Crazy take to think the morally correct move is to capitalize on the virtuous parts of America, then leave when it's at its most vulnerable.

Here's to hoping the rest of your generation is willing to fight to bring back the country that allowed you to prosper.

Please quote where I said that.

The point I am making has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are "legal", whether the cops in them are or aren't required to enforce immigration laws, etc.

Speaking of what's appropriate for Hacker News, if I wanted discourse like "bazinga! The Supreme Court already ruled that sanctuary cities are allowed to exist. Checkmate xD" I would be on Reddit.

I (obviously wrongly) thought HN could handle higher level conversation that repeating the same "gotcha" 7 times in a thread.

> There's no dirt.

The dirt is your derisive, self righteous comment, which you had to make to get your little jab in, which added nothing past the repeated, redundant statements of raw_anon_1111. Hope you feel proud of your contribution to this site.

Yet here we are. You build the community you deserve through your words and actions.

I'm more than happy to have good faith discussion, and legitimately strive to take every point in the best light as possible. That's falling out of favor here, especially for political topics.

If you want to roll in the dirt don't think I'm just going to walk away.

> Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses.

> The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters.

You sanctuary city defenders are real sharp.

Hope you find some time this year to figure out "Your Strategy", god knows you need one.

Not sure I understand the value proposition here, but then again Amazon is known for having redundant teams every now and again.

Hmm, no?

As a solutions architect at Amazon I was very much a "rank and file" employee, and privy to large deals, so I'm not sure what you're on about. I haven't heard of Professional Services, presumably you guys had different responsibilities.

Huh? We're not talking about the custodial staff.

> Amazon for instance has over 1 million customers. You know nothing about most of your coworkers or whether other teams are delivering featured

This is a hilarious example; especially at Amazon, "rank and file" employees are privy to $100M+ AWS deals, they have to implement them after all.

> The Supreme Court has just as often struck down gun laws where a city couldn’t do anything about it.

You're exposing your ignorance by showing you don't know what "sanctuary city" means.

Sanctuary cities aren't contrasted with non-sanctuary cities where a sanctuary city's police officers don't arrest people for immigration offenses.

The contrast is because the city impedes federal investigations into immigration matters.

It's patently false to say that cities "can't do anything" about gun violations. There are plenty of examples of cities not impeding, or even assisting, the ATF in these scenarios.

This has never been claimed nor intimated in this entire thread.

I can tell you're having a difficult time understanding what I'm saying. Let me rephrase it for you:

- If the policy of the Democratic Party is that immigration laws should be enforced

- Why does the party tolerate Democratic sanctuary cities?

- Why does the Democratic party source presidential candidates who have in practice (not simply in word) opposed the immigration law enforcement policy?

> What are you talking about?

Kamala Harris was DA for SF during the early 2010s, where she explicitly backed the city's sanctuary policies.

As CA AG she opposed the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act", which was aimed at deterring sanctuary cities through withholding of federal funding.

In the 2024 presidential election she was the Democratic candidate.

This is all on her Wikipedia page.

Can you answer my question?

> Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?

Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?

Wouldn't it be crazy if the Democratic Party sourced their presidential candidates from sanctuary cities, especially candidates with law enforcement careers in said cities?

I welcome your critical interpretation of the existence of sanctuary cities and CFAP/California DREAM Act/related programs.

The harsh reality is that "lesser of two evils" thinking is what got us here.

In the 2024 election, the two mainstream party positions on immigration were:

- Let's not enforce any immigration law, and subsidize those here illegally

- Let's round up illegal aliens, indefinitely detain them without habeas corpus, maybe deport them to a country they aren't from

These are both insane, radical policies, neither of which represents the vast majority of the voting populous.

But since the picture is painted as "you just gotta pick the lesser of two evils", we end up with parties continually toeing the line of policy sanity.

How does this relate here, or to computing generally (barring electronic voting machines)?

Lol, what a humble take. We all know in this VC owned forum that only truth is upvoted, and lies downvoted, especially on topics like private equity.

> Revlon duties are a specialised duty that apply in certain circumstances. They don't in others. The other situation is what we were talking about

Again you're operating insincerely, because as I told you last time, and this time, Revlon does not relate to what I'm referring to. I even quoted you Dodge v Ford Motor Co as a jump off point for your education, which you refused to acknowledge due to it being "from over 100 years ago".

Anyways I'm curious if you'll share your background, and why you're consistently in these discussions about private equity, rabidly playing defense?

> If the advantage is as overwhelming and deterministic as you claim

Nobody is claiming this, you're strawmanning again.

Hope you have more success in the future convincing people that there's totally nothing different between sexes and that it doesn't matter if your chromosomes cause you distinct lifelong hormonal exposures which are definitely not at all related to strength, speed, bone density, or anything else that would give someone a sporting advantage. I imagine anyone with half a functional brain won't fall for it.

No sir, it was you who were confused - you brought them up here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46186549

> > There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders

> No, there isn't. The whole point of Revlon duties is that they trigger "in certain limited circumstances indicating that the 'sale' or 'break-up' of the company is inevitable" [1]. Outside those conditions, "the singular responsibility of the board" is not "to maximize immediate stockholder value by securing the highest price available."

I'll leave it up to you to recontextualize with the remainder of that thread if you want to continue discussing.

Continuing our discussion from last time, can you elaborate on why you think quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?

Respectfully, you aren't ready to engage in legitimate discussion on this topic. Good faith would be steelmanning the other side, not continually referring to "the narrative" and then "defeating" it.

> There are no men in women's sports, there are women in women's sports, and until you show me the source you're, respectfully, talking nonsense.

Your consistent euphemization around this topic is another clue that you're really not engaging honestly. You should consider what you're looking to get out of this discussion.

A simple Google search will find you dozens of examples of XY individuals competing in spaces meant for XX individuals, at all levels of competition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Hubbard

I'm not here to spoon feed you this 101 level info. Again, my advice would be to consider why you're engaging here - is it with an open and curious mind, keen on learning; or a zealous propagandist spirit?