Comment by iamnothere
1 day ago
You also probably believe in strong regulation of the internet (including possibly ID verification), open borders, and other positions I don’t accept.
As I said, I’m not a fan of the current party, and I hope that the right continues to degrade state capacity until neither side has much left to work with.
No, I actually don't. I always find it surprising when people not only just internally start ascribing irrelevant and probably-untrue things to their interlocutors so they can dismiss their ideas, but they actually say it out loud!
I don't understand what my prior comment has to do with any party at all. It was a direct response to your implicit claim about the US's obligations to Ukraine, and therefore to the rest of its security umbrella.
Well then you wouldn’t be in alignment with the mainstream of your party, who does seem to want that, at least if you look at blue state legislation.
As to how it has to do with the party, we were discussing the Democratic Party, Russia was a brief aside. But I do find that people’s position on the Russia/Ukraine conflict typically tends to say a lot about their other positions.
Can you identify specific blue state legislation that creates or attempts to create open borders?
Are you referring to sanctuary policies which just say a locality won't expend local resources to enforce federal immigration law?
Not sure what you could possibly be referring to here.
You're aware that actual open borders is an extremely, extremely fringe position, right? The borders between US states are "open borders." Support for open international borders is unbelievably rare, across the entire political spectrum.
4 replies →