14 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Yeah and more than JD vance and the Coward Trump too. 

ripping the mount of deployments vs bone spurs & hot dogs as dil does in college. 

 

omg, i LOVE this place!!!!!!! 

Both parties have contributed to letting this get out of control going back to Reagan granting amnesty. 

 

These aren't people with families looking for a better place. There is no reason when they were caught to release them back into the population. Biden has the planes running the wrong direction. Both parties have screwed this up and something has to change because it's out of control now. We can't even house them and Denver had tent cities. 

12 hours ago, Procus said:

Tulsi Gabbard ran on a platform of medicare for all and taking your guns. Watching you morons drool over her will never not be funny. 

12 hours ago, Procus said:

In their 2018 paid letter to the West Central Tribune, when Walz was running for governor, the two Minnesota National Guard retired command sergeants major who criticized Walz for retiring before the Iraq deployment also wrote: "Yes, he served at that rank, but was never qualified at that rank, and will receive retirement benefits at one rank below. You be the judge.”

 

Dumb questions:

1) How long was he at that rank?

2) If it was for a short period of time, like a year or less, follow up question:  Are military retirement benefits structured the same way?  Reason I ask is my brother in law retired from the Air Force after 23 years.  He was a master sergeant for a good portion of it and at the very end he became a senior master sergeant.  Not too long after he retired.  He said that if he held the rank of senior master sergeant for (5?) years his retirement benefits would be for that rank.  But it sounds like he is getting master sergeant benefits plus a slight bump since he held senior master sergeant for only one year.

 

Edit:  Nevermind.  I found the answer:

Quote

Though he was serving as a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement, Walz's final military rank for retirement benefit purposes is master sergeant, as he had not completed the required academic coursework to remain a command sergeant major before his retirement.

 

1 minute ago, paco said:

Dumb questions:

1) How long was he at that rank?

2) If it was for a short period of time, like a year or less, follow up question:  Are military retirement benefits structured the same way?  Reason I ask is my brother in law retired from the airforce after 23 years.  He was a master sergeant for a good portion of it and at the very end he became a senior master sergeant.  Not too long after he retired.  He said that if he held the rank of senior master sergeant for (5?) years his retirement benefits would be for that rank.  But it sounds like he is getting master sergeant benefits plus a slight bump since he held senior master sergeant for only one year.

You pretty much nailed it with the 2nd paragraph. 

14 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

a crime happens in a "Democratic" city

"Venezuelan gangs commit crimes" 

Come on dude. You're being manipulated.

Governor says it's fake news and isn't happening.

CBS must be in on the conspiracy running stories showing the gaslighting going on, so yeah there is manipulation you are right.

 

 

She's just openly against free speech and liberals love it.  

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Procus said:

 

btw - what do you have to say to the fact that trump admitted he lost the 2020 election, by a whisker?

 

care to retrack everything you've said on the matter over the last four years, or do you wish to continue pushing a false narrative? 

13 minutes ago, Procus said:

 

There is no crime being committed by illegals. Stop being manipulated. 

Well, crime happens all the time. It's no big deal. 

Not buying the first two attempts? OK, it's the GOP's fault. 

18 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

There is no crime being committed by illegals. Stop being manipulated. 

Well, crime happens all the time. It's no big deal. 

Not buying the first two attempts? OK, it's the GOP's fault. 

why did trump kill the bipartisan border bill? seems like it would've been a big step in the right direction. i don't know anyone in favor of violent crime committed by illegals. do you? 

8 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

why did trump kill the bipartisan border bill? seems like it would've been a big step in the right direction. i don't know anyone in favor of violent crime committed by illegals. do you? 

The fine print sucked with things like removing immigration judges from the process and allowing asylum officers to make the choices. It also didn't address the pull factors like being released into the US like the people above. On top of that, Trump didn't want it in an election year. It was a stunt by both sides. Dems wanted it off the table because they knew they'd be hammered by it and Trump wanted to be able to talk about it. 

In favor of it? No. Support it by allowing people to be released and setting up sanctuaries in former beautiful cities like Denver where tents cluttered the streets and they protested for better food and living conditions? Yeah.  

Both parties have failed us, but that doesn't change the fact it can't continue. 

Have to say I'm glad both parties agreed to muting the mic. It just helps the debate go smoother

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

Governor says it's fake news and isn't happening.

CBS must be in on the conspiracy running stories showing the gaslighting going on, so yeah there is manipulation you are right.

 

Sounds like local law enforcement is failing to properly do its job. Just because they are a "Venezuelan gang" does not make them immune from arrest and prosecution. If they know this is going on and aren't doing anything about it, I would say it's on them. 

Just now, Gannan said:

Sounds like local law enforcement is failing to properly do its job. Just because they are a "Venezuelan gang" does not make them immune from arrest and prosecution. If they know this is going on and aren't doing anything about it, I would say it's on them. 

Agree with you. They said it wasn't happening along with the gov a few days ago. 

4 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

The fine print sucked with things like removing immigration judges from the process and allowing asylum officers to make the choices. It also didn't address the pull factors like being released into the US like the people above. On top of that, Trump didn't want it in an election year. It was a stunt by both sides. Dems wanted it off the table because they knew they'd be hammered by it and Trump wanted to be able to talk about it. 

 

trump didn't want it in an election year is the correct answer. he wasn't looking at fine print. it was bipartisan...primarily written by a conservative republican. but both sides, i guess. 

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Agree with you. They said it wasn't happening along with the gov a few days ago. 

The people who live in the apartment complex in Aurora have said it is a made up story by the landlord. That the real issue is the landlord refuses to fix massive problems and is blaming the "gang takeover" for why they can't go to the property.

 

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

She's just openly against free speech and liberals love it.  

 

 

Yep. Sounds good to me. Trump has already said the president can take over media outlets that he perceives to be unfair, and you cheered for it. So I don't see the problem. If she's the president, she can do what she wants. Enemy of the people!

Anyone who doesn't start the discussion on fixing the immigration issue with addressing our asylum laws isn't a serious person. People scream about illegal immigrants, but our insane asylum laws allow anyone to seek asylum protection and have their case determined. Given our massive backlog, these cases languish for years. The truth is someone who has applied for asylum is not an illegal immigrant -- they are an asylum seeker.

The bipartisan bill at least attempted to address this:

Quote

 

It would overhaul the process for seeking asylum in the United States—and impose an "emergency authority” that would leave asylum fully out of reach for those crossing between ports of entry for much of the next three years. It would attempt to address issues like work permits and years-long waits for asylum seekers, and also raise the initial standard a person must pass in order to access our asylum system.

The bill raises the standard for being able to claim asylum as decided at the initial screening interview stage when an asylum officer determines whether an individual can progress to making an asylum claim. Instead of being required to establish a "significant possibility” that their asylum claim would prevail, asylum seekers would need to establish a "reasonable possibility,” which is a higher bar to meet. This standard is already used for other forms of humanitarian relief, in what’s known as a "reasonable fear interview.” In 2023, 65 percent of people passed their "credible fear interviews” for asylum, while 44 percent passed "reasonable fear interviews” subject to the "reasonable possibility” standard.

The bill would add a new bar to asylum if there are "reasonable grounds for concluding” that a person could avoid persecution by moving to another location in their country of nationality, or if they have no nationality, by moving to another location in their country of "last habitual residence.” While a version of this bar is currently in place under federal regulation and case law, this would enshrine a single version of it in statute. 

The bill requires asylum officers to consider certain potential bars to asylum at the screening interview stage, giving the asylum seeker less time to prepare evidence to counter them. Currently, these bars are assessed as part of the asylum claim itself. However, the bill does not require the asylum officer to conclude that the person is ineligible for asylum as a result at this stage. 

 

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/analysis-senate-border-bill

Would I prefer more sweeping changes? Yes. But at least there was an attempt to tighten the asylum laws here. 

 

12 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The people who live in the apartment complex in Aurora have said it is a made up story by the landlord. That the real issue is the landlord refuses to fix massive problems and is blaming the "gang takeover" for why they can't go to the property.

What explains the videos then? The landlord hire them? The mayor has also said it's real

CBS also ran the story so it wasn't an X post

 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

The truth is someone who has applied for asylum is not an illegal immigrant -- they are an asylum seeker. Hannibal Lecter.

fyp

Just now, Diehardfan said:

What explains the videos then? The landlord hire them? 

sigh

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/03/aurora-colorado-apartment-gang-police/75013215007/