direwolf @ direwolf @lemmy.ml Posts 4Comments 39Joined 1 wk. ago
Remember, Governor Abbot of Texas was busing illegal migrants to sanctuary cities because there were so many. If an open border policy is to the right, what would be a leftist policy?
If Biden who permitted a flood of illegal migrants is right wing, what is Trump?
Trump focuses on anti-Semitism, yet there are other groups that are targets of hate.
'Project Esther' is the playbook for Trump's disingenuous anti-antisemitism agenda
No. Harris said that she wouldn't change anything that Biden did. So, her views were identical to Biden's.
Democratic leaders such as Obama should have urged Biden not to run. If he refused, they should have encouraged other candidates to run against him during the Democratic convention. Harris said that she would not have done anything different than Biden. This was stupid since the strategy of Republicans was to associate her with Biden.
Remember governor Abbott of Texas of busing illegal migrants to cities outside of Texas. Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona would make asylum tougher. From https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gallego-unveils-immigration-plan/ar-AA1EDI4k
It would also place new limitations on asylum — a protection sought by many migrants who claim they are fleeing persecution or danger. Gallego’s plan would raise the standard to obtain asylum protections — which is something also sought by Republicans, who argue the protections should be harder to gain.
He doesn't take orders from Russia, but he doesn't seem to realize the ramifications of what he's doing.
In the 2024 presidential election, there was no centrist candidate. Trump was to the right and Harris to the left.
No, between Hitler and the Communist Party.
The Democrats should have removed senile Biden earlier. The result was that there was no time for Democrats to choose a candidate. Kamala Harris was chosen without having to compete with other candidates.
From https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5292882-pentagon-china-risks-global-instability/
In late March, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance to the Pentagon. According to the guidance, as quoted by The Washington Post, “China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.” The Pentagon is instructed, per the report, to plan only for contingencies with China.
Given the trends in the new administration, none of this is surprising, but it is shocking.
The document is a blueprint for geopolitical malpractice. The guidance’s identification of China as a major security threat, and thus a priority, is appropriate. But the prescribed downgrading of American commitments in Europe and the Middle East is a recipe for global instability, including in Asia. Violent conflagrations will follow.
No, they have to move to the center.
As the article said Josh Shapiro and Andy Beshear would be considered centrist.
The US has already said it will start withdrawing troops from Europe and Hegseth considers China a bigger threat than Russia.