Jump to content

For those who defend Trump


Ice_nine

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Seven77 said:

 I think that people who voted for Trump "because he is pro-life" should also make sure that other members of the population such as undocumented students and young people who came here as babies are also protected under law...  I would even argue that they have a moral obligation to do so.

Most pro-lifers I know voted AGAINST Hilary and her rabid pro-abortion stance (not so much for Trump because he's "pro-life.")

Trump eased up a bit on his deportation promises.  He wants to work with the population that is here being productive.  He really wants to deport the rapists, thieves, murderers (you know the criminals who have rap sheets and keep finding safety in "sanctuary cities.")

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2016 at 9:59 PM, Peace said:

OK. You want consistency. When President Obama says "I wish I could punch those police officers in the face. In the good old days you would have to carry them out on a stretcher" I will gladly concede you the argument that the statement is likely to motivate people to punch police officers in the face.

Good night.

Lol.  Or as evidence has provided, proof that some criminals and/or agitators will use that as an excuse for false stories such as the Muslim woman who was just arrested for the false report of being attacked by Trump supporters trying to take off her hijab or the black guy in Pennsylvania that trashed his wife's car with Trump graffiti.   

You can't easily ascribe motivation to people's actions.  There is motivation to use others words for ones own reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Seven77 said:

 I think that people who voted for Trump "because he is pro-life" should also make sure that other members of the population such as undocumented students and young people who came here as babies are also protected under law...  I would even argue that they have a moral obligation to do so.

Pro-life means anti-abortion, not enablement of lawbreaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2016 at 10:44 AM, dominicansoul said:

 Hilary and her rabid pro-abortion stance

<3 the irony of her rabid pro-abortion stance that bit her on the backside

14925277_1207078616019319_80824370866261

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/16/2016 at 1:26 AM, Norseman82 said:

Pro-life means anti-abortion, not enablement of lawbreaking.

Oh silly me. I thought prolife meant the right to life for all, particularly for marginalized people. 

That would be dumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Oh silly me. I thought prolife meant the right to life for all, particularly for marginalized people.

That would be dumb

That sounds nice "on paper", but when one starts watering down the pro-life movement by adding other causes to the original abortion/infanticide/euthanasia issues, efforts fighting those original issues can get sidetracked.  I know in the 1980s it was a gamble taken to get liberals on board the pro-life movement, and I don't know how much it succeeded, but I personally think science showing the humanity of the unborn as well as showing how illogical it is to prosecute someone for killing a child in someone else's womb as part of a crime but allowing the mother to legally abort also contributed greatly to turning many people's hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2016 at 9:12 AM, Anomaly said:

How about fixing immigration laws  and procedures so people can come here legally and safely, with some sort of background check, so they can be  legally, and warmly welcomed into our society?  Also, how about enabling and supporting these people so they can fix the problems in their own communities so they don't have to abandon family, friends, and communities?  It's not a simple problem or solution. 

 

Why not both? I'm not opposed to sensible restrictions on immigration and border control. Why are conservatives so hung up on penalizing immigrants? 

It seems to me that treating those who are here humanely ought to be a higher priority than enforcing our broken immigration code. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2016 at 9:52 AM, Ice_nine said:

Oh silly me. I thought prolife meant the right to life for all, particularly for marginalized people. 

That would be dumb

Last I checked, it's against the law to kill illegal immigrants - unlike unborn babies, whom our highest court declares it a "right" to kill anytime, for any reason.

The right to life does not mean rewarding persons who knowingly and willfully broke the law with the full benefits of citizenship, anymore than it requires treating whoever breaks into your home at night as a member of your household.

On 12/27/2016 at 10:28 AM, Amppax said:

Why not both? I'm not opposed to sensible restrictions on immigration and border control. Why are conservatives so hung up on penalizing immigrants? 

It seems to me that treating those who are here humanely ought to be a higher priority than enforcing our broken immigration code. 

Seems to me it's liberals, not conservatives, who are hung up on "penalizing immigrants" (when attacking conservatives who want strong border security and sensible restrictions on immigration).  Part of border control means actually enforcing the laws, rather than coddling law-breakers.  A law that is not enforced is useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

Last I checked, it's against the law to kill illegal immigrants - unlike unborn babies, whom our highest court declares it a "right" to kill anytime, for any reason.

The right to life does not mean rewarding persons who knowingly and willfully broke the law with the full benefits of citizenship, anymore than it requires treating whoever breaks into your home at night as a member of your household.

Seems to me it's liberals, not conservatives, who are hung up on "penalizing immigrants" (when attacking conservatives who want strong border security and sensible restrictions on immigration).  Part of border control means actually enforcing the laws, rather than coddling law-breakers.  A law that is not enforced is useless.

but the question should also be asked is, is the law just and moral.  if not we have a duty to not follow or enforce the law.  wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2016 at 11:46 PM, havok579257 said:

but the question should also be asked is, is the law just and moral.  if not we have a duty to not follow or enforce the law.  wouldn't you agree?

I haven't seen any credible evidence that America's immigration laws are inherently unjust or immoral.  The reality is that they are among the most lax and lenient in the civilized world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I haven't seen any credible evidence that America's immigration laws are inherently unjust or immoral.  The reality is that they are among the most lax and lenient in the civilized world.

i would argue they are unjust and here is why.  If someone tries to legally get into the united states and are denied legal status they have no one to turn to.  They have no one to represent them if they feel they were unjustly denied.  You as an american citizen, if you feel you have been denied one of your rights or felt like a government offical was wrong in denying your claim, you can turn to many elected officals to plead your case.  You have avenues avaliable to plead you case.  An immigrant who is denied legal status has no such person.  Even if they are denied for some unjust reason.  Let's just say one of the people working on their case is having a bad day, just found out their spouse cheated on them, are doing things just to be evil and mess with people, no matter the reason, if an immigrant is denied legal status that is it.  They can not plead their case to anyone because no one represents them.

 

This is why the immigration law is unjust.  Immigrants have no recourse if they are unfairly denied legal status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

i would argue they are unjust and here is why.  If someone tries to legally get into the united states and are denied legal status they have no one to turn to.  They have no one to represent them if they feel they were unjustly denied.  You as an american citizen, if you feel you have been denied one of your rights or felt like a government offical was wrong in denying your claim, you can turn to many elected officals to plead your case.  You have avenues avaliable to plead you case.  An immigrant who is denied legal status has no such person.  Even if they are denied for some unjust reason.  Let's just say one of the people working on their case is having a bad day, just found out their spouse cheated on them, are doing things just to be evil and mess with people, no matter the reason, if an immigrant is denied legal status that is it.  They can not plead their case to anyone because no one represents them.

 

This is why the immigration law is unjust.  Immigrants have no recourse if they are unfairly denied legal status.

You fail to understand, though, that no right to immigrate to the United States exists according to US law. Residency and naturalization are privileges, not rights. Someone not getting a privilege which they want but to which they are not entitled is not a case of injustice.

On 11/22/2016 at 1:23 AM, KnightofChrist said:

My thoughts on it are this neo-nazi group loves the free commercial Atlantic has written about them, now they have that free commercial here. Your question is accusatory and full of bs. I believe your doing exactly as Atlantic intended which was to go out and judge or accuse Trump supporters. No Trump defender here supports neo-nazis groups. But no Trump defender should have to answer your accusatory judgemental question. Ask the neo-nazi defenders on Phatmass instead. And the election is over can election threads be over too, please?

"I believe your doing exactly as Atlantic intended which was to go out and judge or accuse Trump supporters." And to give a nobody like Richard Spencer a bully pulpit. No one would take people like him or David Duke or Fred Phelps seriously if Big Media didn't give them this publicity.

But, hey, it keeps money coming into the ADL and SPLC and groups like that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2016 at 3:40 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

Does anyone have handy an article or source that has a more or less comprehensive index of reasons for considering Steve Bannon to be a racist? My very short search did not turn up anything solid, and I do not have time to dig in more depth.

The best statement of Bannon's principles I've found, interestingly enough, comes from some remarks he made at the Vatican: https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.lgXOAZMey#.qngGNAKMJ

Reading this, I can now see why so many are smearing him. The man thinks like a Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...