The Pit of Misery: Politics and Religion

Deathroll said:
Supposedly they're here to do work the natives don't want to do. Aside from the obvious bullshit....ie the natives used to do those jobs and if you paid them a market wage I'm sure they'd still be willing to do those jobs......and they're supposedly here to shore up the pension schemes in various western countries which are aging because the birth rate collapsed.

OK.

So why should they be allowed to receive public assistance? I thought they were supposed to be here for our benefit....ie to contribute to society. How does adding a whole bunch of leeches to the welfare rolls help shore up the pension scheme? They're not working. They're not contributing anything. What's the benefit to us of having them here? There is no other reason for them to be here at all.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think it is so they can be counted on the census, more numbers means more reps in congress for blue urban states. They don't apportion reps for registered voters, they do it for raw population numbers.
 
Copejunkie said:
Honestly I think it is so they can be counted on the census, more numbers means more reps in congress for blue urban states. They don't apportion reps for registered voters, they do it for raw population numbers.
Click to expand...
All the more reason why its vital that they not be counted in the census.

If they're not counted, then no extra federal money for those districts. Then blue shitholes get fewer seats in congress and fewer electoral votes for president. At least the short term incentive to import hordes of 3rd world scum would collapse. In fact, the denizens of blue shitholes would fiercely object to bringing in more or serving as sanctuary anything. That would make it awfully tough for Democrats to do even if they thought it in their long term best interest to import more people who would eventually become Democrat voters.
 
Deathroll said:
Supposedly they're here to do work the natives don't want to do. Aside from the obvious bullshit....ie the natives used to do those jobs and if you paid them a market wage I'm sure they'd still be willing to do those jobs......and they're supposedly here to shore up the pension schemes in various western countries which are aging because the birth rate collapsed.

OK.

So why should they be allowed to receive public assistance? I thought they were supposed to be here for our benefit....ie to contribute to society. How does adding a whole bunch of leeches to the welfare rolls help shore up the pension scheme? They're not working. They're not contributing anything. What's the benefit to us of having them here? There is no other reason for them to be here at all.
Click to expand...

Yep..but facts don't get in the way of liars with an agenda to get elected.

 
SCOTUS paves the way for Trump admin to end TPS for Haiti, Syria

In the fourth and final decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Doe, a case concerning whether the Administration may terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations.

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the challengers—TPS beneficiaries from Syria and Haiti—were not entitled to interim relief blocking the termination of their TPS designations.

The Court concluded that the TPS statute limits judicial review of non-constitutional claims and prevents courts from second-guessing the agency’s TPS termination decisions on those grounds.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

In other words, No, the court DOES NOT get to insist that Biden's executive orders go on forever and that Trump can't reverse them. Now Deport, Deport, Deport. Send them all back.
 
Supreme Court rules Trump can turn back asylum seekers at US border in major immigration win

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can turn away migrants who show up at the US-Mexico border before they apply for asylum, in a victory for the White House’s immigration crackdown that prompted a tense exchange between two justices.

The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of a policy known as “metering,” in use during President Trump’s first term as well as Barack Obama’s administration, which capped the number of people who could apply for asylum each day.

Immigration advocates had claimed that aliens should be considered to “arrive” in the US once they reached the border and argued the policy violated federal law stating that migrants can apply for asylum upon entry, regardless of whether they did so legally or illegally.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito disagreed, writing in the majority opinion: “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place.

“The context in which the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary-meaning reading.”

The administration had argued that the policy was necessary to deal with a massive influx of migrants at the southern border, adding that people who were initially turned away could always come back and attempt to apply later.

To qualify for asylum, migrants must show a fear of persecution in their homeland for specific reasons, like race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Once granted asylum, migrants are protected from deportation and can legally work, bring in immediate family, apply for legal residency and seek citizenship.

nypost.com

Supreme Court rules Trump can turn back asylum seekers at US border in major immigration win

Immigration advocates had claimed that aliens should be considered to “arrive” in the US once they reached the border, regardless of whether they set foot on American soil.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
AlaskaGuy said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2069921249183117725
Click to expand...
HLmaevQaIAA1Jvq
 

So.....he's lying about his intentions.....got it...​

​

Texas's Talarico Scrubbed Website of Statements Supporting 'Trans Kids' and 'Bold, Progressive Ideas' Ahead of Senate Run​

Talarico, who represents a deep-blue district in the State House, has excised the word 'progressive' from campaign site​

Collin Anderson
June 23, 2026

LINK:
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/texass-talarico-scrubbed-website-of-statements-supporting-trans-kids-and-bold-progressive-ideas-ahead-of-senate-run/


EXCERPT:

Texas Democrat James Talarico's website once promoted his support for "trans kids" and "bold, progressive ideas." That was then. Around the time he launched his Senate campaign in a state that hasn't elected a Democrat to the upper chamber since 1988, that changed, a Washington Free Beacon review found. Today, as Talarico tries to break the Texas Democrats' dry spell, his campaign website makes no mention of his "progressive" values.

As a state lawmaker representing a deep-blue Austin district, Talarico was not shy about broadcasting his left-wing views. On his site's homepage, the 37-year-old said he was "not afraid to stand up to Republican extremism" and boasted about leading "the fight against their efforts to bully trans kids, ban books, whitewash our history curriculum, gut public education with a private school voucher scam, and force their Christian nationalist agenda onto the people of Texas." The site's "Accomplishments" section, meanwhile, presented Talarico as a champion of "Bold, Progressive Legislation."


Screenshot-2026-06-22-at-3.17.56-PM-827x1024.png

"I'm committed to building momentum for bold, progressive ideas—no matter how long it takes," Talarico wrote, according to an archived version of the site from August 2025, less than a year ago. "I've introduced ambitious legislation to give every Texas teacher a $15,000 raise, legalize marijuana, combat climate change, and repeal anti-union laws that keep workers from organizing."
Screenshot-2026-06-22-at-3.18.16-PM-e1782155952283-1024x799.png

The site got a makeover in early September, when Talarico launched his Senate campaign, archives show. The homepage credits Talarico with fighting "billionaire mega-donors" rather than "Republican extremism." A "Meet James Talarico" section touts the Democrat's efforts to "expand job opportunities for young adults" rather than fight for "trans kids." And the site's "Why I'm Running" page says the "biggest divide in this country is not left vs. right" but "top vs. bottom." The word "progressive" has vanished.

The revisions reflect the challenges Talarico faces as he attempts to swap a State House seat in the liberal enclave of Austin for a U.S. Senate seat in a state that has not sent a Democrat to the upper chamber since 1988, when Lloyd Bentsen was elected to serve a fourth term. Kamala Harris won Talarico's Austin district by nearly 50 points in 2024, when President Donald Trump won Texas by nearly 14 points. In his earlier races, Talarico presented himself as a "Democrat," with endorsements from left-wing groups like "Liberal Austin Democrats," who's "fighting back against Republican extremism." Now, he says he's an "eighth-generation Texan, former middle school teacher, and Presbyterian seminarian" running to "take his fight against corruption to Washington."
Talarico, whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment, secured the Democratic nomination in March, when he defeated congresswoman Jasmine Crockett by 6 points. He has spent much of the campaign since then repudiating the left-wing positions that catapulted him to national prominence.
 
Last edited:
babylonbee.com

Al-Qaeda Wins New York Primary

NEW YORK, NY — Almost 25 years after it successfully flew two jetliners into the Twin Towers, killing thousands of people, Al-Qaeda clinched Tuesday's New York City primary election in an explosive landslide victory.
babylonbee.com babylonbee.com


Al-Qaeda Wins New York Primary​

Politics·Jun 24, 2026 · BabylonBee.com
Image for article: Al-Qaeda Wins New York Primary





NEW YORK, NY — Almost 25 years after it successfully flew two jetliners into the Twin Towers, killing thousands of people, Al-Qaeda clinched Tuesday's New York City primary election in an explosive landslide victory.
According to sources, the number one issue going into the election was Jews — an issue voters appear to have solved by electing known Al-Qaeda terrorists Brad Lander (NY-10), Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY-13), and Claire Valdez (NY-7).
Moderate Democrats were reportedly unable to win over voters — half of whom were Muslims who deliberately infiltrated the city for the sole purpose of defeating them.
"Allahu Akbar!" said one excited voter as he cast his ballot and made his wife do the same.
According to exit poll interviews, non-Muslim voters had a number of different reasons for willingly choosing terrorists to represent their once great city.
"The Jews made me vote for Al-Qaeda," said Steve Gentles, a voter in the 13th district. "A tiny Jew literally jumped on my hand and made me vote for them. So don't blame me!"
"What was I supposed to do? Not vote for a terrorist who wants to destroy my way of life? That's stupid," said another voter.
Ruth Harper, a voter in New York's 10th district, said, "The way I see it, I don't have to be afraid of terrorist attacks if we're supporting the terrorists." She then made a show of tapping her head with a finger to indicate how smart she is. "4D chess," she added.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani claimed responsibility for the dramatic election outcome.
"Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us," Mayor Zohran Mamdani said from a cave outside the city. "Praise be to Allah."
At publishing time, comedian Jerry Seinfeld parted the waters of the Hudson River to lead the Jews out of Manhattan.
 
Deathroll said:
SCOTUS paves the way for Trump admin to end TPS for Haiti, Syria

In the fourth and final decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Doe, a case concerning whether the Administration may terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations.

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the challengers—TPS beneficiaries from Syria and Haiti—were not entitled to interim relief blocking the termination of their TPS designations.

The Court concluded that the TPS statute limits judicial review of non-constitutional claims and prevents courts from second-guessing the agency’s TPS termination decisions on those grounds.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

In other words, No, the court DOES NOT get to insist that Biden's executive orders go on forever and that Trump can't reverse them. Now Deport, Deport, Deport. Send them all back.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2070212915936796997
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top