Page 6867 of 6899 FirstFirst ... 586763676767681768576863686468656866686768686869687068716877 ... LastLast
Results 102,991 to 103,005 of 103480
  1. #102991
    Extraordinary Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    8,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Trump going to announce his pick for SCOTUS soon, not that it really matters. Anyone he chooses will be just as dangerous as the others on the list.

    Actually, Bret Kavenaugh is a little worse since, apparently, he believes that Presidents should be Above the Law. That Presidents should be immune from any kind of legal action or prosecution. Which is why Trump picked him.
    Betcha that position would be the opposite if the President was a Democrat. As much as I disliked Scalia, he at least was more consistent than the conservatives left on the court (and Gorusch).

  2. #102992

    Default

    I've known this for awhile. But Trump in Montana gave away the Secret of why they call the Democratic party the Democrat party.

    He thinks Democratic is too nice for us. (Former me), Democrat ends in Rat, and his low base, low brow voters pick up the rat part.

    It's a reason he's a sucky businessman, but marketing genius. He knows how to reach people that don't like to think too hard.

    Is always confused.....

    My Name is Psylocke, "Stabby stabby pew pew!"

    My Psylocke stories at Fanfiction.net (ignore the editing, it's bad on purpose) https://www.fanfiction.net/~tazirai
    My better edited versions on Comicvine. Just check profile and my forum posts in fan fiction section. http://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/tazirai/

  3. #102993
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    14,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Trump going to announce his pick for SCOTUS soon, not that it really matters. Anyone he chooses will be just as dangerous as the others on the list.

    Actually, Bret Kavenaugh is a little worse since, apparently, he believes that Presidents should be Above the Law. That Presidents should be immune from any kind of legal action or prosecution. Which is why Trump picked him.
    Would that make Kavenaugh a lifeline in the event Mueller makes a public reveal of Trump’s dirty dealings with the Ivans?
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  4. #102994
    "Comic Book Reviewer" InformationGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Trump going to announce his pick for SCOTUS soon, not that it really matters. Anyone he chooses will be just as dangerous as the others on the list.

    Actually, Bret Kavenaugh is a little worse since, apparently, he believes that Presidents should be Above the Law. That Presidents should be immune from any kind of legal action or prosecution. Which is why Trump picked him.
    Yeeeeeeeeep.

    President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge in Washington, to succeed Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

    Trump made the announcement shortly after 9 p.m. ET at the White House, where he was joined by Kavanaugh and his family. NBC News broke the story shortly before the president made his choice public.

    "What matters is not a judge's personal views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require," Trump said in the prime-time announcement from the East Room. "I am pleased to say I have found, without doubt, such a person."

  5. #102995
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It's not that the lies are equal, but that at a certain point a threshold is crossed and the argument isn't about Trump VS an honest person, but about the Republican VS The Democrat.

    The issue with Warren isn't the insult, but that she claims something about her background that isn't true, despite evidence to the contrary.

    With the immigration argument, "Abolish ICE" is a policy position, and its relevance should be considered.

    It's going to be difficult to come up with a bipartisan solution when one of the top-ranking Democrats went around with a T-shirt announcing that he doesn't believe in borders.
    What it is is a childish, immature, racist President throwing meat to his base -- nothing more, nothing less.

    If they see that as something that crosses the same "threshold" as Trump lying at a rate of about 100 times per week then that says more about their lack of objectivity that Warren's "dishonesty" -- something that has already been proven by the whole "email" nonsense.

    And there you go pointing out one "proxy" that you can try to claim somehow represents the "liberal" position which is exactly what I referred to when I was conversing with the last "conservative" guest to grace our boards -- you know "open borders" and "abolish ice" aren't the real issue at hand, yet you still continue to pivot to those talking points every time the issue is raised, while refusing to admit to -- or even discuss -- the fact that Pence won't even answer questions regarding immigration.

    You're sitting here talking about a "bipartisan solution" when the Republicans don't even bother trying to be bipartisan anymore -- the last time we saw a real attempt at bipartisanship was from Obama, and we all know how the Republicans reacted to his seven or so years of outreach, so let's not even go there: recent history has proven that when the "left" tries to meet the "right" halfway, the right just moves further right.

    Some Democrat wearing a "T-shirt" isn't the problem and the both of us know it -- the fact that we don't even know what our (Republican) government is doing with hundreds of children is a much, much bigger concern to anyone with a conscience and a sense of responsibility for the actions of said government.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-09-2018 at 07:39 PM.

  6. #102996
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Some Democrat wearing a "T-shirt" isn't the problem and the both of us know it -- the fact that we don't even know what our (Republican) government is doing with hundreds of children is a much, much bigger concern to anyone with a conscience and a sense of responsibility for the actions of said government.

    But some Democrat did something, Aja, somewhere at some point and that means all things are equal and thus a pox on both their houses in a way that just conveniently exculpates Republicans.

  7. #102997
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,638

    Default

    Not my opinion -- just one that puts the Republican immigration agenda into perspective.

    -----
    "Some quick background: Republicans are supposed to vote tomorrow on two competing bills. One, a hard-line measure sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, would significantly reduce legal immigration, beef up border security, require employers to use the E-Verify system to verify the citizenship of employees (it’s currently voluntary) and give the “dreamers” a temporary legal status but not citizenship. The other, a slightly less severe measure supported by the House leadership, would also restrict legal immigration, but wouldn’t require E-Verify and provides a path to citizenship for dreamers.

    So why do I say this is going to fail? Here are the reasons:

    They can’t agree amongst themselves. Since Democrats aren’t going to support either of these bills, Republicans have a small margin for error, and they’re confronting a problem they’ve always had: Their few remaining moderates are skittish about the harsher approach, while their conservatives don’t want anything that they think is “amnesty” for anyone, including dreamers. Everyone acknowledges that the Goodlatte bill doesn’t have the votes to pass, and it looks as though the compromise bill — which, we should note, is still very harsh — will also lose enough hard-liners to fall short.

    As far as they’re concerned, doing nothing is a viable option. As much as Republicans say they hate the current immigration system, they’ve shown time and again that they’re perfectly happy to shake their fists at it but leave it in place. If the alternative is voting for a bill that a far-right primary challenger will say is amnesty, many of them would rather do nothing. They’ve seen how people such as Sen. Marco Rubio got punished for trying to achieve comprehensive immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and they don’t want to put themselves at risk.

    The president won’t help them. Just in the past week, Trump has gone from saying that he won’t support the compromise bill to saying that he supports both bills; as one Republican said after yesterday’s meeting, “He made comments like ‘I’m behind it 1,000 percent,’ but what is ‘it’?” Members of Congress have learned that Trump simply can’t be trusted to keep to a single position from one day to the next. So if you were one of them, would you stick your neck out on the theory that the president had your back?

    The Senate won’t pass either of these bills anyway. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he doesn’t have any intention of bringing up a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year, and it’s almost impossible to see how even the compromise bill — which, to repeat, is still extremely harsh — could get the votes of nine Democrats, which is what it would need to reach 60 votes and overcome a filibuster.

    The only incentive is to deal with the family separation crisis and leave it at that. Every day brings more horrifying stories and images of the children who are being separated from their families at the border as a result of the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy. Trump claims that he hates doing it (which no one believes) and that it’s the fault of imaginary laws passed by Democrats (which is just false). So there’s a solution: pass a narrow bill dealing just with this issue.

    There are already bills circulating from both Democrats and Republicans to do just that. Passing one of them could handle the Republicans’ immediate political problem without creating other problems for them with their own base, so that’s the path they’re most likely to choose. Then they’ll go home and tell their constituents that the immigration system is a mess and we absolutely have to do something about it.

    One of these days."


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-going-to-fail

  8. #102998
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    But some Democrat did something, Aja, somewhere at some point and that means all things are equal and thus a pox on both their houses in a way that just conveniently exculpates Republicans.
    I hear one of them wore a tan suit and the other used the wrong email server, which in certain minds probably balances out with conspiring with the Russian government to steal an election, starting international trade wars with historic allies, claiming that there are "very good people" marching with white supremacists, repeatedly asking if you can invade Venezuela, sleeping with porn stars behind your wife's back, and separating families just because they came to America seeking a new life.

    On a related note -- Lisa Simpson faked a Native American heritage and also succeeded Trump as President after he drove our nation into bankruptcy.

    But this is reality and we can't count on some cartoon character to come along and repair the damage this President has already done, much less what he might do in the future.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-09-2018 at 08:09 PM.

  9. #102999

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    What it is is a childish, immature, racist President throwing meat to his base -- nothing more, nothing less.

    If they see that as something that crosses the same "threshold" as Trump lying at a rate of about 100 times per week then that says more about their lack of objectivity that Warren's "dishonesty" -- something that has already been proven by the whole "email" nonsense.

    And there you go pointing out one "proxy" that you can try to claim somehow represents the "liberal" position which is exactly what I referred to when I was conversing with the last "conservative" guest to grace our boards -- you know "open borders" and "abolish ice" aren't the real issue at hand, yet you still continue to pivot to those talking points every time the issue is raised, while refusing to admit to -- or even discuss -- the fact that Pence won't even answer questions regarding immigration.

    You're sitting here talking about a "bipartisan solution" when the Republicans don't even bother trying to be bipartisan anymore -- the last time we saw a real attempt at bipartisanship was from Obama, and we all know how the Republicans reacted to his seven or so years of outreach, so let's not even go there: recent history has proven that when the "left" tries to meet the "right" halfway, the right just moves further right.

    Some Democrat wearing a "T-shirt" isn't the problem and the both of us know it -- the fact that we don't even know what our (Republican) government is doing with hundreds of children is a much, much bigger concern to anyone with a conscience and a sense of responsibility for the actions of said government.
    I don't think we're in agreement on the real problem. The Democratic preference for open borders and the problem of the kids separated from their parents are both subsets of the larger topic of immigration policy.

    It sucks that hundreds of kids were separated from their parents, and that parents are bringing their kids along on dangerous border crossings. These are still small parts of the big question of who should be allowed into the country, and how those laws should be enforced.

    If the argument is that Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, I'm eager to read about any major Democratic politician who has a clear proposal which defines limits on who is allowed in. Otherwise, the sartorial choices of the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, as well as the calls by prominent officials to abolish ICE, serve as the main articulation of the party's position.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  10. #103000
    "Comic Book Reviewer" InformationGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Oh hey, WBE, Seth Grossman piece to read for your inevitable profile.

    Seth Grossman, a right-wing pundit who is now the GOP nominee in New Jersey’s 2nd Congressional District, previously touted opinion pieces that were published on two leading white nationalist websites. One of those posts, which Grossman praised, claimed that Black people “are a threat to all who cross their paths.”

    In an email to Media Matters, Grossman attempted to distance himself from his endorsement of the racist "threat to all who cross their paths" piece and said he wants to help "take the Democratic training wheels off the black and Hispanic communities so they can succeed even more."
    And it goes on from there..

  11. #103001
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I don't think we're in agreement on the real problem. The Democratic preference for open borders and the problem of the kids separated from their parents are both subsets of the larger topic of immigration policy.

    It sucks that hundreds of kids were separated from their parents, and that parents are bringing their kids along on dangerous border crossings. These are still small parts of the big question of who should be allowed into the country, and how those laws should be enforced.

    If the argument is that Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, I'm eager to read about any major Democratic politician who has a clear proposal which defines limits on who is allowed in.
    Come on Mets -- you already had that for about eight years with Obama and at no time was said administration proposing "open borders" during immigration talks. Likewise for Hillary Clinton -- at no time did I hear talk of any plans for "open borders" nor do I hear any Democrats calling for it now: that's just a catchphrase Republicans have seized upon to try to make Democrats looks unreasonable with regards to immigration reform, similar to how they tried to bring up "antifa" every time white supremacists were mentioned in their midst.

    They've turned a reasonable discussion about immigration reform, DACA, and family separations into a "open borders" argument because that's how they operate at this point -- kind of like turning an investigation Manafort and Trump into an investigation of Comey and Mueller.

    Again -- what you say here always sounds good in text, but the Republicans don't actually practice it: they aren't interested in bipartisanship, they are interested in using fear to keep their voting base motivated, which is why they lie about crime rates and immigration's effects on the economy. They also know that more immigrants generally mean more Democratic and/or non-white voters so they are both politically and racially motivated in that respect.

    The problem with our "arguments" isn't that we can't agree on the "problem" -- it's that you won't even admit that the problem is that the Republicans rarely, if ever, negotiate in good faith with the Democrats so "bipartisanship" isn't even part of the discussion.

    Merrick Garland tells me all I need to know about the Republican concept of "bipartisanship" -- there's no honor among thieves.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-09-2018 at 09:12 PM.

  12. #103002
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,638

    Default

    "FACT CHECK OF THE DAY"

    "No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’"

    President Trump has falsely claimed at least two dozen times since taking office that Democrats want to open American borders. But legislation shows that Democrats support border security measures, though not the border wall he wants to build.

    “The Democrats want open borders. They want anybody they wanted, including MS-13, pouring into the country.”

    — President Trump, speaking on Monday at a campaign rally in South Carolina

    THE FACTS

    False.
    Democrats have argued that building a wall on the southwestern border is ineffective and a waste of resources, and rejected hard-line proposals to limit legal immigration. But Mr. Trump is grossly exaggerating Democrats’ positions when he conflates their opposition to his signature campaign promise and immigration priorities as “open borders.” And there is no evidence that they “want anybody,” including MS-13, to enter the United States freely.

    While criticizing Mr. Trump’s immigration policies, the Democratic National Committee has committed to improving border security.

    Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leaders, have rebutted the president’s charges. Additionally, their aides cited several examples of legislation that are supported by Democrats and would have provided border security funding.

    Responding last week to Mr. Trump’s earlier claims, Ms. Pelosi said, “No, we do care about the border.”

    “We care about protecting our country, but we don’t think we need to protect the border by putting children in cages,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We want to be smart and strong — not reckless, rash and ruthless in this case.”

    Thirty Democrats in the House have sponsored a bipartisan immigration bill this year that gives the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers a pathway to citizenship. It also enhances technology used to monitor the border, and provides $110 million in grants annually for collaboration between local law enforcement and Border Patrol agents.

    All 193 Democrats in the House and 23 moderate Republicans have signed a “discharge” petition to force a vote on that bill and other immigration proposals.

    In the Senate, all but one Democrat voted for similar immigration legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware.

    And all but three Democrats voted for yet another bipartisan proposal to provide a pathway to citizenship to Dreamers, authorize $25 billion to build barriers and hire personnel at the border over the next decade. It would also prohibit green-card holders from sponsoring adult children..."


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/u...n-borders.html
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-09-2018 at 08:55 PM.

  13. #103003
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I don't think we're in agreement on the real problem. The Democratic preference for open borders and the problem of the kids separated from their parents are both subsets of the larger topic of immigration policy.

    It sucks that hundreds of kids were separated from their parents, and that parents are bringing their kids along on dangerous border crossings. These are still small parts of the big question of who should be allowed into the country, and how those laws should be enforced.

    If the argument is that Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, I'm eager to read about any major Democratic politician who has a clear proposal which defines limits on who is allowed in. Otherwise, the sartorial choices of the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, as well as the calls by prominent officials to abolish ICE, serve as the main articulation of the party's position.
    If you're going to regurgitate Republican talking points about "Open Boarders," we won't be able to have any kind of discussion in good faith.

  14. #103004

    Default

    The Democratic party had a two year window in which they held both houses of Congress and the White House, so their ability to get something done on immigration by themselves was limited. That was also eight years ago, and the party is in a different place (witness the popularity of arguments like Medicare for All, as well as the changing conversation on gay marriage.)

    I get that there are strategic advantages to being vague on a party's position on an issue. If Schumer were to say he thinks legal immigration should have a limit of three million people per year (it's currently at a bit over a million) that number won't be seen as a compromise; it'll be seen as the upper limit. If there is no number given, he might be able to the number he wants as the compromise choice.

    However, it does mean that Democrats have been murky on their own preferences for this topic in the last few years. The DNC Vice-Chair wearing a shirt advocating for no borders does suggest it's a popular position, and no Republican made him do that.

    I agree that Republicans are concerned that immigrants will vote for Democrats, and I would guess that a reason Democrats favor more immigration as well as a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is the belief that it advantages them politically. There are other reasons to be wary about uncontrolled immigration, including cultural changes the country might not be ready for.

    What others might view as outrageous partisan behavior from Republicans, I view as hardball in response to similar stuff. If Obama had truly been bipartisan on health care reform, he could have split it into multiple bills, some of which would have gotten much more support.

    The selection of Merrick Garland was political posturing from a guy who wanted to change the composition of the Supreme Court at a time when the other party held the branch of government whose advice and consent is required. There were other ways Obama could have handled it. If he picked a Republican, Hillary would be President right now. If Hillary had pledged to nominate Merrick Garland, it would have made Republicans look petty.

    With the fact-checking, the willingness to increase border patrol in exchange for a path to citizenship doesn't mean Democrats want border patrol. Republicans would have gladly gone with a bill that just focused on border funding. A stated concern from conservative lawmakers is that the border wouldn't be secured until after a path to citizenship which would lead to new waves of illegal immigration.

    The main limitation suggested by any Democratic lawmaker was on whether green-card holders can sponsor adult children, although it's not clear anyone voted for that thinking it would pass, and it was part of a larger deal that allowed for a pathway to a sympathetic group of people who didn't come to the country through legal means.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  15. #103005
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The Democratic party had a two year window in which they held both houses of Congress and the White House, so their ability to get something done on immigration by themselves was limited. That was also eight years ago, and the party is in a different place (witness the popularity of arguments like Medicare for All, as well as the changing conversation on gay marriage.)
    Yes. They used their majority to give us health care on a bill that there is zero way would've gotten any real Republican response because you know that the conservative position on health care was born out of their goal to make Obama a one term president. I guess starting with the RomneyCare, Heritage Foundation plan wasn't enough of an olive branch for conservatives.

    I get that there are strategic advantages to being vague on a party's position on an issue. If Schumer were to say he thinks legal immigration should have a limit of three million people per year (it's currently at a bit over a million) that number won't be seen as a compromise; it'll be seen as the upper limit. However, it does mean that Democrats have been murky on their own preferences for this topic in the last few years. The DNC Vice-Chair wearing a shirt advocating for no borders does suggest it's a popular position.
    A T-shirt by an unelected official is not a political position for the party or for the elected officials or a bill in the House and Senate and no bill ever considered, many of which nearly did pass during the Obama years and were often left to die in the Senate under McConnel's 'leadership' reflected an open border position.

    I agree that Republicans are concerned that immigrants will vote for Democrats, and I would guess that a reason Democrats favor more immigration as well as a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is the belief that it advantages them politically. There are other concerns, including cultural changes the country might not be ready for.
    Oh for pete's sake.

    What you view as outrageous partisan behavior from Republicans I view as hardball in response to similar stuff. If Obama had truly been bipartisan on health care reform, he could have split it into multiple bills, some of which would have gotten much more support.
    This is abject nonsense.

    The selection of Merrick Garland was political posturing from a guy who wanted to change the composition of the Supreme Court at a time when the other party held the branch of government whose advice and consent is required.
    Garland was /widely praised/ by conservative senators. He was exactly the kind of moderate, compromise pick you'd expect a liberal justice facing a conservative Senate to pick. They didn't have to accept him. They could have rejected him with an actual frigging vote, but instead, they simply refused to do their own side of the job all together. Pretending that this is simply 'hardball' mischaracterizes the extent and intent of the malfeasance and now you're going to get what you wanted out of this, a 5-4 Federalist Society Supreme Court, so I guess the rest is explainable in some way that keeps it palatable to you, so long as you can characterize the Democrats as being at fault.

    With the fact-checking, the willingness to increase border patrol in exchange for a path to citizenship doesn't mean Democrats want border patrol. Republicans would have gladly gone with a bill that just focused on border funding.
    My eyes are rolling out of my head at this point.
    Last edited by Tendrin; 07-09-2018 at 09:36 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •