|
NewForumSoftware posted:I don't know what's so hard to grasp about being pragmatic about the situation instead of drawing a line in the sand that says "we can't help Donald Trump fight corporate america because then concentration camps"
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's just amazing, as a reluctant Hillary voter who was screamed at endlessly that compromise is the only way forward by liberals... now they are all screaming at me that compromise basically means you're supporting a fascist. Is there something I'm missing here? They are giant hypocrites. Thats should be your takeaway here
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
So long as the current composition of the SC remains as it is I doubt they'll commit to concentration camps. If one of the liberal justices dies all bets are off though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It must be depressing to be a Wisconsin Democrat, especially one that actually put time and effort into the party there. Has a political party ever failed so completely and totally in such a short period of time as the Wisconsin Dems from 2010 to now? Yeah. It is. But there have been moments. When the WI Senate democrats left the state to prevent a quorum and bought time for media attention to get drawn to Act 10 and the protestors. We fought a lot of the laws that many states have rolled over and taken in the courts, like voter ID. We created a petition and forced a recall election against Walker who is a complete shithead I don't want to even start on. But overwhelmingly Republican legislation has dominated because they controll all 3 branches of government and I no longer have any degree of certainty about how soon that might change. So like I said we have tried, but, you know, there is no try.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:[quote]I mean that's what people are saying. they are saying do not compromise with him regardless because it will set a bad precedent. I don't see how the GOP pushing their own agenda with no input from the Democrats is better than at least attempting to negotiate some sort of compromise, whatever little we can get. Are you Chuck Schumer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well luckily Trump isn't going to fight corporate America so I don't think we have to worry about that. I mean, I agree with you but people are making GBS threads on Bernie for saying he would... so yeah. I think in the hypothetical world where Donald Trump wanted to pass the "Keep Corporations Honest" bill we should work with him as opposed to refusing to on ideological grounds, which is what many in this thread are advocating. Pedro De Heredia posted:Are you Chuck Schumer? No but I appreciate the weird backhanded compliment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Apparently Mittens is being floated as SecState, which is not terrible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Acid Haze posted:Yeah. It is.   I'm honestly kind of glad I wasn't old enough to really understand in 2010. I feel like I'd have been completely hopeless towards politics otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So long as the current composition of the SC remains as it is I doubt they'll commit to concentration camps. Which judges that are currently on the Supreme Court do you think would sign off on concentration camps? What constitutional interpretation allows for Mexico-Muslim Concentration Camps? They didn't even okay that in the 40's during a time of war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:Is this a giant douche / turd sandwich argument? I voted for hillary not as an embrace of compromise and instead because by november she was by a mile the best candidate out of the extremely short list of likely victors. Hot take: she actually wasn't the bet candidate because good candidates don't have open FBI investigations while they campaign for president 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
quote:I don't know what's so hard to grasp about being pragmatic about the situation instead of drawing a line in the sand that says "we can't help Donald Trump fight corporate america because then concentration camps" The pragmatic option is not 'supporting Donald Trump'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:Apparently Mittens is being floated as SecState, which is not terrible? This would be a genuine relief to loving everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:They haven't capitulated. What they're doing is shielding themselves from the failures that they know are coming. If they declared right now "we'll obstruct Trump" it would be laughably easy for Trump and the GOP to pass blame to the Democrats for the shitshow of an administration that's coming. By saying they'll work with him on good things they're covered when things go south and can say "Well hey we said we'd work with them but this administration is just so bad." Yup exactly. This is just Bernie setting up for a later "well we wanted to work with him but this dude is crazy". Fojar38 posted:Can someone go into specific detail the path by which Trump puts people in concentration camps, starting with his inauguration in January? Massive expansion of currently existing immigration and naturalization services camps. He starts aggressively policing and expands ICE to try to actually deport the twelve million odd people currently in the country illegally. All of those people have a right to contest the deportation, so he puts them in detention camps in the meanwhile. Those camps are far beyond the scale of anything even our current massively bloated detention system has in place because they have to be because 12 million people PLUS family members and dependents (i.e., legal kids of illegal immigrants, dependent parents or grandparents who live with said immigrants, etc.) If we're really going down a Bad Timeline, then at some point there's another 9/11 style terrorist attack and Trump decides we really are at War With Islam. He nukes Mecca and declares the Muslim faith an act of treason (this sounds crazy but it's not too far off from things that people he's apparently considering for his cabinet, like Frank Gaffney, have supported in the past). Then they put in a new HUAC (as Gingrich called for as recently as July) investigating to see if people have "muslim sympathies." etc. etc. etc. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I love that now Donald Trump is elected it's become socially acceptable to become an accelerationist whereas for half of Obama's presidency I was laughed at as a lunatic (and rightfully so) I am not advocating accelerationism. I really do believe that the order that will have to be built should make libertarian sociopathy a reason for being put under the states care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Which judges that are currently on the Supreme Court do you think would sign off on concentration camps? What constitutional interpretation allows for Mexico-Muslim Concentration Camps? You seem to live under this weird idea that Republicans have meaningful morals besides "more money for us" and "gently caress minorities and the poor." The court that challenged Japanese internment also got ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This would be a genuine relief to loving everyone. It is astonishing how effectively Trump lowers our expectations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The pragmatic option is not 'supporting Donald Trump'. Compromising with him on political goals isn't supporting him no matter how bad you want to make it seem that way. Until you've got a better option that enacts more progressive policy don't waste your time with moral outrage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Dems first measure defend Medicare. Then stop any mass deportations, . Then stop any registry. Also stop FADA. How about the first thing we do is pass the TPP? Obama is really for it and he's basically the most popular kid in high school. Plus it'll really help out those poor workers overseas 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Massive expansion of currently existing immigration and naturalization services camps. He starts aggressively policing and expands ICE to try to actually deport the twelve million odd people currently in the country illegally. All of those people have a right to contest the deportation, so he puts them in detention camps in the meanwhile. Those camps are far beyond the scale of anything even our current massively bloated detention system has in place because they have to be because 12 million people PLUS family members and dependents (i.e., legal kids of illegal immigrants, dependent parents or grandparents who live with said immigrants, etc.) That sure is a lot of arbitrary arrest and detention to be done without suspending habeus corpus, something that Trump would require emergency powers to do, which Congress wouldn't give him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
If Trump gets nothing done in his first 4 years other than repealing the ACA and Dodd Frank through reconciliation his voters will blame him in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Compromising with him on political goals isn't supporting him no matter how bad you want to make it seem that way. The Republicans have been very clear on the idea that "compromise" is the most dirty word in politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That sure is a lot of arbitrary arrest and detention to be done without suspending habeus corpus, something that Trump would require emergency powers to do, which Congress wouldn't give him. Dude, all it's going to take is one dude in a turban with a truckful of fertilzer anywhere near a national monument of any kind. That said, that's why I specified immigration & naturalization. ICE has much broader powers than other law enforcement agencies because the people they're dealing with technically aren't citizens. I mean, hell, if he's expanding detention that much, all he has to do is not pass commensurate funding for defense attorneys and the habeas corpus issue is moot because nobody will have an attorney to file such a motion on their behalf; the right to have an attorney appointed does not apply in immigration proceedings. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Acid Haze posted:Yeah. It is. You still ran the same poo poo head who slto against him though. These peopple must be told that from now on if they want to be part of the party we lead and they get to be at the back. Tight Booty Shorts posted:How about the first thing we do is pass the TPP? Obama is really for it and he's basically the most popular kid in high school. Also yes, stop this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:If the economic parts of Trump's platform get passed and not the racist parts and bring us into a new golden age we'll have tangible proof that there is a God and Donald Trump is his prophet. I think the odds of Donald Trump being a successful social democrat are only nonzero by reason of technicality, but if he somehow drags the GOP base into social democracy I will admit he did a good thing despite my total perplexity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Dude, all it's going to take is one dude in a turban with a truckful of fertilzer anywhere near a national monument of any kind. This seems to be in the neighbourhood of "All that we need for strict gun control is for a guy to shoot up a kindergarten" levels of assumption.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Compromising with him on political goals isn't supporting him no matter how bad you want to make it seem that way. There is no compromise to be had, literally no progressive bills or additions to bills will ever be considered acceptable by the Republicans in Congress. The only compromise they understand is "We get everything we want you get to give it to us". Your view will not only fail to enact more progressive policy it will actively quicken the destruction of it for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Compromising with him on political goals isn't supporting him no matter how bad you want to make it seem that way. You have a different definition of pragmatic than others do. Your definition of pragmatic seems to be that you should only look at the present. You should not consider consequences, you should not consider ramifications, you should not make any projections of the future. Instead, you should simply make decisions on "what causes the most good RIGHT NOW". This is not pragmatism. Would it be 'pragmatic' if Bernie Sanders offered to be Donald Trump's Secretary of State? After all, Trump is President, and if Bernie is Secretary of State, he could do some good, right? That could *only* result in more progressive goals being achieved, correct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
 Another one bites the dust
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Dude, all it's going to take is one dude in a turban with a truckful of fertilzer anywhere near a national monument of any kind. This is the big wildcard I'm afraid of. All it's gonna take is one shitstain white nationalist or self-radicalized ISIS supporter getting a high enough body count for poo poo to go right to hell. Either that, or a future Russian invasion of a Baltic state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This seems to be in the neighbourhood of "All that we need for strict gun control is for a guy to shoot up a kindergarten" levels of assumption. what happened after 9/11?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is the big wildcard I'm afraid of. All it's gonna take is one shitstain white nationalist or self-radicalized ISIS supporter getting a high enough body count for poo poo to go right to hell. White nationalist won't count, they're white. Will have to be someone demonizable, i.e., brown. Russia invading a Baltic state is quite likely but I'm trying not to think about it because I genuinely think that leads to nuclear war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:what happened after 9/11? George Bush got emergency powers and put all Muslims in internment camps, I remember.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:George Bush got emergency powers and put all Muslims in internment camps, I remember. Bush, to his minimal credit, was very careful to say we were NOT waging war on Islam and that "islam is a religion of peace." Trump will have no such compunctions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
I voted in the GOP primary because I am in Texas and like having my downticket vote matter. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:George Bush got emergency powers and put all Muslims in internment camps, I remember. I also seem to remember him campaigning on putting all Muslims in interment camps too...
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Would it be 'pragmatic' if Bernie Sanders offered to be Donald Trump's Secretary of State? After all, Trump is President, and if Bernie is Secretary of State, he could do some good, right? That could *only* result in more progressive goals being achieved, correct? Yes, a million times yes (if you're talking about him actually getting the job) If he wouldn't get the job it doesn't sound very pragmatic to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:White nationalist won't count, they're white. Will have to be someone demonizable, i.e., brown. I suspect another round of OKC would be sufficient, white or no. It's about the pretext, not the morals. They didn't care before because Obama would've gotten that power. Now it's Republicans with all the keys to the castle. I doubt it leads to nuclear war, but probably does lead to the end of NATO and bad things in Europe. Then again I also think the EU is doomed so... GreyjoyBastard posted:I voted in the GOP primary because I am in Texas and like having my downticket vote matter. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:what happened after 9/11? 9/11 was orders of magnitude bigger than "a truck filled with fertilizer"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:You have a different definition of pragmatic than others do. Your definition of pragmatic seems to be that you should only look at the present. You should not consider consequences, you should not consider ramifications, you should not make any projections of the future. Instead, you should simply make decisions on "what causes the most good RIGHT NOW". This is not pragmatism. quote:A Lawyer’s Tale https://www.justsecurity.org/34404/case-serving-trump/
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You still ran the same poo poo head who slto against him though. These peopple must be told that from now on if they want to be part of the party we lead and they get to be at the back. Ok, yes. That, right there, was a huge, huge failure. It was really embarrassing in addition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:11
|
|