Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Ah, absolutism. Got it.
-
Features
DACA
- Thread starter humbleman
- Start date
Elixir
Made in America
Ah - conservo-libertarian stupidity. Got it.
You didn't even ATTEMPT to address my point. Like a true conservo-lib sheep, you just label it, and think that disposes of the point.
Elixir
Made in America
Jason REALLY doesn't like being called a "Conservo-libertarian" - 2nd negative rep today, for the same thing. Keep it up, Jason. I'll gladly call you whatever you self-identify with, but whatever you do, don't discuss the fucking ISSUE that you're on the wrong side of. Or, you could try to answer the question:
Why should Cheato be rewarded for cancelling DACA with any kind of "compromise"?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Why? It should be obvious.
Rule by executive fiat, expect the next executive to change the fiat. If you want to change the law, like I want to change the law, you fucking change the fucking law!
To do that, you need to start with a bill in congress that eventually gets to the president's desk for him to sign. If he doesn't like it he vetoes it. So you need to work with him, whoever he is, under any administration, to get him to sign it.
If you don't support changing the fucking law, then you are saying "I really like the law, I just don't want it to apply to these people." Is that what you stand for?
Here, maybe this will help you understand.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EISWIY9bG8[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnVmIrAiQB8[/youtube]
Rule by executive fiat, expect the next executive to change the fiat. If you want to change the law, like I want to change the law, you fucking change the fucking law!
To do that, you need to start with a bill in congress that eventually gets to the president's desk for him to sign. If he doesn't like it he vetoes it. So you need to work with him, whoever he is, under any administration, to get him to sign it.
If you don't support changing the fucking law, then you are saying "I really like the law, I just don't want it to apply to these people." Is that what you stand for?
Here, maybe this will help you understand.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EISWIY9bG8[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnVmIrAiQB8[/youtube]
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I know what it is you want, and why you don't want the Democrats to work with Trump in any way at all on this issue. You want the Democrats to put forth a grand futile gesture that you know the Republicans will oppose so that you can say "the Democrats tried, keep supporting the Democrats so they can keep making more grand futile gestures on your behalf". What good is a solved problem? To a politician it is no good at all.
If, perchance, congressional Republicans and Democrats work together on a solution, you want Trump kept out of it so that he will veto it anyway.
I want to solve the damn problem. That's why you and I are on different sides of this issue.
If, perchance, congressional Republicans and Democrats work together on a solution, you want Trump kept out of it so that he will veto it anyway.
I want to solve the damn problem. That's why you and I are on different sides of this issue.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
In the movie Exodus there are two armed British soldiers who are supposed to keep Jewish refugees from comming ashore in Palestine.
One says to the other 'I guess this is where we see if we aare bloddy Nazis or not', whether or not they will shoot.
For us the treatment of the DACA people will detrermine who we are now and for history. If we treat them and their lives like political pawns then we become that which we have opposed. For many dedcades illegal immigrants were ignored because it suited busness. To now say they must go is beyond words of moral condemnation.
Trump is a horrible human being, I pity him and his family. I pity the self rightious conservative Christians in Congress who presume to be a moral high ground. May they all burn in their Hell.
One says to the other 'I guess this is where we see if we aare bloddy Nazis or not', whether or not they will shoot.
For us the treatment of the DACA people will detrermine who we are now and for history. If we treat them and their lives like political pawns then we become that which we have opposed. For many dedcades illegal immigrants were ignored because it suited busness. To now say they must go is beyond words of moral condemnation.
Trump is a horrible human being, I pity him and his family. I pity the self rightious conservative Christians in Congress who presume to be a moral high ground. May they all burn in their Hell.
Elixir
Made in America
Trump has been trying to hold DACA recipients hostage for his idiotic wall, just because he can.
Then he tries to turn it around and say that DEMOCRATS are holding them hostage.
No, stupid - YOU are the one who put their status in jeopardy, not the Dems.
These are the most vetted and monitored immigrants of all. If they are not productive members of society, if they don't have spotless records, they were never eligible for DACA. There is no reason for the malicious orange lardbucket to destroy their lives, except to show his base of morons that he is really mean to people who aren't white. It's not even about the "wall" -= Trump has already announced that he won the wall fight, it's "being built" etc., so his idiot supporters already think that battle is over. It's nothing more than a mean-spirited, pointless exercise in cruelty.
Jason is upset that Dems won't reward such behavior ... too bad. If Trump wants to cause people - and the nation - harm, just for fun, he can fucking well wear it until November.
Then he tries to turn it around and say that DEMOCRATS are holding them hostage.
No, stupid - YOU are the one who put their status in jeopardy, not the Dems.
These are the most vetted and monitored immigrants of all. If they are not productive members of society, if they don't have spotless records, they were never eligible for DACA. There is no reason for the malicious orange lardbucket to destroy their lives, except to show his base of morons that he is really mean to people who aren't white. It's not even about the "wall" -= Trump has already announced that he won the wall fight, it's "being built" etc., so his idiot supporters already think that battle is over. It's nothing more than a mean-spirited, pointless exercise in cruelty.
Jason is upset that Dems won't reward such behavior ... too bad. If Trump wants to cause people - and the nation - harm, just for fun, he can fucking well wear it until November.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Jason wants to solve the problem, Elixir wants grand futile gestures that he knows will fail. It's not about rewarding anybody for me, it's about trying to solve the problem. What Elixir doesn't like is that the choice is between trying to solve the problem and a desire to punish Trump.
Elixir
Made in America
Jason wants to capitulate to and reward the unethical conduct of a sham president that he pretends not to support, no matter the cost to the future of America.
It's never surprising when ignorant people or flag-waving hypocrites choose to endorse options that run diametrically counter to the founding principles of this country, but it takes a very special kind of stoopid to think that doing so constitutes solving any problems.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Pretends not to support?
When I vote third party, conservoprogressives like you say I'm throwing my vote away. That means conservoprogressives think the only valid votes are for the two major parties. That means conservoprogressives think Trump is more legitimate than third party candidates.
That makes you far more of a Trump supporter than I'll ever be.
I don't support the law as it is written, so I want that law changed. You want a futile gesture that changes nothing. Therefore you support the law as written. That also puts you more in alignment with Trump than I'll ever be.
When I vote third party, conservoprogressives like you say I'm throwing my vote away. That means conservoprogressives think the only valid votes are for the two major parties. That means conservoprogressives think Trump is more legitimate than third party candidates.
That makes you far more of a Trump supporter than I'll ever be.
I don't support the law as it is written, so I want that law changed. You want a futile gesture that changes nothing. Therefore you support the law as written. That also puts you more in alignment with Trump than I'll ever be.
Elixir
Made in America
I don't say that. You're supporting Trump.
Your vote for Jillary or whoever, was support for Trump.
FIFY
Wasting your vote to express your whining... what a righteous hero.
If I wanted that I'd be applauding your third party vote.
You still haven't given a single reason to support El Cheato by submitting to his unethical hostage-taking exercise. We don't reward other kidnappers, and there's standing policy against paying out ransoms. But you want to make an exception for Twitler.... because you want a law changed???
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I have given you a single reason, but you rejected it because you prefer grand glorious empty gestures that accomplish nothing. You don't want to change anything.
Instead you and Trump both like the law the way it is right now. That makes you a Trump supporter, although for inverse reasons.
Instead you and Trump both like the law the way it is right now. That makes you a Trump supporter, although for inverse reasons.
Elixir
Made in America
Sheer projection , from a "third party" voter.
And, you have offered nothing that suffices as rationale for rewarding unethical, un-American, vile, harmful behavior. You might think it does, but then you're all about grand glorious empty voting gestures.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,350
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
The Democrats actually relented and said they would support funding the wall in exchange for DACA. The Republicans blocked it.
Elixir
Made in America
Yup. I was glad they did, in fact. But not until after thinking about it quite a bit. That would have been no way to establish any kind of SOP.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Sheer irony
More to the point... the dotard reneged (as he always does)
I hate him more than I ever thought possible to hate any human being
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
You'll trigger Elixir with talk like that. He thinks a vote for Trump is better than a third party vote, and agrees with Trump that the law should not change.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,280
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Explain your reasoning. What makes you think you aren't the one who's projecting? What is there that could possibly make Jason's vote for Jillary or whoever a "vote for Trump", that wouldn't equally have made it a "vote for Trump" if he'd voted for Clinton? How do you figure Jason hypothetically voting for Clinton wouldn't have been a grand glorious empty gesture that would have accomplished nothing but wasting his vote to express your whining?
Seriously, dude, lay it out for us, mathematically. Exactly how many more Californians' votes do you calculate that Clinton needed in order to keep El Cheato out of the White House?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
The situation in California has taken yet another turn.
So, Los Alamitos passed a law saying that Los Alamitos abides by federal law instead of state law. As a result the state is considering legal action against the city, I don't know if they actually filed. Meanwhile Orange county and several cities have joined the federal government's side in the suit the federal government versus California. A big mess, but it can always get bigger.
The ACLU just filed suit against Los Alamitos, and part of the basis for the suit is that Los Alamitos doesn't get to pick and choose which laws it is going to obey and enforce.
So, Los Alamitos passed a law saying that Los Alamitos abides by federal law instead of state law. As a result the state is considering legal action against the city, I don't know if they actually filed. Meanwhile Orange county and several cities have joined the federal government's side in the suit the federal government versus California. A big mess, but it can always get bigger.
The ACLU just filed suit against Los Alamitos, and part of the basis for the suit is that Los Alamitos doesn't get to pick and choose which laws it is going to obey and enforce.