The Real timschochet

Lol if you think I’m exhausting why are you always responding to me?

Of course they do. Currently there are exceptions in our deportation laws for victims of domestic abuse who commit minor crimes as part of resisting that abuse. This law would remove those exceptions. If this law passes it would mean not only the person who commits the abuse would be deported but the victim of the abuse, if undocumented, would also be subject to deportation. Which would mean victims would be less likely even to report the abuse. Actually thank you and @Hardcore troubadour for asking me these questions as I’ve made up my mind; I am now opposed to this law.

Again this has nothing to do with what I wrote. You want to make your comments about me rather than the subject at hand, I’m not interested.

I don’t believe in the time that you asked your question you could have possibly read the article. So why don’t you read it and get back to me.

That’s not an answer. And do you really think noting that Trump’s success or failure is tied to inflation is a “I’m smarter than you” comment? It seems pretty obvious,

If, as argued, it actually weakens domestic victims, then that would really concern me.

We’ve had this discussion/debate before. You’ve read my arguments and rejected them which is your prerogative. I’ve read your arguments and rejected them. Not sure there is much we can add at this point.

Sometimes I get things right. Why do you think I’m wrong this time?

I am actually torn on this. Please don’t simplify an issue based on the title of the bill; there are good legitimate arguments to oppose that bill. Many of them are listed here: https://www.commondreams.org/news/violence-against-women-act-immigration

I’m with you on deporting violent criminals, not on deporting non-violent people. We disagree, strongly, on Ukraine.

Per my last post: as of now I do not agree with the conservative argument that increasing American energy supply (particularly oil and coal production) will result in lower prices at the pump and at the grocery store. The main reason I disagree is because energy is a global commodity and its trade is simply too large for us to affect it significantly based on our own production. However the proof is in the pudding. Trump is definitely going to go the “drill drill drill” route so we’ll see if the conservative argument is right or wrong. I certainly don’t mind being wrong about this.

I think all people of good will are rooting for this to happen. If it does I for one will congratulate President Trump and reassess my opinion of him. If it doesn’t I trust you will also reevaluate?

To most people lowering grocery prices is lowering inflation. So I agree with you that’s what he will need to be viewed as a success.

Actually what’s ironic is that he doesn’t want this. YOU want it, and other MAGA types. But Trump always says to liberals “you guys wait and see; you’re gonna end up loving me.” That’s what he wants.

The inflation rate is the key #. It’s the single most important reason that Trump won the election IMO. If it comes down during the next 4 years then his Presidency will be seen as as success pretty much no matter what else happens short of calamity or war. If it does not come down, or actually rises, then he will be viewed as a failure.

#4 (tariffs) remains my biggest immediate concern. I think and hope that you’re right that he’s not serious. But we’re about to find out.

It’s easier for my liberal friends to tolerate Donald Trump when I point out that he and MAGA are kind of the last gasp of anti-woke attitudes. This country pushes inevitably towards liberal ideas and “a more perfect union”; sometimes we take a few steps back (like in the early 1950s, and now) but this always followed by ten steps forward.

This is short sided. Whatever you think of my liberal ideas, around 49% of voters preferred them in the last election. Don’t kid yourself that they’re dead. Actually I firmly believe that most woke ideas are inevitable and will come to be accepted in the years and decades to come, including by you. You just don’t realize it now.

It was a joke.

Well @Cdub100 should be happy about this- Mel is his kind of guy….

You guys are all assuming Trump will voluntarily leave after 4 years.

You’re lacking in logic.

Sad to know that @Cdub100 isn’t the only anti-Semite around these parts….

@Engorgeous George regarding your response to my first question: “if so at far lower density” I’m curious as to how this would be regulated. Newsom has already stated that he wants to remove what he calls “burdensome restrictions” on rebuilding efforts- he sounded a lot like Trump or a conservative when he said that- but that would put him at odds with what you’re suggesting. Do you believe the state should severely restrict the amount of rebuilding that can be done? And how would that impact property values? The other question regarding this point: many experts seem to believe these latest fires are a real anomaly, highly unusual and very unlikely to be repeated. I have no idea if this is true or not but if it is then why would we need lower density?

Well I’m sorry about that. I regret that this is your opinion of me since I usually find your commentary here pretty thoughtful even though I tend to disagree with you more often than not. But I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong here so I have nothing to apologize for.