There is nothing that is remotely conservative or "right" about these nitwits. Being conservative in the USA means believe in individual liberty, natural law, and limited government. Socialism/"National Socialism"/Facism/Communism or any other form of totalitarianism couldn't be any less compatible with that idea, and is fundamentally incompatible with the constitution.
And that's why race matters. The only race that semi-reliably votes for libertarian ideals are whites. Every other race leans heavily to socialism or their own identity politics. Why is it that you think the socialists/communists are intent on "diversifying" every traditionally white, Western country?
The first amendment should apply to the oligarchy that own the online public square. Done. Works for both "progressives" and conservatives.
Of course, we know that "progressives" don't believe in free speech. They'll cry foul if their speech is limited in any way, but will actively try to deplatform anybody to their right.
I didn't hallucinate you flailing around, failing to address my arguments, and then deciding to single-focus like a laser on the most minor and debatable of my arguments. When pushed, you reverted back to your "both parties" line, ignoring the facts on the ground.
After dropping the ball 7 times they'll finally get it?
Any reform in a positive direction is coming from Republicans. But maybe you're cool with "sanctuary" cities/states, calls for the abolition of ICE, and calls for open borders.
I don't need to mind read. It's in the post history. Do you have another explanation for your hypocrisy?
Again, both parties are, based on their history.
False equivalence. Republicans don't run "sanctuary" cities/states. Republicans don't call for the abolition of ice. Obama created DACA amnesty out of thin air. Democrats accept no immigration reform. If there is any hope for immigration reform, it has to come from Republicans. The Democrats have jumped on the open borders train, and there's no turning back.
You chose to fixate on this minor topic after flailing at the major ones. It's a tactic of weakness by somebody arguing from a losing position, because they are arguing against reality itself:
Democrats are the party of illegal immigration. They own the "sanctuary" city/states, they call for the abolition of ICE, they are the ones against immigration reform. It was their "sanctuary" city policy that resulted in the death of Kate Steinle. They are the ones living in tent cities full of shit. It was their libshit Capital that couldn't even muster a manslaughter murder. And here you are, defending them.
Oh, so you're allowed to flail around and ignore my arguments, while you fixate on the most inconsequential and debatable of mine? How convenient for you.
You cannot accuse a jury of being biased for a specific motivation based on Occam's Razor.
Yes I can. The facts of the case were public.
If you use Occam's Razor to form an internal personal guess, that's fine, but you implied it was definitive conclusion.
It fits a pattern of libshit cities like San Francisco. He shouldn't have even been in the country, but San Francisco, being a "sanctuary" city, let him go from jail.
Man up and admit you made a mistake.
Why do you refuse to talk about the abolition of ICE? Why do you hold the Democrats and Republicans equally accountable for immigration policies, when the Democrats support "sanctuary" city/states, created the "DACA" amnesty, want a "clean" DACA amnesty, and oppose all immigration reform, including an end to chain migration, the "diversity" lottery, and national e-verify?
You have no explanation for why it wasn't at least manslaughter. I applied Occam's Razor. What did you do except bury your head in the sand? Why did you, again, ignore the abolition of ICE demands? Democrats have become the party of illegal immigrants.
Ok, I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time when you mentioned security and then switched to reliability. But now here you are again talking about security. Java is not C. In Java, when you get an exception your program crashes. In C, if you don't check return codes your program silently continues running.
You complained about the other poster ignoring your argument, and that's exactly what you did to me. I never said you should ignore what can go wrong. I said in the vast majority of cases, checked exceptions add no value and just create crud. I gave examples. Do you want to address that argument?
His story was inconsistent. Regardless, at the minimum it should have been manslaughter. If you pick up a gun that doesn't belong to you, and you "accidentally" shoot it, and kill somebody, that qualifies as manslaughter.
Did you dissect the jurors' neurons or something?
Considering that San Francisco is the capital of Libtardia, it's a reasonable assumption that his immigration status had something to do with it.
And I'll note again you still have nothing to say about the abolition of ICE.
You can't write reliable software if you don't consider all possible exceptions when you are writing the software.
That's bullshit. Worst comes to worst the program crashes safely. with a nice stacktrace to tell you what happened. Checked exceptions are valid in a few, very few cases. In all other cases, all they add is clutter.
Let's take something like SQLException. Ok, what are you supposed to do if your SQL is fucked up? You can't recover from it, so you either wrap it in a non-checked exception or you throw it up the chain, exasperating the crud code that needs to deal with it.
What do you do if you get an IOException when writing to a file? Well something is fucked. The safest thing to do is end the program with a stracktrace and let the user figure it out.
On and on it goes. Checked exceptions are one of the biggest sources of crud in the Java language, and they do not pay for themselves.
they've had at least 2 chances for reform and border guard increases, and flaked both times
Are you saying Democrats were going to allow an end to chain migration and enact a merit-based system in exchange for amnesty? No, you're not. What you mean is Democrats were offering the same shit deal Reagan pushed through. No real change except for another block of Democrat voters.
(You are spinning the Kate Steinle story. It's more nuanced.)
Oh, really? Please explain then. Also see how you didn't touch the abolition issue.
No, I remember you stating that but that is not what "we are talking about".
Selective memory, then? I stated delusions were being pandered to, you denied they were delusions because of 51% support for legal "protections". Then when the cold, hard truth is brought up, that the vast majority don't truly accept transgenders as the opposite sex, you feign ignorance and try to change the subject.
Being a transexual is widely regarded amoung psycologists as an intrinsic part of these people's identity much like being a guy is for me or being whatever you are to you.
So? How is that any different than somebody with a Jesus Christ identity? However they feel, it's a delusion, and I'm not going to pander to it, let alone enshrine legal "rights" under the law.
By the way, transgender identity isn't as hardwired as you think. Many kids who are nominally transgender grow out of it.
How is supporting equal rights the same as who one is sexually attracted to?
We were talking about delusions, remember? It's not "equal rights", it's pandering to the delusions of mentally ill people. You claimed they weren't delusions. You were wrong, as you know people will not truly accept a transgender as the sex they aren't.
Obama ended a whole lot of Bush administration policies that allowed undocumented workers to work in the US.
Such as? And what about those DREAMers that Obama created out of thin air?
The only new thing Trump is doing on the border is 1) child abuse
*snort* You mean he ended catch-and-release by traffickers using kids as pawns, but caved in due to media outrage.
2) illegally arresting people who attempt to claim asylum.
*snort* You mean arresting people who entered the country illegally, just like Obama did (see linked Snopes article).
Why'd Obama do this? He believed that a "get tough" policy would help the Republicans work with him to bring a sane immigration policy that put American interest first.
Oh, so Obama wanted to end chain migration, get tough on deportation, and enact a merit-based immigration policy? Did Obama want federally mandated e-verify nation-wide? How many Muslims immigrated to the United States under Obama?
The fact that you know zero of these facts demonstrates just how willing the Republicans are to work with Democrats to do so.
*snort* Democrats are the party of illegal immigrants. And whatever you think of Obama, he is no longer in office, and Democrats today have absolutely caved to open borders and don't give a rats ass about putting American interests first.
Here's the thing, we all care about more than one issue.
So what Democrat issues are more important to you?
The other side though is that Republicans seem to be very unlikely to pass meaningful reform as their main points of focus are worthless anyways.
They were actually pretty close, based on your links, including the e-verify that you wanted.
It's the same thing with the national debt for me, yeah Republicans talk tough on it but they have no realistic plan for handling it and have now, once again, very obviously made it much, much worse.
I agree. But I have also come to the conclusion that debt is unsolvable, because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. It requires an ever-growing inflation to pay off interest. Money is debt. Great for the bankers, not so great for the rest of us.
First, doing anything to attract attention to yourself is a fantastic way to get deported. Going to a polling place is something that attracts attention.
No it isn't. You're part of the crowd. We also have illegals that openly protest against immigration enforcement. We have illegals that are openly part of city councils. Our enforcement is a joke.
Second, committing a felony is an even more fantastic way to get deported (entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor, BTW)
It doesn't matter if the likelihood of getting caught is virtually zero.
The person has to be registered, they have to recite their name and address, and then the poll workers mark them as having received a ballot. Which means when the real voter shows up and tries to cast a ballot, the poll workers, including the Republican ones, immediately detect that there is a problem. [..] Sixth, registration isn't just "turn in the form and you get a ballot". Your data is verified in the relevant databases.
Then why are lawsuits necessary to force governments to clean up their voter rolls?
Fifth, you are asserting that millions of people can remain absolutely silent about their crimes, and have done so over many, many years. The fact that you know there are undocumented workers in the US, and that they provide false documentation for I-9 forms, demonstrates that this is false.
If these databases were so effective, then why are so many allowed to get away with identity fraud? And just because a dopey politician brazenly admits how many of his family and friends rely on fraudulent IDs doesn't mean they'll do the same with voting. But I think it's telling when President Obama was asked about illegals being able to vote, and he reassures the interviewee that voting is private, before finally acknowledging that it's US citizens who are supposed to vote.
Seventh, if you actually gave a damn about people entering the country illegally, you'd want to go after the employers who illegally employ those workers.
Who says I don't?
No jobs, no workers coming for those jobs.
Because there's no such thing as welfare fraud? There's no such thing as an underground economy? There's no such thing as free schooling and healthcare for illegals? There's no such thing as anchor babies?
but you want to build a wall instead
Who says you can't do both?
because apparently you think they don't have access to the amazing technology known as "a boat"
Apparently you don't realize the importance of deterrents.
As pointed out already, 51% of the country doesn't think they're delusions.
As was already pointed out, 51% may choose to pander to those delusions, but it is not the same as believing those delusions are real. Of that 51%, how many would choose a sexual partner that was transgender?
Your example is dumb as Santa does not exist. Meanwhile there are people born as one sex who really do identify as the other.
And many people identify as Jesus Christ returned. "Identifying" as the opposite sex doesn't change the basic biological facts.
Women are actually far more likely to support transgender rights then men are. Your "But think of the precious ladies!" doesn't hold water.
When it came down to brass tacks, it was women who made the complaint about the transgender dude hanging around in their locker room with his genitalia exposed. That's the problem with the bleeding heart liberals in this country -- they're willing to support the "oppressed" minority with rules and regulations, but they don't think about the impact until they are confronted with it.
If I care about immigration reform, which party is more likely to get me there? The one that wants no reform and blanket amnesty, or the one somewhat divided on the issue? Which party is calling for the abolition of ICE? Which party creates "sanctuary" cities/states? Which party runs cities that won't even convict a cold-blooded killer of manslaughter?
There wasn't a single Democratic vote for Trump's tax bill that put us even more massively in debt in either the House or the Senate either.
It was a budget bill. They didn't have to avoid a filibuster.
You're deluding yourself by not holding Republicans to their failures and the party's ideals become weaker for every person that does this.
If I care about immigration reform, which party is more likely to get me there? The one that wants no reform and blanket amnesty, or the one somewhat divided on the issue? Which party is calling for the abolition of ICE? Which party creates "sanctuary" cities/states? Which party runs cities that won't even convict a cold-blooded killer of manslaughter?
We have socialist policies in this country right here and now.
And we're always told how we should look to Europe for more.
And once upon a time there were no rights allowed at all for the small minority that was black slaves either, What's your point?
My point is that all "rights" are not created equal. There's a huge difference between not enslaving somebody versus being forced to respect the delusions of 0.1% the population.
Furthermore, they really aren't delusions if 51% of Americans believe that they should exist.
Yes, they are. Somebody who believes Santa Claus is real is delusional, whether I pander to those beliefs or not.
Cool, so you spend your time looking at people's junk in changing rooms?
Why don't you ask the women who were confronted with a biological male's genitalia? So progressive!
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing that is remotely conservative or "right" about these nitwits. Being conservative in the USA means believe in individual liberty, natural law, and limited government. Socialism/"National Socialism"/Facism/Communism or any other form of totalitarianism couldn't be any less compatible with that idea, and is fundamentally incompatible with the constitution.
And that's why race matters. The only race that semi-reliably votes for libertarian ideals are whites. Every other race leans heavily to socialism or their own identity politics. Why is it that you think the socialists/communists are intent on "diversifying" every traditionally white, Western country?
I'm only Mexican-American so I'm not allowed to have a culture
I'm American. This is why civic nationalism is dead in this country. Nearly every non-white person identifies as a hyphenated American.
The first amendment should apply to the oligarchy that own the online public square. Done. Works for both "progressives" and conservatives.
Of course, we know that "progressives" don't believe in free speech. They'll cry foul if their speech is limited in any way, but will actively try to deplatform anybody to their right.
So are young Jewish men, like Ben Shapiro, bad?
Believing in wrongthing negates any identity points.
You mean your hallucinations.
I didn't hallucinate you flailing around, failing to address my arguments, and then deciding to single-focus like a laser on the most minor and debatable of my arguments. When pushed, you reverted back to your "both parties" line, ignoring the facts on the ground.
After dropping the ball 7 times they'll finally get it?
Any reform in a positive direction is coming from Republicans. But maybe you're cool with "sanctuary" cities/states, calls for the abolition of ICE, and calls for open borders.
May I see your Mind-Reader Certificate, please?
I don't need to mind read. It's in the post history. Do you have another explanation for your hypocrisy?
Again, both parties are, based on their history.
False equivalence. Republicans don't run "sanctuary" cities/states. Republicans don't call for the abolition of ice. Obama created DACA amnesty out of thin air. Democrats accept no immigration reform. If there is any hope for immigration reform, it has to come from Republicans. The Democrats have jumped on the open borders train, and there's no turning back.
You chose to fixate on this minor topic after flailing at the major ones. It's a tactic of weakness by somebody arguing from a losing position, because they are arguing against reality itself:
Democrats are the party of illegal immigration. They own the "sanctuary" city/states, they call for the abolition of ICE, they are the ones against immigration reform. It was their "sanctuary" city policy that resulted in the death of Kate Steinle. They are the ones living in tent cities full of shit. It was their libshit Capital that couldn't even muster a manslaughter murder. And here you are, defending them.
After you admit you screwed up the first topic.
Oh, so you're allowed to flail around and ignore my arguments, while you fixate on the most inconsequential and debatable of mine? How convenient for you.
You cannot accuse a jury of being biased for a specific motivation based on Occam's Razor.
Yes I can. The facts of the case were public.
If you use Occam's Razor to form an internal personal guess, that's fine, but you implied it was definitive conclusion.
It fits a pattern of libshit cities like San Francisco. He shouldn't have even been in the country, but San Francisco, being a "sanctuary" city, let him go from jail.
Man up and admit you made a mistake.
Why do you refuse to talk about the abolition of ICE? Why do you hold the Democrats and Republicans equally accountable for immigration policies, when the Democrats support "sanctuary" city/states, created the "DACA" amnesty, want a "clean" DACA amnesty, and oppose all immigration reform, including an end to chain migration, the "diversity" lottery, and national e-verify?
Go on, man up. Address the issues.
You have no explanation for why it wasn't at least manslaughter. I applied Occam's Razor. What did you do except bury your head in the sand? Why did you, again, ignore the abolition of ICE demands? Democrats have become the party of illegal immigrants.
Ok, I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time when you mentioned security and then switched to reliability. But now here you are again talking about security. Java is not C. In Java, when you get an exception your program crashes. In C, if you don't check return codes your program silently continues running.
You complained about the other poster ignoring your argument, and that's exactly what you did to me. I never said you should ignore what can go wrong. I said in the vast majority of cases, checked exceptions add no value and just create crud. I gave examples. Do you want to address that argument?
The gun handler claimed it was an accident.
His story was inconsistent. Regardless, at the minimum it should have been manslaughter. If you pick up a gun that doesn't belong to you, and you "accidentally" shoot it, and kill somebody, that qualifies as manslaughter.
Did you dissect the jurors' neurons or something?
Considering that San Francisco is the capital of Libtardia, it's a reasonable assumption that his immigration status had something to do with it.
And I'll note again you still have nothing to say about the abolition of ICE.
This is the classic, and correct, response.
You can't write reliable software if you don't consider all possible exceptions when you are writing the software.
That's bullshit. Worst comes to worst the program crashes safely. with a nice stacktrace to tell you what happened. Checked exceptions are valid in a few, very few cases. In all other cases, all they add is clutter.
Let's take something like SQLException. Ok, what are you supposed to do if your SQL is fucked up? You can't recover from it, so you either wrap it in a non-checked exception or you throw it up the chain, exasperating the crud code that needs to deal with it.
What do you do if you get an IOException when writing to a file? Well something is fucked. The safest thing to do is end the program with a stracktrace and let the user figure it out.
On and on it goes. Checked exceptions are one of the biggest sources of crud in the Java language, and they do not pay for themselves.
they've had at least 2 chances for reform and border guard increases, and flaked both times
Are you saying Democrats were going to allow an end to chain migration and enact a merit-based system in exchange for amnesty? No, you're not. What you mean is Democrats were offering the same shit deal Reagan pushed through. No real change except for another block of Democrat voters.
(You are spinning the Kate Steinle story. It's more nuanced.)
Oh, really? Please explain then. Also see how you didn't touch the abolition issue.
No, I remember you stating that but that is not what "we are talking about".
Selective memory, then? I stated delusions were being pandered to, you denied they were delusions because of 51% support for legal "protections". Then when the cold, hard truth is brought up, that the vast majority don't truly accept transgenders as the opposite sex, you feign ignorance and try to change the subject.
Being a transexual is widely regarded amoung psycologists as an intrinsic part of these people's identity much like being a guy is for me or being whatever you are to you.
So? How is that any different than somebody with a Jesus Christ identity? However they feel, it's a delusion, and I'm not going to pander to it, let alone enshrine legal "rights" under the law.
By the way, transgender identity isn't as hardwired as you think. Many kids who are nominally transgender grow out of it.
How is supporting equal rights the same as who one is sexually attracted to?
We were talking about delusions, remember? It's not "equal rights", it's pandering to the delusions of mentally ill people. You claimed they weren't delusions. You were wrong, as you know people will not truly accept a transgender as the sex they aren't.
Which federal laws are states required to enforce?
None.
Heck, which federal laws are state law enforcement allowed to enforce? (I'll give you a hint: none).
Wrong.
The rate of deportations during the Obama administration skyrocketed.
You, too?
Obama ended a whole lot of Bush administration policies that allowed undocumented workers to work in the US.
Such as? And what about those DREAMers that Obama created out of thin air?
The only new thing Trump is doing on the border is 1) child abuse
*snort* You mean he ended catch-and-release by traffickers using kids as pawns, but caved in due to media outrage.
2) illegally arresting people who attempt to claim asylum.
*snort* You mean arresting people who entered the country illegally, just like Obama did (see linked Snopes article).
Why'd Obama do this? He believed that a "get tough" policy would help the Republicans work with him to bring a sane immigration policy that put American interest first.
Oh, so Obama wanted to end chain migration, get tough on deportation, and enact a merit-based immigration policy? Did Obama want federally mandated e-verify nation-wide? How many Muslims immigrated to the United States under Obama?
The fact that you know zero of these facts demonstrates just how willing the Republicans are to work with Democrats to do so.
*snort* Democrats are the party of illegal immigrants. And whatever you think of Obama, he is no longer in office, and Democrats today have absolutely caved to open borders and don't give a rats ass about putting American interests first.
Here's the thing, we all care about more than one issue.
So what Democrat issues are more important to you?
The other side though is that Republicans seem to be very unlikely to pass meaningful reform as their main points of focus are worthless anyways.
They were actually pretty close, based on your links, including the e-verify that you wanted.
It's the same thing with the national debt for me, yeah Republicans talk tough on it but they have no realistic plan for handling it and have now, once again, very obviously made it much, much worse.
I agree. But I have also come to the conclusion that debt is unsolvable, because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. It requires an ever-growing inflation to pay off interest. Money is debt. Great for the bankers, not so great for the rest of us.
First, doing anything to attract attention to yourself is a fantastic way to get deported. Going to a polling place is something that attracts attention.
No it isn't. You're part of the crowd. We also have illegals that openly protest against immigration enforcement. We have illegals that are openly part of city councils. Our enforcement is a joke.
Second, committing a felony is an even more fantastic way to get deported (entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor, BTW)
It doesn't matter if the likelihood of getting caught is virtually zero.
The person has to be registered, they have to recite their name and address, and then the poll workers mark them as having received a ballot. Which means when the real voter shows up and tries to cast a ballot, the poll workers, including the Republican ones, immediately detect that there is a problem. [..] Sixth, registration isn't just "turn in the form and you get a ballot". Your data is verified in the relevant databases.
Then why are lawsuits necessary to force governments to clean up their voter rolls?
Fifth, you are asserting that millions of people can remain absolutely silent about their crimes, and have done so over many, many years. The fact that you know there are undocumented workers in the US, and that they provide false documentation for I-9 forms, demonstrates that this is false.
If these databases were so effective, then why are so many allowed to get away with identity fraud? And just because a dopey politician brazenly admits how many of his family and friends rely on fraudulent IDs doesn't mean they'll do the same with voting. But I think it's telling when President Obama was asked about illegals being able to vote, and he reassures the interviewee that voting is private, before finally acknowledging that it's US citizens who are supposed to vote.
Seventh, if you actually gave a damn about people entering the country illegally, you'd want to go after the employers who illegally employ those workers.
Who says I don't?
No jobs, no workers coming for those jobs.
Because there's no such thing as welfare fraud? There's no such thing as an underground economy? There's no such thing as free schooling and healthcare for illegals? There's no such thing as anchor babies?
but you want to build a wall instead
Who says you can't do both?
because apparently you think they don't have access to the amazing technology known as "a boat"
Apparently you don't realize the importance of deterrents.
As pointed out already, 51% of the country doesn't think they're delusions.
As was already pointed out, 51% may choose to pander to those delusions, but it is not the same as believing those delusions are real. Of that 51%, how many would choose a sexual partner that was transgender?
Your example is dumb as Santa does not exist. Meanwhile there are people born as one sex who really do identify as the other.
And many people identify as Jesus Christ returned. "Identifying" as the opposite sex doesn't change the basic biological facts.
Women are actually far more likely to support transgender rights then men are. Your "But think of the precious ladies!" doesn't hold water.
When it came down to brass tacks, it was women who made the complaint about the transgender dude hanging around in their locker room with his genitalia exposed. That's the problem with the bleeding heart liberals in this country -- they're willing to support the "oppressed" minority with rules and regulations, but they don't think about the impact until they are confronted with it.
Could have been worse.
I'll as you the same question:
If I care about immigration reform, which party is more likely to get me there? The one that wants no reform and blanket amnesty, or the one somewhat divided on the issue? Which party is calling for the abolition of ICE? Which party creates "sanctuary" cities/states? Which party runs cities that won't even convict a cold-blooded killer of manslaughter?
There wasn't a single Democratic vote for Trump's tax bill that put us even more massively in debt in either the House or the Senate either.
It was a budget bill. They didn't have to avoid a filibuster.
You're deluding yourself by not holding Republicans to their failures and the party's ideals become weaker for every person that does this.
If I care about immigration reform, which party is more likely to get me there? The one that wants no reform and blanket amnesty, or the one somewhat divided on the issue? Which party is calling for the abolition of ICE? Which party creates "sanctuary" cities/states? Which party runs cities that won't even convict a cold-blooded killer of manslaughter?
We have socialist policies in this country right here and now.
And we're always told how we should look to Europe for more.
And once upon a time there were no rights allowed at all for the small minority that was black slaves either, What's your point?
My point is that all "rights" are not created equal. There's a huge difference between not enslaving somebody versus being forced to respect the delusions of 0.1% the population.
Furthermore, they really aren't delusions if 51% of Americans believe that they should exist.
Yes, they are. Somebody who believes Santa Claus is real is delusional, whether I pander to those beliefs or not.
Cool, so you spend your time looking at people's junk in changing rooms?
Why don't you ask the women who were confronted with a biological male's genitalia? So progressive!