CDZ Trump receives rebuke ???

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Cole, Aug 26, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cole
    Offline

    Cole Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +30
    It has never happened before !! Liberals are so stupid. If there was rebuke it was from liberals ! Liberals are so focused on a few things they think will bring him down. They don't see everything he is doing !!!
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,311
    Thanks Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,101
    Dear Cole: what is your CDZ question to debate, what are the two sides? Has Trump received any period, is that the question, or has he accepted rebuke?
    Examples of rebukes:
    1. Cruz rebuked him for lying about his wife and father, threatened to sue Trump and depose Trump himself if he didn't shut up and stop the slander/defamation. Of course Trump had to drop it. This is a correct way to rebuke as equal constituents demanding respect for laws that govern all of us.
    2. Ryan rebuked Trump about the wall, saying if Trump pushed for ANYTHING unconstitutional, then even his own constituents would sue to stop this in court.
    Again, using the Constitution is the correct way to hold fellow citizens and officials to enforce laws we agree to enforce in common.

    If you want to count the lawsuit by Sanctuary Cities in Texas against both Trump and the Texas SB4:
    3. Liberal Democrats are arguing that enforcement of these laws is INDIRECTLY affecting the Latino and immigrant populations DISPROPORTIONATELY.
    Their arguments include that deportation will actually create BIGGER BURDENS on taxpayers by removing workers who support their families,
    forcing the legal documented members ONTO WELFARE. So it has UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES by not distinguishing the "dangerous criminals"
    the bill is intended to deter and deport. The opponents argue that the equal protection of laws from discrimination isn't enforced for minorities unfairly affected.

    The problem I have with this, is neither are the Democrats INCLUDING a solution to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for creating LEGAL jobs and status
    for these workers otherwise displaced or deported.

    So neither side of the argument is fully Constitutional because they both impose a burden on the other side they don't believe in paying for.
    One side doesn't agree to pay for the damage and debts from illegal immigration and related crimes that stronger enforcement helps to DETER.
    The other side doesn't offer to pay to sponsor all these working minorities and immigrants, but expects govt/taxpayers to foot the bill without a solution.

    So to be Constitutional, the rebukes should be MUTUAL.
    Both sets of grievances on both sides should be addressed and resolved with BUSINESS SOLUTIONS.

    Until we have rebukes where the critics agree to offer and share responsibility for SOLUTIONS,
    then that's why the opposition isn't being heard. They are just out shouting each other over faults with their arguments.
    But where are the rebukes offering to CORRECT These faults on both sides?

    So to answer what I think is your question Cole
    Yes, there have been rebukes to Trump, as presented by his own party members.
    But the rebukes by "liberals" haven't presented solutions, so those aren't being heard yet.
     
  3. Ringel05
    Offline

    Ringel05 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    46,478
    Thanks Received:
    9,025
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The 505
    Ratings:
    +23,731
    He's only interested in spamming the board with his tripe.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page