|
|
I've posted this before, but its worth mentioning again. All, and I mean ALL, the replies to criticisms of Trump fall into three categories:Originally Posted by Guisslapp
1) It's a conspiracy by ______.
2) But what about _____?
3) You just hate ______.
And I think this is where you and I diverge. I don't think most of the things you say are actually true and I think the only damage they are doing are to peoples feelings.
Let's run them down:
He is reckless- in words I would agree, in action I think he has been very calculated.
divisive- I agree, although I don't know if there are any political figures that are not divisive. Unfortunately that's our current state of affairs.
ugly- I agree he is ugly with his words, but again not in action
authoritarian- I might agree with you on this but I would need some specific actions you think have been authoritarian. p
plays on all the sensitive touchpoints that make Americans angry and distrust one another (mostly unjustifiably) for his own political gain- This seems like an emotional response, but I would need some specific examples to see if I agree. I would suggest that this is probably true for most politicians sadly.
The wake of destruction that he leaves in his path is that of bedrock American principles (the press, the rule of law, ethics, personal accountability, openness to others) - This is another spot where we differ. I see no destruction of those principles. I certainly see challenges to the press, but I feel they are long overdue.
more important public (rather than government) civility. - Again I will agree in words rather than actions
He is encouraging people to treat each other poorly, to bully others, to name call, to settle scores with violence. - He's not actually encouraging them unless you mean by example. If so then he is certainly encouraging people to treat their enemies poorly and certainly encouraged name calling. I'll give you a pass on the settle scores with violence
He is absolutely terrible. - That's a valid opinion.
That's not true, but I believe that you think that. How about this:
All criticisms of Trump fall into three categories:
1. A president shouldn't say … (insert quote out of context)
2. He's mean to … (insert protected group)
3. I don't like him.
Hearts and minds. That is what keeps our country from being an authoritarian state. Period.
Rhetoric that inflames hatred and distrust for others and the press erodes the will of the people to resist authoritarian leaders. Period.
Name calling, bullying, using violence begets more of the same and it lowers the discourse to a banal, emotional tribal state. Period.
This is a dangerous game. History is replete of examples of what happens when society goes down this path.
You never know when you have stepped off the cliff and gone to the point of no return.
Considering you have basically admitted that you are a Socialist, and are in favor of open borders, it is not surprising why you feel this way. BTW, I think Trump is very pompous and has an ego bigger than Texas. He will NEVER admit to being wrong and is a narcissist. Almost all Presidents in my lifetime since LBJ have had big ego's, some more than others, and different levels of narcissism. One person who I do not believe has a big ego or is a narcissist is Pence, because I have not seen examples of where he has been.
If you lefties are so concerned about going down a dangerous path, then cease and desist with all y'alls hateful lying rhetoric.
Coming from the guy who proposed machine guns and drone attacks at the border to stop immigration. We probably shouldn’t take that guy very serious
No, you lefties just need to stop all y'alls BS, including your hateful rhetoric.
And, that would be ILLEGAL immigration. That is typical of you lefties, to twist the truth, to tell half-truths (in addition to outright lies). I support LEGAL immigration. But, you know that, it's just another attempt to impugn someone.
Some Constitutional scholars are saying this issue is not settled, because the SC has never ruled specifically on the wider interpretation of the 14th. They also say the 14th was added to protect former slaves, per the 13th, when many states said, fine free the slaves, but they'll not be granted citizenship in our state. So, the 14th was effectively an amendment of the 13th and was meant specifically for, and ONLY for, former slaves. I am no Constitutional scholar, so I have to defer to those who are.
So! I suppose this means someone will have to bring a suit, or some legal challenge that will trigger a court case, and eventually lead to the Supreme Court ruling on it. We do hold a solid 5-4 majority....of course, we know that those on our side are honest, and actually care about the Constitution and the rule of law. The libs will vote in lock step to not change the liberal interpretation of the 14th. They only care about present day politics. They won't even listen to arguments from the side advocating that the 14th was meant only for the former slaves.
Might have to wait until Ginsberg is gone and we hold a 6-3 majority.
Yes the SC has. It looked at the case for a Chinese immigrant’s baby. Don’t be a right wing media sucker.
It wasn't a media outlet, it was a Constitutional historian, and that position has been echoed by others. None of them mentioned a case with a Chinese baby. Maybe because they don't consider that case to be truly relevant to the bigger question. I DON'T KNOW! As I said, while I consider myself to be a historian in many areas, the Constitution is not among them. It might become one though.
Again, I defer to those who have expertise in that area.
The people that you were reading are just plain wrong and you shouldn’t trust them. The case was decided in 1898. It is just as open and shut as the plain language of the Constitution- a document that POTUS slime ball took an oath of office to protect and defend.
The text and its meaning are clear. No need to be a constitutional scholar to see that. If Trump wants to change it, there are ways to do it. An executive order or judicial activism is not the appropriate way. That is the path he railed against on the campaign trail.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
So the meaning is that anybody able to cross the border becomes naturalized when they make it across?
This is not about the children, but just like last time, the children are the main focus. I know you see the irony of those in favor of open borders being concerned about the children.
I think you are just covering your ears and doing that "blah, blah.." stuff, I'm not listening.
I know you two don't care about the truth, and I know neither of you will even remotely consider, even for a second, the possibility that those scholars just MAY be right. I say "MAY" be right, because I don't know. They cite the notes, the documented discussion of the Constitutional convention members in 1866, and what the framers of the 14th said. I have NOT seen this documented discussion, so for now, I am taking them at their word it exists. (them = present day scholars)
Unlike you, I have an open mind to such matters. Now, even IF the framers of the 14th intended it to be meant just for former slaves....and there is historical context to support that notion...the big question is, why didn't they more concisely spell that out in the actual language of the 14th? Couldn't they have written it as "all those formerly held in bondage, and who now are legally free, per the 13th Amendment, and have been born in the United States, are now granted citizenship with all rights....etc.."
I understand the general history of that period. And it is in that context that I say, well, it certainly makes sense that the 14th was aimed at former slaves, and given the time period, the 1860's when there was a LOT of prejudice openly practiced, it is plausible that the framers of the 14th were not the least concerned about Chinese or any other non-white-European group of people becoming citizens. Hell! they didn't even like we Irish!
That's okay....you can continue to cower in your little bubble, and I'll keep an open mind and see where this goes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
