The current process of Due Process is allowing blatantly illegal activities to continue unhindered because “we need to give them time to comply even when they are clearly not going to.” You need a different process, and pointing out that the system is not working is perfectly valid.
That’s not what an ad hominem is. You are literally parroting his justification for suspending the due process rights of everyone he wants to deport…right down to the part about “allowing criminals to get away with it…blah, blah, blah”.
If you think these people are criminals, then prove it in court. Present your evidence to a judge and jury. If they are as guilty as you say, then you should get a conviction. And no one will be able to refute it.
But if you simply do away with the whole process, you are guaranteeing that innocent people will be persecuted for nothing more than suspicion of guilt. They will have no means of clearing their name, when people like Trump accuse them of something they didn’t do. Are all those people worth throwing under the bus?
I’m simply responding to what you wrote. How else are you expecting me to read it?
How do you implement a “different process” without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now…or coming up with something else entirely?
And please, explain this “different process”. I would love to hear how you’ve solved the problems with the legal system, the way it is. I’m sure the world will be grateful that someone has finally come up with a system that can’t be abused. Your Nobel prize awaits.
You should take a deep breath, calm down, and read what Cile wrote. They were pretty clear, but you keep yelling at them for things that they never said.
Lol! No one is yelling. My excitement level here is “mildly bored sarcasm”. Maybe you can point out where he was being pretty clear, and how I misunderstood what he was saying. Because even going back and reading it all again…it just sounds like he’s dodging his own statements after I respond to them, by claiming that I’m somehow “missing his point”.
Except his original point was pretty clear, as you said…and it was an objectively bad take. Here’s the quote that I took issue with…
The current process of Due Process is allowing blatantly illegal activities to continue unhindered because “we need to give them time to comply even when they are clearly not going to.” You need a different process, and pointing out that the system is not working is perfectly valid.
These are literally the same talking points that Trump is currently using to justify undermining people’s rights. Seriously, what did I miss? And what “different process” would work better than having to present evidence of guilt before you can convict someone of a crime?
(…all said very calmly, and patiently awaiting clarification, in case you still think I’m yelling…)
He is accurately pointing out that the current system isn’t working. He never said to get rid of the whole thing, you did. If you think he is “repeating Trump’s talking points” just because he said that the current system isn’t working, then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Additionally, you don’t need to have a replacement or a fix, to be able to point out the flaws in the current system.
No, you’re responding to what your want to argue against instead of what is actually being said. I’m not going to continue repeating myself to someone who has no intention of listening.
How do you implement a “different process” without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now…or coming up with something else entirely?
You immediately contradict yourself here. “Can’t change anything without throwing away everything. Unless you’re talking about making changes that is.”
Your Nobel prize awaits.
“You’re not allowed to point out a flawed system unless you have a perfect solution! ‘better’ is not good enough if it’s not perfect! To do otherwise must mean you’re advocating for anarchy!”
The current process of Due Process is allowing blatantly illegal activities to continue unhindered because “we need to give them time to comply even when they are clearly not going to.” You need a different process, and pointing out that the system is not working is perfectly valid.
You sound just like Trump, now…you get that, right?
Sure I do. Exact the same. Biggly.
A baseless adhominim does not refute my statement, you get that right?
That’s not what an ad hominem is. You are literally parroting his justification for suspending the due process rights of everyone he wants to deport…right down to the part about “allowing criminals to get away with it…blah, blah, blah”.
If you think these people are criminals, then prove it in court. Present your evidence to a judge and jury. If they are as guilty as you say, then you should get a conviction. And no one will be able to refute it.
But if you simply do away with the whole process, you are guaranteeing that innocent people will be persecuted for nothing more than suspicion of guilt. They will have no means of clearing their name, when people like Trump accuse them of something they didn’t do. Are all those people worth throwing under the bus?
Is not equal to “do away with the whole process”.
Once again, if you’re not going to bother reading things before replying to them then what’s the point?
I’m simply responding to what you wrote. How else are you expecting me to read it?
How do you implement a “different process” without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now…or coming up with something else entirely?
And please, explain this “different process”. I would love to hear how you’ve solved the problems with the legal system, the way it is. I’m sure the world will be grateful that someone has finally come up with a system that can’t be abused. Your Nobel prize awaits.
You should take a deep breath, calm down, and read what Cile wrote. They were pretty clear, but you keep yelling at them for things that they never said.
Lol! No one is yelling. My excitement level here is “mildly bored sarcasm”. Maybe you can point out where he was being pretty clear, and how I misunderstood what he was saying. Because even going back and reading it all again…it just sounds like he’s dodging his own statements after I respond to them, by claiming that I’m somehow “missing his point”.
Except his original point was pretty clear, as you said…and it was an objectively bad take. Here’s the quote that I took issue with…
These are literally the same talking points that Trump is currently using to justify undermining people’s rights. Seriously, what did I miss? And what “different process” would work better than having to present evidence of guilt before you can convict someone of a crime?
(…all said very calmly, and patiently awaiting clarification, in case you still think I’m yelling…)
He is accurately pointing out that the current system isn’t working. He never said to get rid of the whole thing, you did. If you think he is “repeating Trump’s talking points” just because he said that the current system isn’t working, then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Additionally, you don’t need to have a replacement or a fix, to be able to point out the flaws in the current system.
No, you’re responding to what your want to argue against instead of what is actually being said. I’m not going to continue repeating myself to someone who has no intention of listening.
You immediately contradict yourself here. “Can’t change anything without throwing away everything. Unless you’re talking about making changes that is.”
“You’re not allowed to point out a flawed system unless you have a perfect solution! ‘better’ is not good enough if it’s not perfect! To do otherwise must mean you’re advocating for anarchy!”
Man, I’m not the one contradicting myself here. You are just talking in circles now…and still saying nothing.
I’ve said plenty and you haven’t refuted any of it. I’m not repeating myself for you again.