Invisible Man
Member

That is also what I suspect. Journalists writing news articles about this apparently do not think that's an important enough detail to address.

I think the legality of preemptive pardons may still be up for debate. But they are not unprecedented. But my question is what does the pardon itself state that Fauci is pardoned for? Is it a blanket pardon for any and all federal crimes that he may have committed or may be accused of having committed over some period of time without regard for what those might be or what evidence may be discovered in the future? I can find Biden's press release about these pardons. But I can't find the actual text of the pardons themselves, and the news stories I've seen don't address these important questions at all. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/20/statement-from-president-joe-biden-15/

Does Tik Tok engage in any criminal espionage? If so, then can't individuals in the US who work for Tik Tok and who aid and abet this espionage get prosecuted for that under existing espionage laws? On the other hand, if no prosecutable acts are being committed by anyone, then what's the problem?

Are they saying this was done without her consent?

When Bannon says this, he honestly thinks this is a point against immigration. He honestly believes that losing 76 percent of the engineers working in Silicon Valley would be economically beneficial for America. Edit: As I think about it, I'm not really sure if he does honestly believe that. But the character he plays does. And he as an individual probably does benefit economically from playing that character.

Can you please provide the quote from Ron Paul that you're referring to? I haven't known him to wax poetical about utopian visions.

In their defense, so far this amounts to nothing more than attention getting tweets. I suspect that's all it will ever amount to.

You would be shocked how many foods contain acetic acid! That stuff is used to clean counters. They just list it in their ingredients as vinegar. Be on the lookout for it. This needs to be banned!

The elimination of borders is not the problem in and of itself. It's the sweeping together of larger and larger areas under the jurisdiction of a central regime. That said, while I plead guilty to being a libertarian, I doubt the other person you replied to is.

So, basically, Trump wants the North American Union.

If you don't believe free markets work, then why are you here?

If only there were some mechanism to determine the best allocation of scarce goods.

That may be the most patriotic thing she's ever done.

Not only that, he's missing how the very factor he brings up illustrates how the market itself has a mechanism to allocate access to scarce goods, i.e. price. It shouldn't be the government deciding how they are allocated. As cost of living here goes up, the attractiveness of coming to America will go down, until it levels off at the right amount as determined by the market.

First of all, Fuentes didn't even support Trump in 2024. And what do you expect the Republican party to do? Embrace people like Nick Fuentes and tell the other 99% of the country, and 90+% of Trump voters who aren't white nationalists that this is what they are?

We can't eliminate risks from the world, and shouldn't try to exchange our freedom for security. Attempting to impose some kind of pre-crime enforcement where we punish people for crimes they haven't committed yet just because we think we have reason to believe they are going to commit those crimes in the future because of their skin color or whatever other reason would make us all slaves, subjected to arbitrary enforcement of laws by those in power subject to punishment for crimes we haven't committed.

Lack of a right to keep and bear arms, and lack of property rights.

I propose addressing the crimes of rape and defecating in streets directly. The use of force to punish and prevent those things is legitimate. As for people being brown, I don't propose doing anything about that at all.

And just to fill this out a bit more, in order for this law to be effective, it's not enough just to punish those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It's also necessary to require employers to find out the immigration status of those they hire. This in turn means that the government must require certain accepted forms of identification for that purpose, and must require that employers demonstrate that they are complying with this requirement by providing the government with the identities of everyone they hire. Thus, this law doesn't only restrict employers and illegal immigrants, it also requires all of us who want to be able to exchange our labor for money with someone legally to get government approved identification and to agree to have the government keep track of us. It should be legal for any of us to enter into voluntary agreements with anyone else to exchange our labor for money, without either party needing to inform the government about any details of the arrangement, who is involved in it, or the fact that it happened at all. This is why Ron Paul always opposed laws that required employers to enforce immigration laws.

Assuming that is true, the test is going to be profits. This decision will either be rewarded or punished in the market. There is no need for the government to intervene and tell IBM shareholders that it knows how to manage their money better than the people they chose to delegate that to.

Permanent resident = foreign worker. Doesn't it? I assume that those opposed to increasing H1B visas would also oppose green cards for the same reasons.

Not that I deny that Trump is a habitual flip-flopper. But in this particular case, where is the flip-flop? That old quote doesn't say anything against increasing the number of H1B visas. He just said that he wanted to reform it so that it wasn't abused, which is what he is still saying.

This is the American culture the anti-immigrationists want the government to preserve for us.

If that were the best way to have a responsible, safety sensitive, and reliable transportation system, then it wouldn't need to be mandated by force.

The point of endorsing Johnson is to avoid having cuts.

What are some regulations of airlines and trucking that were removed or loosened that you think shouldn't have been?

That's their natural position.

If she chooses to have children and they choose to have children, then yes. And more than that, if she chooses to marry a nonwhite and have mixed children, and those children also marry nonwhites so that her grandchildren are 1/4 white, even then she would still have children and grandchildren who count no less than if they were pure bred whites. It still wouldn't be a matter of anyone replacing anyone else.

"Keep in mind that we’ve been replaced...." Melissa, you're still here. So, no, you haven't been replaced.