"What is the Democrats' message?"

[Mac1958]

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

Great. That's not "enabling" illegal immigration. There aren't bands of liberals secretly guiding hordes of "illegals" through the desert.

Why was Obama referred to as the "deporter in chief"?

Illegals have one political party they trust more than the other. Which one do you suppose that is?
.

Great. That is not "enabling" illegal immigration.

Got it, thanks.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

I know that is the official posture. That is why I said "they are not technically doing anything illegal but they are coming damned close."
That would be like our prison not notifying another LE jurisdiction when an inmate with another sentence to serve in county is released. So the inmate would walk and it would be up to the other county to catch him if they can. How sensible is that? How many unnecessary man hours would be wasted on that maneuver? If we are serious about getting illegal immigration under control, we can't make it more difficult for ICE to do its job.

No. It's that they aren't spending their resources on enforcing federal law. How many officers, judges, courtrooms, holding facilities and associated staff would be needed to do so?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

Great. That's not "enabling" illegal immigration. There aren't bands of liberals secretly guiding hordes of "illegals" through the desert.

Why was Obama referred to as the "deporter in chief"?

Illegals have one political party they trust more than the other. Which one do you suppose that is?
.

Great. That is not "enabling" illegal immigration.

Got it, thanks.
.

en·a·ble
enˈāb(ə)l,inˈāb(ə)l/
verb

1. 1.
   give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.

Choose a better verb.

 

[Redfish]

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Well, that's certainly what minorities are expecting the GOP to want.
.

its what every American should want---------America for American citizens and legal immigrants. What do you find offensive about that?

I'm not even sure what "offensive" means, nor am I making a value judgement. I'm just saying that your approach is what minorities would expect from the GOP, and it's one of the primary reasons they don't care for the party.
.

so in your judgement, minorities object to the USA enforcing its immigration laws? which minorities? blacks, Asians, Hispanics, jews, arabs, muslims, which ones?

As I've said many times now, minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, for our purposes here) don't trust you because they feel you don't like them and don't want them here.

That's a higher priority than jobs or the economy or the stock market. It's personal. It cuts to who they are.

That's not my fault. I'm just pointing out a fact. You can disagree, or not believe, or not care. You can do something or you can ignore it. Whatever you'd like.

From what I've seen on this thread, I'm going to assume that the GOP is just going to ignore it. Okay. We'll see.
.

you are over generalizing. There are plenty of minorities who fully support the GOP, Trump, and conservative doctrine. The ones you are focusing on are the vocal, arrogant ones who get all the air time from the corrupt lying media.

I don't think the GOP needs to do any pandering to any minority or special interest group, just keep improving the lives of average americans.

You are arguing about a non existent problem.

 

[Redfish]

what do you find wrong with enforcing our existing immigration laws?

is a wall part of that law?

secure borders are, and one way to secure them is a wall in some places. what is your objection to a border wall? what is your plan to secure the borders?

I have no plan I leave that up to those supposedly in the know That wall imo is just bs ,,,a promise to his base

so no plan, just bitch about the president, I understand your purpose here.

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject But I do have an understanding of what's right and wrong

like all liberals, you think that your ideas of right and wrong are the only ones and the correct ones. Not everyone agrees with your socialist Marxist ideas of right and wrong.

 

[Redfish]

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

I know that is the official posture. That is why I said "they are not technically doing anything illegal but they are coming damned close."
That would be like our prison not notifying another LE jurisdiction when an inmate with another sentence to serve in county is released. So the inmate would walk and it would be up to the other county to catch him if they can. How sensible is that? How many unnecessary man hours would be wasted on that maneuver? If we are serious about getting illegal immigration under control, we can't make it more difficult for ICE to do its job.

No. It's that they aren't spending their resources on enforcing federal law. How many officers, judges, courtrooms, holding facilities and associated staff would be needed to do so?

LOL, instead they are spending their resources skirting federal laws and assisting federal criminals.'
'
California---------secede--------------PLEASE.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

I know that is the official posture. That is why I said "they are not technically doing anything illegal but they are coming damned close."
That would be like our prison not notifying another LE jurisdiction when an inmate with another sentence to serve in county is released. So the inmate would walk and it would be up to the other county to catch him if they can. How sensible is that? How many unnecessary man hours would be wasted on that maneuver? If we are serious about getting illegal immigration under control, we can't make it more difficult for ICE to do its job.

No. It's that they aren't spending their resources on enforcing federal law. How many officers, judges, courtrooms, holding facilities and associated staff would be needed to do so?

LOL, instead they are spending their resources skirting federal laws and assisting federal criminals.'
'
California---------secede--------------PLEASE.

Feel free to post up some examples.

 

[edward37]

is a wall part of that law?

secure borders are, and one way to secure them is a wall in some places. what is your objection to a border wall? what is your plan to secure the borders?

I have no plan I leave that up to those supposedly in the know That wall imo is just bs ,,,a promise to his base

so no plan, just bitch about the president, I understand your purpose here.

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject But I do have an understanding of what's right and wrong

like all liberals, you think that your ideas of right and wrong are the only ones and the correct ones. Not everyone agrees with your socialist Marxist ideas of right and wrong.

did I not sat I'm no expert ?? I'll leave it up to the folks on a higher limb than I on the subject But trump is still an AH

 

[Mac1958]

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

Great. That's not "enabling" illegal immigration. There aren't bands of liberals secretly guiding hordes of "illegals" through the desert.

Why was Obama referred to as the "deporter in chief"?

Illegals have one political party they trust more than the other. Which one do you suppose that is?
.

Great. That is not "enabling" illegal immigration.

Got it, thanks.
.

en·a·ble
enˈāb(ə)l,inˈāb(ə)l/
verb

1. 1.
   give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.

Choose a better verb.

the definition of enable

verb (used with object), enabled, enabling.
1.
to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
2.
to make possible or easy:
3.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):

• Sanctuary cities and states
• Supporting illegals who appear in public
• Supporting illegals who get state government jobs (Undocumented immigrant appointed to state post in California)
• Fighting against the wall
• Attacking conservatives who want to enforce immigration laws
• Spinning and deflecting when illegals commit crime

You can pretend that illegals don't know who is enabling them and trying to enable them. I can pretend oranges are not orange. Pretend time is fun.

I'm even against the GOP on most of this issue. But holy crap, intellectual honesty really isn't painful.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, that's certainly what minorities are expecting the GOP to want.
.

its what every American should want---------America for American citizens and legal immigrants. What do you find offensive about that?

I'm not even sure what "offensive" means, nor am I making a value judgement. I'm just saying that your approach is what minorities would expect from the GOP, and it's one of the primary reasons they don't care for the party.
.

so in your judgement, minorities object to the USA enforcing its immigration laws? which minorities? blacks, Asians, Hispanics, jews, arabs, muslims, which ones?

As I've said many times now, minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, for our purposes here) don't trust you because they feel you don't like them and don't want them here.

That's a higher priority than jobs or the economy or the stock market. It's personal. It cuts to who they are.

That's not my fault. I'm just pointing out a fact. You can disagree, or not believe, or not care. You can do something or you can ignore it. Whatever you'd like.

From what I've seen on this thread, I'm going to assume that the GOP is just going to ignore it. Okay. We'll see.
.

you are over generalizing. There are plenty of minorities who fully support the GOP, Trump, and conservative doctrine. The ones you are focusing on are the vocal, arrogant ones who get all the air time from the corrupt lying media.

I don't think the GOP needs to do any pandering to any minority or special interest group, just keep improving the lives of average americans.

You are arguing about a non existent problem.

Okay, then the GOP can just ignore this.

That's what it's going to do anyway.
.

 

[edward37]

Great. That's not "enabling" illegal immigration. There aren't bands of liberals secretly guiding hordes of "illegals" through the desert.

Why was Obama referred to as the "deporter in chief"?

Illegals have one political party they trust more than the other. Which one do you suppose that is?
.

Great. That is not "enabling" illegal immigration.

Got it, thanks.
.

en·a·ble
enˈāb(ə)l,inˈāb(ə)l/
verb

1. 1.
   give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.

Choose a better verb.

the definition of enable

verb (used with object), enabled, enabling.
1.
to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
2.
to make possible or easy:
3.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):

• Sanctuary cities and states
• Supporting illegals who appear in public
• Supporting illegals who get state government jobs (Undocumented immigrant appointed to state post in California)
• Fighting against the wall
• Attacking conservatives who want to enforce immigration laws
• Spinning and deflecting when illegals commit crime

You can pretend that illegals don't know who is enabling them and trying to enable them. I can pretend oranges are not orange. Pretend time is fun.

I'm even against the GOP on most of this issue. But holy crap, intellectual honesty really isn't painful.
.

15 hrs ·

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Great. That's not "enabling" illegal immigration. There aren't bands of liberals secretly guiding hordes of "illegals" through the desert.

Why was Obama referred to as the "deporter in chief"?

Illegals have one political party they trust more than the other. Which one do you suppose that is?
.

Great. That is not "enabling" illegal immigration.

Got it, thanks.
.

en·a·ble
enˈāb(ə)l,inˈāb(ə)l/
verb

1. 1.
   give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.

Choose a better verb.

the definition of enable

verb (used with object), enabled, enabling.
1.
to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
2.
to make possible or easy:
3.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):

• Sanctuary cities and states
• Supporting illegals who appear in public
• Supporting illegals who get state government jobs (Undocumented immigrant appointed to state post in California)
• Fighting against the wall
• Attacking conservatives who want to enforce immigration laws
• Spinning and deflecting when illegals commit crime

You can pretend that illegals don't know who is enabling them and trying to enable them. I can pretend oranges are not orange. Pretend time is fun.

I'm even against the GOP on most of this issue. But holy crap, intellectual honesty really isn't painful.
.

Like I said choose another verb.

Sanctuary cities do none of these things.

to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
2.
to make possible or easy:
3.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):


The logical word would be sanctuary, of course.

sanc·tu·ar·y
ˈsaNGk(t)SHəˌwerē/
noun

1. 1.
   a place of refuge or safety.
   "people automatically sought a sanctuary in time of trouble"
   synonyms: refuge, haven, harbor, port in a storm, oasis, shelter, retreat, hideaway, hideout More

 

[Mac1958]

Illegals have one political party they trust more than the other. Which one do you suppose that is?
.

Great. That is not "enabling" illegal immigration.

Got it, thanks.
.

en·a·ble
enˈāb(ə)l,inˈāb(ə)l/
verb

1. 1.
   give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.

Choose a better verb.

the definition of enable

verb (used with object), enabled, enabling.
1.
to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
2.
to make possible or easy:
3.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):

• Sanctuary cities and states
• Supporting illegals who appear in public
• Supporting illegals who get state government jobs (Undocumented immigrant appointed to state post in California)
• Fighting against the wall
• Attacking conservatives who want to enforce immigration laws
• Spinning and deflecting when illegals commit crime

You can pretend that illegals don't know who is enabling them and trying to enable them. I can pretend oranges are not orange. Pretend time is fun.

I'm even against the GOP on most of this issue. But holy crap, intellectual honesty really isn't painful.
.

Like I said choose another verb.

Sanctuary cities do none of these things.

to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
2.
to make possible or easy:
3.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):


The logical word would be sanctuary, of course.

sanc·tu·ar·y
ˈsaNGk(t)SHəˌwerē/
noun

1. 1.
   a place of refuge or safety.
   "people automatically sought a sanctuary in time of trouble"
   synonyms: refuge, haven, harbor, port in a storm, oasis, shelter, retreat, hideaway, hideout More

Playing semantic games does keep us off the actual topic.

Call it whatever you'd like.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Great. That is not "enabling" illegal immigration.

Got it, thanks.
.

en·a·ble
enˈāb(ə)l,inˈāb(ə)l/
verb

1. 1.
   give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.

Choose a better verb.

the definition of enable

verb (used with object), enabled, enabling.
1.
to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
2.
to make possible or easy:
3.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):

• Sanctuary cities and states
• Supporting illegals who appear in public
• Supporting illegals who get state government jobs (Undocumented immigrant appointed to state post in California)
• Fighting against the wall
• Attacking conservatives who want to enforce immigration laws
• Spinning and deflecting when illegals commit crime

You can pretend that illegals don't know who is enabling them and trying to enable them. I can pretend oranges are not orange. Pretend time is fun.

I'm even against the GOP on most of this issue. But holy crap, intellectual honesty really isn't painful.
.

Like I said choose another verb.

Sanctuary cities do none of these things.

to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
2.
to make possible or easy:
3.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):


The logical word would be sanctuary, of course.

sanc·tu·ar·y
ˈsaNGk(t)SHəˌwerē/
noun

1. 1.
   a place of refuge or safety.
   "people automatically sought a sanctuary in time of trouble"
   synonyms: refuge, haven, harbor, port in a storm, oasis, shelter, retreat, hideaway, hideout More

Playing semantic games does keep us off the actual topic.

Call it whatever you'd like.
.

It's not semantics at all. Enable is simply the wrong word. That implies they are being helped across the border.

 

[DustyInfinity]

OK Mac, now I'm just getting tired of it. It is obvious you have an agenda and are not asking a question. You claim any right leaning media is devisive, and that republicans must do something to make minorities love them because of democratic smear tactics. This is clearly your problem. Issues are the ONLY thing that is important. I think you believe that the the republican party is racist and are just fine with the constant attacks of the left. My answer is that republican policies are good for everyone, and if that is not good enough for you, it is entirely your problem. And yes, that works for me and we Will see how that goes.

 

[edward37]

OK Mac, now I'm just getting tired of it. It is obvious you have an agenda and are not asking a question. You claim any right leaning media is devisive, and that republicans must do something to make minorities love them because of democratic smear tactics. This is clearly your problem. Issues are the ONLY thing that is important. I think you believe that the the republican party is racist and are just fine with the constant attacks of the left. My answer is that republican policies are good for everyone, and if that is not good enough for you, it is entirely your problem. And yes, that works for me and we Will see how that goes.

""BIG price to pay"" What bs is he spewing now ,,,? Do we have any allies to count on??

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What's the Democrats message?

Republicans are white! Oh, and trump is a poopy head.



That about cover it no?

 

[edward37]

What's the Democrats message?

Republicans are white! Oh, and trump is a poopy head.



That about cover it no?

What will be this ""BIG PRICE" Syria will pay ? Is the moron going to fight Iran NK China and now Russia??

 

[edward37]

What's the Democrats message?

Republicans are white! Oh, and trump is a poopy head.



That about cover it no?

What will be this ""BIG PRICE" Syria will pay ? Is the moron going to fight Iran NK China and now Russia??

Along with Mueller and stormy at home , it might be time for the coward to step down

 

[AVG-JOE]

Note the quotes in the thread title. It's not a question, it's a quote, it's what Republicans here ask pretty often.

So here's your answer: The Democrats' message is Trump and the Republicans hate you.

Okay, now you now. The message is, if you're young, old, female, agnostic, gay, black, brown, or poor, Trump and the Republicans hate you. So, Republicans, you don't have to like it or agree with it or think that it's fair. And since many of those groups are quickly increasing in number, more and more people are believing it. It has nothing do to with jobs or incomes or the stock market. This is personal.

So here's a question: What are you going to do about that, specifically? Or do you feel you don't need to do anything?
.

it's all pretty jr high schoolyard crap on both sides.

the dems basic message / path is a direct rip off from trump. run a platform to undo what the last guy did.

we'll see how well it works for the dems.

The Dems' advantage is in demographics, and they know it.

The Republicans somehow don't seem to care about this.
.

That's what happens when a political majority that is rapidly losing its demographic influence Gerrymanders its way in to power in spite of those demographics, and tries to drag a democratic society in a direction that it does not want to go.

It's also what happens when the greedy haves in a society buy up as much political influence among said rapidly diminishing majority for the sole purpose of concentrating as much wealth and resources as possible in to as few hands as possible before the wheels inevitably fall off.

The fact that both of those things occurred in coordination with each other makes America 2018 all the more entertaining.

Bear in mind that what we are witnessing is a long-game by conservatives, led by the Christian right, to consolidate undue power beginning in the early 1970's when they saw that the pathway to maintaining national power in spite of the demographic changes favoring the tolerance and protection of America's freaks and weirdos was through the state legislatures and local elections.

Shame The Devil and tell the truth, it was a well played long-term political strategy, but even the guys who conceived of it probably predicted the wheels would eventually fall off. Just goes to show how personal agendas and personal profit can be put ahead of democracy, country and society

Agreed.

I do think what has made this far worse for them in the long run is the introduction of those voices who have completely led them astray, convincing them that giving an inch or even communicating equates to abject surrender, capitulation. Their very thought processes have literally been changed over the last 30 years, to the point where I believe them when they say they don't know what to do.
.

If the bad news is that history has proven time and time again that extremism can take power a lot of different ways, the good news is that history also proves that extremists have a LOT of trouble holding power, and the era of instant world-wide communications is not making the job any easier.


Baby steps to the stars. Frustrating baby steps.