Maggie's Farm

Jeff thinks the beans have to take turns lmao.
 

James: Your link just proves the left can't meme.

Which means you don't (or refuse to acknowledge) the analogy. Some James in the 13th century poo-poos someone who says beans should have a turn in the field. Some James asserts that it is self-evident the idea of giving beans a turn is preposterous.

And yes, there is still a lot of scientific research on crop rotation, centuries after Some James first waved his hands.

OneGuy: Deport them all, let Venezuela sort them out.

For many people, sending them to Venezuela could be dangerous. Assuming the United States is still a rule-of-law nation, your suggestion would require a change in the law, and possibly a withdrawal from the international Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

mudbug: Why would anybody have a reason to seek refuge from the socialist utopia in Venezuela?

The authoritarian government in Venezuela has dismantled democratic institutions and imposed political repression: Human Rights Watch: Venezuela.

B. Hammer: I can’t believe anyone would want to come to this horrible place called America.

America isn't perfect. However, there are a number of reasons people would go to America, including political oppression, escaping war, or for economic opportunity.

James: You've repeatedly asserted the charge of dog and cat eating is false. Prove it.

And Russell's Teapot is orbiting Mars.

James: Being an American, I prioritize the welfare of Americans much more than that of citizens of other countries.

Sure (though some of the world's great prophets have taught that all people have inherent dignity and value).

James: A good number of those illegal Venezuelans are a threat to the safety of Americans.

That's always going to be true when accepting refugees. And yes, there is a social cost to accepting refugees. However, the United States has entered into international agreements and enacted legislation allowing for the entry of refugees. Assuming the United States is still a rule-of-law country, as already pointed out, ending this policy would require a change in the law, and possibly a withdrawal from the international Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Refugees have legal status.

James: A plurality, perhaps a majority want us to accommodate their cultural preferences instead of adopting ours.

You should have more confidence in American culture. The vast majority of immigrants will be naturally assimilated, while also adding to the fabric of American life. Even people in other countries can't escape the overwhelming influence of the West.

James: In short, only someone who hates the US and wants to see it destroyed could possibly want tens of millions of illegals in the country.

A majority of Americans support accepting refugees.
 

James: Try actually offering a cogent response to my points instead of snark and highly dubious polling. ("Refugees" does not equal the millions of highly dubious asylum claims made by illegals.)

The topic was migrants from Venezuela. ("Deport them all, let Venezuela sort them out.") Over seven million people have fled from Venezuela, most to Latin American countries, which supports the claim about refugees from political and social turmoil in Venezuela.

James: You keep bemoaning the alleged threat Trump represents to the power of the federal bureaucracy.

The threat is to the checks and balances; in particular, the president's duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The bureaucracy is a creation of Congress, and only Congress, assuming the United States is still a rule-of-law country, can make fundamental changes to that bureaucracy. Otherwise, Congress will be like the Roman Senate under the Caesars, they will debate and argue, but be feckless and impotent.

James: Do you allege that that comment is an argument?

It wasn't an argument, but a parenthetical. If you don't accept the inherent dignity and value of the individual, then there is no argument that can make you accept it. That's why the argument entailed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence treats human equality as an axiom.

The idea is largely correct. People at the center of empire tend to become insulated from the effects of their actions. So, they might engage in foolish foreign wars that costs trillions, but they can borrow the money, so no biggie. Or they can elect an orange carnival barker that dismantles government and social institutions that have taken generations to develop, distracting the public with distorted attacks against disfavored minorities ("They are eating the dogs ... They are eating the cats."), while siphoning off the country's wealth to oligarchic supporters, but the people's lives go on as they have been going on—until they don't.

James: You've repeatedly asserted the charge of dog and cat eating is false.

And Russell's Teapot is orbiting Mars.

James: Federal expenditures on means tested social spending in FY '23 was about $1.6 trillion.

Most of which is spending on healthcare, including for children and the elderly. But sure. Huge structural deficits are a sign of internal decay. It's not inevitable, as Clinton showed, but the political price can be high.

James: Out of curiosity, exactly how would you characterize the Biden "presidency"?

Middling. Biden had significant successes, but also significant failures.

James: you could actually respond to the points/arguments made in the link.

Did that: "distracting the public with distorted attacks against disfavored minorities" {trans, experts, Hunter Biden, gender studies, gays, therapy}.

James: go ahead and defend calling the USA an "empire."

You could start with the American global military presence, not to mention controlling the world's global currency. No sense arguing semantics, though. Let's restate: People at the center of a great global power tend to become insulated from the effects of their actions.

The United States, to its credit, created a global system where every country would have a say in its future and a share of its resources. The United States would be first among equals, acting in concert with its like-minded allies to create security and to prevent another great conflagration that had consumed the first half of the twentieth century.

That project has been phenomenally successful.

The world is growing up. Other countries want a more equal say in global affairs. The United States will inevitably decline relative to other countries, a natural outgrowth of the American project. The United States can remain first among equals for the foreseeable future, but not if they insist on fracturing their alliances, weakening the global trading system, and bullying other countries who don't kowtow to them.