Trying to revoke birthright citizenship is not “enforcing existing law”.
The concessions from Mexico and Canada were already planned from last administration. Moreover, now there are retaliatory tariffs coming from them.
How does a trade imbalance imply that we are “screwed”? Trump repeats that constantly but it doesn’t seem implied to me.
The stuff about NATO is a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
This is my biggest issue with Trump and his supporters, they treat everything as this incredibly reductive, black and white, “simple” issue.
No he did not. Biden's first acts were to repeal Trump's stringent immigration orders. After 3 and half years with another election looming and seeing the disaster that caused, all of the sudden, his administration wasn't so hot on open borders anymore. If he enforced immigration laws, we wouldn't have so many people who have illegally entered the country.
> Trying to revoke birthright citizenship is not “enforcing existing law”.
And I never claimed that. But I support an amendment towards that end.
> The concessions from Mexico and Canada were already planned from last administration.
Nope, the 10,000 troops Mexico just agreed to is on top of whatever other things they "promised" to do. And tariffs are off the table for now.
> Moreover, now there are retaliatory tariffs coming from them.
Nope, no tariffs have been enacted on either side at the moment.
> How does a trade imbalance imply that we are “screwed”?
US trade imbalance by year:
2020: $626 billion 2021: $858 billion 2022: $971 billion 2023: $1 trillion
We also have historically the lowest tariff rates in the world. Gee, I wonder if that's related. And then when we raise them to level the playing field, everyone bitches and whines.
> The stuff about NATO is a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
> This is my biggest issue with Trump and his supporters, they treat everything as this incredibly reductive, black and white, “simple” issue.
Pretty hand wavy there.
My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense, e.g. allowing biological men to destroy women in sports, not being willing to define what a woman is, getting mad at Trump for enforcing immigration laws (i.e. not letting people enter the country illegally and kicking out those who do)
[1] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistic...
> My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense, e.g. allowing biological men to destroy women in sports, not being willing to define what a woman is
I find this one so funny. Most liberals agree with you on this, but none of us will get on board with turning to fascism because an incredibly small portion of the population needs a civil rights issue addressed. That means we are forced to deal with the radical leftists who you are so angry about, because at least they aren't trying to overthrow the government. It would get settled much faster, and much more to your satisfaction, if a third of the country wasn't determined to act in bad faith and pretend those people don't exist. That's just as bizarre as the people who pretend that biological women and trans women are the same.
nope, border encounters have dropped significantly after Trump took office.
To your last points, I won't address because you throw up unsubstantiated accusations that has become the Leftist party line. There's no discussion to be had here.
Again, a bipartisan immigration reform was on its way to pass through congress until Trump told all the conservatives to kill it.
> And I never claimed that. But I support an amendment towards that end.
So you agree that an executive order ending birthright citizenship is bad?
> We also have historically the lowest tariff rates in the world. Gee, I wonder if that's related.
You still haven't demonstrated how having a trade imbalance implies that we're "being screwed". Trump keeps asserting that, but that doesn't seem obvious to me.
> Pretty hand wavy there.
Sure, I was writing this on my phone and I didn't have time to go into the details of the intricacies of NATO. You're free to look into the details of NATO yourself (you haven't), and if you do you'll likely understand why saying that the US is being screwed by paying more for NATO doesn't make sense.
> My issue with liberals is the lack of common sense,
That's because "common sense" doesn't actually mean anything. What do you think that "common sense" means? Your "gut feeling"?
"Common sense" is a phrase used by pseudo-intellectuals who want to reduce everything into pithy one-liners and ignore the fact that the world is actually pretty complicated, and your "common sense" is often wrong. It's not exclusive to conservatives, but it does seem to be a phrase that's extremely popular with them.
I reject the notion that immigration, NATO, biological gender, and pretty much any federal policy can be easily explained with "common sense". But what do I know, I'm just a liberal who doesn't have any I guess.
ETA:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o - US deportations under Biden surpass Trump's record
> Nope, the 10,000 troops Mexico just agreed to is on top of whatever other things they "promised" to do. And tariffs are off the table for now.
You're right, I looked it up, though what I should point out is that Biden was able to get Mexico to send troops without starting a trade war. It's not clear to me that this required the threat of a trade war.
That bill had concessions that loosened asylum restrictions and border closure measures. Why would would Republicans who want a secure border pass that when they could wait for Trump to become president and get everything they want in terms of a strong, secure border and tough laws against illegal immigrants?
Besides, even if it did pass, Biden has shown he is unwilling to enforce laws on illegal immigration.
> So you agree that an executive order ending birthright citizenship is bad?
If it turns out to be unconstitutional, then it's illegal and yes, therefor "bad". That's up to the courts to decide. Either way, I absolutely support legally repealing birthright citizenship.
> You still haven't demonstrated how having a trade imbalance implies that we're "being screwed"
Ok, looks like you're right on this, a trade imbalance is not necessarily bad for the US. It is bad for specific domestic industries that are affected by it though. I'd argue to a certain extant a nation has an obligation to protect its businesses in the context of international trade.
Here are some examples of common sense - Don't let biological men (humans with XY chromosome and a penis) into women's restrooms and locker rooms - Don't let biological men compete in women's sports because it's unfair and dangerous - Don't let violent thugs enter our country and if they do, kick them out.
