Jump to content
bornontheblue

Is there anything you would compromise on politically

Recommended Posts

It's plain to see we need more immigrants, with the U.S. birthrate now hovering around breaking even.

Why not take those who want to come and work? Even if they are sending money home, they're still paying sales tax and in a lot of cases Social Security.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Do you believe that even a fraction of the first time gun owners this year militia types now?  What is the point you are trying to make?

That there isn't a single legitimate reason I've heard why people need to take semiautomatic rifles to protest marches and that the vast majority of those who do appear to be militia types and if there are such marches in my neighborhood the militia guys are going to make me so uncomfortable that I may be inclined to buy a gun to protect myself and my family from them.

If you know any legitimate reason for the militia types to so comport themselves, feel free to try to persuade me to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mugtang said:

I guess I’m just heartless. But if we continue to allow them to stay then we will continually have the same issue over and over.  We did amnesty in the 80s in exchange for tougher border protections.  If we do it again I would suggest adopting a zero tolerance policy.  If you’re caught at the border, don’t have a legit asylum claim, then you’re immediately deported.  If you have an asylum claim then you’re released but you have to wear a tracking bracelet and if your claim is found to be unsubstantiated then you and anybody you came with is immediately deported. 

I’m okay with that but it doesn’t address the situation where people have direct minor children as citizens 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

Yes we do. That's a framework. 

The federal government has enumerated powers, the states have reserved powers. 

The federal government per the Constitution has the power to levy taxes, declare war and regulate interstate commerce. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government the implied power to pass any law for the execution of it's powers. 

The reserve powers go to the states to make the laws fit for their populace in their state. As we know each state may have different views on how they want to live. The founders realized that it is not practical to detail legislation for every item in every state. 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Bill of Rights outlines those rights neither the Federal or State governments can abridge.  How the powers are enumerated doesn’t matter as the rights can’t be abridged regardless.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I’m okay with that but it doesn’t address the situation where people have direct minor children as citizens 

Well, if we have a zero tolerance policy going forward we won’t have that issue anymore.  We can also repeal birthright citizenship and require at least 1 parent be in the US legally for the child to have citizenship.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mugtang said:

Well, if we have a zero tolerance policy going forward we won’t have that issue anymore.  We can also repeal birthright citizenship and require at least 1 parent be in the US legally for the child to have citizenship.  

Repealing birthright citizenship is a road I just can't go down.  It doesn't matter who your family is, or how they came to be here, if you're born here, you're an American.

I understand your argument from an intellectual standpoint, and to be honest, it's hard to refute.  But....

German, Russian, French, or Japanese, those are ethnicities..  American is an identity not related to ethnicity.  I don't want to give that up.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mugtang said:

Well, if we have a zero tolerance policy going forward we won’t have that issue anymore.  We can also repeal birthright citizenship and require at least 1 parent be in the US legally for the child to have citizenship.  

It would be a hard road to change it, not to mention the problems with having stateless children who would potentially be born here and have no state.   

while I agree on controlling the border I also agree with the law of diminishing returns.  If the US in an attractive place (which it increasingly is not) people will want to come here.   So you make it really hard and realize some people, in the American tradition, will find a way to skirt or beat the rules.   Good for them.  We want and need those kind of people and those people will have children.  It’s exactly those people who keep the American spirit alive.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CPslograd said:

I agree with Judge Benitez.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/apr/25/court-reinstates-background-checks-california-ammo/

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez in San Diego ruled in their favor, saying the law “defies common sense while unduly and severely burdening the Second Amendment rights of every responsible, gun-owning citizen desiring to lawfully buy ammunition.”

While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, Benitez wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state’s ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.

The state of CA will lose, that law is unconstitutional.  It's just a question of whether the 9th circuit sides with him.  If they overturn him, it will go to Scotus, and the NRA will win there. 

When I wasa kid here in California,back in  the 60's-70's, I could ride my bike down to long Drus or K-Mart and buy all of the 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CPslograd said:

I agree with Judge Benitez.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/apr/25/court-reinstates-background-checks-california-ammo/

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez in San Diego ruled in their favor, saying the law “defies common sense while unduly and severely burdening the Second Amendment rights of every responsible, gun-owning citizen desiring to lawfully buy ammunition.”

While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, Benitez wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state’s ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.

The state of CA will lose, that law is unconstitutional.  It's just a question of whether the 9th circuit sides with him.  If they overturn him, it will go to Scotus, and the NRA will win there. 

When I was a kid in Chula Vista ,back in  the 60's-70's, I could ride my bike down to Longs Drugs or K-Mart and buy all of the ammo I could afford.  Longs used to keep the .22 LR boxes out on the lower shelf so the kids could get to it without bothering the clerk.

Were were a normal state once upon a time.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say immigration reform (DACA, E-Verify, pathway to citizenship) in exchange for the stupid ass wall. But that was already offered and subsequently rejected by Trump and the GOP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, bornontheblue said:

Another example. If Republicans agreed to raise taxes on high wealth individuals, would Democrats agree to an in depth study, by an independent commission, of the federal budget to find and eliminate waste, and then actually implement the recommended cuts. 

R's would have to do more than raise taxes on the top 10% imo. I'm not a tax expert, but let's talk shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, bsu_alum9 said:

 

It's partisan because most of those immigrants gaining citizenship would become Democrat voters, which is weird, because many share the same values as Republicans.  It would help turn AZ and TX permanently blue.

I'm others words, Phuck No.

Thinking like that IS the reason why we can't reach consensus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, bornontheblue said:

Maybe. Maybe I would be willing to implement a ban on assault weapons if I can get something in return. 

How about background checks ?

I realize the initial check is time consuming and a wait is involved. But, once you're in the system, subsequent purchases should be routine.

How about legal prosecution of parents who don't properly secure their guns and ammo when their kids get hold of it and do property and/or personal damage ?

I'm willing to give up Guv funded abortion except for those who are below a reasonable poverty level. Only in cases of life/health of mother and rape/incest, where the mother will receive counseling about the path she is going down and the options that are available to her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Sorry if I'm straying a bit OT but I just think our Congress could get a lot of things done quite rapidly if we could just throw out the majority of idiots like McConnell and Pelosi who have little interest in compromise.

They are not the problem. It is the hard line Caucuses within the Parties that make it hard to move forward on any issue. Whether it is the AOC libs or the Tea Party.

Mitch and Nancy to maintain their positions and get reelected have to play ball with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, renoskier said:

Does a higher percentage of households own guns or do households with guns now own more of them? 

Mind Blown GIF by Debby Ryan

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Is this essentially what the Dems agreed to with Trump then he backed out at the insistence of hardliners like Miller?

It was Bannon and Faux as well. They threatened to turn on him and frame it as an "Amnesty" and turn the base against him.

48 hours later he emphatically told Dick Durbin, "No Deal"

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CV147 said:

It's plain to see we need more immigrants, with the U.S. birthrate now hovering around breaking even.

Why not take those who want to come and work? Even if they are sending money home, they're still paying sales tax and in a lot of cases Social Security.

Well for one,  it scares the living crap out of old people that don't want the demographic change.  And those old scared people tend to vote for one particular party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Hell the Dems agreed to fund the Damm wall but Trump backed out.  

When ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have an immigration issue.  we have an ILLEGAL immigration issue.

The problem with coming to terms with that is that ILLEGAL immigrants are easily manipulated into "voting"  for DEMOCRATS when they aren't legally supposed to do so. California DEMOCRATS have set up a system for instance ( driver licenses for illegals- auto voter registration- MUST opt OUT in order to not be registered>vote by mail >ballot harvesting) that actually facilitates voter fraud.

NO DEALS WITH LEFTISTS.....ON ANYTHING.....EVER

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...