Feds Not Welcome, But Fed Money Is?

And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces.

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.

Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.

In my estimation, that would make for an excellent president, and a stronger nation.

...rising above the petty political jargon of governors is what makes a good leader,

not taking the worst possible time to make a political point.

And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do?

That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.

Should he seek their kowtow/obeisance or their cooperation?

I disagree. It makes for a petty president--not that Trump isn't petty.

There are times to flex, and there are times to dust off your shoulders. This isn't the time for the former.

I can safely say that I don't like the idea of the federal government handing out checks willy-nilly.

I don't much care who is writing the checks because I form my political positions based on whether I like a certain idea rather than whether I like the person proposing the idea.

I wonder if Ethan can say the same.

He was saying he disliked government handouts a few months ago, I am curious whether he can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to do so now that it is a politician with a red tie writing the checks.

How have you interpreted this post as me advocating govt. handouts?

He was saying he disliked government handouts a few months ago, I am curious whether he can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to do so now that it is a politician with a red tie writing the checks.

You like it or dislike it?

It was a clumsy save for you. I'm used to much more polished from you.

I am curious whether [ethan] can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to [state a dislike for government handouts] now...

I am curious whether ethan can demonstrate any consistency of thought...

I am curious...

I dislike being forced.....

Is there a moral law that says I should make the same discrimination as it does? That is life, we are all affected by the majority and by chance.

It is a disincentive to unpatriotic behavior.

It teaches that negative behavior will bring about negative consequences.

Your view here is very cynical

akin to calling marriage, prostitution.

You think it's to exploit panic, but that is because to you, everything is politics.

It's to clearly demonstrate the connection between their behavior and the consequence.

Yes, I notice that even though Trump is behaving opposite to a way you are calling petty, you still call call him petty.

I disagree. For this would not be just flexing or posturing. It is much more important than that.

All civilisations so far have declined and died.

Legal marriage is prostitution.

Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

What case?

Your analogy had little relevance, much less an explanation.

But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos. 

The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.

You will supply the explanation, showing the relevance. Observe.

And the subject of this discussion is how "cynical" my thinking is?

I thought it was about what the president ought to have done during this "panic," particularly his response to sanctuary governors, and the hypothetical situation where you were president.

Your allegation of "cynicism" is nothing more than a tone argument, which is an inept derailment tactic.

Exactly: I had to supply the explanation.

But you have yet to demonstrate its relevance.

I entertained the point in order to express my perspective of legal marriage--in retrospect, that was a mistake on my part.

The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.

Since I saw that your cynicism has made you incapable of rationally contributing to this discussion, yes.

You decided that Trumps response was politics and responded that way.

And that would make you a poor president--not that the lot of them merit much credit or respect with which to start. Whenever one presumes responsibility for a person, a group, let alone the masses, it isn't prudent to dwell on gripes and nuisances. Focus on solutions rather than one's emotions.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.

And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do? That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.

Derailment from what?

You are intelligent Athias

when a person says, for example, that marriage is prostitution, what more is there to say?

You seem to believe

simply saying something is a "tone" argument, or what ever designation you slap onto a discussion, makes it so.

You are very intelligent

but you may be autistic.

Which is why I didn't need to.

It is the same cynicism that informs your opinion of what motivates my suggestion of what Trump should do,

and what motivates people to marry.

You are not emotionally able to rationally discuss this.

How was it a mistake? Do you think my analogy of people who see marriage as being prostitution was a guess?

Not everything is win or lose.

But if you look at a young couple in love,

willing to sacrifice for each other, build a family together, and share the joys of life, and your take is that marriage is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract, there is not much I can say to you.

But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.

You allege that I'm cynical; once again, "skeptical" is more apropos. 

You have yet to demonstrate this cynicism,....

...not that it has any relevance outside of your capacity to let me know how you feel. 

And this isn't about rational contributions, this is about derailment.

You're the one who argued exploiting a "panic"... 

...in order to make a point about "patriotism," which is just a circumventing reference to obedience.

Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.

"Legal" is an important qualifier.

Seem is neither an argument, nor an observation. It's your impression; and impressions are irrelevant.

My arguments are always logically consistent.

How are the two mutually exclusive?

And I "may" be autistic? No, I'm not autistic. That's just another ad hominem.

My explanation was provided after the fact. 

...you are alleging this cynicism...

I never argued what motivated people to marry. I argued the motivations under legal marriage

My emotional capacity is irrelevant in logical discussion.

I should have never entertained it because it's an irrelevant tangent. But entertain it I will since we've already gone this far with it.

Don't remember stating that it was.

Couples shouldn't be "in love."

One ought to "love" like one loves a family member,...

...the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos. 

You think "skeptical" is more, apropos, your thoughts on marriage show that  cynicism is more correct.

You demonstrated it yourself. And yes, I know you don't think you did.

It has more relevance than that, and I decide it's relevance, not you.

"This" is always what you say it is, right? Royal pronouncements don't work with me A. You admitted entertaining this tangent. If it is derailment, it's you doing the derailment.

I brought up the topic. I made the thread, why would I derail what I brought up?

No sir. You're the one who claimed it was an argument to exploit a panic.

Earlier in his presidency, the people of New York and California said Trump was not welcome in their states. Their governors instructed state officers not to cooperate with federal officials.

But now we find that they welcome federal money to fight the Covid 19 virus. Federal money is fine but federal officials aren't?

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

Childish hypocrites, the lot of them. And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.

Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.

This again is your cynicism coloring your perspective. You even think you know my intent.

Federal officers, to my knowledge, have always been, and will always be, outside of my emotional capacity. Whatever that means.

Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.

I do not think impressions are irrelevant.

The talking point about "seem" is an old clunker meant to sound better than the usefulness it affords.

While that itself is questionable

even if true, would not mean your argument are always true

But it shows high esteem to judge the logical consistency of your arguments with an absolute.

They aren't necessarily.

How is that an ad hominem? It's like observing that a person is tall. But being autistic can interfere with smooth communication.

What fact? It was provided after I predicted you would provide it.

Yes I am, as demonstrated in your comments about marriage, sorry, "legal" marriage. So what? You are alleging exploiting a panic. That is how debates work. Allegations are not wrong because you disagree with them.

And it is your cynicism that causes you to view legal marriage that way, the same cynicism causing you to think my motivation for my suggestion to Trump was petty politics.

If you actually believe this, then you are autistic.

Entertain whatever you will, but please stop claiming I'm the one trying to derail my own topic when its you entertaining a tangent.

I do remember you behaving as though it was.

You should be aware this is simply your opinion.

Every legally marrying couple should "love" the way you think they should, otherwise it's prostitution.

I got you

it shows that cynicism has corrupted your logical process, at least with some subjects.

I do know that no one, in all my years of experience, has sought a State's incarnation of "marriage". People marry simply because they love each other and want to be together. There are exceptions of course.

Now that I know how you think on the threads topic,

It isn't intended as an ad hominem, but I can understand why you would think it was.

I decide the subject of my topic,

I decide relevance to me,

"Clear" to whom? You mean it "seems" that way to you.

You placed "panic" in quotes because you are not yet dishonest enough to deny that you are the one calling it a panic.

I'm not even talking about the corona virus epidemic.

But now we find that they welcome federal money to fight the Covid 19 virus. Federal money is fine but federal officials aren't?

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

You told me how you think A!

I questioned it.

I believe you have intimate experience with the manner in which you submit arguments. I just know you are not always  logical.

I did. Does it surprise you that I can mention things you didn't?

Esteem is vitally important to logical consistency.

Your observation, of course, is royally immune from being crap.

Playing the victim doesn't become you, and such ploys never work on me.

You can tell me, but since your telling me does not make me wrong, I can dismiss your perspective as subjective crap.

The fact that you entertained a tangent shows you are a poor judge of your concerns.

I did draw the conclusion I wanted, and you appear to be unhappy that I did.

I've addressed every point you raised against the OP. If you have no rebuts, I have nothing to add.

I'm going to entertain your "tats" for my "tits" anymore. 

Enjoy your day, sir.