Dan refutes Ben

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the statement is accurate--

I am saying that I don't know that the attribution to "white Christian{s}" is accurate.

I am saying that I don't know that "mass deportations" is accurate.

I am saying that the "They shouldn't have broken the law" in an accurate, but incomplete, statement.  I mean, c'mon.  Isn't this pretty axiomatic?  That as a general principle, people should not break the law?

I am saying that the implicit accusation of racialism is problematic.

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

it is something that a lot of white Christians are saying or believe--

Is it?  How do we know this?

And are any non-white Christians saying it too?

And about about other demographic groups?  Are any of them also of the opinion that, as a general principle, foreigners should not illegally enter our country, overstay visas, break our laws, etc.?

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

but that doesn't mean they aren't being Christlike and it doesn't mean other races of people don't agree as well. 

So why did whoever made the statement you are quoting bring race into the discussion?  It sounds like an implicit deprecation of white Christians, based on some nebulous and unsubstantiated claim attributed to them on social media.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am saying that I don't know that the attribution to "white Christian{s}" is accurate.

I am saying that I don't know that "mass deportations" is accurate.

I am saying that the "They shouldn't have broken the law" in an accurate, but incomplete, statement.  I mean, c'mon.  Isn't this pretty axiomatic?  That as a general principle, people should not break the law?

I am saying that the implicit accusation of racialism is problematic.

Is it?  How do we know this?

She didn't say it is.  Her whole post is trying to clarify what you meant. She is asking if this is what you mean. It needs to be taken in context.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And are any non-white Christians saying it too?

And about about other demographic groups?  Are any of them also of the opinion that, as a general principle, foreigners should not illegally enter our country, overstay visas, break our laws, etc.?

So why did whoever made the statement you are quoting bring race into the discussion?  It sounds like an implicit deprecation of white Christians, based on some nebulous and unsubstantiated claim attributed to them on social media.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

People call the attempted renaming of "the Gulf of Mexico" to "the Gulf of fragile Masculinity" Obviously Trump is beyond delusional 

Apparently not that delusional: Google Maps will rename Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America in US

Quote

Google has confirmed it will rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America on Google Maps in the US, after an executive order from Donald Trump.

It will remain the Gulf of Mexico in Mexico, while users outside of the US and Mexico will see both names on Google Maps. The Alaskan peak Denali, the tallest mountain in North America, will also be changed to Mount McKinley in the US in line with Trump’s executive order on 20 January.

“We have a longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in official government,” said Google in a post on X.
...
Google said it would update its Maps service once the names were updated in the US government’s geographic names information system.

U.S. Department of Interior makes Donald Trump's 'Gulf of America' name change official

Quote

The U.S Department of the Interior announced Friday in accordance with Trump’s executive order, the department was “proud to announce the implementation of name restorations that honor the legacy of American greatness, with efforts already underway.”
...
While anyone can suggest a name change to the U.S Board on Geographic Names, the board’s website said there must be a compelling reason to change the name, and states don’t have to follow federal government name changes either, USA Today reported. 

State Lawmaker Seeks to Formalize Trump’s 'Gulf of America' in Texas Constitution

Gulf of Mexico or Gulf of America? How a name change works, and what would make it stick

Quote

A presidential executive order for a name change, which is what Trump signed in his first day back in office, sets in motion compulsory action. The first action is for the Department of the Interior to adopt the name change, which it did on Jan. 24 it announced that as "directed by the president, the Gulf of Mexico will now officially be known as the Gulf of America."

The name change, the department said, reaffirms "the nation’s commitment to preserving the extraordinary heritage of the United States and ensuring that future generations of Americans celebrate the legacy of its heroes and historic assets."

Then there follows a series of smaller actions with no specific timeline. A Department of Interior spokesperson told the Asbury Park Press that names are only binding to federal departments and agencies.

Historically, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Board on Geographic Names will update the Geographic Names Information System for federal use effective immediately, and the Department of State will update the Geographic Names Server — which is the official repository of standard spellings of all foreign geographic names.

Then it is up to each federal agency and office to change their signage and websites per their own budgetary needs and website update scheduling. 

What does that all mean? Take an agency like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which New Jersey fishermen and mariners interact with daily for marine weather and fishery regulation updates, and likely has hundreds if not thousands of pages of documents referencing Gulf of Mexico species such as red snapper and maps referring to the body of water as the Gulf of Mexico. Making that change will likely be a considerable undertaking.
...
Internationally, the Trump's order does not trigger any compulsory action but could be used for political and economic leverage. Three nations bounder the Gulf: Cuba, Mexico and the United States. And each has sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, and jurisdiction in exclusive economic zones as provided for in international law.
...
"Internationally it will be interesting to see how it plays it out," Schmelzkopf said, comparing the situation with that of the South China Sea, which several Asian nations border and call by different names, such as the West Philippine Sea, as the Philippines prefers, or the North Natuna Sea, as preferred by Indonesia.

And here:

Quote

On the heels of his popular-vote victory, congressional Democrats have insisted that Trump’s interest in renaming landmarks and GOP attempts to commemorate him aren’t a hill to die on, regardless of the animosity many feel toward the president. Still reeling from their November losses, the party has bigger problems at the moment. “The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and other absurdities like that we just let go,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said.

Huh.  

Mexico urges Google not to rename Gulf of Mexico

Trump says he will change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to ‘Gulf of America.’ Can he do that?

It appears he can.

For my part, I am largely indifferent to this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2025 by smac97

[Duncan]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently not that delusional: Google Maps will rename Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America in US

U.S. Department of Interior makes Donald Trump's 'Gulf of America' name change official

State Lawmaker Seeks to Formalize Trump’s 'Gulf of America' in Texas Constitution

Gulf of Mexico or Gulf of America? How a name change works, and what would make it stick

And here:

Huh.  

Mexico urges Google not to rename Gulf of Mexico

Trump says he will change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to ‘Gulf of America.’ Can he do that?

It appears he can.

For my part, I am largely indifferent to this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

it will only apply in the US, the rest of the world will continue to call it the GOM or "Gulf of Fragile Masculinity". I am sure when sanity returns to the POTUS in 4 years they can change it back.  

Edited January 30, 2025 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is the sentiment that I'm seeing coming from Facebook right now.  Does it have any merit?

Already, the predominant white Christian response to mass deportations is “They shouldn’t have broken the law.” 

The counter response is that we really should have figured out how we are going to function without the labor the mass deportations and the fear of mass deportations will create.

We have been using it. Getting rid of it with no plan in place is economically inadvisable. Building a migrant detention facility at Guantanamo is also inhumane.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The counter response is that we really should have figured out how we are going to function without the labor the mass deportations and the fear of mass deportations will create.

We have been using it. Getting rid of it with no plan in place is economically inadvisable. Building a migrant detention facility at Guantanamo is also inhumane.

I think the counter to this is that as Christians (white, or whatever color) we have all broken the law, and need to be redeemed. 

As Christians (white or otherwise) we follow our master and do our best to serve Christ by serving the least of these.

As Christians (white or otherwise) we pray for our enemies, do good to them that despitefully use us, turn the other cheek and forgive those who trespass against us. 

As Christians (white or otherwise) are are not ashamed or offended by the words of Christ, wherever and whoever they come from. 

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am sure when sanity returns to the POTUS in 4 years they can change it back.  

I hope so.

And if Ohioans want a mountain named after McKinley, why not find one in their own state?  Or a tall hill since they are vertically challenged. Or a river if a hill isn’t noble enough for them.  Or build a monument if McKinley needs to be celebrated (I don’t think he rates as a great president, I read he is typically rated as somewhat above average).  It is odd and wrong imo to force people who live in one state to bow to demands from another state over naming something in the first state something that is only a pride issue.  Why don’t Alaskans have a right to their own pride?  Would Ohioans appreciate and bow to Alaskans requiring Ohio State University being changed to something they want?

And if the appeal is tradition….the tradition of calling it Denali seems to be much longer than McKinley.

And if tradition should hold sway….what the heck is “the Gulf of America”?  The only saving grace there is America actually applies to the whole two continents, so in that sense it works.

It just looks like the US throwing its weight around….again. I hope it gets changed back.

I really wished whoever chose the name “United States of America” way back when  had come up with something more creative than “America” given it applies to two different land masses, one being a subset of the other.  That caused me no end of confusion as a little kid.

Edited January 30, 2025 by Calm

[ttribe]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Went where?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Illegal border crossings may be difficult to quantify with precision, but that doesn't mean they cannot be quantified at all.

If you are suggesting that "We just don't know how many," I think that is in error.

From ChatGPT:

So what are you saying?  

I think the data, if anything, understates the number of illegal border crossings.  

Yes, yes.  Hate and racism, racism and hate.  The go-to indictments for daring to be concerned about national sovereignty, tens of millions of unknown, unvetted illegal immigrants, the rule of law, and so on.

It is rhetoric like this that gave the Orange Man his victory last November.

Not really.  It makes little sense to encourage illegal immigration, let it happen on a massive scale, deport some back, and then call this last bit "enforcement."

Ad hominem in lieu of substance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's analyze this "10M+" number a little bit, both in terms of its content and in terms of its use.

The "10M+" is clearly an estimate. In my line of work, any number that ends with a "+" is an obvious estimate.

Now, how was this estimate calculated? Well, we have some guesses, but what was the actual calculation? We don't know.

What was the exact methodology used? We don't know.

The current administration used the 10M number to infer that 10M had crossed into the U.S. and stayed here in 2021-2024. None of that is true - https://www.fox43.com/article/news/politics/national-politics/no-ten-million-illegal-immigrants-not-crossed-border-harris/521-17d9d6d3-9aa2-4bbd-bef5-cdc362e20979

Pew Research estimated there were 11M illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2024. It did NOT say that they all entered in 2024, during the Biden Administration, or any other administration. That 11M is a cumulative total across many years.

It's also important to note that the CBP measures "encounters," not people.

For the sake of argument let's assume that the 10M is encounters during the Biden Administration (it's not, but we'll go with it). How many people in the 10M+ were actually apprehended at the border and sent back? We don't know. We can look at some history and maybe get an idea, though. For example, between February 2021 and October 2023 approximately 30.7% of border encounters resulted in releasing the border crossers into the U.S. with orders to appear for an immigration judge at a later date.
 

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/
 

Furthermore, although we don't have the same exact data for 2024, we have statements from CPB -

"Since the June 5 Presidential Proclamation on Securing the Border and accompanying Interim Final Rule, which was finalized Sept. 30 subsequent to an updated Proclamation, went into effect, there has been a continued, meaningful decrease in unlawful border crossings – including a more than 55% decrease in encounters between ports of entry along the southwest border.

Since then, DHS has also tripled the percentage of noncitizens processed for Expedited Removal, and the number of individuals released by Border Patrol pending immigration court proceedings is down 80%." Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-september-2024-monthly-update

So, if we assume 10M encounters between 2021 and 2024, that's an average of 2.5M/yr, or 625K/qtr. If we say that 625k/qtr happened through Q2 of calendar 2024 followed the 30.7% release rate, that indicates that approximately 2,686,250 (.307*((2.5M*3)+(625k*2)) of the encounters in 3.5 years resulted in releases of individuals into the U.S. Taking the CPB statement at face value the additional amount for Q3 and Q4 of 2024 would be approximately 76,750 (((625k*2)*.307)*.2) additional releases for the remainder of 2024. So, at most, those 10M encounters turned into releases into the U.S. of 2.763M. Not 10M+. Not even close.

Now, back to the content of the 10M+...

How much of that number is multiple crossings by the same individuals? We don't know.

How many were apprehended inside the U.S. and sent back? We don't know.

How many of those releases were later sent back under order of the immigration court? We don't know.

What proportion of the 10M is an estimate of "gotaways" (i.e. not apprehended  by CPB)? We don't know. From the FactCheck.org article - "Since Title 42 was terminated, successful evasions of Border Patrol have declined 79 percent to a daily average of about 500, or 15,500 per month, in January 2024,”. That's our best guess, at this point.

In other words, there is A LOT we don't know about that 10M+ number.

What does all this mean? In my opinion, it means: 1) the claim that 10M+ of illegal immigrants successfully entered the country, and stayed, under the previous administration is a complete fabrication; 2) the notion that the border was "wide open" is rhetoric not supported by facts; 3) the assertion that there has been "no" enforcement is a lie and insult to the thousands of border agents and support staff; and 4) the "border crisis" is grossly overstated.

You dismissed the CPB data by saying that it doesn't count if people were being "encouraged" to enter the country illegally. Where did you get this notion that there was some systematic effort to "encourage" people to enter the country illegally by the Biden Administration, or any other official source, for that matter? If you have some credible source of this opinion of yours, please share.

You dismissed my direct experiences and observations in my own state by putting the word "racism" in my mouth. I never said anything about racism. I said "hate and fear." I based that comment not only upon my personal observations, but also the history of both our country and others. The rhetoric clearly overstated the rate of successful illegal immigration. The next step was "They're taking our jobs!" (most are doing jobs most U.S. citizens don't want) and "They're driving up the cost of housing!" (which supposedly explains the majority of new-build multi-family housing units in Arizona, for example, being marketed as "luxury" living). Both are statements designed to make people fear and hate the illegal immigrants, and neither statement stands up to careful scrutiny.

History has tried to teach us multiple times, that a critical tool of despots is the creation of a group of "Others." People to be feared and hated because they are supposedly harming "real" citizens economically, culturally, or criminally. The playbook used by the current administration, especially during their candidacy, is nothing new. And for that reason alone, none of their numbers they bandied about should be taken at face value. Those numbers should be scrutinized with a high degree of skepticism. But humans see numbers and lean towards believing that a statement is accurate if it has a number in it. The majority of people don't think critically about those numbers and they certainly don't ask questions about the methodology used to arrive at those numbers. An enormous amount of the illegal immigration rhetoric was the old "create a problem to sell the solution" method and now people are being harmed because of it.

Do I think immigration enforcement in the U.S. under the Biden Administration, or any other administration, was perfect. Not at all. Do I think it should and can be improved? Absolutely. However, I am unwilling to sacrifice my humanity to do so.

You said you didn't have a problem so much with what was said by Bishop Budde as you did where it was said. I'm afraid your staunch defense of the harsh approach advocated by this administration tells me otherwise. It tells me your "Her plea for mercy using the scriptures was fine, but..." is just lip service. You present yourself as being a citizen who is simply concerned about illegal immigration. Are you equally concerned about the plight of the undocumented worker who picks lettuce in Yuma to send money back to family in Mexico to keep a roof over their heads? Are you equally concerned about the fact that the rhetoric to win my "swing-state" was based on false presentation of facts and mimics the strategy of evil despots from the world's history who created "Others" to gain power? I see nothing in your statements which indicates "mercy" has any impact on your positions.

I do believe in the rule of law in our nation. I also believe ours is a nation founded by, and made great by, immigrants. I also believe ours is a nation that has, on a number of occasions, shown compassion and mercy are as important as justice. For those reasons, I also believe Bishop Budde's exhortation to remember mercy in the enforcement of both law and policy to have been done at the right time and the right place. Behind closed doors would have accomplished nothing. As it stands, though, people are talking about it. A lot. I think that's a good thing.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let's analyze this "10M+" number a little bit, both in terms of its content and in terms of its use.

The "10M+" is clearly an estimate. In my line of work, any number that ends with a "+" is an obvious estimate.

Now, how was this estimate calculated? Well, we have some guesses, but what was the actual calculation? We don't know.

What was the exact methodology used? We don't know.

The current administration used the 10M number to infer that 10M had crossed into the U.S. and stayed here in 2021-2024. None of that is true - https://www.fox43.com/article/news/politics/national-politics/no-ten-million-illegal-immigrants-not-crossed-border-harris/521-17d9d6d3-9aa2-4bbd-bef5-cdc362e20979

Pew Research estimated there were 11M illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2024. It did NOT say that they all entered in 2024, during the Biden Administration, or any other administration. That 11M is a cumulative total across many years.

It's also important to note that the CBP measures "encounters," not people.

For the sake of argument let's assume that the 10M is encounters during the Biden Administration (it's not, but we'll go with it). How many people in the 10M+ were actually apprehended at the border and sent back? We don't know. We can look at some history and maybe get an idea, though. For example, between February 2021 and October 2023 approximately 30.7% of border encounters resulted in releasing the border crossers into the U.S. with orders to appear for an immigration judge at a later date.
 

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/
 

Furthermore, although we don't have the same exact data for 2024, we have statements from CPB -

"Since the June 5 Presidential Proclamation on Securing the Border and accompanying Interim Final Rule, which was finalized Sept. 30 subsequent to an updated Proclamation, went into effect, there has been a continued, meaningful decrease in unlawful border crossings – including a more than 55% decrease in encounters between ports of entry along the southwest border.

Since then, DHS has also tripled the percentage of noncitizens processed for Expedited Removal, and the number of individuals released by Border Patrol pending immigration court proceedings is down 80%." Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-september-2024-monthly-update

So, if we assume 10M encounters between 2021 and 2024, that's an average of 2.5M/yr, or 625K/qtr. If we say that 625k/qtr happened through Q2 of calendar 2024 followed the 30.7% release rate, that indicates that approximately 2,686,250 (.307*((2.5M*3)+(625k*2)) of the encounters in 3.5 years resulted in releases of individuals into the U.S. Taking the CPB statement at face value the additional amount for Q3 and Q4 of 2024 would be approximately 76,750 (((625k*2)*.307)*.2) additional releases for the remainder of 2024. So, at most, those 10M encounters turned into releases into the U.S. of 2.763M. Not 10M+. Not even close.

We have many millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.  Somewhere between 8 and 30 million.  We don't really know because these folks have a vested interest in remaining undetected.  

I think we need to secure our southern border, and vigorously enforce visa requirements.

I think we can do these things and also have an expansive and generous, and efficient and effective, and fair immigration system in which lots and lots of people from throughout the world are authorized to come and work in the U.S. legally.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Now, back to the content of the 10M+...

How much of that number is multiple crossings by the same individuals? We don't know.

How many were apprehended inside the U.S. and sent back? We don't know.

How many of those releases were later sent back under order of the immigration court? We don't know.

What proportion of the 10M is an estimate of "gotaways" (i.e. not apprehended  by CPB)? We don't know. From the FactCheck.org article - "Since Title 42 was terminated, successful evasions of Border Patrol have declined 79 percent to a daily average of about 500, or 15,500 per month, in January 2024,”. That's our best guess, at this point.

In other words, there is A LOT we don't know about that 10M+ number.

There's a lot we don't know about the millions and millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You dismissed my direct experiences and observations in my own state by putting the word "racism" in my mouth. I never said anything about racism. I said "hate and fear."

Hate and fear of . . . whom?

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Do I think immigration enforcement in the U.S. under the Biden Administration, or any other administration, was perfect. Not at all. Do I think it should and can be improved? Absolutely. However, I am unwilling to sacrifice my humanity to do so.

I quite agree.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You said you didn't have a problem so much with what was said by Bishop Budde as you did where it was said.

Yes.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm afraid your staunch defense of the harsh approach advocated by this administration tells me otherwise.

I don't know what you are referencing here.

Again, here is my generalized position:

Quote

I think we should secure the border, and keep it rigorously secured against unlawful crossings. 

I also think we should deport illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors).

I think that having commenced serious work on these initial objectives, we start to re-work and improve immigration laws.

Again, I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

Again, during this process we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people.  

Did you notice the parts about "compassionate accommodations where at all possible" and "we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people"?

Quote

Again:

Quote

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

Again:

Quote

To some extent, I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.  But not as a wholesale thing.

Again:

Quote

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

 

I have also repeatedly pointed, quoted verbatim, and endorsed the Church's published statements.  See here:

Quote

We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

And here:

Quote

Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.
...

What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate.  The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.  

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage. 

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God. 

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship. 

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

Having quoted this, I have said: "I like this.  A lot.  A lot."

My position is based on A) my own assessment, and B) the Church's counsel.  

I think securing our border is a great idea.  I would be in support of this regardless of which politicians say what.

I have also, in various ways, acknowledged the "boots-on-the-ground reality of years and years of American politicians of various stripes being either grossly negligent or intentional in their dereliction of duties re: enforcement of border security and immigration law," and that we "have implicitly invited the large scale violation of our borders and immigration laws, and in the process many fine and hard-working and otherwise-law-abiding people have created deep roots in the United States," and that "we need to make some accommodations for these folks (though not including citizenship)."

The "staunch defense" I have presented is of my own assessment, some of which jibes with the current administration's policies, and some of which does not.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It tells me your "Her plea for mercy using the scriptures was fine, but..." is just lip service.

I really meant it.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You present yourself as being a citizen who is simply concerned about illegal immigration.

Yes.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you equally concerned about the plight of the undocumented worker who picks lettuce in Yuma to send money back to family in Mexico to keep a roof over their heads?

Candidly, no. Anyone who tells you he is "equally concerned" for the welfare of everyone everywhere is selling you a line.

I am concerned for the welfare of my fellow man, but not equally concerned.  I am more concerned about the welfare of my family than I am of strangers.  This is a matter of simple necessity.  We should all be concerned about each other, which concern does not transmute to condoning widespread illegal border crossings and other violations of civil laws.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I see nothing in your statements which indicates "mercy" has any impact on your positions.

I'm okay with that.  Folks of a particular sociopolitical bent frequently go this way when assessing people with differing viewpoints.  Charles Krauthammer put it this way:

Quote

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

For the first side of this equation, I need no sources. As a conservative, I can confidently attest that whatever else my colleagues might disagree about - Bosnia, John McCain, precisely how many orphans we're prepared to throw into the snow so the rich can have their tax cuts - we all agree that liberals are stupid.

So it is, I think, with the "Hey, let's ignore the millions upon millions of unknown, unvetted illegal immigrants in our country and all the repercussions and costs that come from porous borders, lax enforcement of visas and immigration laws, etc., and if you disagree you hate your fellow man" crowd.

Quote

We mean this, of course, in the nicest way. Liberals tend to be nice, and they believe - here is where they go stupid - that most everybody else is nice too. Deep down, that is. Sure, you've got your multiple felon and your occasional war criminal, but they're undoubtedly depraved 'cause they're deprived. If only we could get social conditions right - eliminate poverty, teach anger management, restore the ozone, arrest John Ashcroft - everyone would be holding hands smiley-faced, rocking back and forth to "We Shall Overcome."

Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.

Liberals suffer incurably from naivete, the stupidity of the good heart. Who else but that oracle of American liberalism, The New York Times, could run the puzzled headline: "Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling." But? How about this wild theory: If you lock up the criminals, crime declines.

Similarly, if we secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, then we can root out the terrible effects that widespread illegal immigration brings (crime, violence, drugs, human trafficking, disease, massive financial outlays, driving down wages, etc.).  If you deport the baddies, crime declines.  Wild theory, eh?

This can then set things up so that we can create more lawful, organized, efficient and effective means of inviting large numbers of properly-vetted applicants to come to our beautiful country and do so lawfully.  We can also make accommodations for those who came here illegally, but have been otherwise law-abiding and contributing members of society (though not, IMO, to the extent of granting citizenship).

Quote

Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension.

Yep.  I think the "Open Borders" or "Quasi Open Borders" crowd are up in the night, but most of them mean well.

Quote

Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean.  How can conservatives believe in the things they do - self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, military power - without being soulless? How to understand the conservative desire to actually abolish welfare, if it is not to punish the poor? The argument that it would increase self-reliance and thus ultimately reduce poverty is dismissed as meanness rationalized - or as Rep. Major Owens, D-N.Y., put it more colorfully in a recent House debate on welfare reform, "a cold-blooded grab for another pound of flesh from the demonized welfare mothers."

As you put it: "I see nothing in your statements which indicates 'mercy' has any impact on your positions."

This despite my advocacy for accommodations for came-here-illegally-but-are-otherwise-law-abiding-and-contributing-members-of-society portion of the illegal population of the U.S. I'm probably a few dozen instances into articulating this position.

Quote

Liberals, who have no head (see above), believe that conservatives have no heart. When Republicans unexpectedly took control of the House of Representatives in 1994, conventional wisdom immediately attributed this disturbance in the balance of the cosmos to the vote of the "angry white male" (an invention unsupported by the three polls that actually asked about anger and found three-quarters of white males not angry.)

The "angry white male" was thus a legend, but a necessary one. It was unimaginable that conservatives could be given power by any sentiment less base than anger, the selfish fury of the former top dog - the white male - forced to accommodate the aspirations of women, minorities and sundry upstarts.

And here you are resorting to that same "conventional wisdom."  To disagree with you on immigration policy is to lack "mercy."

Alas, alack, and Alaska.

Quote

The legend lives. Years ago it was Newt Gingrich as the Grinch who stole Christmas. Today, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares the Bush administration the moral equivalent of Jean-Marie Le Pen, France's far right, xenophobic, anti-Semitic heir to European fascism. Both apparently represent the "angry right." But in America, writes Krugman, it is worse: "Here the angry people are already running the country."

Yep.  To disagree with you on border policy is to be "angry."  To disagree with you is to want to be mean to someone picking lettuce in Yuma.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I do believe in the rule of law in our nation.

Does that include enforcing immigration law?  Or would you make you a hater of the picking-lettuce-in-Yuma folks?

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I also believe ours is a nation founded by, and made great by, immigrants.

And colonizers, too.  Can't forget them.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I also believe ours is a nation that has, on a number of occasions, shown compassion and mercy are as important as justice. For those reasons, I also believe Bishop Budde's exhortation to remember mercy in the enforcement of both law and policy to have been done at the right time and the right place.

But because I think otherwise, that her comments were deliberately provocative, divisive, politicized, I lack "mercy."

You have awarded yourself as being a carrier of "compassion and mercy," and have adjudged me as lacking in these virtues.

Okey doke.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Behind closed doors would have accomplished nothing.

Instead, what she "accomplished" was to publicly call out and lecture a new president (with an ego the size of Nebraska), and she did this in front of cameras, and with millions of people watching, and she thereafter went on a press junket in which she was interviewed and given high praise by the new president's political opponents.

Right.  Nothing political going on there.

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As it stands, though, people are talking about it. A lot. I think that's a good thing.

Ah.  So it wasn't about giving counsel to Trump after all.  It was about her advancing her political views by misappropriating a sacred venue and lecturing a politician with whom she has publicly disagreed in the past.

Right.  Nothing political going on there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am saying that I don't know that the attribution to "white Christian{s}" is accurate.

I am saying that I don't know that "mass deportations" is accurate.

 

 

Ok, to amend my understanding of your last post: 

You don't know if white Christians are the majority of who feel that way and you don't know if the amount of people who will be deported will qualify as a 'mass'.  It's also accurate that people shouldn't be upset about negative consequences for breaking the law, but it is incomplete.

Quote

I am saying that the "They shouldn't have broken the law" in an accurate, but incomplete, statement.  I mean, c'mon.  Isn't this pretty axiomatic?  That as a general principle, people should not break the law?

To help with the context of the quote, here is a little more of it which shows that the statement about 'shouldn't have broken the law' is speaking to the implication of American White Christian hypocrisy on the topic and is not meant to speak to whether or not it's ok for people to break the law.

Already, the predominant white Christian response to mass deportations is “They shouldn’t have broken the law.” As if law breaking makes someone’s humanity null and void. An interesting take from people who profess to believe in a Jesus who picked grain on the Sabbath and was crucified for treason against Rome.  But that’s not my main point. Let’s ignore the hypocrisy of American WCs...

Quote

I am saying that the implicit accusation of racialism is problematic.

If you don't know if the attribution to white Christians is accurate, how do you know that the accusation of racism is problematic?  It's only problematic if it's not true, right?

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We don't really know because these folks have a vested interest in remaining undetected.  

As do many Americans who employ them.

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We don't really know because these folks have a vested interest in remaining undetected.  

You are still just showing your ignorance.  

These people are not "undetected"  Its just that you haven't really bothered to talk to them.  They are probably walking down the street right now. 

Come on, just because you don't bother to look for them doesn't mean they are "undetected"

Most of the people here illegally apply and get an "ITIN" number. This number is reported to credit Bureau's banks, the IRS, business registrations, etc.  It's quite open. 

Its so common that the IRS has a place to report both the real number and the fake social security number on electronically filed tax returns. 

Just because you don't know doesn't mean they are "undetected".

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There's a lot we don't know about the millions and millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Speak for yourself.  

Its obvious there is a lot you don't know, but that is your fault for not bothering to find out. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you deport the baddies, crime declines.  Wild theory, eh?

Stupid argument. If you deport  the badies, crime just goes somewhere else, and then just come back where it came from.  But you don't want to deport baddies, You just want to deport a subset of baddies.

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To disagree with you on immigration policy is to lack "mercy."

Your opinion does lack mercy.  You just could not stomach a statute of limitations on Immigration enforcement, yet you are OK with one for assult.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

adjudged me as lacking in these virtues.

I think your lack of these virtues is more than apparent. 

 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Instead, what she "accomplished" was to publicly call out and lecture a new president (with an ego the size of Nebraska), and she did this in front of cameras, and with millions of people watching, and she thereafter went on a press junket in which she was interviewed and given high praise by the new president's political opponents.

What a snowflake. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

also have an expansive and generous, and efficient and effective, and fair immigration system

Only if we change the law and policies before trying to fully enforce them. They are too cumbersome to fairly enforce as they are.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Its so common that the IRS has a place to report both the real number and the fake social security number on electronically filed tax returns. 

Why am I not surprised the IRS is more practical than some other agencies.

[Danzo]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why am I not surprised the IRS is more practical than some other agencies.

These people that are here are real people who do real people things

They buy things

They Work

They Bank

They borrow money

They Invest

They buy Houses

They hire lawyers to resolve disputes using the court system

They run businesses, some of them quite large.

They go to Church

They aren't hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and attack unsuspecting people.

people like SMAC are never going to understand the issues until they realize that they are talking about real people.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I think the counter to this is that as Christians (white, or whatever color) we have all broken the law, and need to be redeemed. 

As Christians (white or otherwise) we follow our master and do our best to serve Christ by serving the least of these.

As Christians (white or otherwise) we pray for our enemies, do good to them that despitefully use us, turn the other cheek and forgive those who trespass against us. 

As Christians (white or otherwise) are are not ashamed or offended by the words of Christ, wherever and whoever they come from. 

I prefer your approach but I am too cynical to think that appealing to people’s better nature will work. Telling them it will hurt them usually works better.

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I prefer your approach but I am too cynical to think that appealing to people’s better nature will work. Telling them it will hurt them usually works better.

It surprises me what changes people sometimes. I once visit taught a woman who was very anti-immigrant vocal. Just really strong about it. One day she asked me questions about what I had been doing with myself. I shared with her about refugees and asylum seekers. She was not physically capable of much, but a week later she had me bringing bags of snacks and candy so she could make snack bags to go in asylum seeker children's backpacks.

Edited January 31, 2025 by Rain

[Calm]

Quote

Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

I have read a lot of conservatives describing liberals as much more than just stupid, as morally corrupt, manipulative, hypocrites, thieves, dictators, communists (pretty much used in the same way liberals use fascists) etc…pretty much everything that counts as evil that conservatives have been labeled, so I think this guy is downplaying how nasty some conservatives can be in their labeling of liberals.

Quote

Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension

That had me bursting out laughing. 
 

Another laughable moment:

”How can conservatives believe in the things they do - self-reliance, self-discipline….. - without being soulless?”

As if no liberal has ever been able to be successful in life based on their own self reliance and discipline and all just reside in their mother’s basement for most of their lives because they find no inherent value in self reliance and self discipline.

[I only removed competition and military power from the quote because I suspect that while most liberals see value in both, they would define such differently enough that depending on the definition one uses for those terms, it would not be accurate in each case to say they value competition or military power]

Edited January 31, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

So it is, I think, with the "Hey, let's ignore the millions upon millions of unknown, unvetted illegal immigrants in our country and all the repercussions and costs that come from porous borders, lax enforcement of visas and immigration laws, etc., and if you disagree you hate your fellow man" crowd.

That you actually phrase the position of liberals or even just some liberals in this simplistic caricature would lead me to think of you as “stupid”*** if I were so inclined.  I am not even if I were politically siding with those you are describing as such, but I am neither liberal nor conservative these days as my positions are too varied to qualify as mostly one or the other. I am stuck in my family between a moderate conservative and a strong liberal and manage to be able to talk civilly with both, both agreeing and strongly disagreeing with both of them.  I don’t view the vast majority of people as stupid and can only remember calling one person that in the last 20 years or more and that was due to a very extended observation of what appeared to be clueless behavior where they chose not to put effort into thought before they spoke…or after it for that matter.

At the very least though I view the caricature as stupid as it achieves nothing but to signal you are refusing to actually engage with people’s actual positions and instead for some reason choose to rewrite them so it’s easy to mock, discount, or whatever besides taking people’s ideas seriously.

I am going to be blunt here.  I am not saying there is nothing in you that is merciful or compassionate as I see those in you in many ways, but you do appear to lack mercy and compassion in some of your choices in how you discuss things in some areas.  Your choice to misrepresent liberals as you have done above even after you have been engaged in conversation with some with much more nuanced positions is to me a behavior that lacks compassion and definitely lacks any mercy… or justice for that matter.

And to continue to be blunt, I don’t see the personal attacks on you rather than your behavior, such as calling you a snowflake, as particularly compassionate or merciful either.  I think it’s wrong and detracts from the value of the conversation when it happens.  I think it better when it is stated a particular behavior is not merciful or compassionate.

***stupid here being defined as being clueless about reality 

Edited January 31, 2025 by Calm

[ttribe]

On 1/29/2025 at 5:45 PM, smac97 said:

A border that in recent years has has 10+ million people cross it illegally cannot be reasonably described as "secure."

Governmental supervision of border security and immigration law that has resulted in 10+ million illegal border crossings is reasonably described as "lax."

Arizona?  The same state referenced here?

11/06/2024: Troubled by illegal border crossings, Arizona voters approve state-level immigration enforcement

Sure sounds like Arizona is finding illegal immigration to be a big problem, so much so that your state is authorizing state assistance with border security efforts.

Also, per Politico, Trump won Arizona based on his policy positions on immigration:

Arizona was "a swing state with a record influx of {illegal} migrants last year."

Thanks,

-Smac

I have shown you that the 10+ million people is not a reliable or accurate measure of people who successfully crossed the border in "recent years." You parroted this administration and prevailing party's rhetoric and it was false. That was irresponsible and indicates you care less about the truth of the argument than you do winning your argument.

On 1/29/2025 at 11:01 PM, smac97 said:

Went where?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Illegal border crossings may be difficult to quantify with precision, but that doesn't mean they cannot be quantified at all.

If you are suggesting that "We just don't know how many," I think that is in error.

From ChatGPT:

So what are you saying?  

I think the data, if anything, understates the number of illegal border crossings.  

Yes, yes.  Hate and racism, racism and hate.  The go-to indictments for daring to be concerned about national sovereignty, tens of millions of unknown, unvetted illegal immigrants, the rule of law, and so on.

It is rhetoric like this that gave the Orange Man his victory last November.

Not really.  It makes little sense to encourage illegal immigration, let it happen on a massive scale, deport some back, and then call this last bit "enforcement."

Ad hominem in lieu of substance.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have shown you that the data is only marginally useful and that the inferences you are making are not directly supported by the data that is available.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

We have many millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.  Somewhere between 8 and 30 million.  We don't really know because these folks have a vested interest in remaining undetected.  

I think we need to secure our southern border, and vigorously enforce visa requirements.

I think we can do these things and also have an expansive and generous, and efficient and effective, and fair immigration system in which lots and lots of people from throughout the world are authorized to come and work in the U.S. legally.

There's a lot we don't know about the millions and millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.

A spread between "8 and 30 million" is not useful and is not informative.

I have shown you that there is at least some security of our borders. It is not entirely open or unsecured.

Your "expansive and generous..." is limited to only those who have gotten here, thus far, legally. You give lip service to finding accommodations for "hard-working" people who are here illegally, but only just. You are very specific about a "secure" border, but very vague as to how to do so "compassionately."

You state "There's a lot we don't know about the millions and millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S." but you do "know" there are "millions and millions" and you do "know" you don't want them here, right?

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hate and fear of . . . whom?

Don't be obtuse. The entire discussion is about "illegal immigrants" as a group.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

My position is based on A) my own assessment, and B) the Church's counsel.  

I think securing our border is a great idea.  I would be in support of this regardless of which politicians say what.

I have also, in various ways, acknowledged the "boots-on-the-ground reality of years and years of American politicians of various stripes being either grossly negligent or intentional in their dereliction of duties re: enforcement of border security and immigration law," and that we "have implicitly invited the large scale violation of our borders and immigration laws, and in the process many fine and hard-working and otherwise-law-abiding people have created deep roots in the United States," and that "we need to make some accommodations for these folks (though not including citizenship)."

The "staunch defense" I have presented is of my own assessment, some of which jibes with the current administration's policies, and some of which does not.

Which part does not "jibe" with the current administration's policies? As long as you continue to rely on the false and dangerous rhetoric about the numbers of illegal immigrants promulgated by this administration it appears your are right in step with them.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Candidly, no. Anyone who tells you he is "equally concerned" for the welfare of everyone everywhere is selling you a line.

I am concerned for the welfare of my fellow man, but not equally concerned.  I am more concerned about the welfare of my family than I am of strangers.  This is a matter of simple necessity.  We should all be concerned about each other, which concern does not transmute to condoning widespread illegal border crossings and other violations of civil laws.

I'm okay with that.  Folks of a particular sociopolitical bent frequently go this way when assessing people with differing viewpoints.  Charles Krauthammer put it this way:

So it is, I think, with the "Hey, let's ignore the millions upon millions of unknown, unvetted illegal immigrants in our country and all the repercussions and costs that come from porous borders, lax enforcement of visas and immigration laws, etc., and if you disagree you hate your fellow man" crowd.

Similarly, if we secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, then we can root out the terrible effects that widespread illegal immigration brings (crime, violence, drugs, human trafficking, disease, massive financial outlays, driving down wages, etc.).  If you deport the baddies, crime declines.  Wild theory, eh?

Fine, not "equally concerned." Are you concerned, at all? Because that's not obvious.

Who is saying "let's ignore..."? Who, exactly? That's shameless strawman nonsense. I've seen exactly zero people in this discussion express such a sentiment.

Are there only "terrible effects" of so-called "widespread illegal immigration"? I think you are in for a big surprise at what will happen to our economy if mass deportations are undertaken.

Oh, and as you've been told numerous times, there are many, many more "baddies" amongst the legal citizens. To limit your commentary to only the "bad" things you associate with illegal immigration is another example of parroting the inaccurate and dangerous rhetoric being cast about.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

And here you are resorting to that same "conventional wisdom."  To disagree with you on immigration policy is to lack "mercy."

Alas, alack, and Alaska.

Yep.  To disagree with you on border policy is to be "angry."  To disagree with you is to want to be mean to someone picking lettuce in Yuma.

What "conventional wisdom" am I resorting to? I've said nothing about disagreeing with me. I've spoken, repeatedly, about your reliance upon the same inaccurate, false, and dangerous rhetoric promulgated by the current powers that be to support your advocacy for so-called "secure" borders...whatever that looks like in your mind.

Mass deportations are a ham-fisted solution to the present problem. Opening a camp at Guantanamo Bay is treading into dangerous territory in terms of human rights and humanitarian treatment of people. Historically, such camps have not brought us to good outcomes.

Raids of homes and places of business without a warrant puts us on a slippery slope of wholesale subordination of civil rights to the state.

Do you support those actions of this administration? Because the more you parrot their rhetoric, the more it looks that way.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  To disagree with you on border policy is to be "angry."  To disagree with you is to want to be mean to someone picking lettuce in Yuma.

Does that include enforcing immigration law?  Or would you make you a hater of the picking-lettuce-in-Yuma folks?

And colonizers, too.  Can't forget them.

But because I think otherwise, that her comments were deliberately provocative, divisive, politicized, I lack "mercy."

You have awarded yourself as being a carrier of "compassion and mercy," and have adjudged me as lacking in these virtues.

Okey doke.

I've said nothing about your disagreement with me making you "angry." My only reference to anger was my observation that anger was stirred up in my neighbors as result of the Trump Administrations use of false and inaccurate information about illegal immigrants. If you want to hold yourself up as the paragon of good faith argumentation around here, you better start by not putting words in my mouth. That's twice in this exchange you've done that.

I don't happen to believe that enforcement of immigration laws should include mass deportations, warrantless raids, indiscriminate arrests that round up citizens, or use of false and dangerous information to encourage citizens to turn in their neighbors. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Other than attempt to bait me, I see no reason for your "colonizers" comment. That was stupid.

I've awarded myself nothing. Nor have I said you lack virtues. I've said your arguments here do not appear to have considered your stated commitment to mercy. There is a difference there, and I think you know that.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Instead, what she "accomplished" was to publicly call out and lecture a new president (with an ego the size of Nebraska), and she did this in front of cameras, and with millions of people watching, and she thereafter went on a press junket in which she was interviewed and given high praise by the new president's political opponents.

Right.  Nothing political going on there.

Ah.  So it wasn't about giving counsel to Trump after all.  It was about her advancing her political views by misappropriating a sacred venue and lecturing a politician with whom she has publicly disagreed in the past.

Right.  Nothing political going on there.

Candidly, I don't really care whether her actions were political or not. They were the right thing to say, and the right place to say them. That she is praised by the "new president's political opponents" is irrelevant, in my opinion. And, by the way, is completely out of her control. She correctly quoted scripture and applied it to a current situation. Last time I checked, that is one of the principal jobs of a pastor.

Edited January 31, 2025 by ttribe

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Who is saying "let's ignore..."? Who, exactly? That's shameless strawman. I've seen exactly zero people in this discussion express such a sentiment.

Or anywhere…except to mock the alleged persons they claim hold this ridiculous position.

[Duncan]

New statement from the Church

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2025/01/30/church-statement-principles-guidelines-immigration-law-love-family/

Edited January 31, 2025 by Duncan

[ttribe]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

As a general principle, I am opposed to violations of the law, particularly on a huge scale such as we've seen for many years.

Thanks,

-Smac

How about 34 felony convictions for fraud?

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I hope so.

And if Ohioans want a mountain named after McKinley, why not find one in their own state?  Or a tall hill since they are vertically challenged. Or a river if a hill isn’t noble enough for them.  Or build a monument if McKinley needs to be celebrated (I don’t think he rates as a great president, I read he is typically rated as somewhat above average).  It is odd and wrong imo to force people who live in one state to bow to demands from another state over naming something in the first state something that is only a pride issue.  Why don’t Alaskans have a right to their own pride?  Would Ohioans appreciate and bow to Alaskans requiring Ohio State University being changed to something they want?

And if the appeal is tradition….the tradition of calling it Denali seems to be much longer than McKinley.

And if tradition should hold sway….what the heck is “the Gulf of America”?  The only saving grace there is America actually applies to the whole two continents, so in that sense it works.

It just looks like the US throwing its weight around….again. I hope it gets changed back.

I really wished whoever chose the name “United States of America” way back when  had come up with something more creative than “America” given it applies to two different land masses, one being a subset of the other.  That caused me no end of confusion as a little kid.

So right! In fact I read something the other day that we shouldn't say we live in America, but the United States of America, to keep it straight. I'd never really payed enough attention to the significance until now.

Edited January 31, 2025 by Tacenda

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

How about 34 felony convictions for fraud?

THIS.