• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lewandowski Hearing

Really? Why was Holder held in contempt?
Why do Dems want to change the electoral college, the 2nd amendment, stack scotus, extending the border wall, and establish sanctuary cities which violate immigration laws.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Sanctuary cities are not illegal according to the Tenth Amendment which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Sanctuary cities are constitutional. And ironically, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Supreme Court opinion that supports their position.

The Federal Government does not control local law enforcement and cannot compel local law enforcement to act as immigration agents. The idea of sanctuary cities is based on sound public policy which, unfortunately, is never explained by the press to the people. Because it is never explained, too many of our people think it is some liberal conspiracy to victimize law-abiding citizens.

There are undocumented people living in virtually every major city and many medium cities. If police must apprehend all undocumented persons, regardless of how those persons come to the attention of police, these people will never report crimes to the police. They will not intervene to protect American citizens and they will not intervene to protect undocumented persons — even themselves.

So reversing sanctuary policies actually encourages crime in general as well as crime specifically directed against undocumented persons. Since we know this, and we know this type of policy is immoral and bad, our cities have learned to reject these policies.

The reason for sanctuary cities is this: If an illegal immigrant sees a crime, they will not call the police because they fear being deported. So your child may be in danger but the immigrant must turn away because of her own child. In a sanctuary city, the immigrant will call the police and not have to worry that she will be locked up and deported and taken away from her child.

THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY THERE ARE SANCTUARY CITIES AND WHY SANCTUARY CITIES MAKE SENSE.

Regarding the electoral college, it's something that should have been done away with decades ago. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls, almost always in the 70-80% range or higher. Since its origination in 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in legislatures in all 50 states. More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

Regarding 2nd Amendment rights. Nobody wants to take away your guns. Believe it or not, (sit down for this one) there are many, many 'Libruls' that own firearms. What a shocker, right? No, you conservatives are not the only ones that have guns. Putting safeguards on the purchasing of weapons protects everyone. Even responsible gun owners are in favor of tighter laws for the purchase of guns.

The last item to address in your comment is "stack scotus". :doh Really? All I can say is Merrick Garland, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. You might want to rethink that one.
 
Most of the Dems were clearly not ready for the childish antics of Lewandowski. Luckily, that lawyer made Corey look more foolish than anyone.

That lawyer absolutely destroyed Lewandowski. Right up to the point where he got him to admit he likes lying and will do it whenever he isn't under oath.

I hope Jeanne Shaheen's campaign runs that on a 24 hour loop here in NH for the next year.
 
Which catagory do you put sanctuary citys into?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Well they're really giving it all a college try.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
Well they're really giving it all a college try.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Its one thing to have a difference of opinion but they are not in the same reality as the rest of us

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Its one thing to have a difference of opinion but they are not in the same reality as the rest of us

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Stop attempting to divert the discussion and derail the thread. Stick to the topic of the OP. If you want to discuss sanctuary cities why not start your own thread?
 
"new rules it past last week along party lines" means that the democrats on that committee who outnumber the republicans by 7 members (24 D vs 17R) voted themselves - on short notice - a rule for their benefit for that particular hearing.

If you can't win, just change the rules. :lol:

You know, like McConnell and that SC seat.
 
Back
Top Bottom