HR 21, for example: all Democrats Supported it. All Republicans except 5 opposed it.
That is an odd, perhaps even singular definition of “bipartisan.”
My cite, from the Department of Homeland Security say it would be effective. I believe them over random dude on the internet, which is the only cite you offer.
I don’t see how wall = Hatred/White Supremacy. That is quite the logical leap you’ve made there.
I think wall says “don’t cross here.”
That’s not what I said. I was wondering why you brought up NK as an example. Why did you? If you think they should be emulated, then I disagree, but at least that’s a coherent argument. If you don’t think they should be emulated, then how are they relevant?
[/QUOTE]
I figure that the “secret evil communists who hate America” crowd is actually quite pleased that the conservatives managed to elect a pro-choice atheist, a man who married not one but two Eastern Communist “models”, a man supported by an ex-KGB colonel of a Communist country which once vowed to “bury us”.
I think the SECwhA group is quite proud of the Republican party these days, to be perfectly honest. The San Antonio local definitely is!
Well, there you go, by your own recollection it is bizarre indeed to pretend that the Republicans in power are defending the sovereignty of the individual, equality of opportunity, equality of people when they are continuing to make laws to prevent that for the LGBT groups.
That is very much not my point. My point is that conservatives actively and consistently act in direct opposition to the values that you are claiming are conservative values, and have been for at least decades and in many cases for centuries.
Republicans are actively attacking all of the values you’ve listed, what you’re stated here is directly contrary to reality. Especially the bodily autonomy one, Republicans are openly spearheading and cheering the huge assault on bodily autonomy that is the anti-choice movement. They are openly attacking equality for LGBT people and doing their best to remove anything that protects the Equality of Man. There is no way to reconcile the values you listed with the actions of Republicans in the last few decades, and especially the last two years, without using extreme doublespeak to twist the meaning of the words in those values to an absurd level.
I and others have presented evidence multiple times in this thread. I presented several specific pieces of evidence in things that you’ve responded to. If you’re just going to cover your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and say NO EVIDENCE HERE, there’s not much I can do.
For a simple one, as I said in material you quoted, the entire anti-choice movement and entire war on drugs are specifically in direct opposition to the idea of bodily autonomy. If you want a specific one, forcing a raped child to act as a human incubator for the fetus the rapist forced into her, then forcing her to deal with custody issues with the rapist for the next 18 years is a rather extreme example of complete and utter opposition to the child’s right to bodily autonomy.
My current understanding is that it is a bit more complex. Letting the Russians post fake news and influence our elections is not a free speech issue, nor is letting anti-Semitic group with direct ties to terrorism affect our foreign policy.
The resolution you oppose includes no language that lets an, “anti-Semitic group with direct ties to terrorism affect our foreign policy.” It is entirely about free speech. I linked to the text.
It’s true that the conclusion has been assumed since the OP.
Or not. There are addictive substances that take away one’s control. I understand that drug addiction is an illness.
That’s a pretty extreme example, but Ok. If the fetus is a human life, a person, it is a blameless innocent just like the child who was raped. This is a pretty extreme and horrible and difficult example, one in which there are no easy answers. Personally, I don’t know of anyone who thinks a rapist should have any paternity rights. Certainly that is not a mainstream conservative value.
I would say that you have it backwards. You are looking at the extremes, the tiny fractional percentages and trying to set up a system that governs based on their needs. I would argue that you do the exact opposite.
That’s always what bipartisan has meant, in my understanding. Members of both parties support it. It doesn’t mean that every member of both parties necessarily support it.
But earlier you had said that the Democrats held up border security funding. I take it you now accept that they didn’t, considering that they had agreed to bipartisan funding before the shutdown, and once the shutdown commenced, passed numerous bills that funded border security. Trump held up border security funding, because he’s a terrible, flailing, impulsive negotiator, and his shutdown accomplished nothing except for causing some suffering (withheld paychecks and furloughs, etc.).
You are free to believe an unsupported administration that has a terrible record on the facts, if you like, but you don’t honestly expect us to, do you?
It was the signature campaign promise from a man who rose to political prominence on a bullshit racist conspiracy theory (birtherism) and campaigned explicitly on bigotry and xenophobia (shutdown of Muslim immigration, Mexican immigrants = rapists, a judge can’t do his job because he’s Mexican, etc.). Thus it’s quite reasonably seen as a symbol of hatred. There’s no way that Democrats are ever going to support such a prominent symbol of hatred.
No. I am pretty close to a free speech absolutist when it comes to what individual citizens have the right to express. That does not extend to corporations, foreign parties, political ads, general advertisements, etc. which are customarily and generally understood to be subject to controls.
Well, there’s the border patrol union who, prior to January 2019, had the position since at least 2012 that “The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States.”
Then there’s the fact that the DHS memo that you’re referring to was published one day after Trump threatened to shut down the government over the wall, was riddled with misspellings, and even perhaps contained an outright lie: “On Sunday when a violent mob of 1,000 people stormed our Southern border, we found the newly constructed portions of the wall to be very effective” This never happened. At least one new service, Newsweek, looked into the claim and couldn’t find any evidence of it’s veracity and DHS didn’t respond when asked about it. Seems to me that it was likely a hastily crafted letter created at the request of the administration rather than a well thought out position.
“[A]ll Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution[.]”
I asked about this earlier, but perhaps you didn’t see it. Do you have evidence BDS is connected to terrorism or anti-semitism? It looks to me like the just want to boycott Israel goods in order to attempt to get them to change their policies towards Palestinians. I found some unsourced quotes that on a right-wing site that looked bad, but it they were unattributed to any person and didn’t have citations.
You are being deliberately obtuse and wasting both our time. You know that bipartisan means that both parties generally support it, and that bill would not be characterized as bipartisan by anybody who understood the word with a straight face.
That’s close enough to total bullshit to consider it disingenuous. I expect somebody who is debating this subject with me in good faith to recognize that the Democrats did not wish to give Trump what he wanted to fund his wall and border security the way he wanted to, and that they claimed there was no crisis. Democrats controlled the congress and they passed Bills that put in what Democrats wanted. Republicans controlled the Senate and rejected the bills that did not have what they wanted. Nothing about it was bipartisan. The voting was basically along party lines and the shutdown existed neither side was able to promote an acceptable compromise. Place the blame for it where you choose.
Why is that hard to understand?
I think you would believe water is dry were it to suit your purpose.
That the left hates border security only because Trump likes it has been a long-standing criticism of the left by the right. Seldom do you hear one from the left admit as much, but it is refreshing. Thanks.