monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@old europe,

You evadem my questions completely. What did you expect.. Actually, I believe I provided a very thoughtful and complete answer to your question

It is a bit amusing to deal with Europeans who are often in the habit of criticizing our bad manners, and who are so forgetful of their own.

1 Reply

@layman,

A couple of more hints on how the "sanctuary state" of California really operates:

Quote:

Governor Brown signed AB 60 into law in 2013, which directs the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue a driver’s license to any California resident who is eligible, regardless of immigration status. This means that an applicant who is undocumented can receive a driver’s license under AB 60. AB 60 represents an enormous victory for the immigrant communities and for the state as a whole...

An AB 60 license is valid for driving and for state ID purposes...It is against the law for state and local law enforcement to discriminate against someone because heor she has an AB 60 license. This means that you can use your AB 60 license to identify yourself to California police officers...

But the law does not protect against discrimination from federal law enforcement or law enforcement from other states. Because of this, do not present an AB 60 license to federal officials, such as ICE, CBP, or TSA, or to law enforcement in another state.

Q: If I applied for a driver’s license in California using a fake name or social security number in the past, will I be at risk if I apply for an AB 60 license?

A:...the DMV’s current policy is not to refer anyone to criminal prosecution who previously applied for a license using false information so long as the false information did not cause any harm.

Q: If I applied for a driver’s license in California using someone else’s social security number, will I be at risk if I apply for an AB 60 license?

A: The DMV’s current practice is not to refer people who have used false information to obtain a driver’s license for criminal prosecution unless that false information caused harm to others...if someone used information belonging to someone else (versus information that is made up), there’s more of a chance that the DMV could think that the person was using the false information to harm others (such as for identity theft)

Q: What if I was deported in the past or have immigration applications pending?

A: Your immigration history is not a factor in determining your eligibility for an AB 60 license.

Q: I have a deportation order, but I did not leave. Will this affect my ability to apply for an AB 60 license or place me at risk if I apply?

A: ...the DMV will not volunteer your information to ICE...

A lot more just like it at: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/ab_60_4_27_15.pdf

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

It also completely evades the question.

Like you, eh? After smugly (and falsely) proclaiming that I was WRONG when I said that California doesn't require proof of citizenship to vote, you have since repeatedly evaded the question, to wit:

Do you stand by your false claim?

Yes or no?

1 Reply

@layman,

I think old europe places a higher value on his questions than he does of those of folks like you and me.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Are you really standing by your false claim that proof of citizenship is required to vote in California?

Please link the post where I said that. I'm really looking forward to it.

Thanks.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Quote:
Are you really standing by your false claim that proof of citizenship is required to vote in California?

Please link the post where I said that. I'm really looking forward to it.

Thanks.

Just scroll back. I said that California does NOT require proof of citizenship and you declared that I was wrong.

You didn't say it, you just DENIED it's alternative, that what you're clinging to?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think old europe places a higher value on his questions than he does of those of folks like you and me.

Yeah, George, but even more value on his ANSWERS to all questions, of course, if he answers at all, that is.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I think your only actual question was whether or not I would behave that way in a group of Canadians.

I would reply that I don't really see how that should make a difference. I don't see how I need to be afforded "standing to comment" in order to participate in a discussion.

2 Replies

@old europe,

That is, as I suspect you know, not an answer. You are rather strict about noting evasions on the part of others but apparently oblivious to your own.

Would you behave in the same way as Baltham has done, with all the far-reaching judgemental commentary and dogmatic persistence in a similar discussion with a group of Canadians (or any other country)?

However, I fear I can deduce the answer from your other comments.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Remind me, Yurp....what is it called when you make a demonstrably false statement again?

1 Reply

@layman,

Like when you said that an AB-60 allows people to vote? That kind of claim?

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Like when you said that an AB-60 allows people to vote? That kind of claim?

For about the fifth time, Yurp:

Just answer the damn question and stop evading.

I just cited a source that says that an AB-60 is acceptable ID in Calfornia. I have made other posts which show that no photo ID is even required in the first place, and that California ID's are issued without the requirement that citizenship be proved.

YOU claimed that the voter registration website would REJECT an AB-60 ID. Have you entered your AB-60 ID on that website and had it rejected? If not, are you just making claims without a basis?

As I said, even if your claim is true, contrary to all other sources of information I've seen, it's irrelevant anyway. You don't need to submit any verifiable ID--just 4 numbers, which can easily be made up on the spot.

Instead of throwing out red herrings and trying to" answer" a question with a question, get honest for once.

Yes, or no?

Your condescending arrogance, when referring to what you characterized as my "endearing" creation of a "conspiracy theory," for example, does not speak well of your inclination for honesty rather than bluff.

1 Reply

Robert Reich
6 mins ·
Trump has picked retired Marine Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis for Secretary of Defense. Here are a few things you might like to know about him:
1. Mattis’s candor has often got him into trouble and signaled values that might be worrisome. He’s famous saying, “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” In 2005 he described fighting in Afghanistan this way: “Actually, it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people, I’ll be right up front with you. I like brawling . . . You go into Afghanistan, you’ve got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway, so it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
2. Obama fired Mattis, presumably because he was too eager for a military confrontation with Iran. Mattis believes Iran is a worse threat to stability in the Middle East than ISIS. "I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief. Iran is not an enemy of ISIS. They have a lot to gain from the turmoil in the region that ISIS creates."
3. Mattis has criticized President Obama for being naive about Iran’s intentions and Congress for being “pretty much absent” on last year’s nuclear deal, and has argued that the nuclear inspections may fail to prevent Iran from seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but that "f nothing else at least we will have better targeting data if it comes to a fight in the future."
4. Mattis seems to be extraordinarily popular with the troops.
A Secretary of Defense who shoots his mouth off and seems trigger happy would be less worrisome if his boss didn't share the same traits.

3 Replies

@edgarblythe,

"You go into Afghanistan, you’ve got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway, so it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

Mad Dog ROCKS!

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Robert Reich
...values that might be worrisome.

Worrisome? To who? Cheese-eaters like Obama and Reich, ya mean?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

That is, as I suspect you know, not an answer.

How so?

I don't believe anyone needs to be afforded "standing to comment" to participate in a discussion. I don't believe the fact that someone is not a citizen of a specific nation should exclude them from a discussion. I don't believe that participation in a discussion of a nation's internal affairs should be restricted only to citizens of that nation. I also don't think that any kind of discussion participation by non-citizens should somehow be limited to non-offensive contributions.

Americans make far-reaching, judgmental comments about other nations and their citizens all the time. You just made a judgmental comment about Europeans. I'm assuming that you think that's fine, even if Europe does not appear to currently pose a threat to you or your country.

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Americans make far-reaching, judgmental comments about other nations and their citizens all the time.

I don't know about George, but speakin for my own damn self: Damn straight, I do. Well, I don't give a rat's ass about the politics of hosers and limeys, but I got plenty of "judgments" about their "citizens."

0 Replies

Hmmm. I wonder what happened to Yurp, eh? Haven't seen him around for a good long spell now. Imma haul off and take a wild-ass guess:

When his bluff gets called, he runs, like any other candy-ass cheese-eater would.

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know