dgrochester55

Honesty with a late round pick, why not? You can develop him for a couple of years and trade him down the road.

Seven years later from the original post, and democrat politics have gotten worse. Typical online arguing with Dems in 2025. Normal poster: I prefer tart tasting apples to sweeter tasting ones Karen Dunning-Kruger: I don’t like tart apples, what are you an idiot? Normal poster: No, I just prefer the taste Karen Dunning-Kruger: But it says here that more people prefer oranges, what the hell is your problem? Normal Poster: I thought we were talking about apples Karen Dunning-Kruger: Don’t change the subject, oranges with thicker rinds are sweeter! Normal Poster: What does that have to do with this? Karen Dunning-Kruger: Are you a botanist? How dare you question scientific research! Normal Poster: I don’t see what this has to do with apples Karen Dunning-Kruger: Stop gaslighting me!

If Cleveland gets Sanders anyway and the extra picks, they got over huge on this trade.

I would rather see the NFL overhaul their officiating and stop running an obnoxious amount of gambling app ads. Regardless of how much tampering if any is actually going on in the games, those two things combined are a bad look and leave it wide open for people to question them. As far as expanding the playoffs, I haven't seen enough competitiveness from the 7th seeds in the playoffs to make me think that adding an 8th or 9th team would enhance the experience.

I noticed that a large portion of the Climate change narrative faded after they tried to blame the Maui fires on it two years ago and it blew up in their face. Shortly before that, Canadian wildfires covering most of the northeast in smoke were blamed on climate change but we later found out that Canada was grossly undermanned to fight it and allegedly that Trudeau had instructed his firefighters not to battle the fire. In early 2020 before COVID the Australian wildfires pitched as "Indisputable proof of climate change" ended up being at least partially due to arsonists. Not only does this look bad, but it resulted in half or more of the population wanted nothing to do with environmental conservation at all. That is a shame because there are numerous issues with pollution and we should all do our part. If climate change is real and human caused, no one wants anything to do with the current preventative plans because all they saw was virtue signaling, hypocrisy and a giant scheme to give China massive profits. My personal take is that I will take the climate change threat seriously when celebrities and politicians are no longer allowed to fly private jets.

Caring about human rights means that your intentions are at least good. Human rights does not mean absence of consequences. For example, I would have an inherent right to not be assaulted by you, but if I was to break into your house, that changes that and you have a right to defend yourself in that scenario. This person broke the law by coming here and that at the very least beating his wife and driving without a license and likely but allegedly at this point was in MS-13. Any other county would deport someone who entered illegally and committed crimes. Why is the US doing that a sudden violation of human rights? His rights do not allow him a free pass to violate the rights of others. Edit: Since progressives sometimes have trouble comprehending figurative vs literal when reading, let me add that the breaking in to your house sentence was meant as an analogy and not a literal threat.

My hot take is that if Trent Edwards had not been obliterated by that cheap shot in the Cardinals game, that he may have become a decent to above average game manager quarterback for a few years. He was never the same after that.

"Read the constitution?" Let me give you a parallel to that comeback. If a crazy Christian Nationalist gave you a "hot take" arguing for Project 2025 and then said "read your Bible" as their counter, you would laugh because they have an interpretation of the Bible that is way off and not grounded in reality.?" Even if you read it, your view towards project 2025 would not change. Same applies in this scenario. If I "read the constitution", my opinion will stay the same. Parts of the constitution are interpreted differently, even by lawyers and judges. When it comes to the subject, you have an inaccurate interpretation of the constitution that is different from the majority. I see it differently, so does the Supreme court. End of story Sorry dems, but you cannot keep your thug. You will need to find a US citizen to be your next virtue signaling status symbol.

I'll take an actual document from congress.gov over a meme with a quote(that was likely out of context and/or strategically edited.) https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-2/ALDE_00013725/ More specifically, this was decided in 2015 by a left leaning at the time supreme court "U.S. citizens have also asserted that the exclusion of an alien has impinged upon their due process rights.9 In Kerry v. Din, five Justices in 2015 agreed that denying an immigrant visa to the husband of a U.S. citizen on the grounds that he was inadmissible under a provision of federal immigration law (pertaining to terrorist activities) did not violate the due process rights of the U.S. citizen spouse.10 These Justices differed in their reasoning, though. A three-Justice plurality held that the U.S. citizen spouse had no protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in her husband’s ability to come to the United States, and did not decide whether the government had established a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for excluding her husband.11 A two-Justice concurrence did not reach the question of whether the U.S. citizen wife had asserted a protected liberty interest, but instead concluded that the consular officials’ citation of a particular statutory ground for inadmissibility as the basis for denying the visa application satisfied due process under Mandel, which requires only that the government state a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial.12" For the most part, 5th amendment rights are not seen as applying to undocumented. There are individual cases where it has applied, but it is not a default or an inheret right. It took a scroll down past about 20 leftist opinions column on Google, but I was able to find it.

The four or five (or maybe one or two with multiple accounts) far lefty regulars have been posting TDS propaganda 24/7 for three weeks straight with no sleep since the tariffs were announced. That is about it.

At worst, he was an ms-13 thug, at best, he was a wife beater who snuck in here illegally. I have a question for you. I do not get the far left mentality, is it misguided compassion that is so naive that they do not think that crime exists outside of their bubble or is it a deliberate desire to see chaos in this country so that it can start over with a reset in their image? Help me understand where your ideology is coming from.

What about the other things and what if that applies if only as an exception to what might be if it could be in that what might apply, what if it maybe could be what if it was also what if maybe what if what if? See how your deflection looked to us now? Lets try to talk about the criminals and those who broke the law to get being deported since this is the real topic and anything else is a red herring.

Nope, just a weak effort, maybe someone lower in intelligence or highly suggestible might get someone out of that but the sharper 90% of people on both sides of the spectrum would only see crap like this as not credible. It ignores that the deported "victims" criminals who never should have been here because they bypassed the rules, cherry picks from a religion while trolling it's followers and compares apples to oranges. Just another piece of useless propaganda with no other intent but to divide. Low brow and trashy in my opinion.

The WWJD card? Really? Weak effort.