I guess, literally, he probably means that if Democrats do not allow ICE to deport criminals, potential murderers, & rapists, then there would be bloodshed by those criminals who could have been deported if ICE had not been thwarted. In other words, the people who might harm others & could have been removed from the country would still remain here committing crimes.

However, in light of recent events involving ICE shooting at what appears to me to have been an anxious, bad female driver, the statement sounds much worse/more-ominous/baleful.

P.S. I do not like masked government officials, even if there are people associated with groups like ANTIFA who are willing to murder over this issue. However, I would rather be able to hold government officials accountable. If an ANTIFA member murders someone, they should go to jail, just like an ICE agent should go to jail if they murder someone.

I was like this before I tried regular Arch. I probably would’ve settled on NixOS if I had tried that first. I feel like Linux Mint could be the end of the line because it just works on a lot of old machines & does so quickly.

Both sides are bad" is true, though. The Democrats and Republicans are infiltrated by Zionists. The reality that both sides are bad could also motivate people to vote for a third party.

My government job does the same humbug (it sucks).

If Trump goes to war with Iran, the price of oil goes up. Since you're restricting supply, things like airfare also go up because they rely on jet fuel to provide their service. It's the same with housing. It's all supply & demand.

I don't understand. The idea that inadequate border control policies & immigration policies can lead to mass migration into a country seems quite objective to me. I'd say I'd be making an empirical claim thingo there, no? Did I mess up some phrasing or something earlier?

I tell people to try to take the GED & graduate high school early (since it's a waste of time & full of propaganda), then save money on their first year of college by taking CLEP exams using vouchers provided through completing Modern States courses.

If Republicans vote for a slightly less damaged economy but end up with Zionist infiltration, it makes their side look bad. Similarly, if Democrats push through free healthcare & gay rights but also incur Zionist infiltration, it makes their side look bad as well. In this kind of system, winning is like losing if you cannot remove the root problem.

The main point is that flawed data collection is skewing the results. I don't remember where to find the one with the mugshots to be honest.

"In response to a directive by the U.S. Government’s Office of Management and Budget, the national UCR Program has expanded its data collection categories for race from four (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Other Pacific Islander) to five (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Also, the ethnicity categories have changed from “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or Latino Origin” and from “Non-Hispanic” to “Not of Hispanic or Latino Origin.” These changes will be reflected in data presented for 2013."

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2011/resources/about-the-uniform-crime-reporting-ucr-program

We both (probably) view ourselves as good people (or at least as people who strive for that). However, I believe your policies cause people to suffer from a lack of food, shelter, & healthcare (e.g., whether you are a Republican, Democratic Socialist, MAGA, Democrat, etc.). Your politics drive up the cost of supplying these necessities by creating barriers to entry for those who provide them, dictating how and to what extent they can operate. While I think many of the founders were excellent architects of a governance system, I do not view them as saints or possess any sort of hagiomania toward them.

I don't really care about those statistics. I was just mentioning a notable mislabeling case. I don't like racism, & I think we should move beyond the tribal battle stuff. If you want to call me racist, you can call me racist for supporting "freedom of association," which would allow people to discriminate for arbitrary & goofy reasons. I support the coffee shop that didn't want to serve the Israeli guy & the Christian baker who didn't want to make a gay wedding cake.

While it is true that certain races currently commit more crimes per capita, these are trends subject to change; I doubt they are inherent to ethnicity. This is likely caused by cultural factors, learned helplessness, Marxism (which teaches an 'us versus them' mentality), ingrained persecution complexes, & other whatnot.

I also disagree with those who believe women shouldn't vote simply because they currently lean toward social democrats. While I agree that social democracy leads to poverty and stagnation, I don't think it's inevitable that women will always vote for social democratic candidates.

The conservative goal would be for schooling to be as affordable as possible, without artificial barriers restricting supply for the benefit of unions rather than students. I can't really speak for all conservatives because, first, I'm not one, & second, there's a huge diversity of thought within conservatism. For example, some conservatives support Israel's genocidal actions in Gaza, while others oppose them, so there are obvious huge differences of opinion within the tent that is 'conservatism'.

I shouldn't have only mentioned unions. A better way to put it is that I take issue with education when it isn't oriented to serve the consumer (i.e., the parent or student). I would oppose eliminating unions, as I actually like many of them; I just don't like closed-shop unions. I also like worker cooperatives, but I don't support mandating them.

I figured we could work together to refute it, with each of us presenting a counterargument. I don't know, I just thought it was a cool idea.

Honestly, I'm under the impression that building a building requires scarce resources and labor, which have opportunity costs reflected in market prices, and maintaining a building likewise requires ongoing expenditures. I would agree that, when someone becomes a landlord, the goal is generally to earn a return on the capital they risk, while facing uncertainties such as tenants not paying rent, changes in government policy, and other market risks. Whether any particular landlord is a good or bad person is something I can't really speak to.