So not a crisis, got it. The term "crisis" implies it cannot wait, it is untenable.

That is not what crisis means. Crises have levels. The 2020 California drought was a crisis that lasted 3 years. Global warming is considered a crisis and the earth is still here if we don't do anything for 1 year. Ukraine is a different crisis where the entire country could lose if we don't give them ammo in the next 3 months. Katrina/New Orleans was a crisis that required immediate intervention. The term itself implies nothing of duration. In fact, the definition is just "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger".

Reinstating DACA was very popular and a signature policy during Biden's VP term, of course it was coming back. 0 to to do with the border. "The Wall" would have to be shown it prevented anything in the first place Remain in Mexico was only affecting about 70k, not insignificant but far from an "open border" Is that your best evidence? Border Patrol has received record funding under Biden and many policies have remained the same. There's a reason Biden has kept asking Congress to pass border legislation. Gee, I wonder if there was something that happened in that timespan, oh, you know, early 2020ish. Nothing remarkable happened then that may have slowed immigration. 2019 if you can remember back that far was also setting records for border apprehensions and crossings.

I have no idea how you're viewing the world. Just look at the data: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

My "best evidence" is that immediately after the policy changes, crossings spiked and immigration enforcement plummeted (as ordered by Biden...the border guard policy was instructed to just let them through if they weren't a national security threat). It's freakin stats right there on paper -- and you're just pretending these policy changes were a nonfactor? As if all this illegal immigration pressure wasn't already there? You don't remember all the Obama/Trump kids in cages nonsense? This has been an issue for at least a decade, if not longer, and is literally directly controlled by how draconian we want to be on border policy. Democrats constantly are banging the drum of compassion for asylum seekers that they've consistently ignored having a strong border (or at least had it as a distant second to "let as many people cross as they want"). And illegal immigrants have exploited that tolerance to stream across the border. Just say the word asylum and you're across.

You can claim many things about the political parties...like go ahead and call the Republicans heartless for not giving two shits about asylum seekers. They are. But don't sit here and pretend to me that this flood of illegal immigrants isn't a direct result of this kind of this kind of soft-hearted policy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Pretty damning to me. Never in my life have I seen a more obvious case of cause-and-effect.

Yeah, so what the Republicans and you really are saying is "the border isn't really that much of a crisis, it's not really 'open' and we can afford to push it off for 12-18 months so we can help our election.

No, they're saying it is a crisis, and given the choice of it being a crisis for the next 9 months or the next 4 years, they're gambling to pull off the former. Especially if it means a stricter policy.

I mean, that's what he did with the strict Trump immigration policies after he took office.

This isn't really true

Huh? It's absolutely true:
https://www.texastribune.org/2...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...
https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_...

Like we had that shit on lockdown coming out of the Trump era. Illegal immigration had slowed to a crawl. And then Biden dismantled all that policy. Only recently (like within the last 9 months) is he talking a different game (again, because it's really hurting him in the polls: https://www.axios.com/2024/01/...)

if it was why would be openly supporting and ready to support a law that would have been the most stringent and mostly Republican supported immigration reforms in like 30 years?

Because:
1) See above polls
2) It's really not that stringent. This is a compromise bill.
The Republicans had a much stronger border package (Secure the Border Act) they put forward in May that Democrats rejected: https://www.aljazeera.com/news...

They did want a border bill and one was all set to pass before the last minute it was killed due to politics.

That was politics. It's an election year, and Biden desperately needs a win on immigration to appeal to voters. The Republicans didn't want to give him that win after he effectively supporting open borders for the past 3 years. Not to mention there could be legitimate fear within the Republican party that if harsher immigration laws are passed this year (that help Biden win an election), he could go ahead and dismantle all those protections immediately after winning. I mean, that's what he did with the strict Trump immigration policies after he took office.

Take a wild guess how the current Supreme Court will rule once the case makes it there.

Likely 5-4 overturning this ruling, with Kavanaugh joining the 4 liberal justices (Roberts, Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan). Possibility it could swing 5-4 the other way. But my money is on the overturn.

A case in point: I was horrified and outraged by the attack by Hamas on Israel. I was also horrified and outraged by Israel's response.

To this day I don't get the outrage. If Canada was publicly stating their ultimate goal is to exterminate every American, and they went and fired thousands of missiles into your neighborhood, I highly doubt you would find the collateral loss of innocents caused by a response invasion "horrific" or worthy of outrage. I think Americans are woefully naive in their comfortable bubbles and have never understood real fear in their entire lives.

The Jewish population to this day remains below its pre-Holocaust numbers, some 90 years later: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora.... That is what a genocide looks like. Gaza's population has doubled in the last decade while all the while Israel was allowing food and electricity to the country the whole time. And people claim this is a genocide? Like where's the fucking perspective?

By far the worst offender in this respect is the "conservative" mainstream media realized in pioneers like Limbaugh and the cast of Fox "News" who convinced people that opinions supersede facts and reality.

Fully disagree. Both sides engage in this nonsense. We saw it with Obamacare "if you want your doctor, you can keep your doctor". We saw it with the China COVID lab leak theory. We saw it with Hunter Biden's laptop. We saw it with the Trump Russia investigation. If the left have an axe to grind, they gladly will use their opinions to supersede facts. Anyone who doesn't believe so has a camp they've already settled in, but wants to be construed as a self-aware moderate.

Sex can be transactional. It can also be a fun activity, work to produce offspring (not the greatest kind of sex, BTW), or an emotional event that strengthens a relationship bond. Or all of the above.

All of those still sound like transactions -- i.e., "i give you sex, you give me a kid", or "i give you sex, you give me a long term emotional bond". It just comes down to framing. It's like that old altruism argument that claims selfless acts don't exist because you're always getting something out of it, even if that something is just "good feelings". When you really boil it all down, all people do the things they do to get something out of it. That includes relationships. Whether you see it as transactional or not is all perspective.

That is exactly what right wingers throughout the world are doing now. Funny how history repeats itself.

That is exactly what everybody throughout the world are doing now. Funny how history repeats itself.

Fixed that for you. I don't exactly see Democrats standing up for the Jews these days...

What is a "structure of tolerance"?

https://study.com/academy/less...

The legal limits per individual are (1) 3.6 g / day, (2) 7.5 g / 30 days via mail order, and (3) 9 g / 30 days via any method. A single 24-hour Claritan-D pill contains 240 mg of pseudoephedrine sulfate, and taking one pill per day over 30 days is 7.2 g, which is under the limit via mail order. These limits are more than enough for occasional short-term use.

You do realize most people just run to the store to get OTC meds? "Mail-order" is not the norm. So you literally gave an example where the limits are not enough for short-term use. I've run into similar issues with Nyquil usage during colds with not being able to get enough when needed.