Jump to content



Member Since 19 Feb 2013
Member ID: 659,748
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Today, 05:51 AM

In Topic: U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Yesterday, 09:42 PM

To roxas:



to cr4ft:

In Topic: U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

16 April 2019 - 07:47 PM

you can point to the actions of sanctuary cities and say "this is bad for the states that are doing this and the people living in it" or "this is bad for the country as a whole" but is this really the best way possible to go about it? i'm sure if we got the best minds in the country together we could come up with a more practical and less divisive solution. 


and when you reduce it to "these states/cities want the illegals and those states dont" you ignore the fact that states and even cities are made up with people of differing opinions. some vote in favor of the people who implement sanctuary laws, some vote against those people, some have an opinion but dont vote at all, and some dont have an opinion at all. simplistic reductions like this don't help the situation nor solve the problem. in many ways they are part of the problem.

The thing is, there has been ample protesting in favor of illegal immigrants in (particularly californias) sanctuary cities. People have been saying "This is bad for the country" for years. We often just get called racists who hate immigration, and kicked off whatever platforms said discussion has been held on. Seriously, twitter bans people for stating that sanctuary cities are a net negative on the country and the people that live in them. the argument gets attacked. The very state representatives who support sanctuary cities, also have been fighting turmp on his limitations to immigration. it's one of the reasons that trump stated what he did. He is effectively calling their bluff. sanctuary city supporters are much of the time, the same people who try to prevent trumps policies on illegal immigration, or attempted to reduce the holding capacity/time that border patrol is allotted.


The people in favor won, that means their voice is more populous in those states, in the states that don't. the people who don't want said laws won. If he is going to be forced to release them into the country anyways, then the states who have the loudes advocates are going to be the clear choice for where to send them. if the people who don't want them are in the states that have leaders who do, then they had best campaign for somebody willing to object the next time, as the rest of the states managed to do. It has to be reduced to such, because when he is forced to release them, those are the two choices present: A) release them into states where the majority has voted in favor of people who want to support illegals (aka sanctuary cities/states) B) Release them into states where the majority has voted against people who want to support illegals. given the choice, it's more often than not going to be the former, because the latter has demonstrated zero desire to take in illegals, and generally isn't the one advocating that we need to, or implementing programs to support them.

In Topic: [DP22] Dark Occultism

16 April 2019 - 07:20 PM

A clean 3-of for any destiny board build, and at least a 1-of for monarchs, as it searches mega caius.


also, infernoid/destiny board draw in combination with the new necrofear card. I really like this.

In Topic: [DP22] Dark Spirit of Malice

16 April 2019 - 07:14 PM

Surprisingly good, It recycles itself via it's own effect. it doesn't negate, but there's more than enough big level 8 fiends for this to be worth playing with.

In Topic: U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

16 April 2019 - 07:10 PM


As for the "they can have them" part - i'm assuming you're referring to the proposal to bus illegals to sanctuary cities? that whole policy is "i'm going to punish my political enemies by sending people i think are dangerous to their constituent's hometowns". when you break it down that's the logic behind it - or at least what stephen miller thought when he proposed it since he's the one credited for introducing it to the administration. it's meant to punish the many for the actions of the few. think about it, even trump supporters would be unhappy by this if they happen to live in a sanctuary city. there's so many angles of wrong to this policy but i don't have the time or patience to dive into them now, and most of them are obvious enough to be observed on their own.

While I agree with the statement that the notion will harm the regular citizens in sanctuary cities, I have to say that trumps actions could easily be pointed to the policies of sanctuary cities. The people who run sanctuary citizens have created the ideal situation for illegal immigrants, and those same people have helped reduce the days that illegals can be contained. The argument that the leaders are the only people responsible, ignores the people who voted for, and continued to vote for, those in power.  Trump sending illegals to the states that claimed to want them, and flaunted federal law to keep them, is far better than sending them into the places that don't. Sanctuary states are called that for a reason. They literally implement programs, in direct defiance of federal law, in order to maintain the conditions that they use to shelter illegals. What state are you going to place the illegals that you have to keep in the country? The state that goes to those extents to keep them? Or the states that blatantly say "We don't want them"?


There are a lot of ways to attack trump's claim, But there are plenty of arguments in favor as well.