Perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that Judaism invented those values. And that Christians have a savior who will redeem them when they run afoul of those values.
Yes, they both agree that the USA is a single nation-state, and therefore the federal government holds lawful final authority over every other person in the USA.
Once they agree on that, the rest is irrelevant, since the people are no longer their own rulers, and the parties are just quibbling over whose turn it is at the barrel, while it is always the people’s turn IN it.
NM
Tell me about it. Why, it’s almost as bad as that time when some uppity Negroes sued me even after I took the trouble to patiently explain that my refusal to serve them had absolutely nothing to do with the color of their skin and was merely because they were the cursed descendants of Ham.
Why is that? Has every country that has ever split resulted in a civil war? Are you predicting a civil war in europe with Britain leaving? The EU is having issues, if any other countries leave, will that spark a civil war?
Civil wars happen when two sides can’t agree on how to govern, not when the two sides have a mutual separation.
Yeah, you are a bit, what with "It’s sort of pathetic that people promote the fallacy that states, or most political boundaries, are homogeneous. ", when my post did not make any such claim. It’s just an excuse for you to throw out an insult. That’s being hostile.
An act of congress. I would suggest hiring a whole bunch of divorce lawyers, as that would be the precedent to follow. Passions will be unleashed, just as they are in any divorce, but after the split, people will be more able to calm down and govern themselves, without having to worry about how the other half of the country which insists on a completely different ideology will force their values down your throat and spend your money to do it.
I didn’t say bunch, I said 2. And I would say that at least one of those halves will continue to be an effective world power. The other half, the half that has no interest in science or education or the rights of its people, that half may go third world rather quickly, but much of it already is, and the prosperous states would no longer be held back by having to cater to and support them.
You think that after an equitable split, that the red states would continue to hold enough animosity that they would attempt to harm the blue state’s elections? I guess that’s possible, but without the red states to hold us back, the blue states can actually do something to lessen the impact of foreign involvement in our elections.
I only skimmed the thread. Have any examples come to light of L/R agreement?
If nothing else, how about this example? :— No one believes that Sarah Huckabee Sanders baked this pie.
I question your premise. Above you state that people who adhere. to JC values believe that homosexuality is wrong. There are many people who are Christian, adhere to said values, yet do not believe it is their place to judge, nor discriminate against others. Are you telling Christians what they believe?
Further, the nature of your question pits, by your definitions, not right against left, but rather religious types against liberals. Many religious individuals are quite liberal. Many conservatives are not religious. I believe you are one such example?
I bet a bunch of us from the left and right will agree that SarahWitch isn’t the premiere expert on American law.
If you look closely, you can see the pie is in a foil pan. Is that common for home baking?
But they’d still let illegals have their run of the place, right? If they’re still the half that doesn’t understand “what borders are” or “why countries have borders”, then I’m not a hundred percent sure I see them lasting a year before they get third-worlded by folks they’ll obligingly “cater to and support”.
That would be an extremely poor assumption on your part, based upon your preconceptions and prejudices, but not upon reality. Not having to deal with trolling behavior like that in our politics would make things much smoother. The red states can base their politics on their fantasies that the “other” is evil and is opposed to everything good and noble, and get that crap out of the way of people actually trying to govern.
If – as you say – the red states can base their politics on that, then the blue states are equally free to base theirs on throwing the doors open to all comers while sneering at those who’d do otherwise. Which, again, strikes me as a recipe for disaster.
Yes, but why would they do that? It is only in the fever dreams of republicans that the left wants to “throw the doors open to all comers”. A comprehensive restructuring of our immigration policies are in order, probably drastically increasing the number of immigrants and refugees, as they do not serve either our country or immigrants as well as they could, but that’s not at all as you try to insinuate. This is the sort of reason that we cannot get along. You just make shit up about your oppositions positions, and then insist that those lies are the truth. As long as you guys insist on this dishonest form of debate, then no progress can be made, and we are better off without you.
Now that your party has power, you can see how poorly this form of rhetoric works, as your own party cannot govern, even with majority in all parts of government. That’s how your confederacy is going to work too, if you can’t learn to actually listen to and respond to what someone else is actually saying, rather than the strawman that you insist you must fight. You may think that you win points when you use these dishonest and fallacious debate tactics, but it is only in your own pathetic little head that you are winning, reality already disagreed with you, but you are still fighting it.
Besides, you should hope that blue states have generous immigration policies, as it is going to be largely the people fleeing the red states that will be at our borders.
I’ve been told – by folks on your side – that illegals who are here should get to stay, and that plenty more folks should be allowed in. I’ve been told, by folks who vote for Dems, that there simply shouldn’t be any borders. I’m not making up a thing; near as I can tell, you’re simply lying your ass off, here, and “we are better off without you.”
That’s, uh, my point: you’ll agree to go your separate way, and then you’ll install a generous immigration policy – and anyone who wants in will get in, and what’s left of your country will be a third-world hellhole in no time flat.
There is a difference between having an amnesty program for those who are here, along with an immigration system that allows more people in than currently, and “throwing the doors open to all comers”.
I assume you can grasp that distinction, but choose not to, because doing so would prove you wrong. You may actually be too stupid to grasp that distinction, in which case, well, that’s not all that much better for you either.
Now, there are some very few out there who vote “d” and say that there shouldn’t be borders, I’ll agree, but they are a smaller fringe than those who are white supremacists and vote “r”. (There are more who have said things that have been deliberately misinterpreted to mean doing away with borders, but that’s just more dishonest argumentation by your side.) Difference is, is that the left doesn’t automatically capitulate to the most fringe of our party as you guys are doing right now.
Your conclusion does not follow. A more generous immigration policy does not mean that “anyone who wants in will get in”. It does mean that far more of those who wish to relocate to the united states in order to pursue a better life for themselves and their families get the opportunity to, but you keep insisting that it means something that it does not, so stop lying.
Not really, no. You give amnesty to those who are here – why? And why not then give amnesty to those who are here next week, and the week after that, and the week after that? Why first give it to all who came here, only to then for some reason not give it to all who come here?
Sure, maybe you’d get smart and do what’s right after screwing up once; but why would I trust you to be foolish once but not twice?
So when you said it’s “only in the fever dreams of republicans”, and that I was well into “'make shit up” territory – that wasn’t accurate? It also exists in the dreams of those who aren’t Republicans? It’s not something I made up?
Oh, I agree that “a more generous immigration policy” could mean that more, but not all, of them get to stay. But it could also mean that all of them get to stay; and, as far as I can tell, the one that’s being pushed hard by entirely too many folks on your side is, as it happens, the “all of them get to stay” version.
Their opposition is in their personality disorders, not their thumbs!
Amnesty isn’t free, and neither is immigration. You make them work for it, you make them make up for their breaking of the laws, with fines and maybe even probational status until they can show themselves to b proper and productive citizens. There are many ways of screening those who are here and those who want to come to ensure that we get the people who wish to work with us to build our country to be stronger. Just because we like to put in a path towards immigration and citizenship that is actually achievable for anyone who is willing to work for it doesn’t mean that we have to follow you advice and be stupid about it.
You said, “blue states are equally free to base theirs on throwing the doors open to all comers while sneering at those who’d do otherwise.” I was replying to that. There are a few individuals who may hold that position, but that is not the position that “the left” holds, and that is what I am talking about. If you had said, “blue states are free to listen to the tiny minority of people in them that want to open the doors to all comers”, then that would be accurate, if pretty stupid. Instead, you said it as if it were a position that the left has or would adopt, which is what is your fever dream. To think that those sorts of policies would be implemented if rid of the dead weight that are the anti-science, anti-education, anti-environment, anti-civil rights is making shit up our of whole cloth.
But yeah, not having to support the xenophobic states will also give the rest of the country more than enough prosperity to accommodate just about all the immigrants and refugees as want to come here. We’re not nearly close to full here as is, and our population is not growing fast enough to keep our economy growing. Unemployment is essentially bottomed out, any immigrant who is willing to work can find something that needs doing in this country.
As far as you can tell? Well, given how poorly and dishonestly you have summed up every other policy and position of the left, you should realize that “as far as you can tell” is an extremely poor benchmark.
I’ve worked with hispanics, who were most likely not here with the full authorization of the country. You know what they do? They work their asses off. They have families. They grow up in our country. These are good people, and the only thing that is “wrong” with them is what arbitrary side of a border they were born on. They are seeking a better life for themselves and their families, just as I’m sure that your ancestors did when they immigrated here(likely back when the US had the de facto “open borders” that so scare you). Open borders is the policy under which the majority of our ancestors came here under, are you saying that it was a mistake to let them in?
Personally, my benchmark for immigration is “Do you want to come here and make a better life for you and your family?” If the answer is yes (and yes, we’d ask a few other questions along the way to insure that they aren’t just lying to get in.), then you’re in. Spend a few years working here, if it’s not working out, no harm, thanks for visiting, have a good trip back home. If it seems a mutually beneficial arrangement, permanent residence and citizenship should be attainable.
There is no way to create a secure border. People are sneaky, and we have very long borders. On top of that, the majority of undocumented immigrants come in legally through the border in the first place, so all the crap about beefing up border security is just theater to make xenophobes feel better, not actually have an effect. As long as you try to keep people out, you will have people coming in illegally. The only way to stop that is to make a path that people can take to come here legally. Then anyone entering illegally is a criminal of some kind that would not make it through our vetting process, and it is easier to spot them, as they are not entering with a group of otherwise lawful peaceful people.
My point is that xenophobic immigration laws such as the ones that your party supports are the cause of illegal immigration, and you have no functional ideas on how to stop or even slow it, well, other than the idea of destroying our country to the point where no one wants to come here anymore, (good job on that BTW, you are on the right track).
Just a friendly reminder here that among people who aspire to being decent, “illegal” is an adjective, has no plural form, and its use as a noun is as ill-bred as the use of “nigger” in any form.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen any decent people use that word in that context.
I don’t mind it too much though, it lets me know what I’m dealing with.