The Left’s Assault on the Constitution

delete

 

Did it ever occur to your comments OFTEN lack the depth and nuance required for a subject to be adequately addressed?

If you don't like MY words, take your whine somewhere else.

 

Biden is dealing with a surge of unaccompanied minors fleeing desperation, trying to place them with vetted sponsors, while Trump deliberately tore children from their parents as a punitive deterrent, leaving some separated permanently due to incompetence and malice. You trot out “300,000 lost kids” as if Biden threw them to the wolves, but they were placed with family members or sponsor--hardly comparable to Trump’s state-sponsored child abuse. You demand proof of one 3 year old child not reunited? Look up the hundreds of families still separated due to Trump’s reckless policies. You want facts? Here’s one: Trump caused deliberate harm, and Biden’s administration is dealing with the aftermath of a broken system.

So yeah, is this moral high ground? That's the inadvertent and inescapable result of being exactly where the truth stands.

But, your reply requires a deeper dive, so.,,,,.,,

... you think that by throwing around “300,000 lost kids” like it’s some kind of smoking gun, you can sweep Trump’s documented cruelty under the rug? Let’s cut through this fog you’re so desperate to spread and deal with some facts.

First, no one’s ignoring the logistical problems of handling unaccompanied minors under Biden’s administration. Yes, the system is overburdened, and yes, there are challenges in tracking every single child. But this isn’t some deliberate conspiracy to abandon them. These kids aren’t “lost.” They’re placed with sponsors--usually family members--and the difficulty in tracking is because these sponsors themselves are often undocumented or transient. That’s a challenge for any administration, and one that Trump had to--you just conveniently don’t mention that.

Second, you keep waving around the “open borders” myth. The border isn’t open, and Biden has faced record numbers of deportations and removals, while trying to repair an asylum system that Trump shredded to pieces. This idea that Biden is just letting everyone in unchecked? It’s a li---I mean it's an 'untruth' (mods don't like the L word) , and you know it.

Now, let’s talk about this 300,000 number. This isn’t a situation where Biden “invited” unaccompanied minors with no plan. These children are coming from violent, dangerous regions because their home countries are unlivable, and yes, it’s a humanitarian crisis. But unlike Trump, Biden isn’t intentionally tearing these kids from their parents. He’s dealing with a crisis where children arrive without guardians, and his administration is working to place them in safe environments. The issue isn’t “letting them loose”; it’s about strained resources and backlogs--something Trump created, and now Biden has to handle.

You keep demanding proof of the “one 3-year-old torn from her mother’s arms.” How about the hundreds of families still separated as of 2023 because Trump’s administration never kept proper records to reunite them. There are still families torn apart by Trump’s zero-tolerance policy, and some children may never be reunited. But you’re out here claiming that all those separations were voluntary? Are you serious?

Let’s address your nonsense about the Flores. Trump tried to overturn Flores so that children could be held indefinitely in detention with their families--just another inhumane extension of his zero-tolerance policy. Flores exists to protect children from long-term detention, and Biden hasn’t gutted it; in fact, his administration is bound by it as much as Trump’s was.

Your claim that Biden wanted to "get rid of Flores" is a distortion. He’s dealing with the constraints of a flawed immigration system that Trump left behind, but he hasn’t attempted to dismantle the protections the Flores Agreement guarantees.

And this last bit--about the “freedom flights” and fraud--is just noise. What’s your point? Yes, any mass operation involving migration is susceptible to errors and fraud, but that doesn’t remotely compare to Trump’s policy of cruelty, which was designed to be punitive.

Your attempt to equate 300,000 unaccompanied minors, many of whom were placed with family members, with Trump’s deliberate act of family separation is beyond disingenuous. And calling Biden’s handling of this crisis “incompetence” is rich when Trump’s cruel and calculated policy created long-term trauma and chaos. You can keep pretending it’s about numbers, but the real difference here is simple: Biden is trying to solve a problem; Trump was the problem. So yeah, I’m staying on that moral high ground, because facts still matter.

 

Your claim that the Biden administration has failed to properly vet and identify 300,000 unaccompanied children, resulting in their being "unaccounted for," is a gross misrepresentation of the situation.

The fact is that unaccompanied minors crossing the border are placed with sponsors, usually family members already in the U.S. The issue arises with tracking those children after they’re placed, which can be difficult due to the transient or undocumented status of many sponsors. The system is overwhelmed (noting that the Lankford Senate Bill added considerable resources to address the overwhelm, but Trump directed Speaker Johnson to shelve the bill so that Trump could make immigration a campaign issue), but these children are not simply “unvetted” or “lost.” Sponsors go through vetting processes, and children are placed under the supervision of HHS. However, follow-up tracking, especially with limited resources, has proven challenging.

The claim of “300,000 unaccounted for” is misleading because it conflates a monitoring issue with a failure in vetting. Most of these children are with family members or approved sponsors, and while some cases have raised concerns about proper oversight, this is not evidence of a deliberate failure to vet.

The Biden administration inherited a deeply flawed and overwhelmed system, and although it’s far from perfect, the suggestion that it’s simply letting children disappear without care or vetting is an exaggerated narrative designed to score cheap political points

 

LOL-does it occur to you that you are invariably wrong on most of the issues you debate me on. BTW have ever told us your educational background.

 

right back at you-your posts are the epitome of quantity being substituted for quality.

 

So you refuse to actually understand what the Flores Agreement does. Is that because it doesn't fit your agenda? Or do you simply refuse to acknowledge that the brandon administration losing track of 300,000 migrant children is far more egregious and criminal than trump's record with 1,500 kids, not a single one of which you can actually point to?
Fine.

You still need to come (carefully) down off of your high moral ground before you fall and hurt yourself.
Trump wanted to keep families together, Flores required that when parents are arrested, any children cannot be detained any longer than it takes to put them in "the least restrictive setting". Trump wanted more flexibility. Judge Gee refused to give the administration flexibility so Trump did what Flores required. He separated the children and parents.
Trump followed Flores.
Trump followed the law.
Unlike brandon is right now, today, doing.

Still waiting for you to show us a child, any child, separated from their family by the Trump administration who are still separated against their will.
Just one will do.
You keep yammering about 1,500 of them, so point us to one case.
Just one.

The brandon administration is most assuredly violating Flores.
Every single day.
Brandon's own government says so.
Management Alert- ICE Cannot Monitor All Unaccompanied Migrant Children Released from DHS and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Custody

"Conclusion​

Based on our audit work and according to ICE officials, UCs who did not appear in immigration court are considered more at risk for trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor. Immigration court hearings are often ICE’s only opportunity to observe and screen UCs for trafficking indicators or other safety concerns. By not issuing NTAs to all UCs, ICE limits its chances of having contact with UCs when they are released from HHS’ custody, which reduces opportunities to verify their safety. Similarly, when ICE does not share information with HHS regarding UCs who did not appear for hearings, HHS personnel are unable to determine if UCs need wellness checks or post release services for individuals at an increased risk of being trafficked. Without an ability to monitor the location and status of UCs, ICE has no assurance UCs are safe from trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor."
​

And so do the migrant advocates who fully support Brandon's open borders policy
Advocates Say Biden Administration Is Violating Pact On Detaining Migrant Children Tent City Flores – Discover Reliable Document Resources for Optimizing Efficiency Across All Professional Fields servonotalalmodel (wordpress.com)

Really. Come down from there before you hurt yourself.

 

How quaint. Well, you'll never know, will you. The only guy in the room with body odor is the only guy who can't smell it.

Nor will I.

Why?

Because, on an anonymous debate forum, appealing to one's credentials is posturing, falling under the 'appeals authority' logical fallacy and that on such forums, all that matters is the argument.

All that matters is the argument, the words in front of you. And, it also doesn't matter who is writing them.

Either you can provide a substantive counter rebuttal, or you can't.

Why? Because all that matters is the argument. We are anonymous, so matters of authorship and credentials are irrelevant. How can it be of any value at all? We are ANONYMOUS. In a court of law it might mean something, but not on an anonymous debate forum


Why do you not understand this?

 

The constitution wasn't written by Taylor Swift:

 

No, you make the tragic mistake of assuming quality must be terse. History defies that contention.

If that were true, then chuck all books, essays, documents, the BIBLE, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution,, the Federalist Papers, etc., etc., etc., given that all of them are beyond your content requirements.

They are long because the subjects they address require it.

My comments often are as long as in depth as the subject requires.

I sure as hell am not writing to please you. I do note that you are among the very few that complain.

If you can't handle the length of my comments, ignore them.

Pester someone else, please.

 

“I want to get a law passed,” Trump said to the crowd at his campaign event, referencing recent protests in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. “You burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year. We gotta do it.”

Are people cool with Trump’s proposal to limit free speech?

 

Oh, the Flores Agreement. You keep waving it like it’s your golden ticket to defend Trump’s family separation policy, while completely glossing over its real intent—to protect children from prolonged detention. Trump didn’t “follow the law” in some noble act of compliance. He weaponized it to pursue a draconian zero-tolerance policy that needlessly separated families en masse. Don’t pretend like this was some unavoidable legal obligation. The Trump administration chose cruelty as a deterrent strategy.

Now, on to your claim that Biden “lost” 300,000 kid--where’s your proof for that? Because what you’re really citing is a bureaucratic challenge in tracking unaccompanied minor--kids that arrived alone, not those ripped from their parents. Let’s not confuse incompetence with intentional harm, like Trump's policy of separation without a plan for reunification. And you want me to find you a kid? How about thousands of traumatized families who had to sue to be reunited after Trump’s abomination of a policy? The long-lasting damage? That’s not on Bide--it’s on your boy Trump.

But, sure, keep hammering away at Biden over bureaucratic missteps, all while conveniently forgetting the systemic cruelty Trump institutionalized. And as for the claim that Trump wanted to keep families together? Please. His administration had zero plan for reunifying families because family separation wasn’t some accidental consequence--it was the damn point.

So before you start lecturing about "moral high ground," maybe take a look down at the rubble left by the administration you so valiantly defend.

 

Oh I know the answer.

 

I love watching your opinions on the second amendment get squashed.

BTW have you ever told us why you are such a hard core Harris supporter that doesn't have something to do with Trump?

 

Excuse me, apparently you have confused me with a fish.

Sorry, bait I do not bite.

Try another pond, one with minnows, their schools are easy for such sophomoric and novice angling.

 

You mean the one where I'm quite sure you would dodge my point: 'Rocket launchers don’t kill people, people kill people'? Yeah, let’s arm every citizen with portable missile systems and see if that strengthens your argument

Or was it where you no doubt would squirm past: 'If more guns made us safer, America would be the safest country in the world. Instead, we’re leading in the western developed nations in deaths by gun violence.' Facts don’t lie, even if you try to.

Or better yet, where you would likely fail to counter this gem: 'For over 200 years, the Founders’ intent on military vs. private citizen rights wasn’t 'settled' until Heller in 2008 by a narrow, party-line 5/4 vote. Weakest precedent imaginable.' Funny how you wave the Second Amendment flag but can’t defend a ruling that’s barely holding its ground.

No. But you've confessed that the reason you are voting for Trump is that he won't take away your guns.

Well, that's poor logic since Harris and Walz are both gun owners, would shoot intruders to their homes, and they aren't going to take away your guns.

And since that counter argument undermines the reason you are voting for Trump, then why would you vote for Trump

You know, the guy that did all these things?

NOTE:

1. Each item is fact, evidence on request.
2. Facts are not 'spam' (and no crap about AI, please, it's just a tool for fact gathering).
3. You can't rebut any of the items in this entire post.

You can try, however.

 

what does this have to do with your inept misconstruction of the second amendment? and why has violent crime gone down despite 200 million more firearms in circulation?

you do understand (I am being very charitable) that the interpretation of the second amendment is not influenced at all by your specious claims about how unsafe America is and your failure to include countries that have strict gun bans and far higher rates of murder with firearms.

BTW Have you ever had the temerity to tell us what arms you think are actually protected by the second, or do you harbor the completely discredited position that the second is not a prohibition on the government banning private citizens from owning any firearm

 

Biden has lost track of around a 100,000 children or more. Likely many have been sold into slavery or worse.

 

What are you talking about?

I responded to this, by you:

I love watching your opinions on the second amendment get squashed.

You mentioned NOTHING about 'misconstructions of the second amendment', you commented on my 'opinions', a vague non specific reference.

You statement doesn't refer to any aspect of the second amendment in any specific way, while you insinuated that any opinion I offered got squashed, whereupon I wrote three of my typical comments on the second amendment, or second amendment related comments, (since you didn't specify the exact subject matter), comments which I'm quite certain you can't 'squash'.

So, squash away, which I doubt you can.

Moreover, if you can't distinguish between 'inept' and 'disagree', then the only inept construction in this equation is the one you are offering.

As for my alleged 'misconstructed opinion', quite a number of Supreme Court justices would agree with me that Scalia's ruling on Heller was wrong, such notables as Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and for those who aren't alive, justices Warren Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Byron White, based on their past rulings, are quite likely to have sided with me against Scalia on Heller.

Unless you are claiming these esteemed justices are inept, perhaps you might want to take that insult back. Or, at the minimum, explain to me what I've written that leads you to that dubious (inept) conclusion.

No doubt for the calming effect of having a normal president compared to an incendiary, ignoramus, chaos merchant Trump, they have dipped some, but still, compared to other western developed countries, America leads.

I repeat, compared to other western developed nations (high on the socio-demographic index), America leads. That claim is not specious, facts are not specious. Your opinion, perhaps, but not facts. Given that FACT, claiming America is not safe is a fair conclusion. Oh, it could be debated, not all regions, cities, neighborhoods, are unsafe, but a disproportionate number of them are or must be, given the statistic.

https://www.thetrace.org/2021/10/why-more-shootings-in-america-gun-violence-data-research/
...was at the top of the list for countries with high Socio-demographic Index (SDI) scores, a summary measure of a country’s health outcomes.

Well, comparing America's gun violence to third-world nations is not just misleading, it's a deflection. You’re comparing a developed, wealthy democracy to countries plagued by war, poverty, and political collapse. The U.S. should be compared to its peers -- places like Japan or the UK, where gun deaths are drastically lower thanks to sensible laws. By shifting focus to war-torn regions, you're avoiding the real issue: America has a gun violence problem that other developed nations have managed to control.

Temerity isn't required, logic, facts, reason, are required.

I'm not a lawmaker, not an expert on firearms, and it's not really important, nor relevant, what I think about 'which guns will satisfy the second amendment', that's for hearings, input and testimony from experts, and lawmakers to decide.

There are many things not embedded as a right in the constitution that are not banned, though regulated, and thus there is absolutely no reason to conclude that a repeal of the second amendment would lead to total gun bans. America has too strong of a history with gun ownership, hunting traditions, etc., that no law maker in his or her right mind would propose a law banning all guns, (or any gun practical for hunting and self defense) and to suggest that a repeal for the second amendment is a slippery slope that would eventually lead a total gun ban is ludicrous.

But, given that AMerica leads all western developed nations, to assert the making gun ownership a right, as has been laid down by a recent court ruling in Heller, has not served America well, is a fair conclusion.

So, the argument that gun ownership as an unconditional right has not served America well stems from the difficulty in balancing public safety and gun regulation. When gun ownership is treated as an absolute right under the Second Amendment, it can undermine efforts to impose reasonable restrictions that might mitigate gun violence. For example, in countries like Japan or Australia, gun ownership is viewed as a privilege regulated through rigorous screening and licensing processes, which has contributed to significantly lower rates of gun violence compared to the U.S. The fact that gun violence in America remains alarmingly -- both in terms of homicide and suicide -- suggests that treating gun ownership ad a right has made it difficult to implement effective public safety measures.

The big reason I support a repeal of the second amendment, is not to ban all guns, but to give states the right to regulate guns as they see fit (without interference from gun happy persons), same for municipalities and to recategorize gun ownership as a privilege, which is what it should be (where health care should be a right). Yes, there is historical nuance that doesn't always align perfectly with this statement, but, in general, the sentiment is fair: For over two centuries, nobody gave a rat's ass if some city disallowed guns within it's border, but, all the sudden, with the advent of the gun worshipping right wingers, the transformation of the NRA from a gentleman's rifle sportsman's club to that of right wing extremists, all of the sudden, it's an issue.

 

They don’t. It’s just more maga brain farts. The only one wanting to overturn our democracy is trump.

 

And here’s another example of maga’s respect for the rule of law-

https://dnyuz.com/2024/09/30/an-ohi...ath-threats-for-praising-his-haitian-workers/

 

Springfield OH is a hotbed of illegal Haitian workers. If he is hiring only legal Hattians, that is fine. If he isn't, he is open for criticism.

A few Magas are not representative of all MAGAs.

 

rather than repost your entire wall of noise-most of which had little to do with the post of mine that you failed to respond to, it is obvious you want states to be able to ban any and all guns. but at least you admit that is what you want and given your obvious hatred of gun ownership, you also know-though you won't admit it-if the second is banned, than your beloved democrats could ban all guns federally,--an action we both know you want. For 150 years, democrats didnt' try to rape the second and tenth amendments but when they did the NRA had to start mobilizing against a party that wants criminals to have safe working conditions and Karens on steroids to be able to squash freedom without running into any armed resistance

 

What is beyond obvious is your failure to note that I responded to EVERY POINT you made in your inept comment.

Apparently you forget the thread i started a few years back on my favoring a repeal of the second amendment, and replaced with an amendment that DISALLOWS states to 'ban all guns', (except for small municipalities smaller than a certain threshold) and it states the minimum citizens must be allowed to own for hunting and self defense (which, via studies, hearings, testimonies from all sides, would be determined). I thought my position was clear. I mean, given your incessant obsession with the second amendment, if anyone would have made note of the thread where I stated what the proposed amendment would be, I should think it would have been you. Perhaps I should have restated it, but I sure as hell did not state 'states allowed to ban all guns', which you manufactured out of your furtive imagination.

That's false, and you really need to quit making **** up. I have CONTEMPT for the American gun culture that has caused America to be the world's leader among the western developed nations, which, given this fact, is fair, reasonable, and just. And note, here I'm defining 'contempt' as unemotional but vehement opposition based on facts which warrant it.

Here’s the reality that you seem determined to ignore. Roughly, based on Pew Research, 20-25% of Democrats own guns, and another 16-18% enjoy shooting as a sport, with about 10-12% going hunting. These aren't just your stereotypical rural Republican--these are liberals, progressives, people you love to demonize, who also happen to own firearms.

But you, in your infinite wisdom, want to claim that if Democrats control the House, Senate, and the presidency, they'll ban all guns? Please. You cannot produce one shred of evidence for that laughable claim, which you've conveniently pulled straight out of your gluteus maximus, not to mention it defies credulity given those facts. The facts? They tell a different story--a story where responsible gun ownership isn’t the partisan issue you desperately want it to be.

My gawd, your distorting facts to forward a right wing agenda which is, on the whole, bizarre and incompatible with reality -- and that Democrats somehow want "criminals to have safe working conditions." That’s not even dog-whistle politic--that's just nonsense on steroids. You cannot produce one scrap of evidence that Democrats want to protect criminals or weaken laws that defend law-abiding citizens.

And your bit about “Karens on steroids”? That’s rich coming from the side that whines about cancel culture, wants privatization of social security, medicare and all health care, hates immigrants, the side that incessantly ignores the fact that they, via their support of Trump, contribute to the labor shortage with their cruel and inhumane immigration policies, they are the side who enacts legislation in red states that makes it more difficult to vote in an attempt to shrink the voter base because they perceive the only way they can win is if fewer people vote (since they can't rely on democracy, the resort to other means to cling to power -- gerry mandering, ballot box reduction in poor neighborhoods, arbitrary and unnecessary regulations for ballot qualifying, wanting to hand count en masse, disallow machine counting altogether [at least in GA, noting that this is more unreliable that machine counting, and delays the process] caging the vote/egregious voter registration roll reductions, etc.), enact abortion bans which increase death and injury to women, and then turns around to champion the most criminal, despicable human being for president in history who is categorically unfit for the office.

All of these facts, which you choose to ignore, and base your reason for voting for Trump on your imaginary and false notion that 'democrats will ban all guns federally' for which you have no evidence?

The facts are simple: Democrats, liberals, progressives—they are gun owners too. They believe in responsible gun ownership, unlike your caricature of reality. So no, there’s no conspiracy to disarm the country and squash freedom. That's another paranoid fantasy you've concocted to justify a world where the NRA has to mobilize against its own shadow.

 

See previous post (#324) I forgot to mention that my proposed amendment in the thread on the subject I started a couple of years ago, stated that municipalities would not be allowed to ban rifles, which would be defined, and aligned with hunting and self defense. The point being, there will be no 'banning all guns' anywhere.