|
I'm not sure why "Obama did bad things too" is even relevant.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure why "Obama did bad things too" is even relevant. Well, it's relevant in that it tells us the solution to this problem is not simply to elect a Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
It's a real proposal. AP posted it with the story: Origional story: https://apnews.com/5508111d59554a33be8001bdac4ef830?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP Draft Memo: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3467508-Trump-National-Guard-Draft-Memo.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure why "Obama did bad things too" is even relevant. DeusExMachinima posted:The time to be #woke and do 3 million person marches was when your own party was in power. Then you'd be marginally more likely to be successful as opposed to being loving doomed because It's relevant in terms of having not being a total idiot who can't understand when your cause will have a chance of success at all. If Trump wants to call out the NG then he's gonna do it and not suffer any consequences for at least 4 years, period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:29
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
if you think Trump or executive police agencies care now.
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's relevant in terms of having not being a total idiot who can't understand when your cause will have a chance of success at all. If Trump wants to call out the NG then he's gonna do it and not suffer any consequences for at least 4 years, period. Trump's popularity (or lack of popularity) matters quite a lot in 2018, which incidentally is...rather important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
I've got an effortpost somewhere around here on the internal problems of, and differences in, immigration policy and enforcement practices. Looks like it's not here, but...short version is that both sides of immigration debates benefit rhetorically by sabotaging immigration enforcement, and by keeping immigration agencies massively underfunded-it's a significant part of why they're so inhumane. Obama actually spending resources on the existing deportation backlog was a politically unwinnable act, that was probably justified. What Trump is doing is different.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's relevant in terms of having not being a total idiot who can't understand when your cause will have a chance of success at all. If Trump wants to call out the NG then he's gonna do it and not suffer any consequences for at least 4 years, period. That's dumb. We've already seen Republicans back down over significant issues; hell, Puzder just withdrew. Trump is not Talos and the Republicans in Congress are not a unified body marching in lock step. Pressure matters. (Even in the courts; judges listen to public opinion).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Alright so here's an issue that's been on my mind recently. Florida's "Docs v. Glocks" law has been mostly struck down by the 11th Circuit and may be appealed to SCOTUS. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.4a21fe8fefe5 I'm not surprised this law got shot down. Regulating doctor's speech in this way can't possibly be equivalent to the same authority that allows the state to license people who do heart surgery. AFAIK the only thing doctors really can't legally say under license is explicitly advise their patient to break the law, like MMJ in a total prohibition state. So here's my question: since this Florida law took its precedent from the California law regulating doctors' speech regarding transgender hormones, surgery, etc. does this court decision weaken the legal grounds for that law as well? TBQH neither one seemed to hold constitutional water to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
It's weird to see so much angst about the prospect of enforcing laws in the SCOTUS thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Trump's popularity (or lack of popularity) matters quite a lot in 2018, which incidentally is...rather important. 2018 is going to be a midterm outlier/a loving massacre for the Dems. Look at an electoral map sometime. We're talking about the party that just failed to take a favored Senate race back. Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's dumb. We've already seen Republicans back down over significant issues; hell, Puzder just withdrew. Trump is not Talos and the Republicans in Congress are not a unified body marching in lock step. Even if I believed the National Guard or ICE cares about a minority of the voters marching down the street, there still would be a greater chance of more good being done when it's your own party/leader that you're protesting. Really the only example I can think of someone being willing to do that cohesively and effectively in recent history is Black Lives Matter protesting the federal milsurp program for police departments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure why "Obama did bad things too" is even relevant. It can certainly go to credibility, for one thing.. In the same way you hear Republican's impotence being called out on the email scandal in the wake of Trump's terrifying national security blunders (including using personal email); if you are so truly driven by the humanitarian crisis that is U.S. immigration policy then where was the outcry from the Dems for the last 8 years?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:It's weird to see so much angst about the prospect of enforcing laws in the SCOTUS thread. You put more effort into it last week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Funny thing is, back in the "good old days" America actually was better at immigration that we are now. The system we have today is a (relatively) recent invention. It's pretty messed up that some people think it's easier/better to just roll out the NG rather than go back to an immigration system that probably allowed their ancestors in. It's not really a surprise that immigration standards changed once countries no longer needed loads of unskilled uneducated laborers. At any rate strict immigration standards are a feature of all modernized western counties, the US is probably still one of the easier places to get in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:2018 is going to be a midterm outlier/a loving massacre for the Dems. Look at an electoral map sometime. We're talking about the party that just failed to take a favored Senate race back. The last midterms during the term of a deeply unpopular Republican president was a bloodbath for the Republican party. And it's not just important for national elections, it's important for state legislatures/governorships in the leadup to 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
I'll say it again, go look up the electoral map for 2018.TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:It's not really a surprise that immigration standards changed once countries no longer needed loads of unskilled uneducated laborers. At any rate strict immigration standards are a feature of all modernized western counties, the US is probably still one of the easier places to get in. Yes, this is true although personally I don't wish to grade freedom of movement on a curve. But it makes it doubly funny that most of Europe is so horrified by Trump's EOs when on the issue of immigration he's to the right in the U.S. and solidly middle of the road in lots of Europe. It goes to the issue of credibility as Danger said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Danger posted:It can certainly go to credibility, for one thing.. In the same way you hear Republican's impotence being called out on the email scandal in the wake of Trump's terrifying national security blunders (including using personal email); if you are so truly driven by the humanitarian crisis that is U.S. immigration policy then where was the outcry from the Dems for the last 8 years? Whose credibility? Obama's? Hillary's? A hypothetical nonspecific "media"? "Why aren't people talking about X" is always bullshit because it's the 21st century and people are and we're definitely talking about it. Obama's deportation policies had problems and we're justly criticized and I saw those criticisms discussed at length on this forum. Trump is getting more attention for two reasons: 1) his policies are dramatically more egregious (deporting those without criminal history, banning green card holders, etc) and 2) Trump WANTS more attention paid to his deportation policy, which indicates he plans to act even more egregiously than he already has. Stop drawing irrelevant false equivalencies. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Whose credibility? Obama's? Hillary's? A hypothetical nonspecific "media"? The credibility of the people marching now and not in the same numbers when their guy was in office even though they totally cared just as much then, you guys. Talk is cheap. Also point 2 is a weakass defense if you're only getting hyped up about the injustice when the bad dude intentionally draws attention to it you're like the spitting definition of low-info.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Point one matters, dude. Obams's policies were bad but they followed the law and the Constitution. Trump's EO has not. Hence, a much wider and broader level of protest is justified. Handwaving away legitimate protest with bullshit claims of false equivalency is intellectually dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Green cards, visa holders, openly admitting your EO was a Muslim ban are great ways to screw over a rational basis law, I agree. But if you got back through the posts we were specifically talking about ICE and/or potentially the NG deporting people here without documentation and/or holding them in border camps until deportation. Nothing unconstitutional about that, regardless of whether I think our immigration system makes sense as it stands now. The level and tenor of protest against it is absoutely different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Trump's popularity (or lack of popularity) matters quite a lot in 2018, which incidentally is...rather important. For the people who will still be allowed to voted by 2018, sure. Also unless Trump's less popular than Bush and the Dems manage to successfully(lol) link reps/senators to him nationwide they're going to be lucky to break even.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Green cards, visa holders, openly admitting your EO was a Muslim ban are great ways to screw over a rational basis law, I agree. I think people are more upset largely because, given Trump's track record and statements, they rationally expect his ICE, deportations, etc to follow the pattern of his Muslim Ban EO -- I.e., discriminatory, irrational, pointlessly cruel, etc. Again, to the extent comparison with Obama is valid, Obama's policies at least paid lip service to basic humanity (DREAM etc). That's gone or going now, and that's why People are freaking out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'll say it again, go look up the electoral map for 2018. Yeah the Senate map is bad. Ground can be gained elsewhere. Accepting defeat now is brain dead though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
A dem lost a special election in a trump 30+ district by like 5 points last week, 2018 is definitely on the table.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:For the people who will still be allowed to voted by 2018, sure. Trump is currently at Bush's 2006 approval/disapproval, which lost Republicans the house, senate, and a bunch of state and local races. The 2018 election map is pretty bad, so it's tough to say whether Dems will be able to capitalize on his unpopularity (if it maintains). Trump is well on his way to being more unpopular than Bush, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Point one matters, dude. Obams's policies were bad but they followed the law and the Constitution. \ No, they certainly did not and routinely restricted due process, right to counsel, and utilized unlawful detentions to deport a record number of people. I don't even think we are in disagreement here, as I nor anyone else is saying we shouldn't be protesting Trump. What (at least I) am saying is that we need to acknowledge that this isn't a Trump issue. The people in the streets now should have been there for the same reasons for Obama or it's just partisan scapegoating like everything else. Because Obama wasn't unhinged on twitter does not make it somehow less egregious and, in my mind, is even more unsettling; his administration illegally deported families to be killed by death squads as standard practice but at least he had great PR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think people are more upset largely because, given Trump's track record and statements, they rationally expect his ICE, deportations, etc to follow the pattern of his Muslim Ban EO -- I.e., discriminatory, irrational, pointlessly cruel, etc. I'm not sure how ICE deportations that have been primarily of Hispanics for decades can't be discriminatory at least in impact so that shouldn't be a surprise whether or not there's a Muslim EO. But thanks for confirming what I was saying, that you can do what is materially the same thing but as long as the person in charge of doing it talks nice on Twitter then they won't get priority status from the freedom fighters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Danger posted:No, they certainly did not and routinely restricted due process, right to counsel, and utilized unlawful detentions to deport a record number of people. I don't even think we are in disagreement here, as I nor anyone else is saying we shouldn't be protesting Trump. What (at least I) am saying is that we need to acknowledge that this isn't a Trump issue. The people in the streets now should have been there for the same reasons for Obama or it's just partisan scapegoating like everything else. Because Obama wasn't unhinged on twitter does not make it somehow less egregious and, in my mind, is even more unsettling; his administration illegally deported families to be killed by death squads as standard practice but at least he had great PR. I should probably clarify that when I say "Obama followed the Constitution" I'm talking the letter rather than the spirit. There is a big difference between "technically courts have ruled that detainees in immigration hearings have no 6th amendment right to counsel" as per Obama, and "CBP doesn't care if you have a court order" under Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They're trying to normalize other extreme actions- naive Overton pushing, basically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
The democrats just need the house which I think is doable against trump. The house and the filibuster is enough to grind government to a halt as the last few years have shown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The democrats just need the house which I think is doable against trump. The house and the filibuster is enough to grind government to a halt as the last few years have shown. Goodbye SCOTUS till the 2040s. That was clear on November 8, granted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The democrats just need the house which I think is doable against trump. The house and the filibuster is enough to grind government to a halt as the last few years have shown. A generalized Democratic wave in 2018 would also help retake state governments, which would help immensely in the next census & gerrymandering wave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Goodbye SCOTUS till the 2040s. Isn't this only the case if one of the progressives on the court croaks and Trump gets another nom? Pretty sure Gorsuch maintains the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Isn't this only the case if one of the progressives on the court croaks and Trump gets another nom? Pretty sure Gorsuch maintains the status quo. There are approximately even odds of at least one liberal justice dying before 20 January 2021.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
There is no maximum court size, Trump can nominate as many justices as he likes and Congress can confirm as many as they like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:There is no maximum court size, Trump can nominate as many justices as he likes and Congress can confirm as many as they like. There's no court size mandated by the constitution[, but there is a statute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm not sure how ICE deportations that have been primarily of Hispanics for decades can't be discriminatory at least in impact so that shouldn't be a surprise whether or not there's a Muslim EO. But thanks for confirming what I was saying, that you can do what is materially the same thing but as long as the person in charge of doing it talks nice on Twitter then they won't get priority status from the freedom fighters. Even if Obama's policies were exactly the same as Trump's (which they were not, and they are certainly not the same as what Trump promised to do) I'm not sure what the relevance is. People did criticize Obama's policies at the time and those criticisms were brought up on this very forum. The fact that some number of the extra people criticizing Trump are undoubtedly motivated by partisanship doesn't have any bearing on whether the US Government should be violating human rights. It does not become okay to violate human rights if you can show that at least one of your critics is a partisan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:There's no court size mandated by the constitution[, but there is a statute. A statute is also the only thing keeping the House at 435 rather than any other number between 50 and 30000. Fake edit: 3000 would be a much better number.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Texas death row inmatequote:The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Texas death row inmate Wednesday morning, agreeing that Duane Buck’s case was prejudiced by an expert trial witness who claimed Buck was more likely to be a future danger because he is black. quote:In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote that to get to the ruling, the court “bulldozes procedural obstacles and misapplies settled law.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis but he worries about misapplying "settled law"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:09 |
|
mdemone posted:Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis but he worries about misapplying "settled law"? I think you'll find that all law was settled in 1789. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:10
|
|
