ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Guy is on Harvard faculty. Teachers can have enormous influence on some students. Scalia once lamented how many law professors were very liberal/non-orginalists about the Constitution thus producing more students who viewed the Constitution the same way. So yeah, professors are ‘shaping’ the view of the constitution for most law students.

I think all are valid points. Just don't see how that makes him an up and come in terms of impacting the law any more than any other professor.

Law students have to take classes and those classes have professors. The impact a sole professor makes over any other is miniscule imo.

Also it wasn't a critique of any of your post and I understand you didn't say that. It was just an odd opinion of mine
 
Abolish prisons? Abolish ICE? Wtf Dems, get control of your party.
In one way I wish they would stop the craziness but at the same time their craziness will only help Trump and kill their chances of winning anything of significance.

In 2016 the people voted for a wall. The people sure as hell aren't going to vote for abolishing ICE.
 
it's cool I guess except it has no income info on it. and 92% of people e-filed last year and projected to be 95% this year. spend millions creating a gimmick that nobody will use, government as usual.


My goodness. This guy gets it. For sure.

Everyone is now going to actually send in a postcard with no income information. They aren't going to electronically file the form like they currently do with the existing 1040.

The Free File Alliance is dead.

The "postcard" isn't about making thing simpler for the vast majority of Americans. It's about mailing a postcard.

Jesus Christ.
 
Has anyone else noticed how the Dems are using family separations to go after ICE even though ICE had nothing to do with the separations? DOJ, DHS, and HHS are responsible yet no one is hollering to abolish them.

You ask why that is? Because ICE is responsible for rounding up and deporting illegals. Without an agency like ICE to hunt them down and deport them if illegals can get past Border Patrol and disappear into the country then they're all clear for the long haul. That's why they're going after ICE.
 
Has anyone else noticed how the Dems are using family separations to go after ICE even though ICE had nothing to do with the separations? DOJ, DHS, and HHS are responsible yet no one is hollering to abolish them.

You ask why that is? Because ICE is responsible for rounding up and deporting illegals. Without an agency like ICE to hunt them down and deport them if illegals can get past Border Patrol and disappear into the country then they're all clear for the long haul. That's why they're going after ICE. They don't want illegals to be deported.
I think it's very obvious that the majority of Dems want open borders, ICE is getting in the way of that.
 
tl;dr the democrats are on the wrong side of the majority in every single element when it comes to illegal immigration

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...nstream-immigration-policy?platform=hootsuite

Donald Trump's mainstream immigration policy

Perhaps no Trump policy has provoked more emotional reaction than the practice of separating illegal border crossers from the children they brought with them to the United States. There's no need to recount the number of times critics have called the president a Nazi, or a fascist, or just plain cruel.

The administration has now stopped the separation policy. But it plans to continue prosecuting illegal border crossers and, when those crossers bring children illegally into the United States, will "detain families together during the pendency of immigration proceedings," according to an administration court filing in California.

That of course will not satisfy the critics, and legal challenges are sure to follow. But if a new poll is correct, it appears the Trump administration, after an enormously damaging few weeks, has ended up squarely on the side of the majority of American voters.

The new survey is a Harvard-Harris poll, by former Clinton pollster and strategist Mark Penn. It was conducted June 24-25, with 1,448 registered voters.

On the issue of separations, Penn began with a threshold question: "Do you think that people who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home? Sixty-four percent (83 percent of Republicans, 47 percent of Democrats, and 66 percent of independents) said they should be sent home. Thirty-six percent said they should be allowed to stay.

Then Penn asked: "Do you think that parents with children who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home?" The presence of children made little different in the result: 61 percent (81 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of Democrats, and 66 percent of independents) said they should be sent home, while 39 percent said they should be allowed to stay.

The vast majority -- 88 percent -- opposed separating illegal immigrant families while they are in the U.S., and they blamed the Trump administration for the policy. On the other hand, 55 percent (76 percent of Republicans, 39 percent of Democrats, and 55 percent of independents) said illegal immigrant families should be held in custody "until a judge reviews their case" -- essentially the new Trump family detention policy.

The end result was that a substantial majority said illegal border crossers, and the children they brought, should be returned to their home countries. To that end, 80 percent (84 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of Democrats, and 78 percent of independents) favored hiring more immigration judges "to process people in custody faster."

"They [poll respondents] rejected family separation while narrowly favoring family detention," Penn told me in an email exchange. "Mostly they want people who cross the border illegally to be turned around and returned home efficiently."

Penn's polling found other results broadly favorable to the Trump approach to immigration.

For example, Penn asked, "Do you think we need stricter or looser enforcement of our immigration laws?" Seventy percent (92 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of Democrats, and 69 percent of independents) said stricter, while 30 percent said looser.

Penn asked whether respondents "support or oppose building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border." Sixty percent (92 percent of Republicans, 39 percent of Democrats, and 54 percent of independents) supported the barriers, while 40 percent did not.

Sixty-one percent (73 percent of Republicans, 49 percent of Democrats, and 60 percent of independents) said current border security is inadequate.

Penn also sought opinion on the complex issue of whether the U.S. offers asylum to too many people. This was the question: "Many people entering the United States illegally claim asylum and are held here pending a review of their claim for asylum. Should claims of asylum be allowed for people who say that their country generally has high levels of violence, or should asylum be limited to people who can show their government was persecuting them?" Fifty-five percent (70 percent of Republicans, 41 percent of Democrats, and 58 percent of independents) said asylum should be limited to cases of government persecution, while 45 percent said it should be available to people simply on the basis of violence in their home countries.

Penn's polling also found overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities. He asked: "Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required to notify immigration authorities they are in custody or be prohibited from notifying immigration authorities?" Eight-four percent -- a huge number comprised of 94 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 83 percent of independents -- said that cities should be required to notify immigration authorities. Just 16 percent said cities should be prohibited from doing that.

Penn also tested the Democratic talking point that eliminating sanctuaries would actually increase crime. He asked the question this way: "Do you think notifying immigration authorities when people are arrested for crimes increases crime because it makes immigrants less likely to report crimes or it decreases crime because it takes criminals off the streets?" Sixty-four percent (65 percent of Republicans, 62 percent of Democrats, and 64 percent of independents) said it would decrease crime, while just 36 percent said it would increase crime.

Penn polled the newest progressive immigration proposal, the "Abolish ICE" campaign to disband U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed (78 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of independents) said ICE should not be abolished, while 31 percent said it should.

Finally, Penn found widespread support for the fundamental provisions of the immigration bills, based on Trump's "four pillars," that were recently rejected by the House of Representatives. "Would you favor or oppose a congressional deal that gives undocumented immigrants brought here by their parents work permits and a path to citizenship in exchange for increasing merit preference over preference for relatives, eliminating the diversity visa lottery, and funding barrier security on the U.S.-Mexico border?" Penn asked. Sixty-three percent (66 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Democrats, and 59 percent of independents) supported the plan, while 37 percent opposed.

"Overall, Americans want to show compassion for those that are here, but want much tougher enforcement of immigration laws," Penn told me. "They want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, not keep kicking the can down the road."
 
tl;dr the democrats are on the wrong side of the majority in every single element when it comes to illegal immigration

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...nstream-immigration-policy?platform=hootsuite

Donald Trump's mainstream immigration policy

Perhaps no Trump policy has provoked more emotional reaction than the practice of separating illegal border crossers from the children they brought with them to the United States. There's no need to recount the number of times critics have called the president a Nazi, or a fascist, or just plain cruel.

The administration has now stopped the separation policy. But it plans to continue prosecuting illegal border crossers and, when those crossers bring children illegally into the United States, will "detain families together during the pendency of immigration proceedings," according to an administration court filing in California.

That of course will not satisfy the critics, and legal challenges are sure to follow. But if a new poll is correct, it appears the Trump administration, after an enormously damaging few weeks, has ended up squarely on the side of the majority of American voters.

The new survey is a Harvard-Harris poll, by former Clinton pollster and strategist Mark Penn. It was conducted June 24-25, with 1,448 registered voters.

On the issue of separations, Penn began with a threshold question: "Do you think that people who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home? Sixty-four percent (83 percent of Republicans, 47 percent of Democrats, and 66 percent of independents) said they should be sent home. Thirty-six percent said they should be allowed to stay.

Then Penn asked: "Do you think that parents with children who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home?" The presence of children made little different in the result: 61 percent (81 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of Democrats, and 66 percent of independents) said they should be sent home, while 39 percent said they should be allowed to stay.

The vast majority -- 88 percent -- opposed separating illegal immigrant families while they are in the U.S., and they blamed the Trump administration for the policy. On the other hand, 55 percent (76 percent of Republicans, 39 percent of Democrats, and 55 percent of independents) said illegal immigrant families should be held in custody "until a judge reviews their case" -- essentially the new Trump family detention policy.

The end result was that a substantial majority said illegal border crossers, and the children they brought, should be returned to their home countries. To that end, 80 percent (84 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of Democrats, and 78 percent of independents) favored hiring more immigration judges "to process people in custody faster."

"They [poll respondents] rejected family separation while narrowly favoring family detention," Penn told me in an email exchange. "Mostly they want people who cross the border illegally to be turned around and returned home efficiently."

Penn's polling found other results broadly favorable to the Trump approach to immigration.

For example, Penn asked, "Do you think we need stricter or looser enforcement of our immigration laws?" Seventy percent (92 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of Democrats, and 69 percent of independents) said stricter, while 30 percent said looser.

Penn asked whether respondents "support or oppose building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border." Sixty percent (92 percent of Republicans, 39 percent of Democrats, and 54 percent of independents) supported the barriers, while 40 percent did not.

Sixty-one percent (73 percent of Republicans, 49 percent of Democrats, and 60 percent of independents) said current border security is inadequate.

Penn also sought opinion on the complex issue of whether the U.S. offers asylum to too many people. This was the question: "Many people entering the United States illegally claim asylum and are held here pending a review of their claim for asylum. Should claims of asylum be allowed for people who say that their country generally has high levels of violence, or should asylum be limited to people who can show their government was persecuting them?" Fifty-five percent (70 percent of Republicans, 41 percent of Democrats, and 58 percent of independents) said asylum should be limited to cases of government persecution, while 45 percent said it should be available to people simply on the basis of violence in their home countries.

Penn's polling also found overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities. He asked: "Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required to notify immigration authorities they are in custody or be prohibited from notifying immigration authorities?" Eight-four percent -- a huge number comprised of 94 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 83 percent of independents -- said that cities should be required to notify immigration authorities. Just 16 percent said cities should be prohibited from doing that.

Penn also tested the Democratic talking point that eliminating sanctuaries would actually increase crime. He asked the question this way: "Do you think notifying immigration authorities when people are arrested for crimes increases crime because it makes immigrants less likely to report crimes or it decreases crime because it takes criminals off the streets?" Sixty-four percent (65 percent of Republicans, 62 percent of Democrats, and 64 percent of independents) said it would decrease crime, while just 36 percent said it would increase crime.

Penn polled the newest progressive immigration proposal, the "Abolish ICE" campaign to disband U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed (78 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of independents) said ICE should not be abolished, while 31 percent said it should.

Finally, Penn found widespread support for the fundamental provisions of the immigration bills, based on Trump's "four pillars," that were recently rejected by the House of Representatives. "Would you favor or oppose a congressional deal that gives undocumented immigrants brought here by their parents work permits and a path to citizenship in exchange for increasing merit preference over preference for relatives, eliminating the diversity visa lottery, and funding barrier security on the U.S.-Mexico border?" Penn asked. Sixty-three percent (66 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Democrats, and 59 percent of independents) supported the plan, while 37 percent opposed.

"Overall, Americans want to show compassion for those that are here, but want much tougher enforcement of immigration laws," Penn told me. "They want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, not keep kicking the can down the road."

TL:sr


Too long: still read

For those of you who didn't read it all, the same thought process that elected Donald is still alive and well and may very well have grown substantially.

Since what we hear and see on the "news" is mostly the thoughts and actions of the far left, many don't realize just how many people are on our side. Dems cry louder, but Reps are going to vote louder.

As I've said before, the Democratic party and the farce it has become are in a death spiral. The end is near for your divisive stupidity and our country will survive with adult guidance.
 
It's sickening what's happening to free speech.

California Assembly advanced a bill that would make anti gay speech illegal.

http://www.californiafamily.org/2018/assembly-votes-to-violate-the-1st-amendment/

Assembly votes to violate the 1st Amendment

AB 2943 would amend the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act—a consumer law that outlaws unfair and deceptive practices—by adding so-called “sexual orientation change efforts” to a list of banned practices. It would in effect ban all practices that the state deems attempting to change one’s sexual orientation—including practices as indirect as the publishing of certain material.


This expansive law would impose widespread censorship that could implicate authors, speakers, counselors, colleges and universities, and even religious leaders seeking to address unwanted same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion.

The bill defines sexual change efforts as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

 
California Assembly advanced a bill that would make anti gay speech illegal.

http://www.californiafamily.org/2018/assembly-votes-to-violate-the-1st-amendment/

Assembly votes to violate the 1st Amendment

AB 2943 would amend the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act—a consumer law that outlaws unfair and deceptive practices—by adding so-called “sexual orientation change efforts” to a list of banned practices. It would in effect ban all practices that the state deems attempting to change one’s sexual orientation—including practices as indirect as the publishing of certain material.


This expansive law would impose widespread censorship that could implicate authors, speakers, counselors, colleges and universities, and even religious leaders seeking to address unwanted same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion.

The bill defines sexual change efforts as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

This is root the issue and no one can answer it. Who gives the right to determine what is hate speech? Jesus Christ. The 1st Amendment is more powerful than the 2nd Amendment.

I hate California. Hate it.
 
WHAT.

No way that’s true at all, but damnit, I’m ready to take my forty six ar-fifteens to the border and build a damn wall myself.
Yeah, I’m skeptical of the numbers too. But no matter how much the illegals get, it is too much.

Also saw a report that they were going to sue the US for damages because we separated the children.
 
Meh..... Willy getting in deep shit with mods every 6 months or so is part of the paddock life. They’ll threaten him, he’ll tell them to stick it up their ass, and then he’ll get a ban from one of the butthurt mods.

Word gets out, all hell breaks loose, his posse (which is large) will circle the wagons, and he’s back to posting within a few days.

Hang in there, Willy. You’ve been through this a time or two.
 
Calling fake news the enemy of the people is bad because it foments hate and violence.

Calling the president/GOP congress/ICE/Border Patrol/Police/half of the country xenophobic, treasonous, fascist, racist nazis is good because love trumps hate.

There's political value for liberals to label everyone to the right of Trotsky a nazi and it's the reason why they all do it. It hides who they really are from themselves. It's a way to justify their insanity and shut down their opponent. Because if their target is a nazi that allows them to do the unethical and even illegal things they wanted to do anyway but without the guilt attached.

They hate conservatives but it's so much easier to imagine them as nazis so they can scream at them and harass them in public. They want to punch them but that's wrong unless they're a nazi. Then they can justifiably do whatever they want including physical violence.

Nazis deserve absolutely nothing but the worst so there are no limits to how they can treat someone or what they can say or do to someone who they label and convince themselves to be a nazi.

Bravo. Great post.
 
Dg_FyMUU0AAIw_P.jpg
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT