PDA

View Full Version : Democrats=no ideas


JustRalph
07-10-2017, 02:01 PM
http://nypost.com/2017/07/09/why-democrats-are-still-losing-the-war-of-ideas/

Interesting poll results in this article

lamboguy
07-10-2017, 02:09 PM
we already know the republicans have no clue, now we know we are in big trouble.

chadk66
07-10-2017, 05:14 PM
all of congress is nothing but a big dog and pony show.

MutuelClerk
07-10-2017, 05:24 PM
Idea is a four letter word.

Not allowed in D.C.

Greed.

Works.

mostpost
07-10-2017, 08:33 PM
http://nypost.com/2017/07/09/why-democrats-are-still-losing-the-war-of-ideas/

Interesting poll results in this article
The Theme of the NY Post column linked above is that even a crappy idea is better than no idea at all. That would not be true even if there were no other ideas on refugee admission out there. The fact is the refugee admissions process right now is quite stringent and quite effective.

Every Applicant is subjected to several intensive interview conducted by the FBI, USCIS and the CBP. Background checks, Biographical checks and biometric checks are conducted which include information supplied by the National counterterrorism Center; TECS; DEA; HHS; FBI wanted Persons File; FBI Immigration Violators File; FBI Foreign Fugitive File; FBI Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File.

Persons from Iraq Afghanistan and Syria are subjected to additional scrutiny.

The Trump travel ban does accomplish a few things. It keeps innocent Muslims from entering the United States without due process. It reinforces the image of the US as arrogant and anti Muslim. It is a great recruiting tool for ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Since almost all of the Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil since 2001 were carried out by perpetrators who were born in this country or lived here since childhood, it does not solve a problem that does not exist.

Clocker
07-10-2017, 09:05 PM
The Trump travel ban does accomplish a few things. It keeps innocent Muslims from entering the United States without due process.

How are people who are neither citizens or legal residents of this country, in fact are not even in this country, entitled to any due process other that what the government decides is in the best interest of the country?

Are you claiming that every person in the world is entitled to 5th Amendment protection of due process?

Even if someone wants to argue that the 5th Amendment applies to every person in the world, what it says is that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". How does not letting such a person enter the country deprive him of life, liberty, or property?

zico20
07-10-2017, 09:39 PM
The Theme of the NY Post column linked above is that even a crappy idea is better than no idea at all. That would not be true even if there were no other ideas on refugee admission out there. The fact is the refugee admissions process right now is quite stringent and quite effective.

Every Applicant is subjected to several intensive interview conducted by the FBI, USCIS and the CBP. Background checks, Biographical checks and biometric checks are conducted which include information supplied by the National counterterrorism Center; TECS; DEA; HHS; FBI wanted Persons File; FBI Immigration Violators File; FBI Foreign Fugitive File; FBI Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File.

Persons from Iraq Afghanistan and Syria are subjected to additional scrutiny.

The Trump travel ban does accomplish a few things. It keeps innocent Muslims from entering the United States without due process. It reinforces the image of the US as arrogant and anti Muslim. It is a great recruiting tool for ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Since almost all of the Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil since 2001 were carried out by perpetrators who were born in this country or lived here since childhood, it does not solve a problem that does not exist.

Why shouldn't the USA be arrogant. We are the greatest nation this earth has ever seen. At least until you and your liberal nut case friends destroy it and turn us into a third world hell hole. It is not a great recruiting tool for ISIS. They just promise 72 virgins for blowing yourself up and thousands join.

You really do believe everyone on the planet has not only due process rights but also every Constitutional right Americans have.

Clocker
07-10-2017, 10:00 PM
Why shouldn't the USA be arrogant.

Because arrogance is, at the very least, a microaggression which can trigger emotional trauma, and might even give some sensitive people the vapors. That's why every person on the face of the globe has a right to a safe space. And as the great country we are, we have the duty and obligation to make the world safe against being offended.

Dave Schwartz
07-10-2017, 10:14 PM
Because arrogance is, at the very least, a microaggression which can trigger emotional trauma, and might even give some sensitive people the vapors. That's why every person on the face of the globe has a right to a safe space. And as the great country we are, we have the duty and obligation to make the world safe against being offended.

Please wake me when this happens, even for... oh, let's say 24 hours.

Clocker
07-10-2017, 10:21 PM
Please wake me when this happens, even for... oh, let's say 24 hours.

Rest easy. It won't happen until the Chelsea Clinton administration.

mostpost
07-10-2017, 11:42 PM
How are people who are neither citizens or legal residents of this country, in fact are not even in this country, entitled to any due process other that what the government decides is in the best interest of the country?

Are you claiming that every person in the world is entitled to 5th Amendment protection of due process?

Even if someone wants to argue that the 5th Amendment applies to every person in the world, what it says is that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". How does not letting such a person enter the country deprive him of life, liberty, or property?
You have the wrong amendment and I had the wrong clause-although "Due Process could work. It's the 14th amendment and the clause is nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are some very important words there. First notice that it does not say any citizen or any resident. It says any person within its jurisdiction. But jurisdiction does not only mean the physical confines of the state or country. It can also mean anywhere that a law of the United States impacts a person. Such as a law or laws defining how a person is allowed to enter this country. A law that allows a person of one country to enter under different rules than a person from a different country is a law that denies one of those people equal protection of the law. The fact that both are outside the boundaries of the United States is not only not mitigating, it is extremely germane.

Just so the slow minded-not you-understand this. A person in Romania, accused of a crime in Romanian courts, does not enjoy the protection of the US Constitution. A person in Romanian attempting to emigrate to the US does.

thaskalos
07-11-2017, 12:12 AM
Why shouldn't the USA be arrogant. We are the greatest nation this earth has ever seen. At least until you and your liberal nut case friends destroy it and turn us into a third world hell hole. It is not a great recruiting tool for ISIS. They just promise 72 virgins for blowing yourself up and thousands join.

You really do believe everyone on the planet has not only due process rights but also every Constitutional right Americans have.

In what way is the USA the "greatest nation on earth"? Are its citizens the "happiest"? Are they the "healthiest"? Are they the "smartest"? Do they live the LONGEST? Do they enjoy the best "standard of living"?

What "constitutional rights" do you suppose the Americans have which are denied to, say...the citizens of Switzerland...or Denmark...or England...or Australia...or even Canada?

mostpost
07-11-2017, 12:24 AM
Why shouldn't the USA be arrogant. We are the greatest nation this earth has ever seen. At least until you and your liberal nut case friends destroy it and turn us into a third world hell hole. It is not a great recruiting tool for ISIS. They just promise 72 virgins for blowing yourself up and thousands join.
We should be proud; not arrogant. There is an enormous difference. Being proud means we acknowledge the great things this country has done, but recognize progress has come from all over the globe. Being arrogant means we think that we are the only country that has ever accomplished something and all the other countries are backwater hell holes. Being proud means that we think-and I do-that the United States is the best place in the world to live, and yet we recognize that people in other countries around the world think the same way about their countries. Being arrogant means we have an attitude of superiority towards other countries and the people who live in them.


As for that 72 virgins nonsense, I would be willing to bet you any amount of money that not a single suicide bomber did so because he believed he would have 72 virgins in heaven. Of course we have never been able to interview a successful suicide bomber, but I have seen summaries of interviews with terrorists and I have never heard one who said he did it so he could have 72 virgins. They joined the cause because they did not like the way the US was treating Muslim nations. Anyway, what is the big deal with virgins? I would rather have a woman with experience.



You really do believe everyone on the planet has not only due process rights but also every Constitutional right Americans have.
Where do you get these goofy ideas? It is not nearly as simple as that. Someone in an opposing military-or quasi military force does not have those rights. Someone involved in terrorist attack against Americans in a foreign land does not have those rights. He/she has whatever rights he is entitled to in whatever country he/she is tried in.

Someone involved in a terrorist attack in the United States should have every Constitutional right regardless of his citizenship status. Someone who, regardless of his physical location on the planet, is affected by any laws of the United States, should enjoy those rights.

Clocker
07-11-2017, 12:32 AM
You have the wrong amendment and I had the wrong clause-although "Due Process could work. It's the 14th amendment and the clause is nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.The wording about due process here is exactly the same as in the 5th Amendment, and means exactly the same thing. The last clause prohibits discrimination, such as racial or sex. Like the 5th, it refers only to people within the jurisdiction of the state.

There are some very important words there. First notice that it does not say any citizen or any resident. It says any person within its jurisdiction. But jurisdiction does not only mean the physical confines of the state or country. It can also mean anywhere that a law of the United States impacts a person. You are just restating your original claim that every person on the planet must be accorded the same rights as a citizen or resident of a state and the country. That by expressing a desire to come here, one has established the rights as if he was already here.

If there is any doubt as to the meaning of a law or the Constitution, that doubt is settled by case law and by court decisions. You made the ridiculous statement that anyone and everyone in the world is entitled to due process here, contrary to basic logic and the plain language of the Constitution. Please cite any case law or SCOTUS decision that backs up your claim.

fast4522
07-11-2017, 01:00 AM
In what way is the USA the "greatest nation on earth"? Are its citizens the "happiest"? Are they the "healthiest"? Are they the "smartest"? Do they live the LONGEST? Do they enjoy the best "standard of living"?

What "constitutional rights" do you suppose the Americans have which are denied to, say...the citizens of Switzerland...or Denmark...or England...or Australia...or even Canada?

Gus, were you born in the United States? You see where the next question will come from? Anyone can make it here if they have the drive and determination. The success of those who were not born here have been well documented, the drive and determination often lacking in many native born being a factor. Here there are no guarantee that your expectations will be realized, everything depends on you. Over the last couple of decades social engineers have made great strides in removing the stairs that enable those who want to climb and instead replaced those stairs with mediocre one size fits all attempts. For everyone who has failed they at the very least tried, and personally know many who did not fail. Back up your feelings with what you know to be true.

woodtoo
07-11-2017, 02:50 AM
Where do you get these goofy ideas? It is not nearly as simple as that. Someone in an opposing military-or quasi military force does not have those rights. Someone involved in terrorist attack against Americans in a foreign land does not have those rights. He/she has whatever rights he is entitled to in whatever country he/she is tried in.

Someone involved in a terrorist attack in the United States should have every Constitutional right regardless of his citizenship status. Someone who, regardless of his physical location on the planet, is affected by any laws of the United States, should enjoy those rights.

We are all post stamps of the world, each one having the rights of any country we may be in at any given time, World Postal Utopia, the Democrat way.:pound:

thaskalos
07-11-2017, 03:34 AM
Gus, were you born in the United States? You see where the next question will come from? Anyone can make it here if they have the drive and determination. The success of those who were not born here have been well documented, the drive and determination often lacking in many native born being a factor. Here there are no guarantee that your expectations will be realized, everything depends on you. Over the last couple of decades social engineers have made great strides in removing the stairs that enable those who want to climb and instead replaced those stairs with mediocre one size fits all attempts. For everyone who has failed they at the very least tried, and personally know many who did not fail. Back up your feelings with what you know to be true.

I agree with every word you've written here...but I can fully agree with you while still disagreeing with Zico20's comment, which I replied to. Being the "greatest nation on earth" means more than just having the strongest military. We no longer are what we once were...IMO. When I first came to this country, this was really the "land of opportunity"...and immigrants were flocking to this country from all over the world. Now...only the fugitives from war-torn countries are coming here...and many Americans are choosing to live abroad.

Things change...

MONEY
07-11-2017, 09:58 AM
In what way is the USA the "greatest nation on earth"? Are its citizens the "happiest"? Are they the "healthiest"? Are they the "smartest"? Do they live the LONGEST? Do they enjoy the best "standard of living"?

What "constitutional rights" do you suppose the Americans have which are denied to, say...the citizens of Switzerland...or Denmark...or England...or Australia...or even Canada?
If the U.S.A. didn't exist do you think that the the citizens of Switzerland...or Denmark...or England...or Australia...or even Canada would have the same rights that they now have?

elysiantraveller
07-11-2017, 10:11 AM
If the U.S.A. didn't exist do you think that the the citizens of Switzerland...or Denmark...or England...or Australia...or even Canada would have the same rights that they now have?


Yes, No, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

JustRalph
07-11-2017, 02:29 PM
If the U.S.A. didn't exist do you think that the the citizens of Switzerland...or Denmark...or England...or Australia...or even Canada would have the same rights that they now have?

They would all be speaking German or Russian

elysiantraveller
07-11-2017, 04:19 PM
They would all be speaking German or Russian

Interesting topic... and one I've been reading about lately, probably not though. The French would likely be speaking German though. :headbanger:

woodtoo
07-11-2017, 05:42 PM
Interesting topic... and one I've been reading about lately, probably not though. The French would likely be speaking German though. :headbanger:

Just plain weird you are.:headbanger:

mostpost
07-11-2017, 05:47 PM
If there is any doubt as to the meaning of a law or the Constitution, that doubt is settled by case law and by court decisions. You made the ridiculous statement that anyone and everyone in the world is entitled to due process here, contrary to basic logic and the plain language of the Constitution. Please cite any case law or SCOTUS decision that backs up your claim.
Thanks for asking.
Phyler v. Doe (1982)
In 1975, Texas passed changes to its education laws withholding state funds for educating children who had not been admitted legally to the United States and authorizing local school districts to deny enrollment to such students.

The Supreme Court found that an alien is a "Person" in any ordinary sense of the term and therefore is entitled to the protections afforded by the "Equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment. The court also found that any person residing within the physical boundaries of a state (Texas) is under the jurisdiction of that state regardless of their legal status.

Zadvydas v Davis
Zadvydas was an illegal alien in the United States. He was ordered deported due to a criminal record. Zadvydas had been born in Germany of Lithuanian parents, but was a citizen of neither country. 8 USC 1231 stated that a person could be held up to 90 days awaiting deportation, but if no country could be found which would take that person, he could be held indefinitely.

The court held that portion of 8 USC 1231 which provided indefinite detention to be unconstitutional because it denied Zadvydas due process under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The decision specifically said that due process must be applied to aliens, legal or otherwise.

Almeida-Sanchez v United States.

Almeida-Sanchez was a Mexican citizen in the United States legally on a valid work permit. While driving on an east-west road which paralleled the Mexican border , but was always at least 20-25 miles north of that border, Almeida-Sanchez was stopped by the Border Patrol and his car was searched. The Border Patrol had no search warrant. Marijuana was found.

The government justified the search under provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.

The Supreme Court held The warrantless search of petitioner's automobile, made without probable cause or consent, violated the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 413 U. S. 269-275.
(a) The search cannot be justified on the basis of any special rules applicable to automobile searches, as probable cause was lacking; nor can it be justified by analogy with administrative inspections, as the officers had no warrant or reason to believe that petitioner had crossed the border or committed an offense, and there was no consent by petitioner. Pp. 413 U. S. 269-272.
(b) The search was not a border search or the functional equivalent thereof. Pp. 413 U. S. 272-275.

The search was illegal because it violated the defendants protections against unreasonable searches as defined in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Wick Ho v Hopkins.
Concurrent with the discovery of gold in California, many Chinese began immigrating to that state. This caused conflicts with native Californians. Unable to secure other employment many Chinese immigrants opened laundries. Most of these laundries were located in wooden buildings. In 1880 San Francisco passed an ordinance requiring that all laundries located in wooden buildings obtain a permit. The law left the decision on granting the permit to the sole discretion of the issuing body.

Of two hundred permits requested by a Chinese immigrant, only one was issued. On the other hand, virtually all permits requested by non Chinese were granted. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a discriminatory abuse of power and violated the protections of the Fourteenth amendment.

Wing Win v United States.
The Chinese Exclusion Act imposed imprisonment at hard labor and deportation on Chinese convicted of entering the United States illegally. Wing Win was apprehended and taken before a Commisioner of the Court-not a judge. That commissioner sentenced him to sixty days at hard labor followed by deportation.

The Supreme Court ruled that while the government had the right to deport a person here illegally and Congress could appoint persons to carry out that right, the imposition of prison time at hard labor required a public trial before a judge in jury in fulfillment of the rights enumerated in the sixth amendment.

So, we have five cases in which the Supreme Court confirmed that aliens in this country. legally or illegally, are afforded the protections of the United States Constitution and its laws.

Clocker
07-11-2017, 06:26 PM
So, we have five cases in which the Supreme Court confirmed that aliens in this country. legally or illegally, are afforded the protections of the United States Constitution and its laws.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you miss the logical contradiction between your previous post and this response?

In your original post, you said "The Trump travel ban does accomplish a few things. It keeps innocent Muslims from entering the United States without due process."

If it keeps them from entering the United States, then they are by definition not in the United States and are not legally entitled to enter the United States.

Here all of your examples refer to "aliens in this country". The difference between being in this country and not being in this country is not subtle nor a matter of opinion.

chadk66
07-11-2017, 09:01 PM
Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you miss the logical contradiction between your previous post and this response?

In your original post, you said "The Trump travel ban does accomplish a few things. It keeps innocent Muslims from entering the United States without due process."

If it keeps them from entering the United States, then they are by definition not in the United States and are not legally entitled to enter the United States.

Here all of your examples refer to "aliens in this country". The difference between being in this country and not being in this country is not subtle nor a matter of opinion.he refuses to get it and or admit it. I highly doubt he's that dumb that he doesn't understand it.