Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Face the Nation" channel.

  1.  @rl192  But the fact remains that it was never accurate, because she was never "put in charge of the border." You can find the White House transcript of the briefing in which she was given some duties related to immigration, and what it does, and does not say.
    1
  2.  @rl192  When was she given that authority? Certainly not publicly. In public, she was only given authority to visit our neighboring countries and negotiate with them to improve the conditions there. Her role had nothing to do with the border itself. Where did you hear that she was granted the broad powers you're talking about? What was the date of that?
    1
  3.  @rl192  Read the White House transcript from the day they mentioned it. No "border czar," no "full power of the President." You are massively exaggerating her role, as did plenty of people on the right, because they wanted her to fail at their imaginary position. If you only get your news from unreliable sources, then don't expect others to consider you well informed.
    1
  4.  @rl192  You didn't read it. I understand. No, what I said was she was given A job, which is different than the job that you believe she had, and in the job she actually had, she succeeded. And again, NOBODY denies that the press called her that, so I don't know why you keep insisting that they have.
    1
  5.  @foreverlearn3866  Whatever video you're talking about is in no way official. Nobody is arguing that there weren't people calling her that, only that it was never accurate.
    1
  6.  @foreverlearn3866  She handled the role she was given regarding immigration successfully, because migration from those countries has reduced. It was never her job to handle all aspects of immigration, that is the job of the President and SoHS.
    1
  7.  @ItsJustMe-nq1dg  Which people did they "pick up and fly in?" Are you talking about the ones flown from Texas to other states? That was the Florida governor, for some reason. And no, it was never her job to "handle the border." That was the job of the President and SoHS.
    1
  8.  @ItsJustMe-nq1dg  You're trying to change the argument. Nobody ever argued that she was never called that. Obviously she was, mostly by those on the right. The fact check is that it was never a role she actually held.
    1
  9.  @ItsJustMe-nq1dg  The position Biden gave her had nothing to do with "border czar" though. Harris was given the role of negotiating with three of our southern neighbors, no more, no less. Anyone claiming she had larger responsibilities regarding immigration than that is wrong. And "most libs" are not claiming she was never called that in the media, they are saying it was never accurate to call her that, which remains a fact. I said HE did not call her that, because he never called her that.
    1
  10.  @ItsJustMe-nq1dg  But she was not placed in charge of that policy area. She was only given a narrow mission within that policy area. At no point did she have any authority over the border itself or US border policy. That was not her role in the administration.
    1
  11.  @ItsJustMe-nq1dg  Nope. That's what you were TOLD was "straight from Biden's mouth" by people you really shouldn't be listening to. If you'd actually bothered to check what Biden actually said, it had nothing to do with the border itself, he was sending her to negotiate with three of our southern neighbors to improve living conditions there, end of story. Harris succeeded at that task. The words out of Biden's mouth can be found on the White House webpage. I'll wait.
    1
  12.  @ItsJustMe-nq1dg  Joe Biden, March 24, 2021: ". . . In addition to that, there’s about five other major things she’s handling, but I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border. . . . "And so, this increase has been consequential, but the Vice President has agreed — among the multiple other things that I have her leading — and I appreciate it — agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders." She was meant to deal with their borders, not ours.
    1
  13. Joe Biden, March 24, 2021: ". . . In addition to that, there’s about five other major things she’s handling, but I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border. . . . "And so, this increase has been consequential, but the Vice President has agreed — among the multiple other things that I have her leading — and I appreciate it — agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders." She was meant to deal with their borders, not ours.
    1
  14.  @bunjijumper5345  It is hateful to say that, since it implies that they are killing ducks, which was never true. Only hateful people believe that it was true.
    1
  15.  @bunjijumper5345  No, it's racist that people are claiming Hatiains are doing these things without evidence. Anyone making such claims is racist for believing that they are true and spreading those rumors. The race of the speaker isn't relevant, only what he is saying. So I ask you again, why do you keep bringing up the race of the person speaking?
    1
  16. Yeah, this guy has zero patriotism.
    1
  17. "Oh, I don't want to actually fix it, I just want to complain about it to make my political opponents look bad."
    1
  18. You can't trust AI videos of Biden, apparently.
    1
  19.  @CryptoKevin  No, they pay the tariff at Walmart, when the item is priced several times what it is now.
    1
  20.  @BrianM-44041  China doesn't use child labor, although their overall labor conditions are certainly not great. The major cost savings though is just that the cost of living is lower there. We can't replicate that in the US. They can afford to pay people $1 an hour and those people can go home and live off that dollar. That would be impossible in the US, because there are enough people making middle class incomes that this is where the prices of things are based.
    1
  21.  @Kg-yl5vy  The problem is that there is no scenario in which it balances out in America's interests. If manufacturers pay American workers to produce cheap manufactured goods, then the prices of those goods would have to rise to above what those employees could afford. There is no scenario in which America could become a home for cheaply produced basic goods again, there is always some aspect of the US employee's life that would be on balance worse off than they are today if that was a route we tried to force. If the US does any manufacturing, then it would need to be in high skill, high value products like computer chips and solar panels and cars and that sort of thing, not socks and toasters. Ultimately though, the US should not be a manufacturing nation in the 21st Century, we've left that role behind, and that is a good thing for Americans. What we need to do is figure out how to feed people who are not needed for manufacturing jobs. We have the money for that, we just need to distribute it fairly.
    1
  22.  @Kg-yl5vy  Also, you say that you believe in a free market where competition is king, you do understand that THIS market is the result of that? Tariffs are the opposite of a free market, because it's putting a thumb on the scales and saying that some companies should be competitively priced with others, even if their production costs are 2-3 times as high. You can claim to support free markets OR tariffs, never both.
    1
  23.  @KforFreedom  No, it's not "part of the negotiating," it's simple math. They can't charge less than it costs them to get to the customers, and customers can't afford to pay more than a certain amount. The math will never work out on most products. There can only be negotiation when the sell price is higher than the manufacturing price, which is not what would happen here.
    1
  24.  @Kg-yl5vy  Well, keep in mind, within our lifetime, there will be no human labor anymore, so that's the world we need to be preparing for anyway. Moving Heaven and Earth to try and let Americans make drinking straws for ten times as much as China makes them is a massive waste of time and effort. Let's be clear, this was never a sound economic theory, it was only a way to sound "mean to China." because his audience likes when he sounds mean to China, even when his policies make no sense.
    1
  25.  @Kg-yl5vy  Within our lifetimes, human labor will be unnecessary to the economy. We have to be prepared for that phase. Efforts to boost US manufacturing is a short term gain, at most, and not worth the hassle.
    1
  26.  @Kg-yl5vy  What nonsense are you talking about? We have plenty of resources to support everyone, whether they are productive or not. All we need is the political will to make it happen.
    1
  27.  @peterponcedeleon3368  What did you have trouble understanding? If you have any actual questions, I'd be happy to answer them, Knowledge is power.
    1
  28. Closing the border would cost the US half a billion dollars per day. That would be idiotic.
    1
  29.  @foreverlearn3866  He was taking notes to keep track of the various lies he had to correct when it got to be his turn. He still missed a bunch of them, like when Vance credited Obamacare for one of his relatives getting health care, but implied that Trump had anything to do with that, when he accomplished nothing while in office.
    1
  30.  @foreverlearn3866  Vance was pumping them too fast to keep up with. Walz is a teacher, soldier, coach, congressman, and governor, not a stenographer.
    1
  31. Lol.
    1
  32.  @LenOliver-yz6os  More than the current migrants are, at least. But you're right that most immigrants, especially of the current batch, cause less crime than the people already here.
    1
  33.  @TJ-zs1pl  How so?
    1
  34.  @TJ-zs1pl  Yup! Blue wave.
    1
  35.  @JackArkitekt  Lol, keep dreaming. The only seats Republicans pick up are the ones they rig.
    1
  36. Nobody is asking for "congress to do nothing." The Democrats want congress to do something. The only issue here is that Republicans are trying to LINK border stuff to the Ukraine funding, which is unacceptable, and also that the things Republicans want to do about the border will not actually HELP the border problems. If you want to solve the issues on the southern border, then pass Democratic plans to solve those problems.
    1
  37. Many countries have open borders. It's not an issue. Having a national border does not mean that you need to prevent people from crossing it.
    1
  38.  @camomaxx  There is absolutely nothing in international or US law that says you can't travel through multiple countries to claim asylum, MOST asylum seekers around the world travel through multiple countries before settling down. And in many cases "because you're poor" is an acceptable reason to seek asylum, because if you are unable to meet your basic needs in a given country, then that is an asylum-worthy reason to leave it. Again, if you don't want these people coming to the US, then the only way to do that is to help make their home country, OR countries along their way, livable enough that they can stop and stay there instead. You can't just expect them to NOT want a better life for themselves and their children.
    1
  39.  @camomaxx  One, you can claim asylum because you are poor if that has led to an inability to survive in your home country. Two, there is ZERO need to do that in the first country you arrive in, you just made that up because you want it to be true. and as for applying to enter the US, that would be a great idea, but due to Republican stonewalling over the past few decades, we currently do not offer nearly as many immigration slots as people trying to enter, so for most migrants, it is literally not an option, so they have to resort to plan B. If you want to reduce illegal immigration, there are only two ways to do it. 1. Make conditions better in their home country so that they don't need to come here to survive, and 2. massively increase the amount of legal visas given out so that more people who want to enter legally are allowed to do so. There is no solution in which less migrants enter the US.
    1
  40. Unfortunately, in the age of Faux News and MAGA, it has become an entirely left wing value. But I agree with you that it shouldn't be.
    1
  41. How so? Congress tends to hate DC, and would not care if there were a lot of immigrants there. It would only hurt DC residents, who have done nothing wrong.
    1
  42.  @EOJ111  Most targets of hate speech do nothing to make themselves hated. That's the problem. Hate speech is when people hate without any justification.
    1
  43.  @boogiewoogie9770  What was to blame for the Holocaust? A rise of populist nationalism.
    1
  44.  @78md74  That is a misunderstanding of the Constitution. It is not intended to defend hate speech. It is intended to defend controversial speech, yes, but not all controversial speech is hate speech.
    1
  45.  @terryt2728  Those that disagree often also dismiss Trump's obvious dementia.
    1
  46.  @78md74  And many who have read it do not understand that there are still reasonable limitations on those things, that the law takes an "open mind, but not so open your brain fall out" philosophy.
    1
  47. Meanwhile Trump wants to have them competing with people in China making shoes for $1 an hour.
    1
  48. It's been 20 years of the same story, because Republicans refuse to get anything done on the border. They prefer to just use it as a campaign wedge.
    1
  49.  @scottm838  Nobody in the Trump/Biden debate did a good job.
    1
  50.  @harleydavidson2218  It really doesn't take as much time as you seem to think, but then I don't have to sound out every word to understand it.
    1