NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 3

Remove this Banner Ad

FlowersByIrene said:
Kamala spent a billion dollars "bribing various celebrities" and "embezzling campaign funds through supporters and other democrat elites".

Fixed the above for you.
Click to expand...

She even built a set for the Who’s Ya Daddy podcast so she didn’t have to go to the real thing.

A first class waster of other peoples money.

Should never been allowed anywhere near a position of responsibility.

Agree she needs to be investigated.
 
EasternTiger said:
She even built a set for the Whose Ya Daddy podcast so she didn’t have to go to the real thing.

A first class waster of other peoples money.

Should never been allowed anywhere near a position of responsibility.

Agree she needs to be investigated.
Click to expand...
She's a low IQ, exploiter of other peoples money. Analagous with other low IQ politicians such as Upgrade Albo. A disgrace.

Also Kamala - you've still got a couple of months as Vice President, why don't you implement some of your policies now while you're still in charge. Oh wait... all those policies were merely lies to buy votes.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
She's a low IQ, exploiter of other peoples money. Analagous with other low IQ politicians such as Upgrade Albo. A disgrace.

Also Kamala - you've still got a couple of months as Vice President, why don't you implement some of your policies now while you're still in charge. Oh wait... all those policies were merely lies to buy votes.
Click to expand...

lol she doesn’t actually know how to implement.

She doesn’t know the mechanics and logistics of which button to press and who to call in the correct order to get shit done.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
Nothing to do with partisanship. It's pretty clear you figured out what the glaring error was in their report otherwise you wouldn't have put forward the other estimate of $20 billion per year. Where was that from BTW? I'll have a good look at it.
Click to expand...
lol

I mentioned an alternative assessment because it was clear you weren't going to accept the figure of $88B. Just trying to get to what it would actually cost - you keep saying it isn't X figure while also seemingly having no idea of what it would cost yourself?

Was from CBS

www.cbsnews.com

Trump's plan to deport millions of immigrants would cost hundreds of billions, CBS News analysis shows

Former President Donald Trump is doubling down on his promise to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in American history.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
TBH I didn't have much of a problem with their bias rating for the AIC. The credibility rating on the other hand looks just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Based on a single instance you personally disagree with but for some reason refuse to provide rationale on?

Not sure thats how it works. Maybe if you could identify a few additional examples from AIC that are wrong or factually incorrect and provide some rationale as to why they are, but probably start with the cost of deportation example first.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
She's a low IQ, exploiter of other peoples money. Analagous with other low IQ politicians such as Upgrade Albo. A disgrace.

Also Kamala - you've still got a couple of months as Vice President, why don't you implement some of your policies now while you're still in charge. Oh wait... all those policies were merely lies to buy votes.
Click to expand...
EasternTiger said:
lol she doesn’t actually know how to implement.

She doesn’t know the mechanics and logistics of which button to press and who to call in the correct order to get shit done.
Click to expand...
rofl. Enjoying yourselves boys? :tearsofjoy:

How's Donnie's wall going?
 
bourbons said:
Was from CBS

www.cbsnews.com

Trump's plan to deport millions of immigrants would cost hundreds of billions, CBS News analysis shows

Former President Donald Trump is doubling down on his promise to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in American history.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...

:thumbsu: Thanks. I'll have a look.


bourbons said:
Based on a single instance you personally disagree with but for some reason refuse to provide rationale on?
Click to expand...

Well I did provide an article which after a 2 minute skim read should make it fairly obvious where they've tripped up. Did you click on the link? No shame in admitting you can't see the wood for the trees. I'm perfectly ready for hand holding mode.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
Question for you Bourbs, do you think Kamala Harris is intelligent?
Click to expand...

If Bonbons was appointed border czar he would have got to a point where his brain eventually registers that some sort of action would need to be taken.

Kamala never got there.

Very real possibility that Kamala is dumber than some random woke flog on an Aussie sports forum.
 
bourbons said:
Yes please, hand hold away (I've only been asking you to do this for the last 4 posts lol)
Click to expand...

There are so many problems with the report I could write pages but I'll try to be brief and just select a few. For their single operation estimate here's the first faulty assumption.

From FY 2016 to 2020, there were 32.27 arrests per employee working for the Fugitive Operations Program, compared to 59.3 arrests per employee working for the Criminal Apprehension Program. That suggests that a mass deportation operation to round up 13.3 million people could require anywhere from 220,000 to 409,000 additional personnel, a staggering number of people which would require an enormous and near-impossible to estimate initial capital investment to recruit, hire, and train.
Click to expand...

I don't know how they can assume the same arrest rates heading into 2025. The fact is Harris and Biden opened the floodgates and the US is swarming with illegals. I would expect much higher arrest rates than 8 per year per employee for the FOP for instance. For the longer term operation estimate, the biggest error is assuming the need to invest in building a huge number of detention centres. Trump was asked in April whether he would need to build new detention facilities and this was his response.

"I would not rule out anything," Trump said. "But there wouldn't be that much of a need for them" because, he said, the plan is to deport migrants in the U.S. illegally back to their home countries as quickly as possible.
"We're not leaving them in the country," Trump said. "We're bringing them out."
Click to expand...

This leads to the other assumption in AIC's modeling: 54 days average detention time before deportation for single adults and 23 days for families. It's pretty clear Trump wants things to be moving at a much faster rate than that going forward. It will all unfold over the next few years and we'll find out then how close the AIC's estimates were I guess.
 
HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
There are so many problems with the report I could write pages but I'll try to be brief and just select a few. For their single operation estimate here's the first faulty assumption.



I don't know how they can assume the same arrest rates heading into 2025. The fact is Harris and Biden opened the floodgates and the US is swarming with illegals. I would expect much higher arrest rates than 8 per year per employee for the FOP for instance. For the longer term operation estimate, the biggest error is assuming the need to invest in building a huge number of detention centres. Trump was asked in April whether he would need to build new detention facilities and this was his response.



This leads to the other assumption in AIC's modeling: 54 days average detention time before deportation for single adults and 23 days for families. It's pretty clear Trump wants things to be moving at a much faster rate than that going forward. It will all unfold over the next few years and we'll find out then how close the AIC's estimates were I guess.
Click to expand...
So your knock-down, slam dunk contention regarding the inaccuracy of their costing is more illegals = more staff required to round them up? What, there are so many that the current workforce will just find more by osmosis, they won't be able to turn around without tripping over an illegal? Not sure that tracks, to put it mildly. Contrary to Donnie's magical view of "it will just happen", the assumption that the size and speed of a deportation program of this magnitude would require more staff is actually quite sound.

Similarly, thats great that Donnie has declared we'll just deport them quickly, straight out of the country. Nab them off the street, then straight to the airport I'm guessing :tearsofjoy:

Back in the real world, this simply will not happen. There will be a need for detention centres to house those people while they are processed. Will it be 54 days per the AIC? Don't know, but what I do know is it won't be instant, or close enough to that it totally negates the need for somewhere to put them for awhile. Trump may say it will be done quickly, thats kinda the point - he's great at slogans and thought bubbles, actual implementation not so much (how's that wall going again?)

You're right, we'll see over the next few years I guess. My prediction is it will be similar to the wall - he'll start things off with great fanfare, maybe get through 100k or so in the first year, trumpeting it as a great success... before effectively abandoning it due to the realities involved. While blaming Democrats for not letting him do it of course, despite controlling both the house and senate :tearsofjoy:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FlowersByIrene said:
Question for you Bourbs, do you think Kamala Harris is intelligent?
Click to expand...
More than Trump, certainly. In a book learnin' kinda way of course :tearsofjoy:

Just her career would confirm that, not many moron District Attorneys or Attorney Generals going round.

Trump would have her covered though for street smarts, rat cunning kinda stuff. Depends how you define 'intelligence' I guess.
 
bourbons said:
More than Trump, certainly. In a book learnin' kinda way of course :tearsofjoy:

Just her career would confirm that, not many moron District Attorneys or Attorney Generals going round.

Trump would have her covered though for street smarts, rat cunning kinda stuff. Depends how you define 'intelligence' I guess.
Click to expand...
You would think this.. but then these are Democrats were talking about. Merit is a long gone virtue of the Democrats.
 
Billionaire Donald Trump, has just appointed 2 other (unelected) Billionaires (Musk and Ramaswamy) - one from 'Big Tech' and the other from 'Big Pharma' - to run the economy, 'make savings' and deregulate everything:

Donald Trump has nominated billionaire Elon Musk and venture capitalist Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a newly created office designed to fire workers and make drastic cuts to government funding.
Click to expand...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lon-musk-manhattan-project-pick-b2646062.html

Hahahahahahaha.

'Elites'.

Do you blokes have any cogitative dissonance about the above at all?
 
Malifice said:
Billionaire Donald Trump, has just appointed 2 other (unelected) Billionaires (Musk and Ramaswamy) - one from 'Big Tech' and the other from 'Big Pharma' - to run the economy, 'make savings' and deregulate everything:



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lon-musk-manhattan-project-pick-b2646062.html

Hahahahahahaha.

'Elites'.

Do you blokes have any cogitative dissonance about the above at all?
Click to expand...

It's really not that difficult. Just fire everyone with blue hair.

Afuera!
 
Malifice said:
Billionaire Donald Trump, has just appointed 2 other (unelected) Billionaires (Musk and Ramaswamy) - one from 'Big Tech' and the other from 'Big Pharma' - to run the economy, 'make savings' and deregulate everything:



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lon-musk-manhattan-project-pick-b2646062.html

Hahahahahahaha.

'Elites'.

Do you blokes have any cogitative dissonance about the above at all?
Click to expand...

TBH if the US Public Service is anything like Australia's I don't think there is as much scope for savings as they'd like to think. The assumption is that all government bodies are inefficient and wasteful because once someone gets a job in the PS it's a job for life. In reality there is a fairly strict testing and screening procedure to get on a short list for a role and then there is a three month probation period to serve with possible extensions to that. Then the base level salaries (AS01) aren't anything to write home about so if you want to earn decent coin you need to perform well enough on a consistent basis to be promoted to the higher levels. ASO6's start earning a decent quid and then there is the potential perhaps for some slacking off but someone who has performed well enough to get to that level generally has developed ingrained work habits that shouldn't be easily cast aside.

I know someone who is at that level at Centrelink and they work their arse off. So in crucial, core government services I don't think there's too much fat to be trimmed. Whether there is some non-essential departments or programs with questionable utility that could be cut is another story.

Certainly I wouldn't be calling this exercise "the Manhattan Project of our time". That is just patently ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
HitTheNailOnTheHead said:
TBH if the US Public Service is anything like Australia's I don't think there is as much scope for savings as they'd like to think. The assumption is that all government bodies are inefficient and wasteful because once someone gets a job in the PS it's a job for life. In reality there is a fairly strict testing and screening procedure to get on a short list for a role and then there is a three month probation period to serve with possible extensions to that. Then the base level salaries (AS01) aren't anything to write home about so if you want to earn decent coin you need to perform well enough on a consistent basis to be promoted to the higher levels. ASO6's start earning a decent quid and then there is the potential perhaps for some slacking off but someone who has performed well enough to get to that level generally has developed ingrained work habits that shouldn't be easily cast aside.

I know someone who is at that level at Centrelink and they work their arse off. So in crucial, core government services I don't think there's too much fat to be trimmed. Whether there is some non-essential departments or programs with questionable utility that could be cut is another story.

Certainly I wouldn't be calling this exercise "the Manhattan Project of our time". That is just patently ridiculous.
Click to expand...
They spend roughly double us per person. If we spent at the same rate we do now with their population, our spend would be 3 trillion. They spent 6.75 trillion last year with worse services in a lot of ways.
 
Last edited:
Malifice said:
Billionaire Donald Trump, has just appointed 2 other (unelected) Billionaires (Musk and Ramaswamy) - one from 'Big Tech' and the other from 'Big Pharma' - to run the economy, 'make savings' and deregulate everything:



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lon-musk-manhattan-project-pick-b2646062.html

Hahahahahahaha.

'Elites'.

Do you blokes have any cogitative dissonance about the above at all?
Click to expand...
I don’t see the problem. Since when are people on the right against rich people existing or deregulation. A lot of people were anticipating this exact thing and voted for it. Personally think Vivek was the best candidate in the entire race and would have preferred him to a Trump presidency.

I hate "big pharma" as in specific companies with poor records, not because it’s a massive industry. Clearly there exists some good actors in there, even inside companies with poor base line records. If companies are ethical, more power to them.

The worst thing about Trump is he is in bed with AIPAC which might embolden Netanyahu to be even more destructive. But not like the alternative was much better in that regard.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 3

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top