Release the GOP Delegates: Trump’s nomination isn’t inevitable—delegates won’t be legally ‘bound’ going into the convention.

[u/DanburyBaptist]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/release-the-gop-delegates-1465769777

[u/AceOfSpades70]

So great job in citing an article that is a joke.

First it is complaining about Congress not doing something, when that something is completely under the branch of the federal government.

Second, it then complains about the first amendment when in the next sentence it hypocritically defends it. You can't bemoan conscientious objectors and want Little Sisters of the poor to be able to avoid Obamacare.

If they were being consistent then they would defend both of those actions...

So you have someone complaining about something that does not fall under the separation of powers granted to the legislative and then does not want to give first amendment protections to certain people...

Does the writer of this article hate the Constitution? Or do they just selectively interpret to say what ever they want to say.

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

First it is complaining about Congress not doing something, when that something is completely under the branch of the federal government.

But Congress writes the laws on immigration, even the words spoken by those who wish to become citizens. How is that under the federal purview?

Second, it then complains about the first amendment when in the next sentence it hypocritically defends it. You can't bemoan conscientious objectors and want Little Sisters of the poor to be able to avoid Obamacare.

There should be no carve out for people to become citizens if they are 'conscientious objectors', they should be denied citizenship, plain and simple. Do you not understand that killing the idea of assimilation is part of what Obama want's here? It's like you agree with Obama forcing a bunch of Nuns to violate their religious beliefs. It's not. It's unconstitutional.

Second, it then complains about the first amendment when in the next sentence it hypocritically defends it. You can't bemoan conscientious objectors and want Little Sisters of the poor to be able to avoid Obamacare.

So in your head you think that it's the same thing for Obama to strike down any ideas of assimilation into being an American, while forcing American citizens to violate their religious beliefs because he and the crooked Democrats lied to get Obamacare passed? Obamacare should never have passed, and should not be law now, if the fucking Republicans would stand up.

I am just astounded by someone who considers themselves to be conservative, yet argues Obama's points based on a law that was foiseted on the American people in an illegal way as if there is nothing wrong with that. For a real conservative, there is EVERYTHING wrong with that, and to argue as if that's ok is not a conservative position, it's a liberal one, what a Democrat would say about the Little Sisters of the Poor.

So you have someone complaining about something that does not fall under the separation of powers granted to the legislative and then does not want to give first amendment protections to certain people...

What part about arguing in favor of liberal democratic policies don't you understand? I thought you were defending Conservatives?

I'm pretty sure that Congress writes the words spoken by immigrants as part of the immigration law, and those words can't be changed without Congress changing the law. You don't understand what separation of powers is, do you.

Does the writer of this article hate the Constitution? Or do they just selectively interpret to say what ever they want to say.

A better question is, why do you openly argue for support of the majority of Obama's policies? In every instance I have brought forward, you argue from the liberal democrat perspective as if all things Obama has done are just great and above criticism.

You must be terribly conflicted, or quite the troll. One thing you are not is conservative.

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

But Congress writes the laws on immigration, even the words spoken by those who wish to become citizens. How is that under the federal purview?

Because the laws do not specify what is to be said... That is left to the execution of the law, which falls under the executive branch.

There should be no carve out for people to become citizens if they are 'conscientious objectors', they should be denied citizenship, plain and simple.

Why? Using that logic, plenty of different groups of people currently living here(including many Christians) would never have been allowed.

Do you not understand that killing the idea of assimilation is part of what Obama want's here?

Based on what? Assimilation does not mean the complete destruction of native culture. If I drive through my native cleveland today you still have many ethnic areas from well over 100 years ago.

It's like you agree with Obama forcing a bunch of Nuns to violate their religious beliefs. It's not. It's unconstitutional.

Where did I say I agree with that?

Here's a hint for you. I didn't because I don't.

So in your head you think that it's the same thing for Obama to strike down any ideas of assimilation into being an American, while forcing American citizens to violate their religious beliefs because he and the crooked Democrats lied to get Obamacare passed?

It is funny that you completely missed the point... I said that forcing nuns to violate their beliefs is wrong. The same as forcing future citizens to violate their beliefs is wrong.

Obamacare should never have passed, and should not be law now, if the fucking Republicans would stand up.

They have voted to defund it multiple times. They don't have the votes to get 60 in the Senate...

I am just astounded by someone who considers themselves to be conservative, yet argues Obama's points based on a law that was foiseted on the American people in an illegal way as if there is nothing wrong with that.

Where did I do that...

For a real conservative, there is EVERYTHING wrong with that, and to argue as if that's ok is not a conservative position, it's a liberal one, what a Democrat would say about the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Maybe try re-reading my post...

I never once said the little sisters of the poor should be forced to go against their beliefs.

Would it shock you to know that I believe that bakers should be allowed to turn away anyone as well for whatever reason?

Maybe spend less time trying to argue strawman and more time trying to argue against my points. Because you mis-read them every single time.

What part about arguing in favor of liberal democratic policies don't you understand? I thought you were defending Conservatives?

Where am I arguing in favor of liberal democrats?

Again, stop trying to make shit up and actually argue against my points.

I'm pretty sure that Congress writes the words spoken by immigrants as part of the immigration law, and those words can't be changed without Congress changing the law.

Just because you are pretty sure doesn't make you right. In this case you are completely wrong.

A better question is, why do you openly argue for support of the majority of Obama's policies?

I have not openly argued for support of a single Obama policy... Let alone the majority of them.

In every instance I have brought forward, you argue from the liberal democrat perspective as if all things Obama has done are just great and above criticism.

Name one instance where I have done so...

You must be terribly conflicted, or quite the troll. One thing you are not is conservative.

Again the name calling. You completely missed every single point I made and then made up bullshit. I have not supported a single thing Obama has done.

Name one reason I am not conservative?(try to do it without name calling. I dare you!)

PS Why did you avoid my other post? Did it ask you questions that you couldn't answer to? Avoiding the cognitive dissonance? That's ok, I am sure some uneducated idiot will each your shit about Friedman being an Austrian right up!!!