ChrisWeigant.com

We Really Need A Right-To-Vote Constitutional Amendment

[ Posted Tuesday, June 25th, 2019 – 17:18 UTC ]

Today, Elizabeth Warren announced her prescription for fixing American elections. Like other Democratic presidential candidates' plans, it would usher in sweeping changes to the way Americans vote and the way their elections are administered, by essentially nationalizing the elections process. But, as with many other such plans, even this doesn't really go far enough. Because what is truly needed is a new constitutional amendment that overhauls our wildly out-of-date elections system from top to bottom.

Democrats as a whole are simply too timid when it comes to championing the concept of making voting easier and better for all concerned. In some ways, they don't fully realize the power or symbology of voting. Republicans have not been shy about their own efforts to change the way America votes, but virtually all of their efforts are aimed at making it harder and more complicated to cast a ballot. Democrats should be pushing back on this multi-decade effort a lot harder than they have so far.

If there's one concept Americans revere, it is fairness. So why haven't Democrats made a much bigger stink at the unfairness of the way many states conduct their elections? Each election cycle, a few of the worst abuses are highlighted, but then the subject quickly fades into the background. Democrats don't have the stamina to keep the pressure on Republicans over vastly unfair election practices. "Why are the long lines for voters always in poor districts?" Democrats should ask them. "Why is it that the wealthier you are, the easier these states make the voting process?" These problems arise each and every election, and while a few videos on the news showing incredibly long lines in some inner-city precinct usually make the news, the underlying unfairness of the system is rarely even discussed beyond the week following each election.

Astonishingly, there are still states which use voting machines with absolutely no paper trail. Recounting votes from these machines is not possible, because there are no physical votes to recount. "The machine says the vote was 11,295 to 14,560, so I guess that's the total, since we can't count paper ballots that don't exist" is the extent of a "recount" of such systems. This is ridiculous in the twenty-first century.

Beyond the problems at the precinct level, America still has gross inequities built into our election system that should be crying out for reform. The Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling on political gerrymandering, and nobody knows how they're going to rule on the issue (they've done nothing but punt on it, in the past). There is a growing trend among the states to replace politicians with nonpartisan redistricting commissions to get rid of the gerrymandering problem, but so far only a handful of states have done so.

Some states have also taken the lead in making the act of voting as easy as possible. Oregon votes by mail in every election -- every single Oregon voter is what other states would call an "absentee voter," and there are no actual polls set up on Election Day. All registered voters get a ballot in the mail, and they can then vote whenever it is most convenient for them. When done, they can either drop their ballot in the mail or physically turn it in on Election Day to what used to be the polling places (which are now just "voter drop-off" ballot-collection sites). As a direct result, Oregon leads the nation in actual voter participation. It's a pretty easy concept -- make voting easier, and more people will vote. As an added bonus, it is also much cheaper for the state to run than the old method. That's a political trifecta -- easier, better, and cheaper.

Other states have tried to make voting easier by instituting "early voting," where polls open in the weeks before Election Day. This is designed to fix a problem that could be more fundamentally fixed -- the fact that we vote on Tuesdays. Most other Western democracies vote on the weekend, when far more people have free time to cast their ballots. So extending voting days to the weeks (and, importantly, weekends) before Election Day does make things easier for many, but moving Election Day to the weekend would be a much more comprehensive fix to the problem. Or, as Elizabeth Warren (and others) want to do, make Election Day a national holiday, so more people would get the day off work and thus have the free time to go vote.

This isn't the only change Warren proposes. From an article on her new plan:

"Voting should be easy. But instead, many states make it hard for people to vote," [Senator Elizabeth] Warren wrote in a Medium post outlining her new policy. "...Our elections should be as secure as Fort Knox. But instead, they're less secure than your Amazon account."

Warren proposes buying new voting machines for all of the roughly 8,000 election jurisdictions in the country, mandating automatic and same-day voter registration and giving all voters access to 15 days of early voting and voting by mail.

Her plan would also bar purges of voter lists, with exceptions for "death, change of address, or loss of eligibility to vote." And it would provide financial incentives for states to adopt the new federal standards for local elections.

. . .

Warren estimates that her proposal would cost $15 billion for new voter equipment and about $5 billion for election security. She would pay for the plan via her proposed wealth tax on the very rich, a revenue source she wants to tap for other policy plans as well.

The election plan would also address the gerrymandering of congressional districts by requiring the creation of independent commissions in each state to draw electoral maps.

The plan could face legal challenges from those who argue that under the Constitution, states have the right to administer voting within their borders as they see fit.

Her full argument in that Medium post is well worth reading, as she makes a very compelling case for most of what she is proposing. And she even pre-emptively tackles the legal problems such a plan would doubtlessly face:

Under our Constitution, Congress can regulate the "Times, Places, and Manner," of federal elections. This power is so broad that even Justice Scalia believed this provision gives Congress "authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections." Congress also has the power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments to prevent voting discrimination, and the power of the purse to grant money to the states to meet federal standards. It's time to draw on these constitutional powers to strengthen our democracy.

But there's no guarantee that a majority of the current Supreme Court would agree, of course. Which is why they need to be taken out of the equation entirely. The only real comprehensive solution to the problem is to amend the Constitution itself.

This isn't as far-fetched as it might seem. Since the Bill of Rights passed, roughly half of the amendments ratified deal with the right to vote or elections in some way -- far more than any other subject. Passing Warren's plan would require a gigantic fight in Congress, so why not have that fight over a new amendment -- either instead of Warren's legislative proposal or in addition to it?

States with Democratic legislatures and governors would probably ratify such an amendment quickly, if it were to pass Congress. Unfortunately, this wouldn't be enough, since the Constitution mandates three-fourths of all the states do so to adopt any amendment. But if treated correctly, Democrats could make this a rallying cry even in the reddest states and turn it into a huge political liability for the Republican Party. If carefully written to address any arguments Republicans might make, such an amendment would be seen as nothing short of ensuring the fairness of American elections -- and that's a pretty tough political stance to be against, when you think about it. Who could be for making voting harder and less fair for all?

This process would probably be a long one, stretching even beyond a two-term Democrat who won the presidency in 2020. But amendments are always a heavy lift, and that shouldn't be a reason not to make the attempt.

Warren even admits this, in her post, while arguing that pushing for such an amendment should not preclude us from acting legislatively as soon as possible:

We need a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to vote. But the moral necessity of this amendment shouldn't stop us from acting now. The federal government already has the power to regulate federal elections, secure our democracy, and put a stop to racist voter suppression.

If handled correctly, guaranteeing the right to vote -- and the fairness of elections, and the ease of voting -- could be a wildly popular concept. Warren's plan and all the others like it are a big step in that direction, as was the House of Representatives' first bill out of the gate this year ("H.R. 1"). But such an effort requires a sustained push from the entire Democratic Party, one that doesn't fade into the background after each election.

The best way to make the biggest political splash would be to unify behind an amendment to achieve cementing the right to vote in the Constitution itself. Nancy Pelosi's House should take the lead on drafting the language for such an amendment, even if it would never pass the current Senate. Doing so would allow current Democratic Senate candidates to campaign on the issue in a much bigger way, to say nothing of the presidential field.

Warren, and many of her presidential competitors, are making a basic argument in this election cycle: the time for small ideas is over -- we have to get behind big ideas instead. While her election reform idea is certainly a big one, an even bigger one would be to draft an actual constitutional amendment and begin to rally the party behind it. Because that's really the only way to forever end all the Republican attempts to make it harder for certain voters to cast their ballots. And with a constitutional amendment, even the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to overturn it.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

119 Comments on “We Really Need A Right-To-Vote Constitutional Amendment”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Agree completely.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    I may add, you raise the point that election problems come up every time, and isn't it funny how they always seem to be problems for Dem voters, never Republicans? But the issues always fade away.

    This is Dem enabling at work. Repubs cheat; Dems know it. Dems complain about it for awhile, then move on. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. We know Repubs won't make elections more fair or secure - Dems talk about it but they MUST follow through. And maybe they finally will, if we get a POTUS who isn't anxious to pretend Blotus or Bush didn't happen, with all the accompanying assaults on our democracy.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Have you seen the picture? You know the picture I'm talking about.

    I hope that looking at this picture will affect you the same way it affects me … I won't sleep well tonight.

    I'm guessing that it might begin to change your mind about thinking that building a wall is the most important thing to do to the exclusion of taking care of kids and their fathers.

    Please don't blame the father.

    If the Dem presidential candidates aren't asked about this horrific humanitarian tragedy at your border, then the devolutionary media has hit rock bottom.

    This is for Michale only - no disrespectful remarks from anyone here, please.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Somali pirates AND the Taliban gave their American prisoners toothpaste and soap.

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i'd like to see a response (either from michale or from president trump himself) that doesn't mention any prior presidents and doesn't blame the parents. but i don't think that's likely.

    JL

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Joshua, this picture may have made a difference in that regard.

    I wonder what Trump will tweet about it. He cared about the possibility of dead Iranians. Maybe the death of these migrant children and their parents will tug enough on his heartstrings, too.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller has yet another good plan.

    Great column, CW. :)

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, for crying out loud!

    I meant to say: Elizabeth Warren has yet another good plan.

    Great column, CW. :)

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    3

    <… no disrespectful remarks from anyone here, please.

    How about some respectful remarks?

    Respect. :)

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, for crying out loud again!

    EM
    3

    … no disrespectful remarks from anyone here, please.

    How about some respectful remarks?

    Respect. :)

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats as a whole are simply too timid when it comes to championing the concept of making voting easier and better for all concerned.

    They are also too timid when it comes to championing the concept of making gun ownership easier and better for all concerned..

    Yunno.. Gun ownership... The OTHER Constitutional right?? :^/

    . So why haven't Democrats made a much bigger stink at the unfairness of the way many states conduct their elections?

    Because Democrat know that they do as bad or even WORSE when it comes to fairness as the GOP.. Encouraging illegal immigrants to vote, for one..

    . "Why are the long lines for voters always in poor districts?

    Why, because that means the poor areas are very heavy into voting.. That's a GOOD thing!! duh.. :D

    "Why is it that the wealthier you are, the easier these states make the voting process?"

    Why is EVERYTHING easier for wealthier people?? Because they are wealthy and can pay for it.. Ya'all want the benefits of being wealthy??? Then get wealthy... Again, a no brainer.. But Democrats want to be wealthy without actually having to do the work... :^/

    Funny... Warren goes on an on about the lack of security of our elections. But then she's AGAINST a picture ID to confirm identity...

    Don't need to be a genius to know where SHE is coming from...

    She wants to make it to it's easier to cheat...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Have you seen the picture? You know the picture I'm talking about.

    You mean the pictures here:

    Conditions On The Streets Of San Francisco Are Comparable To “The Slums Of Mumbai, Delhi, Mexico City, Jarkarta, And Manila”
    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/conditions-on-the-streets-of-san-francisco-are-comparable-to-the-slums-of-mumbai-delhi-mexico-city-jarkarta-and-manila

    Pretty appalling.. But the natural result of Democrat governance..

    If that's not the pictures you mean, by all means.. Link me in..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Somali pirates AND the Taliban gave their American prisoners toothpaste and soap.

    Facts to support???

    Regardless, it's not relevant..

    If the parents of these children wanted them to have toothpaste and soap, they should have gone where they would be LEGALLY welcome..

    Illegal immigrants are NOT WELCOME in this country.. I can't make it any plainer than that..

    If parents don't want their children dying on our Southern Border, then it's up to the PARENTS to not put their kids in that position...

    It's really simple...

    "Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they will get sent back, more importantly, they may not make it."

    The parents are being told AHEAD OF TIME that their kids may die... And yet, the parents bring them anyways..

    How is this anyone else's fault BUT the parents??

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    We know Repubs won't make elections more fair or secure - Dems talk about it but they MUST follow through.

    Secure?? Like a picture ID to ensure the person voting is legally allowed to vote???

    Funny how you Democrats are against that..

    Let's face reality sunshine.. Democrats just want to make it easier for Democrats to cheat...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'd like to see a response (either from michale or from president trump himself) that doesn't mention any prior presidents and doesn't blame the parents. but i don't think that's likely.

    Of course it's not likely.. Because the PARENTS are ultimately the ones to blame..

    "Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they will get sent back, more importantly, they may not make it."

    And yet, parents STILL risk their children's lives...

    It's IMPOSSIBLE to talk solutions if you can't (or in ya'all's case WON'T) identify the primary responsibility..

    I won't even bother to get into how, oft times, it's not even the parent's children.. They are child traffickers...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'd like to see a response (either from michale or from president trump himself) that doesn't mention any prior presidents and doesn't blame the parents. but i don't think that's likely.

    And it's also not possible to NOT blame past Presidents..

    But hay.. I'll give it a shot..

    I'll stop bringing Obama into it if ya'all stop complaining about things President Trump does that Obama ALSO did...

    Deal???

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wonder what Trump will tweet about it. He cared about the possibility of dead Iranians. Maybe the death of these migrant children and their parents will tug enough on his heartstrings, too.

    Of course they tug at heart strings.. But that doesn't change the correctness of the actions..

    It's a bona fide FACT that those kids who had died would still be alive if their parents (or their traffickers) hadn't dragged them and illegally crossed the US border...

    The tragedy that is their deaths is not the fault of ANY country enforcing their border laws..

    The tragedy is that these parents (or traffickers) KNEW that their children could die and yet, they dragged them into the dangerous situation anyways..

    ""Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they will get sent back, more importantly, they may not make it."

    You know who said that???

    Barack Obama....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oregon climate bill dead, top Senate Democrats say
    https://tinyurl.com/y3t7tpm6

    Well played, GOP... Well played indeed...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    A grim border drowning underlines peril facing many migrants
    https://apnews.com/2f8422c820104d6eaad9b73d939063a9

    Is this the picture you are referring to??

    It's sad and it's a tragedy.. No doubt about that..

    Just as it was sad and a tragedy when illegal immigrants died under Obama's watch...

    But tugging emotionally at the heart strings won't change the facts... It's the adult that dragged this little girl into the river and it was the adult's actions that are solely and utterly and completely and unequivocally responsible for their deaths...

    The adult got frustrated by going the legal route and this is the result..

    It IS sad, but Open Borders are not the solution. The solution is what President Trump has proposed.. All immigrants wishing to immigrate to the US must wait in Mexico as their asylum requests are processed..

    If the illegal immigrant criminals followed this, there would be no more tragic deaths..

    I really can't make it any simpler than that..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOOGLE EXECS PANIC! Go Into Hiding – Delete Social Media Accounts After James O’Keefe’s Latest Exposé
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/google-executives-go-into-hiding-and-delete-their-social-media-accounts-after-james-okeefes-latest-expose/

    Apparently, Democrats don't mind meddling in US Presidential elections...

    If said meddling is in the favor of Democrats...

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this... Oh.... wait....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it appears that Democrats will force Mueller to testify...

    This is going to backfire bigtime..

    Mueller subpoena could backfire on Democrats, say political, legal experts

    Key Democrat lawmakers who triumphantly announced that Robert Mueller will testify under subpoena next month about his report on alleged Russian collusion may have played right into Republican hands, several legal and political experts told Fox News.

    With the former special counsel set to testify on July 17 to the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, both controlled by Democrats, President Trump’s most vocal critics hope to have the legendary lawman spell out the commander-in-chief’s misdeeds in sound bites that could fuel an impeachment drive. But given that Mueller ultimately found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and his pledge to not deviate from the 448-page report made public in April, the hearing may backfire.

    "The bottom line is, after all of your looking and all the time you had and all the money you spent, did Trump collude with the Russians? No - Do you stand by your report? - Yes," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity late Monday. "It is 'case-closed' for me. They can do anything they want to in the House, and I think it will blow up in their face.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mueller-subpoena-could-backfire-on-democrats-say-political-legal-experts

    Once again, Dumbocrats stepping on their own wee-wees and dancing to President Trump's tune... :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, I am constrained to point out..

    Democrats denied that there was an emergency at the southern border when President Trump made the declaration..

    "a fake crisis at the border."
    -Nancy Pelosi

    "a crisis that does not exist."
    -Chuck Schumer

    "There is no crisis at the border."
    -House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

    "There is no crisis at the border."
    -House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries

    "a fake crisis at the border."
    -House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Eliot Engel

    "There is no crisis at the border."
    -House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler

    "We don't have a border crisis."
    -Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

    "a phony border crisis."
    -Rep. Lloyd Doggett

    "a fake crisis at the border."
    -Rep. Earl Blumenauer

    "a crisis that does not exist."
    -Rep. Sanford Bishop

    "nonexistent border crisis."
    -Rep Jesus Garcia
    -Rep Jose Serrano
    -Rep Suzanne Bonamici
    -Rep Donald Beyer
    -Pramila Jayapal
    -Adriano Espaillat

    "There is no border crisis."
    -California Attorney General Xavier Becerra

    "an imaginary border crisis."
    -Joe Scarborough, MSNBC

    "There's not a crisis."
    -Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC

    "faux crisis."
    -Max Boot, Washington Post

    "a fake border crisis."
    -Jimmy Kimmel

    ALL these people laughed and ridiculed President Trump when he declared a national emergency???

    https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/e783b41f12694ab691659540a63c223b/800.jpeg

    You want to blame someone BESIDES the parents for that!??

    Blame the total morons and idiots who tried to claim there was no emergency at the southern border..

    Maybe if those TOTAL morons and idiots had agreed that there WAS an emergency and done something about it THEN, that father and that toddler would NOT be face down in the river...

    Looking for someone to blame???

    Try looking at reality and the FACTS for a change...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the interests of fairness, it wasn't only Dumbocrats who are complicit in deaths at the southern border..

    There are still a few Never Trumpers amongst Republicans.

    "a fake crisis."
    -Bill Kristol

    "There is no crisis on the border."
    -GOP strategist Rick Wilson

    "There is no crisis at the border."
    - Charlie Sykes

    So, it's not ALL Dumbocrats...

    ALL who said there wasn't really an emergency, a crisis at the southern border have blood on their hands...

    I am willing to bet that even a few Weigantians attacked President Trump and claimed that there was no emergency, no crisis on the southern border...

    But I don't need to drag them into the light.. I am sure they feel like shit about it already.. Complicit in the deaths of that man and that little girl...

    My point is made..

    President Trump was factually accurate and Dumbocrats, NeverTrumpers and Trump/America haters were wrong..

    AGAIN....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are many MANY other examples of Trump/America haters denying there was an emergency.. A crisis...

    Maybe they were all just stoopid and ignorant.. More likely, they simply wanted to deny President Trump a victory.. Or be seen agreeing with President Trump..

    Whatever the reason, the blood of the dead are on the hands of those who denied there was a crisis and/or refused to work with President Trump on a common sense solution that keeps the illegal immigrant criminals safe and out of our country and protects Americans...

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    They are also too timid when it comes to championing the concept of making gun ownership easier and better for all concerned..

    Seriously!? Where would you be without your whining deflection and lying?

    Are people not championing gun ownership enough to suit you? Poor you. Where would all the goobers like you be without your unending grievances? How lazy does one have to be to claim that it's too hard for them to get a gun in this country? You need it to be even easier and better for all concerned?

    You are a regular cornucopia of bullshit. Full stop. This crap here is why no one has to take you seriously and should simply scroll through the:


    * * * * * * * * * * Bullshit Cornucopia * * * * * * * * * *

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michael Avanetti reborn!!

    E. Jean Carroll loses more credibility ... and CNN tries to cover it up, twice

    E. Jean Carroll, who accuses President Trump of rape, or assault, or something, is out promoting her book with such accusations on television, and is starting to lose credibility. She gave a 11-minute-plus interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, and eventually began to say erratic things. She lost her thought at one point and Cooper just let her get away with it. The worst was when the interview ended with her declaration that rape is "sexy" and CNN immediately cut away to a commercial. Not only did CNN cut away at that low point to make her look less strange, it deleted that most-interesting section of the interview from its posted account on YouTube. That's two cover-ups. Obviously, the network that tried to foist Michael Avenatti on us as president earlier is not about to get into reporting for wherever the facts lead. Here's what they have up.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/e_jean_carroll_loses_more_credibility__and_cnn_tries_to_cover_it_up_twice.html#ixzz5rxNVmChL

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Google Fascists

    Project Veritas, Google whistleblower reveal plot for 2020 election.

    Well. Shocking… but not shocking at all.

    Project Veritas and founder James O’Keefe have scored a scoop from an identified Google whistleblower, replete with video and inside documents. Here’s the Project Veritas headline and story:

    Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam

    The story begins this way:

    (New York City) — Project Veritas has released a new report on Google which includes undercover video of a Senior Google Executive, leaked documents, and testimony from a Google insider. The report appears to show Google’s plans to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections and “prevent” the next “Trump situation.”

    The report includes undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai, saying:

    “Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”
    https://spectator.org/the-google-fascists/

    The hysterical cry about Election meddling from the Left???

    {{{{{{cccchhhhhiiiiirrrrrrppppp}}}}}}}} {{{{{cchhhiiirrrrppppppp}}}}

    Like I said.. Democrats LOVE Election tampering if it means their candidate can win...

    :eyeroll:

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    central american refugees are fleeing for their lives. heading toward us is literally the best chance their children have to survive. as awful as the conditions are when they're taken from their parents and thrown into cells, at least they're alive, which is more than they'd have gotten had they stayed where they were.

    https://www.amnestyusa.org/fleeing-for-our-lives-central-american-migrant-crisis/

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    therefore, michale, blaming the parents for the consequences of our president's policy toward their children demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about the situations central american refugees come from. both on your part, and on his.

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as for there not being a crisis, there wasn't one until donald created it with his massive, inhumane treatment of children, on a scale not seen in any administration since FDR's internment of japanese-americans.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    therefore, michale, blaming the parents for the consequences of our president's policy toward their children demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about the situations central american refugees come from. both on your part, and on his.

    Actually it's YOU who is fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and the facts on the ground..

    Let's say, for the sake of the argument, you are factually accurate.. I'll stipulate that each and every refugee from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rico, Honduras et al are facing dire consequences...

    But they are NO LONGER in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rico or Honduras, are they??

    They have escaped the death and destruction...

    So, since they ARE safe, there is absolutely NO REASON for them to illegally cross into the United States.. They can be safe in Mexico until their asylum case is disposed...

    Imminent threat of death is no longer part of the equation...

    as for there not being a crisis, there wasn't one until donald created it with his massive, inhumane treatment of children, on a scale not seen in any administration since FDR's internment of japanese-americans.

    Except for the fact that the Obama Administration did the same thing to children... And there are pictures to PROVE it..

    So, what you are saying is that there was NO CRISIS, NO EMERGENCY a month or two ago.... And that, AFTER President Trump declared a national emergency, THEN the crisis developed!???

    Is THAT what you are claiming??

    Com'on JL.. I was born AT night. Not LAST night..

    This "emergency" has been ongoing since the Bush Administration.. You know it.. I know it...

    For you to claim that there wasn't really any emergency until President Trump said there was and then the emergency developed.. Well, that's disingenuous and, to be honest, I am shocked you would try to pilfer such bullshit as fact.. That is really REALLY beneath you...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    central american refugees are fleeing for their lives. heading toward us is literally the best chance their children have to survive. as awful as the conditions are when they're taken from their parents and thrown into cells, at least they're alive, which is more than they'd have gotten had they stayed where they were.

    I have been waiting for someone to trip the booby trap for a while now.. :D

    Bummed it was you, though.. I would have figured Blathy or JM would blow themselves up... I would have loved to tear them a new one...

    That's why my rebuttal was more muted.... :D

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    At least two former American prisoners, one captured by the Taliban and one by Somali pirates describe horrible conditions of their imprisonment but the Somale pirates and the Taliban gave them some essentials, like toothpasts and soap.

    One of these guys was on CNN last night and one tweeted - both simply said that their captors gave them toothpaste and soap.

    I know it's hard to think that Somali pirates and the Taliban treat their prisoners better than America treats migrant children and families who are seeking asylum, as this family was doing and was then turned away at the legal border crossing.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-taliban-gave-me-toothpaste-former-captives-contrast-u-s-treatment-of-child-migrants/ar-AADpDoZ#page=2

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    So, since they ARE safe, there is absolutely NO REASON for them to illegally cross into the United States.. They can be safe in Mexico until their asylum case is disposed...

    Does it matter to you that this family was at the legal border crossing legally asking for asylum but they were turned away by US officials. You don't know what the circumstances of their plight was - you can't even imagine.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "So why haven't Democrats made a much larger stink at the unfairness of the way many states conduct their elections?"

    Because their job is to not do anything to fix problems, their job is to present a false alternative to the Republicans so that no real alternative to candidates controlled by the big money interests can develop.

    Their job is to propose legislation (which includes amendments) while campaigning and out of power that they have no intention of passing once elected and in power.

    When Democrat (and many pundits) complain aboot gerrymandering and other election inequities they only seem concerned with leveling the playing field (or fairness) between the Democrats and Republicans.

    After all, it's not easy to make the case that citizens only have two choices if other choices are viable because the playing field is level for all options.

    As Paula said in yesterday's thread we need to weed out candidates that tell us up front they will not step up after they are elected.

    And the big money Democratic candidates have historically and consistently not stepped up once in power.

    So we need to tell the candidates up front that we will not vote for them if they tell us up front by financing their campaigns with big money they will not step up once elected and in power.

    And the media (which includes you) need to tell them how to do it by informing citizens aboot One Demand instead of telling them how not to do it by voting for big money Democrats.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    At least two former American prisoners, one captured by the Taliban and one by Somali pirates describe horrible conditions of their imprisonment but the Somale pirates and the Taliban gave them some essentials, like toothpasts and soap.

    One of these guys was on CNN last night and one tweeted - both simply said that their captors gave them toothpaste and soap.

    I know it's hard to think that Somali pirates and the Taliban treat their prisoners better than America treats migrant children and families who are seeking asylum, as this family was doing and was then turned away at the legal border crossing.

    You are arguing a point I am not making..

    No one is disputing that their treatment is horrible..

    I simply point out, FACTUALLY, that they are in that situation due to their own actions..

    Does it matter to you that this family was at the legal border crossing legally asking for asylum but they were turned away by US officials. You don't know what the circumstances of their plight was - you can't even imagine.

    Their plight in Mexico is one of safety.. THAT is all that matters.. They escaped the "unimaginable" plight and, as such it is not relevant to their illegal activities..

    They are under NO THREAT of death or bodily harm by being forced to remain in Mexico..

    If they chosen to obey the law, they would still be alive...

    If you burn away all the hysterical emotionalism, the facts remain..

    And those facts show they are perfectly safe in Mexico..

    Comfortable?? Probably not...

    But there is no imminent threat of death or bodily harm..

    So, there is NO REASON for them to break our laws...

    It's really THAT simple..

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    the deepening crisis in central america, while it is not donald's fault any more than any other president, has significantly worsened under his watch. to be blunt, two years ago it wasn't as bad. it's just very unfortunate that things in honduras, guatemala and surrounding areas happened to get significantly worse at a time when our own country's treatment of refugees from that area have also gotten significantly worse.

    JL

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    mexico is already doing what it can to help the refugees. the trump administration, not so much.

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    before donald, there was no crisis at our border. the crisis was far away, and we were doing the best we could to stem the tide. by his administration's intentional mistreatment of thousands of children, donald has created a whole new crisis.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    No one is disputing that their treatment is horrible..

    YOU'VE MISSED THE POINT!!!!

    As horrible as their treatment was, they were at least given toothpaste and soap.

    The US government lawyers argued in court that toothpaste and soap are not necessary for the care of migrant children in US custody. You'll have to find your own link for these court documents.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    mexico is already doing what it can to help the refugees. the trump administration, not so much.

    Since it was MEXICO who let the refugees into their country, why do you find that unusual that they should bear the brunt of the responsibility??

    the deepening crisis in central america, while it is not donald's fault any more than any other president, has significantly worsened under his watch.

    That's an opinion unsupported by facts.

    It only SEEMS much worse because, under Obama, the MSM covered up much of what was going on..

    Human Rights Watch commentaries indicates the number of deaths have fallen under President Trump..

    before donald, there was no crisis at our border.

    I honestly do not know how to respond to such blatant bullshit.. :D

    by his administration's intentional mistreatment of thousands of children, donald has created a whole new crisis.

    The fact that President Trump follows the same guidelines and policies that Obama followed makes no difference, eh :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    YOU'VE MISSED THE POINT!!!!

    There IS no contested point...

    I agree with you that the treatment is horrible..

    We are in complete agreement about their treatment..

    THE POINT, which you ignore, is that their treatment is a result of a conscious decision on the part of the criminals to break US law...

    And, now that I have proven that there is no imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, there is absolutely NO REASON that these refugees cannot remain on the Mexico side of the border until their asylum case can be adjudicated..

    NO..... REASON..... WHATSOEVER......

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    asylum seekers are not criminals, and it is not a crime to request asylum, as many do when they arrive at legal points of entry. yet they are still processed as if they were criminals.

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/10/usa-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-southern-border/

    "In 2017 and 2018, despite historic lows in the number of people seeking to enter the US without legal status, including asylum-seekers, the DHS border agency Customs and Border Protection (CBP) hasimplemented an illegal de facto policy of pushbacks of asylum-seekers along the entire US–Mexico border at official US border crossings (called “ports-of-entry”). Pushbacks of asylum-seekers are both illegal under US law and violate US obligations under international refugee law.

    By turning away asylum-seekers at US ports-of-entry, the United States has grossly violated their right to seek asylum from persecution, and manufactured an emergency along the US–Mexico border. US authorities have forced thousands of asylum-seekers to queue on the Mexican side of the border – exposing them to risks of detention and deportation by Mexican immigration officials, and exploitation by criminal gangs. CBP personnel have also regularly turned away Mexican nationals seeking asylum in the United States, including unaccompanied minors."

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just a few facts to back up my statement about mexico and the US - mexico has accepted about 25% of asylum requests, the US less than 4%

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    asylum seekers are not criminals, and it is not a crime to request asylum, as many do when they arrive at legal points of entry. yet they are still processed as if they were criminals.

    That's because they are captured on OUR side of the border...

    Crossing the border anywhere but designated ports of entry is a crime..

    By turning away asylum-seekers at US ports-of-entry, the United States has grossly violated their right to seek asylum from persecution, and manufactured an emergency along the US–Mexico border. US authorities have forced thousands of asylum-seekers to queue on the Mexican side of the border – exposing them to risks of detention and deportation by Mexican immigration officials, and exploitation by criminal gangs. CBP personnel have also regularly turned away Mexican nationals seeking asylum in the United States, including unaccompanied minors."

    So, NOW they are under imminent threat of death... AGAIN!!???

    Wow.. These must be the most unluckiest people on the planet.. Imminent threat of death FOLLOWS them!

    Not sure we want those kinds of people in our country..

    The fact is, these people are SAFE.. There is no reason they cannot adjudicate their cases while they remain in Mexico..

    Will it be rough for them?? Probably.. But we have our own problems to deal with...

    If Democrats would have worked WITH President Trump on border security, none of this would be happening..

    It's really that simple and it appears futile to discuss, as ya'all aren't going to change your minds and I am still with the facts...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you don't like that the refugees are under threat of deportation from Mexican authorities, maybe you should take that up with Mexican authorities...

    Whaa?? You want President Trump to dictate to Mexico what they should do with their own illegal immigrant criminals??

    Shirley, you are not advocating that, eh??

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    just a few facts to back up my statement about mexico and the US - mexico has accepted about 25% of asylum requests, the US less than 4%

    Great.. Mexico is the humanitarian capital of the world!!!

    Since Mexico is so much better than the US and the US just kills illegal immigrant criminals wantonly....

    Seems to me that the illegal immigrant criminals are better off and safer STAYING in Mexico...

    Problem solved...

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ...when they arrive at legal points of entry. yet they are still processed as if they were criminals.

    That's because they are captured on OUR side of the border...
    Crossing the border anywhere but designated ports of entry is a crime..

    what did i just say? am i not writing what i think i am writing?

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    what did i just say? am i not writing what i think i am writing?

    You're right.. I misunderstood..

    Do you have any examples of this claim.. Where they did not force themselves across the border??

    Even if it's accurate, it's a shame, but given the circumstances it's understandable..

    When you have 20,000 people forcing their way over the border, the one or two that do things the right way get mixed in the crowd...

    But again.. So it's so hard and so dangerous, the ONLY logical and rational conclusion is to stay in Mexico where it's safe...

    Our immigration system is not perfect.. But, due to the abuse and the outright criminality that people use to circumvent it.... Well, it is what it is..

    Have you taken a look at other country's immigration laws???

    Our laws are the most generous in the world....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Mueller better be prepared’: This twist could give GOP firebrands ammo at hearing
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mueller-better-be-prepared-this-twist-could-give-gop-firebrands-ammo-at-hearing

    The GOP are just ITCHING to question Mueller under oath!!

    This is going to be a Democrat bloodbath!!! :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on July 17. There is a more than reasonable chance that by that time, the Justice Department inspector general could release his highly anticipated report on the FBI’s use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) system in the early stages of the Russia probe.

    If that happens, President Trump's Republican allies who have long alleged FBI abuses as part of that process are sure to weaponize the report going into the hearings -- and could be poised to turn the tables on majority Democrats.

    "The sport ends. The massacre begins.."
    -Grand Primus T'Cael, THE FINAL FRONTIER

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If you don't like that the refugees are under threat of deportation from Mexican authorities, maybe you should take that up with Mexican authorities...

    mexican authorities have been crappy, no doubt. it's just that the US under trump has been about six times as crappy. mathematically speaking that is. as to the dangers refugees face in mexico versus the US, just because we have the capacity to make their lives safer and less chaotic doesn't mean we shouldn't.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's just that the US under trump has been about six times as crappy.

    Yes, President Trump has been 10 times crappier to illegal immigrants than any of his predecessors..

    THAT is why we hired him..

    To put Americans first..

    s. as to the dangers refugees face in mexico versus the US, just because we have the capacity to make their lives safer and less chaotic doesn't mean we shouldn't.

    Maybe we should make AMERICAN lives safer and less chaotic first...

    THAT is why President Trump was hired. To put Americans first...

    Clean up the human shit that covers the streets of San Feces-cisco...

    Stop scumbag illegal immigrant criminals from killing and raping Americans..

    Get our OWN house in order.. THEN we can talk about being the welfare agency to the world...

    If immigrants who can help us get our house in order want to come here and be productive citizens?? Great.. We welcome them with open arms..

    But those who want to break our laws??? We have plenty of our own lawbreakers..

    We don't need to import them..

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats, media change tune on border: No longer a ‘manufactured crisis’

    Mainstream media and congressional Democrats alike were in lockstep just months ago that the situation along the southern border was a “manufactured crisis” being ginned up by the president for political reasons -- but the narrative has swiftly shifted as those same voices now acknowledge the crisis while citing the conditions to attack the Trump administration.

    It's a striking contrast between then and now.

    After Trump in January declared a “humanitarian and security crisis" during a primetime Oval Office address, Sen. Chuck Schumer, speaking beside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said Trump was working to “manufacture a crisis, stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration." Party leader Tom Perez also called it “manufactured.”

    AS TRUMP HEADS TO BORDER, DEMS DOUBLE DOWN ON ‘MANUFACTURED CRISIS’ CLAIM

    Democrats, many of whom downplayed the Central American caravans back in 2018, renewed their skepticism again after Trump declared a national emergency in February in pursuit of a border wall. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., described it as a "'crisis' that doesn't exist." Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted at the time that "we're not falling" for the "fake crisis."

    CNN’s Jim Acosta famously stood along the Mexican border only six month ago, patting the steel slats and declaring that he didn’t see anything resembling “imminent danger” or migrants trying to enter the United States.

    “No sign of the national emergency that the president has been talking about… pretty tranquil down here,” Acosta said.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/southern-border-crisis-manufactured

    I sure hope Dumbocrats didn't get whiplash by their 180 flip-flop...

    "We're at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia.."
    -Dumbocrat Party

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    What a Border Crisis Looks Like

    This is a similar border crisis to the one Obama faced in his second term, with similar challenges.

    News flash: There’s a crisis at the border.

    This was discovered again over the past few days when immigration attorneys talked to reporters about appalling conditions at a Border Patrol facility detaining migrant minors in Clint, Texas.

    According to the lawyers, many of the kids had to sleep on the concrete floor, failed to get proper adult supervision, and didn’t routinely take showers or brush their teeth. The details were hard to read.
    https://tinyurl.com/yyt9pky4

    The idea that there was not a border crisis before President Trump came on the scene is utterly redonkulus...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    CHILDREN IN CAGES

    AP FACT CHECK: 2014 photo wrongly used to hit Trump policies

    THE 2014 PHOTOS

    —“Speechless. This is not who we are as a nation.” — Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor now running for governor, referring in a tweet Sunday to photos showing young-looking immigrants in steel cages.

    —“This is happening right now, and the only debate that matters is how we force our government to get these kids back to their families as fast as humanly possible.” — Jon Favreau, who was speechwriter for President Barack Obama, referring Sunday to the same photos.

    THE FACTS: The photos, taken by The Associated Press, were from 2014, during the Obama administration, but were presented by liberal activists as if they showed the effects of Trump’s immigration policy now. Villaraigosa, Favreau and some others deleted their tweets when the mistake was pointed out.

    They had linked to a June 2014 online story by The Arizona Republic titled “First peek: Immigrant children flood detention center.” The story featured photos taken by AP’s Ross D. Franklin at a center run by the Customs and Border Protection Agency in Nogales, Arizona. One photo shows two unidentified female detainees sleeping in a holding cell. The caption refers to U.S. efforts to process 47,000 unaccompanied children at the Nogales center and another one in Brownsville, Texas.
    https://apnews.com/a98f26f7c9424b44b7fa927ea1acd4d4

    With great respect...

    Anyone who doesn't know that Obama and Trump immigration policies are nearly identical is simply willfully ignorant..

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    From the link I provided earlier:

    "In 2018, Amnesty International interviewed 15 asylum-seekers whom DHS agencies separated from their children, both prior to and following the introduction of the so-called “zero-tolerance” policy. Most of these families were separated without being informed of why, and despite having documentary evidence of their family relationships. In 13 of the 15 cases, DHS separated the families after they requested protection at official US ports-of-entry. "

    if that sample is representative (and there is no indication that it is not) that's a rate of 87% who tried to enter legally.

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Anyone who doesn't know that Obama and Trump immigration policies are nearly identical is simply willfully ignorant..

    i would say the same of anyone who can't tell the difference.

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm no fan of obama's border policy either, but at least dhs under obama only detained those suspected of something illegal. under trump, they detain everybody, regardless of whether or not they're accused of a crime. i think that's a pretty significant difference.

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    If immigrants who can help us get our house in order want to come here and be productive citizens?? Great.. We welcome them with open arms..

    That's the entire point, Michale. We're not welcoming them with open arms. The Trump administration is arresting people that have a legal right to seek asylum here at our ports of entries along the borders. Instead of following our immigration laws, the Trump administration is closing the ports of entries and also arresting those who are legally seeking asylum. They were also separating children from their parents when they instituted a new policy in April 2018:

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry

    Let that sink in. It's a new policy. Trump can blame Obama all he wishes and lie about how he stopped the Obama separations. This is another lie in a long line of lies.

    The Trump administration's closing the ports of entry and arresting asylum seekers and labelling them as criminals and thugs makes it infinitely easier for people to blame them for whatever happens to them after they are arrested for trying to legally immigrate. The Trump policies are making things worse, and Trump can lie and blame Obama 'til the cows come home, but the problem he's creating will only get worse.

    I run across people who feel much as you do, Michale, and what usually makes them do a doubletake and stop and reassess is when I ask them a few questions:

    * Do you really blame their parents that their children are in custody?

    * Do you really believe those children deserve whatever bad things happen to them while they're in custody?

    * What if they were yours?
    * Would it be your fault they were arrested?
    * Would it be okay how they were treated?

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's hard to admit when you're wrong but, when you do you will be rightly rewarded for it, Michale.

    I never hear you talk about the vast majority of illegal immigrants. Why is that?

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did you know that Canadians spend more time online, going to more websites than any other country on the planet!? Hmmm ...

    No mention about how much of that time is wasted. ;

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's an easy way for ya'all to handle this.

    Pretend the baby girl was still in the womb... :^/ Then Democrats have NO PROBLEM with baby deaths...

    This didn't even happen on US soil... :eyeroll:

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    I never hear you talk about the vast majority of illegal immigrants. Why is that?

    Because I don't like criminals..

    ESPECIALLY criminals who abuse the hospitality of the United States and use that hospitality to rape and murder Americans..

    I guess I am funny that way...

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You misunderstand me, Michale. I'll try again.

    Why don't you talk about the vast majority of illegal immigrants who DO NOT come into the country by crossing the borders?

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    65

    Because I don't like criminals..

    You voted for a criminal. So there's that.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't you talk about the vast majority of illegal immigrants who DO NOT come into the country by crossing the borders?

    Because you are obsessed with some kid who died outside the US at the southern border.. It's you who concentrates on those that come thru the border..

    OK, Liz.. Here ya go.. Yer President Of The United States..

    What's your solution to the illegal immigrant problem..

    It's easy to criticize..

    Time to step up and give us a plan.. :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's hard to admit when you're wrong but, when you do you will be rightly rewarded for it, Michale.

    I'll be happy to admit it. When it happens..

    But I already decimated your imminent threat to life argument..

    What else ya got??? :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't you talk about the vast majority of illegal immigrants who DO NOT come into the country by crossing the borders?

    If the welfare of children is such a paramount concern, why don't Democrats talk about the tens of thousand of children that are brutally separated from their mothers in the most heinous way imaginable???

    The Left always accuses President Trump and the GOP of "dehumanizing" illegal immigrant criminals..

    Isn't the claim that the babies "aren't really human" the epitome of dehumanizing???

    If ya'all care about children, that's great.. It's honorable to be concerned about children. But if yer not consistent, if the concern is based on Partisan agenda and not genuine concern...

    Well, it's just another run o' the mill Party agenda in play....

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ah, is that what CW calls the rapist bill of rights?

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://cdn.summit.news/2019/06/260619aoc.jpg

    This is why Democrats are IMPOSSIBLE to take seriously..

    The cry about the poor downtrodden..

    And strut around wearing $600 watches....

    Occasional Cortex.. A well deserved moniker

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    ah, is that what CW calls the rapist bill of rights?

    No.. It's what everyone without a Party agenda calls infanticide.

    So, because a rapist commits a crime, Democrats want to impose the Death Penalty on the child...

    Yea.. Democrat logic... :eyeroll:

  74. [74] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If the welfare of children is such a paramount concern, why don't Democrats talk about the tens of thousand of children that are brutally separated from their mothers in the most heinous way imaginable?

    Yeah, immigrant mothers should have MORE babies, so that the Trump folks can ignore them at the border. To what end? Increase the body count?

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, so we're clear..

    It's NOT the welfare of children that is the real concern here..

    It's the welfare of the Democrat Party agenda that is the concern..

    Just so we got that clear..

    I won't say anything more about it now that we are all on the same page......

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In El Salvador, for example, a woman can be jailed for up to 40 years for aborting while in Mexico, she could be jailed for up to 50 years.

    Maybe the problem is that these liddle countries DO take abortion so seriously.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gonna be an exciting morning tomorrow...

    The fallout from the Dumbocrat Party circus and the SCOTUS hands down it's rulings on Gerrymandering and Citizenship Census question.. :D

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    73

    No.. It's what everyone without a Party agenda calls infanticide.

    You keep saying you don't have a Party agenda while you pretty much spew the GOP/Tea Party line without abatement.

    Is "everyone" who claims to be "without a Party agenda" as misinformed as you are? Infanticide is killing a baby that is already born. Fetuses aren't babies.

    So, because a rapist commits a crime, Democrats want to impose the Death Penalty on the child...

    Again, fetuses aren't babies. No victim should be forced to carry her rapists' fetus until it does become a baby, and no government should force her too either. If you think all the victims of all those criminals you claim to hate should be forced to carry their rapists' spawn to term and thereby become victims a second time, then God help you.

  79. [79] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yeah, kinda figures that you don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

    SCOTUS could surprise some conservatives. If not, well, gives us something to fight for.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, kinda figures that you don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

    SCOTUS could surprise some conservatives. If not, well, gives us something to fight for.

    Like I said..

    Yep.. Dehumanize the baby.. Call it any name. As long as you dehumanize it...

    Funny thing though.. If it is not a person.... If it's just an 'it'.....

    Why did the SCOTUS rule that the remains of abortions must be buried or cremated.

    Just like a regular person???

    Once again.. Hysterical Dumbocrat Party agenda.. Ya'all...

    FACTS... me..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    ?The 7-2 ruling — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented — decided that clinics must treat aborted fetuses as human remains, overturning a lower court that said the burial provision had no legitimate purpose.

    **HUMAN** remains...

    Once again... Another Democrat Party argument totally decimated by FACTS...

  82. [82] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why did the SCOTUS rule that the remains of abortions must be buried or cremated. Just like a regular person?

    All that the ruling accomplished was to remove the possibility that corporations could then turn the fetal remains into something that could be sold.

    Otherwise, no change.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    HUMAN remains..

    The remains of a HUMAN that was brutally murdered at a very young age..

    A child's death is a tragedy.. Whether it's a refugee on the other side of the Mexican border or a child who is ripped from their mother's womb because the mother didn't want to be inconvenienced with a child...

    It's funny how ya'all only care about one child and not the other...

    That's why you won't find me paying attention to ya'all's arguments..

    Because the FACTS clearly show that it's nothing but Party posturing at work..

  84. [84] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But let's get back to Central America. Wouldn't you agree that if abortion was safe and legal, there wouldn't even BE a problem at the border?

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    All that the ruling accomplished was to remove the possibility that corporations could then turn the fetal remains into something that could be sold.

    Otherwise, no change.

    Nice spin..

    But, once again, you lose..

    The 7-2 ruling — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented — decided that clinics must treat aborted fetuses as human remains, overturning a lower court that said the burial provision had no legitimate purpose.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    But let's get back to Central America. Wouldn't you agree that if abortion was safe and legal, there wouldn't even BE a problem at the border?

    Abortion has been safe and legal for the last 50 years..

    And yet, there is still a problem at the southern border..

    Have you had too much to drink???

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    80

    Why did the SCOTUS rule that the remains of abortions must be buried or cremated.

    They didn't. They simply upheld Indiana's right to require that. Were you under the mistaken impression that this applied to every state in the Union. Wow. That really is hysterical.

    Science isn't your strong suit... neither is common sense for that matter... so allow me to let you in on a little secret: Just because you bury something does not necessarily make it a person.

    FACTS... me..

    Now that really is hysterical. :)

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yer just hellbent on killing babies, ain'tcha Balthy..

    :^/

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    so... you're appealing to democratic hypocrisy on immigration, based on the party's support for the right to an abortion, even if she was raped? you're calling folks hypocrites for supporting both abortion rights and the rights of LEGAL asylum seekers not to have their children taken away from them and locked in cages? why, because you don't want to admit that donald screwed up royally on immigration? it takes an awful lot to get me to stop talking to you on a subject, but i think i'm pretty close to that point. your argument is absurd and offensive on so many levels, it makes your insane climate change denial seem downright reasonable by comparison.

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Abortion has been safe and legal for the last 50 years..

    Not in central America. Not in El Salvadore. Not in Mexico. Not in Honduras, or Guatemala. Those countries take their cue from American conservatives, or at least Catholic doctrine.

    Geez, no wonder they want to get out.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    so... you're appealing to democratic hypocrisy on immigration, based on the party's support for the right to an abortion, even if she was raped?

    I never said that.. I see both sides of the argument.. The deciding factor is the welfare of the child..

    That's the argument ya'all use when it comes to illegal immigration but ya'all ignore when it comes to abortion..

    and the rights of LEGAL asylum seekers not to have their children taken away from them and locked in cages?

    Once again, you change the subject.. The discussion has ALWAYS been ILLEGAL immigrants..

    why, because you don't want to admit that donald screwed up royally on immigration?

    He hasn't.. No more than Obama or Bush or Clinton did..

    Matter of fact, President Trump is the first POTUS who is actually doing some good down there..

    it takes an awful lot to get me to stop talking to you on a subject, but i think i'm pretty close to that point.

    I know and I feel bad.. As I said, I had hoped it was Balthy who had tripped that booby...

    your argument is absurd and offensive on so many levels, it makes your insane climate change denial seem downright reasonable by comparison.

    I respect your opinion..

    Doesn't change the facts though...

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not in central America. Not in El Salvadore. Not in Mexico. Not in Honduras, or Guatemala. Those countries take their cue from American conservatives, or at least Catholic doctrine.

    Oh.. So now you want to make laws that apply to EVERYONE, even outside of the country???

    Jeezus, you are all over the board on this one..

    You remind me of Neil.. In the morning, he hysterically attacks President Trump for being warmongering on Iran... In the afternoon, he attacks President Trump for being too timid on Iran..

    No wonder you people can't ever win.. You are all over the place, making PM arguments that contradict AM arguments.. :eyeroll:

    Abortion is legal in the US... Democrats want abortions UP TO THE POINT of delivery and, in the case of Virginia, even AFTER birth. Fortunately THAT law did not pass..

    So, basically you want to give the women the right to kill their babies for WHATEVER reasons.. Lets call them, CASEY ANTHONY laws..

    Yet, on the OTHER hand, ya'all scream hysterically when a 2 year old dies across the Mexican border because her father risked her life in the attempted commission of a crime by US law...

    So you tell me exactly how you can reconcile these 2 beliefs..

    On the one hand, kill babies right up to the point of birth and even AFTER birth..

    On the other hand, scream hysterically because a thoughtless parent committed manslaughter of his own child in Mexico...

    Reconcile both of those...

    You may begin..

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The discussion has ALWAYS been ILLEGAL immigrants..

    Actually, no. The ILLEGAL immigrants are shipped back, pronto.

    The question comes when they seek asylum. Do we let them wait out their application process in motels? No.

    We put them in cages.

    Not a huge problem when 72 hours was the average wait time, but nowadays, it's drifting into months and years...

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Joshua wrote:

    it takes an awful lot to get me to stop talking to you on a subject, but i think i'm pretty close to that point. your argument is absurd and offensive on so many levels, it makes your insane climate change denial seem downright reasonable by comparison.

    That was very well stated, very honest and truthful, and very much how I feel, too

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    For anyone who is interested in the facts of the Indiana case decided by the SCOTUS versus the misinformation provided by the board's most prolific poster of lies, fabrications, and misinformation:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf

    Nowhere in the SCOTUS's decision do they claim that fetal remains are human remains or are to be treated as if they are human remains. They simply reversed a lower court decision that denied Indiana to require that fetal remains be buried or cremated.

    This Court has already acknowledged that a State has a “legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.” Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U. S. 416, 452, n. 45 (1983). The Seventh Circuit clearly erred in failing to recognize that interest as a permissible basis for Indiana’s disposition law.

    The Court refused to rule on the other two issues... basically another punt by the SCOTUS in regards to overturning Roe v. Wade.

  96. [96] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So now you want to make laws that apply to EVERYONE, even outside of the country?

    Yes, if you want to know the truth.

    So you tell me exactly how you can reconcile these 2 beliefs..

    That's easy. The father in question was DESPERATE when he tried to cross the border. Is that a reasonable thing? It is right now.

    Right now, when we've cut funding to those poorer countries.

    Right now, when we take the children from their parents, with no guarantee that they'll be seen again.

    Right now, with Trump in office.

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [95]: Thanks!

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, no. The ILLEGAL immigrants are shipped back, pronto.

    Yea.. Sure they are...

    The question comes when they seek asylum. Do we let them wait out their application process in motels? No.

    We put them in cages.

    Just like Obama did...

    They should not have entered the country illegally. They should have remained in Mexico until their asylum was adjudicated...

    There is no threat to their person that would make that a problem..

    Once they enter the country illegally, they are criminals..

    It's really that easy..

    Yes, if you want to know the truth.

    SO, you want to impose your will on the world..

    Well, at least your honest about it..

    That's easy. The father in question was DESPERATE when he tried to cross the border. Is that a reasonable thing? It is right now.

    No, he wasn't DESPERATE.. He was frustrated because asylum was going to take to long. So he tried to take a shortcut and it cost his daughter her life..

    Put another way.. If it was an American who was trying to get to Mexico illegally and take his daughter and his daughter ended up drowning, the man would likely be charged with murder. Manslaughter at the very least..

    Being frustrated doesn't give one license to break the law and CERTAINLY doesn't give one cause to risk their children's lives..

    "Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they will get sent back, more importantly, they may not make it."
    -Barack Obama

    Can't get any plainer than that..

    Right now, when we've cut funding to those poorer countries.

    Because they won't control their own citizens..

    Right now, when we take the children from their parents, with no guarantee that they'll be seen again.

    Just like Obama did.. Funny, none of you said ANYTHING then...

    Why is that?? Because you really don't care about the children.. You just think it's a viable bludgeon to hit Trump over the head with..

    As usual, you are wrong..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Deputy Sheriff Troy Chisum
    Fulton County Sheriff's Office, Illinois
    End of Watch: Tuesday, June 25, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c1f544ea7b54a58eeb922b13ed887fee999c194c40e07aed62a98eda2ef6593.jpg

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    That was very well stated, very honest and truthful, and very much how I feel, too

    Ya'all just don't like that I countered your "imminent threat to life" argument..

    Doesn't make much sense to debate if you can't concede when yer wrong, eh?? :^/

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hey, I know that we're going round and round on this one, mainly because of your antipathy toward liddle brown people.

    Why hate on liddle brown folk? It's not as if the jobs aren't here. There's plenty to be done. We can actually use the workers.

    I actually heard a guy bitching about them, complaining that they were 'taking work' from him. Turns out, this guy had a rap sheet as long as his arm. Well, sure, sucks at the bottom.

    But this is Trump's base. We see liddle brown people, and think, "what's the big deal? Let 'em in to compete", but Trump's base thinks "how dare they come in to take OUR shitty jobs away."

    I can see the problem.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    That was very well stated, very honest and truthful, and very much how I feel, too

    All I am saying is that ya'all's "welfare of the children" argument rings VERY hollow when ya'all turn around and say that abortion right up to the point of birth is perfectly acceptable..

    If you can't accept the logic of that, then we ARE at an impasse..

    It's give and take..

    "You've shown me can take you got some giving to do"
    -ALL THAT SHE WANTS, WHAM

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey, I know that we're going round and round on this one, mainly because of your antipathy toward liddle brown people.

    Facts to support?? None?? Of course not..

    All you have is the Race Card.. Lame...

    But this is Trump's base. We see liddle brown people, and think, "what's the big deal? Let 'em in to compete", but Trump's base thinks "how dare they come in to take OUR shitty jobs away."

    You DO realize you are going to need those voters to win in 2020, right???

    :eyeroll: moron...

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can see the problem.

    I can to.. All you have is a lame bogus race card and yer getting yer ass kicked all around the forum..

    I can see why that's a problem for you..

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they will get sent back, more importantly, they may not make it."
    -Barack Obama

    I guess Odumbo hated all those liddle brown people..

    You see how lame you are???

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:
  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    97

    You're welcome.

    I try to do my part to cut through the thick stench of lies versus allowing the BS to go unchallenged. :)

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a 20-page concurring opinion, which he began by noting that he “would have thought it could go without saying that nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains.”
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/justices-reverse-in-part-on-indiana-abortion-law/

    HUMAN remains..

    Not FETUS remains... HUMAN REMAINS.

    Ya'all are part and parcel to the Party that wants to kill HUMANS right up to the point of birth and, if SOME Dumbocrats had their way, even AFTER birth...

    How can you reconcile that with your concern for the welfare of illegal immigrant children??

    Answer: Political Party Expedience...

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    102

    All I am saying is that ya'all's "welfare of the children" argument rings VERY hollow when ya'all turn around and say that abortion right up to the point of birth is perfectly acceptable..

    You're lumping everyone here into a false category of your own making wherein you invent the definitions and then allege that we all believe the same thing, and that makes you a serial liar.

    If you can't accept the logic of that, then we ARE at an impasse..

    Your prolific exercises in making shit up on behalf of everyone isn't logical. It's lying.

    FACT: There's a huge difference between condoning abortion and wanting to keep the government out of your business.

    FACT: Your being a soldier and a law enforcement officer means you're a bona fide people murderer yourself and therefore lack the moral authority to lecture anyone else on the planet about killing.

    It's give and take..

    Take that, people killer. :)

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump: 'Open borders mean people drowning in the rivers'
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/26/trump-open-borders-mean-people-drowning-rivers/

    Exactly.

    Who is at fault here??

    The President who enforces the immigration laws that DEMOCRATS agreed to???

    Or the Dumbocrats who say, "Ignore the laws!!! Ya'all Come!!!!"

    The answer is clear for those who are not slaves to a Party agenda..

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    108

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a 20-page concurring opinion, which he began by noting that he “would have thought it could go without saying that nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains.”

    Good for Clarence Thomas. That's his concurring opinion. You stated that the SCOTUS made that decision. Clarence Thomas is not the SCOTUS, although the per curiam decision of the SCOTUS does include his opinion.

    Anything else stupid you'd like to say, People Killer?

    Ya'all are part and parcel to the Party that wants to kill HUMANS right up to the point of birth and, if SOME Dumbocrats had their way, even AFTER birth...

    Although I don't know any Democrats who agree on everything, I would wager quite a tidy sum that 99% of them would agree that soldiers and law enforcement officers are people killers who have zero moral authority to lecture the Democratic Party regarding their ideas about killing.

    Michale keeps telling us all how LEOs are all Republicans so it stands to reason that the GOP is the Grand Old People Killers.

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Weigantia

    Here is Michale whining about Democrats yet again:

    They are also too timid when it comes to championing the concept of making gun ownership easier and better for all concerned. ~ Michale

    Democrats aren't "championing" Michale's lust for killing. Sad isn't it. Such is the life of a Murderer and People Killer.

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Speaking of rapists, Donald Trump informed the Trump cult that all they had to do was to "look at that face" to know for sure "that woman" would not be his "first choice" and that he would "not have sex with her"... "never met her".

    https://www.businessinsider.com/ivana-trump-donald-trump-reelection-vanessa-ivanka-page-six-interview-2018-4

    His first wife with whom he spawned the original Trump crime family.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems can’t just be outraged, what is their solution to the border tragedy?
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/26/dems-cant-just-be-outraged-what-is-their-solution-to-the-border-tragedy/

    Typical Dumbocrats

    Scream and yell hysterically that a father and daughter died on the Mexico side of the border...

    And they have NO SOLUTIONS beyond screaming and yelling hysterically...

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting....

    Liz, you went on and on about how illegal immigrant children are not given toothpaste and soap...

    Occasional Cortex wants to take away the children's beds...

    Comments???

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of 'welfare of children' arguments..

    Google Ariana Funes-Diaz...

    Where are her advocates???

    Where are those who would be concerned for HER welfare???

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't take my word for anything...

    "Our message absolutely is don't send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers. We don't even know how many of these kids don't make it. They may have been waylaid into sex trafficking or killed because they fell off a train. We have no way of tracking that.

    So that is our direct message to the families in Central America. Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they'll get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it."
    -Barack Obama

    Even Odumbo acknowledges that kids die on the southern border..

    Doesn't matter WHO the President is..

    There has ALWAYS been a crisis of this type on the southern border...

    Blaming it exclusively on President Trump is the epitome of disingenuous and is designed to cover up the FACT that, as recently as a month ago, Dumbocrats en masse declared that there was no emergency at the southern border..

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    20 Times Breitbart Reported on Migrant Deaths During Obama-Biden Years and No One Cared
    https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/06/26/20-times-breitbart-reported-migrant-deaths-during-obama-biden-years-and-no-one-cared/

    A buttload of deaths on the southern border actually IN the United States during the Obama-Biden years and no one here said boo about it..

    Due to his own stoopidity a man and his little girl are killed on the Mexico side of the border and everyone is hysterical about it..

    What's the difference???

    The -D vs the -R after the POTUS' name... :^/

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    118

    20 Times Breitbart Reported on Migrant Deaths During Obama-Biden Years and No One Cared

    Breitbart is propaganda bullshit that no one here would find credible or even take the time to read except you.

    A buttload of deaths on the southern border actually IN the United States during the Obama-Biden years and no one here said boo about it..

    So you're the Breitbart reader here, and we're not since we know bullshit when we see it. I guess you didn't say "boo about it" to us here in Weigantia because you probably didn't care about the deaths because you're a People Killer yourself.

    What's the difference???

    The -D vs the -R after the POTUS' name... :^/

    I agree that the tenor of the Breitbart propaganda is different based on whether the current president is a Democrat or a Republican, and that's why I don't read the bullshit. I will go out on a limb here and bet you that Breitbart isn't reporting on the 6 or so individuals (is it 6... I may have lost count) that have died while in the custody of the Trump administration. I don't care to research bullshit so I'll never know.

    In other news, your friend Alex Jones turned over kiddie porn during a production request in the Sandy Hook case. Alex is beside himself with grief that his child pornography was given to the lawyers of the Plaintiffs in the case where he keeps insisting these children didn't die. Alex is now losing his shit and naturally blaming Democrats.

    Meanwhile, no one is surprised that Alex Jones is a pedophile. It was so nice of his lawyers to produce the documentary evidence that Alex gave them. That puts a spin on the Sandy Hook case and an explanation for Alex's obsession with the poor first graders of Sandy Hook. What a sick jerk.

    Steve Bannon the wife beater and Alex Jones the pedophile. It sure seems like being a scumbag is prerequisite for being a GOP lying propagandist. Sad.

Comments for this article are closed.