I just finished Landman recently, and it had me questioning whether the cartels in that show actually thought that they were an equivalent threat to the US military, and if that was just the hubris of the written characters.
Now, I'm guessing that it wasn't quite as much fictional hubris as I had thought, if they're actually stupid enough to give active reason and pushback. They do understand that they've just been designated as terrorist organizations, and as such, have just become very personal interests of the military, right?
Mexico is going to look very different four years from now.
It will ramp up once the active violent criminals are out, and the focus shifts onto the non-violent aliens. Right now, the knowledge that ICE might be coming for you is on the horizon, but there's some built in denial because you know that "there's no reason for anyone to be looking at me, I haven't actually done anything, and I'm not hurting anyone!"
Once that rational is stripped away, and you see other people who haven't been violent, but who have entered illegally being deported, then were will be more fear, and more self-deportation.
That being said, for an operation of this size, we might need a carrot and stick approach. For example, an ultimatum could be set: either leave or register yourself before this date - say, one month from now.
The Carrot: If you register with us, and you don't have a criminal record, then we will help you apply for legal immigration, and set a date for deportation, since we have a bottleneck in the number that can be deported at one time. If you cooperate, if you don't flee, if you continue to keep a clean record, and if you allow yourself to be deported without incident, or else leave through a legal port of exit, and register your exit, then you'll have the chance to come back one day, as a legal migrant.
The Stick: If you fail to meet this deadline, then the offer is gone forever. If you cannot or will not meet any of the conditions set, then the offer is gone forever. When you're found and deported, you will be blacklisted, and you will never be allowed to migrate back. If you were deported already, even if you received the Carrot, then you will be deported and blacklisted, immediately.
Finally, some kind of severe punishment will need to be meted out to anyone who is found trying to enter illegally going forward. That will most likely need to involve putting pressure on the rest of the world to implement punishments and jail time for aliens who are returned to them. We don't need them in our prison systems, living off of our taxes.
Overall, some give and pull is going to be necessary just to handle the sheer bulk, so something sweet but temporary will need to be offered to the non-violent masses, with the knowledge that the failure to cooperate will only hurt them. However, it can't be sweet enough to encourage people to come back, nor can it be something that can be taken advantage of.
Honestly, it just seems like you're being contentious for the sake of brewing conflict. I don't know what your history with the church is, but I can tell that you don't have a properly informed understanding of the doctrine of the church itself, and I don't believe that you're interested in learning it either, just that at best, you have a flawed understanding of church doctrine, and at worst, you want to take what is taught, and twist it into some false narrative.
If the "Mormon Jesus" - and what a laughable distinction that is - is as the LDS church describes, then what, exactly, is the contention? What, there going to be a "Protestant Jesus" or a "Catholic Jesus" or a "Baptist Jesus" waiting in the wings? No. Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ. If there is no Jesus Christ, and no God as Christianity believes - and make no mistake, the LDS church is a subsect of Christianity, whether you wish to believe it or not - then, okay, we were wrong. But if there is, and Christ will come as the LDS believe, then does that automatically mean that there will be a "Mormon Global Order"? No, it doesn't, and that's an incredibly flawed and misstated take. Basically, all this boils down to is "Is the LDS understanding correct, or is it not?"
At the end of the day, it's a set of religious beliefs to base one's moral code on. If it's true, then it will play out, and if it's not, then nothing will happen. It is literally that binary. In the mean time, the teachings are there to inform church goers what ideals to strive toward, as is the case with literally every other religion and structured belief system. You make it sound like LDS Missionaries are going out and demanding that they "baptize in the name of Mormon", just for the sake of sewing confusion and contention. Rather, they are following their beliefs, and speaking to anyone who is willing to listen. Who are you to have a problem with that, with people making their own choices?
Moreover, why are you demonizing an entire group of people like that? To go back to the root of this, Romney is not a paragon of "Mormons", he's a corrupted politician whose adherence to the faith is extreme doubt. If you want to shit on him, go right ahead - you'll find many LDS members in agreement. But to shit on the entire religion, and by extension, everyone who follows it, as well? That's quite a bit more extreme.
The teachings of the church fall in line with preparing for the second coming of Jesus Christ, and seeking repentance and preparation. There is no such ideal as a "One World Government administered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". The belief is that Christ, himself will rule as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Moreover, there's a strong foundation in the concept of free agency, where people are still free to, and encouraged to make their own choices, rather than to just blindly follow the masses. We're meant to come to the Lord on our own, not through fear, guilt, and force, and that's if we come at all.
This all being said, you're the one who made the claims of some kind of "Mormon Global Order agenda". The concerns of the church are that people are spiritually prepared, meek, repentant, and loving, one unto another, not that "Mormons shall rule over all". That's nonsense. So, I ask again, where in the church doctrine is it cited that the church will administer over a one world government? If you're going to cite the eschatology again, then don't just use the word, use the actual definition, and everything that it entails to argue your point.
You're the one who made the initial claim. It's not on me to explain myself to you, it's on you to defend your claim with factual sources. What you said is wrong; I asked for your sources so that I could understand why you think such things about members of the LDS church. In turn, your attitude played out like:
"Trump killed a man!" "...no he didn't. Where did you hear that?" "Oh yeah!? Don't just say that I'm wrong, CORRECT me! Prove that Trump didn't kill a man!"
Doubling down on an argument doesn't make you correct, it just digs your hole deeper.
As for the church... serving a role? To what end? Do you mean as fulfilling the role that any religion does, as a provider and a bedrock of a belief system and a plane of morality? Because that's what it does - it's a religion, people follow it, and abide by its doctrines. So what? I'm not sure what kind of question that's supposed to be, it just kind of seems like a flailing retort meant to cover up nonsensical claims.
I never understood this kind of criticism, to be honest. I mean, if someone is obviously shilling out and allowing what they say and do to be absolutely ruled by making a quick buck, well that's one thing. But Trump has always had a sales aspect to him - and if people want to buy his products, then what's the problem, exactly? It's not like he's putting a gun to our heads and demanding that we buy anything from him.
This "paytriot" thing just seems like a poor excuse to find criticism, when there isn't actually any criticism to be had; he's just marketing his brand. That's kinda what he's always done, long before he even came down the escalator.
Note that this goes for every so-called "paytriot" who isn't just selling themselves to the highest bidder. If you don't want to buy it, then just don't buy it, and move on.
As a practicing member of the LDS church, I can't say that I've ever heard of the idea of "a one world government administered by Mormons" propagated by the teachings of the church. In fact, that sounds completely counter to what's actually taught and practiced - that is to say, it sounds completely counter to the teachings that are centered around service to others, family, and personal humility. As for Romney himself, he tends to be quite unpopular within the community.
Honestly, I would have to ask for the sources for your beliefs that come from actual church doctrine, because they sound pretty unfounded and libelous.
Yep, I can confirm. I gave it the name backwards and told it to reverse the order of the letters, and it did everything it could to avoid saying the name. I eventually got it to say "Mayer David", so I equated the format to "Uzumaki Naruto", and told it to reverse the names like "Naruto Uzumaki", and it crashed.
I'm not really clear on how this will matter within two month's time, anyway. The Senate that's in power today isn't the same that will be in place when Trump is inaugurated, so how does this vote actually matter in the first place?
I mean, better for both sides to do it than just one; do you think Soros or Winfry or Zuckerberg cared about people being unhappy about them meddling? Just sitting back and taking it is how we got in this mess in the first place. If Musk is going to do it to, but for Trump, then maybe people will get off their asses and actually come up with a law to prevent this kind of thing altogether. As it stands, Trump already said that he'd be using the Dem's tactics against them. If it's legal for them to do it, then do it right back.
I'm sorry, but posting images without a link to the original source does open the door to accusations of doctored photos and misinformation. I'm not saying that this image is fake or that you have any malicious intent, just that it's without a source, and this is something to consider in the future. It doesn't take much to set up an account, even if you don't use it for anything other than accessing tweets.
Since you couldn't post the link to the original, does this mean that you got the image from someone else?