US Election 2016

[Z-Man]

Mental illness is the leading reasons for gun violence.

Really? So if there is about ten times as much gun violence in the US as in other rich places with similar general culture, i.E. Canada and most of Europe, and there is, that means there are about ten times as many crazy people in the US? While that would explain a lot, you might want to recheck your assumptions. (Using harsh language to make a point, of course I don't equate mental illnesses with the crazies)

First off I believe that majority of mass shooting have the shooter has had some sort of mental issue. You might argue that domestic shootings are likely not the same, but I would argue they are, anyone wanting to take the life of someone else has a severe mental health issue. weather it's cause by drug deals gone wrong, or disputes, the act of taking someone else life, unless you feel that they are going to take yours, is a mental problem.

So you must conclude there are more people with mental health problems in the US than there are in comparable countries? Would you have independent evidence of that, or a chain of reasoning why it might be so?

But on the topic of cherry-picking soundbites to make someone look bad, well, that is a bipartisan tradition. It's not pretty.

I agree, this is wrong to do, but both sides do it, and to make matters worse, most the media has a very left leaning bias, so the lies spread by the democrats get filtered and anyone standing up against them, the media claims is misinformation, I mean look at the whole hunter Biden situation, they filtered out people telling the truth about it in 2020, but now they came out to confess that those people were actually telling the truth.

Hunter Biden was later convicted and NOT pardoned by his dad, IIIRC. Corruption and reporting suppression would look differently. And remember how the 2016 allegations against Hillary Clinton turned out to be a whole lot of hot hair, and Trump illegally paid to have an affair kept under wraps. What to report on and what not is a difficult decision. If you report something, you risk being instrumentalized by a made up smear campaign. If you don't, you may be withholding important information.

You haven't really yet specified what you mean by 'the media'. You have to realize that from a right wing point of view, average media is bound to look left leaning, especially if you apply a filter like 'media telling stories I don't like'. A very wide spectrum of source is available, if you find that ALL of them are left leaning from your perspective, well, no easy way to say this, but then you're an extremist.

Oh yeah, and it still can be misinformation at a time even if it later turns out to be true.

IMHO, the best way to spot trustworthy politicians and news outlets is this: If they admit to their mistakes and don't double down on their obvious BS. For news sources, I expect full transparency: This is where we were wrong, that is the truth, this is how it affects the story. For politicians, standards are lower, because somehow, admitting mistakes is unpopular I'm satisfied with "Yeah, that bit could have gone better" and 'In hindsight, that was not the best idea". And obviously, they should not make too many mistakes to begin with.

I think the stance they put out on deporting all illegal immigrants will turn out to be a big lie, economically we cannot support that, but they will attempt to deport the violent ones, which is a much smaller percentage.

That's fair, yeah, weighted by the number of repetitions, that's a big one. Let's hope you're right about them only targeting actually bad ones.
I think the biggest falsehood on the Harris campaign side was the claim that Trump endorses Project 2025. He explicitly did not. And I definitely believe he hasn't read it, I mean, it's 900 pages That does not mean Project 2025 will not be realized as far as they can get, but right now, it's misinformation.

Kyle, please stop accusing people of being brainwashed by the liberal media, unless you can actual evidence. I think this is something we should be considering moderating, because it is not civil behavior.

This is one of many reasons why I support Trump over Kamala, if you moderate or filter out content, you cannot see the full story, plus it adds unneeded bias. I like the principal of X's community notes, keep the content, but show the proof how they are wrong. wish essentially how this open discussion is working on this forum.

Compared to what I see on X, this discussion here is VERY civil. For the record, the only moderator action so far has been on the other Bicycle/Musk/now mental healt thread, not against kyle. So much for bias, eh? While 'brainwashed' is a strong term, I would take it as hyperbole for 'you are misinformed', which must be an acceptable statement. (It's wrong IMHO, but if nobody is wrong, there is no discussion )

Anyway, why don't we do it like this, I can wear the moderator hat and withdraw from actual discussion if anyone desires. PM is enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ43yyJvgs&t=699s

If you want to link to the relevant part, or tell me the timestamp I'll watch, but where you linked looks like an advertisement for a lawyer and I got bored after 20 seconds

Yeah, he's sponsoring himself most of the time, kind of annoying, but those books in the background weren't cheap! Lucifer gave a bad timestamp, Here's a better one, I suppose him saying "If you take one thing away from this" is a good spot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ43yyJvgs&t=508s
But really, you should have the patience to watch it all. (I'm not legally educated enough, especially on US Constitution matters, to judge it on accuracy)

Oh, here are two studies, at least one of which any of you won't like:
Here's one on media consumption, misinformation and voter behavior:
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/link-betwee ... ic-opinion
You may have already seen it.
Here is one investigating Republican and Democrat voters willingness to subvert democracy:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... acksliding
(There's a PDF download button)
Or a portion of a video discussing it, if you prefer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVqjH6MaqRY&t=248s

[sinewav]

...most the media has a very left leaning bias

Myth. All media is owned by corporations and individual billionaires and they all favor the right wing. In fact, there is no left wing in the US, we have corporate center and corporate right. The only "left leaning" parts of the media are on social issues like representing women and minorities, and to me that's not and shouldn't be left leaning, it's simply being decent and inclusive.

[Word]

What I said is what every American should be fighting for, individual liberties, were a government cannot control of sensor the information you receive, or remove your rights.

Ok, now what if one regards abortion and not being shot by a gun out of nowhere as individual liberties?

SpaceX and Tesla

Let me get this straight: You believe these two Elon Musk joints over any classic news publication?

Even Jeff Bezos

The guy is a billionaire. He'll do what's good for business.

Compared to what I see on X, this discussion here is VERY civil. For the record, the only moderator action so far has been on the other Bicycle/Musk/now mental healt thread, not against kyle. So much for bias, eh? While 'brainwashed' is a strong term, I would take it as hyperbole for 'you are misinformed', which must be an acceptable statement. (It's wrong IMHO, but if nobody is wrong, there is no discussion )

No offense taken, kyle used the "brainwashing" as a metaphor/short-hand for how he sees the other side and I sort of equated him to a cult member in return.

[kyle]

What I said is what every American should be fighting for, individual liberties, were a government cannot control of sensor the information you receive, or remove your rights.

Ok, now what if one regards abortion and not being shot by a gun out of nowhere as individual liberties?

In regurds to abortions, there is no federal law for or against them, this power is at the state or individual level. Trump has no plan of issuing any kind of change to this. Unfortunately some states like mine have strict abortion rules, I don't think any of them should threaten the health of the mother, but I'm also not one that likes to kill lives.
The actually random acts of shooting, (mass shootings) are pretty rare, one should not have to worry about getting shot.

Let me get this straight: You believe these two Elon Musk joints over any classic news publication?

I listen to the same earning report, or press conferences that the media then writes about. The media manipulates what is said on those to paint an entirely different picture that what was said. I saw this countless times in 2018, 2019, and 2020, that Yes I have stopped listening to them. This year CNBC ran a report about how NHTSA Was investigating Tesla recall fix, and basically went on as how bad this was that there is likely another recall to come, Tesla stock fell quite a bit right when that report hit the market, and never did recover that day. But if you looked into the actual report from NHTSA, it was just standard process, to follow up on a recall by doing yet another observational study, as there was no solid proof that the fix would work or not, it's just what Tesla and regulators agreed on could fix the issue. The issue was on people misusing the full self driving or autopilot software. and they added a strike system if you misused it, I managed to get a strike once, but ironically it was a false positive strike, I accidentally added a navigation point at the location i was at, which caused me to get a strike.

Even Jeff Bezos

The guy is a billionaire. He'll do what's good for business.

Yep, and this time he's admitting the media has messed up and wants to try to make it right. he knows saying this is not going to drive up business, they actually have to tell accurate news or else it will be very bad for business.

So you must conclude there are more people with mental health problems in the US than there are in comparable countries? Would you have independent evidence of that, or a chain of reasoning why it might be so?

I actually would think this could be the case. Healthcare in the US is all about profits, it's not about fixing you, it's about keeping you needing more of them. IE pain medication, getting over prescribed because the doctors were getting kickbacks, leading to more addiction for that medicine. I actually believe that people can overcome mental health problems and addiction, but it take the right approach and therapy, unfortunately many people want to reject that from costs, or they simply are not matched with the person who can work with them so they give up. Now what leads to this could be money issues, They don't teach in our schools the proper way to handle money. When to give how to save, and most habits in households are to keep up or out due someone else. So lots get stuck in the habitats of overspending then stressing out when they don't have enough money to do the things that they need.

You haven't really yet specified what you mean by 'the media'

Oh yeah, and it still can be misinformation at a time even if it later turns out to be true.

So why should the government have control over what is considered misinformation and censor it? Especially if it is true. I guess I could answer that, in this logic. Lets say the illegal immigrant haitians eating pets was real, if the government reported this to be true, there would be a mob of people going after them. So reporting that it was false, kept some of this down. I put like a 60% likelihood that it will come out to have been true, because of what I just mentioned, that the government does not want to attract violence, they will deny it, but it is part of the Haitian culture. Anyway Just because the government could hide this for an ok reason. I don't think the conversation about it needs to stop and be completely removed. It's a topic that people should be able to decide on whether it is what the government is saying or not. Just so you are clear I would not personally take matters into my hands and go after them, I would not agree with anyone doing that, Just like how I don't agree with what happened on January 6th.

IMHO, the best way to spot trustworthy politicians and news outlets is this: If they admit to their mistakes and don't double down on their obvious BS.

I've not met a news that does that here in the US, they leave the obvious lies up, and continue to make them up. and this is Right and left leaning, the all are bad.

While 'brainwashed' is a strong term, I would take it as hyperbole for 'you are misinformed', which must be an acceptable statement.

I don't see it as that strong of a term, but I can see how one could. In the context that I've used it, my meaning is more or less that you've been trained to believe it, because it used to be correct, so you continue to blindly believe it.


Finally I'll try to take a look at that video more in the coming days.

[Z-Man]

The issue was on people misusing the full self driving or autopilot software.

Maybe because it's called 'full self driving' and 'autopilot'?

I actually would think this could be the case. Healthcare in the US is all about profits, it's not about fixing you, it's about keeping you needing more of them. IE pain medication, getting over prescribed because the doctors were getting kickbacks, leading to more addiction for that medicine. I actually believe that people can overcome mental health problems and addiction, but it take the right approach and therapy, unfortunately many people want to reject that from costs, or they simply are not matched with the person who can work with them so they give up.

For that, there exists solutions that many states across the world implemented with proven success. The Democrats made steps in that direction with the Affordable Care Act. It's now in danger, at least of becoming less effective.
Of course, solving corporate greed is hard, especially in the health sector. It is a tough balancing act, you don't want meds to be overpriced, but you do want to give the companies incentives to develop new meds, and for every drug that is brought to market, ten others fail the final tests and hundreds the preliminary tests (Source: thin air, I admit), fact is, developing new drugs and therapies is expensive and risky. Without corresponding high potential reward, no profit oriented company is going to do it.

Now what leads to this could be money issues, They don't teach in our schools the proper way to handle money. When to give how to save, and most habits in households are to keep up or out due someone else. So lots get stuck in the habitats of overspending then stressing out when they don't have enough money to do the things that they need.

Dunno. "Don't spend more than you earn" is such a basic rule. I'm no Libertarian, but I think that anyone should come up with it by themselves and be able to live by it. Couldn't it rather be that minimum wage, if that is paid at all, is not enough for decent living?

So why should the government have control over what is considered misinformation and censor it?

I think you're fighting a straw man here, nobody here advocated for government censorship. And wouldn't Trump be the one shouting "Fake news" at every report that made him look bad?

Especially if it is true. I guess I could answer that, in this logic. Lets say the illegal immigrant haitians eating pets was real, if the government reported this to be true, there would be a mob of people going after them.

There was a mob of Proud Boys and others invading Springfield, no need for the government to confirm the reports. In a well functioning society, that should not happen, even if, say, the police has multiple reports of people eating other people's pets and communicated it is actively investigating the claims. You're supposed to sit back and let the police and justice system do its job.

but it is part of the Haitian culture.

Hypothetically, you mean? Eating cats and dogs is not part of Haitian culture. And those cultures that do eat cats and dogs (which is morally not worse than eating other animals) have special breeds they eat and don't steal their neighbors' pets, presumably because they don't taste all that good. Apart from the other obvious reasons.

What is needed in this particular case is quite simple: Politicians need to simply not state patently absurd defamation. And anyone doing so should be punished at the polls, better of course at the primaries, which did not happen. Is that so hard? Don't spread blatant lies yourself!

Maybe that was a bad example. I'm biased; I very much would not want that allegation to be true, so I find it hard to imagine a situation where it was true But I think it is the right kind of bias, after all, what if someone wants such a thing to be true? For what? To save some pets? No, probably to feel justified for hating on Haitians.

Anyway, slightly better example from recent history. When Covid first appeared, it was not entirely clear how it is transmitted. In the beginning, it was not clear whether face masks would do any good. So at some point, the Robert Koch Institute RKI in Germany, which I guess counts as a Government Agency, communicated that it was not recommended to wear masks because the benefits were not clear. However, internally, the real reason was that supply of masks was short, and it was feared that if everyone would now buy and use masks, there would not be enough for medical professionals.
So, was it correct to withhold that information?
In retrospect, it is clear that it was not a good move. Because then later, when it was recommended and even mandated to wear masks, people were skeptical because of the earlier information that their usefulness was questionable. And of course others were furious and lost trust because they learned that they were not given the full facts earlier.

So yeah. I think Government Agencies should tell the truth, even if it is uncomfortable and may lead to bad short term consequences. Eventually, the truth will come out, and it will be found out you were hiding something and that will be worse than whatever effect the truth has. Also, if you're withholding information, you create a vacuum that will be filled with speculation, and in the worst case misinformation.

About misinformation on social media: I would much rather have a world were people would simply not believe the stuff their crazy uncle or ponypucher17 say at face value because it fits their world view, than have any form of political moderation. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be how we humans are wired. I don't know a good solution, but I think that maybe this whole 'social media' stuff was a bad idea. It has increased polarization. Kyle, I followed your advice to curate my 'for you' X page, and it worked... a little too well. It is now firmly a bubble of things I already agree with, with the occasional joke that makes me chuckle. It didn't take much liking and blocking to get there. The feed has very low true information content. It's only confirming my views. That is not good.

And different countries have different standards of discussion, and the USA have no right to force their standards on acceptable hate speech, defamation and harassment onto others, no matter how good the intentions are.

IMHO, the best way to spot trustworthy politicians and news outlets is this: If they admit to their mistakes and don't double down on their obvious BS.

I've not met a news that does that here in the US, they leave the obvious lies up, and continue to make them up. and this is Right and left leaning, the all are bad.

That is not good. How do you determine the trustworthiness of your non-traditional-media sources and evaluate the truth of individual news?

Maybe I should share my main news sources here. It's not going to be useful for many, as most of it is not in English...
Science News: The Nature Podcast
Tech News: Heise Online
Political: Lage der Nation Podcast (while they are left leaning, nobody at all is immune from their criticism or their praise; mostly national news), TAZ (recently accused of being mainstream, but probably as left as a newspaper can be; my main reason for picking them is that they have an actually readable RSS feed), Acht Milliarden (the foreign affairs podcast of "Der Spiegel", pretty centric from my point of view) and a couple of Portuguese radio shows turned podcasts I mainly listen to in order to keep familiar with the language.
Games: Podquisition... Yeah... they're basically Communists


Regarding Ukraine, here is what I think the plan is. Trump and Putin are going to negotiate a deal in secret, if they have not already done so. It'll let Russia keep the parts they conquered, while giving some safety guarantees (which they'll break later) The USA is going to withdraw all aid for Ukraine and threaten to leave NATO if the European nations don't follow (they're already threatening to leave over less...). Russia's lust for territory is not going to end there. They already have troops in Georgia (the other one!) and their eyes firmly on Moldovia.
I think it is time Europe takes its defense firmly into its own hands, fast. Which is what Trump wants, but that should not be a reason against it Too bad our Government melted away a little just now (maybe you heard about that... good riddance), but I'm reasonably sure that in matters of national security, common ground can be found with the current opposition parties.

[sinewav]

I actually would think this could be the case. Healthcare in the US is all about profits, it's not about fixing you, it's about keeping you needing more of them. IE pain medication, getting over prescribed because the doctors were getting kickbacks, leading to more addiction for that medicine.

Remember, don't attribute malice where incompetence fits. Yes, there is some insane greed in the healthcare industry, but they don't need to keep you sick. We'll never run out of sick people. And most doctors are seriously good people. This over-simplified and cynical view of yours isn't healthy.

I actually believe that people can overcome mental health problems and addiction, but it take the right approach and therapy, unfortunately many people want to reject that from costs, or they simply are not matched with the person who can work with them so they give up. Now what leads to this could be money issues, They don't teach in our schools the proper way to handle money. When to give how to save, and most habits in households are to keep up or out due someone else. So lots get stuck in the habitats of overspending then stressing out when they don't have enough money to do the things that they need.

Again, you show a lack of experience with mental illness and addiction (which is a good thing for you personally, probably). It'll be hard to bring you up to speed. First, most mental illness is chronic and can't be cured. Some illness can be treated with medication and therapy, but used the same way a Type I diabetic needs insulin their whole life. Second, mental illness and addiction disrupt your financial health, so by the time you realize there is a problem often you don't have the financial resources available to get the very limited help there is. And when I say very limited I mean extremely limited. It's not a question of rejecting treatment because of cost, treatment is just not available to the average person.

[Z-Man]

I would not agree with anyone doing that, Just like how I don't agree with what happened on January 6th.

Help me understand there. Trump sent the rioters there, after months of agitations with baseless claims of vote fraud. Even assuming he did not want them to riot, he sat around, watched them chant "Kill Mike Pence" on TV, and only came out to send them home hours later. How can it be this does not override everything else? How could he even be nominated? How can you just disagree with it, instead of condemning it?

[Lucifer]

This is one of many reasons why I support Trump over Kamala, if you moderate or filter out content, you cannot see the full story, plus it adds unneeded bias. I like the principal of X's community notes, keep the content, but show the proof how they are wrong. wish essentially how this open discussion is working on this forum.

Unregulated speech is not free speech.

Speaking from my personal life as first an atheist and later a satanist, I've been threatened with penalty of death for my beliefs. it doesn't matter if you agree with those threats or not. You voted for the same candidate the people who made those threats voted for. So that's who you are.

Now that I've cited the highest court in all of the land as a source, Kyle, would you kindly find a comparable source that can demonstrate that Trump has not made these statements or that he didn't mean them?

I linked to the conversation right around it, I could link to more of the follow-up interviews where he clarifies how they took his statement out of context.

This is a matter of public record. It is now a part of the Supreme Court's record that Trump's lawyers have argued that he has the right to order seal teams to assassinate his opponents. I don't give a shit about your "link to the conversation". This is a matter of public record. This is a Supreme Court decision. Quit dodging and face up to what your candidate has said, argued, and had the court agree to.

<snip>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ43yyJvgs&t=699s

If you want to link to the relevant part, or tell me the timestamp I'll watch, but where you linked looks like an advertisement for a lawyer and I got bored after 20 seconds

You have surrendered your right to criticize media. Your argument against the source I cited that goes into a deep dive on the subject, that you said didn't actually happen, but was right there in the supreme court. Your argument against that is tl'dr.

<snip> You don't get to accuse anybody of being brainwashed. YOU are the person who's brainwashed.

<snippedisnip>

You don't get to criticize media anymore. You didn't pay attention when you had the chance.

(You all agreed that "brainwashed" was ok)

[Z-Man]

Speaking from my personal life as first an atheist and later a satanist, I've been threatened with penalty of death for my beliefs. it doesn't matter if you agree with those threats or not. You voted for the same candidate the people who made those threats voted for. So that's who you are.

You have every right to be angry. But in a representative democracy, especially a de facto two party system, you can't condemn people for who they're voting with. For reference, I'm probably voting with pedophiles. (Context: In its very early days, a subgroup of the party I have always voted for supported the legalization of sex with minors; I suppose some of its early fans stuck around.) There are plenty of valid reasons for critique.

(Edit: I'll withdraw from active discussion now so I can better wear the moderator hat. I'm still biased, mind you, wish us luck Most likely actions will be light edits, comments on procedure, and locking if required.)

[Lucifer]

Kyle? Kyle? Are you there Kyle?

I just got moderated. Where are you to protect free speech?

[Monkey]

I actually believe that people can overcome mental health problems and addiction, but it take the right approach and therapy, unfortunately many people want to reject that from costs, or they simply are not matched with the person who can work with them so they give up. Now what leads to this could be money issues, They don't teach in our schools the proper way to handle money. When to give how to save, and most habits in households are to keep up or out due someone else. So lots get stuck in the habitats of overspending then stressing out when they don't have enough money to do the things that they need.

sinewav answered this very well. Please reread and take in what he said. You currently have a very poor understanding of mental health illnesses and the issues surrounding them. You really need to listen more to people who are stating facts from their first hand experiences of them. Saying "i believe", when you have no real frame of reference, just doesn't cut it.

[kyle]

Kyle? Kyle? Are you there Kyle?

I just got moderated. Where are you to protect free speech?

Lucifer_arma: Z-Man: please don't moderate my latest post
Lucifer_arma: I absolutely 100% agree with your moderator actions on my previous post

I really don't know what you wrote, Z-man got to it before I could see, but you also agreed you should not have written it in the first place. While I don't like moderation, as I prefer to use my own judgement on what people post, this form of moderation is not being handed down from the government.

Still going to catch up on most other stuff, but I've read, and reread the mental illness stuff again and again. You might all be right and I am wrong, but I want to at least share part of my basis for my opinion. I still feel like there is a belief that there is no fixing it, so it cannot be fixed kind of mindset. I understand quite a bit about the brain, I knows it is very challenging to change it, but I also know it is possible to do so. Yes it takes a hell of a lot of work and focus, to change your mind, but it's doable. But IMO saying it cannot be done, because that's what you've heard, that's what you've been told, is a form of giving up before trying and that makes the issues even harder to overcome. And Yes I do think it's almost impossible to overcome, but i do think it is possible.

kyle wrote: ↑10 Nov 2024 00:19
I would not agree with anyone doing that, Just like how I don't agree with what happened on January 6th.

Help me understand there. Trump sent the rioters there, after months of agitations with baseless claims of vote fraud. Even assuming he did not want them to riot, he sat around, watched them chant "Kill Mike Pence" on TV, and only came out to send them home hours later. How can it be this does not override everything else? How could he even be nominated? How can you just disagree with it, instead of condemning it?

IMO the things that Biden has done and the things that Kamala likely would have done would be far worse for the country. How can you just let illegal immigrants walk freely in the US and let them kill or destroy the lives of our kids time after time. How can you let someone fleeing their country because of the murders they committed just walk right into this country for asylum.

[sinewav]

I've noticed a pattern here in your posts: some small number of x does y so then z, where z is not helpful and often harmful to the whole population of x. I won't get into that, but I will focus on mental health since this is an area of expertise (I was a double major in psychology and philosophy).

I still feel like there is a belief that there is no fixing it, so it cannot be fixed kind of mindset. I understand quite a bit about the brain, I knows it is very challenging to change it, but I also know it is possible to do so. Yes it takes a hell of a lot of work and focus, to change your mind, but it's doable. But IMO saying it cannot be done, because that's what you've heard, that's what you've been told, is a form of giving up before trying and that makes the issues even harder to overcome. And Yes I do think it's almost impossible to overcome, but i do think it is possible.

I think you've got it exactly backwards. Most people think like you when it comes to mental health. "My cousin stopped smoking cold turkey and there is nothing special about him so everyone can do it!" Like your statement about how everyone can be a billionaire through hard work, you believe people can overcome addiction and mental health problems with hard work. Again, it looks and feels true, but actually doesn't track with reality.

Most people actually fail in these tasks through no fault of their own. In fact, not internalizing my failure was one of the hardest things I've had to do. When suffering from depression, the first advice everyone gets is "just think positive and everything will be alright." This is the first thing everyone tries. Of course it should work because they have willpower, right? But it doesn't, so they think "I must not be trying hard enough" and they try harder and harder and harder. They'll go to therapy for months and years and try different medications because that also qualifies as trying harder. And then when nothing works they internalize their failure, thinking "there must be something wrong with me, I'm trying my hardest and I'm still not happy and I want to die." But they didn't fail because they never had a chance to succeed. It's true something is wrong with them, but they don't actually have the ability to change it, and those who think they succeeded are suffering from survivorship bias.

When you say you "understand quite a bit about the brain" I don't believe you because the top neuroscientists don't know anything meaningful after decades of research. And by meaningful I'm talking about the nature of consciousness and thought. Of course there are coarse structures that relate to certain functions, neuroplasticity is a thing, and we can make brain interfaces that measure activity and turn it into data, but good luck finding the neurons for "willpower." And if we did find those neurons, then that means free will is a matter of biology, right?

[Z-Man]

How can you just let illegal immigrants walk freely in the US and let them kill or destroy the lives of our kids time after time. How can you let someone fleeing their country because of the murders they committed just walk right into this country for asylum.

Just fact checking. Probably this is referring to reports like this: More than 13,000 immigrants convicted of homicide are living outside immigration detention in the U.S., ICE says The significance of that number is contested. It is based on statistics collected over decades and includes those outside of ICE custody, but still otherwise detained, and those who served their sentence or are dead. For comparison, the number is pretty close to the yearly number of homicides on US soil. Do your own math on that. Furthermore, as Lucifer deducted with logic, undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens on average (yes, old-ish data, but pretty stable, share if you have newer).
It has to be noted, however, that homicide rates IN Mexico specifically are two to three times higher than in the USA, with a recent increase due to drug cartels doing their thing. Which is of course a leading driver of migration. Source.
I have not found any evidence for "asylum for murderers".

[Monkey]

How can you just let illegal immigrants walk freely in the US and let them kill or destroy the lives of our kids time after time. How can you let someone fleeing their country because of the murders they committed just walk right into this country for asylum.

I lived in a hostel where more than half of the inhabitants were Asylum seekers. They were all decent people, and they came from various countries, including Russia, Iran, Iraq, Albania, Zaire (now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and other countries. I lived there for over a year so I got to know them well. One of the guys there, from Zaire, became my best friend. He was seeking asylum because both of his parents were killed, in front of him, by some form of militia, the exact details of which I didn't really want to pester him with as I didn't want him to have to relive it. What I did know is that his father was a government official, which is the reason for him being targetted for assassination.

My point here, kyle, is that your generalised statements are wildly incorrect and your understanding of the abuse of statistical information is poor. The basis for pretty much all of your arguments is, effectively, hearsay.

homicide rates IN Mexico specifically are two to three times higher than in the USA

If Mexico were as rich as the USA is and the USA were as poor as Mexico is (i.e. the wealth of these two countries were swapped), I bet that the homicide rates would, to a large degree, follow suit (swap).

The point I am trying to make here is that poverty and severe financial inequality are the main drivers for homicide (and many other types of crime too).