ThreePointTakedown

Questions on asylum, first, yes, if they claim asylum they have arrived here LEGALLY. Does 'legal' mean 'citizen'? No. The legal process has begun so they are allowed to stay if they meet certain criteria and meet certain benchmarks. Wouldn't they be "un-legal" until they are determined to infact be "refugees"?? Is it the legal process? Yes. As I said before. You trying to rationalize it to keep using the term or avoid using a more appropriate term leads me to believe you don't want to for some reason. What reason could that be? Percentage: I can't seem to find a solid number but I did find that 40% of asylum seekers have been granted entry out of 700,000 cases since 2000. Which is not many, if we are to think millions upon millions have entered illegally in just the last few years. Which is also a stat I have not found a credible source for. Have you? I have not found a number either...my point was it appears as an easy way out to come here by just simply claiming asylum. I never claimed millions and millions have entered here illegally. I claim that to many come here illegally. There is a vetting process. Its filing for asylum. That is the process. Of course there is....do you know the process? Disproven or not proven enough. Supposedly about 60% of the time it can. These questions seem to highlight a lack of preparedness on your part. Did you even try looking for information on this topic or did you just latch onto the first bit of negative propaganda that was fed to you? Cuz the hook suck deep, in that case. I'm playing your game here...you like to ask a lot of questions that you don't take the time to look up...this is "fun" isn't it. Lets continue. The word 'illegal' if used in certain ways is racist. But lets move beyond that, its the wrong usage and you should be interested in that. There are several groups you are referring to and they should have different labels. Some are illegal immigrants, they are people and should be thought of as such. The other are asylum seeking immigrants or to use another word refugees. If you cared, which it seems as though you don't, you would work to differentiate them in your vernacular. If for no other reason than to not sound, at best ignorant, or at worst, racist. How is calling someone who comes into our country "illegal" racist or ignorant?? It is literally what they are if they don't come here and do what is expected in terms of being vetted and let into the country. How is this concept so hard to understand and why are you searching for the boogeyman in it?? Is it more racists to try and twist a word into being racist versus using a word as it's literal meaning? I've just explained it to you how you are incorrect. Some arrive and make there way through the legal process. But you still referr to them all with the same term. That is ignorant. If its racist is a little more complicated. Only you can answer that. But the more you use the wrong term on purpose, lends credence to the level of racism of you using it. I won't repeat the words of bigot/president but they were because 45 is a bigot and a racist. We all heard they utter the nickname of the virus. They said it multiple times. It is racist. No proof is required. Again, you won't repeat what he said because you don't have any examplesthat logic doesn't follow, please explain? THE RACIST NAME(npr article) of actual racist things he said other than what he called the virus. How have virus' been described in the past...that's right by where they were originated at...are all of those now racist?? Give me a break. Does the Trump say stupid things...absolutely...would never defend him on those things, but to say he is a bigot and racist is, as you describe it, is "ignorant at best". 'Illegal' until vetted: answered above. 'Unempathetic' without vetting first: It is. Analogy: if your neighbor's house is on fire you don't quibble about the cost of your garden hose. We trust them that they feel they were/are in danger. That's what friends do. Does it turn out not to be the case sometimes? Yes. But to lump everyone together as 'illegals' is to quote you, 'unempathetic' Have no idea how your analogy relates to anything. People that come here illegally are illegals...period...that has nothing to do with being empathetic to those trying to come here. I am empathetic to those people when they follow the law and do things the way they are supposed to in order to come here. Are they people? Are they human? Feel bad because of a word: I haven't. Nor should I need to considering my response above. I'm sure they don't care. But conversing with someone that purports to take the topic seriously. You should be interested in communicating more effectively, your points. Proper, or at least agreed upon, nomenclature would help. This sentence says it all "I'm sure they don't care." My point is made...the rest is just babble. What I read from this is, "i am wrong, I know I'm wrong, its a degrading term to people whose feelings I don't care about, but I'll keep saying it anyway because no one tells me what to do.' You're just a sad person, if that is the case. 'Quasi-isolationist': is what America First means. It was coined before ww2 when we didn't want to stop Germany from taking over Europe. A group was started to try to influence the country to stay out of ww2. Not a great slogan or opinion to resurrect. But that's par for the course of a party with no new ideas. LOL...then why did you resurrect it?? Sorry, conservatives and 45 specifically brought it back recently. I'm just reminding you how harmful it has been in the past. Considering the topic we are conversing about, it seems as if they are interested in doing the same things that happened preWW2. Which were cruel and wrong because they were racist. Woodrow Wilson, who coined the phrase, was a racist. Probably shouldn't make things so easy. Wrong with America First: see above. Make America First: Watch the Newroom. We are not first. Have never been first. I personally don't want us to be first. America is first at just three things: incarcerated prisoners per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending. So you don't want to make America better...got it. Seeing as those words never appeared in this paragraph. Was your incorrect interpretation based on your maliciousness or stupidity? Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states:[1] Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Immigration makes/made America a great country: sure, I can get behind that. Those immigrants were rarely treated/received well. Likely do to similar conversations happening at the time of their arrivals: Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Asian, Latin, African. People here, didn't want them because they were convinced that the new people would 'steal' what they had to fight for. Does that ever really happen? No. And your point is?? Thanks for repeating history...our history is what it is and clearly wasn't the best at times. We learn from it and try and do better...better than most counties in that regard. So yes immigration is one of the things that has and does make America a great country...I am for immigrants doing it legally. Point: you are engaging in xenophobic rhetoric that your 'legal' immigrant relatives had to deal with when they came to this country. Which probably but almost definitely made their lives harder and more dangerous. 45 was against people coming here legally. Lots of people that worked in the administration only wanted certain people to be allowed to come here. That's racist. On here, seeing as you conflate the legal entry process with the illegal entry process, either on accident or on purpose, you do. Since I know you can't provide actual evidence, this is absolutely false and pretty much discredits a lot of the things you say. It is hyperbole, and has no basis in facts or reality. Like I said I don't like the guy but this is utter nonsense. 45 Travel ban. And Steven Miller. Firstly, borders are imaginary lines. There are no borders. Help people make a better life. We do that, we all win. LOL..."imaginary lines" Are borders permanent? 'Fragile mind': honestly, is this your way of dismissing my opinions and critiques of your behavior so you don't have to take them seriously? Using 'illegals' in the way that you have done in the past is a way of Otherizing people. This is the thing you may be looking for as to what makes us the best. Because the United States is great at otherizing people. We did it with Native Americans to rationalize stealing their land for gold, oil, ore, or just the land for the land's sake. The Irish when they came over during a famine. Italians when they came over. Africans, when they... really ever since they were brought here or came over. We make enemies from 'different' people really well. Its dangerous and wrong and your rhetoric only adds to it. So either out of ignorance or on purpose you are leading to the endangerment of a group of people because you don't care enough to look at them as humans first. If the opposite of that is a 'fragile mind'. SIGN. ME. UP! Asking if you have a fragile mind and then you reply with this, which clearly shows you do. It's okay...glad you admit it...that is the first step. You're a horrible human being. But you're still a human being. I feel sorry for you and I cannot share your feelings about this situation. So I have a hard time feeling empathetic with you. I hope you change your opinions. Putting down the need to be so toxic would be a great first step. I'm happy, over joyed, that you think I am fragile minded because of these opinions. Makes me feel better and more secure that I am on the right side of history. That was fun. We should do it more often. If you've read this far, I challenge you to answer all of my questions that you decided not to with your first response. I look forward to reading them or your (less than)clever way of dodging the opportunity. Take a second or third swing at this one too .

Less than artful dodge. We both no you have nothing. So lets just leave it at that. You are a liar or a coward or both and you just don't want to embarrass yourself further. I get it. Thoughts and... well those other things don't work any way. So how about neither. Cheerrio.

Nope, all or none. That just gave you an easy out. You can slink away now. Coward!

Yes. She's great. Glad we both agree.

Seriously. This is what you're so afraid of. Someone was given a form? Someone got something delivered in the mail that wasn't intended for them? Did they fill them out? Were they mailed/delivered back? Were they entered into the system? Did the system flag them for not qualifying to vote? Y'all love making mountains out of mole hills when it suits you. Show me the finish line? Show me where this has actually happened instead of just a hint, of whisper, of a rumor. You have nothing. And the NY Post of all places. Is not reputable at all. Siting no sources of the info and quoting(not for the story specifically but to keep you clutching your pearls) CHIP 'em effin' ROY of all people. Could you scrape any more wood from the bottom of that barrel. Please for the love of Roland, get better sources. We talk all about 'vetting immigrants'. Vet your sources of information for reliability. Not just that they say the thing that you believe, just louder. Its embarrassing.

Questions on asylum, first, yes, if they claim asylum they have arrived here LEGALLY. Does 'legal' mean 'citizen'? No. The legal process has begun so they are allowed to stay if they meet certain criteria and meet certain benchmarks. Percentage: I can't seem to find a solid number but I did find that 40% of asylum seekers have been granted entry out of 700,000 cases since 2000. Which is not many, if we are to think millions upon millions have entered illegally in just the last few years. Which is also a stat I have not found a credible source for. Have you? There is a vetting process. Its filing for asylum. That is the process. Disproven or not proven enough. Supposedly about 60% of the time it can. These questions seem to highlight a lack of preparedness on your part. Did you even try looking for information on this topic or did you just latch onto the first bit of negative propaganda that was fed to you? Cuz the hook suck deep, in that case. Lets continue. The word 'illegal' if used in certain ways is racist. But lets move beyond that, its the wrong usage and you should be interested in that. There are several groups you are referring to and they should have different labels. Some are illegal immigrants, they are people and should be thought of as such. The other are asylum seeking immigrants or to use another word refugees. If you cared, which it seems as though you don't, you would work to differentiate them in your vernacular. If for no other reason than to not sound, at best ignorant, or at worst, racist. I won't repeat the words of bigot/president but they were because 45 is a bigot and a racist. We all heard they utter the nickname of the virus. They said it multiple times. It is racist. No proof is required. 'Illegal' until vetted: answered above. 'Unempathetic' without vetting first: It is. Analogy: if your neighbor's house is on fire you don't quibble about the cost of your garden hose. We trust them that they feel they were/are in danger. That's what friends do. Does it turn out not to be the case sometimes? Yes. But to lump everyone together as 'illegals' is to quote you, 'unempathetic' Feel bad because of a word: I haven't. Nor should I need to considering my response above. I'm sure they don't care. But conversing with someone that purports to take the topic seriously. You should be interested in communicating more effectively, your points. Proper, or at least agreed upon, nomenclature would help. 'Quasi-isolationist': is what America First means. It was coined before ww2 when we didn't want to stop Germany from taking over Europe. A group was started to try to influence the country to stay out of ww2. Not a great slogan or opinion to resurrect. But that's par for the course of a party with no new ideas. Wrong with America First: see above. Make America First: Watch the Newroom. We are not first. Have never been first. I personally don't want us to be first. America is first at just three things: incarcerated prisoners per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending. Immigration makes/made America a great country: sure, I can get behind that. Those immigrants were rarely treated/received well. Likely do to similar conversations happening at the time of their arrivals: Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Asian, Latin, African. People here, didn't want them because they were convinced that the new people would 'steal' what they had to fight for. Does that ever really happen? No. 45 was against people coming here legally. Lots of people that worked in the administration only wanted certain people to be allowed to come here. That's racist. On here, seeing as you conflate the legal entry process with the illegal entry process, either on accident or on purpose, you do. Firstly, borders are imaginary lines. There are no borders. Help people make a better life. We do that, we all win. 'Fragile mind': honestly, is this your way of dismissing my opinions and critiques of your behavior so you don't have to take them seriously? Using 'illegals' in the way that you have done in the past is a way of Otherizing people. This is the thing you may be looking for as to what makes us the best. Because the United States is great at otherizing people. We did it with Native Americans to rationalize stealing their land for gold, oil, ore, or just the land for the land's sake. The Irish when they came over during a famine. Italians when they came over. Africans, when they... really ever since they were brought here or came over. We make enemies from 'different' people really well. Its dangerous and wrong and your rhetoric only adds to it. So either out of ignorance or on purpose you are leading to the endangerment of a group of people because you don't care enough to look at them as humans first. If the opposite of that is a 'fragile mind'. SIGN. ME. UP! That was fun. We should do it more often. If you've read this far, I challenge you to answer all of my questions that you decided not to with your first response. I look forward to reading them or your (less than)clever way of dodging the opportunity.

And any decent person would set me straight with facts if they had them available. I guess you don't. Pity. Another one bites the dust. That was quick. Who's next?

Sorry, didn't mean 'pet project' as a dig. Just that people prioritize things differently. Have you looked at the polls? Who has put them on? Are you fluent in reading and breaking down polls? If not, who do you trust as a source? Just for clarification it doesn't use the word 'illegals' why do you? The word is 'encounters'. This could be from legal, asylum seeking people, right? Do you feel it is not 'legal' for someone to cross the border to seek asylum, if so, why is that? Or from people that do not plan to seek asylum. Why keep using that word, one is legal and one is illegal. Those groups are not the same. The executive branch is in charge of the border. Congress passes the laws but the executive appoints the head of the departments. Do you feel that is wrong? How would you fix it? Should all things flow through congress, would that be a more efficient way of proceeding on the border issue on a day-to-day basis? It is a widely studied and corroborated fact that immigrants both legal and illegal are a net positive in the US. And immigrants are being harmed, when the cross the border legally and enter this country they are being harmed. Even people perceived to be immigrants(much like attacks on Asian-American people sky rocketed when the pandemic started, why do you think that was, maybe a moron at 1600 kept making RACIST REMARKS with regard to COVID-19?!) Your characterization of all immigrants as illegals(I say that because you do not mention legal immigration, either through the asylum process or otherwise, which are LEGAL) seems to indicate your lack of empathy for people struggling to survive. Why is that? Or is your opinion just an quasi-isolationist(America First) kinda thing? And its dangerous. It promotes division and allows for the rationalization of violence onto a perceived enemy. Which they are not!

Agreed. But I guess what I meant by 'turnover' is that the assistant(s) go out and get better/other jobs at other schools(maybe in administration). Keep the new blood moving through the system.

Firstly, the current President beat the last one. Seeing as it is a rematch of a winner vs a loser of the last contest why is your same criticism/critique not pointed at the GOP? Clearly a loser of the popular vote twice is not a great bet for a third try. There were plenty of candidates that were practiced politicians with a better than 50% record at elections. Secondly, neither does your over-broad characakture of what you think the policies of the left are. If you were honest you might say: 1. The economic policies of the left are wide ranging and vary based on a variety of factors but that I don't really like them or feel they will be particularly effective. (seems as this is really the case but this head line doesn't move traffic am I wrong? Not sure how the oppressor/oppressed fits in, please elaborate? 2. Not sure what your point is here other than you don't like someone. Why don't you like this person, is it personal or political or something else? Do you think the VP is not qualified, if so, why? Also, can you offer up examples of the policies that you are attempting to discredit without actually explaining them? Who has suggested a Marxist policy? Utopian rabbit hole? Please explain that so I have an understanding of what you mean? Also 'counterfactual purity test' not sure about that one either? Have you researched VP Kamala Harris. Do you understand how impressive a career she has had? I'll give you a run down: Howard University undergrad UC-Hastings Law, so not an 'Ivy League elite' school by any means. DA's office of Alameda County, not too shabby Recruited to San Fran DA's office then to City Attorney of San Fran Elected DA of San Fran in 2003 Attorney General of CA in 2010(first female to be elected to this position) a position held by Earl Warren SCOTUS Justice that brought us Brown vs Board. Re-elected in 2014. Elected senator of CA 2017. This resume doesn't strike me as belonging to someone that is incompetent. If you have information I do not have, please share it? I'm always interested to learn new things.

I disagree. Do you have examples of the things you mentioned? Climate change is real. Sorry to burst your 'common sense' bubble. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/ 'It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system. This extra energy has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, and widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.' Show me a source on par with NASA?

Each allegation is a confession.

Have you heard the saying, 'if everything is priority then nothing is'? Cuz that's what it seems like you're saying. They aren't prioritizing your pet project. That can be frustrating. But if so, do more research. Try to convince people with facts. Instead of.... this. If you actually take it serious. What were your thoughts on the border bill that was killed recently. Did you like it? Were you ok with the reason it went away after being painstakingly negotiated as it was? Was the 'perfect' the enemy of the good? Would you rather the credit for 'fixing' the problem go to your preferred candidate rather than helping the people that are being harmed?

Yep. No notes. Oh, sorry, not all prescriptions. One note.

Can non-citizens vote? Is that a thing? Where and under what circumstances? Which elections?

We all agree that entering the country without declaring asylum or without proper paperwork is not legal. Show us where this or any president as gone against that?

'Probably' is doing some heavy lifting there. How many important decisions in your life do you decide based on 'probably' FROM REDDIT? The plural of anecdote is NOT DATA! How is that so hard to understand? You want to believe that its true so you'll twist your logic(which in this case is far from it) into pretzel to convince yourself knowing that there is a decent chance that its not true at all. By your own words. Why? What do you have to gain?

What is the point and what is your preferred solution under the current president? Its the same argument as before. Can the president control the price of gasoline? No. Can the SEC sue to block mergers that may be disadvantageous to the consumer? Yes. Everyone and their mother has been saying that inflation is back down. It is. But companies that have made record profits have not lowered their prices back to pre-pandemic levels. Because why would they? What do they have to lose at this point? A handful of companies control most the market share for the products and services that we all need to live: food(which you mentioned) that includes agricultural industries, power, and housing. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/05/business/retailers-cutting-prices/index.html (this article talks more about 'discretionary spending' but hints that food prices might fall along with the rest) This is by no means a guarantee but please answer this question: How can the President effect the price of food in a tangible way?

Reasonable take. So what is the rhythm of a healthy coaching staff? Is there one or a better one or a few? Tom and Terry have their thing but should Morningstar branch out and look to pass the (pardon the pun) brand to another location? John had the same AHC and Assistants for a good few years and now its a complete reshuffle. Penn decided to do whatever they did and lost two, seemingly, valuable members of the staff. A good HC and 2nd in command I guess is a good relationship but should there be regular turnover with the rest of the staff. Say, every 5-6-7 years. Get some fresh faces in there. With new perspectives or talents? What are our thoughts?

Sorry for my short absence. To answer the original question. I don't think they both have committed crimes. One seems to have because they have been brought up on charges. Also convicted. With maaaaaany more to go. But you dodged my questions. You can take another swing if you'd like. Or you can point out your reason(s) for believing they both have committed crimes? If you have no good evidence why do you hold to that belief? What do you have to gain?

So do you walk around thinking that everyone is a criminal of out sort or another? Are you? If so, could that lead to bad actions by assuming someone may be dangerous?

Fair take. Just seems like a complete staff change smacks of desperation.

I'm sorry, did I say article or study?

A reliable source would site the 'recent study' they are pulling information from. It could be reasoned that they are just making things up to support their position, if they do no provide the information for the readers to investigate. Am I wrong? Is SAVE a reliable group? Please explain your answer?

Convince me you actually understand what goes into getting to the point where a patient and guardians feel it is necessary for each of these steps? If you say, 'no'. It means you don't care to actually learn what the process is. That you'd rather stick to your talking point. If you do. Maybe you would learn how long it takes and how many steps it takes to get to each stage of treatment. Not that your heart would grow three sizes but maybe you'd understand what might motivate someone to go through all that.