> Well, the city government is no more responsible for enforcing immigration laws than it is enforcing IRS fraud.
Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?
Wouldn't it be crazy if the Democratic Party sourced their presidential candidates from sanctuary cities, especially candidates with law enforcement careers in said cities?
On the off chance you're sincere but not well educated on this topic:
> What are you talking about?
Kamala Harris was DA for SF during the early 2010s, where she explicitly backed the city's sanctuary policies.
As CA AG she opposed the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act", which was aimed at deterring sanctuary cities through withholding of federal funding.
In the 2024 presidential election she was the Democratic candidate.
This is all on her Wikipedia page.
Can you answer my question?
> Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?
> It’s not the city or states job to enforce federal immigration laws.
This has never been claimed nor intimated in this entire thread.
I can tell you're having a difficult time understanding what I'm saying. Let me rephrase it for you:
- If the policy of the Democratic Party is that immigration laws should be enforced
- Why does the party tolerate Democratic sanctuary cities?
- Why does the Democratic party source presidential candidates who have in practice (not simply in word) opposed the immigration law enforcement policy?
Flagging my comments doesn't make you right by the way.
> The Supreme Court has just as often struck down gun laws where a city couldn’t do anything about it.
You're exposing your ignorance by showing you don't know what "sanctuary city" means.
Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses.
The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters.
It's patently false to say that cities "can't do anything" about gun violations. There are plenty of examples of cities not impeding, or even assisting, the ATF in these scenarios.
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that city police officers don't arrest people for immigration violations. That's not their job. It was never their job.
So is your piling on, not adding anything substantive to the discussions
, and raw_anon_1111's repeated strawmanning of my point (the claim was never that sanctuary cities were illegal, simply that their existence is a reflection of the Democratic Party's view towards immigration laws).
Yet here we are. You build the community you deserve through your words and actions.
I'm more than happy to have good faith discussion, and legitimately strive to take every point in the best light as possible. That's falling out of favor here, especially for political topics.
If you want to roll in the dirt don't think I'm just going to walk away.
There's no dirt. You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws. I merely pointed out to you misunderstand their job, so that point you made isn't relevant.
> You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws.
Please quote where I said that.
The point I am making has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are "legal", whether the cops in them are or aren't required to enforce immigration laws, etc.
Speaking of what's appropriate for Hacker News, if I wanted discourse like "bazinga! The Supreme Court already ruled that sanctuary cities are allowed to exist. Checkmate xD" I would be on Reddit.
I (obviously wrongly) thought HN could handle higher level conversation that repeating the same "gotcha" 7 times in a thread.
> There's no dirt.
The dirt is your derisive, self righteous comment, which you had to make to get your little jab in, which added nothing past the repeated, redundant statements of raw_anon_1111. Hope you feel proud of your contribution to this site.
"Smart" is something you do, not something you are. People with very large amounts of raw intelligence fall down some very dumb intellectual rabbit holes that its practically a meme: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21
Having raw intelligence doesn't help if you don't apply rigor to your thinking. I suspect that very successful people actually end up falling into habitual mental shortcuts that cause them to promote stupid things at a later time.
Second life is trying to be a metaverse in the style of snowcrash; it’s one big world. Roblox is more like Newgrounds, where you have a bunch of distinct games or experiences that you select from a menu, but skins and currency and whatnot are portable between the games.
I find the notion that Trump would have used discretion if not for Biden’s pardons pretty curious. At no point has precedence or decorum stopped Trump. Biden’s actions had zero effect on how Trump uses his pardon power.
He had the same ability the first time and didn’t do it. But certainly one cannot live the counterfactual. Perhaps this technique had already struck him and he just hadn’t used it yet. Hard to tell.
I don’t see him or his administration as all knowing even if I think they have great disregard for the law.
Notwithstanding the other myriad of reasons to not like Elon Musk (of which there are many)…
You’re equivocating a childish insult with insisting that a person is a pedophile and hiring a private investigator to prove so and then writing scathing emails to reporters because they refuse to repeat claims uncritically. This is an appalling failing of morality on your part.
I’m frankly not inclined to dive into why I, previously a big fan of Elon Musk, find him personally repugnant because I expect you to apply the same standards to everything he does. That doesn’t take away from SpaceX, but we shouldn’t overlook his failings just because rockets are cool.
He hired the private investigator before he was sued.
You left out the part where he claimed a person was a pedophile and when asked if it was just an insult basically said “no I really think he’s a pedophile”, and started stating made up bullshit about child brides as fact. He only backtracked when he was sued. That is NOT the same as just throwing insults.
"Mr. Musk made these statements based on reports he received from a private investigator he hired to investigate Mr. Unsworth in preparation for the litigation that Mr. Unsworth had already threatened. Unbeknownst to Mr. Musk, the investigator’s reports were fabricated, and the investigator himself turned out to be a convicted felon who had gone to prison for fraud."
"Mr. Musk’s tweet was the culmination of an argument between two people that was punctuated by insults—not a factual accusation of the crime of pedophilia. The firm also demonstrated that Mr. Unsworth had not suffered any injury."
This level of defense seems highly inappropriate when you consider that the the unimpressive billionaire doesn't stoop down to this level, has a functional moon lander, ISRU technology that can manufacture solar panels on the moon and a long term plan for getting rid of SLS while the more impressive billionaire is struggling to get to orbit.
As much as I'd like to see boots on the ground on Mars this is where I'm at. In my uneducated opinion, while building the massive rocket is incredibly difficult, its probably the easiest part of a Mars mission.
The Judges appear to have responded to something specific. If it was made-up, they would have thrown the case out harder and sanctioned whoever submitted false evidence. So I assume somebody with an ability to legally bind intel into the right form was persuaded to say something.
Perhaps the objection started out with something fundamentally irrational or opinion-based, and someone was ordered to "reverse-engineer" an objection out of that which wasn't trivially refutable - e.g. "the noise from the turbines will keep our submarine sonar from working" or "reports say that human smugglers are hiding aboard the windmills" or whatever.
Yes, I think thats very plausible. "inshore defense operations in an area of strategic importance will be excessively impeded by both development of this site, and future operations in ways which <REDACTED>" type thing.
> Its completely in-line with his personality to hold onto personal grievances for decades to the point that they become policy.
I feel like much of what he does today can be directly attributed to the epic roasting he got from Obama at the correspondents' dinner. Most of us would be absolutely honored by being roasted by the sitting president, but he seemed at the time to take it very personally.
Not just the fact that Scottish wind farms prevailed, also that he was relentlessly mocked, ridiculed, and protested against in unavoidably visible ways by the Scots.
I am pretty sure you are underestimating how important it is for them.
But we can look at their own scientific publications.[1]
No maps no driving....carnival ride...
"High Definition (HD) maps are maps with precise definitions of road lanes with rich semantics of the traffic rules. They are critical for several key stages in an autonomous driving system, including motion forecasting and planning. However, there are only a small amount of real-world road topologies and geometries, which significantly limits our ability to test out the self-driving stack to generalize onto new unseen scenarios..."
“Second Amendment solutions” are only OK to talk about if you’re a Republican (I.e. “Real American”).
I’m being sarcastic, for the record. Back during his first term, Trump talked about “second amendment people” doing something about liberal Supreme Court justices (iirc) and the right wing media treated everyone as crazy for thinking that was wildly inappropriate.
It's really interesting how the same propaganda is applied by fascist governments everywhere. The ones supporting the "nationalist" government are the patriots and the others are enemies
This isn't an accurate description of the Democrat party's platform and repeating it uncritically is contributing to the problem.
reply