kcar wrote:

I just had a conversation with her earlier on this very subject.  A woman, a victim of both rape and incest. 

You want to know what her first response was ?   Where were the parents of these 12 and 13 year old girls ?  How did they let them go to these kinds of places / parties in the first place ?  Who lets their little girls go out all night long in circumstances like that ?  Go ahead and find fault with her reaction.  

.
And if these girls represent themselves as 18 years old, they are paid consenting adults as far as the participants are concerned.

 kcar wrote:


“We won world wars out of forts."

“They changed the name of a lot of our forts. We won two world wars out of a lot of these forts and they changed the name,” he said. “It’s unbelievable.”

Never gets old...  

As "addled" as some people believe Joe is... I couldn't ever imagine him uttering anything close to that.

 kurtster wrote:

" narcissistic condescending progressive liberal elites"

Your go-to bogeyman. Don't forget the globalists!

"No. I know what is best for me and my self interests. My primary interest is having a secure border."

Right. Because the Cleveland OH area is so close to Mexico and it's just swarming with illegal immigrants. NOT.

Unauthorized Immigrant Populations by Country and Region, Top States and Counties of Residence, 2019

https://www.migrationpolicy.or...

20 metro areas are home to six-in-ten unauthorized immigrants in U.S.
https://www.pewresearch.org/sh...


"That is what I am voting on. And don't give me any shit about the Senate bill. It is worse than the problem it purports to "fix"."

STRANGE how you can never detail what's wrong with the Senate bill with supporting evidence or opinion from informed sources. I spent considerable time and effort to look at HR 2 and list its shortcomings. You don't seem capable of doing that for the Senate bill. Look at it this way: if the Senate bill had become law, you'd have some of the things you want for immigration. Right now you don't even that half-loaf. 

And hey! No comment about Project 2025's plan to cut Medicare? Somehow I think it'd be in your best interests to oppose that, given the serious health issues present in your family. I think you're in for a very nasty shock if Trump gets elected. 

"So tell me that this remark did not address you charge above ."

I simply don't know what you're trying to say here. Let me expand on my previous statements:

I believe that you think rape is a horrible, awful criminal act. Certainly that seemed to case when you stated years ago that a relative—a cousin, perhaps—was raped by an illegal immigrant. 

But when Trump is accused of rape or sexual assault, you don't believe it. When Trump was found to have sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll by a jury of his peers, you dismissed that judgment. When a second jury found that Trump's denial of Carroll's charge and his denigration of her character should be punished with an $83.3 million judgment, you tried to waive that away. You still haven't seriously addressed the claims by over 25 women that Trump raped, sexually harassed and/or assaulted them

Your moral compass, in short, disappears when Trump is accused of criminal or civilly liable actions. Or even just bad behavior. I truly believe that if Trump were criminally convicted of rape, you wouldn't accept the results. Or you'd just shrug your shoulders, because Trump. 

PS—As for Biden, I think he should step down. Whether his performance early on in the debate was a senior moment, a panic attack or sign of dementia, we have no guarantee that he won't freeze up again or more often in the coming years. 

HOWEVER: his administration has received high marks by economists, politicians and historians for getting a lot done. He has highly capable people surrounding him. Trump OTOH is judged the worst US president by a survey of historians. He's had many, many moments of confusion, garbled language, memory loss and brutal distortion of the past. Revolutionary War soldiers guarding our airports? 

If Biden stays in the race, I'm still voting for him. His agenda seeks to improve the lives of Americans. Trump's agenda is mostly about retribution against his enemies WHO ARE TRYING TO UPHOLD THE LAW., 

But you've drunk your side's Kook Aid. Christ, you swill it and bathe in it. So don't bray about how you weren't fooled. You're a world-class sucker.

 kurtster wrote:
Once again, the answer is a resounding "You". 
 
But hey, in his time wasn't Hitler was given stellar marks for his modernization of the German transit system? 
 
So, by all means... let's fixate on the one thing (borders) and completely ignore all the other "stuff". Especially since all the other "stuff" is problematic and tough to justify. 

 kurtster wrote:

Kurtster, firstly, sorry if you get the collective ire of everyone here, who is alarmed by Trump, but then again you are the only Trump supporter here with the balls to say it loud. So kudos for that, but that is really about it. I find it painfully obvious that:

1. Trump actually gives a shit about the border, but he knows it's a topic that sells to his base, so he peddles that.
2. Trump is mining a niche that he suddenly found himself in where smarter guys than him with bigger pockets are willing to stroke his ego, feed him the trappings of power and glory but who are basically using him to further their own program, which is:
3. Demolishing the laws and institutions that hold them back from really screwing over the little guys (that's both you and me)
4. Sowing division and reducing the States to civil war or something close to it

In the process, they will actually destroy the very thing that has made America great and them rich.  But hey ho.  

Now, convince me that all of this is in your best interest. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
This is what is typical for the narcissistic condescending progressive liberal elites.  You know what is best for me, because I am inferior or have defective thinking.  Therefore you are justified in doing my thinking for me.

No.  I know what is best for me and my self interests.  My primary interest is having a secure border.  That is what I am voting on. And don't give me any shit about the Senate bill.  It is worse than the problem it purports to "fix". No different from those who make abortion their top consideration for voting.  The thing is that you have to take all the other stuff that comes with the advocates of your favorite concern(s).

So based on my primary concern, my vote is still for Trump.  No borders, no country. This in direct opposition to the wide open border policy of the democratic party. He is the only one who has had a handle on the border and actually did things that brought it more under control than in the past 45 years.  And will do the same again, so we can then fix the other things that need fixing.  

.
kcar wrote: 
So tell me that this remark did not address you charge above .
.
 kurtster wrote: 

kcar wrote: 
And you were successfully gaslit by the media and party that you trust regarding Biden's health and state of mind, defending his cognitive function and overall health right up to the debate.  This alone is enough to question the judgement and credibility of all those who sucked it up and asked for more to feed their confirmation bias.  And then went on the viciously attack anyone who questioned Biden faculties.  Complete with copy and pastes from "the experts" to back your thoughts up.

I am supposed to go along with your proposition that you know what is best for me and get mad if I disagree ?  Who is zooming who ?

.
You were fooled, I wasn't.  So who again is the gullible ?

 kurtster wrote:
Fixed your typo. You really need to read the posts with a little more attention. 
 
Comprehension might be your enemy.

 kcar wrote:
Completely concur. And he wonders why people question his integrity? 

 kcar wrote:

 bingo.  .. and zooming out to the bigger picture.. exactly the same was true for Brexit and the same is true for the wave of right-wing nationalism sweeping Europe at the moment. And the whole bloody lot has been fanned by an unhealthy amalgam of big money / mob interests / right-wing media / disinformation that is trying to weaken government so that they can screw over the little guys even more. Look at Farage trying to destroy the NHS in the UK for instance. Or the Putin-Versteher wanting to keep Europe dependent on Russian oil and fuck global warming or the environment.  Needless to say, they also want to dismantle the EU. 
And they (Murdoch/Putin and their cohorts) do all this by whipping up hysteria about the very things that get people scared. (illegal) immigration, hordes of brown-skinned people coming for your women, greenies taking away your car, deep state doing something or other nefarious (although it is actually them doing that), etc. etc. 

.. and people fall for it like serfs kneeling before royalty.

I truly believe that you like Trump so much that you would shrug your shoulders in indifference at most if strong evidence indicating that Trump raped and/or sexually assaulted an underage woman became public. You certainly had nothing to say about the horrific nature of such an alleged act in your earlier posts. 

You also twisted yourself into knots while denying the very real fact that Trump is an adjudicated rapist. Oh no, it was a NY jury. Oh no, the lawsuit wasn't a criminal trial so there was a lower requirement for evidence (preponderance of evidence instead of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial). Oh no, Carroll couldn't definitively state that Trump penetrated her with his penis (which would be criminal rape in NY) instead of his fingers. 

And you have had nothing to say about the 25+ women who have accused Trump of rape, sexual assault and/or sexual harassment since the 1970s.—including his first wife who said Trump raped her.  IIRC you have dismissed all such claims as gold digging or fame-seeking. 

You have never shown any sympathy or concern for the people whom Trump has screwed out of their rightful money—contractors for instance. You've never stated disapproval of Trump's verbal abuse or mocking of people—Nancy Pelosi's husband, eg, who got hit in the head with a hammer by a nutjob looking to kill Nancy. Or the reporter with palsy who interviewed Trump, leading Trump YEARS LATER to mock the guy during a rally. 

I truly believe that you get off on this guy's cruelty and ability to get away with committing crimes or bad behavior. He's your Tony Soprano. 

The reason I call you roadkill is that you support a guy whose agenda runs quite counter to your best interests. Read up on Project 2025's plan to slash Medicare. I don't know if you have supplemental heath insurance through an employer or a public exchange, but Trump will try to kill the ACA again, which would massively destabilize the entire US healthcare system. So don't think you're safe. 

Trump and Miller's plan to round up all undocumented emigrants and people waiting for asylum would be a serious shock to the US labor force, leading to major labor shortages, wage hikes and a spike in inflation. That's in part why 16 Nobel Prize winning economists condemned Trump's economic plans as dangerous and inflationary. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/...

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/...

But you're just a sucker for Trump and FNC. Fox or Trump comes up with a lie and you swallow and parrot it. The Biden Crime Family! Obamagate! HRC's emails! To your credit, you seemed skeptical of the rigged election claims but you're still watching Fox even after it shelled out $785.5 million for lying about Dominion and while it faces a bigger payout to Smartmatic

You still lap up their BS. 

When it comes to Trump and right-wing hate, you're a perpetual motion machine of gullibility. Even to your own detriment. 

 kcar wrote: 
yet you brought it up today as if it was breaking news and even used it to slander and defame my character here in the process simply because I questioned you on what this was about.

You made a very serious accusation about me, which I am taking very seriously :  "you approve of Trump raping and sexually assaulting 12 year old girls"

You are going down a very dangerous path.

 kurtster wrote:

Dear roadkill, 

The case DID gain national coverage. It was dropped in 2016. 

Woman suing Trump over alleged teen rape drops suit, again

A woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her two decades ago when she was a 13-year-old aspiring teen model has again dropped a federal lawsuit over the alleged assaults.

The accuser, identified in the lawsuit by the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” was expected to appear at a news conference in Los Angeles Wednesday, but that appearance was abruptly canceled.

The lawyer who organized the event, Lisa Bloom, said Trump’s accuser had received threats and was too frightened to show up.

In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserted that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul tied her to a bed and raped her. She also claimed Epstein raped her during that series of gatherings.

...

The first suit over the alleged rapes was filed in federal court in Riverside, California, in April by someone acting without an attorney and using the name “Katie Johnson.” That suit named both Trump and Epstein as defendants, alleging that the two men held Johnson as a “sex slave” and repeatedly forced her to engage in sexual acts against her will.

...

U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee dismissed that case in May, ruling that Johnson’s complaint didn’t raise valid claims under federal law. Gee, an appointee of President Barack Obama, noted that the suit cited a criminal statute that doesn’t give rise to civil damages and that the civil statute Johnson cited only applies to actions based on “race-based or class-based animus.”

...

The second and third iterations of the complaint (filed by Katie Johnson using the pseudonym Jane Doe) accused Trump of only a single act of rape, but said he had “sexual contact” with the accuser on three other occasions. A declaration from an anonymous witness attached to the later suits continued to accuse Trump of four acts of rape or sexual assault.



See also this Newsweek piece from January 4, 2024:

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-...

 kcar wrote: 
How you (and veev for that matter) can say that I as in "you approve of Trump raping and sexually assaulting 12 year old girls" based upon my response is an incredible distortion of any kind of reality.  That is downright slanderous.  I even believe that I could actually sue you for slander based on your post as the intent is obviously malicious.  There are laws in place that would allow for that these days.

You have an accusation (and only an accusation) that is very, very serious, so serious that I would think that a revelation such as this would be covered everywhere, by everyone.  But it isn't. Not even MSNBC or CNN, places that would be on this like stink on shit.  

Perhaps you can tell me why that is the case.
signed,

roadkill

 VV wrote:

I'm pretty sure Kurt also likes—no, loves—Trump's arrogance and cruelty. He identifies with and lives vicariously through Trump. Winning is a big deal for Kurt. He wants to be on the side of a winner, regardless of how the guy won. Or the damage caused by criminal behavior. He parrots Trump's praise of Putin's invasion as brilliant move and ignores the act's evilness as well as the Ukrainians' suffering, for instance. 

I'm pretty sure you could lay out incontrovertible evidence of Trump's guilt in committing a crime—even a murder, I'm guessing—and Kurt would first think, "OK, but can Trump get away with it?"

Just a guess, but not an uninformed one. 

 kcar wrote:
Surely you are aware by now that Kurt has not now… or ever… given any credence to a candidate’s moral character or background when considering who to vote for. He doesn’t want to get caught in the weeds.

 kurtster wrote:

Thanks for responding! So you approve of Trump raping and sexually assaulting 12 year old girls! I guess you approve of his raping women too, huh? 

"Not a peep out of anyone but you."

Either because you pretty much stick to Fox or cover your ears whenever there's bad news about Trump. Or both. 

 kcar wrote:
Sure, it sounds good...but it's a bad law.... because it's not perfect.  

So what about incremental improvement... Trump has a plan that's gonna fix everything... and he'll share it very soon.  It's gonna be amazing!  

 kcar wrote: 
Well I saw this right before leaving for home.  Read the doc in the tweet.  Heard nothing on the radio news during my drive and then watched the 7 pm opens of the main shows on CNN, MSNBC and Fox.  Not a single word mentioned on any off them. I would think that this would be wall to wall on every network regardless of bias.

The Grand Jury docs were released early yesterday or earlier IIRC..  Not a peep out of anyone but you.  

signed,

roadkill

Back to the SCOTUS decision (while Kurt tries to figure out if it's OK that Trump raped and sexually assaulted underage women—evidence of these acts was part of at least two court cases):

Justice Sotomayor asked Trump's lawyers during oral arguments whether a president's command to Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent should be considered an official act. Trump's lawyer answered yes. 

AFAICT the SCOTUS decision agrees that a presidential assassination order of a political rival would be an official act. 

That is not SOP in the USA, Kurt. Maybe you should move to Russia, PRC or North Korea where that sort of thing is just fine. 

So, Kurt: you approve of Trump raping little girls, is that right? You certainly seemed OK with the fact that according to a jury, Trump raped a grown woman, so...?

While Kurt is trying to come up with an excuse/defense of Trump's sexual assault on underage girls, let's turn back briefly to his beloved HR 2, the supposedly superior alternative to the Senate border reform bill. 

Here's a great summary of HR 2 from The Hill. Lack of funding in the proposed bill as well as its SILENCE on legal immigration are just two backbreakers to this resolution. 

5 things to know about the border bill at the heart of GOP shutdown threats

1. 

Purges the U.S. workforce of undocumented workers

Under H.R. 2, employers would be required to verify — under penalty of prison — that all their workers were documented.

The method for doing so would be the E-Verify system, a voluntary program set up under a 1996 immigration bill passed under then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) that cross-references an employee’s employment paperwork against the social security database.

...

Even catching that share could impact industries that rely on undocumented labor, however. That includes the agriculture industry, as about 40 percent of all farmworkers in the U.S. are undocumented, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

...

And a 2019 report by the libertarian Cato Institute found that E-Verify catches fewer than 1 in 6 undocumented workers.

2.   

Slashes asylum

As such, H.R. 2 makes it far harder for migrants to claim asylum and makes the process far more onerous for those able to stay long enough for that claim to be processed.

For example, the bill denies people the ability to claim asylum unless the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer who processes them believes their ultimate case would more likely than not be accepted, adds a $50 fee to make an asylum claim and bars migrants from making an asylum claim anywhere but at an official port of entry.

This last measure represents a paradox, because it is precisely the backups and closures at ports of entry that help push migrants to venture into the desert between official crossings.

The bill also provides for even those who are found to have credible claims to be held in detention for the years while their cases drag on — and requires the Department of Homeland Security to expand detention facilities to hold them.

As I understand it, there is insufficient funding in HR 2 to deal with the increased processing required at official ports of entry—leading to more people attempting border crossings outside of the ports of entry. That lack of funding also would cause an increased backlog  of asylum claims.

And BTW Kurt: 

In fact, under the Biden administration, the asylum system has already been significantly restricted. In August, a three-judge panel upheld the administration’s “asylum ban,” which bars most migrants who have transitioned through a third country from applying for refugee status.

In a blistering dissent, Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote that the Biden administration’s immigration policy was “not meaningfully different” than the Trump administration ban that judges threw out — which representatives including McClintock have portrayed as belonging to a halcyon era of low immigration.

“This new rule looks like the Trump administration’s Port of Entry Rule and Transit Rule got together, had a baby, and then dolled it up in a stylish modern outfit, complete with a phone app,” VanDyke wrote.

A historical example suggests the argument that asylum protections lead to an increase in undocumented immigrants is erroneous, argued David J. Bier of the Cato Institute.

In December, Bier noted that when the Biden administration lifted the COVID-era Title 42 restrictions, which included a ban on asylum applications, Republicans — and even some Democrats — forecast a huge increase in illegal migration.

They were wrong, he wrote. Instead, the number of crossings post-Title 42 fell by 15 percent — and covert crossings fell by half.

“Ending Title 42 shows that security isn’t at odds with accepting immigrants,” Bier wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.

3. 

Build a wall while slashing immigrant services

H.R. 2 would require the federal government to wall off at least 900 miles of the U.S.’s roughly 2000-mile border with Mexico, resuming all Trump-era plans that were interrupted by the former president’s electoral defeat in 2020.

To do so, the bill would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive all legal requirements — such as environmental review or historical site review — to get the wall built as quickly as possible.

It also would offer $110 million per year to the border forces being set up by states including Texas, often in open defiance of the federal government — with money that would in part be balanced out by defunding any nonprofits that provide services to undocumented immigrants.

4. 

Ends protections for migrant children

H.R. 2 would roll back many protections for minors created under the Flores settlement, which resulted from a 1993 court case and has since guided federal immigration law, aside from a brief hiatus under Trump.

It would require DHS to reestablish family detention, and once again allow families with children to be detained indefinitely.

The bill would also make it far harder for unaccompanied migrant children to claim special immigrant juvenile status — something youth can currently claim if they can’t reunite with one or both parents, and which H.R. 2 would restrict to those whose parents have neglected or abandoned them.

It would also fast-track deportations of unaccompanied minors, lengthen the time that children can be held in adult facilities on the border from 3 to 30 days and bar states from creating licensing requirements for those border detention facilities — even in cases where state law should require such oversight.

5. 

Doesn’t address legal immigration

Perhaps just as notable as what H.R.2 includes, however, is what it doesn’t: any path for citizenship, bolstering of pathways to legal immigration or alternative means of supporting a U.S. workforce — and particularly food system — that relies on undocumented labor.

In addition to not offering any expansion to the country’s sclerotic and backlogged legal immigration pathways, H.R. 2 wouldn’t provide funding to expand the capacity of official ports of entry — the only place where it would allow asylum claims to be made.

And GOP lawmakers including Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) have pushed to cut DHS’s funds if the Biden administration and the Senate don’t pass H.R. 2.

This lack of action on legal immigration stands out as even key Republican constituencies like the Chamber of Commerce, which is part of a vast array of state and national business groups — from the National Milk Producers Federation and the National Restaurant Association to Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association — call for comprehensive reform of the legal immigration system.

Shortly before H.R. 2 passed the House in May, these groups launched the so-called Legal Immigration and Border Enforcement Reform This Year campaign, which directly linked the wave of undocumented crossings to failures in the legal immigration system.

“Our legal immigration system has been outdated for decades, which has directly contributed to the significant security challenges on our southern border,” the groups wrote Congress.

The groups pushed for “significant” increases to legal immigrations, expanded scopes for essential worker programs and new visa programs — and argued that the math on immigration restrictions simply doesn’t add up.

“Right now, we have over 8.8 million jobs open in the U.S. and 5.8 million unemployed workers,” a Chamber report wrote.

The groups’ push roughly aligns with what President Biden himself proposed in a 2021 House bill that created an eight-year path to citizenship for millions of undocumented migrants, along with increases in visa quotas.