Classic Trump

[SFCumdog]

7 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Her job was not to keep prisoners past their sentences, and the courts agreed. The state was almost held in contempt. 

And we both know there are all types of non-violent crimes committed in the city that aren’t prosecuted. 

Neither of these validate your assertions. She did a good job and frankly should have done even more. And if in your myopia you think Donald Trump would be a better president, then go for it. But then what's that old saying about the definition of insanity.... doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. He's the same POS he's always been, and will continue to be.

[Norcalfukkr]

I’m casting my vote based on what my cock and ass needs, which is the freedom to fuck, swap loads with every random man there is who needs to fuck and/or get off…that’s how I’m choosing to vote-which candidate will preserve the right to fuck freely and without moral judgement.  The xtreme right -religious zealots are hell bent on making fucking, or the act of cumming in a hot ass an illegal act. They want sex to only pleasure men and not woman, it’s for reproduction only, blah blah blah…it’s sinful if anyone  else derives pleasure if not for birthing children.  I don’t want that, I want to fuck whoever and cum wherever. 

[BlackDude]

27 minutes ago, SFCumdog said:

Neither of these validate your assertions. She did a good job and frankly should have done even more. And if in your myopia you think Donald Trump would be a better president, then go for it. But then what's that old saying about the definition of insanity.... doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. He's the same POS he's always been, and will continue to be.

If we’re going by the letter of the law, isn’t SF a sanctuary city? But yeah….

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Generally, however, as far as I know, the prison system is not run by the attorney general, but by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which is headed by an official appointed by the governor.

Things like this matter, because it's one thing to blame Harris for allegedly over-prosecuting criminals. But once they're prosecuted, the courts determine the sentence, and an office headed by a gubernatorial appointee oversees the prison term. The AG has nothing to do with that.

Not true in this case. We’re not going to blame this on CDCR.

 

 

[SFCumdog]

45 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

If we’re going by the letter of the law, isn’t SF a sanctuary city? But yeah….

Being a Sanctuary City has nothing to do with Kamala Harris, she was neither the Mayor, nor on the Board of Supervisors.

[BlackDude]

46 minutes ago, SFCumdog said:

Being a Sanctuary City has nothing to do with Kamala Harris, she was neither the Mayor, nor on the Board of Supervisors.

But she was the state attorney general that supported this policy, right?

and while she was the Attorney General for the city, she was supposed to be fighting to ensure the laws were followed, right? 

Edited August 17 by BlackDude

[SFCumdog]

21 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

But she was the state attorney general that supported this policy, right?

and while she was the Attorney General for the city, she was supposed to be fighting to ensure the laws were followed, right? 

You say that like it was Kamala Harris who put this ordinance in place, however it wasn't. San Francisco was declared a Sanctuary City in 1989 (while Kamala was still in law school) when it passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance, also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance. The ordinance prevents city employees from using city resources or funds to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforce federal immigration laws, unless required by state or federal law. As City District Attorney it was her job to uphold the laws of the City and County of San Francisco, one of which was the Sanctuary City ordinance. So trying to claim that she was acting illegally is intellectually dishonest.

 

[SFCumdog]

38 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

But she was the state attorney general that supported this policy, right?

and while she was the Attorney General for the city, she was supposed to be fighting to ensure the laws were followed, right? 

P.S. And while you're at it, make up your mind what your beef is and then stick with it. First you were crying that she was too hard on actual criminals, then you're crying that she didn't enforce the laws. While having no issue whatsoever with the alternative candidate who is a convicted felon. That's pretty fucking rich. 

[hntnhole]

On 8/14/2024 at 4:57 PM, BootmanLA said:

The point is that none of us are going to get anything we want unless we agree to help each other out, as much as possible

Underlying this obvious point is the idea that those who are not Caucasian are therefore demeaned is true, if less so than decades ago.  The point is, maintaining progress towards a more just, equal society.  Attempting to advance Justice for any single marginalized group, while ignoring other marginalized groups is a fool's errand. 

Social progress is something that is best achieved across-the-board, not on a piecemeal basis.  The proposals announced recently by the Harris team are not focused solely on one particular group of the underprivileged, it's focused on advancing Justice for every marginalized group.  

On 8/14/2024 at 4:57 PM, BootmanLA said:

We're going to be a major target if he gets back into office, and his Supreme Court nominees are going to lead the charge.

There can be no doubt by now, that the former President gives one rat's ass about anyone but himself, and staying out of the clink.  If reelected, he would gladly ask the German historians for the architectural plans, rebuild the camps, and we'd be among the first to be sent there.  He possess not an ounce of humanity, even in one of those fictional bone-spurs.  

On 8/14/2024 at 4:57 PM, BootmanLA said:

Black people were only getting rights they SHOULD have had all along

I accept that as completely true. 

Tragically, many of our forbears couldn't see past their cultural blinders, and the only way to advance your particular needs is to advance Justice across the board.  We all do better when we lift not only ourselves, but our fellow citizens up, shoulder each others burdens, and press forward.  The Moral Arc is waaaaay too long, but it does bend towards Justice - at least as long as the hatemongers are denied power.   

On 8/14/2024 at 4:57 PM, BootmanLA said:

I prefer to think we should always strive for what's right whether or not there's anything we individually, or as a group to which we belong, gain directly

This is the point:  Citizens of good will, working to correct ancient wrongs, advancing the cause of Justice for all, are the reason we make any progress at all.  When we work towards the common good, the results filter out to every group denied full equality. I understand (as well as a non-Black can) your bitterness.  I have no blame to offer.  But I do know that when we work together, we can advance Justice; maybe not as much as we'd like, but at least make things better than they were yesterday.  

Bitterness only brings regression.  Positive mindsets, working together, progress for everyone, across the board.   

[BootmanLA]

18 hours ago, SFCumdog said:

P.S. And while you're at it, make up your mind what your beef is and then stick with it. First you were crying that she was too hard on actual criminals, then you're crying that she didn't enforce the laws. While having no issue whatsoever with the alternative candidate who is a convicted felon. That's pretty fucking rich. 

This, 100%.

[BlackDude]

19 hours ago, SFCumdog said:

P.S. And while you're at it, make up your mind what your beef is and then stick with it. First you were crying that she was too hard on actual criminals, then you're crying that she didn't enforce the laws. While having no issue whatsoever with the alternative candidate who is a convicted felon. That's pretty fucking rich. 

My argument isn’t she wasn’t “too hard” on criminals. She fought to keep him in prison past their time which the court ruled was illegal and almost held her in contempt of court.

While at the same time, her and city leaders used their discretion to not enforce federal law. City ordinance does not supersede federal law.

I think you need to make up your mind. Because Kamala supporters seem to be OK with certain types of nonviolent crime and not Ok with others. But if you think putting mothers in jail for truancy is gonna help solve the problems of San Francisco, that’s your opinion.

[SFCumdog]

13 hours ago, BlackDude said:

My argument isn’t she wasn’t “too hard” on criminals. She fought to keep him in prison past their time which the court ruled was illegal and almost held her in contempt of court.

While at the same time, her and city leaders used their discretion to not enforce federal law. City ordinance does not supersede federal law.

I think you need to make up your mind. Because Kamala supporters seem to be OK with certain types of nonviolent crime and not Ok with others. But if you think putting mothers in jail for truancy is gonna help solve the problems of San Francisco, that’s your opinion.

They didn't "use their discretion" to not enforce federal law. They passed an ordinance stating that no city funds or personnel would go into assisting the federal agencies. The Feds were able to come in and do whatever they needed to do any time they wanted to, it just wasn't going to be done on San Francisco's dime... unless ordered by the courts. That's a far cry from the epic level of lawlessness that you seem to be painting here. And again, she was elected to uphold San Francisco's laws. That's a far cry from being "ok with certain types of nonviolent crimes." Immigrants are welcomed here because we understand their positive impact on the community.

As to your other contention, fighting to keep criminals in jail. So what? It didn't happen. The court did what its supposed to do by curbing actions such as that, and she wasn't held in contempt of court. For someone who seems to be fighting so hard for the Republican point of view here, I'd think you'd applaud good old Law and Order Kamala? Or is there something else behind this thinly veiled discussion that's really eating you? 

And by the way, how many mothers actually went to jail for truancy? But I'll bet it got a lot more of them to make sure their fucking kids were in school where they belonged, rather than roaming the streets creating havoc. Parents need to be held accountable for the behavior of their children if they can't, or won't, of their own accord.

Again, if you think that bloated man-baby would be a better president, then vote for him. And you might as well cut of your nose to spite your face while you are at it.

 

[topblkmale]

18 hours ago, BlackDude said:

My argument isn’t she wasn’t “too hard” on criminals. She fought to keep him in prison past their time which the court ruled was illegal and almost held her in contempt of court.

While at the same time, her and city leaders used their discretion to not enforce federal law. City ordinance does not supersede federal law.

I think you need to make up your mind. Because Kamala supporters seem to be OK with certain types of nonviolent crime and not Ok with others. But if you think putting mothers in jail for truancy is gonna help solve the problems of San Francisco, that’s your opinion.

 

It's also who the black woman chose to target.

 

[Norcalfukkr]

The bloated fat fuck trump makes my dick limp so he’s not getting my vote.  Kamala and her sanctuary cities ( where I live close to) brings  in some hot immigrants who are horny and I’ve benefited from getting to fool around with them. I’ll support that! 

[BootmanLA]

The point about enforcing federal law bears further discussion.

Conservatives frequently bleat about how the federal government shouldn't interfere in state and local matters, the same way racists insisted that segregated schools were a local matter, segregated water fountains were a local matter, banning blacks from most hotels and restaurants was a local matter, etc. There were unending screams of "federalism! we're a republic, not a democracy! You can't tell us what to do!" and the Supreme Court basically said "If you're violating the Constitution, the fuck we can't". 

When conservatives decided to make immigration an issue - and that's a relatively recent phenomenon, because conservatives used to be overjoyed that their businesses could get cheap, paid-under-the-table labor - they suddenly switched tunes and wanted to force state and local government to cooperate with their "round 'em up" policies. It turns out that federalism that conservatives clung to like a cheap hooker also means that the feds can't commandeer local resources in their policy disputes.

As @SFCumdog notes, the feds are still free to enforce immigration law anywhere in California, or elsewhere in the country. They just can't order the state of California, the city of San Francisco, or the people who live there to do their work for them.

So, for instance, if the SF police arrest someone for jaywalking and he turns out to be here illegally, the feds have every right to post a federal agent at the jail there until the immigrant is released and arrest and deport him on the spot (assuming federal law allows for his deportation). But they can't tell SF that they have to hold him in their local jail, at their own expense, until the feds bother to show up and take him away.

And that's a huge part of the problem. Regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks about immigration policy, it's a federal responsibility, and it's up to the feds to pay for it. But conservatives in Congress are also loath to spend one penny more on anything except tax cuts for the rich, so they won't appropriate enough money for border security to actually DO border security.

And on top of that, the Republicans don't actually WANT to solve the border problem - they want it to be an ongoing political issue, so they can fundraise and make their base angry at the Democrats and hopefully keep Republicans in power. You know the way that Republicans falsely accuse Democrats of wanting to keep poverty going as an issue because it's good for Democrats, even though it's actually Republicans blocking efforts to do something about poverty? It's also Republicans blocking immigration progress - one of the most hard-line right-wing conservative Republicans in the Senate negotiated a border deal that gave Republicans pretty much everything they had been demanding (along with some Democratic priorities), and it died for lack of Republican support. Why?

Because the standard-bearer of the party, that lardass former liar-in-chief golf cheat rapist fraudster Trump, told the Senate Republicans to kill the bill because he needed immigration as a live election issue.

So let's not EVER pretend again that the Republicans have a serious interest in immigration control. They do not. They just want more and more red meat for their idiot base.