DACA, the dreamers act

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No, I'm not. But I can discuss intelligently THE ISSUE of whether or not an UNDERAGED PERSON can "break the law" when the UNDERAGED PERSON is physically put in a position over which they have no control to be in violation of "the law" while at the same time when being put in that position lacks the mental capacity to knowingly and intentionally violate that "law"!

I said nothing about making them "legal" ... I said temporarily not deport them until Congress has addressed the issue .... what ever that final legislation says.

Whether you vote for Trump again, or not vote for him again, is not relevant to the discussion. I can also address the "issue" of voting or not voting for someone over just one issue when most or all others are acceptable with regard to that candidate.

Each person has their own reason for voting or not voting for someone running for office.

What is your preference that Trump do LL?

Just state wtf you believe should happen. Enough of this wishy-washy bs.

Believe it or not I'm half way in agreement with some of your statements, might be even moreso if you'd clarify.

[LexusLover]

WTF ... vvvvvvv



The No. 1 Spam Man!

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Let's go back to the bank robbery analogy; if a criminal takes a minor to rob a bank, we don't punish the minor unless we think they were old enough to "know better" and they acted of their own accord. So if a 17 year old or 16 year old crosses the border with their parents...we may have to a different decision than an 8 year old. We don't give the afore mentioned child the proceeds of a robbery though. A dreamer should not be handed a legal status or citizenship without a fee or penalty. I also believe in one strike and you're gone. Avoid breaking the law, learn the language, a want to be a good citizen.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

want to be a good citizen.

That would eliminate you.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by garhkal

I stand with enforcing our bloody laws.. AND Daca is not only unconstitutional (since it was just an EO, not a congressional law)< BUT IT was also "DEFERRED" deportation. NOT "never deport"...


R
The right thing for WHOM??



We already had several rounds of "Amnesty's", and look at what we go from it.. MORE ILLEGAL invaders than before..
AMNESTY is not a common sense thing. ITS A SPINELESS Caving in thing.



I don't care if he explains it or not. IF he caves in and effectively grants them amnesty, he's lost my vote PERIOD.
AND LOOK at what happened last time we did amnesty "on the promise of securing our borders:> THEY ARE MORE FUCKING Porous now than they were before!..
SO I will never, ever, ever, support any form of amnesty again. EVEN IF WE secure the border first.



So basically you are all for letting people who've broken the law, get 'legal'.?
WHY THE FUCK EVEN Have laws then?

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DOUCHEBAG!

Are you the village idiot of Douchebagastan?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm hoping he hangs you before me!



The rule of law is very subjective on who interperts those laws.

That is why Clinton should be shot for her over confidence in winning the election and being greedy and thinking she would have a Democrat majority in Congress. She pucked the worst VP in the history of VP's. Trump on the other hand made a great choice. I think Pence a phoney but he was a grwat middle of the road pick for folks that do not pay that much attention to policy.

Pence? MIddle of the road?

Nawww. He's a fucking loony tune, too. But potentially more dangerous than Twitler, because he actually believes the shit he claims to stand for. Twatler doesn't give a fuck about anything but himself and his ratings.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Twatler doesn't give a fuck about anything but himself and his ratings.

+1

[dilbert firestorm]

DACA is obama's attempt at codifying the anchor baby system. And it seems stupid Paul Ryan is taking ownership of it in creating legislation.

so, no I don't favor giving any sort of "legal" rights for them to stay here.

we are not responsible for their care, nor are they are under our jurisdiction.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Pence? MIddle of the road?

Nawww. He's a fucking loony tune, too. But potentially more dangerous than Twitler, because he actually believes the shit he claims to stand for. Twatler doesn't give a fuck about anything but himself and his ratings.

I agree....but I was talking about the more moderate voters of Nov 2016 who did not know any better. Pence looked better than Kaine TO THEM.

Clinton should have picked Sanders as her running mate. The main goal was to pick SC Justices.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

DACA is obama's attempt at codifying the anchor baby system. And it seems stupid Paul Ryan is taking ownership of it in creating legislation.

so, no I don't favor giving any sort of "legal" rights for them to stay here.

we are not responsible for their care, nor are they are under our jurisdiction.

Yes thats the American spirit! Let's even kick out kids.

[bamscram]

Hope dildo is sterile.

[IIFFOFRDB]

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Let's go back to the bank robbery analogy; if a criminal takes a minor to rob a bank, we don't punish the minor unless we think they were old enough to "know better" and they acted of their own accord.

A primary/initial problem (also lost in the uproar over the so-called "Muslim Ban" which it wasn't BTW) is DOCUMENTING the age of the children when they were brought into the country and when they were actually brought into the country.

If anyone has done any "background" checks for persons outside of this country from underdeveloped countries and/or countries in which "papers" are obtained by bribes ... then that person knows the "problems" and "challenges" of verifying anything about that person from their date of birth ... on up!

So how are you going to PROVE a person is 13 as opposed to 17? Furthermore is a person brought into this country 15 years ago when they were 8 years old considered an ...

"anchor BABY"?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by WTF

Clinton should have picked Sanders as her running mate. The main goal was to pick SC Justices.

Agreed. To be fair, Kaine did bring in Virginia. However, since Hilliary lost Ohio and Florida, she had to have Wisc, Penn and Mich. She did not campaign in Wisc at all and very little in Penn and Mich. If they had put Sanders on the ticket they would not have lost some of the Sanders supporters , who were not going to vote for Hilliary. Perfect example that Iowa couple that was interviewed by CNN, they voted for Obama twice, the husband voted for Trump and the wife voted for every democrat except Hillary. She left the president slot blank.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yes thats the American spirit! Let's even kick out kids.

Prime Example of...

http://thedeclination.com/how-to-def...nized-empathy/

Declination


How to Defeat Weaponized Empathy

by Dystopic | Jan 31, 2017 | Culture War | 134 comments


I’ve spoken at great length on the matter of Weaponized Empathy. It is the primary weapon of the modern Left. Indeed, it so completely dominates their tactical thinking that everything else in their arsenal pales in comparison. Defeating this weapon ought to be the foremost on the mind of any opponent of the Progressive Left.

Almost nothing else matters, at this point. Any victory achieved without defeating Weaponized Empathy will be hollow and Pyrrhic. You may succeed in lowering taxes for a time, or passing some military budget items you want. But the Progressive steamroller will go on, slowly, inexorably, swallowing entire civilizations in the old Fabian manner. The war will be lost unless the weapon is destroyed.

What is Weaponized Empathy? It is the deliberate hijacking of your own moral standards, your ability to empathize with your fellow man, in order to force you to serve someone else’s narrative. It is, in essence, a highly sophisticated form of guilt-tripping designed to turn you into a slave.

You might consider it an evolution of the Alinsky tactic of forcing the enemy to live up to their own moral standards. But it goes beyond that. It forces an enemy to embrace your moral standards or suffer tremendous peer pressure and socially-engineered “justice” at the whims of the mob.
Here is a practical example:


No, no… the position of the dead child’s body is all wrong. For maximum propaganda value, it needs to be over there…
The idea, of course, is to manipulate you into supporting certain Progressive policies by showing you the picture of a dead child, carefully positioned to elicit maximum sympathy. It’s like the TV commercials showing starving African children, covered in maggots and flies. I’ve no doubt that the cameraman deliberately engineers the scene for maximum effect.

Donate or else you’re a bad person who hates the starving Africans. Support Syrian refugee resettlement in your country, or else you support dead children.

The tactic is used for everything from welfare policy, to Social Security disbursement, to immigration and even climate change. Support climate change legislation, or else you want the poor residents of some tropical island to drown. Support Black Lives Matter or else you’re a racist who hates black people.
Meanwhile, of course, they’ll show pictures designed to elicit maximum sympathy for one person, and maximize anger toward another. We all remember this case:


Make sure to pick the picture of Trayvon as a child, not a teenager flicking off the camera, for maximum narrative spin.
And so those who most easily succumb to peer pressure are quickly convinced to become rabid Progressives, because it’s intellectually easier to say “oh, I’m helping” regardless of whether or not you’re actually doing anything constructive. It’s easier to be seen supporting the poor, innocent child over the mean-looking white guy. It takes no particular courage to take the position the media talking heads tell you to, for if anything goes wrong with the narrative, you can always say “well, I was just trying to help.”

Weaponized Empathy is everywhere. Healthcare policy is not judged on how efficient it is, or the quality of care provided, or even the cost of that care. It is judged solely on how it helps the poor. If it cost a million dollars per person, per year, but the poor didn’t have to pay the bill, Progressives would deem it great success. Non-Progressives would be pointing out that it’s expensive, the quality of the product was poor, and it was bankrupting the country. The response from the Progressives would be simple. They would pull out a picture of a child on Obamacare, or whatever government program they were promoting.
The picture would be carefully staged for maximum empathy. Perhaps the child would be crying, his face down, covered in carefully-enhanced sores. Maybe photoshop in a little blood and grime. Turn down the lighting a little, just so.

Now, if you oppose Obamacare, you want this poor child to die of plague.

Weaponized Empathy isn’t just employed to win easy converts, however. It is also used to mobilize the converted against the unconverted. To use threat of force, of financial ruin, and peer pressure (even within families) to silence the unconverted. To make them afraid to speak. It can even make it permissible to commit violent acts against you.

Everyone has that one relative who guilt trips everyone else in the family. If you don’t do something he wants, you must want him to suffer. A false choice is presented, either obey or you’re a bad person. No other choices are presented.

The key to defeating Weaponized Empathy in yourself is understanding that more choices exist than are presented by the wielder of the weapon. Opposing Obamacare may, for instance, mean you want healthcare to be better for everyone. Saying no to a guilt-tripping relative may be because he is guilt-tripping you, instead of asking for your help with no such strings attached. You may be helping him to become a better person by not allowing him to blatantly manipulate you. Or you could just say “you’re being an asshole.” That can be remarkably effective (and true), also.

But this, of course, does no good on the world stage. The Right-wing has been replying to this weapon with logic and reason for decades, and it never works. The Left almost always succeeds in sculpting the narrative against them. Pictures of poor, bloodied children will circulate on Facebook, and the only alternative to being racist scum is to admit as many people into the country as the Progressive leaders want.

The answer is to call them out on the lies. To rigorously tear apart their stories. When the picture looks staged, it probably is staged. Point out that the folks manipulating the bodies of dead children for political gain are assholes. When there is a shooting, and the media posts a picture of a darling little child to try and steer blame away from the perp, find and post the picture of the fully-grown thug flipping off the camera. Then call the propagandists lying assholes. After all, what kind of dickhead puts a deliberate, calculated political angle on a tragic death?

Forget what they want you to do. It doesn’t matter what they want, if they are being lying assholes. You don’t need to consider the opinions of liars. What does it matter if they want you to bring in 100,000 Syrians? They are dishonest scum, using cynically-manipulated pictures of dead kids to do it. Their opinions can be dismissed without moral reservation because of this. Say so, openly, and without fear.

You have the moral high ground, because you’re not a cynical, lying, asshole.

You may have empathy, and may wish to do right by other folks. That is a fine and good thing. A noble trait. But never allow yourself to be manipulated and deceived into doing a liar’s bidding. That isn’t doing anybody any good, except the liar. And that’s the end of it. Charity is supposed to start with truth, not lies. Repeat it like a mantra, until the Progressives understand that you cannot be guilt-tripped by dishonesty.
It really is that simple.