You are less and less coherent. Lay off the weed a bit. My wife mostly works from home and Blu Radio, Bogota is always playing on the echo dot. You hear a lot of interviews. We have many homes. Blu Radio is always with us.. I loaned a car to some students who were going to protest Eric Adams when here was here.
The Mayor and Governor may just claim that they were running to try and find a cashier so they could check.
Well ya'll voted for Trump to bring violence to the big city folk. You also voted to see all the Epstein files. Remember that.
Along with Trump getting the duration and day wrong of the call, not Monday.. Its trivial to fake this, as simple as changing the name on a contact to "Gavin Newsom" or just edit the callhistory.db, use a fake log app. But what seems odd to me.. Most people with thousands of contacts, especially public figures or executives, don't just label high-profile individuals with a basic name like “Gavin Newsom.” Instead, they’ll use: “Gavin Newsom – CA Gov” “Gov Gavin – personal” “G. Newsom – staff line” From CNN: Friday night in California: CNN previously reported that Newsom’s office said the California governor called the president and they spoke by phone on Friday night (local time) amid protests in the Los Angeles area over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. The conversation lasted approximately 40 minutes, Newsom’s office said. Today: Trump: After the situation escalated significantly, the president was asked when he had last spoken with the governor. “A day ago. Called him up to tell him, you gotta do a better job. He’s doing a bad job,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, criticizing the California leader several other times. Newsom: The California governor fired back with sharp rhetoric and denied Trump’s claim they had spoken Monday. “There was no call. Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to,” he wrote on social media. The comment was sure to provoke Trump, who has frequently commented that his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, was not in full control of his faculties while in office. Trump: In turn, the President called Fox News’ John Roberts this afternoon as he traveled aboard Air Force One. “First call was not picked up. Second call, Gavin picked up, we spoke for 16 minutes. I told him to, essentially, ‘get his a** in gear,’ and stop the Riots, which were out of control. More than anything else, this shows what a liar he is - Said I never called. Here is the evidence,” Roberts said Trump told him. A screenshot: Trump sent Roberts a screenshot of a call log to Newsom that indicated the two spoke for 16 minutes at 1:23 a.m. on June 7 — a call that occurred Friday, not Monday. The call log showed that Trump made the call.
The Biden admin could have stopped at any time. There is unequivocal proof. You just want to stay in your delusional world. Again: Why the Senate Border Deal FAILED: 1–Codify Catch/Release 2–Let in 1.8M Illegals 3–Fund Sanctuary Cities 4–Fund NGOs Moving Illegals 5–Lawyers to Illegals 6–Work Permits to Illegals 7–Nothing to Deport Illegals 8–No Immediate Wall Funds 9–Weak Asylum Screening 10–$60B to Ukraine It was a great bill for Dems.
We get it. Dems are violent and a national security threat. Democrats absolutely despise democracy and will riot every time they don't get their way or win an election.
Again you get hit on the head a lot. The first part there is not coherent enough to know what you mean. The second... Very old debunked shite. "10 Reasons" Debunked — The Real Story of the Bipartisan Border Bill Trump Killed Claim 1: Codifies "Catch and Release" ❌ False. The bill did not codify catch-and-release. In fact, it gave the federal government expanded power to detain and quickly remove people crossing illegally—including a new emergency shutdown authority to stop all asylum claims if crossings hit 5,000 per day. Claim 2: Lets in 1.8 million "illegals" ❌ Misleading. This appears to be a misrepresentation of existing asylum backlogs and projected legal processes. The bill would have tightened asylum eligibility and accelerated removals—not opened new pathways. Claim 3: Funds sanctuary cities ❌ False. The bill didn’t send funding to sanctuary cities. It funded immigration enforcement operations, including cities processing migrants—regardless of local sanctuary policies. Claim 4: Funds NGOs “moving illegals” ⚠️ Partly true but misleading. The bill included limited funding for NGOs and local governments to handle legal migrants released pending hearings—mostly humanitarian aid. This is already happening under federal authority. Claim 5: Lawyers to "illegals" ✅ Partially true. The bill included limited legal aid for unaccompanied minors—a practice already protected under federal law and court precedent. It did not give free lawyers to all undocumented immigrants. Claim 6: Work permits to “illegals” ⚠️ Half-true, missing context. It would have allowed faster work permits for asylum seekers—which is key to reducing homelessness and strain on city services while cases are pending. Again, this is for legal applicants, not "illegals." Claim 7: Nothing to deport illegals ❌ False. The bill provided $20+ billion in enforcement, including hiring more asylum officers, ICE agents, and immigration judges to speed up removals. Trump’s allies blocked it because it actually worked. Claim 8: No immediate wall funds ✅ True, and that was by bipartisan agreement. Most Democrats and some Republicans see the wall as costly and symbolic, and the focus shifted to tech, surveillance, and personnel—which is often more effective. Claim 9: Weak asylum screening ❌ False. The bill raised the screening bar, reducing frivolous claims and authorizing faster deportations—exactly what Trump-era DHS chiefs asked for. Claim 10: $60B to Ukraine ✅ True. The bill combined border funding with aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Indo-Pacific defense—as part of a larger geopolitical package. GOP senators initially demanded this link. Then Trump told them to kill the deal for political gain. --- Bottom Line: Trump sabotaged the bill because it would’ve solved problems he wants to keep inflamed for the election. Even Republican senators who negotiated the bill—like James Lankford—were trashed by MAGA figures simply for doing their jobs. The bill wasn't perfect, but it was the toughest, most realistic bipartisan immigration reform in years—and Trump killed it cold.
No, Trump was proactive and requested the national guard before Jan 6th. https://cha.house.gov/2024/9/transc...keep-january-6-safe-were-deliberately-ignored ...days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. The transcripts released show Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives to keep January 6 peaceful - including using the National Guard - which the Pentagon leaders ignored.
Complete bullshit. AI battle: Codify Catch/Release: ✅ (Republican analysts argued the 5,000 encounters/day threshold before new authorities kicked in effectively normalized a high level of daily entries, which they equated to catch and release). Let in 1.8M Illegals: ✅ (This was a common calculation: 5,000/day x 365 days = 1.825 million. Analysts used this to argue the bill permitted, rather than stopped, large-scale illegal immigration). Fund Sanctuary Cities: ✅ (A major criticism was that funding for entities like FEMA's Shelter and Services Program would flow to sanctuary jurisdictions without requiring cooperation with ICE, thereby subsidizing them). Fund NGOs Moving Illegals: ✅ (Similar to the sanctuary city point, critics argued that funds would go to NGOs that facilitate the transportation and settlement of illegal immigrants, effectively aiding the process). Lawyers to Illegals: ✅ (The bill included provisions to expand access to legal counsel for certain migrants during the asylum process, which Republicans argued was an undue taxpayer burden and a pull factor). Work Permits to Illegals: ✅ (A key concern was that migrants processed under the new system, even before a final asylum decision, would quickly receive work permits, incentivizing economic migration). Nothing to Deport Illegals: ⚠️ (This is a strong claim. While the bill's primary focus was on processing new arrivals and the asylum system, not on mass deportations of the existing undocumented population, it did aim to expedite removal for those who failed new, supposedly tougher, asylum screenings at the border. However, from an analyst focused on removing the millions already here, they'd argue it did "nothing" significant for that specific, larger problem. So, a yield sign for nuance, but leaning towards a check from their perspective of priorities). No Immediate Wall Funds: ✅ (This was a major point of contention. The bill emphasized technology and personnel over significant new funding for physical barrier construction, which many Republicans see as essential). Weak Asylum Screening: ✅ (While proponents said it raised the standard from "credible fear" to a new "reasonable possibility" standard for protection after initial screening, critics argued this was still too low and wouldn't sufficiently deter fraudulent claims. So, "weak" is the Republican analyst's assessment). $60B to Ukraine: ✅ (The linking of border provisions with Ukraine aid was heavily criticized by many Republicans, who felt border security was being held hostage or that the border measures weren't strong enough to warrant the package deal). Conclusion: This bill was a Trojan Horse. It was wrapped in the language of "security" and "reform," but its actual mechanisms would have codified many of the disastrous Biden administration policies, legitimized historically high levels of illegal immigration, and funneled taxpayer money to groups facilitating the crisis. It would have made it easier for illegal immigrants to enter, stay, work, and access benefits, all while doing little to secure the border in any meaningful, long-term way. For Democrats, this was a massive win: it looked like they were "doing something" while actually advancing their open-borders-lite agenda. It’s no wonder conservatives in the House and Senate saw through it and stood firm. It was a terrible bill for America, but a fantastic one for the Democrats' political objectives.