So we need to fix the border.

[BuilderBob6]

From your own 'Politifact' link.

• The Senate’s immigration bill gives the executive branch emergency authority to bar most migrants from seeking asylum if unauthorized immigration at the border reaches an average of 5,000 encounters a day during seven consecutive days.

How is this different from the link I posted?

Your link said we will allow 5000 immigrants per day. It doesn’t specify the nature of those 5000…….which MAGA idiots and elected officials immediately framed as 5k illegals coming into the country.

My link points out those are encounters. Not catch and release. Not “open borders”.

I’m not gonna do the same shit you always do. Read the damn bill for yourself. I’m not gonna answer questions or point out what’s in the bill to you because you’re too lazy or too afraid to read it.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Your link said we will allow 5000 immigrants per day. It doesn’t specify the nature of those 5000…….which MAGA idiots and elected officials immediately framed as 5k illegals coming into the country.

My link points out those are encounters. Not catch and release. Not “open borders”.

I’m not gonna do the same shit you always do. Read the damn bill for yourself. I’m not gonna answer questions or point out what’s in the bill to you because you’re too lazy or too afraid to read it.

It's his modus operandi:

1. Ignores the source material
2. Finds a link that supports his theory
3. Cherry-picks a few lines from the link he likes, often taken out of context
4. Draws his own conclusions
5. Asks a leading question
6. Gets asked again if he's read the source material
7. Responds with a question or two that is contrary to the source material
8. Get asked again to read the source material
9. Responds with a whattaboutism that includes a childish insulting nickname that he made up.
10. Responds by asking the poster who implored him to stay on point why they don't control another poster that has called him out because he cannot stay on point

Rinse and repeat in every thread.

*at times, he will skip directly to steps 8 & 9.*

 

[SKYDOG]

So you haven’t read the bill. You’ve been reading lies and don’t even GAF. Freakin idiots.

Your link is before the deal was finalized. It even SAYS they are leaked details.
Will you read these or just stay in your safe space of ignorance?

Immigration bill doesn’t let 5,000 people in illegally a day

A new Senate immigration bill allows the Biden administration to bar most migrants from seeking asylum if unauthorized i

www.politifact.com

New immigration bill would not allow 5,000 illegal crossings per day, despite what Trump says

What's become a popular talking point among conservative Republicans opposed to an emerging immigration bill is incorrect. Here's what it would do.

www.nbcnews.com

A whole lot of blabbering and nothing would change with the passage of the bill. Nothing!

 

[Riveting-]

Not semantics you idiot.

“Have the effect of law “. Means they must be carried out like the law. It doesn’t mean they remain the same from admin to admin……like a LAW does. That’s why border policy changes each time a new president is elected. New executive orders. The border bill will make new LAW, which the president has to execute and enforce.

Executive orders remain in effect under a new president until they are revoked by that president. Do you doubt that?

(You've added further hilarity to your post by saying "Means they must be carried out like the law" when you and everybody else knows Biden isn't "carrying out" our existing immigration laws.)

 

[Riveting-]

It's his modus operandi:

1. Ignores the source material
2. Finds a link that supports his theory

Bob found the link that supports my previous post. Pay attention.

Btw, are you hiding instead of replying about Lankford and the mean "commentator" who is destroying him?

 

[Riveting-]

That’s what happens when they indoctrinate themselves with Faux News. The network is trash. Been that way since January 20, 2009.

Uncle Bni, I am starting to think of you as a jack-in-the-box (or jackass-in-the-box) who predictably pops up with the same tired tune. Nothing original, just what you've been programmed with on the dem plantation.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

It's his modus operandi:

1. Ignores the source material
2. Finds a link that supports his theory
3. Cherry-picks a few lines from the link he likes, often taken out of context
4. Draws his own conclusions
5. Asks a leading question
6. Gets asked again if he's read the source material
7. Responds with a question or two that is contrary to the source material
8. Get asked again to read the source material
9. Responds with a whattaboutism that includes a childish insulting nickname that he made up.
10. Responds by asking the poster who implored him to stay on point why they don't control another poster that has called him out because he cannot stay on point

Rinse and repeat in every thread.

*at times, he will skip directly to steps 8 & 9.*

Bob found the link that supports my previous post. Pay attention.

Btw, are you hiding instead of replying about Lankford and the mean "commentator" who is destroying him?

So from the list I quoted above, your post:

• Starts with a #3/#4/#10 combo
• Finishes with a textbook #9!

Solid work, @Diverting. Solid work.

 

[tjreese]

How does that compare in your view with a deliberate open border policy in which drugs, women and children are trafficked into the US - as well as terrorists, as we are likely to find out first hand in the coming months.

None of us know if this is true, but based upon what we have seen it could be

 

[Riveting-]

So from the list I quoted above, your post:

• Starts with a #3/#4/#10 combo
• Finishes with a textbook #9!

Solid work, @Diverting. Solid work.

My post started with #2, which invalidated the rest of your gibberish.

For your own list, don't forget to include the item where you lie about something to support your argument, as in the A. Biden diary discussion. (And another item further down the list, where you refuse to admit you lied even though cannot prove otherwise.)

 

[HoosierfanJM]

For your own list, don't forget to include the item where you lie about something to support your argument, as in the A. Biden diary discussion. (And another item further down the list, where you refuse to admit you lied even though cannot prove otherwise.)

Another center-target #9!

“Whattabout Ashley Biden Hunter Biden Joe Crow Biden” may need to be reclassified as an entire new item, or at least a primary #9 subset.

Hahahahahaa

 

[Riveting-]

Hahahahahaa

You are in that large group of people who are easily amused.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

You are in that large group of people who are easily amused.

 

[BuilderBob6]

It's his modus operandi:

1. Ignores the source material
2. Finds a link that supports his theory
3. Cherry-picks a few lines from the link he likes, often taken out of context
4. Draws his own conclusions
5. Asks a leading question
6. Gets asked again if he's read the source material
7. Responds with a question or two that is contrary to the source material
8. Get asked again to read the source material
9. Responds with a whattaboutism that includes a childish insulting nickname that he made up.
10. Responds by asking the poster who implored him to stay on point why they don't control another poster that has called him out because he cannot stay on point

Rinse and repeat in every thread.

*at times, he will skip directly to steps 8 & 9.*

Solid list.
I would just add if you fail to answer one of said questions, subject will say you’re afraid to answer and hound you until you do………never coming to the realization you have an answer but are simply tired of the clown show.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Solid list.
I would just add if you fail to answer one of said questions, subject will say you’re afraid to answer and hound you until you do………never coming to the realization you have an answer but are simply tired of the clown show.

Oh yeah? Well what about Hunter Crow? Or are you afraid to tell me why you said Hunter Crow blahblahblah blah.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Executive orders remain in effect under a new president until they are revoked by that president. Do you doubt that?

(You've added further hilarity to your post by saying "Means they must be carried out like the law" when you and everybody else knows Biden isn't "carrying out" our existing immigration laws.)

I don’t doubt that. So what?

They’re not laws. You’re gonna ask 15 questions trying to squirm your way around that statement. I’m not gonna play because the facts speak for themselves.

Biden is carrying out the laws. And no, your previous post doesn’t change that.

When presidents establish new executive orders on border policy there are almost always lawsuits. Happened to Obama. To Trump. To Biden. Maybe you’ve heard?

Then….try to stay with me…….it goes to court. The courts then make a ruling based on THE LAW. The president is required to follow the ruling.
Congress is responsible for making LAW. The border bill will change the LAW. The president will be required to execute the LAW. If he decides to create an executive order on border policy, it will have to follow the LAW as determined by the courts.

 

[BoilerJS]

I don’t doubt that. So what?

They’re not laws. You’re gonna ask 15 questions trying to squirm your way around that statement. I’m not gonna play because the facts speak for themselves.

Biden is carrying out the laws. And no, your previous post doesn’t change that.

When presidents establish new executive orders on border policy there are almost always lawsuits. Happened to Obama. To Trump. To Biden. Maybe you’ve heard?

Then….try to stay with me…….it goes to court. The courts then make a ruling based on THE LAW. The president is required to follow the ruling.
Congress is responsible for making LAW. The border bill will change the LAW. The president will be required to execute the LAW. If he decides to create an executive order on border policy, it will have to follow the LAW as determined by the courts.

The President of the United States also takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the Unites States.

Article 4, Section 4, Protecting our Borders under the U.S. Constitution

[podbean resource=”episode=cite9-9cf5d4″ type=”audio-rectangle” height=”100″ skin=”2″ btn-skin=”104″ auto=”0″ share=”1″ fonts=”Helvetica” download=”1″ rtl=”0″] Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of...

danhappel.com

And Joe has a history, as POTUS, of not carrying out the law.
Ex, Student Loan Forgiveness. He is sticking his middle finger to the US Supreme Court.

 

[BuilderBob6]

The President of the United States also takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the Unites States.

Article 4, Section 4, Protecting our Borders under the U.S. Constitution

[podbean resource=”episode=cite9-9cf5d4″ type=”audio-rectangle” height=”100″ skin=”2″ btn-skin=”104″ auto=”0″ share=”1″ fonts=”Helvetica” download=”1″ rtl=”0″] Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of...

danhappel.com

And Joe has a history, as POTUS, of not carrying out the law.
Ex, Student Loan Forgiveness. He is sticking his middle finger to the US Supreme Court.

I never know wtf you’re talking about. I guess you’re drawing some specific conclusions that Joe is violating the constitution from some broad statements in it.

But if you want to go there, I can play that game.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

But he was just kidding.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

But he was just kidding.

HE WAS NOT KIDDING

Donaldo J Trump , aka F*ckface Von Clownstick, takes his insurrectioning very seriously.

.

 

[Riveting-]

I don’t doubt that. So what?

They’re not laws. You’re gonna ask 15 questions trying to squirm your way around that statement. I’m not gonna play because the facts speak for themselves.

It is too bad this forum does not have a real legal expert to comment, but as I said above, you are just playing with semantics - as reflected in this text from hhs.gov:

'Executive Orders state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch, and have the effect of law. '

Semantically, you are correct, and I know you will take it because you get kicked around so much on this board for your lib foolishness. But in terms of the discussion, an EO has the same effect as a law.

Btw, I hope this reply will serve as an example by which you can begin to learn how to respond in a civil manner to a simple disagreement, without the childish profanity and insults (but to your credit, no childish memes).

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Btw, I hope this reply will serve as an example by which you can begin to learn how to respond in a civil manner to a simple disagreement, without the childish profanity and insults (but to your credit, no childish memes).

 

[Joetboiler]

Consolidate and condense some federal agencies?
100 percent agree.

Rather than do that in a chaotic flurry, the best way to do that is through consolidation and attrition.

You may think "fire everyone in the Social Security Administration and start over!" until your check doesn't arrive and there's no one that knows how the hell to get it to you.

You may think "Eliminate the Department of Energy" until there's an accident at a nuclear power plant near you because regular inspections weren't performed.

Lots of people think that some government agencies can be eliminated; not many want the duties that those agencies perform to be eliminated.

Of all the examples you chose "nuclear power."? The Agency that had a high-ranking guy in lip stick who openly mocked Christians and posted sexual content stealing women's luggage at airports? Do you know the background of that guy? Do you think he was the most qualified person in America to run the Agency responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste? And since you are a rule of law guy, i think that may have been a federal offense since it was at an airport. He did it several times. Is he in jail?

 

[Joetboiler]

The theoretical BS discussion above was how to reduce the Govt Agencies knowing that they are Unionized. Thus a relevant question is ....

Guess which states underperforming teachers are harder to fire, union or non-union?

In Illinois its legalized money laundering. AFSCME and SEIU campaign for the democrat pols and throw cash at them. The same elected pols who were assisted by the union bosses and their members THEN negotiate the contracts. The pols give them raises and more benefits. Bosses collect the increased dues. And then funnel more cash into the campaigns of the people who negotiate "against" them.

In what world would you ever think it as sane to allow the benefactor of a contract negotiation the ability provide favors and money to the opposition?. The elected official is supposed to represent and protect the tax payer. Not the union worker. Of course Pat Quinn gave them a huge pay increase. its not his money. Its the tax payer. He's just using it to buy campaign donations and campaign volunteers. Now Illinois residents will pay for this money laundering forever.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/politi...illion-in-seiu-donations-rauner-gets-ima-cash

Democrats are so concerned with campaign finance and how companies should be reigned in but never mention anything about fixing the obvious issues with public employee unions.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Of all the examples you chose "nuclear power."? The Agency that had a high-ranking guy in lip stick who openly mocked Christians and posted sexual content stealing women's luggage at airports? Do you know the background of that guy? Do you think he was the most qualified person in America to run the Agency responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste? And since you are a rule of law guy, i think that may have been a federal offense since it was at an airport. He did it several times. Is he in jail?

Terrible TERRIBLE choice to lead any organizational unit.

Stole luggage? For anyone that would not be a jail sentence so I suspect not in jail. I’ll let the courts have that one to stick him with a (likely misdemeanor) conviction.

 

[Joetboiler]

Mar A Lago does not need Abbott. They recruit:

"Mar-a-Lago relies on foreign nationals to work as servers, cooks and housekeepers. In 2016, the club sought 65 foreign workers. The figure has increased every year since, with the exception of 2020, when the club shut down in the early days of the pandemic and furloughed more than 150 employees."

Forbes.com Jun 14, 2023

Forbes.com Mar-A-Lago Sought 380 Foreign Workers While Trump Had Classified Documents There ...​

https://americanjournalnews.com/trump-turned-down-americans-to-hire-foreign-workers-at-mar-a-lago/

And as we all know, temporary visa overstays are the largest source of illegal immigrants in the U.S.; more than border crossings.

You need to stop repeating this line from 25 years ago that got pushed by some pro illegal-immigration group. The government publishes this data. You know that right? And people like you who say this are either ill-informed, gullible, or intentionally misleading. A large portion of these overstays are people extending for a short term. Like the girls i knew in Chicago from Ireland who stayed a couple extra months working at their friend's bar. Or people spending extra time with family. Very few stay here for life. But you know what? They got a Visa. We vetted them. They are traceable. You think that somebody on a student visa poses the same risk as somebody with zero documentation crossing the southern border, gives a fake name and disappears into the country? No offense, but nobody with a brain thinks some girls from Spain on a student visa who overstays to hang out with some friends at their parents over summer poses the same risks as thousands of military-aged single men evading CBP apprehension.

Here is an article that summarizes with links to govt. data. https://www.abc15.com/news/state/the-immigration-problem-that-no-one-is-talking-about

The crib notes.

“In fiscal year 2022, about 3.7% of all the aliens who entered the United States, what we call non-immigrants — it's with temporary visas, student visas, business visas — didn't leave or didn't leave when they were supposed to,” Arthur said, citing the latest data released in June from the Department of Homeland Security.

That same year, about 11 million unauthorized people were living in the United States, approximately 40% of which were visa overstays. (is 60% more than 40%??)
While Bier acknowledges visa overstays are a problem, he also adds that the majority of people go back home.

 

[Joetboiler]

So you haven’t read the bill. You’ve been reading lies and don’t even GAF. Freakin idiots.

Your link is before the deal was finalized. It even SAYS they are leaked details.
Will you read these or just stay in your safe space of ignorance?

Immigration bill doesn’t let 5,000 people in illegally a day

A new Senate immigration bill allows the Biden administration to bar most migrants from seeking asylum if unauthorized i

www.politifact.com

New immigration bill would not allow 5,000 illegal crossings per day, despite what Trump says

What's become a popular talking point among conservative Republicans opposed to an emerging immigration bill is incorrect. Here's what it would do.

www.nbcnews.com

First. I highly doubt you read the bill, let alone the summary as you are "The Captain Cut-n-Paste." But you and Politifact are playing semantics. The argument is not that it authorizes up to 5,000 per day to come. The argument is that the enforcement authority does not kick in until the 5,000 per day apprehension total (saying nothing about got-aways). And why is it bad? Because the Executive Branch already has broad authority to close the border and expel non-citizens. This is granted largely in Title 8. See if you find anything Biden could be using to fix the border issue? I can.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml...)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

So if you are smart you realize that this legislation would amend current authority already granted the EB, and in fact could be used to limit and obstruct a President who wanted to say, immediately close the border. Maybe that's the real intention - to codify a permanent open border. If Trump was President today he could invoke sections of Title 8 - but maybe not in the future if you get your way because you know, the Executive Branch now needs the 5k moving average as the national emergency is now codified as 5,000 or more per day.

What is interesting if your read Title 8 is the President currently has the authority to expel anyone committing a criminal act. We have on film several migrants beating up 2 cops. Yet here they still are. Has Biden or KJP even issued a statement re: this? Even simply prayers for the cops recovery? But I'm still awaiting the apologies to the agents accused of whipping the Haitians.

Oh, and please stop saying the Rs don't want to solve the border issue. HR2 (which means it was like the second bill of the most recent congress) is a BORDER SECURITY bill and has sat since May 2023. If Biden wants to pass a strict border security bill he could tell Schummer to bring it to vote tomorrow and sign. Oh, you didn't know the House passed a border security bill 9 months ago?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2 What do you disagree with in HR2?

 

[mediaexpert]

Not semantics you idiot.

“Have the effect of law “. Means they must be carried out like the law. It doesn’t mean they remain the same from admin to admin……like a LAW does. That’s why border policy changes each time a new president is elected. New executive orders. The border bill will make new LAW, which the president has to execute and enforce.

I wouldn’t expect a MAGA hayseed at a trump rally to understand. A college graduate, I would.

Now change the subject.

The point you are not willing to concede is that Trump finally made the border secure. And Biden changed what Trump had done and made it a disaster.

The conclusion is that either Biden is a village idiot or he is a parrot of the Globalist Corporations. And my theory is that Biden is a parrot of the Military Industrial Complex. And it seems that Biden is indebted to both China and Ukraine by his actions.

I won't say Biden is the worst President, but he is in the ring of dishonor with Bush and Obama.

 

[Joetboiler]

Terrible TERRIBLE choice to lead any organizational unit.

Stole luggage? For anyone that would not be a jail sentence so I suspect not in jail. I’ll let the courts have that one to stick him with a (likely misdemeanor) conviction.

um yeah. They were federal felony charges. Multiple incidents of Grand larceny at an airport. I think there may have been a third. But he got lucky because Garland took the case from local authorities and now our political appointee walks. You, me, or somebody nobody steal thousands in luggage from an airport and see what the courts do with that one.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bid...ra-bradley-suitcase-from-airport-2022-11?op=1

https://news.yahoo.com/non-binary-biden-official-charged-142747038.html

 

[HoosierfanJM]

um yeah. They were federal felony charges. Multiple incidents of Grand larceny at an airport. I think there may have been a third. But he got lucky because Garland took the case from local authorities and now our political appointee walks. You, me, or somebody nobody steal thousands in luggage from an airport and see what the courts do with that one.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bid...ra-bradley-suitcase-from-airport-2022-11?op=1

https://news.yahoo.com/non-binary-biden-official-charged-142747038.html

A $2,350 theft? I suppose once it's past gate security it can be federalized. Under the federal sentencing guidelines a $2,350 theft will get you...no jail time whatsoever, other than the few hours in lockup prior to appearing before the magistrate. In local/state court? A $2,350 theft will get you no jail time whatsoever, except the detention prior to initial appearance.

The felony maximum has nothing in common with the actual sentence in federal or state/local court. I'm guessing you understand that, but I question whether the general public does. The media reports the maximum listed sentence, which does not equate with reality. Then the media expresses shock that there was not a prison sentence for an under $5,000 crime.

Btw, try to get your local police to investigate or prosecute a $5,000 fraud committed by someone who is not famous and a media talking point. Or get the feds to prosecute a straight fraud under $250,000. There just aren't enough resources to address all of the lower dollar crimes out there.

On the bright side; this guy/gal was in a leadership position and is clearly a scumbag, so prosecuting, exposing, and removing from the position is an excellent outcome. In this case those are heavy and necessary consequences.

 

[bonefish1]

Quit ignoring me Bob....
What policy of Trump's do you fear most?

 

[Riveting-]

On the bright side; this guy/gal was in a leadership position and is clearly a scumbag, so prosecuting, exposing, and removing from the position is an excellent outcome. In this case those are heavy and necessary consequences.

Harsh words for the 2022 Young Dem of the Year.

Libs like you celebrated 'them'.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Harsh words for the 2022 Young Dem of the Year.

Libs like you celebrated 'them'.

The administration official is clearly a scumbag and unqualified for most any responsibility. And it's just that simple.

But good lord you love your false narratives, labeling, and name calling. GO AHEAD... LINK any 'liberalism" that I have professed. I am:

• Pro-law enforcement,
• pro-rule of law,
• pro-honest government,
• anti-government intrusion,
• anti-government overspending,
• pro-democracy,
• pro-evidence instead of assumptions, and
• pro-leadership with integrity and principles.

I think those are bedrock American principles, and the foundation of bedrock conservative principles. That's where I stand.

If you think those are liberal attributes? Shame on you; you have drowned in your Trump Kool-Aid.

 

[Riveting-]

The administration official is clearly a scumbag and unqualified for most any responsibility. And it's just that simple.

But good lord you love your false narratives, labeling, and name calling. GO AHEAD... LINK any 'liberalism" that I have professed. I am:

• Pro-law enforcement,
• pro-rule of law,
• pro-honest government,
• anti-government intrusion,
• anti-government overspending,
• pro-democracy,
• pro-evidence instead of assumptions, and
• pro-leadership with integrity and principles.

I think those are bedrock American principles, and the foundation of bedrock conservative principles. That's where I stand.

If you think those are liberal attributes? Shame on you; you have drowned in your Trump Kool-Aid.

You support using the legal system to keep Trump off the Nov. ballot.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

You support using the legal system to keep Trump off the Nov. ballot.

No, not if you're talking "Colorado-style." And that's not a liberal or conservative thing; that's a government overreach situation. While I was curious about how the Colorado and Maine State legislatures created a standard that could allow for his removal, 'm generally for the ballot box handling things like that. If it's my choice to make? The Supreme Court rules that yes, those state legislatures enabled yanking Trump from the ballot, but that legislation is unconstitutional.

I think that if scumbag Trump gets a speedy trial, a jury is reasonably likely to find him guilty of a ton of felonies, and that by November he'll be a convicted felon. The ballot box should respond accordingly.

If I got a Manchin/Romney ticket? That would be the most conservative, highest integrity, youngest (!) choice.

 

[Riveting-]

And you voted for Joe Crow-Robinette Biden in 2020.

 

[Riveting-]

I think that if scumbag Trump gets a speedy trial, a jury is reasonably likely to find him guilty of a ton of felonies, and that by November he'll be a convicted felon. The ballot box should respond accordingly.

You support using the legal system to hurt Trump's chances of winning the election.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

And you voted for Joe Crow-Robinette Biden in 2020.

It was a binary choice.

I prefer a

1. Doddering old tax and spend fool who generally believes in democracy and the rule of law to
2. A crazy old fool who has destroyed culture of civility and respect for foundational institutions, and wants to sledgehammer basic trust in good government for his own narcissistic visions of dictatorship.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

You support using the legal system to hurt Trump's chances of winning the election.

No.

I support the legal system addressing actions if/when a politician is lawfully charged.

That hurts his chances of getting elected? Well no shit!
Sen. Melendez in New Jersey, George Santos, Anthony Weiner, Corrine Brown, Duncan Hunter -- you name them; being charged with crimes has election consequences.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Harsh words for the 2022 Young Dem of the Year.

Libs like you celebrated 'them'.

Still waiting for you to link or quote my "liberal" post(s).

Not my 'Donnie Trump is a scumbag' posts -- my liberal ones. Keep trying; that should keep you occupied indefinitely.

 

[Riveting-]

It was a binary choice.

I prefer a

1. Doddering old tax and spend fool who generally believes in democracy and the rule of law to

There it is in your own words: tax and spend.

 

[Riveting-]

Still waiting for you to link or quote my "liberal" post(s).

Not my 'Donnie Trump is a scumbag' posts -- my liberal ones. Keep trying; that should keep you occupied indefinitely.

I just did. "Tax and spend."