rwestmore7

And you’d be saying the same BS if Kamala took us to war with Iran? That’s what I thought. You’re allowed to be a hypocrite, but just know everyone around you can see it

Oh ok. So he just told you to say it in a different way now. Laughable.

You’re arguing oil prices when electricity is driven by natural gas. LNG is now a global market, not a local one. Qatar just lost a chunk of supply (+17% of exports from Iran attack) and Europe/Asia are bidding for LNG, U.S. prices go up because we export a ton from Louisiana. We continue to allow companies to export more and more. Do you think they are going to charge less to consumers here if they can sell globally for much higher? That flows straight into power generation costs which causes higher electric bills. Oil going up or down doesn’t change that.

Can’t wait for those electric bills this winter

I hate when people claim that an election was stolen. I’ve had to hear this for 6 years straight now.

I hope the next pres tells atf the same thing when he sends them for your guns. Or is that diffe(R)ent

quote:

---

Then he reached for it.

---

Are you more blind than Ray Charles

Show me someone who believes propaganda over video evidence lmao

I mean I was 5 and 6 when the first 2 happened. lol

You are pro gun.
Guns have killed children.
Therefore, you support school shootings.

That’s your logic.

It’s obviously false, and so is your claim about me. You're so dishonest mostly with yourself

quote:

---

gloss over them sexually assaulting children

---

That’s a false and reckless accusation. I have never glossed over sexual assault of children, by anyone. I know a politician currently not releasing files that has to do with child sexual assault. Are you calling them out? Didn't think so.

Pointing out that crime data is being misused is not defending crime, and it’s not excusing abuse.

I'll ignore the jab that has nothing to do with me or the arguments I'm making. Trump did a terrible job with Covid. I agree.

You’re arguing past the point, not through it.

Calling people who violate laws “criminals” isn’t the strawman. The strawman is pretending anyone argued otherwise. The point is about what conclusions different categories of crime can support. Immigration offenses answer whether immigration law was violated. They do not, by themselves, answer who poses a higher violent or property crime risk to the public. That’s not wordplay, it’s how policy analysis actually works.

Saying “the law is the law” doesn’t collapse all laws into one meaningful category. The legal system itself doesn’t treat them that way. That’s why homicide, tax fraud, trespass, and immigration violations carry different penalties, are enforced by different agencies, and trigger different policy responses. Recognizing that reality isn’t assigning “humanity” to some laws and not others, it’s acknowledging how the law already functions.

You keep framing prioritization as favoritism. It isn’t. Every enforcement system prioritizes based on risk, harm, and jurisdiction. That’s why police don’t allocate the same resources to parking violations as they do to armed robbery. That doesn’t mean one group is “allowed” to break the law. It means enforcement decisions are made based on impact and capacity.

As for relaxed enforcement, that’s a policy choice made by elected officials within the bounds of the law. Disagree with it all you want, but policy discretion is not the same thing as legal exemption. Citizens and non-citizens are subject to different legal regimes by statute. That’s jurisdiction, not privilege, even if you don’t like the outcome.

And yes, your last paragraph makes the underlying position clear. This isn’t really about comparative crime rates. It’s about the belief that undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be here at all, regardless of behavior. That’s a legitimate political position. But once you take it, crime statistics stop being evidence and become window dressing. You can’t invoke “no one is above the law” rhetorically while ignoring how the law actually distinguishes between offenses, enforcement authority, and policy goals.

If you want to argue immigration policy on the merits, do that. If you want to argue public safety, then the relevant data is per-capita violent and property crime, not incarceration shares shaped by enforcement choices. Mixing those two arguments doesn’t strengthen either one.