“Yes, the current system is slow and ineffective, and has done nothing to prevent the incarceration and deportation of innocent people, misappropriation of funds, and misuse of the military, but to demand anything else would be going against the ineffective system!”
The current process of Due Process is allowing blatantly illegal activities to continue unhindered because “we need to give them time to comply even when they are clearly not going to.” You need a different process, and pointing out that the system is not working is perfectly valid.
That’s not what an ad hominem is. You are literally parroting his justification for suspending the due process rights of everyone he wants to deport…right down to the part about “allowing criminals to get away with it…blah, blah, blah”.
If you think these people are criminals, then prove it in court. Present your evidence to a judge and jury. If they are as guilty as you say, then you should get a conviction. And no one will be able to refute it.
But if you simply do away with the whole process, you are guaranteeing that innocent people will be persecuted for nothing more than suspicion of guilt. They will have no means of clearing their name, when people like Trump accuse them of something they didn’t do. Are all those people worth throwing under the bus?
I’m simply responding to what you wrote. How else are you expecting me to read it?
How do you implement a “different process” without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now…or coming up with something else entirely?
And please, explain this “different process”. I would love to hear how you’ve solved the problems with the legal system, the way it is. I’m sure the world will be grateful that someone has finally come up with a system that can’t be abused. Your Nobel prize awaits.
You should take a deep breath, calm down, and read what Cile wrote. They were pretty clear, but you keep yelling at them for things that they never said.
No, you’re responding to what your want to argue against instead of what is actually being said. I’m not going to continue repeating myself to someone who has no intention of listening.
How do you implement a “different process” without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now…or coming up with something else entirely?
You immediately contradict yourself here. “Can’t change anything without throwing away everything. Unless you’re talking about making changes that is.”
Your Nobel prize awaits.
“You’re not allowed to point out a flawed system unless you have a perfect solution! ‘better’ is not good enough if it’s not perfect! To do otherwise must mean you’re advocating for anarchy!”
“Yes, the current system is slow and ineffective, and has done nothing to prevent the incarceration and deportation of innocent people, misappropriation of funds, and misuse of the military, but to demand anything else would be going against the ineffective system!”
So, because people are currently being denied the right to due process…due process itself, doesn’t work?
The current process of Due Process is allowing blatantly illegal activities to continue unhindered because “we need to give them time to comply even when they are clearly not going to.” You need a different process, and pointing out that the system is not working is perfectly valid.
You sound just like Trump, now…you get that, right?
Sure I do. Exact the same. Biggly.
A baseless adhominim does not refute my statement, you get that right?
That’s not what an ad hominem is. You are literally parroting his justification for suspending the due process rights of everyone he wants to deport…right down to the part about “allowing criminals to get away with it…blah, blah, blah”.
If you think these people are criminals, then prove it in court. Present your evidence to a judge and jury. If they are as guilty as you say, then you should get a conviction. And no one will be able to refute it.
But if you simply do away with the whole process, you are guaranteeing that innocent people will be persecuted for nothing more than suspicion of guilt. They will have no means of clearing their name, when people like Trump accuse them of something they didn’t do. Are all those people worth throwing under the bus?
Is not equal to “do away with the whole process”.
Once again, if you’re not going to bother reading things before replying to them then what’s the point?
I’m simply responding to what you wrote. How else are you expecting me to read it?
How do you implement a “different process” without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now…or coming up with something else entirely?
And please, explain this “different process”. I would love to hear how you’ve solved the problems with the legal system, the way it is. I’m sure the world will be grateful that someone has finally come up with a system that can’t be abused. Your Nobel prize awaits.
You should take a deep breath, calm down, and read what Cile wrote. They were pretty clear, but you keep yelling at them for things that they never said.
No, you’re responding to what your want to argue against instead of what is actually being said. I’m not going to continue repeating myself to someone who has no intention of listening.
You immediately contradict yourself here. “Can’t change anything without throwing away everything. Unless you’re talking about making changes that is.”
“You’re not allowed to point out a flawed system unless you have a perfect solution! ‘better’ is not good enough if it’s not perfect! To do otherwise must mean you’re advocating for anarchy!”