I understand completely.
In today's political/social climate, extremism is becoming the norm. There are fewer and fewer moderate minded people out there trying to keep others (on both sides) from going full retard.
It's an "all or nothing", "if you're not with us, you're against us" mindset. Which is neither healthy nor substantial.
Wow, a voice of reason. Nice to see that.
Sometimes I think there are entirely too many people who are just addicted to drama. They feel the need to make any and every single thing they possibly can into some grand scheme.
Again, I'm not arguing that they aren't criminals. They are but criminal =/= criminal record.
Yes, the media was trying to give the impression that all illegal aliens aren't dangerous criminals, which is what people tend to think of when they hear the term criminal record.
But, and here's the thing, not every illegal alien has a criminal record, which is obvious. Its a simple fact.
The problem is that the Press Secretary either a) was knowingly lying by saying all of them did or b) was displaying her ignorance over what the term criminal record means.
There it is. That's the issue. Either way, her comments aren't going to go over well with anyone other than the high-fiving nut flexers I referred to in an earlier comment.
Do you see anyone changing their opinion on the issue because of what she said? Truly? I don't.
Do you see people using what she said to paint the Trump Administration as ignorant and/or disingenuous? I do.
But hell, maybe it will distract people from noticing that grown ass patriots don't know how a bill is passed into a law and are apparently going to skip paying their income tax this year because they think introducing a bill is the same as a law being passed and immediately implemented.
I don't know why I even bother anymore. I truly don't. I'm this close 🤏 to just deciding each side is full of fucking retards and just ignoring politics all together. Just let you all stomp on the gas when you're driving straight towards a brick wall instead of trying to get you to at least ease up on the gas.
You’re overthinking this like crazy.
No, I'm really not. It's simply understanding very simple concepts, such as words having meaning.
What's going on here is people wanting to just ignore facts in favor of their feelings.
But the reason why a illegal is a criminal, with now a record, is because they are ILLEGALLY here, and now we document them(record them) and send them packing. Which gives a record
You don't even realize you're making my point for me.
Maybe if you got a pencil, and a piece of paper, and wrote down all the key words and phrases, and looked up the definition of each of them and made a Venn Diagram based on those definitions, you might begin to understand. (Spoiler: sometimes the circles don't overlap).Or maybe not. I fear you're a lost cause.
Yes. Thank you. It points out that a person has to have at least some sort of official interaction with the legal system in order to be considered to have a criminal record. Yet again, that whole definition of the word "record".
Just because a person is an illegal alien and is here illegally doesn't mean they've ever been looked at sideways by anyone in law enforcement, much less arrested or charged with anything.
Glad we cleared that up.
I agree they're criminals. I don't have any issue in deporting them. I couldn't care less if they were all dropped into the Grand Canyon, never to be heard from again.
I'm saying that there is a difference between engaging in criminal activities and having a criminal record. A criminal record is a very specific thing, and when talking about that in any relation to law enforcement, like deportation, specifics matter.
It seems like people are simply more interested in flexing nuts and posturing in front of the media than they are in addressing the facts of the case.
Because while most people here are snickering and high-fiving each other on "owning da libs" or whatever, the rest of the nation and world looked at that and came to the conclusion that the Trump Administration either a) doesn't understand the difference between two very simple legal terms (scary, considering how powerful we are as a nation) or b) doesn't care what the difference is (perhaps even more concerning).
And of course, this being the public face of Q, which has gained all sorts of recent attention with Trump's second term, we have no telling how many people coming here to check us out, and we have Anons who feel like doubling down on ignorant arguments like the one above.
I don't know what the hell has happened in the last week or so, but it's like there's a very serious case of retardation going on.
I'm in the middle of some other conversations where people are asking if they should pay their income taxes in a few months because they saw where the House introduced some bill about income tax (apparently they think introducing a bill is the same as passing a law and that the new law will take effect in a few months time) and another conversation where someone seems to think other countries will pay tariffs to our government if we don't import as many goods from them as we used to.
Honestly, there's a severe case of The Stupids going around.
Where in the US do you live that food doesn't get taxed? I know there are a few states that don't impose a state tax on food, but that doesn't account for local jurisdictions.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that food should be taxed. I'm just genuinely curious where in the US has no tax on food.
Mississippi and Alabama have the highest taxes on food in the US, I think. I grew up down there and once a month we would drive an hour to cross the border into a different state to buy groceries. Most states have lower food taxes, but MS and AL tax food just as high as everything else. Seems like something that would happen in California or NY or Massachusetts, not Alabama and Mississippi.
Anyway, I was just curious. And jealous. Mostly jealous. But a little curious, too. 😁
You're confusing common laws vs federal. How many years have you spent in prison vs how much was your ticket/court cost.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean state laws vs federal? Because I think traffic laws are under state laws. Either way, it doesn't really matter, because the terms "criminal record" and "illegal act" don't change depending on if they fall under being a federal crime or a state crime.
I don't think you understood my point in regards to the speeding and jaywalking examples. My point was virtually everyone here has done something illegal at least once in their life, yet everyone does not have a criminal record. That's because not everyone is caught doing whatever illegal thing it is they're doing, and even if they're caught it does not mean they automatically charged with a crime and then found guilty in order to have a criminal record. Because, yet again, a criminal record does not mean the same as doing something illegal.
I honestly can't believe I have to explain this.
I'm not saying all crimes are equal.
I'm saying that the term "criminal record" means something more than just doing something illegal.
I don't think you understand what the word "convicted" means, either.
And you don’t have to be convicted. If your an illegal, that’s being convicted.
That doesn't make any sense.
I think you're confusing "guilty" with "convicted". Someone can be guilty of a crime without being convicted of it. Conversely, someone can be convicted of a crime without being guilty of it. For instance, President Trump may have been convicted of sexual abuse, but that doesn't mean he was guilty of it.
Doesn’t require a court.
Well, if it's talking about a criminal record, then yes, it does require a court. Because courts of law are where people are found guilty of crimes and where those crimes are recorded. As in a a record of a criminal activity. As in a criminal record. See, that's where it gets the name. Did you never make that association before?
No matter how you spin it, words have definitions for a reason. If we all just made up our own definitions for things, the world would devolve into chaos.
Unemployment rate in the US is only 4%. Now that we're finally getting rid of illegal immigrants, we're going to have a ton of job openings coming up.
Do you really think that extra 4% of potential employment will make a big enough difference where we will be having more people working in order to pay less taxes? If we no longer have an income tax, what does it matter if we have more people making an income?
Earlier you said we would eventually be paying zero taxes.
If we're not going to have an income tax, and we're no longer paying as much in tariffs, where will the government be getting money?
What if we start doing so well in bringing manufacturing back that we end up having a worker shortage and have to start giving visas to foreigners just to start the whole illegal immigrants thing over. The majority of illegal immigrants in the US came over here legally on work, tourist, or school visas, and didn't go home when they expired, thus becoming illegal.
Do you see how what you're saying here is inconsistent and confusing?
Well no. A criminal record is just that. A record. A record of someone being charged and convicted of a crime in a court of law.
Doing something illegal doesn't mean someone has a criminal record. If so, we would all have criminal records, because there is not one person here who has never committed a crime. Speeding is a crime. Jay walking is a crime in some places.
This is not the "gotcha" people think it is. And it's kind of embarrassing that people don't know that a criminal record is more than just someone breaking a law.
Being exempt from tariffs isn't the same as growing income from tariffs, which is what you first said.
How exactly will the government be making money on people not paying tariffs?
Ok, I'd like to do a little experiment here.
I'd like people to state what they believe a tariff is and who is ultimately responsible for paying it.
Because reading through some of these comments here makes me wonder what the hell is going on.
The same thing with what a bill is and how it becomes a law.
Also, don't get tax or financial advise from strangers online. Just...don't.
How much you wanna bet that we're going to be having these exact same conversations a year from now? With the same people?
I remember during Trump's first term in office that people would get super excited whenever some bill they liked got introduced in the House. Elimination of federal income tax being one of them. Apparently people think that the President can just sign any bill he likes into law and just cutting out the middlemen that are Congress. 🤷♀️
I dunno. It actually makes me sad because I know they're going to be extremely upset when the bill is killed. Like they really thought this time would be different.
Just like Lucy and Charlie Brown and that damn football.
Exactly. But it's not just cheap Chinese wrenches. The US has basically no domestic manufacturing now. So unless we all plan to go the Amish route, we'll be paying tariffs on almost everything we buy.
So u/Hodar is saying that the government needs to be making a steady income on tariffs before they reduce our taxes. So we'll be paying tariffs and taxes at the same time?
But then they say that as manufacturing jobs come back to the US, the government will be getting even more income via tariffs? How does that work?
If people are getting the work done, who cares where they are working from?
If they're not getting the work done, then why aren't they getting fired?
For many, their productivity increases as they work from home because they're not constantly being interrupted by Chatty Cathies and office birthday parties and other such nonsense.
It's also positively hilarious that people think that just because someone shows up to an office to work that they are automatically productive. Obviously they've never seen anyone exhibit the fine art of looking busy while doing nothing at all. Just frown at your computer and click your mouse repeatedly and people will think you're super duper productive.
Remote workers save companies money by reducing the need to pay for office space.
The only people I really see getting upset over remote workers are middle management type of people. Those whose jobs are basically looking over their employees shoulders and scheduling endless rounds of office meetings that spend hours accomplishing the same thing an email or two will do.
But didn't Trump make it so government employees can no longer work from home?
Reading through some of the comments here is just sad. Seriously.
People should be ashamed for not knowing how basic things like bills and tariffs work.
🤨
What exactly do you think it means that someone introduced a bill to the House?
Who do you think pays the tariffs, exactly?
I see this over and over, and I've decided that there are many, many, many people who never learned how bills are passed, and how laws are made, or they forgot everything they learned.
I think everyone needs to do a Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just A Bill" refresher course.
Apparently people think having a bill introduced into the House means it's now a law. 🤷♀️
That's a whole lot of "supposedly". To counter that, Elon's great-grandfather was factually also named Elon. That must be a coincidence.
I don't know what Elon's dad was smoking, but the name "Elon" is nowhere to be found in any published version of that book.
The only place I can find the name Elon being mentioned in relation to Von Braun is in the picture of the piece of paper above.
Elon's great-grandfather was also named Elon. It doesn't take a genius to get the connection.
I don't think stealing balls was ever great in the first place, so...