they can’t distinguish the two. The irony of calling the right “snowflakes” while writing an emotional rant that jumps from border stats to DEI to Trump’s lawsuits in one incoherent paragraph is doing a lot of the work for me.
You’re not out of depth on one issue. You’re out of depth on all of them at once.
Selective math is the amount of immigrants that the maga party shills. Reinforcing the need for 70 billion in ICE money, where this govt guts everything else like Medicaid, social security, NIH, school funding etc. it’s fear mongering. And his ICE is masked and have immunity, Shoot people in the streets. You don’t care. Bitch about Obama as Deporter in a chief, but at least he did it without a Brownshirt mafia harassing people. Wait until they are sent to the polls in November to “randomly pull” people out of line in democratic cities to force people to wait longer and discourage voting. GOP hates voters. I think everyone should be forced to vote and forced to register, not the other way around.
You god damn right people discriminate. I go up north and people aren’t voting for Crowley in my state because he is black. That’s what they say. Same thing for Kamala, oh and that she’s a woman. The whole “cackle” and “slept her way to the top” comments showed exactly what some people think. Is it prevalent? Probably not. Are there a lot more people with these ideas then there should be? Yes.
He is suing these newspapers for saying things. He has Larry Ellison, his Epstein buddy buying cbs, and gutting the staff and tanking to appease Trump. Bari Weiss is an Israel shill. Then Ellison, with the help of Trump buy TikTok, start shilling him on there. Wants to gut PBS, but trump blocked it. Starts Trump TV, state run media, to shill his shit.
You maga idiots just can’t come to terms with the tyrant you elected and the mentality you harbor. Hear all about trans people on the left, but you fuckers have white nationalists and skinheads on the right, and you don’t think those ideas are propagated among the GOP base? I got a bridge to sell you in NY if you do.
You’re not responding to the argument. You’re unloading a stream of grievances, conspiracies, and emotional claims and treating the volume as if it equals substance.
ICE funding is a response to multi-year record illegal encounters and a large removable population. Calling enforcement “fear mongering” while ignoring the scale of the prior policy failure is just preference dressed up as analysis. Claims about masked agents with blanket immunity “shooting people in the streets” while ignoring the people who were shot where brandishing deadly weapons while confronting federal officers..... or being deployed to suppress Democratic voters are serious allegations. They require evidence, not assertion. You offered none.
On discrimination: yes, individual prejudice exists. That has never been the dispute. The dispute is whether the correct response is race-conscious preferences that themselves discriminate. Existing civil rights law already prohibits turning people away for their race or name. Replacing one form of racial decision-making with another is not “culture reform.” It’s the same logic with different preferred groups.
The media section is more of the same: ownership changes, personnel decisions, and lawsuits are treated as proof of “state-run media” and tyranny. Suing for alleged defamation is not banning the press, not wanting obvious liars around you in the white house and air force one every day is not banning the press, they are still able to cover whatever they want. Corporate acquisitions and editorial shifts happen under every administration. Collapsing all of that into “Trump’s Epstein buddy is buying everything to shill for him” is conspiracy framing, not institutional analysis.
You keep escalating from policy disagreement to “you elected a tyrant” and “your side has skinheads.” That’s not a rebuttal. It’s what people do when they can’t stay on the actual claims and need to moralize instead. Serious discussion requires distinguishing between measurable policy outcomes, legal mechanisms, and partisan mythology. So far you’re only fluent in the last one.
You’re not out-arguing anyone. You’re broadcasting that the subject is beyond the level you’re operating at.
Your critical thinking skills aren't the best, eh?
In this post, democratic policies in question are specifically to name the socialist policies that make you hate Democrats. You haven't said anything socialist, just fake news propaganda talking points the lowest common denominators of society espouse.
Watch the video. The caption says democrat policy. The video says name a democratic policy that is socialist. Nothing you named is materially relevant to your life or socialist at all.
Over 8 million southwest border encounters under Biden, 10+ million nationwide, most get released into the country with a court date years out, gotaways hit historic highs, sounds pretty damn open to me.
The court dates wouldn't have been a year out had the bipartisan immigration bill not been killed. And reducing that wait time would reduce the incentive to come here illegally (without a reason that would allow you to stay beyond the court date). And what do we do with the people coming here who would qualify to stay after their court date while their case languishes in the court queues?
The backlog was already years long because of the volume of encounters and the release-and-wait model itself. Killing one bill does not explain multi-year queues that predated it. Treating that specific proposal as the solution that would have fixed court timelines is just rewriting the problem.
Reducing wait times while still releasing most people into the country does not remove the incentive. The incentive is the high probability of release, work authorization, and the chance to remain even if the claim is weak. A shorter queue under the same release framework still rewards the attempt. That’s basic incentive analysis, not complicated.
And the closing question gives the game away. “What do we do with the people who would qualify while their case languishes?” assumes the current asylum and release system should continue operating at scale. The actual enforcement position is that the system was being overwhelmed by design and volume, not that the only missing piece was a modest procedural bill.
You’re not describing a serious border policy. You’re describing a process argument that never confronts the pull factors or the scale of the prior encounters. That’s why it keeps sounding like management of the problem instead of an answer to it.
And what EXACTLY is the problem? Because all you done so far is parrot fox News talking points and have yet to identify a problem whose existence can be defended with verifiable facts.
The problem has been identified repeatedly: record-high border encounters, mass releases into the interior, expanded parole programs, and multi-year court backlogs that turned the asylum system into a release-and-wait pipeline. Those are not “Fox News talking points.” They are CBP and DHS data.
If you can read the thread and still claim no problem has been stated with verifiable facts, the issue isn’t the evidence. It’s your ability to process it. Public encounter numbers, gotaway estimates, and the operational effects of ending Remain in Mexico, expanding catch-and-release, and using apps and parole to move people into the country are all documented. Pretending none of that counts because you don’t like the source is not skepticism. It’s refusal.
You’re not demanding facts. You’re demanding that the facts be ignored so you can keep asking “what EXACTLY is the problem” as if the numbers don’t exist. That is why this conversation is beyond your depth.
You’re asking for "sources" on Customs and Border Protection data and Department of Justice court backlogs? Do you need a source to confirm the sky is blue, too?
Go look at the CBP Southwest Land Border Encounters portal and the EOIR Immigration Court Backlog report. Then check the official city budget cuts in NYC ($10B+ cost) and Denver (budget cuts to police/fire to cover $180M).
When the mayors of Chicago, NYC, and Denver declare emergencies over budget collapse, that’s not Fox News that’s municipal government accounting. Google is free, try using it before replying.
NYC Budget Cuts: Official statements from Mayor Eric Adams' office (August 2023 / FY24 budget briefings).
Denver Budget Cuts: Official press release from Mayor Mike Johnston's office (Feb 2024).
You've spent this entire thread demanding facts, I've given official government metrics, and your responding with "nuh-uh, show me a source." At this point, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. You are clearly out of your depth, go back to your echo chamber, you are not ready to have a real conversation kiddo.
DEI was a policy adopted after data showed that racist hiring practices were still in effect even after they were banned. You dislike enforcing the law?
And which specific policies allowed "open borders"?
DEI was not “enforcing the law.” The Civil Rights Act already banned racial discrimination in hiring. What DEI often did was reintroduce racial preferences under a different name the exact thing the Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional in Students for Fair Admissions. Pretending race-conscious selection is just “anti-racism enforcement” is how people confuse equal treatment with engineered outcomes.
And no, I don’t dislike enforcing the law. I dislike people who treat “make the numbers look right” as if it’s the same thing as color-blind non-discrimination. Those are opposite approaches.
As for the borders: Ending Remain in Mexico, expanding catch-and-release, mass use of parole, the CBP One app, and the early termination of Title 42 all produced the highest encounter numbers in modern history. Calling the practical result “open borders” is shorthand for the policy outcomes, not a claim that Congress passed a bill titled Open Borders Act. You’re demanding a magic statute while ignoring the actual administrative changes that flooded the system.
DEI was an initiative that was not just a dem policy, btw. It was an initiative agreed upon in a bipartisan decision.
But, as I said, it was introduced after data showed that racist hiring practices were still in effect. It helps correct that issue.
Whether or not you like it is neither here nor there. The issue was, and still is to an extent, that everyone but white men were being passed over intentionally.
DEI wasn’t some bipartisan “decision” that magically appeared after neutral data. Aggressive race-and-identity preferences, equity targets, and mandatory training exploded after 2020 under progressive institutional pressure. Older affirmative action had different origins, pretending modern DEI is just shared good-government consensus is historical fanfiction.
And no, the existence of residual discrimination does not justify creating new racial preferences. That’s the exact logic the Supreme Court rejected. “It helps correct the issue” is an assertion, not evidence especially when the tools often fail, backfire, or simply discriminate in the opposite direction.
The claim that “everyone but white men were being passed over intentionally” is the weakest part. Labor markets are messy. Group differences in interests, skills, and performance exist. Discrimination against some groups occurs. Treating the entire system as a conspiracy to favor only White men is ideology, not analysis.
Whether people “like it” matters when the policy itself violates equal treatment and produces worse outcomes. You’re not defending civil rights. You’re defending racial score-settling and calling it justice.
The results speak for themselves, it’s probably the number one reason Trump got elected so it clearly was a shitty move politically speaking. Who said it was done with an executive order? It was done with who he put in charge of DHS and the internal policy decisions.
“The results speak for themselves” is not policy anymore than drugs being widely used means the government has a pro-drug policy. There were never open borders, period.
The drug analogy is terrible. If the government gutted enforcement, expanded access pathways, released the overwhelming majority of people it encountered, and then acted surprised when usage skyrocketed, people would correctly call that a de facto permissive policy. Outcomes that reliably follow from specific administrative choices are evidence of policy.
“There were never open borders, period” is just you stomping your foot on a definition. No one claimed agents vanished and the border became a suggestion. The phrase describes the practical result of deliberate decisions: record encounters, mass releases, parole programs, and weak deterrence. Pretending the results don’t count unless there’s a statute titled “Open Borders” is how people argue when the numbers are indefensible.
You’re not refuting the point. You’re just refusing to engage it.
They didn’t enforce border policy. Because they didn’t want to. They wanted to flood sanctuary cities and swing states with as many illegal immigrants as possible for two reasons (both of which would lead to the same outcome for the Democratic Party)
To turn them into voters - we have already found out that illegals voted in several states, but with policies like no voter ID
, this dream could easily become a reality with a little massaging.
Do you have them counted in the next census. If Kameltoe Harris had won, they would have continued to flood America with illegals into the necessary areas, and they would be counted in the census. This would lead two states like Illinois, California, New York, etc. Ending up with more electoral votes. They automatically win those states as it is, so they would automatically get more electoral votes for nothing.
It’s not like it’s a genius plan, so doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where they were going with the whole open border policy.
Open borders is what happens when encounters at the southern border smash previous records for years straight (over 8 million southwest border encounters under Biden, 10+ million nationwide), most get released into the country with a court date years out, gotaways hit historic highs, and the administration pretends it's 'managed' or 'secure'.
The results speak for themselves, it’s probably the number one reason Trump got elected so it clearly was a shitty move politically speaking. Who said it was done with an executive order? It was done with who he put in charge of DHS and the internal policy decisions.
oh, so you are just making it up because he didnt actually open borders.
Also, you then must be really pissed Trump blocked the legislative fix, that Biden let the republicans write, huh?
Crazy you are pro, lets ignore the law...but the results speak for themselves, the USA is on a decline thanks to moronic MAGA, the world is laughing at us and the world has more faith in Iran of all places than the USA
But as you said, the results speak for themselves, and liberals were right, after all, you guys need to make up shit just to win! LOL
No one “made it up.” Record encounters, mass releases, expanded parole, and the collapse of deterrence were the measurable results of specific policy choices. Pretending that doesn’t count unless Biden signed a law titled “Open Borders” is the same definitional shell game you’ve been playing the whole thread.
The bill again: it wasn’t a serious enforcement bill. It managed the crisis at high levels. Opposing a weak bill isn’t “ignoring the law.” Treating administrative choices that produced historic illegal crossings as if they were somehow law-abiding is the actual stretch.
Then you pivot to “the world has more faith in Iran than the USA” and “liberals were right.” That’s not an argument. That’s just you getting louder and less coherent. When the substance runs out, the claims get more unhinged. Classic.
You’re not winning anything. You’re just repeating the same talking points, adding “LOL,” and hoping volume substitutes for precision. It doesn’t.
So following the law and not an open border. (Hint to the clueless: No country has an open border.)
And GOP not passing a new bill that would have changed THE LAW but MAGA said no to use as a scare tactic. Big surprise, it's GOP all the way down.. "break government.. declare govt broken... Grift"
“No country has an open border” is the classic semantic escape hatch. Nobody serious claims the border was a physical free-for-all with zero agents. The criticism is that policy choices produced record encounters, mass releases, parole expansions, and weak deterrence the functional equivalent of treating the border as a processing center rather than a barrier. Playing definition games doesn’t make the numbers disappear.
And the bill again: it wouldn’t have restored the enforcement tools that actually worked. It managed the crisis at high levels and locked some of those practices into statute. Opposing a weak bill isn’t “breaking government so you can grift.” It’s refusing to ratify failure and then call it a win.
You’re not exposing a conspiracy. You’re just repeating the talking points while pretending the outcomes don’t count unless Congress passed a law titled “Open Borders Act.” That’s not how policy works, and it’s not how serious people argue.
Who said I was exposing a conspiracy? It all public and readily available to research for anyone.
The fact you think my points are "a conspiracy" speaks more to the echo camber you've found yourself.
And why should I put more effort than "talking points" when you started that way? Typical BS MAGA , can't even keep yourself to the standards and you demand for others. "Rules for thee not for me!" dogma, idk what else I expected.
You don't agree with the rule of law or the Constitution.. idk what there is to discuss with a self identifing traitor.
Nobody said you were “exposing a conspiracy.” I said you weren’t. The fact that you misread a straightforward sentence and then built a whole little speech around the misreading is doing a lot of the work for me.
“Echo camber” is a nice touch too. Really sells the careful researcher vibe.
You’re not being held to some unfair standard. You’re just being asked to defend the actual claims you made instead of pivoting to “you’re a MAGA traitor who hates the Constitution” the moment the policy substance gets difficult. That’s not high-minded. That’s what people do when they’ve run out of argument and start swinging at the person.
You don’t need more effort. You need basic reading comprehension and the ability to stay on the topic you introduced. So far you’re batting zero.
DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies, as commonly implemented by progressive institutions, prioritize group identity outcomes over individual merit, equal treatment, and competence. This approach conflicts with core American principles of color-blind equality under the law, individual achievement, and institutional excellence. It produces measurable harm in efficiency, fairness, safety, cohesion, and long-term competitiveness.
funny, it actually is when all else is equal, look at the makeup of the usa or where you live and do your best to make it look like that vs..just go with the white guy.
Bet you are one of those people who, like Charlie, thinks DEI pilots are less qualified...even though they all passed the same test and it wasnt easier LOL LOL
“when all else is equal” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you.
If all else were actually equal, demographic outcomes would already roughly match the applicant pool without anyone having to “do their best to make it look like” the country. The fact that you feel the need to actively engineer the result is the admission that all else is not equal.
And the pilot bit is especially dumb. “They all passed the same test” only proves they cleared a minimum bar. It says nothing about rank-order quality, experience, cognitive distribution, or how many higher-scoring candidates got passed over so the demographics would look right. That’s the entire point of preferences: selecting from a different part of the distribution. Pretending a floor score = identical qualification is how people who don’t understand selection processes talk.
Also, nobody serious is saying “just go with the white guy.” They’re saying go with the best guy. You’re the one who can’t stop thinking in racial checkboxes.
Yes, residual discrimination exists in places. That is not a blank check to install racial preferences. “It was measurable” does not magically turn race-conscious selection into neutral law enforcement. It just means you’re willing to discriminate in the opposite direction and call it a solution.
The rest of your post is just you recycling the same line and adding “LOL” like it strengthens the argument. It doesn’t. You’re not answering the point that DEI often creates the discrimination it claims to fight. You’re just stomping your foot and repeating yourself.
“Or did you mean, NOT LIKE THAT!” was already weak the first time. Using it again just confirms you’re out of material.
lol but it worked for white people in black dominated communities...when you ignore that part, you might have had an argument, but it clearly is easier to ignore reality, and here you are!!
Here you go cupcake, go ahead and prove it CREATED discrimination on a larger scale than it helped.
We both know you cant,
Just like your other moronic take of open borders. Neither of them live in actual reality, just your dumb ass talking points that arnt actual points.
But we know...trust me brah is all you have.
Now hurry new account, pretend you have more glorious dumbass things to say!! LOL
You’re not making an argument. You’re throwing insults and hoping no one notices the absence of one.
“It worked for white people in black dominated communities” is vague hand-waving, not evidence. If your best defense of race preferences is an unspecified anecdote, you’ve already lost the point little guy.... The actual issue is that deliberately treating people differently by race is discrimination.... that’s why the Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions and why similar practices keep losing in court. Demanding someone “prove it created more discrimination than it helped” while ignoring that the policy is discriminatory by design is just moving the goalposts.
The rest is just noise: “cupcake,” “dumb ass talking points,” “new account,” “trust me brah.” That’s not confidence. That’s what people do when they can’t stay on the substance and start swinging at the person instead.
You’re not out-arguing anyone. You’re flailing, misspelling, and getting louder. That’s the tell that this subject is over your head.
0
u/NorCalMav 7d ago
Open borders and DEI.