[Severian]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

notice that they will NOT deport white folks immigrating illegally from and through Canada.

Noticed.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

cynical cynical shit about the Dream Act. What a fucking shame. Disgusting.

A hard political move to force the Congress to enact democratic law and not rule by presidential decree, absolutely cynical but Congress needs to address the law, or not address it.

If I could vote, I would vote for them to stay, but I also want the borders to be secure. Personally, I think anyone who carries a cell phone should be denied the vote. They've already shown they are feudal slaves to the corporate state.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by tesla69

A hard political move to force the Congress to enact democratic law and not rule by presidential decree, absolutely cynical but Congress needs to address the law, or not address it.

If I could vote, I would vote for them to stay, but I also want the borders to be secure. Personally, I think anyone who carries a cell phone should be denied the vote. They've already shown they are feudal slaves to the corporate state.

yes! deny the vote to all cell phone users!

i knew you were rational in spite of all appearances!

let 4 people decide the election

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

yes! deny the vote to all cell phone users!

i knew you were rational in spite of all appearances!

let 4 people decide the election

You know, if the five or six of us who frequent this thread just ignored tesla, it would be like he didn't even exist here.

Just sayin' ...

🤔

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

You know, if the five or six of us who frequent this thread just ignored tesla, it would be like he didn't even exist here.

Just sayin' ...

🤔

silence is consent

fuck him

[evollove]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

President Obama established DACA by executive order, which was ultra vires by virtue of violating Separation of Powers, as Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states: "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization[.]"

DACA recipients aren't Naturalized.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I'm not so sure about the cell phone thing, but tesla's right about the cut-and-dried legal aspects of what the press is treating as a highly emotional issue. President Obama established DACA by executive order, which was ultra vires by virtue of violating Separation of Powers, as Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states: "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization[.]" President Trump's statement on the issue is in accord with the Constitution:

 

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!
8:38 PM - Sep 5, 2017

PEOPLE are treating it as a highly emotional issue. PEOPLE are protesting. PEOPLE are telling their stories. The press is reporting on what PEOPLE are doing.

Goddamn bloody well hate it when someone slams the press because they don't like what's HAPPENING, AND AS A RESULT, BEING COVERED.

Fuck's sake.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by evollove

DACA recipients aren't Naturalized.

Yeah, that's part of his point though. It's a "legal cut and dried" issue, not something that, like, effects millions of people and disrupts families and punishes people for nothing.... it's totally "legal" and not at all "emotional" (&#128580 so it's all OK as long as Congress decides to naturalize these people. Which I'm oh-so sure is what they will do, since they can get so much done.

Anyway. Trump doesn't give a fist fuck about anyone. He sees his voter base slipping and he's trying to kill two birds with one stone: fulfill campaign promises to remove every single undocumented immigrant, while putting the burden of being the bad guy squarely on a Congress that is distancing itself from him more and more.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

OK. so I concede my point in part, save for the fact that the press, by virtue of editorializing, is one of the several major public opinion-shaping vehicles in society, and the coverage has been heavily emotionally slanted in favor of the Dreamers while largely ignoring the shoddy legal basis of DACA.

lol, little jeff sessions

don't you have some lynching to conduct?

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

OK. so I concede my point in part, save for the fact that the press, by virtue of editorializing, is one of the several major public opinion-shaping vehicles in society, and the coverage has been heavily emotionally slanted in favor of the Dreamers while largely ignoring the shoddy legal basis of DACA.

Ok, chief... you can't slam "the press" and then base it on how you feel about editorializing, which is not hard news reporting and has always been part of the media model. Editorializing is not newswriting, so instead of saying the press is slanted, say editorials are slanted (they're supposed to be... they are opinion pieces written, traditionaly, by editors. Think of them as columns if it helps). Being upset that editorializing exists is fine, but don't accuse "The Press" of slanting information.

There seems to be a pretty widespread lack of understanding about this, especially lately. Opinion pieces are not the news. If your perspective is that the ores as a whole is slanting facts instead of reporting them, you should back that up with some examples from non-editorial pages of AP-affiliated publications.

As it stands, you just sound like every other jackass who is blaming what's happening in the world on the people who tell you about it.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

It's clearly an executive end-run around the terms of the Immigration and Naturalization Act relating to lawful permanent residency. For the President to order his executive agencies not to enforce certain laws against certain people is as unconstitutional as the Bush Administration's infamous "signing statements".

Oh for fuck's sake.

You're either for or against the executive authority. You can't defend one example of "overreach" by calling it a response to another one. If you don't like executive orders that circumvent the legislative process, you should be against Trump's threats to take things into his own hands if congress doesn't act AND Obama's willingness to do the same, and every instance thereof.

You're not an idiot. Think about it.

[!@#$%!]

sounds like a jackass

looks like a jackass

smells like he drank deodorant

fuck him

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

lol, little jeff sessions

don't you have some lynching to conduct?

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to !@#$%! again."

I spread and I spread but I still can't rep you. This is what friends look like.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

lol, little jeff sessions

Makes you miss the time when the Attorney General was a singer-songwriter. LET THE EEEAAAAGLE SOOOAAAAAR...

[ilduclo]

this one?

 

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

this one?

 

Yeah dude! Fuck 'em both, but LET THE EEEAAAAGLE SOOOAAAAAR and shit!

[!@#$%!]

lol, asscroft

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

this one?
https://woodgatesview.files.wordpres...shcroft021.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._obverse_1.png

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I have thought about it. Which overreach an I defending by calling it a response to another one? And to which other threats by Trump do you refer?

You're justifying the threatened action of Trump to repeal Daca by executive order based on the premise that Obama implemented it by executive order. You're justifying circumventing the legislative process by saying someone else did it. So your argument against against this kind of overreach, while justifying more overreach to fix it, is flawed to the point of not being much of an argument for anything. You can be against both or neither based on what you've said... unless you've turned the issue into an emotional one for some reason.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

Instead of addressing my argument, you're dismissing it by means of an ad hominem attack falsely imputing odious racial opinions to me. I guess you concede the point.

Good thing you put ad hominem in italics and loosely defined it. Certainly none of us have ever taken an introductory college composition course.