Lurker > MalcolmMasher

I see your point but I think you're reading more into it than intended... I want to talk with my friends, instead of random strangers that may or may not be cool

I do understand that preference. When my aunt hosts a big Thanksgiving dinner, I typically spend my time talking with people who I know well, not the second cousins of second cousins who I barely recognize. (I'm not a terribly social person. Although, given that I have a GameFAQs account old enough to drink, you could probably have guessed that.)

But if one of those other guests I hardly know joins a conversation I'm in, then saying "Butt out, we weren't talking to you" would be terribly rude and inappropriate. It is as much their place as it is mine. And - to drop the metaphor - insofar as we define ourselves by being from a board that is not Current Events, this is more their place than ours.

And so while I am glad that the Politics Containment Topic series is continuing and/or rebooting, although it must do so in a new location due to new, stupid policies, I do believe that a stance of "locals are unwelcome by default" reflects poorly on us.

Depends on the game and the writing, I suppose. I have zero qualms about being cartoonishly evil.

Yes, I'm glad that we're willing to extend permission to the good ones, but perhaps we should not begin by implying that strangers default to "bad"?

The OP includes "This topic is for people from B8 and other approved posters only."

I am glad that we have found a way to continue the Politics Containment Topics, although I would prefer if we could turn down the xenophobia a bit. Let us do strangers the courtesy of presuming that some of them may, in fact, be able to make coherent and insightful arguments, or other valuable contributions to the topic.

US House passed multiple foreign aid bills; Senate is to take them up Tuesday.

Anyway, I didn't actually watch it, but a friend texted me to ask if I saw him calling out "thousands of illegals killing people" and said people cross the border because they know it will be 6 years before they go to court? That sounds like Trump s***, someone tell me the context pls.

My amateur understanding is that the 6 years part is at least founded in truth? It's something like: if you enter the U.S. and claim that you're seeking asylum in the U.S., because staying in your home country would be dangerous for you, then by law the U.S. must give you a hearing in court to formally adjudicate your claim. And those courts have an enormous backlog. Trump got around that law by declaring a state of emergency (over COVID), but COVID is no longer an emergency, so it's up to Congress to actually change the law.

I'm pretty sure that both the House and Senate border proposals include revisions to the asylum laws, as well as more funding for the court systems that handle asylum cases. But the House bill made no attempt to be a compromise that Democrats would accept, so it was always doomed in the Senate. Meanwhile, the bipartisan Senate bill attracted the ire of Trump (it would be an election year win for someone that isn't him) so, not only is it presumably doomed in the House, it can't even get out of the Senate.